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)

MONDAY, JULY 12, 1993

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 12, Number 3

[ Page 8483 ]

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

Prayers.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I would like the House to welcome some relatives of mine from Michigan: Peter Zirnhelt, Eric Zirnhelt and Dianne Teck from the wonderful state of Michigan. Please make them welcome.

L. Reid: With the indulgence of the House, I would like to introduce a young man who was born Thursday evening. He weighs 10 pounds 6 ounces, and I believe that he too can be the next leader of the Liberal Party. His name is Joshua John Gordon Main.

H. De Jong: From the city of Kamloops, where all the action will be and where competition will be at its strongest next month, it gives me great pleasure to introduce Keith Haughton, who is accompanied by his mother Janice Haughton. They are certainly strong Social Credit supporters, and therefore the competition is always strong. I ask the House to give them a hearty welcome.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: I would like to introduce to the House His Worship Mayor Cliff Branchflower of Kamloops, as we celebrate our 100th centennial, and as well, the chairman of the Thompson-Nicola Regional District, Bob Ellis. I would ask the House to make them welcome.

Hon. P. Priddy: It's a privilege to introduce to the House today four people who are here with us: Donna and Chuck Cadman and Linda and Gerald Hartwig. Donna and Chuck are the parents of a son, Jesse, who was stolen from them by murder, and Gerald and Linda are parents of a son who was a victim of senseless violence. These four people are part of the energy of a growing provincewide organization called CRY. Through the courage of telling their stories and through their strength in standing beside other families and friends, they are working to make our communities safer places, and it's with honour that I introduce them today.

F. Jackson: I guess this is Kamloops's day in the sun in the Legislature. Mr. Eric Shishido is visiting from my part of the city. Mr. Shishido is the administrator for the regional district. I would just like to do my little commercial thing on behalf of Mr. Shishido, the mayor and all of us -- and thanks to the member for Abbotsford. One month from now, Kamloops is Canada Summer Games city. Come on down.

S. O'Neill: It's a pleasure for me to welcome to Victoria today Mr. Chuck Marshall, who is visiting us from Chase. He is the mayor of Chase and is here today. Would you please make him welcome.

H. Lali: I too would like to take this opportunity and join my fellow members from Shuswap, Kamloops and Kamloops-North Thompson in welcoming Eric Shishido, Mr. Ellis, Mr. Marshall and Mayor Branchflower, representatives from the Thompson-Nicola Regional District.

Introduction of Bills

ENGINEERS AND GEOSCIENTISTS AMENDMENT ACT, 1993

Hon. T. Perry presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Engineers and Geoscientists Amendment Act, 1993.

Hon. T. Perry: Bill 77 contains amendments to the Engineers and Geoscientists Act which will increase the number of lay members of the Council of the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of the Province of British Columbia; provide for the issuance of a limited licence to practising professional engineers or professional geoscientists, engineering technologists and specialists in other related fields; and address some of the concerns raised as a result of the roof collapse of Save-On-Foods in Burnaby in 1988 and the subsequent public inquiry by the Closkey commission. These latter amendments will allow for the registration of corporations, partnerships and similar legal entities; enlarge the scope of professional supervision by the association; allow for the disclosure of errors and omissions liability insurance coverage; and strengthen disciplinary provisions.

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

CULTURAL FOUNDATION OF BRITISH COLUMBIA ACT

Hon. D. Marzari presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Cultural Foundation of British Columbia Act.

Hon. D. Marzari: The purpose of this bill is to establish the British Columbia Cultural Foundation, an agency designed to encourage private sector donations in support of cultural activities and facilities. The legislation sets out the direction, the terms of reference and the authority for the foundation's activities.

The support and advancement of cultural activities and facilities depend to a great degree on the generosity of private citizens as well as on government. The British Columbia Cultural Foundation will attract contributions by providing full tax deductibility for donations. The activities of the foundation will also help forge public and private sector partnerships and will increase overall support for cultural organizations. The legislation provides for the establishment of local cultural boards to carry out the work of the foundation at the municipal and regional levels. This will give a local focus for the foundation, allowing donors to contribute to cultural activity within their community.

[ Page 8484 ]

Bill 76 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

PENSION STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1993

Hon. L. Boone presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Pension Statutes Amendment Act, 1993.

[2:15]

Hon. L. Boone: I'm pleased to introduce today Bill 60 to amend certain public sector pension plans. The acts affected are the Pension (College) Act, the Pension (Municipal) Act, the Pension (Public Service) Act and the Pension (Teachers) Act. This bill has three main purposes, Madam Speaker. The first purpose is to make permanent certain temporary amendments that were introduced by regulation in December 1992. These amendments are needed so that the four main public sector plans continue to comply with the requirements of the Pension Benefits Standards Act. The second purpose of the bill is to implement administrative changes that are needed to meet the federal government's requirements for the registration of pension plans under the Income Tax Act. The third purpose of the bill is to make a small number of miscellaneous housekeeping changes.

Bill 60 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

LIBRARY FOUNDATION OF BRITISH COLUMBIA ACT

Hon. R. Blencoe presented a message from his Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Library Foundation of British Columbia Act.

Hon. R. Blencoe: This bill establishes the Library Foundation of British Columbia. We are introducing this legislation in response to a request from the library community and the city of Vancouver, who are seeking new funds to support the expansion of the Vancouver Public Library, one of the province's most venerable cultural institutions. Furthermore, the creation of a foundation for libraries was recommended by the 1988 ministerial task force on public libraries, but was not acted upon. The Library Foundation of British Columbia will facilitate and encourage donations, bequests of money and other assets from the private sector and from individuals on behalf of the province's public libraries. This bill will create an important new source of revenue for libraries and stimulate private sector giving. The foundation will manage the donations and bequests, and direct them where they will be of greatest benefit, to assist in development, maintenance and improvement of public libraries and public library services for all British Columbians. As an agent of the Crown, the foundation can provide 100 percent tax deductibility for donations.

All communities in British Columbia will benefit from the advantages offered by the foundation, as local libraries look for the funds needed to keep pace with changing technology and growing populations.

Bill 75 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

ENVIRONMENT MINISTRY MEMO REGARDING FISH AND WILDLIFE MEETING

W. Hurd: A question for the Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks. Can the minister confirm the contents of a memo from Richard Krehbiel, the ministry's northern interior director, in which he describes a fish and wildlife meeting organized by the hon. member for Cariboo North as a "Klan rally"?

Hon. J. Cashore: Yes, I can confirm that, and I would add that I am deeply concerned about the contents of that memo. The issue is being dealt with among senior officials within the ministry, and I will be reporting in due course with regard to the results of that review.

W. Hurd: This senior ministry bureaucrat has stated that the hunters who oppose the government's interim guidelines in aboriginal fishing and hunting are racist. His memo contains references to "Custer" and "Bosnia in British Columbia." What specific steps is the minister going to take today to disavow this memo and apologize to the hunters and fishermen of Williams Lake?

Hon. J. Cashore: I stated very clearly that I have taken steps to deal with this. At present I think it's best not to exacerbate the ill will that can only deepen the conflict that we are trying to deal with in an appropriate manner. I think all members of the House will recognize how serious the situation is and how important it is that we not be making statements that create a volatile situation when clearly the future should be in the hands of those who use moderate language and seek solutions. In this case I have stated that I am gravely concerned about the comment that was made in an internal memo, and we are seeking to deal with it.

The Speaker: Final supplemental, hon. member.

W. Hurd: The member for Cariboo North has suggested that the northern regional director has blown his credibility in anything related to aboriginal hunting and fishing guidelines. Is the minister prepared to ask that staff person to step aside while this matter is being investigated?

Hon. J. Cashore: I believe that all parties, whether they are from the wildlife community, the aboriginal community, the government community or the communities who depend on the healthy economy 

[ Page 8485 ]

in those areas, would recognize that it's important that we never accept the concept that something has been blown, as such, and that we seek to find solutions, to find a moderate voice and to address these issues together -- not on partisan lines, but on appropriate lines that look to the sustainable future that we all desire.

U.S. SENATE BILL ON SEATTLE AS CRUISE LINE HOME BASE

C. Tanner: A question this afternoon for the Minister of Tourism. Recently in the U.S. Senate, an Alaskan Senator introduced a bill asking that the port of Seattle be made the home base for cruise lines. What steps has this minister or her government taken to defeat that bill in the Senate?

Hon. D. Marzari: Seattle is a home base for many cruise lines in the United States. If the member is talking about a possible revocation of the Jones Act, I would be pleased to report back to the House on our interpretation and our policy on that.

The Speaker: The minister has not actually taken that question on notice, and therefore I will recognize a supplemental.

C. Tanner: Supplemental to the Premier. Has the Premier talked to the federal government, the Canadian Embassy in Washington or any lobbyists to help in the process of defeating this bill before it gets too far and takes the cruise business out of Vancouver?

Hon. M. Harcourt: If the member would like to send over the details of that particular bill, we could certainly get back in touch with him.

The Speaker: Final supplemental, hon. member.

C. Tanner: To the Premier again. Has the Premier contacted the new Prime Minister of Canada in relation to this federal Senate act? What concrete action has the government taken to date? It has already been introduced into the Senate.

Hon. M. Harcourt: You can either create economic doom or gloom where it's not necessary, or you can look at the facts. The facts are that we're going to have over 500 cruise ship sailings from the trade and conference centre in Vancouver harbour, which is way up over last year -- which is way up over the year before. This is one of the great cruise ship routes in the world, from the finest trade, conference and cruise ship facility in the world.

PUBLIC SECTOR WAGE COSTS

J. Weisgerber: My question is to the Premier as well. For over a year now, Judi Korbin has been paid the outrageous contract rate of $1,200 a day to conduct her study of public sector wage costs. Can the Premier tell us, to the nearest $10,000, how much Judi Korbin has been paid to date?

Hon. G. Clark: I would be delighted to get the information for the member. Of course, that information is a matter of public record; it would be published in Public Accounts.

It's no secret that the work done by the Korbin commission is very important work which has resulted in two acts designed to control costs in the public sector. Just to give an example, a 1 percent public sector wage increase costs the taxpayers $120 million. Any savings we can make there is more than enough to pay Judi Korbin for the excellent work of that commission of inquiry.

J. Weisgerber: Again to the Premier. The province of Ontario has passed legislation that will cut over $2 billion from their annual public sector wage costs. Bob Rae has introduced legislation to impose a three-year wage freeze and oblige most public servants to take a 12-day unpaid leave. Why has the Premier consistently refused to take any action to reduce public sector wage costs here in British Columbia?

Hon. M. Harcourt: This is the first government that finally decided to do something about the public sector. The hon. Leader of the Third Party was a member of a government that was giving 7, 7 and 7 percent increases to the teachers in this province -- unsustainable. He was part of a government that was giving 10, 12, 13 percent increases in the budget every year -- unsustainable. Now he stands up and asks what we're doing about the mess that the previous government created for the people of B.C. We are cleaning up that mess. We are getting the expenditures under control for the services the people of British Columbia pay taxes for, and we are finally bringing some order to the public sector that the previous government had running in an anarchic state for far too many years.

The Speaker: Final supplemental, hon. member.

J. Weisgerber: In the five years the Premier was Leader of the Opposition, I don't recall once hearing that public sector wages for teachers, BCGEU workers or any other public servants in this province were too high. Where was the Premier over the last five years, if he didn't like public sector wage increases?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please. I call the House to order. Continue with your question, hon. member.

J. Weisgerber: The Korbin report recommends absolutely nothing that will do anything to control public sector wage costs this year. Doesn't the Premier get it? People want government restraint. Doesn't the Premier understand that people want his government to take action today to reduce the size of government and its cost to taxpayers?

[ Page 8486 ]

Hon. M. Harcourt: I can tell the member that I wasn't sitting in a Social Credit cabinet making those expensive decisions like the Leader of the Third Party -- and rightly so, the people of British Columbia decided in the last election.

[2:30]

We have been bringing the expenditures down considerably from last March to this March -- from 10, 12, 13 percent a year to 5.7 percent -- and they are coming down further as we get the finances of this province in line. Secondly, immediately upon the issuing of the Korbin commission report, we are bringing in a public sector act which will finally get some order and control, and some way of dealing with the anarchy of hundreds of bargaining units in this province leapfrogging, whipsawing and setting precedents that ripple all the way through the public sector.

As a government, we are finally bringing the people's business into order.

WELFARE FRAUD

A. Cowie: Ms. Korbin should now come over and work on the problems of social welfare fraud. Maybe we'd get something done.

To the Minister of Social Services. Vancouver Provincial Court Judge E.J. Cronin has stated that there is obviously a need for change by the provincial government in order to combat the millions of dollars lost to social welfare fraud. He suggested a system of fingerprinting. While that might be extreme, has the minister decided to implement a program -- either fingerprinting or photo identity?

Hon. J. Smallwood: First of all, I would like to agree with the judge that there is a problem with abuse in the system. This government is the first government that is acting. Over the last 18 months we have initiated more changes and enhancements than the previous administration did in ten years. We are not only accounting for taxpayers' dollars in the system but also ensuring that the money is going to those most in need. I can assure the member that we are taking the task seriously; we are acting, we have been acting and we will continue to act.

A. Cowie: The minister knows that her budget went up some $800 million this year. Judge Cronin also said that the temptation to prey on the system is irresistible. When is this government going to do something more positive and get this expenditure under control?

Hon. J. Smallwood: With regard to the member's earlier question about photo ID, I'd like to bring to his attention that we have a list of eligible ID. The majority -- indeed, all but one -- are photo ID. We require three pieces of identification from people on income assistance. We are ensuring that people who are providing identification do so in a responsible way, and we support our front-line workers if they have concern in seeking further ID.

I would encourage the member to get his numbers correct. The numbers that he offered on the cost increase to the system are incorrect. The growth in our system is less than we are seeing anywhere else in Canada, because of our proactive stance, the employment and training programs and the support that we've giving people to get them back into the workplace.

FAMILY MAINTENANCE ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM

A. Warnke: My question is to the Attorney General. The Attorney General in the past has acknowledged that there are problems with the family maintenance enforcement program. Would the Attorney General indicate whether he supports the recommendations in the two government studies that put more emphasis on mediation and non-court solutions?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: At the present time we're reviewing the recommendations of a number of reports and doing further analytical work. We have some problems that I intend to address when we're properly able to address the issues.

Presenting Petitions

S. Hammell: I ask leave to table a petition.

Leave granted.

S. Hammell: I rise to present a petition of 10,445 names, presented by CRY or Crime, Responsibility and Youth, calling for the Attorney General of British Columbia to direct the youth courts to apply the rise provisions of the Young Offenders Act so that all those accused of serious violent crimes are tried in ordinary court.

Hon. G. Clark tabled the 1991-92 annual report of the Ministry of Finance and Corporate Relations for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1992, in accordance with section 5(3) of the Financial Administration Act; the 1992-93 annual report and financial statements of the B.C. Transit Corporation for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1993, in accordance with section 16 of the British Columbia Transit Act; and the statement of unclaimed money deposits for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1993, in accordance with section 3 of the Unclaimed Money Act.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt tabled the Job Protection Commission annual report for 1992.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Sihota: I wish to advise hon. members that Committee A will be meeting to continue its discussion of the estimates of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs in the Douglas Fir Room.

Hon. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 37.

[ Page 8487 ]

TEACHING PROFESSION AMENDMENT ACT, 1993

Hon. A. Hagen: Bill 37, the Teaching Profession Amendment Act, 1993, makes a number of changes to that act of a miscellaneous and housekeeping nature. All of these changes have been recommended by the College of Teachers of B.C.

These amendments will make changes to the dates for the election of members to the council of the College of Teachers in order to provide continuity on the council and to better enable members to adjust their teaching assignments in advance of assuming office. In addition, the amendments clarify that it is the incoming council that elects the chair of the college council and that the chair is eligible for re-election. The amendments will move the election period of the college council from the fall of each year to the late spring of each year. This will allow time for those members who are elected to the council to make the necessary adjustments to their teaching assignments before the start of the new school year. In addition, council members' terms will be staggered, providing continuity for members who sit on ongoing committees dealing with discipline, qualifications and teacher education programs. To remedy the confusion respecting the election of a new chairperson, an amendment is proposed requiring that the election of the new chair take place before the newly elected council takes office on August 1.

By way of an amendment to the act, the references to an executive committee will be removed, permitting the council greater flexibility in delegating powers and duties when appointing committees not otherwise provided for in the act. The bill also ends areas of overlap between the roles of the College of Teachers and the B.C. Teachers' Federation. Other amendments repeal transitional provisions that are no longer required, rename certain committees established by the act to more accurately reflect or describe their functions, and change the spelling of School District 92 to Nisga'a, in keeping with the aboriginal name of the district.

With those remarks, I conclude my comments on second reading. I look forward to the remarks of other members of the Legislature.

J. Dalton: I'll comment first on some remarks by the hon. minister when she introduced this bill to the House, which was some time ago now, comparatively speaking -- in fact, it was June 14 -- when you consider the flood of bills that we've been looking at lately. The minister made what I guess is a typical remark when she said that the bill made a number of housekeeping amendments to clarify aspects of the legislation. I'm pleased to tell the House that most of these provisions actually are housekeeping. This will probably be a surprise to many in the opposition when you consider, as I've already indicated, the volume and complexity of recent legislation -- not that we're going to be looking under every rock and hiding-place, because I think I can assure the House that this bill is relatively harmless. I've consulted with the College of Teachers, which asked for many of these amendments, some of them long overdue. With some safety -- not complete safety, perhaps, but some -- we can describe this as a housekeeping bill. It would be nice if all of the bills from now on were in that housekeeping role. As one member commented the other day, these aren't housekeeping bills; these are keeping-us-in-the-House bills.

There's perhaps a bit of irony in the last amendment. Section 91, the last section of the Teaching Profession Act, is being repealed by this bill. Section 91 reads that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may make regulations considered necessary "to avoid disruption of education...." I draw the House's attention to that, because not too long ago we were here on a Sunday to finally deal with a very serious disruption in the education system, specifically the Vancouver strike but indirectly other strikes as well, some of which are still pending. I think all hon. members are aware that there are still some unresolved issues in the education system. Unfortunately, many districts may face potential and further disruption to the education process in the fall, and this bill eliminates a reference to avoiding disruption in education.

As the House will recall from last fall when we argued at length the new Labour Relations Code, we in the opposition asked that education be declared an essential service. Unfortunately, as we know, that was never acceded to by the government. Today we find ourselves still in this rather doubtful and very grey area as to the possibility of further disruptions.

I think, as well, that I should draw the House's attention to another bill that I presume we will be dealing with fairly soon in this session -- unless it's placed on the order paper for future consideration -- and that is Bill 78, the new public service act that was introduced just last Friday. The reason I make comment on this is that there's a potential in that bill for the whole public service, including the school districts and the question of local versus provincial bargaining, to be addressed.

[2:45]

However, I perhaps could be accused of straying a bit from the intent of this bill, so I just wish to come back in on the theme that we in the opposition truly feel that education is essential. It is somewhat ironic that one provision in this bill before us is eliminating a reference to a method whereby disruption in education may not have taken place. We'll have to see in future dealings whether subsequent disruptions can hopefully be avoided. But again, we are happy to support the housekeeping features of Bill 37, and I do not feel that there will be any terrible controversy that we can generate from this bill in committee stage. With that I will take my place.

C. Serwa: I don't know if I'm looking at the same bill that the hon. opposition critic is looking at -- Bill 37 -- but if I am, I have a great deal of difficulty with this particular act. It is certainly not housekeeping in any sense of the word. There are a number of things that we will have a great deal of difficulty with in the philosophy and principles. One of them certainly is the staggering of election dates. It seems apparent that the 

[ Page 8488 ]

best policy is to have a set date for elections and to stick with that date, rather than spreading it over a bigger field of time. I don't think it's efficient, effective or responsible on the part of government to do this.

Fundamentally, Bill 37 is a knuckling under to the demands of the BCTF. The Minister of Education clearly has a greater interest in representing the BCTF than in the opportunities, rights and responsibilities required of her ministry, which is for the education of our young children so they can become full-fledged citizens, competent in the world tomorrow. The minister has knuckled under once again to the BCTF -- no apologies, not a shred of embarrassment, but doing the right thing for the BCTF.

What we've got here is a major stripping of powers from the College of Teachers. That's what this act does and highlights. It strips powers from a body that was legislated to work on the professionalism of teachers in the system. The minister has no qualms in yielding to the insatiable demands of the BCTF for the complete control of education. I'm actually surprised that we have a Minister of Education, that the government of the day doesn't simply automatically put a BCTF delegate in her seat and carry on in the duties.... That's how strongly I feel that the minister is abdicating her responsibility.

Interjection.

C. Serwa: I'm speaking about the philosophy and principles of Bill 37. I'm appalled both at the actions of the minister in this case and that the official opposition critic hasn't gone through the bill and read it, but simply gives his support to the stripping of the powers from the College of Teachers.

What powers does it strip from the College of Teachers, the body charged to ensure the professionalism and the competence of teachers in British Columbia? It takes away the power to carry out, cooperate in or facilitate professional development programs, whose objectives are to improve the quality of educational services. It takes that away and gives it to the BCTF -- a body not concerned about public welfare, the interests of education or about children; a body concerned only with the aspect of unionization, focusing completely on that with the strength of its budget, which is $25 million or $30 million; a body which, it is abundantly clear, has worked so hard and paid so much to get this government elected. I suppose this is just another of the broken promises to the people of the province that this government would care and make educational policies in a responsible fashion. They make nothing. They get their orders and they carry them out.

It also removes the power to carry out, cooperate in or facilitate in-service programs designed to ensure general teacher competence. It takes that away and gives it to the union body. It strips important powers from the College of Teachers and gives them to the union body -- not housekeeping, by any stretch of the imagination.

It also removes the establishment of provincial specialist associations to provide advice on professional development in specific fields or curricula. So that is gone from the College of Teachers. The minister's reasoning on this is that it is only appropriate to take these powers away because, after all, there is some duplication with the B.C. Teachers' Federation. There may be, but I would suggest that it's becoming abundantly apparent to the general population in British Columbia that this uncaring government is not concerned about the quality of education -- that the words of the minister and the deeds of the minister are in fact two very different things. If I were the Minister of Education, I would be very ashamed of the shallowness in the level of performance, and I believe that the minister must have some concern about compromising the opportunities for our young children in education.

The solution is to side with the BCTF instead of with the professional college responsible to the public. The minister knows full well that the majority of members of the College of Teachers are really appointed by the BCTF, but fundamentally they are charged with a specific mandate, to encourage professionalism.

The nurses have a professional as well as a union organization. They are completely separate entities, both with specific responsibilities: one within the union sector and one with a professional aspect to it. I think it works exceedingly well. Otherwise, there are two issues in close conflict. I think that the nurses are very wise to keep them separate. In this instance, the minister has no hesitation in compromising professionalism for the trade unionism that the government encourages in all sectors of the economy of the province.

By statute, the College of Teachers is responsible to protect the public interest. The BCTF is not charged in any way, shape or form with that mandate of responsibility. Hon. Speaker, you are well aware of it, as is the Minister of Education. They are only charged with one responsibility: the working environment and wages of teachers in the system. I have no quarrel with that whatsoever. I think it does its job very well indeed. But I have a great deal of difficulty when they are writing legislation, dictating to government what happens, and want to have every aspect of education in the province under their direct jurisdiction and control.

For example, we have seen the erosion of the level of funding to independent schools, even though it's costing only half of the block funding we're putting out, and that is because of pressure from the BCTF. We have found that level 3 has no funding whatsoever, and they were at the 10 or 20 percent level, a very low level of the block funding throughout the province. But under pressure from the BCTF, which wants to control everything, the minister has yielded. When will the minister stop yielding? When will the Minister of Education start picking up her responsibility in education and represent the public interest, and protect the interests of students and the future of British Columbia?

The BCTF is a private labour union, which is only responsible for advancing the cause of its members -- that is its singular and primary purpose; there are no other purposes. When we talk about the concern about 

[ Page 8489 ]

education and the funding of education, they are only talking about one thing: increasing the wages to the members of their organization. They are not concerned about productivity; they are not concerned about the quality of teachers in the system; and they are not concerned about professionalism. The government is cosying up to them by continuing to encourage them, rather than picking up the mandate of their responsibility and acting in the public interest. They have simply compromised their principles to the BCTF. This government chooses to side with the BCTF, even though they know the mandate of the B.C. College of Teachers and the BCTF.... They have sided with the BCTF over the college on matters of jurisdiction over teacher standards and competency programs.

This bill, like other bits of legislation that have come before this House, shows clearly where the government's misplaced priorities lie. I think that's very wrong; and I think the public and members of the teaching profession judge it to be very wrong. What we have is the tyranny of a minority over the majority. There are lots of good-quality, professional teachers working under a system that doesn't encourage professionalism. As with other trade union organizations, a group of radicals controls the BCTF. This government continues to listen to the minority simply because they are vocal, rather than imposing what anyone should see is the right thing to do, which is to encourage professionalism in the teaching profession. They are failing to do that. They are failing to maintain the faith, trust and confidence that they should have acquired with respect to their mandate to represent the public interest and, in this specific case, the minister's mandate to protect the interests of students in the school system.

I was appalled to listen to the hon. opposition critic say he had no problem with the amendments and talk of them as housekeeping ones. The amendments are not housekeeping amendments, because they fly in the face of the mandate and objective of the college. Section 4 of the college's enabling legislation says that their mandate is to encourage the professionalism of its members. As I said earlier, this bill strips away all of the important tools that they had in maintaining that objective. Is this a big problem? No, certainly not as far as the Minister of Education or this government is concerned, and it's most definitely not a problem as far as the B.C. Teachers' Federation is concerned. But I assure you that the philosophy and principles of this bill are eroding the professionalism of teachers, and are giving more powers to the BCTF to the point where the Ministry of Education will have no power other than perhaps being consulted as part of the process. The BCTF might as well run the Ministry of Education and we could save ourselves a lot of overhead dollars, because if there's any duplication, the orders from the BCTF to the Ministry of Education are direct and then imposed on the system.

While we talk about teachers' competence and the very high standard among most teachers, it's unrealistic to expect that only 69 out of 35,042 teachers in the province would be fired with cause in 1992-93. This is only 0.019 percent of the total number of teachers in the province. Low as it may seem, it is almost twice the termination rate in 1986-87, before the College of Teachers was created. In spite of being controlled by the BCTF, the College of Teachers has accepted its responsibility, and a higher percentage of teachers have been fired with cause. It was supportable, and it went through the College of Teachers. The minister is gleefully eroding that opportunity from the College of Teachers. We find it very difficult to accept that no teachers in 66 districts were judged to have failed the system. The ordinary individual in society would find it difficult to believe that there was 100 percent competency. In those districts the teachers have 100 percent job security, apparently, no matter what their conduct in the classroom.

There are a number of problems in education, and this is not going to mitigate any of them. Perhaps there has to be a program that encourages early retirement. A number of teachers in the system have been marking time for the last five or perhaps ten years of their lives, and the children....

Interjection.

C. Serwa: The minister obviously thinks that's funny, but the children are paying the price. The minister should certainly be aware, if she's not, of the incompetency of some teachers at certain points. Trade unionism is doing absolutely nothing to encourage professionalism among teachers. The minister knows that full well. Out of her own self-interest and perhaps the self-interest of government she is bringing nineteenth-century tactics back into the education system.

We were recently confronted with an enormous number of problems in the province when grade 12 students were held hostage by teachers seeking higher wages. I listen to the government talk sustainability when we talk about the environment. In the philosophy and principles exhibited here there is no sustainability, not when the government so readily yields its power, and the power of the College of Teachers, to the trade union. We all recognize that the finite capacity of this world cannot continue to accommodate the infinite demands of any segment of society, be it the teachers or some other segment.

[3:00]

If we're talking sustainability, we jointly and severally have to bear complete responsibility for the recognition that any impact without an increase in productivity diminishes the opportunity for sustainability in a finite world. I'm afraid that this is what the philosophy and principles exhibited in the bill are going to do. I don't believe that this is the time to disempower the one organization in the province that is supposed to examine and maintain teacher professionalism. The victims will once again be the taxpayers and learners of the province. The final victim will be the teachers themselves, because this act will not be sustainable. The sense of professional pride in their chosen profession will be lessened under the velvet glove, if you wish, of trade unionism.

There are a lot of really excellent and dedicated people in the teaching profession. I know many, and I'm 

[ Page 8490 ]

proud to say that a lot of my ability comes from those who have touched me. Those people are invariably teachers in the system, so I owe a great deal to the teaching profession.

Interjection.

C. Serwa: The member for Kamloops-North Thompson feels that the system has somewhat failed me, but I'm very grateful for the teachers and their professionalism.

I think that a responsible government would encourage the mandate and strengthen the role of the College of Teachers. Although the members came out of the BCTF, they were able to change hats and maintain a standard of professionalism. Even that has been somewhat harsh and uncalled for, apparently, to the B.C. Teachers' Federation, who want all of those powers back in their quarter. When I look at the amendments in this particular bill, I can only presume that the next big move will probably be the removal of the College of Teachers as being not required. The union will look after the professionalism of the teachers as well as the wage structure and continue willy-nilly on its conflict-of-interest enterprise. As I say, it will be the learners in the province who suffer.

If I were the Minister of Education, I would be ashamed of bringing this bill forward. I have no difficulty in saying that these are not housekeeping amendments. The philosophy and principle of this bill are very wrong indeed. All we're seeing is a subservient Minister of Education yielding to the demands of the BCTF. I think that the anger in the province will only increase because of the actions of the minister and the government in continuing to focus on union demands and not caring about the public welfare or public interest.

D. Symons: I have found it interesting listening to the two previous speakers, because we seem to have a different interpretation of the effect that this bill will have on the Teaching Profession Act. I happen to fall between the two of them on this, because I don't see all the sinister things in Bill 37 that the previous speaker saw. Indeed, I have a little difficulty in following his arguments, because it would seem that he's faulting this government a great deal for the changes that they're bringing to the Teaching Profession Act. I do remember that not that many years ago most of the discipline and certification of the teaching profession were within the purview of the government through the Ministry of Education. But with the advent of Bill 19 -- again, not that many years ago -- the Social Credit government of the day did indeed change the whole system of certifying and disciplining teachers and all the rest. So I find it rather ironic that this member is mentioning so many of the faults of this particular bill, when all of the ills that we now are seeing, as brought up in this bill and in the original Teaching Profession Act, were caused by the previous government.

C. Serwa: What was your profession?

D. Symons: My profession indeed was a teacher, so I have a perception from the inside. As the member for Okanagan West asked, I have no hesitation in mentioning to this government that I have for many years served -- and I hope, well -- as a teacher in this province. I have not always agreed with my professional organization, which at that time was an association of teachers called the BCTF, but which through the action of this member's government became the teachers' union that he has referred to. And I was rather surprised at the government members opposite making jokes when the member was referring to this as a teachers' union, because indeed, whether or not they recognize the fact, that is what the BCTF is now -- thanks to Bill 19. They seem to be deriding the fact that it is union. I can't imagine government members, who seem to be very strong pro-union people, deriding the comments this member is making about the teachers' profession being a union. I'm not quite sure which side of the House those members are sitting on. But I was curious to hear their remarks, because they seemed to be deriding the fact that it is a union. There is no hiding the fact that it is. Whether that was a good move or a bad move depends, I suppose, upon where one sits. I personally think it wasn't a good move, but there are those in the teaching profession who think it was, and that's a moot point that I suppose will be decided by the profession itself over the years to come.

Just as an aside, by the way in which this government has been moving, they seem to be taking the crown from the previous government for teacher-bashing. I suspect that maybe the teachers might decide that the moves made by the previous administration were not so good, and they may want to get out of the union and go back to the way they had it before as a professional association.

But that's beside the point. I have some concerns with this, but by and large, I would say.... I agree with the member for Okanagan West that these amendments were brought in because of requests made by the College of Teachers of B.C. They did have some concerns that they brought to the government, and by and large, the feedback I get from that organization is that these amendments are pretty well what they asked for. It seems to irk the member for Okanagan West that you are, as he would refer to it, giving in to their request, hon. minister. Looking over these changes that are brought into the act, however, I don't see sinister things in what they're requesting. I would question maybe whether some of them are going to be effective or not. I suspect the reason for going to the yearly voting for half the members of the college board and then the other half in the next year.... Whether that will accomplish what is intended here or at least what they said was intended -- sort of a continuation within the college.... It would seem to me that if you want to do that, you want to leave somebody in office for at least two years so that they can get the hang of what the job is. So maybe they should have it that every two years you elect half of the board and have them in for four years. It might be better than changing them every year. But what they're doing here seems to be rolling them 

[ Page 8491 ]

over faster. At least you're only rolling over half of them. So I don't know if that's a good move or not.

I would think that's true of many of the other changes within the act. It depends upon your viewpoint. I don't think most of the changes are as drastic or sinister as the previous member makes out. I find that the ability to discipline teachers who step out of line is still within the College of Teachers; it does not revert to the BCTF. So we do have the independent body. Granted, many of them are elected from members of the BCTF, but nevertheless, it is an independent body that will make decisions dealing with issues. I think this is the main part of the teachers' college -- that they can deal with the issue of discipline of their members. That is left in their hands; it's still there. With that, I would say that I have some misgivings, but certainly not nearly as strong as the previous member's. And I would hope that they are, to a great extent, housekeeping matters -- which I feel I can approve of.

The Speaker: The minister upon rising closes debate.

Hon. A. Hagen: There are some consistencies in this Legislature. One is that the member for Okanagan West is on every occasion very ready to take the opportunity to attack the professionalism of teachers. I find it very disturbing indeed. This member stood in the House and for 20 minutes fundamentally disparaged the work of thousands of teachers who work in and through their professional specialist associations to improve the quality of education for our children in British Columbia. If it was the first time that member had made such comments, I might have moved to close debate on this matter, hon. Speaker; but because it is such a consistent and strongly worded attack, I feel I must call attention to two or three factors that speak to anything but the sinisterness that this member seems to find in this amendment bill.

First of all, and noting that other members have recognized their origin, these amendments come from the College of Teachers, whose elected members are teachers and administrators throughout the province. In fact, anyone who is certified as a teacher may run in their region for the College of Teachers. A representative of the independent schools, representatives of the teaching education institutions of the province and people from the public interest sit on that college. The college, in terms of the balance, was established by members of the third party. The college retains its responsibility for teacher education and for discipline and certification of teachers -- very important aspects. As I noted in my introductory comments, the areas of overlap, which have never been developed by the college, are now removed. There is a recognition that everyone who is teaching in the province is a professional and is responsible for the highest standards of pedagogy, of teaching skills and strategies and of developing that profession in the province. Both of those organizations have roles to fill -- and do so.

Let me note, too, in respect of the hon. opposition spokesperson on the matter of the transitional change and the repealing of section 91, those clauses were related to Bills 19 and 20 when they were passed. Bill 19, the Industrial Relations Act, no longer exists; it has been replaced by the Labour Relations Code. They were entirely transitional and had nothing to do with anything other than the implementation of those two bills at that time. That's very characteristic of legislation; as we amend bills, such things are often dealt with.

Finally, let me just note that as we look at this particular legislation, we are looking at legislation that has come forward, as members have noted, out of a cooperative approach, where government has worked with the college to improve its operation. I want to clarify that the amendments provide a continuity in the membership of the college by staggering the elections. Each member of the college will be elected for two years, but instead of of having all the college elected at one election, a two-year period when they serve and then a new election, this set of amendments allows for continuity, which, given the important work of the college -- particularly around certification, discipline and the maintenance of their committee structure -- will serve very well. Also, electing members after a transitional year in the spring allows those teachers who are elected and the school districts for whom they work to make the necessary arrangements, because the teachers and administrators who serve on the college perform a duty above and beyond their regular duties, which requires them to be away from their classrooms for a period each month. Those arrangements, in the interests of children, can best be made when the elections are held in the spring and the planning can be done for the coming two years.

[3:15]

This is good government legislation that deals with the sustainability and the responsibilities of the profession. I accord to both the B.C. College of Teachers and the B.C. Teachers' Federation the highest marks for the work that they do in professional development training and in dealing with discipline.

Let me make one final observation. Under the previous administration, virtually no teachers in British Columbia lost their jobs for cause. Since the introduction of the college, there has been a change in that, which says that the college is operating to ensure that the highest standards of service are maintained, something that was not necessarily the case with the previous administration, which didn't necessarily deal with those issues.

With that, I move second reading of the bill.

Motion approved on the following division:

Bill 37, Teaching Profession Amendment Act, 1993, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. A. Hagen: Hon. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 39.

MULTICULTURALISM ACT

Hon. A. Hagen: It's an honour and a pleasure for me to rise today to speak on the Multiculturalism Act. Bill 39 places in legislation this government's commitment to recognizing the cultural and racial diversity of British Columbia. It also speaks to the values and principles we associate with multiculturalism.

Multiculturalism is a concept that means different things to different people, and I would like to take a few minutes this afternoon to discuss the benefits our society derives from multiculturalism, and to dispel some of the myths that have come to surround it. What is multiculturalism? Some say that multiculturalism is designed to provide preferential treatment to certain groups within society. Let's be clear: multiculturalism stands for equal treatment, not special treatment. In fact, the government's multicultural program supports community efforts that work to increase cross-cultural understanding. By promoting equality, fairness and good citizenship, and by building a community free from discrimination and racism, we all benefit from a society that is productive, prosperous and united.

Multiculturalism also works to build mutual respect and trust between people; it doesn't divide people. It acknowledges the inherent right of all individuals to be treated with dignity. This is the essential ingredient for the well-being of any community. Multiculturalism brings people together by building bridges to connect them, not walls to separate them. Multiculturalism promotes good citizenship and aims to provide all citizens with a sense of Canadian identity.

Multiculturalism doesn't hyphenate Canadians, as some people assert, nor does it encourage ethnic nationalism. It says that we are Canadians first, while respecting and valuing the heritage of the many people who have helped, and continue to help, build our nation. Pride in one's cultural heritage and respect for others foster a sense of self-worth and mutual respect.

Multiculturalism promotes the full participation of people in the mainstream life of the community, as well as equality of opportunity and freedom from discrimination. If people are denied opportunity and subjected to discrimination, they will often group together for mutual support and identification. Multiculturalism is designed to open closed doors and promote full participation, thereby preventing ethnic ghettoization.

Some people believe that we should assimilate citizens of different cultural backgrounds, but rather than uniting a nation, these efforts can result in permanent alienation. In Canada, experience has shown that minorities do not wish to be marginalized, they want to be fully participating citizens. The breadth and depth of the vibrant cultures, which have come together to build Canada, have made it the great nation that's recognized throughout our universe. We all benefit from a diverse and dynamic society founded upon such diversity.

Bill 39 incorporates these principles and sets out this government's policy on multiculturalism, a policy which recognizes the many benefits British Columbia reaps from its cultural diversity. The policy of this government recognizes and promotes the understanding that multiculturalism reflects the racial and cultural diversity of British Columbians; promotes cross-cultural understanding and respect; encourages attitudes and perceptions that lead to harmony among British Columbians of every race, cultural heritage, religion, ethnicity, ancestry and place of origin; fosters the ability of each British Columbian to share in the economic, social, political and cultural life of the province in a manner that's consistent with the rights and responsibilities of that individual as a member of society; reaffirms that violence, hatred and discrimination have no place in our society; works towards building a society free from all forms of racism and from conflict based on race, cultural heritage, religion, ethnicity, ancestry and place of origin; and finally, recognizes the right of each British Columbian to be treated with dignity. These, then, are the fundamental characteristics or attributes of the policy of the government as expressed in this bill.

[3:30]

This bill also requires the government generally to carry out its services and programs in a manner sensitive and responsive to the multicultural reality of British Columbia. It's extremely important for government to be aware of the needs of clients for its services and of the various perspectives they bring to their dealings with government. Every effort must be made to ensure that clients are receiving the services they need in an appropriate and culturally sensitive manner. Our system must be inclusive, not exclusive, for all British Columbians.

I'm very pleased that the bill before us also formally enshrines the Multicultural Advisory Council and sets out the role for this council. I had the great privilege of being designated Minister Responsible for Multiculturalism in November 1991. Since then it has been my pleasure to work with the current Advisory Council on Multiculturalism, a group of 24 very hard-working individuals representing the multicultural diversity of 

[ Page 8493 ]

British Columbia. It's hard to characterize, but because this is where people come from specifically, I thought I could say "from Kitimat to the Kootenays" to show that our council represents a broad range of communities and groups within the province. These council members provide advice to me on issues relating to multiculturalism, and they have made an invaluable contribution to efforts to promote understanding and to look at the issues around multiculturalism that we as a government need to examine. I have done it on a number of occasions, but I particularly want to take this opportunity in the House to commend the council for its superb advice, commitment and hard work. They have indeed been a very dedicated and creative group in developing the advice they have brought to government's table this year, including assisting us in review of our policy and looking at some of the issues we needed to have in place as we developed this particular statute.

I think it is particularly important that government be accountable for its actions in support of the policies I have just outlined as expressed in this bill. It's my role as an advocate within government to ensure that policies, programs and services reflect a sensitivity to our multicultural heritage in action. Most importantly, however, it's the responsibility of each ministry and each Crown corporation to ensure that the policies set out in this bill are reflected throughout their organizations and the work that they do. To that end, this bill requires that every government ministry and Crown corporation submit an annual report to the minister responsible, setting out in specific terms the initiatives undertaken to promote the policies established by this bill. It also requires that these annual reports be reflected in the report that the minister responsible tables in the Legislature each year.

Among a number of initiatives that have occurred over the past year and a half, I'd like to note another method of ensuring a coordinated, consistent and accountable approach to multiculturalism within government. We have created an interministry committee on multiculturalism made up of representatives from each ministry. They meet regularly to coordinate efforts, exchange information and initiate collaborative programs supportive of the goals of multiculturalism. I would like to point out that many government ministries and Crown corporations have over the past year and a half taken the initiative and developed multicultural programs and policies that not only benefit their clients but also improve their own working environment. I might draw attention to just one: the committee in the Social Services ministry that is looking specifically at culturally sensitive services to clients, and consulting widely to bring about changes in how that ministry can most appropriately serve its clientele.

The bill also formally establishes funding for grants to not-for-profit organizations that develop projects promoting cross-cultural understanding and positive race relations. The grants are disbursed through the community and race relations program, which is administered by the multicultural branch of my ministry. I'll take this opportunity to note that this year we have doubled our budget for these grants, and we will be undertaking projects that particularly promote positive race relations. I want to emphasize that the method we use to develop these programs is itself an opportunity for us to consult with the multicultural community to develop a better understanding of the issues and to then develop the criteria and guidelines for the most effective use of taxpayers' dollars in this grant program.

Our Multiculturalism B.C. branch works very closely with agencies of government, the business community, labour organizations, volunteer groups and other private organizations to promote respect and appreciation for our cultural diversity. This cooperative and collaborative approach to working towards the goal of multiculturalism benefits all British Columbians. When we think about the role that government plays, it's important at this time to pay tribute to the many municipalities that have cooperated with us at the local level, to work with the communities around positive race relations and multicultural understanding, whether it be Kamloops, Castlegar, Richmond or Surrey. One of the tasks we will be undertaking next year is a major conference to coordinate and share information about how municipalities are developing the kinds of understanding and working relations that bring all people into a positive community environment to promote our political, social, economic and cultural life.

This government is very proud to formally recognize the cultural and racial diversity of B.C. through the introduction of this bill. I'm very appreciative of the opportunity to introduce it to the Legislature, knowing that it has come out of extensive discussions with that community. I urge our attention to second reading, and I look forward to the support of members in bringing this bill into law and continuing our work. I believe we all share in this work to support the broader community of B.C. and the diverse and rich cultural communities that make up our province.

V. Anderson: For some 20 years I've had the privilege of being associated with many members of the multicultural community, going back to the time of Dr. Bill Black, who was the judge of the citizenship court in earlier days. Formerly a professor at the University of British Columbia, on his own initiative he spent a great deal of time with many of the multicultural people in our community, and he worked to build up understanding and appreciation between them. I'm also aware of the many groups that came together to form the multicultural association of B.C. Over the years that association has undertaken to coordinate, support, interrelate, educate, promote and develop a whole awareness of our many multicultural backgrounds.

I am very much aware that our first citizens here, the aboriginal people, are the basis of Canadian society and that all the rest of us are immigrants and descendants of immigrants who have come from all parts of the world to become part of this Canadian community. I want to stress this, because it seems to me that whatever we do in this regard within this legislation and in this government, we must respond to the magnitude of the 

[ Page 8494 ]

activities and work going on within the community itself, sometimes in spite of government awareness, government decision and government action. These communities have been promoting, encouraging and supporting the major work of multiculturalism and the understanding that takes place within this province. There have been times when government actions have hindered their work and prevented them from undertaking the approaches that they most desired. Out of their work and concerns, the original Advisory Council on Multiculturalism came into being in the time of the Socred government. There was an opportunity for these people to come together by their own desire to find a means to invite and encourage the government to become more understanding and aware. That process has continued with the encouragement and pressure from the community. I am pleased to say that the government is attempting to respond at this time. Bringing forth this legislation simply puts what is already the approach and undertaking of the community in which we live into legal framework.

It's an undertaking which I liken to the relationships which develop within any family. Members of the family agree and disagree with each other. They have similar and different perspectives with the change of circumstances, and as the years go by and times change, they have to continue to learn to live within those changing circumstances. It seems to me that there never will come a time when we will always be in total agreement, because if we were always in total agreement we would have lost our individual perspectives and concerns. I hear us trying to focus on the realization that each individual person is distinct and unique. Each individual person needs to be recognized and respected for their multitude of backgrounds, experiences which have made them the particular person they are and relationships in which they find particular significance and importance. None of us live only in one cultural relationship circumstance. We all have multicultural natures within ourselves and in the community in which we live. Somehow we're trying to encapsulate this in this Multicultural Advisory Council.

[3:45]

At the moment, the best representation that we have of multiculturalism in our province is all those agencies that came together of their own accord and formed their own multicultural agency across the province. That's the best representative voice that we have, and that we will have, in the province. So in forming the Multicultural Advisory Council, we have an arm of government to attempt to relate to the broader community in its multicultural activities. That has very great strength and it also can have very great weaknesses, because that very council can become a limited rather than an open channel if its development is not undertaken properly.

We commend the government for recognizing the multicultural nature of our community, and for putting forth a philosophical statement on the importance of recognizing that we all have multicultural backgrounds. But as we go through the committee stage, we will also express some concerns. One concern is that, according to the act, this particular multicultural council is primarily dependent upon the minister. The minister selects the members of that council, which can have inherent weaknesses. The council is also dependent upon the minister for its advisory directions and for the functions it is to undertake, which again can be a limitation.

We raise the question not only of the purpose and intent, but also of the actual structure of the organization and the ongoing credibility of the council, because if this council is not responsible to the people of the community, it will lose its credibility in reflecting the people of the community to the government. It can become a block rather than a channel of communication. So there are some real concerns about this particular act.

We're very aware that the awareness of all government members and of all those who work on behalf of the government, as well all of us here in this Legislature, needs to be continually growing and expanding as we understand the relationships in which we live with one another. The greatest danger is when we come to the point where we think we fully understand, because the point where we think we fully understand is the very point at which we have ceased to listen, to learn and to grow. I liken each of the cultures, with their heritage and their roots within the countries from which they come, to a tree that has a basic root structure. As that tree grows and responds to the community in which it lives, to the climate of which it is a part and to the other trees in the forest and elements that are round about it, it takes on a different shape and a different format according to the circumstances.

That's the kind of growing and living vitality we are trying to talk about, and it's difficult to encompass that in a legal document, as we are trying to do here. Though we commend the government for moving in this direction, we are also very concerned that it does not become a limitation or a wall to prevent the very concerns that it purports to undertake. We are concerned that the channels needed for the growing awareness in all aspects of our community need to be there, and we are very much aware that you cannot legislate understanding and respect. You can only do that as you share a common lifestyle with each other, common experiences, and learn to depend upon each other in the common community in which we live. I commend the minister for bringing this forward. The multiculturalism policy reflected here is a starting point, and I trust it is not an ending point of the future that is before us.

C. Serwa: On the philosophy and principles of Bill 39, the Multiculturalism Act, frankly I am very pleased that the current government is carrying on with the work that was started by the Vander Zalm administration quite a number of years ago. It's always a pleasure to hear the minister speak in such glowing terms about the merits of this legislation, and I'm not certain whether it was in order to take ownership of the concept or not. Nevertheless, through an extended process and the Cabinet Committee on Multiculturalism, this particular initiative was addressed and initiated at that time. What we see here is one of the end 

[ Page 8495 ]

results of that process of consultation with the multicultural community, the Multiculturalism Act, which was one of the responsibilities they were charged with.

Multiculturalism, whether it's in British Columbia or elsewhere in Canada, is a reality. The rich tapestry is woven from the threads of many ethnic groups from all parts of the world. I think all races, all colours and all religious denominations are represented in Canada, and I often say in reference to multiculturalism that Canada is probably the world's first truly international country. The heritage, the richness of Canadian life, the work ethic, the innovativeness, the understanding and the tolerance are part and parcel of the concept of multiculturalism.

I listened with interest while the minister stated a number of points that she considers relate or refer directly to multiculturalism. The one thing that I didn't hear is that multiculturalism is not ethnicism. When the advisory council was initially set up, one of the real concerns was the interest and awareness that the individuals who would serve on the advisory committee had to be familiar with the concept of multiculturalism, because while they are seemingly related, they are two very different issues. It's not clear to me, by the minister's comments, that she really understands that they are fundamentally two different issues. When we talk about multicultural policies within the various ministries, I'm not certain if she's referring to hiring policies and practices, and if multiculturalism is in fact being downgraded into ethnicism. I would have concerns with that, because one of the rich heritages and legacies that we have in British Columbia, as in the rest of Canada, is the awareness that multiculturalism plays a very important facet in our everyday life.

In our earliest beginnings we have, I suppose, three founding peoples: obviously, the aboriginal people of Canada, who enriched us with their personal trait of caring and sharing; we certainly have the original involvement of the French people on the east coast; and the English, Scots and Irish. It's interesting to note -- and I'm reminded every time I see a dime with the schooner Bluenose on it -- that the members of the German-speaking community have been in Canada for well over 325 years. German craftsmen who originally came to Halifax, and went to Lunenburg, built the schooner Bluenose.

The minister talked about racism. In Canada, we have to be aware that racism is not often addressed simply on the basis of race or nationality. Racism often occurs when one group of individuals does not understand the cultural proprieties of another group. Our situation in Canada is different from that of the United States, where the United States has fundamentally followed the melting-pot concept. In Canada we have done something quite dramatically different. There was a period of time -- and we certainly recognize it with the aboriginal community -- where former administrations, believing that it was in their best interest, tried to erase the very essence of that group of people's culture, heritage and traditions. It was very wrong. We took most of the foundation away. When we look at how things are being addressed today, we are trying to rebuild that foundation. Canada is their mother country, and being their mother country it is important that every effort be made to preserve the heritage, language and culture of the aboriginal people. In recognizing that, we also have to ensure that the very foundation of the ethnic background and identity of the various peoples that make up this great nation of Canada -- especially this province of British Columbia -- is known and respected.

In my community, going back to the 1950s, we had a number of occasions.... There was a series of years where we had United Nations-type programs, where the song, music, dance and the ethnic food of various members of our communities were represented in stage presentations. On Canada Day this year we celebrated the twentieth anniversary of Folkfest, which is a continuation of that. A large segment of the community in the central Okanagan attends, literally hundreds of participants from various countries: some from Mexico, some from the Old World, India and China. Virtually every element of the ethnic community is represented in the stage performances. Many take the opportunity to have little kiosks, where they serve ethnic food. My background is Ukrainian, and the Ukrainian community serves holopchies and perogies. We have all of these opportunities, because we are part and parcel of each other.

The diversity in Canada is probably one of our greatest strengths. There are a variety of different perspectives, and in that, we develop what has become more evident as a Canadian culture. I recognize that there are a number of challenges you simply can't accommodate with legislation. There was a tremendous immigration to this land throughout the early days in the growth of Canada. Throughout many areas of Canada, most especially in the prairie provinces, we developed ethnic communities. They may have been Icelandic, German, Ukrainian, Polish or some of the other peoples that came. In Manitoba, Scandinavian communities were very strong. Over the years, some limitations were imposed on individuals from those communities. It was more difficult for the first generation, who made a very courageous step, perhaps in the face of hopeless conditions in a number of countries in Europe. Nevertheless, it was a courageous step made by those individuals to seize the opportunity and come to Canada, where there was the potential of opportunity, often not so much for the individuals who came as adults, but looking forward to their children and their descendants moving to this land of opportunity.

[4:00]

I think I can truthfully say that in Canada the limitations on individuals are self-imposed. I believe that. A long time ago when I was still going to school, I listened to a professor from the University of Manitoba, who happened to be of Ukrainian descent, lament for quite a long time about the lack of people of Ukrainian extraction involved in the civil service, government or elected offices. But all of those things happen in time, and they happen on a merit basis. Familiarizing yourself with Canadian culture, and recognizing that 

[ Page 8496 ]

we have no limitations other than those that are self-imposed, is the legitimate basis for cross-cultural understanding. We have no differences. We all laugh, we all hurt and we all cry. I honestly believe that there is a public will that encourages this without legislation.

One of the requirements that the Advisory Council on Multiculturalism was charged with was to bring in legislation. I'm pleased to see that their work has been recognized by the Minister Responsible for Multiculturalism and that the legislation has come forward. Clearly, the multicultural community wanted their concerns enshrined in legislation so that they were up front and recognized by government. That recognition was ensured perhaps because there will always be pressures from those who would like to see the melting-pot concept. So I applaud the minister and the government for bringing in this particular piece of legislation.

The objectives were drafted some time ago and, again, it was the multiculturalism task force that was set up to do this. Within the framework of the policy there were a number of key and important points, not dissimilar to the points that the minister has elaborated on. They were to "encourage groups and individuals of all backgrounds to fully participate in the mainstream of society." That was one of the objectives that was picked up by the Cabinet Committee on Multiculturalism. This is where, in the Vander Zalm government, the policy that we're seeing the fruits of fundamentally evolved from.

The policy also sought to "encourage all groups and individuals to share their heritage." That's really important. While we now have students in many schools and universities in B.C. learning Mandarin Chinese, Japanese, and other Asian languages, we recognize that language itself is not the only element in communication; the cultural understanding and awareness of those societies is incredibly important. The non-verbal language is just as important as the verbal language. When we understand the differences, then we can understand each other more ably and not take something as being inappropriate. So we're making good progress, but that, again, is part and parcel of the Canadian people.

Another objective was to "foster a spirit of acceptance, tolerance and cross-cultural understanding." The minister has clearly enunciated on that. It was one of the earliest determinations of the objectives of the framework of the multicultural committee. It was also determined to "promote cross-cultural harmony while working towards the elimination of racism, discrimination and prejudice in our province." I think we stand as an example of that. When we look at ourselves we are perhaps unduly critical of ourselves. But if you look in any jurisdiction around the world you see the differences that occur in homelands. Perhaps it's the strife in Ireland, which has continued for 700 years or so. Look at what's happening in Bosnia. You can look at what has happened in many other jurisdictions in the world. So when we have differences, maybe we point out the obvious differences in ourselves. Maybe that's just a characteristic of identification; we grab onto an identification. But in my experience it has not been aimed or directed specifically in the cause of racism. The recognition of actual cultural differences seems to me very significant in what we take as racism. Nevertheless, it was clearly one of the strong objectives of the philosophy and principles of this package of legislation, certainly in the previous objectives, to endeavour to mitigate and hopefully eliminate -- which is a noble goal -- discrimination, racism and prejudice in B.C.

To support the principle of equitable access to public services and opportunities by all British Columbians. This is very important, but as I said, from my perspective our limitations are self-imposed. I really believe that if there is a need and an opportunity, people will rise to accommodate that need and fill the opportunity that is made available. Fundamentally, we want to appreciate people for what they are and also encourage them by creating the opportunity for advancement. When people come from other lands, initially it's done through the opportunity to gain good employment and make savings, then to acquire their own homes and perhaps small businesses to build up into large businesses, creating employment opportunities for other Canadians. This has happened time and time again throughout B.C. and Canada.

But I don't think these things are to be legislated. We recognize them as goals, but when we mandate them or impose some sort of a quota system, we actually provide crutches, reasons for people to fail rather than achieve. Part of the danger of providing crutches is that individuals will not try their very best. Success in any field, be it art, music, politics or anything else, depends on an individual's capacity to compete. The way to fully address the needs of society is by being able to stand up to the competition and be the best that you can possibly be. Merit has to be the final arbiter on whether a person does or does not get a position. Some may remember the "Wayne and Shuster Show" when it was still on radio many years ago. The Canadian government decided that Canadian content was really important, and they had specified a certain percentage. When interviewed for a CBC program, Johnny Wayne and Frank Shuster were asked, "What is your talent?" They replied, "What do you mean, talent? We're Canadian," as if that gave them the right to appear. I wouldn't want to see anything like this on the basis of ethnic origin or background, because everyone, from the aboriginal peoples to the newest migrants to Canada, has the capacity to serve and be challenged on the basis of merit.

Finally, to recognize and encourage volunteers and voluntary community organizations working to promote racial harmony. Again, we have a tremendous example of this in Kelowna, where our multiculturalism society does an enormous amount of work with new Canadians before they become citizens to counsel them and to tutor them to a degree to assist them in making the accommodation from their country of origin to their new chosen home of Canada. That probably exists in all communities, because the memory of our roots is within all of us. A sense of pride is the very foundation of our essence. On that basis, I heartily support the Multiculturalism Act. I pay a great deal of 

[ Page 8497 ]

respect to former Premier Vander Zalm, under whose administration this initiative was brought forward. I compliment the current government and the Minister Responsible for Multiculturalism for bringing this act forward, formal legislation to ensure that it is a policy of the provincial government that multiculturalism is recognized and will continue to be recognized and is the very essence of all British Columbians.

J. Pullinger: I ask leave of the House to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

J. Pullinger: C'est avec plaisir que j'accueille dans cette assembl�e, et au Canada et� la ville de Victoria, un ami de Nice, France. Would you help me welcome a young gentlemen from Nice, France, who is with us today. His name is Romain Viennois. With him are some constituents and friends, Wanda Hop Wo and her sons, John and Jason Hop Wo. Please help me welcome them.

K. Jones: It was a pleasure to step down in order to have an opportunity to show true multiculturalism in the introduction of guests in the House. I think that's a fine example of what we all have to try to do: to extend our hand in a gesture of friendship and understanding to people who have brought their various cultures to our country. They make up this country. My background is from different parts of Europe, and on that basis I have a multicultural background. The fact that I am white does not make me a non-multicultural person. We have to remember that for those people who fear multiculturalism, it is not different cultural backgrounds, colours or religious beliefs that make them any different from those who have what is considered to be a Caucasian background. We all bring contributions of multiculturalism to this beautiful province and to this beautiful country.

The only persons who can really claim they are the original are the first peoples, and even they bring with them a changing multiculturalism that is so beautiful and so rich that we are very honoured to be able to share it with them at each opportunity they present to us.

Last Saturday I had the honour of being at the opening of the Colour It Surrey Festival, in which a large segment of the Surrey community and the adjoining lower mainland communities brought together a friendly relationship of various multicultural and ethnic foods, dance, music and a general gathering of peoples. I think this was the fourth or fifth year of this festival. It was a beautiful experience, one that I am sure will continue to occur, because the people in our various communities have a desire to make it work. I don't think they need a bill like this to make it work. This bill is really a direction to government to do its part in making this whole atmosphere work together.

One aspect in the bill talks about respect for the multicultural heritage of British Columbia. I'd like to see that changed to British Columbians, because it is the people's multicultural heritage, not British Columbia's heritage, and so just adding that extra "ns" to that description is very important.

There are some other areas where we think there can be some improvements to this bill, just to give it greater strength and to take away a bit of the tokenism or the jingoism and the clich�s that are in this. Some aspects of this bill tend to overdo the attempt to get onside with multiculturalism, so to speak. The real concept of this is something that has to come from people's hearts, and laws don't come from people's hearts. It really comes from reaching out and being generous to others, being willing to try new things and to learn about our fellow British Columbians so that we can increase our knowledge and our experience of life.

[4:15]

There's one aspect that really bothers me among the list of the purposes of multiculturalism policy, and that's where it talks about "building a society in British Columbia free from all forms of racism and from conflict and discrimination based on race, cultural heritage, religion, ethnicity, ancestry and place of origin." There's one very important item left out of this bill, and that's gender. It fails to recognize that there are discriminations and conflicts within our multicultural community that put roadblocks before the women of our community who are not being fairly treated in some cases. Therefore I think it's important that we make sure that in this bill we build a society that is free from these impediments, including gender. I hope that the minister will take that into consideration and bring in the appropriate changes.

I am very concerned about the makeup of the Multicultural Advisory Council in that it is all focused in the hands of the minister. It's like a private little club that works with the minister to hand out $1 million at the present time, but it could be a larger sum in future. I think it is really important for its credibility that this advisory council to the minister be totally independent of cabinet, that its members be appointed from the community and that they be free to advise the minister without question of political background or interest. They would be looking at the very basis of the community as a whole to ensure that it would be representative of all segments of the multicultural community and that it would be appropriately geographically representative. The minister has described the existing advisory council as fairly similar to that. Why is it a requirement that the council and its chair be appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council? I would recommend that the chair be chosen by council members. Then they would have an effective chair, one with the full support of the council. I think there is a need for some changes in this area and a need to limit the size of the council to a manageable size so that it can be effective as an advisory body.

The council's role will be "to advise the minister on issues respecting multiculturalism...." I'm very concerned about the next part, where it goes on to say: "...and to perform any other duties or functions specified by the minister." That's something we'll want to talk about in committee. Something that's missing is advising the minister with regard to race relations. Perhaps that needs to be in there in the place of 

[ Page 8498 ]

performing any duties that the minister wants them to do. Performing any duties is rather general, and it could mean that the council becomes just a front for the minister to go out and do the political aspects of this job, which I really don't think should be the intention of this bill. The bill has a great deal of strength in supporting and being responsible to our multicultural community as a whole, not to any one political interest. No political interest should be exclusive in this area.

With regard to the reporting process of ministries and other government corporations, which I read to mean Crown corporations, I hope this will extend to the public sector at the local level as well. There has to be some means of doing a measurement if they're going to report something, but it's very difficult at the present time to determine what you have as a means of measurement. In the employment process you are not allowed to identify the backgrounds of employees, and if the representation cannot be measured, there is no way of keeping a record to see whether you're changing the makeup of the organization. Some vehicle has to be set up to measure that. The company that I formerly worked for did set up a measurement program, but I don't see any provision in this bill for that type of measurement. I think that's a serious shortfall, and it needs to be addressed.

I have a great deal of concern with regard to the guidelines under which the minister can handle grant funding. The way that it's structured in this bill, it can be very discriminatory and discretionary. It says: "The minister may impose the terms and conditions on a grant made under this section that the minister considers appropriate." Surely that's a very broad type of statement that is not conducive to a fair and equitable distribution of appropriate funds. There's a definite need here for a means of measuring value for money and for a process of distributing and accounting for the funds. There's also a need for an audit process to see that the funds are properly used to meet the original goals. So in the area of accountability this bill falls very short. There's a need to upgrade the bill to include those factors if it's going to be a useful product of this House.

I would also like to look at one aspect of the press release that the minister has put out. It states that there's $1 million to be spent on a grants program. I wonder where the $1 million came from. Was it just a nice round figure taken out of midair or is there a justifiable program that can be identified for the expenditure of this money? Are we just throwing out $1 million without a true justification of where it's going to be spent? I think that most of our multicultural communities are fully capable of funding their own programs and are proud to do that. They're proud of the part they play in supporting their teaching, music and dance programs. They do that without funding from government and, I'm sure, are quite happy to continue doing that.

With the deficit the way it is in the province today, we have to seriously look at this. I'm sure that the people in our multicultural communities are saying the same thing. The ones that I've been talking to have certainly been saying: "We don't want any more taxes. We are prepared to stand on our own. We are very capable people. We do our job and pay our way." This type of a grant program is almost demeaning to them. To be justified to the people of B.C. as a proper expenditure, we need to look seriously at where this money could be productively spent to the benefit of B.C. I just hope this isn't a crude attempt to buy votes at the next election. I assure you that this type of method to buy votes will fail. The multicultural people of B.C. are not so naive as to be able to be bought. There is a great opportunity here, but you don't have to have money out there to do the job that's set out in this bill.

H. De Jong: It gives me pleasure to rise and speak on Bill 39, the Multiculturalism Act. It's quite appropriate for the minister to follow through with the program that was started some years ago under the previous administration. If the intent of this bill is to draw British Columbians together, then it's certainly a good one. However, having witnessed for a number of years what has been happening in Canada, particularly from the federal end of things.... I guess it was some 25 or 30 years ago when we heard the first rumours about minority groups in Canada. Prior to the 1970s we heard little about minority groups. I don't think at that time, at least when we came here in the late forties, that any thought was given to minority groups as such, whether they were good or bad. Having come here as a new immigrant from Dutch background, in certain communities we had a fairly substantial number of people, but as a whole, I suppose the Dutch people could be considered a minority group as well.

When we talk about minority groups, in the end there can be only one majority group; the rest of them would appear to all be minority groups. What are we trying to pull together? Within minority groups there may collectively be a larger number than the majority group. During the years of Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau we heard all about the assistance that minority groups needed and the moneys that were poured out of the public purse to assist those minority groups. What did it accomplish? Did it accomplish a certain amount of jealousy between one minority group and another? I know that in this bill the minister has some jurisdiction -- or perhaps all of the jurisdiction -- on how to distribute funds, which are currently set at $1 million.

[4:30]

I am not so sure, as the previous members said, that the real minority groups want a handout. Having come from different parts of the world, I believe that most people are very proud of where they come from and carry some cultural heritage along with them. Even though my language isn't perfect and my speaking is far from perfect, people have often said: "Why don't you talk more Dutch in your home? Your children cannot understand Dutch." Before the grandparents passed on -- who could not speak much English and could understand very little -- our children did speak some Dutch. But the younger ones have not learned Dutch. So we are being criticized by the Canadian people: "Why don't you carry on with a little more of your heritage, your language?"

Many people came to this country over many years. Some came for economic opportunities and others came 

[ Page 8499 ]

because Canada was a country with a reputation for fairness. Our country has offered that type of thing to society worldwide. Others came for religious freedom. But on the whole, many people have come here and experienced that Canada is a place of freedom of speech and provides the ability to go ahead in economic terms and to raise a family in a society which was acceptable to many people. In reality, many people came here to escape some other things. In fact, my parents were strongly considering coming to Canada before the Second World War. My mother often said: "I will not leave until my mother has passed on." She passed on in March 1940. We had sold just about everything and were ready to go to Canada in May 1940, but it was too late. My father had several brothers here, and they did very well economically. They spoke about the economic freedom that was here and also the cultural and spiritual things, because those things were very important to them. Those freedoms were being somewhat challenged in Europe, particularly as we experienced them in the years from 1940 to 1945. Religious freedoms were really challenged.

I suppose it's coincidental, hon. Speaker, that the minister who brings in this multiculturalism bill is the same minister who brought in Bill 33, which I have spoken of as a gag bill. I suppose the minister has a certain job to do, but the two don't really match. They certainly don't match in terms of freedom, and this country has always stood for freedom. I hope that this bill will enhance that freedom, not make it more difficult, so that there are strings attached and conditions imposed on those multicultural groups within our province. If we want a rich, cultural mosaic in British Columbia, it's very important that we allow that cultural atmosphere to flourish. At the same time, all of those culture groups need that kind of guidance to become Canadians.

[E. Barnes in the chair.]

It's really great when people of all different ethnic backgrounds come together, such as we experienced in Centennial Park in Abbotsford, where we gathered for a Canada Day celebration. A number of cultural groups conducted dances and other activities, but they also sang "O Canada," and that's the way it ought to be. We have come here not simply to flee from the things we didn't like about another country but to make a contribution in all aspects of society.

I would like to comment on a couple of concerns that I have with certain trends that are developing in Canada. I was really concerned the other day after the new Prime Minister asked for a meeting with the first ministers in Canada to discuss certain things pertaining to a conference that was to be held in Japan. The first reaction to that was from the leader of the natives, Mr. Mercredi, who said -- at least, that's what the media reported -- that he was not very happy at not being invited to that first ministers' conference. Are we perhaps going in a direction where aboriginal people think they are a nation within a nation? Yes, certain rights may be negotiated so that they have some self-government, or whatever limit it might be, but surely we are still all Canadians. I hope that natives include themselves and know and understand that even though we are of a different political stripe, we appreciate that our Premier went to that conference. I think the aboriginal people of the other provinces should also be appreciative that their Premiers went to those conferences.

The other thing that concerns me is that while all provincial legislatures across the land call themselves the legislative assembly of whatever province, the Quebec National Assembly is different. Why is Quebec a national assembly and not a provincial legislature? Those are some of the main things in the bigger picture that we ought to take note of. Surely we must address those. They have perhaps been addressed in various sections, but it appears to me that in the past actions have been taken and things have been said that have not so much pulled Canadians together as had the result toward separation. That's sad for such a great country and such a great nation, one that's so rich in its heritage and culture.

I commend the minister on this bill. I simply want to say that if the government really intends to fund certain minority groups or cultural groups -- whatever they want to call them -- out of that $1 million, the funding should be based on a multicultural event or the multicultural celebration of a community. If we continue here in B.C. what was started by the federal government many years ago, which is the funding of specific cultural groups, I believe it will lead to further division. It will not create what we like to see, which is a united British Columbia within a united Canada.

Hon. A. Hagen: As in any debate when we're dealing with something as fundamental as multiculturalism, we've had a very wide-ranging discussion. I've listened with great interest to the statements of support for the initiative of this bill, which enshrines our multicultural policy and our Multicultural Advisory Council and commitments to accountability and to support for multiculturalism on behalf of our government. Once again I want to say that in developing this bill we have in fact been able to use the evolution of the multicultural community and its awareness of what our policies should best say to most fundamentally recognize the value, dignity, worth and importance of every person in our society, whether they come from our first citizens or, as all of the rest of us have done, come from the arrival of immigrants at some time, either ourselves or our families.

There are some nuances in what people have said that I think lie within those statements, and I won't make a comment about them. We could enter into quite a lot of debate and discussion as a result of what people have had to say. I don't necessarily agree with a number of the views that have been expressed. But I do want to deal with a couple of issues.

First of all, it is important to state that this is a bill that deals with multiculturalism. Our work, in fact, is around cross-cultural understanding and knowledge, recognizing that we start from our own individual cultural heritage and move from there to understand and be involved with other people who bring the 

[ Page 8500 ]

richness of their heritage to our society, politics and economic life.

The second thing I want to note is that it's obvious that we still need to inform people a great deal about our multicultural grants and our Multicultural Advisory Council and how it works. People today have been making suggestions about how it should work, and I want to say that that's how it is in fact working. Our Multicultural Advisory Council involves people who have been nominated from their communities all over the province. They are the people who have the trust and support of the communities who have chosen them. They do represent a wide range, and they recognize that they are speaking for the cross-cultural understanding and race relations to which we are all committed.

Finally, I want to note that since we became government, we have multiplied by eight the amount of money that is available in grants not only for multiculturalism but also for immigrant settlements. We started with multicultural grants in the amount of about $500,000; this year we've doubled those to $1 million. We will broadly consult with the community to establish criteria and the best programs that we can fund with those dollars in cooperation with communities who bring their volunteer effort, their money and their vision to the work that we do.

In addition, for the first time this government has introduced immigrant settlement grants which support people as they first arrive in Canada and as they continue to learn and have their needs met, so that they can participate fully with dignity and with the opportunity that we all believe should be there. We're very proud of those initiatives, and they have not come by increasing budgets. This is not new money, but money that has come from a re-allocation of our government priorities.

[4:45]

This legislation is an important landmark for us. It is a distillation of our work in terms of policy direction, accountability and support for the multicultural community, which I believe is the hallmark of our government. I'm delighted to learn that it appears that all members of the House will be supportive of this legislation. With that, I would like to move second reading of this bill.

Motion approved on division.

Bill 39, Multiculturalism Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. J. Cashore: I call committee on Bill 52.

BEAVER LODGE TRUST LANDS RENEWAL ACT

The House in committee on Bill 52; E. Barnes in the chair.

On section 1.

W. Hurd: I have a question of clarification on the definitions portion of section 1. When we refer to the core lands, can the minister tell us approximately how many acres have been alienated from the original 1931 trust?

Hon. J. Cashore: Two hundred and seven acres.

W. Hurd: Just one further point of clarification then. In percentage terms of the total lands of the trust, the 207 acres represents an alienation of how much from the existing 1931 trust?

Hon. J. Cashore: We'll calculate that and answer it in a few minutes.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

W. Hurd: Just a point of clarification on section 2. We understand from this section that the minister is now able to dispose of some of the lands in question and to acquire additional lands as required. In the minister's view, does this section have any timetable attached to it? Is there a time frame in which these land acquisitions and dispersals are to take place?

Hon. J. Cashore: The answer to the question is yes, July 1, 1994. It is covered in section 3(4).

The answer to the question that I reserved from section 1 is 24 percent.

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

W. Hurd: I'm not absolutely certain if this is the appropriate section in which to raise the concern addressed by the Friends of Beaver Lodge Lands. They were particularly interested in any changes to land use that might occur in the new sections that will be acquired and added to the trust. They had specifically questioned the presence of access roads on lands that were being added that of course wouldn't have been in the original 1931 trust. I welcome comment from the minister on that specific issue raised by the Friends of Beaver Lodge Lands. Perhaps section 3 might not be the appropriate area to raise it. I'm just looking at section 3(4), which seems to indicate that in fact the definition of the trust would call into question whether or not there were additional easements or encumbrances on the land which would have to be added through acquisition. I think they had specifically mentioned a section of land owned by Fletcher Challenge Canada Ltd., the forest company, in which specific provision was made for access roads that would have to be included in the additional acquisition.

Hon. J. Cashore: The arrangement with Fletcher Challenge would be that we would allow them to use the roads to carry on their business. That would be part of the exchange arrangement that would be made.

[ Page 8501 ]

W. Hurd: Can the minister or his staff advise as to whether we're dealing with rights-of-way or roads that are already in place in the land that has to be acquired by the trust?

Hon. J. Cashore: It's called the Elk River Timber mainline. It's already in place. It's owned in fee simple by Fletcher Challenge.

W. Hurd: So the minister and his staff are confident that there are no other easements in the land to be acquired, where roads might be pushed through or be required to be pushed through at a future date to service forest lands or other types of environment and land use activities outside the boundaries of the trust? I raise these questions for a reason, Mr. Chairman. They were raised by the Friends of Beaver Lodge Lands, who are concerned not only about existing roads but also about the potential for easements. They want to feel confident that they have identified this as being potentially an alienation of the land that has to be acquired, or at least some portion of the land.

Hon. J. Cashore: Hon. Chair, if the hon. member is referring to section 3(3)(b), it deals with the minister, in accordance with the act, being empowered to deal with land for right-of-way in the future.

W. Hurd: That was the reason I questioned whether section 3 was the appropriate section to raise this. I think the point being made by the Friends of Beaver Lodge Lands was that there were existing easements or rights-of-way within the areas to be acquired that in fact would mean that the right would exist to put the roads in, and therefore the original trust really couldn't be reconstituted because of these easements or rights-of-way that existed. My question related not only to existing roads but also to any areas of the lands to be acquired, which the minister would have no control over in terms of additional roads or rights-of-way.

Hon. J. Cashore: There is the possibility that this could result in the need to exercise section 3(3)(b) with regard to Hilchey Road and/or Petersen Road. Therefore we need to retain the power within the act to enable that, but there is certainly no intention to do this other than in keeping with the government's plan announced at the news conference in Campbell River.

W. Hurd: Could the minister clarify whether these are municipal roads, logging roads or recreation access roads?

Hon. J. Cashore: The ERT mainline would be a logging road which, according to the plan, would become a forestry road. The other roads in question would be district of Campbell River roads.

W. Hurd: Could the minister clarify what control the Crown would have over the building of those district roads? Are these easements that provide guaranteed access by the district, or is it something that could be negotiated at a future date?

Hon. J. Cashore: It would be subject to negotiation.

W. Hurd: The minister is satisfied then that these do not represent legal easements or legal rights of ways that the district may possess; they are on the map as potential rights of ways. Are there no encumbrances that the minister is aware of that would allow the district to push these roads through without the approval of the Crown?

Hon. J. Cashore: The purpose of this is to enable the government to go into these lands at some future date if it is required. This is an enabling clause to enable the government to make that decision if necessary.

[5:00]

W. Hurd: I'm not getting very far in trying to determine exactly what.... Is there an encumbrance on the land that the Crown has to acquire, or is there not? That's a pretty basic question. As I say, I raise these questions for a reason. The Friends of Beaver Lodge Lands are under the impression, erroneous or otherwise, that these roads occupy an additional encumbrance on the land to be acquired which could not be controlled by the trust in the event that the district opted to exercise whatever rights it might have to push these roads through. I would certainly welcome a clarification from the minister as to whether the trust would have the ability to block these roads if that was the choice they wanted to make.

Hon. J. Cashore: The answer is no, the district would not be able to do anything about creating these roads unless it was the action of the provincial government to do so.

W. Hurd: Just one further question, then, on section 3(5). I'm aware of the existence of the task force that is negotiating the addition to the trust, Fletcher Challenge Canada Ltd. being one of the participants. The name of the other company slips my mind, but I understand there are two forest companies involved. In the event that these negotiations are not successful, can the minister provide assurances that the matter would be dealt with under the existing expropriation act?

Hon. J. Cashore: Yes, that is the intent.

Sections 3 and 4 approved.

On section 5.

W. Hurd: Just one brief point of clarification under section 5(1). I'm assuming that the designation of the trust lands would occur simultaneous with their acquisition by the Crown, or would additional legislation be required to transfer title from the Crown to the trust? It's just a legal question.

Hon. J. Cashore: It would be simultaneous.

[ Page 8502 ]

D. Symons: I'm concerned with section 5(1)(a), where it says: "...purchase or otherwise acquire land." I understand purchase where you pay for the land that you're getting, but would the minister clarify for my sake what this "otherwise acquire land" might imply.

Hon. J. Cashore: That allows for the possibility of gifting.

D. Symons: I hope by choice, because that brings me to a question on section 5(1)(b) that says: "...transfer Crown land to any person in exchange for land which may be designated as trust lands." I am assuming that an exchange of land here would be with mutual agreement. There's nothing here that indicates it might be an exchange forced upon someone. Is this a mutual agreement?

Hon. J. Cashore: The answer is yes. As a matter of fact, that kind of discussion is presently under way.

Section 5 approved.

On section 6.

W. Hurd: Just a brief question under section 6. The ongoing management of the Beaver Lodge forest lands will be an expense item under the budget of the Ministry of Forests. Can the minister assure us that the planned use of that forest will be subject to consultation with the local community? At this time, is there anything envisioned in the way of a planning or local resource group which might participate with the Ministry of Forests in developing this demonstration forest? Would that be the subject of a future decision by the Crown to foster the development of such a group at the local level?

Hon. J. Cashore: I may have missed the second part of the question because I was trying to find the clause that deals with the first part of the question. If the hon. member would refer to section 4(5): "The Minister of Forests must, before July 1, 1994, establish a resource use plan for the trust lands and in establishing the plan must consult with the public." It is required in the legislation that consultation with the public take place.

Section 6 approved.

Schedules 1 and 2 approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; E. Barnes in the chair.

Bill 52, Beaver Lodge Trust Lands Renewal Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

F. Garden: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave Granted.

F. Garden: In the gallery we have some distinguished, longstanding members of the Cariboo Regional District, part of which I represent as MLA for Cariboo North: Ted Armstrong, who is the chair of the Cariboo Regional District; Darlene Brecknock, the vice-chair and a longstanding activist on the board; and with them is Bob Long, the administrator. Will the House please make them welcome.

SPECIAL ACCOUNTS APPROPRIATION AND CONTROL AMENDMENT ACT, 1993

The House in committee on Bill 47; E. Barnes in the chair.

On section 1.

A. Warnke: This section defines proceeds of crime, and I want to pursue a few questions. First of all, what type of check will be in place on the Attorney General in terms of this disposition of money?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The parameters of the expenditure are defined by the legislation. The check that the member refers to will be contained in the protocol agreement between the Ministry of Attorney General and the Ministry of Finance.

A. Warnke: What type of guidelines is the Attorney General considering for the disposition of money?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The members will understand that no discussions have been held yet in respect of developing a protocol, and arrangements with the Ministry of Finance pending passage of the legislation in the House. There is a general set of rules now that governs the existing spending. I will just tell the members what that is, because it will give some indication as to the kinds of issues that would be covered by a protocol agreement. Currently the disposition of funds: (1) shall be made only for the purposes set out in the legislation; (2) shall be for exceptional expenditures not funded in the Ministry's budgets or by any other appropriation; (3) shall not create a demand or expectation for future year funding -- in other words, it doesn't get built in and then it has to carry on forever; (4) shall not be directly returned to agencies responsible for specific investigations or prosecution -- what we want there is to avoid efforts in trying to generate revenue from a particular agency -- and I would be quite insistent on that; and finally (5) shall not be available for disposition until the Attorney General certifies that all related litigation has been finalized and that no further claims are anticipated. 

[ Page 8503 ]

Those are the current guidelines. We haven't, as I said, negotiated a protocol with Finance, but these would be the kinds of issues that would be in a protocol arrangement.

A. Warnke: I think there was some comment made at second reading in well on how an arrangement should be made with the federal government. There was some uncertainty over how to define whether there are funds going to the provincial government and then to the federal government. And how should municipal governments not so much benefit, I suppose, since they receive a benefit from this.... What is the criterion upon which moneys would go to the different levels of government?

[5:15]

Hon. C. Gabelmann: We still haven't reached an agreement with the federal government in respect of these issues. We have put our position to them that the moneys should come to the Crown provincial, but that hasn't been concluded at this stage. I don't know whether we'll get an agreement prior to the election or not, and that's obviously getting in the way at the present time.

W. Hurd: I wonder if the Attorney General could just clarify what "fines" means in connection with this particular section. Would those be fines assessed by the courts for criminal incidents that involved profit by the accused? Would they be fines of a more general nature? I note that "fines" is contained in explanatory notes to section 1 but doesn't appear to show up directly in the section itself.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: These fines will be assessed by the court in situations where there is no possibility of gaining the property that might have been forfeited, if it is no longer in hands that are available to the courts to seize. In that case a fine may be levied instead, and where that happens the fine would be part of this program.

L. Stephens: Section 1, section 9.1(7) says: "The Attorney General may...make payments out of the special account in any way the Attorney General considers appropriate." Would you let the House know what some of those expenditures may be?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The only way I can really answer that is by referring back to my earlier answer about the nature of a protocol that will exist between the Attorney General and Finance, and a reading of section 9.1(7): "...the purpose of facilitating the administration of criminal justice and law enforcement...." These would be special projects where it may be deemed advisable to try to get more effective law enforcement programs or projects underway.

It's hard to speculate without getting this program and the protocol in place and then assessing what might be an appropriate expenditure at that point. Suffice it to say that these would be -- as they say in the jargon -- one-off projects; they would be specific and would meet very specifically the purpose of facilitating the administration of criminal justice and law enforcement. If there is a particular problem identified in our society that could require a special effort, then moneys could be directed at that.

L. Stephens: I'm sure the Attorney General has given more thought to what this may entail and that he hasn't come forward with this bill without some knowledge or idea of what he would like to accomplish by it. Given that there are new initiatives in the Attorney General's ministry around a number of issues, particularly social issues around family law, violence against women and children and those kinds of things, does the minister feel that that may be an area under consideration for this money?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: It's possible. I suspect, however, that the areas the member refers to -- which she and I share a priority anxiety in doing something about -- would be programs that would have some continuity to them and therefore would not be eligible under this particular program. But if we were able to find ways of making programs in that social area doable under this particular program, then I would be interested in looking at that. I suspect that in a more likely scenario what we'll end up doing is having a particular effort on a drug problem that may exist in a community or in a particular part of the province where if we were able to devote special resources to that particular problem, we might be able to clean it up. Having cleaned it up, it wouldn't be a continuing issue, and therefore it would qualify under this program. That's the kind of initiative that I think is more likely to come forward. But I'm not ruling out any matters that fall into the definition as laid out in subsection (7).

Section 1 approved.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Earlier today I circulated to the critics an amendment that adds section 1.1. It's not an amendment to either section 1 or section 2 but is the addition of a new section 1.1, which adds a consequential amendment repealing section 5 of the Attorney General Act.

The explanation of this, if it's in order -- and I assume it is -- is that the House has before it another bill, the Constitution Amendment Act, which I intend not to proceed with this session in order to ensure that all of us can be of a common mind about its purposes and its language before we proceed, given that there's a great deal of misunderstanding about it. This bill that we're dealing with now anticipated the passage of the Constitution Act. If the Constitution Act doesn't pass -- as I don't think it will, given my intention not to proceed with it this session -- this consequential amendment is required. We are talking about needing an amendment to the Attorney General Act, and this provision wouldn't have existed in the Attorney General Act any longer if we'd passed the Constitution Act. That makes complete sense to me; I hope I've explained it in a way that makes sense to other 

[ Page 8504 ]

members. It is entirely technical due to the decision not to proceed with the Constitution Amendment Act.

Section 1.1 approved.

Section 2 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Hon. Chair, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Bill 47, Special Accounts Appropriation and Control Amendment Act, 1993, reported complete with amendment.

The Speaker: When shall the bill be read a third time?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: With leave of the House now, hon. Speaker.

Leave not granted.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: At the next sitting, hon. Speaker.

I call committee on Bill 15.

ADVANCED EDUCATION, TRAINING AND TECHNOLOGY STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1993

The House in committee on Bill 15; E. Barnes in the chair.

On section 1.

Hon. T. Perry: We had a very extensive debate on this bill in second reading, so for the benefit of anyone watching, I refer them to second reading debate. I have nothing further to say other than that I will be supporting the bill.

W. Hurd: I just have a couple of points I'd like clarification on in section 1. This is a small point, but with respect to the money that comes back to the Crown, I just was seeking assurance from the minister that in fact the funds go directly into general revenues. Is that the destination of any unallocated funds that will now or would now come back to the Crown in the event of a labour disruption at the institutions which the act governs?

Hon. T. Perry: Yes, that's substantially correct. The funds may be held in trust by the ministry pending any decisions of Treasury Board, but they can't then be spent for another purpose unless Treasury Board specifically says. So they may not be spent during that year, or they might be used at the discretion of Treasury Board for another purpose.

W. Hurd: Could the minister clarify what type of input his ministry might have into this trust? Are these considered to be funds that come back to that particular vote within the budget, or are the funds in limbo? Who accesses them? Can his ministry access them in due course?

Hon. T. Perry: I think, for example, in the immediately past fiscal year, if I recall correctly, some funds retained from strike savings were used as an expenditure reduction by the ministry -- as a savings offered to Treasury Board during various rounds of savings exercises where Treasury Board asked for cuts in ministry expenditures. Rather than cut another program, we simply offered up those unspent funds. To clarify further, that means that the taxpayer did not, in effect, have to borrow that extra money elsewhere, and the deficit was reduced accordingly.

W. Hurd: I think my question was a little more basic than that. What direction is the minister able to provide to these funds with respect to how they might be allocated once the strike is over? Under this section, would the minister have it within his purview to direct the funds, say, back to the institution that was on strike, or does this section specifically forbid that from happening?

I understand the intention of this act in general is to bring the situation at the post-secondary institutions back in line with the situation in other public education jurisdictions. Would the minister be specifically exempted or be unable to direct the funds back to BCIT, the Open Learning Agency or any other college, university or trade school affected by this section?

Hon. T. Perry: There's a limited discretion. For example, were a typhoon to strike a university or an earthquake to strike BCIT, and had there been some savings during that year, it is likely the minister might be able to direct some or all of the savings for an emergency purpose. In general, the intent of not only this bill but the Financial Administration Act, as I understand it, and the legislative tradition is that the Legislature votes in favour of the estimates for the purposes to which they're intended to be applied. If a labour dispute arises where money is not earned, the money reverts to the consolidated revenue fund in principle. But I understand that the Treasury Board has normally allowed some discretion to the minister, typically with the requirement that reference be made back to Treasury Board. I can only speak from my own experience in the last year. As I recall, when all ministries were required to tender possible savings rather than claw back from a grant to an institution, we were able to offer some strike savings and say that we'd be able to avoid spending this money.

[5:30]

The intent is exactly as it appears. There ought to be no reward to an institution for not providing a service. We want to remove any incentive to go on strike or to 

[ Page 8505 ]

lock out employees, in that you could not do the work but collect the money anyway.

W. Hurd: Not wishing to belabour the point, I think we're dealing with two different issues here. I think the opposition is seeking assurance that the institution won't benefit from a strike, but that the minister will have the discretion to ensure that that money is not lost to the cause of advanced education in the province -- that it doesn't in fact go into the black hole of general revenues and not re-emerge as a line expenditure for post-secondary education. Again, I return to my original question: assuming that X million dollars are saved in the event of a strike at BCIT, for example, can the minister assure us under this section of the bill that he will have control of that revenue during the current budget year and will have the ability, if necessary, to redirect it back to the institution? Or is the money basically lost to the minister during that fiscal year, and he gets credit or some other advantage during the Treasury Board deliberations for the next fiscal year?

Hon. T. Perry: I think we're impinging perilously close to an estimates or spending debate. The member doesn't seem to understand that we're dealing at present with a very difficult deficit situation, and you can't have it both ways.

Money appropriated by the Legislature to pay for a service such as advanced education ought not simply to be handed over when the service is not delivered by virtue of a labour dispute arising from the employees or the employer. We take it back to the consolidated revenue fund in the name of all taxpayers. Under certain circumstances, the minister may be able, with the consent of the Treasury Board, to apply that to other post-secondary educational priorities. In the past year we have been able to do that indirectly, through the saving of money that was not spent, when all ministers had to undergo expenditure reductions -- and if memory serves me, directly as well. As I recall, we were allowed to spend some of it in the last year. But that's a matter that the Treasury Board sets as policy, and appropriately so, because the money belongs to all the people of B.C.

C. Serwa: A couple of interesting thoughts occur from reading section 1. One is that the minister and the government obviously presuppose that there will be a considerable negative impact of labour negotiations that are stalled or stymied. I suppose it's a reflection of the current labour code that is creating that particular problem. I regret this, because as we're all well aware, the delivery of services is paramount. Obviously, the time element is really critical. When a young person is at that stage of training -- whatever the institution, be it a university or a technological type of an institution -- it is a critical issue.

I am somewhat surprised and disappointed that section 1 is brought in with the government presupposing extensive labour disputes. The minister stated it is his conviction -- and obviously that of this government -- that the institution that is part of the labour dispute should not profit from the ability to withhold services. What is interesting about that argument is that we have a situation where the government profits. The minister was alluding to the fiscal situation confronting the current government. Here we have a situation where the government, through a discreet direction to the employer -- perhaps an institution -- has the opportunity of prolonging the labour dispute. On the other hand, they have a very close liaison with the organized workforce, be they professors, school teachers or whatever; it may be one of a multitude of unions that take part in the delivery of services of an institution. The government has an opportunity to influence both sides to prolong the labour dispute. While I follow the minister's rationale and reasoning with respect to the institution, my concern is that it clearly doesn't do anything to mitigate the concerns that we all share if the delivery of service is interrupted. It just makes the government the beneficiary rather than the institution.

I wonder if the minister can amplify or clarify how that is a more responsible tack to take.

Hon. T. Perry: It's one of those rare instances when I think this government has taken a lesson from the former government in reasonable public policy -- rare not because we are not open to such, but because the lessons were few to be had. But this is one of them. The former Social Credit administration revised the College and Institute Act, and I believe it was under that administration that the current revisions were made which provided that strike or lockout savings return to the public. In this bill we are simply extending that principle to BCIT and the universities which, by chance, had been left out of that legislative principle -- although the same policy has been applied to them as was applied during the UBC and BCIT strikes last year.

I would point out that the government does not profit from strikes in the public sector. Anyone who has been a member of a government during such a strike knows that it's an unpleasant experience for everyone involved, and a situation that everyone in the public and the government, and usually in the institutions themselves, would like to see ended as swiftly as possible. The intent of the bill is to ensure that there is no financial incentive to continue a strike or a lockout -- not that the government should profit, but that the people who pay the taxes ought not to be expected to pay for a benefit that is not delivered or received by students. It's as simple as that.

C. Serwa: The minister has alluded to the previous administration. One of the great differences, of course, was that the public had the faith, trust and confidence that there was a greater degree of objectivity and there was no subjectivity. I think that's the difference with this particular piece of legislation. The government of the day has a greater interest in the disputes process and seems to thrive on the creation of the disputes, because we see a lot of them coming along.

The minister indicated that the government does not in fact profit. I would say that everyone, especially in this area but I think in all areas, be it Advanced Education or any other area.... I think there is a great 

[ Page 8506 ]

deal of victimization of innocent parties in any type of labour dispute. Clearly the new labour legislation is not functioning anywhere near as well as it should. In section 1, the intention of government should be to reduce the potential for labour disruption and not in fact to profit. I use the word perhaps in an expansive frame of mind, because the taxpayer, through government, funds the operation of the institutes. Because of the cash flow situation confronting the present government, it is also apparent that there is perhaps not the necessity to try to shorten the span of labour disputes or even to try to bring the solution of the differences into this current century, almost into the next century.

It seems to me that this is only paying lip service to the real demand, so I find that section 1 falls far short of what the intention of government should be.

A. Warnke: In the context of the questions of the member for Surrey-White Rock and the comments of the member for Okanagan West, the argument could be put forward -- and has been by the member for Okanagan West -- that this clause has the appearance of enabling the minister to withhold funds from an institute of technology such as BCIT in the event of a labour dispute. Therefore the money that would have been paid to employees -- minus any costs, I suppose, associated with a strike and approved by the minister -- is then paid back to the government, or the government can withhold money from future grant payments, and so forth.

It is in that context, as the minister has heard, that if anyone could stand to gain something from a strike, it's the administration that saves wages and benefits, providing them with some sort of windfall money -- but this clause would eliminate the incentive to prolong one. That was the point made earlier. Therefore the only one who wins from an extended dispute is the government; the longer the strike, the more money it gets to keep -- at least, there is that perception out there. Perhaps the minister would like to comment on that.

Hon. T. Perry: Anyone who thinks that the government or the people win during a strike in the universities or colleges obviously hasn't been very close to one.

A. Warnke: The remark by the minister is reassuring. At least the government is not going to seek that. The question is that there is a perception. Also, clause 9.1(2) defines the value of benefits as anything the employees would normally receive if they were not on strike, minus the costs incurred by an institute of technology resulting from the strike. We note that these costs must be approved by the minister. The problem with this clause is that the minister has not provided a list of costs which would be approved. This means that it is at the complete discretion of the minister what an allowable expenditure is. Furthermore, we note that there is no mention of an appeal process.

It's in this context, hon. Chair, that I would like to move an amendment in Committee of the Whole to Bill 15, Advanced Education, Training and Technology Statutes Amendment Act, 1993. I propose to amend as follows the new section 9.1(2) by striking out "and approved by the minister," and substituting "such as legal services, costs related to negotiation settlement, overtime wages to non-striking staff, increased security and tuition fee refunds." While I am moving that particular amendment, I would also like to make a similar change -- actually, it's exactly the same -- to sections 3 and 5: section 3 affecting section 11.1(2), and section 5 affecting section 28.1(2), pending the acceptance or rejection of the amendment that we are putting forward.

[5:45]

The obvious reason for the submission of this particular amendment and the suggestion of two additional amendments as well under sections 3 and 5, which read the same, is that there is a concern, as I said before, about the discretion of the minister as to what an allowable expenditure is. This is quite clear in the context of 9.1(2), where we see: "...less the costs necessarily incurred by the institute as a consequence of the withholding or lockout and approved by the minister." It's in this context that we really want to put these forward.

Hon. T. Perry: I will be opposing the amendment. I listened carefully to the wording and it sounds innocuous. But I think the effect is hostile and that were the amendment granted the effect might be to actually increase the costs incurred by an institute, university or the Open Learning Agency during a strike and reduce the saving to the taxpayer or, alternatively, increase the cost to the taxpayer. The hon. member must not have consulted the recent experience of BCIT and UBC, or he would have known that during the 1992 calendar year strikes the ministry was quite generous in recognizing costs incurring by both the B.C. Institute of Technology and the University of British Columbia during labour disputes.

To attempt to cover all possible costs in the statute would clearly be impossible. One cannot anticipate all of the eventualities that may arise during a strike or a lockout. It's not that there's anything objectionable about the particular words in the amendment per se, but in my opinion the proposed amendment would appear to encourage an institution to spend money on legal services during a strike, knowing that those will be reimbursed by the minister.

The point here is very simple. This is not a punitive statute. This is a statute aimed at placing the B.C. Institute of Technology and the universities on the same level playing field as the colleges and at confirming the legislative authority for administrative practice which has been commonplace in B.C. in the past. To amend the bill in a way which might encourage an institution to incur extra costs would, I think, be problematic and therefore detrimental to the intent of the bill.

While I appreciate the intention, I could not support this particular amendment because I think one, it's unnecessary and two, it might actually weaken the statute's intent of protecting the public interest.

[ Page 8507 ]

F. Gingell: I think the minister should understand, particularly in these days of financial restraint -- if I may use that word without conjuring up visions of the early 1980s -- that colleges and universities work on very close budgets. If they are not going to have available to them the funds that they don't pay out to striking staff, they need to be able to act very quickly, because their budget is immediately going to retract under the provisions of this bill. They are not going to be able to immediately react to the circumstances of the moment, whether that be to bring in additional security staff if labour unrest were to suddenly become difficult or to hire lawyers if such were appropriate.

I think that it's most unfair for the minister to suggest that if this amendment were to go through it would be encouraging the colleges to go and spend money on legal services. That isn't the case at all. I'd like to suggest to you that the case is that the budgets are so close that if you immediately withdraw the funds that are not being paid out to the striking staff, the college, institute or university simply won't have the funds available in their budget to do those things that look after the public's interest, and it's important that the public interest be looked after.

I know that while the Minister of Finance will clearly approve those things, the Minister of Finance is a busy person, and it seems to me that on these regular, standard types of expenditures that become appropriate only when a strike has taken place, you shouldn't have to bother the minister. You shouldn't have to put the college in a position where they can't act until they have spoken to you, you have spoken to the minister, the minister has done whatever is necessary to get the approval and then the approval goes back all the way through. Often these circumstances are such that the college, institution or university would have to react to it immediately. I am sure these are the costs that you are contemplating. By all means, Mr. Minister, if you think we have left out any expenses, please add them. We would be most happy to have you add to this amendment. But it seems that we are just complicating our lives. You are just making things more difficult by requiring ministerial approval first on expenditures that would clearly be in the public interest.

Hon. T. Perry: Not having had the courtesy of a copy of the amendment, I borrowed the original from the Clerk's table. I would simply like to re-emphasize that if one were to look back on the record of strike savings in British Columbia -- I am not aware of any lockout in the recent past in the college, institute or university system, but there were three strikes in 1992 at BCIT, UBC and Langara campus of Vancouver Community College -- the ministry record would stand for itself as quite generous in recognizing additional costs. If memory serves me, BCIT obtained an injunction at one point and may have had additional security costs; those were covered. At UBC, at one point there was a brief blockade of University Boulevard, and there may have been additional security costs; those were covered. At Langara, I know that the additional costs incurred by the Premier for the occupation of his office by students were not covered, but the costs at the college certainly were covered under this act. The Premier did not enjoy that same privilege for his office under the act that governs Members of the Legislative Assembly.

All of the items covered in the proposed amendment such as legal services, costs related to negotiation settlement, overtime wages to non-striking staff, increased security and tuition fee refunds would have been dealt with. Fortunately, tuition fee refunds were not required in any of those instances.

But let me give you an example to attempt to make clear why I'm not simply being picayune or small-minded in declining to support this amendment. During a strike in the hospital system in 1989 or 1990, one of the hospitals, while incurring significant labour disruption from a strike, chose to subsequently reward some of the management employees with not only a bonus but a trip across Burrard Inlet by gilded vessel -- something out of the eighteenth century, it seemed, almost like a vessel from the "Water Music." It was an extremely inflammatory act for the people who had come out of the strike, something which a minister might well have regarded as a discretionary excessive expense and not something which ought to be borne by the taxpayer.

Interjections.

Hon. C. Perry: I'm trying to give a fair and courteous answer to the hon. members, but I see by their smiles they get the point.

Although the intent of this amendment is reasonable -- to prevent the minister's discretion from ensuring that extra costs are in fact reasonable -- in striking out the section of the bill which refers to the approval by the minister, I think it would be contradictory to the intent of the bill and harmful to the public purpose.

I'm going to return this borrowed document to the Clerk's table.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Given the hour, I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit later.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I move the House, at its rising, stand recessed until 6:30 p.m.

The House recessed at 5:58 p.m.

The House resumed at 6:34 p.m.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: In Committee A, I call the resumption of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs estimates. In Committee B, I call committee on Bill 15.

[ Page 8508 ]

ADVANCED EDUCATION, TRAINING AND TECHNOLOGY STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1993
(continued)

The House in Committee on Bill 15; E. Barnes in the chair.

On the amendment (continued).

F. Gingell: I'm a little confused; I appreciate that that's nothing new, but.... In the case of the strikes in 1992 and 1993, specifically in regard to the two that he spoke of at UBC, the minister seemed to indicate that the grants from the provincial government were cut down as a result of the moneys that were not paid out to striking employees. Could the minister confirm whether that's correct?

Hon. T. Perry: No grants were cut down, but the strike savings were reclaimed for the consolidated revenue fund through the ministry.

F. Gingell: Are you suggesting, Mr. Minister, that paying a grant out and taking some of it back afterwards is different from recouping part of it? I'm sorry, I can't make sense of your answer.

Hon. T. Perry: Of course it's different. Had the institution provided the services for which they were contracted, they would have received the full grant.

F. Gingell: I understand, Mr. Minister. My original question was whether the grants were cut because of the strike. Are you suggesting that paying the grant and getting it back isn't the same as reducing the amount of the grant?

Hon. T. Perry: I think it is different, but if the member was asking whether the institution ended up with less money from the provincial government, the answer is yes.

F. Gingell: Then I presume the answer to my question is yes. I'm not trying to be difficult, but you immediately said no, and it seems to me that it's the same thing as cutting the grant down. If you were able to take that action before the introduction of Bill 15, were you acting legally?

Hon. T. Perry: Yes, as a general principle the province is not obliged to pay for services that are not rendered to the people of B.C. That has been a standard administrative practice for years in B.C. We're cleaning it up so that it technically falls under the equivalent statute as the College and Institute Act. But the minister has considerable discretion both to dispense funds and to ensure that the taxpayers are protected, and that's as it ought to be.

F. Gingell: What you're saying, then, is that we really don't need Bill 15. Bill 15 is what you have been doing for many years.

Hon. T. Perry: I think it's useful to have Bill 15, otherwise I wouldn't have introduced it. But we don't need to be debating it at length because it is consistent with our current administrative practice.

H. De Jong: Hon. Chair, I was of the understanding that the amendment had been ruled out. Is that correct?

The Chair: No, that's not correct, hon. member. We're debating the amendment.

H. De Jong: I'll have my turn later on then.

F. Gingell: If I may just recap, is the minister telling us that what they've done in the past is reduce the amount of grant or take it back? In the process of doing that, you have reduced the amount of the recouping or the recapture of the grant by additional costs that the institution has incurred as a result of the types of things that we have mentioned in here -- overtime wages to non-striking staff, increased security, tuition fee refunds, should they have been necessary, and legal services.

Hon. T. Perry: Yes, that's correct. Perhaps I didn't make it clear enough, though, that we're not in estimates debate, so I can't provide the member with all of the details, but some of the savings were also used for educational purposes at the institutions concerned. No punitive action has ever been taken against such institutions.

F. Gingell: Really, Mr. Minister, wouldn't it be better for you to put into the act a short-listing of the expenditures that will be approved so that this isn't left in the hands of "maybe it will be, maybe it won't be; you better not go and get a lawyer; you better not hire any additional security forces; you better not pay any overtime," because the Minister of Finance may not approve them? The practice in the past has been to act in a sensible manner. They have been approved and have been paid, in effect, out of the reduced expenditures for salaries but haven't been paid to striking staff. Wouldn't the amendment make it a more certain set of circumstances so that the colleges, universities and institutes know where they stand? I appreciate that you may well wish to add some additional words to this amendment, but I would sincerely ask you to consider allowing the payments to be part of the normal practice rather than requiring the Minister of Finance to judge on them and for them to be held up waiting for his approval to come through.

Hon. T. Perry: I don't wish to sound obtuse or mean-spirited. If there were a problem, I'd be glad to consider those amendments adding the words "as approved by the minister." The only difference, I think, between what the hon. member for Richmond-Steveston proposed and how the bill reads is that one would not want to encourage institutions to spend additional money. For example, there are cases now at one of the universities where arbitration is being contested at very high legal expense. The union may 

[ Page 8509 ]

win the arbitration. If the institution goes, as is possible, to tens of thousands of dollars, or even more, of legal expense and loses the arbitration, one has to question whether that's a sound use of moneys intended for post-secondary education. When a member of the Legislature or a minister works overtime during a labour dispute, we don't expect to be paid extra money. We don't normally expect that of administrators or non-union staff, although in some circumstances it's appropriate and fair that they should be paid overtime. Normally one expects the president, for example, serving at a fairly generous salary, to work whatever hours are required. I would not want to encourage the institutions to run up additional expenditures. If there had been a problem in the past with a punitive approach to these institutions, I think the amendment would be warranted, but I just don't think it's required under the circumstances.

F. Gingell: Dealing with the issue that you brought up under the heading of arbitration costs, in this financial environment -- in any financial environment -- I'm sure you would not encourage the institute that is being funded by the government to give up on the matter of the negotiation of salaries because of arbitration costs when they're trying to work within their budgets. Surely the costs of arbitration would better come out of savings made through salaries not paid during the strike, because that is a one-time saving and the arbitration is a one-time cost. Surely that's better than cutting down programs for students, which is the only alternative. Paying arbitration costs out of these reduced costs through the strike seems to me a perfectly logical practice. They're both one-time costs.

[6:45]

I agree with you that perhaps we should add to the end of the amendment "excluding wining and dining on Burrard Inlet," or whatever it is that got you upset before. But when people work long hours and under difficult circumstances because of strikes, often those social occasions -- not at the taxpayers' expense, but at their own expense -- are a sensible way to try to create some loyalty and recreate a sense of working together among the institute staff. It seems to me that you wouldn't want to be in the position of suggesting that the institution not go to arbitration, because the Minister of Finance may not approve those expenditures. Surely it's better to allow the institution to go to arbitration and try to get a fair and just settlement that the government treasury will see as fair, and pay for that out of the one-time savings.

Hon. T. Perry: I agree completely with the intent of the member, and that is encompassed in the phrase in the proposed bill: "...less the cost necessarily incurred by the institute, as a consequence of the withholding or lockout and approved by the minister." I would like to point out that the minister in this case, in this bill, is the Minister of Advanced Education, Training and Technology, not the Finance minister.

A. Warnke: I would just like to take another look at this amendment. The minister said that the government has already extended a generous consideration of additional costs and that sort of thing, and therefore the record proves itself. That's not the point; we're not really questioning that, but rather the context of any settlement where that may occur. Obviously there is going to be some loss to the institution if, for example, there is a concession of extra income or what not to employees; and what is being proposed here, in terms of an amendment, is to essentially cover costs. It's not providing an incentive for an institution to maintain the strike -- not at all. Institutions are in the business of making sure that services are rendered. Therefore there is no incentive whatsoever, as a result of the amendment, to maintain a strike. Since the incentive does not exist, I am still not convinced by the minister's argument that there is an incentive that this amendment would provide for continuing strikes. Perhaps the minister would just make a brief comment on that.

Hon. T. Perry: I recognize the good intent of the amendment, but given that none of the five institutions affected has expressed any discomfiture with the existing bill, I fail to see its necessity. Perhaps if the member could think of a more stimulating title, we might amend that section and get on with this.

Amendment negatived.

H. De Jong: When we look at section 1, and the intent of the recovery of this money, the minister mentioned that this would be strike savings. I have yet to hear of a strike where there were savings. In the educational field, where people attend university or BCIT -- the institutions referred to in this bill -- the students who attend pay their tuition fees. If part of a semester is interrupted by a strike, how does the minister want to see this dealt with? If some money had been saved because the instructors were on strike for a period of time, and if the students had paid their tuition fees for that semester -- let's say they did not receive instruction for three or four weeks.... Is the minister simply going to take that money back for that three or four weeks, or are the institutions in fact given an opportunity to play some catch-up with those students that may have been caught in the strike and have, as a result, missed three weeks of instruction?

Hon. T. Perry: The practice has been to show the maximum flexibility and sensitivity on such issues. We're getting a bit beyond the section, debating something that might more appropriately have been covered in the estimates. For example, at Langara, flexibility was shown in extending the instructional time after Christmas, if memory serves me right. Some additional instruction was provided to the students, and that was covered by the provincial grant, and we did not make an attempt to reclaim that money from the grant.

H. De Jong: There are certain gifts and annuities being paid to universities for specific purposes. How are they being dealt with? If some of these areas for 

[ Page 8510 ]

which the money was intended are being provided for through private enterprise -- say by gifts, probably from British Columbians -- would the minister take that into consideration in terms of collecting this money back? Surely he wouldn't want to collect money back that was given for a specific purpose.

Hon. T. Perry: Such money would not have been paid out, in the case of a strike, to the striking employees. It would remain within the treasury of the university concerned, for example, and it would be up to the board of governors and the administration what they then do with that money. It would not be ordinary practice to pay the striking workers after the settlement for work that they missed doing. It's usually the unfortunate consequence of a strike for the workers on strike that they don't get paid during the strike.

H. De Jong: I have a further question. The minister said that colleges are not impacted by these decisions. I understand that funds are already are being collected back from colleges when these situations occur. At an institution like BCIT, you might say that there are additional opportunities for education for a lot of people who are looking for a specific course but can't always get it. Does the minister not agree that BCIT, for instance, should be allowed to have some autonomy over the funds that were initially dedicated to that purpose? Couldn't the universities and BCIT be allowed to have that autonomy if they wish to replace or run additional courses that may even be asked for by the communities involved? Why would that not be a consideration? I see this as taking away a lot of the autonomy of well-intended boards serving a very good purpose at various institutions. These types of institutions should be allowed to continue to have that autonomy. I think that was the very reason these institutions were not included in the previous bill under the previous administration while other institutions were included. I sensed that the minister did not really approve of what the previous administration had done. Why change the whole gamut now and include them all in something that he wasn't in favour of in the first place?

Hon. T. Perry: It doesn't come easily to me to praise the former administration, but I do want the member to understand that in this case the former administration was on the right track. They didn't want to pay for a service that wasn't delivered. We thought they were so smart that we might as well apply the principle uniformly -- not only to the colleges, one of which is roughly as large as BCIT, but to BCIT, the Open Learning Agency and the three universities, and henceforth UNBC as well.

Where there have been strike savings and an institution like UBC, BCIT or VCC has had the brilliant idea to deliver additional service, we have been generous and transferred back some or much of that money. In other cases, where the priorities were deemed higher, it has gone back to the consolidated revenue fund for whatever other area of government spending was considered to be even more important. It's no different in principle from the way we divide up the total pie in the budget process; it has to be shared around.

H. De Jong: My final comment on this section is that I think it's wrong. I think the minister has taken a step into an area where a previous administration did not want to interfere. It was not an oversight, I'm sure. To include now the universities and BCIT, institutions very much in demand for quite a variety of types of instruction, and to put the kibosh on these types of institutions by collecting back some strike savings, as the minister describes them, is, I think, absolutely wrong.

D. Mitchell: I'd like to follow up on a comment made by the member for Abbotsford. I think the minister is very brave to come to the committee this evening unarmed, without officials, to defend Bill 15, which we had a very good debate on in second reading.

I take it that section 1, which we're reviewing right now in committee, is a fairly key section of this bill. This is a section of the bill that allows the government to achieve what the member for Abbotsford referred to as strike savings. It seems to be part of the government's plan to plan for labour relations chaos in the advanced education sector. As a result of planning for that, they now want to claw back the benefits that aren't paid during a labour dispute, whether it's a strike or a lockout. I wonder if the minister can tell us, because it's very unclear to me, what benefits his ministry achieves by this section of the bill. It's not clear to me that any of the savings would accrue directly back to the Ministry of Advanced Education, Training and Technology.

BCIT is a very important provincial institution, where I recently attended the Premier's Summit with the hon. minister. We would hope it would never see a labour dispute like the one we saw last year, which was quite prolonged -it went right to the brink. But if we did see that kind of a strike again, what benefits does the Ministry of Advanced Education get?

[7:00]

It would appear that the clawback -- the strike savings, so to speak, that in a very perverse way, are benefits from a labour dispute -- would go into the consolidated revenue fund of the province, or the slush fund that this government uses to fund pet projects. In my view, according to this bill, it would not go to the Ministry of Advanced Education, which is so desperately in need of further tax dollars to achieve its mandate. Could the minister confirm that?

Hon. T. Perry: Strange as it seems, the government is protecting the interests of the taxpayer.

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

On section 4.

J. Weisgerber: I'm interested in hearing from the minister the rationale for section 4. As I read it, the provision causes a change in the relationship between the Lieutenant-Governor and the universities. I'm 

[ Page 8511 ]

certainly not aware of any situation where the relationship with the current Lieutenant-Governor, or any previous ones, was strained in any way and where the Lieutenant-Governor was not welcome at the universities. It seems an unusual kind of reaction, and I would be curious.... The minister is looking very chipper, so he must have -- what he considers to be, at least -- some rationale for this particular section.

Hon. T. Perry: Had the hon. member maintained his near-perfect record of attendance in the House, during the second reading debate he would have known that this is an anachronistic provision of the law which required the Lieutenant-Governor to be the final arbitrator of disputes between students and the university authorities. It was a rarely used provision, which put the Lieutenant-Governor in the potentially embarrassing position of having to adjudicate the affairs of a student complaining about his or her marks, or expulsion from the university, and in a role not befitting the dignity of the Lieutenant-Governor. Therefore this section is advanced with his full consent -- and in fact, at the request of His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor -- and in complete deference to and respect for everything that he's done so magnificently for the universities in this province.

D. Mitchell: I was certainly in the House during second reading and heard the minister's comments at the time, but I don't recall that the minister really satisfactorily explained why this section is considered to be archaic. Certainly the ombudsman now has the power to serve as the final arbitrator of disputes in the universities, according to the proclamation of new sections of the Ombudsman Act, as of April 1 of this year. The universities now come under the jurisdiction of the ombudsman. So that power is there. This visitor status of the Lieutenant-Governor is a symbolic one. Why is it necessary at this time to change the symbolism of the role of the Lieutenant-Governor on university campuses?

Hon. T. Perry: For the very reason that the member just espoused. We now have a more appropriate mechanism in the provincial ombudsman's or ombudsperson's office, with trained staff whose legislative mandate is to conduct fair and impartial reviews and who have not only the experience but also the ability that, although the Lieutenant-Governor may personally have, the staff of a Lieutenant-Governor is not well equipped to supply. They have a modest staff, they have provincewide responsibilities, and the last thing the Lieutenant-Governor wants is to be drawn into what may potentially be a bitter dispute -- for example, a case where a student might be expelled from a university for threatening violence against staff. It would be unbecoming and unbefitting the dignity of the Lieutenant-Governor to be drawn into such disputes. We have a better alternative.

J. Weisgerber: Perhaps the minister would be kind enough to tell us the last time that the Lieutenant-Governor, in this capacity, was drawn into a situation which was difficult for the him or his staff to deal with. It is my belief that this is more a symbolic relationship between the Lieutenant-Governor and the universities, and I think it has some value. If the minister has evidence that Lieutenant-Governors have been troubled by these kinds of activities -- whether it's been a number of calls, or, even one call -- perhaps he could tell us whether there has been one instance in the last five years -- in the term of the current Lieutenant-Governor, who is approaching the end of his fifth year. I won't ask if there have been a number, but perhaps there has been one instance where the Lieutenant-Governor felt he had been drawn into a dispute in a way that was inappropriate for his office.

Hon. T. Perry: Yes, I believe that during the term of the incumbent Lieutenant-Governor there was one such occasion. I may be wrong; there may have been more than one. The change to the statute was at the request of the Lieutenant-Governor's office, and I can assure all hon. members that both this minister and the universities recognize that the incumbent, the Hon. David Lam, has probably been the most supportive, generous benefactor of the universities in B.C. in the history of the province, and that one would not have proceeded with this amendment without his full support.

J. Weisgerber: Just so that I am not confused by a lack of facts, perhaps the minister would give us some kind of a sense of the complaint that might have come from the university to the Lieutenant-Governor which caused this consternation in his office.

Hon. T. Perry: Perhaps consternation would be a slight exaggeration. As I recall, under the office and the University Act, there have been a number of incidents in which a student appealing against an assessment of marks or academic record made by the university, having exhausted the appeal process -- which, as I recall, involves not only the administration but the senate and ultimately the board of governors -- then appealed to the Lieutenant-Governor. It is very similar to, but in some ways even more difficult than the position in which a minister is put in being asked to hear appeals in a situation like that. It puts the Lieutenant-Governor, potentially -- and in rare instances, actually -- into a position of interference in the academic affairs of a university, which no modern Lieutenant-Governor would seek; nor does the incumbent. The incumbent Lieutenant-Governor has sent this bill as a message to the Legislative Assembly, signed by his own hand, in order that this statute might pass.

D. Mitchell: Mr. Chairman, the minister has repeated himself a few times on this, but the Leader of the Third Party asked a question that the Minister of Advanced Education has not addressed.

R. Neufeld: He doesn't know the answer.

[ Page 8512 ]

D. Mitchell: Perhaps he doesn't know the answer because he doesn't have any staff with him and he can't address it. It's unfortunate that he would come to the committee unprepared to answer a very specific question. He was asked whether or not this authority has been used by the Lieutenant-Governor. His recollection is vague; he thinks perhaps it might have been. He can't recall the circumstances; he doesn't know if the authority has been used or what for. It's hardly satisfactory to come to this committee unprepared to answer a question on a legislative amendment that he says is simple and non-controversial. But the minister is unprepared, he's incompetent and he can't answer those questions -- and that's unfortunate.

The issue here is the change that is being made to the status of His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor. The minister should realize that the question here does not relate to the authority of the Lieutenant-Governor as visitor, because that authority has not been exercised in modern times. In the schedule to section 8 of the Ombudsman Act that was proclaimed on April 1 of this year, that authority is now exercised by the ombudsman's office. That question has still not been answered. It's not dealing with the authority to be the arbiter of disputes; it deals with the symbolic nature of the office of His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor on university campuses. Why has that been eliminated?

Hon. T. Perry: The request came from Government House on behalf of the Lieutenant-Governor. The Lieutenant-Governor sometimes moves in mysterious ways, and I can't offer the hon. member all of the details he might require. Let me attempt once again to reassure all hon. members and the House that the Lieutenant-Governor will always be welcome as a visitor to our campuses -- not only so long as this minister occupies his post, but so long as any minister of the Crown holds office in this province, the Lieutenant-Governor shall always be welcome as a visitor, only he or she shall be a visitor with a small v, rather than a capital V.

[R. Kasper in the chair.]

D. Mitchell: Mr. Chairman, because the minister doesn't seem to understand why the Lieutenant-Governor is no longer going to have the status of Visitor on our university campuses, would the minister agree that perhaps his status as a visitor on university campuses should be revoked as well?

Hon. T. Perry: No. All British Columbians are entitled to visit any campus of their choosing.

Sections 4 and 5 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. T. Perry: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; E. Barnes in the chair.

Bill 15, Advanced Education, Training and Technology Statutes Amendment Act, 1993, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I call second reading of Bill 42.

CABINET APPEALS ABOLITION ACT

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm very pleased to begin second reading of the Cabinet Appeals Abolition Act, which is in many ways, I think, more effectively dealt with in this chamber by debate during committee stage. However, there is obviously a general principle involved in the bill, and I think it merits some discussion.

[7:15]

This bill is another step by the government toward fulfilling its commitment to provide open and balanced government. The bill amends 15 pieces of provincial legislation which currently allow cabinet to overturn the decisions of statutory decision-makers. By abolishing these cabinet appeals, the legislation ensures that statutory decision-makers are independent and free from improper political interference.

For years cabinet appeals have been subject to criticism from many quarters, including the Law Reform Commission of Canada and the Canadian Bar Association. Cabinet appeals rarely provide the full range of procedures required to ensure administrative fairness, and in the past they have been used to make backroom political decisions. This has had the effect of undermining the integrity of statutory decision-makers and of interfering in the rational development of guidelines and precedents. Some types of cabinet appeals have taken an inordinate amount of cabinet ministers' time, involving them in the adjudication of matters that raise no broad public policy issues. While abolishing cabinet appeals, we have recognized that the government has the responsibility to make decisions involving issues of major public policy and that it must make these decisions in a way that is open and accountable. This legislation strikes the balance between the need to ensure that decisions of statutory decision-makers are free from improper political interference and the need for government to make broad public policy decisions.

I would now like to describe some of the major changes made by this bill. Currently, the large majority of cabinet appeals are heard under the Agricultural Land Commission Act and the Motor Carrier Act, and I'll describe the amendments to these two acts in some details.

The amendments to the Agricultural Land Commission Act go beyond abolishing appeals to cabinet. The bill makes fundamental changes to the decision-making process around the agricultural land reserve. This government is delivering on its promise to restore the integrity of the agricultural land reserve by transferring decision-making powers under the act from cabinet to the Agricultural Land Commission. Under the existing legislation, all decisions on 

[ Page 8513 ]

applications by local governments for inclusion of land in or exclusion of land from the ALR are made by cabinet. The controversy involving the Terra Nova lands arose when cabinet made a decision on a local government application to exclude land from the ALR against the recommendation of the Agricultural Land Commission. Under the new law, these applications will be made to the Agricultural Land Commission, which will make a final decision. Under the existing law, individual owners making applications to the commission can appeal the commission's decision to the Environment and Land Use Committee of cabinet. The bill abolishes this appeal to ELUC.

This legislation confirms the government's commitment to preserving and enhancing the role of the Agricultural Land Commission as the protector of farmland. In playing this important role, the commission is not required to consider a broad range of interests; their decisions must focus on agricultural considerations. There may be rare instances, however, where an application before the Land Commission has such a significant impact that it needs to be more comprehensively considered. In these extraordinary cases, cabinet will have the power to suspend the proceedings before the Agricultural Land Commission and refer the matter to an independent board for consideration of its environmental, economic, social, cultural, heritage and agricultural effects. The board will hold a public hearing and make a public report to cabinet. In these rare cases, cabinet will make the final decision. The board is defined in the legislation as either the Environmental Assessment Board or, if that board has not been established, a commissioner or commissioners appointed under the Inquiry Act. In either case the board will be independent and will conduct an open and public review. We firmly believe that this process allows cabinet to exercise its responsibility to make significant land use decisions in an open and accountable manner.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

The Motor Carrier Act is the second piece of legislation under which cabinet appeals are frequent. In fact, cabinet hears as many as 50 or 60 appeals from decisions of the Motor Carrier Commission every year. The new legislation clarifies the existing practice of panels of one, two or three members of the commission making decisions on licence applications, amendments, suspensions and cancellations, and complaints. Under the new legislation any person aggrieved by a decision of the panel will be able to apply to have the decision reconsidered by a panel of three or more different members of the commission. Contrary to the procedure now being proposed, the existing legislation provides for an appeal to cabinet. The commission will be expanded to at least seven members to ensure that different members are sitting on initial hearings than on reconsiderations. The chair will continue to be the only full-time member, with the other members being paid on a per diem basis. This new process parallels decision-making associated with the Gaming Commission and the labour code.

In addition, the legislation abolishes cabinet appeals in 13 other acts. I won't take the time to describe each one in detail but will briefly review the changes. Where appropriate, the bill establishes an alternative appeal process. For example, where the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources cancels a licence or lease for failure to provide information under the Natural Gas Price Act or the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act, the new legislation provides that the holder of the licence or lease may appeal to the Supreme Court. Decisions of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources to suspend a licence or lease under the Coal Act or the Mineral Tenure Act will be subject to more narrow review under the Judicial Review Procedure Act.

The cabinet appeal under the Name Act will be abolished. Under the existing legislation a decision of the director of vital statistics to refuse a change of name can be appealed to the minister and then to cabinet. Under the new legislation an appeal will go to the Supreme Court and then, with leave, to the Court of Appeal.

The Soil Conservation Act is amended to abolish appeals to the Environment and Land Use Committee from enforcement action taken by local government or the Agricultural Land Commission under the act.

The bill also abolishes the cabinet appeal in the Mineral Land Tax Act, the Creston Valley Wildlife Act, the Park Act, the Hospital District Act and the Municipal Act. The cabinet appeal in each of these acts has never been used. Under the new legislation, the decision of the statutory decision-maker will be final, subject only to judicial review.

Finally, cabinet appeals under the Company Act are replaced by an appeal to the Commercial Appeals Commission.

This bill abolishes a process that was a hallmark of closed government and backroom decision-making. In doing so, it ensures that decisions are free from political interference and are subject to the rules of natural justice. Hon. Speaker, I move the bill be read a second time now.

A. Warnke: I won't go on too long about Bill 42 simply because I agree with the Attorney General that many of the questions that should be put forward more properly belong at committee stage -- and many questions there are.

On the whole, one could sympathize with the position put forward by the Attorney General that some move has to be made away from the idea of backroom deals and all the rest of it. The example of former Premier Vander Zalm comes to mind, and maybe I'll just leave it at that. There was a lot of controversy surrounding some of those decisions. Unfortunately, we still have to be very cognizant, not only of what actually exists but of what the appearance is. Some of the actions surrounding the former Premier have certainly laid the foundation for what has been presented today by the Attorney General. On the other hand, we still have to be very careful: appeals to cabinet place a tremendous burden on cabinet, but the right to appeal to cabinet has sometimes been seen in the past as most appropriate 

[ Page 8514 ]

simply because somewhere along the line there is something called administrative responsibility, which necessarily links members of the executive council with the decisions made by the administrative apparatus.

As I analyze the bill and its arguments as presented by the Attorney General, I suspect that we are dealing with a classic example of a trade-off. The move in one direction is actually quite positive and constructive, because it has to come to terms with some of the problems of the past, and we've got to resolve those problems. At the same time, by moving in another direction we give up something, and I think in this case we are giving up an element of administrative responsibility. So I am not sure that the new structure, especially in a parliamentary system, facilitates what we are trying to achieve. In other words, we are really making the classic trade-off, and we are now moving in a direction where we have to go through considerable experience to see what merit there is. There is clearly some distance between administrative responsibility and the decision being made, which negates or undermines some accountability. We shall see, but sometimes it's not always advisable to say that because things have gone so wrong in the past that we now have to move in a different direction, one that may actually put us in uncharted waters where we also have some problems.

The reason this is important is that any time we negate administrative responsibility it puts a tremendous onus on the public servant. In one way, it's good for the government to create an arm's-length distance between decisions that are being made and members of the executive council, but in other respects it puts a tremendous onus on the public servant. Somewhere along the line, public servants must be held accountable for their decisions. I am mentioning this as the potential trade-off. Whenever we establish a commission -- as with the Motor Carrier Commission.... I can sympathize with the problem of cabinet hacing to deal with 50 or 60 applications for appeals. Establishing a commission is the way to go in one sense. The other way, of course, is to place a tremendous onus of responsibility on the public servant -- in this case, members of the commission. While the question is put there, there is another aspect: where do the members of the commission come from? They could come from patronage appointments. As a result, the government is not really distancing itself from the decision. They are in terms of responsibility, but the arm's length that is created means that the decision isn't non-political. The decision made by a commission could be just as political as if the cabinet was involved.

[7:30]

I'm not sure what benefits and losses are incurred as a result of such a trade-off. There are, no doubt, certain advantages for the government and the executive council as a result of having an arm's-length approach. Members of the official opposition have taken a look at this bill, and once again we note that another pattern has evolved among the various bills that are before us. There is a pattern of the executive council and government relinquishing decisions and trying to establish an arm's length from decisions that are potentially politically sensitive -- in other words, that the government is vulnerable on. We're wondering to what extent this is a pattern in which the government is trying to extricate itself from sticky wickets, from those kinds of questions that can get a government into a lot of trouble. Suppose there was a problem as a result of a public servant making a very serious error of judgment or, more than that perhaps, making a kind of decision that should go through the rigorous scrutiny of the House. Under this scheme, how is it possible to question members of the executive council? The members of the executive council can easily say: "Well, we're at arm's length from it. There is a distinct boundary between us and the public servant involved. Hence we are not responsible."

That's not really the way our system works or develops. When there are very serious decisions being made within the administrative apparatus, somewhere along the line that should be accountable within the Legislature itself. I suspect we're gradually moving to a system whereby decisions made by public servants are not subject to a rigorous questioning in the House. That's one concern we do have.

Nonetheless, I appreciate the area that the Attorney General has pointed out where this still allows cabinet to have some sort of final say in very important and sensitive questions dealing with the Agricultural Land Commission that are "in the provincial interest." It's not a final say that would be subject to rigorous scrutiny, but the cabinet still possesses the option to intervene in extraordinary circumstances. Frankly, I can see the merit of that approach. But as one critiques the bill, it stimulates the thought in one's mind that if cabinet still possesses the option to intervene in extraordinary circumstances, then where is the line? Does cabinet have a final say in it or not?

Perhaps in his summary remarks the Attorney General could respond to the view that has been expressed that as long as something called the provincial interest allows cabinet to have the final say in matters, this sort of change with regard to cabinet and its relation to questions before the Agricultural Land Commission is just cosmetic. Mundane or ordinary appeals are sloughed off to somewhere else, but where it's critically important simply because the "provincial interest" can be defined in many different ways, or can be defined as whatever is convenient to members of the executive council, in the last analysis, cabinet still possesses quite a range to intervene not only in extraordinary circumstances, but in what it deems to be an extraordinary circumstance. In that context, have we really gotten rid of some of the concern initially expressed by the Attorney General? Perhaps not, because a Premier or members of the executive council who are really bent on having a particular decision made in a particular way can still use this "provincial interest" clause to somehow intervene in the process. So there are a number of questions as to what all is involved in the so-called new method. But I will be fair to the Attorney General and await some of the summary remarks that he will make in this regard.

As for the Motor Carrier Commission, I want to raise the point that the Motor Carrier Commission is in 

[ Page 8515 ]

charge of both a decision and an appeal. In several other acts the right to appeal the decision of a minister or a statutory body is taken away from the cabinet and yet is still subject to review under the Judicial Review Procedure Act. So there is a problem of the logic behind eliminating appeals to cabinet in this kind of context. There is also the question of individuals and companies who want to appeal. Their only recourse is the Judicial Review Procedure Act. Here it perhaps provides quite a problem in that if a decision is made by government and it is of a non-legal nature, then as I read this bill the individual companies cannot really use the Judicial Review Procedure Act to question that decision. The Judicial Review Procedure Act is only limited to errors of legal logic. Therefore, in this context as well, a government can really distance itself from politically sensitive issues, because if there is an appeal under the Judicial Review Procedure Act questioning a decision, an individual or company has to do it only in the context of the legal logic or the legal reasoning.

Section 5 of Bill 42 contains a lot of questions and concerns, which we will have to explore at committee stage. So on the basis of what I'm presenting I can sympathize, in a sense, with where the Attorney General is coming from, especially given some of the recent experiences in this province: specifically, where members of cabinet and executive council, including the Premier's office, can interfere seriously with such things as the Agricultural Land Commission. I don't doubt that. But at the same time, I think the opposition would like to see a lot more explanation before we can fully support the bill.

J. Weisgerber: I'm rising to speak on this decision to abolish cabinet appeals, because I believe it's a bad decision. I believe it's a decision that puts decision-makers, elected people, particularly cabinet, one more step removed from people who are affected by the decisions of government. I believe there should be an avenue in particular circumstances and on specific issues, particularly in areas that are difficult to legislate precisely, for people to come to a committee of cabinet and appeal decisions.

I see a disturbing trend with this government, a government that wants to legislate for every situation and for every circumstance. Perhaps that explains, at least in some measure, the reason that we're here in the middle of July with an enormous pile of legislation still on the order paper. Maybe it's because the government has decided that it is going to write legislation that will cover every situation, and that there will only be, then, a requirement to interpret the legislation that exists.

Surely the Attorney General, having been in that position now for 18 months or so, must have seen, and must see, situations that simply can't be legislated for. We saw earlier, this past week, the Attorney General bring in changes to the Liquor Control and Licensing Act, changes that would take all of the authority and give it to the general manager, with the expectation that that individual would be able to make all of the value judgments that would be required around liquor licensing -- admittedly, another very contentious issue around which there can be a lot of concern and dissatisfaction with decisions. But I believe that people elected to government and people appointed to cabinet should be prepared from time to time to sit down and listen directly to the appeals made by individuals affected by the regulations and by the decisions of boards and commissions appointed by the cabinet.

During the last government, I spent a number of days -- weeks, probably -- on various appeal commissions and boards. I've listened to agricultural land decision appeals and I've listened to appeals from the Motor Carrier Commission. I believe that those appeals can provide a useful service. There should be that opportunity for individuals, when they've exhausted all of the other avenues, to come to cabinet concerning a bureaucratic decision that fundamentally affects their own livelihood and the welfare of their families. There should be that opportunity to come to cabinet, particularly in areas where you can't legislate or regulate or anticipate every circumstance that might arise. That, I believe, has been the reason that there are so many appeals of Agricultural Land Commission decisions and Motor Carrier Commission decisions.

The minister indicated, and the legislation points out, a number of acts where the appeal to cabinet has never been used. One could argue that that would be a legitimate reason for removing or repealing the appeal to cabinet. I suppose you could argue just as much that if it has never been used, then it isn't going to bother anyone a great deal and it may well provide some comfort to people who might consider appeals under those acts. But here we're primarily talking about appeals under the Motor Carrier Act and under the Agricultural Land Commission Act. I can think of countless circumstances that, if there is no appeal to cabinet, would require that someone who is appointed, hired or working for the government make a decision that is contrary to the regulations, and the only logical decision in that particular circumstance is one that contradicts the legislation or the regulation. If there is a rationale for having appeals, that should be it.

I'm a bit surprised and a little offended by the Attorney General's reference -- not once, but twice -- to improper political interference and backroom political deals. It seems to me that the most current example of a decision under appeal from the Agricultural Land Commission -- the ELUC appeal of a decision by the commission -- is the decision made by the cabinet, of which the Attorney General is a part, in Kamloops at the Six Mile Ranch. You could argue, and I would argue, that the benefits to Kamloops of the Six Mile project made it appropriate to overturn the decision of the Agricultural Land Commission. Under the current amendments, I'm not sure that the development of that golf course facility would qualify as an extraordinary circumstance of provincial magnitude.

[7:45]

I can understand why the government wanted to make the decision they did with the Six Mile Ranch, after the Premier had betrayed the people of Kamloops on the cancer clinic decision and after the government appointed a Minister of Transportation and Highways and then took away the minister's budget to do road 

[ Page 8516 ]

construction that happened to be centred in Kamloops. It was a good decision for Kamloops, and I'm sure the member for Kamloops-North Thompson would agree with that. I'm not sure whether he lobbied cabinet to hear an appeal. I know that he recognizes that under this proposed legislation, it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to explain. It's not such an extraordinary issue; it's not of such provincial magnitude that it would be covered under this legislation.

Perhaps the government will be able to pick and choose which appeals it is going to hear, and when it feels a particular political sensitivity, as it is feeling in Kamloops -- as it should feel and probably will continue to feel in Kamloops -- then these rules may well be bent again. If another circumstance arises in Kamloops, where the government feels the need to compensate for the incredibly bad decision made by the Premier during the election and the change afterwards.... I don't know whether the kind of backroom political deal that the Attorney General was talking about was the Six Mile Ranch deal. I'm sure that in his mind he doesn't think of it as a backroom political deal; nor does he, I suppose, think of it as improper political interference. But one could argue that it was both. At the same time one could argue -- I think rightly so -- that the Six Mile Ranch decision was a good decision, that it met the needs of British Columbians and that it was outside the jurisdiction of the commission to make the ruling that fit the circumstances. I would argue that it is precisely the kind of issue that should come to a cabinet committee for appeal.

If you hon. Speaker or the Premier thinks, or the members of cabinet think, that this was the only situation that's ever going to arise where a decision to cabinet -- perhaps not on an issue of provincial magnitude, but on an issue very important to a community or to a group in a community -- won't arise again, then you're sadly mistaken. These kinds of situations arise regularly, and the appropriate way to deal with them is through an appeal to cabinet. I think it is a mistake not to.

I've sat on more motor carrier appeals than I cared to. I came to Victoria on Sunday nights so I could be here on a Monday morning to sit on an appeal rather than my normal pattern of flying down on Monday mornings. I learned that there were numerous circumstances where people were genuinely aggrieved by decisions of the commission, which at the same time were consistent with the regulations that the commission was working with. I don't think it was appropriate for the commission to overrule or override its own regulations and its own legislation, but it was appropriate for a cabinet committee to make that kind of decision.

I'm not going to stand here and tell you that every decision made by a cabinet committee on appeal was the right decision. There are always two sides to those arguments. I know from my experience that more times than not the people appealing a decision of the commission were not successful when they appealed to cabinet. But they did have the opportunity, along with the commission, to come and argue their case. In most cases that I recall, the commission brought representatives, sometimes legal representatives, as did the parties aggrieved by the decision. Everybody had an opportunity to make one last appeal on the decision.

I think the government is making a serious mistake. It is a serious mistake to take away from British Columbians the right to appeal to the people who are making regulations and legislation. I also believe that the cabinet does itself a disservice by insulating itself from the day-to-day realities of individual British Columbians who find themselves up against regulation and bureaucracy where many times they feel powerless. I don't know how many times the Attorney General has had the opportunity to sit on those commissions, but I'm sure that on those appeals he must have gained insight from hearing about the impacts of the decisions made by the various groups, which were in some cases accountable to or appointed by him. So I'm going to listen with a good deal of interest to the comments made by the Attorney General and perhaps by other members of the cabinet who feel they have an insight into this. I am going to say again that I sat on a number of these decisions -- I couldn't count how many of them -- but I don't genuinely believe that I was ever involved in a decision that either involved improper political interference in a decision or one that involved backroom political deals. I don't know who the people were who sat in on the decision made with the Six Mile Ranch, but I can guarantee you that they would feel that they were no more involved than I in either of those kinds of activities. The point is that most of these decisions were entirely appropriate under the circumstances. There are bad decisions. We can argue that decisions were made with less than proper motives. It's easy to allege those kinds of things, as I have demonstrated in the case of the one appeal that was heard by the cabinet. So there will have to be a good deal more convincing done over the next little while before I would support the legislation we are now discussing -- the Cabinet Appeals Abolition Act.

H. De Jong: I am pleased to rise in debate on the principle of the bill, because I think it's a very serious matter. The government proposes to abolish appeals to cabinet. This bill denies British Columbians the right to appeal decisions made by bureaucrats. Even though those bureaucrats may have had a certain amount of direction, they also have their limitations within that direction. The government argues that this bill will take political interference out of the government process. I don't think it does. I believe it is designed to give the government a cop-out from dealing with difficult issues, even though the minister has said some very important issues may come to cabinet.

Who is to decide which issues are eventually going to end up at cabinet for a final decision? Are they only those where people are represented by a battery of lawyers? Or is it perhaps -- which would be more appropriate -- a sincere desire of a community? I am specifically thinking about taking land out of the ALR for an expansion to a community. I don't agree that this is the logical approach. It is not an approach to people electing a government. People elect a government 

[ Page 8517 ]

democratically. They feel that they can expect democratic actions from a democratically elected government.

The minister talks about backroom decisions. If that is any indication of what this current government is doing when they make decisions on certain issues, then it would be applaudable to have this bill. I don't think that is really the reason this government is bringing it forward. I believe that they want to be an open and honest government; they have said this time and time again. Why not come out and be open and honest rather than hiding behind a bunch of bureaucrats?

I'm sure that many of us have served in local government. Local government probably deals more often with land use decisions than any other level of government. Are we suggesting by this that locally elected governments shouldn't deal with those issues, that they should be left up to the bureaucrats? I can see the howl and scream coming from many, many people in the community. I've made some difficult decisions along with Matsqui council on various land use issues. With some you take political risk; with others you don't. I think the reason people elect a government is for the government to make decisions. Sometimes those decisions are risky from a political point of view.

I believe that this is simply a cop-out and nothing else by this government. To put so many things in the hands of unelected people to deal with and finalize flies in the face of many things that people feel government should be doing for them. After all, they're elected to make decisions. More specifically, I'm very much surprised that in fact this Cabinet Appeals Abolition Act covers the Agricultural Land Commission Act, because the Agricultural Land Commission is in fact a part of the Agriculture ministry. It has always been administered through the Ministry of Agriculture, and here we see an abolition of the appeal process under a different bill coming from a different minister.

It's just as if the Minister of Agriculture doesn't dare face the opposition on this particular issue because he knows full well that the mandate of the Agricultural Land Commission is so narrow and is so narrowly defined that it only deals with the preservation of farmland. That is the issue. They don't have to look at the community needs. They don't have to look at the growth of any community in terms of residential or industrial -- or for any other reason. The land commission simply has to look at whether that land should be preserved for agriculture or not. That is not a mandate that many of the applications should have to go through a second time for an appeal process, because they have that very narrow mandate. So I fail to understand where the minister and this government are coming from by eliminating the cabinet appeals on these.

[8:00]

In fact, there have been many good suggestions brought forward to the government as to how it could be done differently -- perhaps by having some mechanism between the land commission decision and cabinet -- which I believe the ministry and this minister in particular are very much aware of -- that would allow for a lot of public process in each community -- non-political, even. That's the suggestion. And I think that then we would have some community input, and cabinet could make a decision in the end that would reflect those communities' wishes. But it's absent in this bill; there is nothing of it.

Even under the most difficult situations, as the minister said, there may be applications that need special consideration. The minister hasn't been clear on what kind of a process is going to be done there. Perhaps the minister is thinking about applications that are of a community nature, rather than an individual wishing to subdivide or have a piece of land out of the ALR without proper community backing. But the minister should realize that by tightening up more and more not only the process but also the mandate -- we haven't heard of any changes to the land commission or how to deal with these applications in the meantime -- the minister should have produced something at this point in time saying that there is going to be a change in the land commission's mandate. Then we could be more comfortable with this process, even though I don't agree with it.

Also, if the minister would be more supportive of community involvement on the applications, then the government would feel more comfortable in making decisions, even though at times those decisions may be politically risky. That's really the situation as I see it. I have great difficulty in accepting this bill. In fact, I cannot accept it, and I will certainly vote against it. I will ask many questions on the process during third reading.

C. Serwa: It's a pleasure to rise and speak on the philosophy and principles of Bill 42, the Cabinet Appeals Abolition Act. It may in fact be a misnomer, because it appears to me that it's a cabinet governance abolition act or perhaps, more aptly, a cabinet cop-out act.

This is a very serious matter when we look at democracy in action. I've listened to the minister's presentation in second reading, but I am also mindful of the judge and jury system. While we can make all sorts of challenges to the validity of an individual being tried by a group of his peers -- not educated in law as professionals -- nevertheless there is an abundant degree of confidence in the ultimate justice of the system of a judge and 12 jurors.

One would think that with the knowledge of the legal system, a judge alone would render a verdict that would be readily accepted by the population at large -- or if not that, perhaps a group of eight, ten or 12 judges. But that doesn't seem to be the case. There's an abiding confidence in the peer group being part and parcel of that ultimate judgment.

In this particular case, a government is elected. A government should be elected on the faith, trust and confidence of the public, and they should also be able to shoulder the burden of responsibility to maintain that faith, trust and confidence. We're well aware that not all decisions are black and white, and that there may be some controversy attached to decisions. But when we look at the cynicism that is out there, we see nothing in the Cabinet Appeals Abolition Act that encourages a 

[ Page 8518 ]

reduction in the amount of cynicism. Here the government is saying: "We're not capable of listening to appeals" -- that's perhaps one side of it -- or "We're not interested in listening to appeals." The reality is that neither course holds much water, and it's going back to the judge and jury system.

There has to be confidence in the system; there has to be accessibility to the elected members. I note that when constituents come into my constituency office with a problem, they want to see me rather than my constituency assistant, who is perhaps more capable of handling it than I am. Nevertheless, the fact is that there is confidence in the individual they vote for, as there must be confidence in the government of the province of British Columbia. Part of that confidence is attained and maintained by the full and complete acceptance of responsibility. Certainly the appeal of an individual has to go to cabinet, if we're to live in a democracy.

I understand the concern of the hon. Attorney General, when he talks about the integrity of the agricultural land reserve. Well, there are many schools of thought. I've said in the past that I thought it was perhaps the greatest theft that was ever perpetrated on a free society by a duly elected government. That's my impression of it. What happened? Under English common law property owners had certain rights, and some of those rights were taken away from those property owners, and absolutely no compensation was given. This is a flagrant abuse of British common law, where simply by mandate, the government took something on the basis of the fact that they were government -- without any compensation whatsoever. So fundamentally it was wrong to start with.

The concern with the integrity of the agricultural land reserve, right now, is that the Agricultural Land Commission has a very strict and tight mandate, which is to preserve agricultural land. Agricultural land can be clearly defined with only four or five narrow parameters: type of soil, climatic conditions -- perhaps precipitation, perhaps slope -- and that sort of thing. If the elements are there, regardless of the class of agricultural land, rather than the opportunity for economic viability in that class of agricultural land, it is classified as agricultural land, and the Agricultural Land Commission is mandated to preserve it. They have no recourse to any other judgmental aspect. It's clear-cut with very tight parameters.

We have an expanding community. The Agricultural Land Commission is not required to allocate land for a growing or expanding community, but cabinet could make that decision. What we have right now is a hodgepodge type of development. We're bypassing and sort of hooking up services on a random basis -- a very expensive process -- to bits and pieces of land that are not agricultural in nature. This is a substantial cost not only to municipal governments but certainly to individuals who are trying to buy affordable land so they can have affordable housing.

The other side of the coin is that in our zeal to protect what we consider to be valuable agricultural land for the future, we are moving developments -- certainly in the interior -- up into the higher elevations. The greatest environmental threat we have in the province of British Columbia is deforestation. That's clearly evident and almost a worldwide concern. Here we're moving development up and encouraging deforestation. The other thing is, of course, that we're moving people and their animals -- dogs especially -- into elevations that are fairly select and minimal in quantity, which are the wintering range for ungulates in the province.

There are a number of things that the Agricultural Land Commission cannot take into consideration. The government and certainly the hon. Attorney General has to be very aware that the public has different perspectives, and that there are concerns that the system, through legislation, is not capable of judging accurately and fairly.

The hon. Attorney General indicated that a different group, a trio of members of the Agricultural Land Commission, will look at the issue. I'm really not comforted by that form of objectivity. I suggest that it would make no difference. The wish will be to protect itself, and decisions by the appeal process will be consistent with the original decisions. I'm not deluded into thinking that some semblance of objective fairness will be the result.

Cabinet has to accept the responsibility for which they were elected. I grant that each cabinet member has the ability to participate in all of the appeal processes, whether it's the agricultural land reserve or the Motor Carriers Act. At some point an awareness, an understanding and a sense of balance of the type of appeals that come through the system has to impact cabinet. Cabinet then is acutely aware, on a day-to-day basis, if the system is not attending as it should to the question of the fairness and balance of appeals. If it does not come to cabinet, then that awareness won't be there. They will not be impacted in the same way. Each statistic represents an individual who feels that they weren't treated fairly by the system. The system itself develops biases, and it has its own agenda. It may not be the political agenda, but the agenda of the bureaucracy. They have a certain mandate, and they will be consistent within that mandate. It's up to cabinet to be able to check on what is happening with the system. If there are too many appeals, then someone in the system is really failing. The public is not being treated fairly, or perhaps legislative changes have to be made.

In all sincerity, the semblance of fairness and balance has to come from a cabinet awareness and acceptance of its responsibility. I realize that being a cabinet minister is a very busy role. There's no question of that. There aren't enough hours in the day or enough days in the week; I suppose we should go to a metric week and I don't know what sort of a month. I know the demands, but I also know that fundamental to the carrying out of democracy is the ability of cabinet, the executive branch of government, to respond to the appeals and the concerns of the ordinary folk out there when they feel that they have not been treated fairly or consistently by the bureaucracy. The bureaucracy has different interpretations. In the Ministry of Environment I determined that different regions of the province interpreted government policy differently. There was 

[ Page 8519 ]

an inconsistency in the handling of similar issues in different regions of the province.

This is where matters have to come to the attention of cabinet. The bureaucracy is not elected, and they are not accountable in the manner that cabinet is. I don't have the opportunity of holding the bureaucracy accountable, although we have made positive gains. To his credit, the Attorney General had his deputy minister respond to several questions during estimates in the Douglas Fir Room. That was a historical moment in the province, because it was the leading edge of civil service accountability in B.C. I hope it continues. There are different agendas. There's a government agenda and an opposition agenda, but as I've enunciated, there are also bureaucratic agendas. Simply because of their awareness of the situation and their belief that they're moving the right way, they can move in ways that are convenient to them but not fair or balanced for British Columbians.

[8:15]

I don't see this as an opportunity to restore integrity in the appeal process. Cabinet, the executive branch of government, is the source of that integrity. In this particular process you're abdicating cabinet from the responsibility. It was elected to handle this type of matter; it is incumbent on cabinet to really look at this. I would earnestly hope and recommend that the hon. Attorney General withdraw this piece of legislation. It is very wrong indeed. I understand the intent and the concern of the hon. Attorney General, but I also feel that it will fail. It will fail because we will continue to lose the confidence of the public in the responsibilities of government. Government cannot be the nice guy and say: "They did it. They were responsible; what are we to do? We're really nice guys at heart, and if we had anything to say, we would change it, but we can't interfere." I don't think that's appropriate. I really believe that it's an absolute cop-out.

In the agricultural land reserve we had a situation -- it was the Agricultural Land Commission in our administration -- where there was a grower in the Kelowna area with 40 acres of orchard. He had invested a considerable amount of money in upgrading one 20-acre portion of that orchard. He went to high-density dwarf tree plantings, which is the current technology in the orchard industry, but he ran out of money. He had borrowed a great deal from the bank. He made an appeal to split the 40-acre parcel into two 20-acre parcels. Neither the Agricultural Land Commission nor the Minister of Agriculture of the day, Hon. John Savage, would give permission for this to go to ELUC. The net result was the orchardist lost his investment and lost his property. That's really a problem. It's not much of a problem if you look at statistics. But that was a really serious problem for the individual who had lost, through no fault of his own. Simply the realities and economies of the orchard industry have been very tough. Endeavouring to preserve what the minister refers to as the integrity of the agricultural land reserve put this individual in an untenable position.

There is a responsibility incumbent on government to recognize the increasing levels of technology, even in agriculture. We know that in the growing and vibrant greenhouse industry, we can be very competitive; we can sell lettuce to California as cheaply or cheaper than they can grow it. We can produce things like that. But when you look at the economic viability of growing one crop a year on agricultural land, which is not something of any concern to the Agricultural Land Commission, it doesn't really make sense. That's where the responsibility of cabinet comes in. Yes, cabinet will perhaps make wrong or unpopular decisions, but it is cabinet's responsibility to do that. None of us is ever going to be 100 percent correct, and there may be, as the hon. opposition critic said, some cynicism, skepticism and the perception of backroom deals. Our hon. leader indicated, with reference to the Kamloops deal, that we thought it was a good and positive decision. We're not making political hay; we're not talking about backroom deals. It was a responsible decision that cabinet actually participated in, and that's what I would like to see encouraged.

I think cabinet has to be responsible. They're elected to accept that responsibility in all areas, whether it's the agricultural land reserve, the Motor Carrier Act, the Coal Act, the Company Act or the Wildlife Act. There comes a point in time when the buck has to stop somewhere. That buck has to stop where the individuals are elected, where they have a vested interest in making a decision and where cabinet will not procrastinate. Because they know they have to make the decision, they will strive to make the best decision on the information that they have available. Cabinet made a very difficult decision on Clayoquot, but I think it was the appropriate decision; I have no difficulty with it. Cabinet has to make it, not the Ministry of Forests, the Ministry of Environment, some bureaucratic group or, perhaps even worse, a group appointed by cabinet that is simply mirroring and doing what cabinet directs them to do. I don't think we will gain the confidence of the public in that type of system. The confidence of the public will only be maintained when the government fully and completely accepts its responsibility to govern.

The appeals process is fundamental in our democratic system. We have to be able to reach out and touch and get the ear of those we elected. I may not be right in my appeal, but if the system has failed me, I can only assure you again that the system will be consistent in its decision, because there is no reason to be inconsistent. There is no reason to expand and look at a number of elements that cabinet in fact is required to look at.

So whether the decisions are good or bad, right, wrong or indifferent, it's my firm belief that if democracy is to survive in the province of British Columbia, cabinet must accept its responsibility and continue to maintain that responsibility by being the final judge in the appeal process. Yes, it's not a very positive environment to be the one to make these hard decisions, but we weren't elected simply to evade decisions. I see that Bill 42, the Cabinet Appeals Abolition Act, while I understand its intent, is fundamentally flawed because it will increase the cynicism of what is happening in British Columbia. Any 

[ Page 8520 ]

mitigation of what I believe is part and parcel of the democratic process, by our government or by the current government, I think is very wrong, and the people are ill-served by this particular piece of legislation.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'll just make a few comments in closing. Much of what has been canvassed would technically be better dealt with in various parts of committee stage debate. Nonetheless, there are some principles here. In particular, I think the third party has raised some important issues that need to be dealt with.

I've been sitting here trying to decide how to respond to this, and it's tempting to make a political and partisan speech. I'm going to resist that, other than one comment. The one comment is that I actually don't think the third party understood what British Columbians were saying to them when they voted a year and a half ago. There were a lot of different reasons why people voted the way they did in the last election, but for many people the choice came down to a revulsion of the behaviour of the government in respect to decisions, in particular individual decisions respecting farmland. I mentioned in my comments on second reading that Terra Nova was a prime example of that; other examples abound.

The members say that it's important -- and I'll leave the politics out of it -- that cabinet have a say. Well, cabinet does and should have a say in setting the policy, in setting the regulations, in setting all of the rules around which decisions are made. But cabinet doesn't listen to appeals now on failure to get a driver's licence. An individual may go up against a bureaucrat and be turned down. That person doesn't have the right to appeal to cabinet to get their driver's licence, nor should they; it would be ridiculous. They don't have the right to appeal to cabinet for a licence to operate a casino, nor should they; the Gaming Commission makes that decision. Individuals who fail to get a liquor licence don't have the right to come to cabinet to appeal for a different decision from cabinet, nor should they. If cabinet starts making those kinds of individual decisions, we are open to all kinds of abuse -- which has occurred. The members say it hasn't, and I'm not going to go into chapter and verse, which occupying this office for 18 months gives me an opportunity to do should I wish to, and I haven't. I've chosen instead to follow a course which ensures that never again will decision-making be subject to political whim without due process. This is the critical issue here. The decisions that are made by commissions or by administrative decision-makers are made with due process. Within cabinet there is no due process; it is a political decision behind closed doors. To the hon. member for Peace River South, the hon. Leader of the Third Party, the press weren't there listening in the cabinet room to the decisions around motor carrier appeals. That's not how the system works.

Interjection.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: That's right, they're not in any cabinet meeting. Cabinets should not be making behind-closed-doors decisions that can financially or otherwise benefit an individual. That process should be in the open, it should be clear, it should be public, and it should follow due process. That's what we're very much concerned about here.

There are really only two issues in this legislation that have been talked about in any significant way. One is motor carrier and the other is agricultural land. I think the issues are different in each case and should be dealt with differently. If there are to be cabinet appeals with motor carrier decisions, then too there should be cabinet appeals in all of the other areas I cite -- in particular, gaming and liquor, because to have it in one and not the others is illogical and inconsistent. I don't hear members arguing that cabinet should hear appeals on individual liquor licence applications. In fact, most members of this House are pleased that we're moving in the other direction -- albeit perhaps imperfectly at the present time, which I'm prepared to acknowledge.

Nonetheless, as a society we are moving away from having individual decisions or decisions that can financially benefit individuals being made in cabinet. We're hopefully having those made increasingly in forums that provide due process and are governed by clear rules which are determined by cabinet and by the Legislature. So motor carrier is really clear in that respect. Agricultural land is a little more complex and requires the kind of careful thought that I think we gave agricultural land issues. Yes, there are circumstances where the best public policy in respect of a parcel of land may not be purely agricultural even though it might be class 1 or 2 land. We recognize that. We have in this legislation enabled a process to accomplish that.

Cabinet can, if it decides it's in the public interest, refer the decision on a particular issue to a public process. It's not a cabinet process where nobody knows what the proponents are saying and nobody knows why the decision was made, but a public process -- a public report to cabinet so that if cabinet makes a different decision it will have to face the scrutiny and the test of public opinion. That's the way we have dealt with the issue of needing to allow for a decision which is broader than simply agricultural concerns. Cabinet can then face the wrath of the voters if it makes a lot of decisions that are inconsistent with the voters' will.

[8:30]

The previous New Democrat government to this one made a decision years ago. Given British Columbia had so little agricultural land, we were going to take a pretty dramatic step, and that was to say that we were going to do whatever we could to preserve that agricultural land. Subsequent governments watered down the legislation -- to the point where much of that agricultural land has been lost. I grew up in the Okanagan...

Interjection.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Well, members have different opinions.

[ Page 8521 ]

...on a farm that is now within a village. Right next to that farm on nice agricultural land that used to grow good crops of peaches and other soft fruits is now a junk yard for old cars. Oil is seeping into the ground on good farmland. It breaks one's heart in a province that has so little agricultural land. When I go through my old hometown I see subdivisions on property that belonged to parents of kids I used to go to school with, kids whose families were making a living from that land. I see the kind of pressures that have occurred. Why? Because the previous government watered down the legislation and took away the ability of the Agricultural Land Commission to actually preserve farmland.

L. Fox: Where would you put the people?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The member says: "Where would you put the people?" We are not having a debate here to repeat the 1973 debate on the Agricultural Land Act. If we were, I would give a long answer to that question. There is plenty of land in British Columbia that is non-arable -- particularly non-class 1 and 2 -- and is available for other development. We should preserve every square inch of farmland we possibly can. In this legislation we give cabinet the right to make a decision to use farmland for some other purpose if it's in the public interest and if there has been a public process to accommodate that.

It's clear that we have a different philosophy on this. In short, our philosophy is that there should be a proper and due process for having decisions made. Those decisions should be governed by clear policy that is adopted either in this Legislature or by cabinet. That policy should govern the decisions, the policy should apply uniformly and it should not be varied because a person comes to a political body for a political decision. And that's a view that we hold strongly.

Clearly we disagree. Clearly we can have a more focused discussion in each of these areas during committee stage, where we are able to have some formal back and forth as opposed to this informal back and forth. I would therefore call second reading.

Motion approved on the following division:

Bill 42, Cabinet Appeals Abolition Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 38.

EMERGENCY PROGRAM ACT
(continued)

W. Hurd: I'm pleased to rise in the assembly this evening to debate Bill 38, the Emergency Program Act, which we are told is designed to bring the legislation into the modern era and to standardize the emergency response across the province. Since this bill was introduced, I have had the opportunity to talk to a number of local governments, particularly those in my own riding. Having had a chance to review the legislation, they remain completely confused as to what responsibilities they will now have under this legislation. There are several issues....

The Speaker: You are correct to pause, hon. member. Could the House come to order so we could proceed with debate? Please continue, hon. member.

W. Hurd: There is some concern in my own riding of Surrey-White Rock, because a railway line runs along the waterfront that carries considerable dangerous cargo, which requires specialized training to deal with in the event of derailment, explosion or any other type of calamity. If one examines this bill, it is not readily apparent whether the municipality is required to build into its emergency measures program the ability to deal with that kind of emergency.

[M. Lord in the chair.]

Again, this bill creates major changes for local governments in dealing with emergencies. Indeed, approximately 15 percent of the municipalities in the province will not meet the guidelines of this bill. I can honestly say that it appears that the governments affected, and some of the local municipalities, have not been adequately consulted on the impact that this legislation is likely to have on their existing plans to deal with emergencies and also on what they may be asked to provide. Certainly as we get into committee stage on this bill, the opposition, I'm sure, will welcome the opportunity to debate at some length the measures that are called for in this particular bill.

It appears obvious that the government has once again produced a piece of legislation that gives it broad 

[ Page 8522 ]

powers to move into local emergencies and to, if necessary, override local authorities. Clearly there are a number of emergencies, particularly in my own riding of Surrey-White Rock, related to oil spills and to the movement of hazardous cargoes along rail lines. Again, I emphasize that there exists considerable confusion as to what role the municipality plays or what additional costs or planning the municipality would have to bear to deal with those types of issues. I would certainly welcome the opportunity in committee to deal with some of those more riding-specific issues and also to canvass with the minister the 15 percent of local governments in the province that are in fact in some way deficient in their planning for emergency response.

[8:45]

With those few remarks -- and the hon. member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast having adjourned debate -- I will take my seat with the proviso that during committee we certainly intend to ask some hard questions about this issue on behalf of the local governments. As I speak, the local governments are receiving a copy of the bill. I have asked them to forward me any concerns they may have, and I hope to have those in my possession when we go to committee stage.

K. Jones: It's with a great deal of trouble we speak to this, because there's concern as to just where this bill is going to lead when you're downloading the responsibility for emergency measures to the local municipal area. For communities along our west coast and wherever our railways are running, that's a pretty serious problem, with a tanker car going off the tracks, creating a major disaster that small municipalities certainly are totally incapable of dealing with. There has to be the ability for the province to come in and put its full resources behind that disaster plan and to move very quickly. I don't see anything in this bill that allows that movement to be made quickly and at a cost that would be borne by the provincial government rather than by the local governments. That's just an impossible situation that this bill would place on the local community.

A lot of people in the environmental areas and people who are trying to save wildlife along our foreshores are concerned. If there's an oilspill, they have minimal resources to deal with this. They depend upon the emergency measures process to take them past that initial stage of grabbing the wildlife and giving them some protection. They need continuing cleaning processes and the support of additional volunteers, and most of our communities aren't in a position to bring forward those people.

We know that the situation has changed since the previous act was brought into play. The civil emergency situation is quite different. But again we have in this bill a situation where it's not clear just how the civil control services can be brought in quickly. If military services are required, where are we going to get the military personnel from? They may be stuck in Victoria when you want them in the Fraser Valley, or they may be stuck up north on a manoeuvre. We don't have a lot of forces in British Columbia any longer, and therefore there's not that opportunity to have people readily available nearby. We're going to need coordination of forces among various communities and a very fast response system worked out to be able to bring enough forces to bear to deal with a specific emergency.

The enforcement part of the whole process of this bill is of concern, too. We are very concerned that it is almost like a War Measures Act, or even worse. The ability that is given to the government authority is really a concern because there is almost unlimited power given to enter people's homes and take actions without their say-so, without recompense and without recourse.

This bill has a great number of potentially ugly ramifications if it is carried to its fullest extent. The minister perhaps recognizes that factor and may wish, in third reading, to bring forward some amendments that will modify that factor so that the concerns of the populace will be lessened. On that basis, I will stand down.

F. Gingell: This particular bill is typical of many that we have had to deal with. My immediate reaction in reading the provisions of the Emergency Program Act is to support it. It is clearly important for provincial and municipal governments to be prepared for the emergencies that can happen. We will be able to protect our environment and look after the safety of our citizens, and do those things much better if our programs and plans are in place. For that reason, my immediate reaction was to support this bill.

When one begins to think about all the issues that are involved, one sees a bill that is wide-ranging, creating all kinds of concerns -- members of the government may well use the word "paranoia" but I will use the word "concerns" -- that the powers and authorities vested in the government through this bill become unreasonable and could, under certain circumstances, be used in a manner that is detrimental, in our opinion, to good order and good government. Having got to that point, the official opposition is going to oppose second reading of Bill 38, but we are really pleased and encouraged by the amendments in Orders of the Day standing in the name of the Attorney General, which we believe do cover the concerns we have, and do create some boundary around the issues for which this bill and these powers could be used. We intend to vote against this bill at second reading, and we look forward, if the amendments are in fact made, to supporting it in third reading.

R. Neufeld: I just have a few notes. I have some reservations about Bill 38, but I don't have a great deal of problem with it. I was mayor of a small community and subjected at one time to an emergency measures action. It was difficult at the time to know, as mayor, just exactly what we should and shouldn't be doing. That was at a time when the province was very involved; in fact, the Ministry of Forests was very involved with a forest fire around the community of Fort Nelson. I found that although we think we are trained and we have read up on everything that we should about the Emergency Measures Act, when it finally came to be, it 

[ Page 8523 ]

was a little more difficult than what I had envisioned and it led to an awful lot of problems.

I had lived in that community for some 15 years and had spent probably about eight years on council at the time that this happened to me, so I had some experience with floods and those types of things in our community, but I found that the training for local elected people was sadly lacking. I'm not trying to blame any government or any one person or anything, but I would hope that with the powers that are given in this act to mayors of small communities.... There is a tremendous number of very small communities around the province that maybe don't have the support staff to help those elected people make those decisions and, after those decisions are made, to carry them out. Before we go too far on something like this, we should be looking very closely at some very good training for those people.

That brings up another issue: with the elections the way they are now, you could invariably have a carte blanche change of municipal people. It should be very high on the agenda for those people to be trained as quickly as possible, because there are a myriad of things that can happen to communities. Some of the Liberal opposition members talked about trains that go through their communities, there is river barging and things that are pretty difficult to deal with, and maybe warehouses in some communities have chemicals that not too many people are sure about. How do you deal with those issues?

In a small, maybe unsophisticated community we transfer all these powers to the mayor or a designated person from that community, regional district or whatever it happens to be. All of a sudden that person is put in a position where they have to make some very hard decisions about infringing on someone's property rights and seizing or rationing things. And you're in a small community of maybe 3,000 people where everybody knows one another, and it gets very difficult for that person in that small community. That could be very different in a city like Vancouver, Surrey or Victoria, because they have the sophisticated staff to help them, but those small communities don't. That's where I find some difficulty in this bill, with the powers that are given to local representatives. That's not to say that I don't trust local representatives with those powers. I just find it very difficult to give all that power to one individual who, within his or her community, could come under personal attack for some of the decisions that are made. Those could be very difficult decisions.

Those are some of the issues that I have problems with. Another issue that we will get into further in committee is the issue of compensation: who pays, and when, why and how that is decided. Is it that whoever specifically calls the emergency is responsible for the compensation, or will the province ultimately be responsible?

I appreciate that the government has lengthened the time from 30 to 60 days. I don't know if that is sufficient or not to make a fair and rational assessment of some issues that could happen in an emergency situation. It could be that it should be lengthened even further, because 60 days goes by fairly quickly. I would hope that cabinet or government would look at that issue very carefully before they go ahead and arbitrarily pin down 60 days. Other than those, I don't have a lot of problems with the bill, but I'm certain that when we get into committee other issues will come out.

L. Fox: I'm pleased to rise and speak on Bill 38. I've listened to the discussions in the House and hopefully, with my experience in dealing with the provincial emergency program over the course of eight years, I can add to the discussions in a constructive way and give the Attorney General and the government some concerns about what this bill may or may not produce.

[9:00]

Let me just say at the outset that one is usually suspect when given autonomy and powers. Along with that generally goes the expectation that you will meet the decisions you've made through your tax dollars or your own pocketbook. The costs of your decisions usually come back directly to you because you're the individual that made those decisions. That has got to be concern number one. Will the municipal officer, whether that be the mayor or a designate alderman, who makes a determination and calls out a lot of equipment that may or may not be necessary, have to pay for the actions and the cost of those actions, or will it be the municipality? Thankfully the minister has provided us with an amendment to section 1 which give a little more direction to the individual who may be making that determination. I think that is a key question in this legislation because it would determine whether or not there was really offloading.

Interjection.

L. Fox: Hon. Speaker, I hope you can hear me. I'm having some difficulty hearing myself.

Deputy Speaker: If the House could come to order and if members could carry on their private conversations outside the chamber, I think it would expedite the debate. Please continue, member.

L. Fox: The whole question of local autonomy is one that I've always supported. I like the idea that decisions are made locally within the respective jurisdictions. Having been a mayor for eight years and having promoted local autonomy, I can appreciate the intent of the bill, but some of the mechanics concern me dramatically.

In this bill, a regional director has the same opportunities as a mayor. In many of the rural parts of this province a regional director operates at quite some distance from the administration of the regional district. Many of them do not have an advisory planning committee and therefore make decisions totally on their own. When this bill first hit the House some weeks back -- this is one of the few that we've had some time to deliberate on -- I mentioned to the minister that one of the issues that should be dealt with is the need to have a 1-800 line. That would help individuals around the province, particularly those who do not have administration available, to determine 

[ Page 8524 ]

whether or not a situation should be declared an emergency under this legislation. It would also help to inform them what the appropriate actions would be in terms of cleanup. This is something that I really believe should be in place to go along with the act. We could end up with more damage done through improper instructions than through whatever the initial cause may have been.

In my experience of dealing with only one near emergency, the provincial agency, which was the Ministry of Forests, was extremely helpful to me in determining actions on site and whether or not people should be evacuated because of the fire that was coming dangerously close. If there is an agency within your community, I'm sure that an elected member would utilize it in determining the seriousness of the event. I was a mayor for eight years, and during that time we redid our provincial emergency program four times. It would be outdated almost before we got it completed because some of those agency names had changed; some of them had even been changed to other communities. It's extremely difficult in a small community to keep any kind of continuity -- difficult, in fact, to keep a coordinator in place. The amount that's offered to a provincial emergency coordinator through provincial legislation is $1,000 a year. Given the kind of responsibility they have to face and the kind of costs they have to incur, I suggest that $1,000 a year does not encourage anybody to put their name forward.

What we see here is something that we really want to ponder to a great degree in committee stage. If we're looking at a local mayor or a designate or a regional district director and triggering a process that allows for local input into the decision-making, that's one thing. But if we're looking at having a mayor or a regional district totally accept, as an elected individual, all of the responsibilities around making these kinds of determinations and therefore decisions, then that's another issue. The legislation is not clear on that issue. Certainly we have to deal with those kinds of things at great length, and I hope the Attorney General will clarify those points at committee stage. I think it's important that if this is going to work and if everybody is going to volunteer to be part of this new autonomy that the government has so graciously given to the locally elected individuals, then it has to be clear what the liability of those individuals is going to be, who's going to pay the bill and the scope of the decisions they will be able to make. Hon. Speaker, I look forward to committee stage of this bill.

D. Symons: I notice the surprise on the minister's face. I will be extremely brief. I just want to add some concerns to the other members who have showed some concerns on how this is going to impact upon the communities involved. The concern that was expressed to me -- not quite in relation to this bill, but on something I was dealing with -- was a community where there apparently had been a provincial study on the highways, particularly the earthquake-resistance of bridges. The community was trying to find out the results of those studies. The concern I have here is that they didn't get those results, yet this particular act would seem to put an onus back on the community to bring up a response to any disaster that might happen. If that disaster happened to affect some of these bridges because of an earthquake, I think it's incumbent upon the government to give all the information they can to those communities so that they will know ahead of time what the possibilities that they're going to have to react to are going to be.

So with that caution to the minister, I would like to ask him to take that into consideration. The communities should have at their fingertips any studies that have been done on any effect that natural or unnatural disasters would have on that community. That should be in the community so that they will know what actions can be taken when the event happens, rather than having to react afterward and find out where they're going with it. I think it's something that common sense would dictate should be done.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I think that a number of the points that have been made are better dealt with in committee stage. May I say to the member who has just taken his place that my whole approach to government includes a view that the public should have a lot more information than they now have. The kind of information the member is talking about is obviously needed in order for local authorities to help plan and respond. It has been a tradition in governments -- not just the former government -- generally in this country to keep everything closed to themselves. The more you release, the more you realize that it should have been in the public domain a lot earlier.

The member for Prince George-Omineca indicated a 1-800 line. That kind of idea wouldn't be in the legislation, but it's a very practical kind of administrative reality that I think is worth looking at.

A number of other questions were raised that I would really like to deal with in committee stage, including off-loading of costs, which is not the intention here. But we can get into that kind of detail as we go.

Let me just say in general terms that I approached this legislation with more trepidation than I had with any other bill I've had anything to do with in the last 18 months. The reason for that is....

An Hon. Member: Is that an excuse?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I think I will have sufficient to say to let him accomplish his particular purposes, hon. Speaker.

I was saying that I approached this legislation with a great deal of trepidation. I was in the House when Ernie Hall tried to introduce legislation in 1974 or thereabouts to replace the 1951 statute that is in the statutes of British Columbia. When he introduced the bill then, this legislation was terribly outdated and outmoded. You can imagine now, almost 20 years later, how much worse the existing statute is.

I would recommend members who have nothing else to do before they go to bed to have a look at the existing Emergency Program Act and realize the awesome powers it contains; the lack of checks and balances within it; the outdated nature of its language, 

[ Page 8525 ]

including "...an emergency exists by reason of enemy attack, anticipated enemy attack, sabotage, other hostile action, etc." -- that kind of language; and powers that give the director the power to take possession of or use property without prior agreement with the owner of the property -- and on and on. Fair enough. There are lots of powers that might be needed in a particular circumstance, but no checks on those powers.

So one of the things that I said...

Interjection.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: We'll have plenty of chance in committee, hon. member, to have the back and forth.

...to the people responsible for the emergency program in my ministry was that I wanted to be very careful. I wanted to be absolutely assured that we weren't taking powers we didn't need. I wanted to be absolutely certain there were checks on those powers. And I wanted to be absolutely certain that local governments were fully involved in helping to develop the legislation that we've got.

There has been full consultation with the UBCM in respect of this legislation, and it was developed in conjunction with them. They are aware of the intentions of the legislation. On the concerns raised in particular by the member for Prince George-Omineca in respect of regional directors maybe not having the kinds of powers that are contained in here, the remedy there is that the minister -- or cabinet -- can annul any powers that are declared if they are inappropriate by somebody in a local area.

Following the earlier debate in second reading, I looked carefully at the idea of limiting those powers to regional and local governments, to have them come through the centre somehow and get authority. It became obvious to me, particularly in some rural and remote communities in British Columbia, that there may be circumstances where the local mayor -- or even the regional director in the odd case -- may not, because of communication problems, be able to do what has to be done to get through to Victoria in order to deal with emergency problems that have to be dealt with instantly.

I think particularly of small communities in my constituency if a tsunami were to hit. It would wipe out all the ability to communicate with the minister or the PEP people in Victoria. Immediately you'd have to have some quick action. So that power is there for them, but if it is exercised inappropriately the minister can immediately cancel that order. I think it's a protection that's required there.

[9:15]

If members would check the legislation across the country in respect to the emergency program legislation, they would find this to be the least intrusive legislation in the country and the most protective of public rights. I think we'll find it to be in some ways perhaps the weakest legislation in the country if there was a real emergency -- by way of an example, if we had a 7.8 earthquake centred in the lower mainland. This legislation we've developed, I think, meets all of those concerns that have been expressed historically.

Emergency program legislation is tough for any government to do. Governments have to have it. Societies have to have it, because we have to prepare for these eventualities. For us not to prepare would leave us open to real and serious charges of negligence if some serious event were to occur which we were unable to respond to.

I'll conclude by repeating what I said before about the existing act. It will make interesting bedtime reading for anybody who thinks that we shouldn't be replacing it with something more modern. May I finally say to the Leader of the Opposition, in his absence, that I would not have introduced amendments to the act if I didn't intend to introduce them during committee stage debate. Those amendments which properly define the definitions of "emergency" and "disaster" will be introduced in committee stage at the appropriate time. I trust that members of the House will support me in redefining those words more accurately so as to make absolutely sure that we do not intend in any way to cover civil unrest by way of this legislation. The Criminal Code exists for that kind of purpose. This legislation exists only for the kind of natural disasters or major train wrecks that may occur, that cause the particular problems of what you might describe as a real natural disaster. With those comments, I call second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 38, Emergency Program Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. D. Miller: I call adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 56.

FOREST AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 1993
(continued)

W. Hurd: I must say, having reviewed Hansard on the second reading debate of this bill so far, rarely has a housekeeping bill engendered such remarkable passion on the part of all parties. In fact, I can say that never has any Forests bill before this House received that kind of scrutiny from the members on the opposition side. I'm delighted to be able to debate this bill at 9:20 instead of quarter to midnight.

I just want to comment on a couple of items relative to this bill, which is, as the minister has indicated, a housekeeping bill defining the role of silviculture and the ability of the district manager to change the designation of land from their current situation -- where it's now required to be reforested or subjected to a preharvest silvicultural plan -- to allow for a more diversified use.

I particularly wanted to comment, though, on the areas that relate to rangelands. As the minister well knows, there has been a tug of war in the past on rangelands, particularly in those transition areas where forests have been harvested and some of the ranching industry is interested in seeing the boundaries of the 

[ Page 8526 ]

rangeland extended. I trust that under this change to the Forest Act the district staff will be particularly religious in their determinations in dealing with rangelands, to ensure that areas that might be under some pressure to be designated for increases to rangeland may in fact be analyzed for silviculture and intensive forest management. I can see a potential for disagreement there that already exists. It certainly exists with some of the ranchers in the southern interior and with the difficulty in matching those two, at times, competing uses for the land.

Moving further into the bill, we notice this favourite phrase "no compensation payable," which the minister always assures us is a mere administrative matter and no reason for concern but which is nevertheless something the opposition always expresses concern about, and in committee usually votes against. I'm sure again, when he closes debate, that the minister will categorically assure us that denying access to the court system by any provision of this bill is in fact a routine administrative matter and no cause for concern by the opposition.

But we continue to be concerned by this kind of addition, which really is a common theme through some of the legislation coming from the government -- that of denying access to the courts. This particular phrase is pretty specific. It says: "no damages or compensation of any kind is payable by the government, and a person must not commence or maintain proceedings to claim damages...." So one assumes that we are referring to access to the court system. I am always surprised and somewhat puzzled by the reluctance of this government to accept the dictates of the courts or the ability of people to go through the courts. I am sure that when we deal with this section in committee we will hear another refrain that it's contained in every bill and is merely an administrative matter.

We understand the housekeeping nature of the bill -- the need to provide more flexibility to the district manager in determining land that may not be suitable for intensive forest management. I am sure that in some ways this may force additional responsibilities on the district staff to make those difficult considerations, particularly in areas where the forest land may be of marginal utility but other values may be marginal as well. I assume that careful analysis will be given before the decision is made by the district staff to take land out of forest production for any reason.

With those few comments, and recognizing that the bill does not appear to be engendering the same kind of passionate debate it did the last time it was introduced, I take my seat and welcome the opportunity to further the discussion in committee.

R. Neufeld: It is much quieter in here tonight at 9:30 than it was at midnight the other night. I was here. And it's interesting to just look around and see everyone listening intently this time to see what is going to be said. We in our caucus do not have a lot of difficulty with Bill 56, the Forest Amendment Act. We have some questions that will come up in committee and will probably fit there much better than in second reading.

We understand that the bill validates the general silviculture regulatory framework that was created in 1987. We can understand that government has always had that power. I think most people understand it, but it is something to get it into the legislation so there is no question about it.

A couple of issues that we have are that cabinet must believe it is in the public interest before creating a designated area. It would be very interesting to hear just exactly what the minister feels creating a designated area is all about, and why they would want to create one.

The other issue that we have with the bill is section 7, which is the section that is deemed repealed by July 31, 1995. It says that cabinet can add regulations to the 1988 regulation validated in section 6 and can impose them retroactively. That's basically all that the section says. It will be very interesting to see what regulations will be initiated retroactively, and why on the magical date of July 31, 1995, it will automatically be repealed.

With that, I take my place and wait for the rest of the debate.

L. Fox: I'm pleased to rise and speak on Bill 56. When I first read this, I had to go back to the 1987 silviculture legislation and reflect on the press release that accompanied that. That press release has been a source of some disturbance to the ministry, because some licensees felt that that particular legislation didn't cover them. I know one case in point, Carrier Lumber, has been attempting to argue in court that they shouldn't be subject to those silviculture prescriptions that that legislation created. I had to ask myself if this was a way of stopping Carrier Lumber from...?

Deputy Speaker: The minister rises on a point of order.

Hon. D. Miller: With all due respect, the member refers to a matter that's currently before the courts. Normally, the speaker would make some ruling to the effect that there should not be a discussion about matters before the courts because it may prejudice what is taking place. I think it is appropriate on this occasion.

Deputy Speaker: Your point is well taken. Would the member confine his remarks to the principal of the bill and stay away from that case which is before the courts.

L. Fox: I was speaking on the principal of the bill and the principal of developing legislation which may, in one way or another, limit one's opportunities to continue through the court's process to argue his or her rights under the legislation of the day.

This legislation appears to close that opportunity. That is a concern that we all should share in this House. I don't think any government should intend to close one's rights to go before the courts and argue the interpretation of the act which regulated them for six years. This act appears to take that company's rights 

[ Page 8527 ]

away and close the doors to the court action that they are presently bringing forward.

[9:30]

I think that's a real shame. It's a fact. We've seen time and time again that this government doesn't have a lot of concern for individual and corporate rights. Their only concern is for their own government's rights. While the intent of the legislation is supportable, given the fact that it does as I say, without any communication with the Forests critic I will be voting against it because it infringes on the rights of that corporate body to seek its day in court and determine whether or not the government has acted correctly in terms of the original legislation from 1987. I will be voting against this legislation.

Hon. D. Miller: Just following up in reverse order, I must say that the rule of law in British Columbia is very simple: if you are a licensee and you harvest on Crown land, the law says that you reforest. That's a basic principle that applies to the Crown forest lands in this province. I would suggest that anyone who disputes that is really misguided and wrong. It seems to me that it's a fundamental principle. Believe me, I have trouble enough trying to explain to the public that this is the law in British Columbia if you are a licensee who is granted harvesting rights, unless it's under the small business program, in which case we bill in the cost of silviculture under our bid system. But if you're in any other category, you have the responsibility. We have awarded you the right to harvest timber on Crown lands, and with that right to harvest comes the responsibility to ensure that the land is reforested to a free-to-grow state. It is a principle that is really worthy of upholding. I'd ask the members to look at it in that light.

The bill has two basic functions. One deals with the issue of silviculture and is fairly self-explanatory. It's clear that there does not appear to be any major difference, except with respect to the last speaker. When you look at the practical issues at stake.... For example, despite the laudable goals of the legislation in 1987, which came about as a result of converting the then-U.S. countervail of 15 percent to a fixed charge in both the silviculture and stumpage areas and required basic silviculture, as a minimum obligation, to a free-to-grow state -- and it has been interpreted to mean that and been applied by the ministry in that way -- there are some minor wrinkles, if I can use that term. In fact, if the legislation is interpreted literally, it requires that permitted forest roads be reforested; it requires that landings, for example, be reforested. It does not allow the flexibility that is required to deal with what I think is a fairly important industry in this province, the shake and shingle industry. The bulk of that material is harvested by the shake-cutters who go in after harvesting and routinely get that additional material out. It produces a pretty good industry in this province.

It's impractical, and there's really no reason why there should be a pre-harvest silviculture prescription for a shake-block fellow to go in and take some wood out of a cedar tree that might have been laying there for ten years. So we're trying to deal with the practical application of the section of the Forest Act to get rid of those wrinkles, as I said.

The other part deals with part 15. In this kind of bill second reading debate on principle is generally pro forma. The real debate and the real questions occur in committee stage. There are a number of questions that the opposition may wish to put in committee state around part 15. We changed some wording, and it really goes, again, to other elements in the Forest Act. There are considerable time delays built into the Forest Act. I think I've been pretty upfront in saying that we can't continue to kid ourselves. If we have consciously taken an area out of the forest land base, then we should recognize that, and we shouldn't fool ourselves. We shouldn't maintain a harvest rate that is based on the inclusion of an area that's been removed. The Forest Act has some delays in there.

Part 15 was really brought forward to deal with the study areas, but by expanding the definition we think we can deal with some of the delays that exist in the current Forest Act and deal with some of the decisions that have already been made -- for example, in Clayoquot Sound -- but still require action by the chief forester to establish a new annual harvest rate given not only the deletion of certain lands for park purposes but the designation of certain lands for special management purposes, which, when applied to the land base, will severely reduce the amount of wood that can be harvested. So I appreciate the member's comments.

Finally with respect to rangelands, there really is no impact. In some areas of the province the integration of both agriculture and forestry uses is a particular challenge. We have tried to work with the people in both the cattle and forest industries to bring them together and try to assist in problem-solving, but occasionally some cattle will wander into an area that's been replanted and trample all the seedlings, and that gets people up in arms. I would hope that everybody in this province could agree that we have the ability to practise integrated use between forestry and range lands. There are some tough areas, but we are working with the parties to try to ensure that it's workable. But the bill particularly has no relationship to rangelands per se. If an area is harvested under legislation, the licensee or the Crown is responsible for reforestation.

Having said that, I move second reading of Bill 56.

Motion approved.

Bill 56, Forest Amendment Act (No. 2), 1993, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. D. Miller: Hon. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 69.

FOREST AMENDMENT ACT (No. 3), 1993

Hon. D. Miller: Bill 69 amends the Forest Act to improve tenure administration in four areas. The bill improves provisions dealing with the transfer of 

[ Page 8528 ]

tenures from one holder to another. Section 50 of the Forest Act outlines the conditions surrounding tenure transfers, requires the minister's approval of certain types of transfers and provides for a 5 percent reduction in allowable annual cut or harvest volume with these transfers. The proposed amendments will strengthen the wording of section 50 to help ensure that it is not circumvented.

Additional amendments exempt transfers in corporate control associated with the disposition of a deceased person's estate to close family members. I think I said during introduction that it would allow some relief in those cases where a family member passes on. The licence stays in the family's hands, and in our view the 5 percent reduction need not apply.

Second, the bill introduces new provisions to permit tenure holders to surrender harvesting rights for temporary periods and for the Crown to allocate the associated timber for sale to other operators. Currently the act is silent in this respect. There was a situation in the Prince George region, I think, where a licensee voluntarily surrendered and others were awarded harvesting rights, but the act really is silent and does not provide guidance to the ministry when those situations occur. This will be changed with the adoption of these amendments.

Third, Bill 69 allows harvesting rights to be reassigned from one timber supply area to another in special circumstances. These amendments are intended to address two specific situations. Bill 69 will allow harvesting rights to be reassigned to an adjoining timber supply area with the consent of the licensee when, for example, operational or administrative efficiencies can be achieved from the transfer, and Bill 69 will allow harvesting rights to be assigned to a new timber supply area when an existing timber supply area is divided. This amendment is intended to correct a problem with the Forest Act which provides for a division of timber supply areas but is silent on the allocation of harvesting rights to the new areas from the old. I use as an example a situation that occurs fairly often, and that is where a licensee may acquire harvesting rights that in fact cross over the boundary line of a timber supply area and the two overlap. For the practical purposes of administrative efficiency, it's preferable to have the administration of that licence housed in one district office, not in two separate district offices. So where the licensee agrees that this is preferable, we have the ability essentially to alter the boundaries of the timber supply area to accommodate that kind of efficiency.

Fourth and finally, Bill 69 allows smaller tenures and short-term licences to be exempted from allowable annual cut reductions initiated by the chief forester. This deals with the issue of proportionate reduction, which currently the Ministry of Forests is obliged to enact when there is a reduction in the annual allowable cut in a timber supply area. A timber supply area can contain a variety of licences. Obviously the small business program is housed in a timber supply area and forest licences are housed in the timber supply areas. Although regulation will stipulate the volume limit at which you would be exempt, essentially the thrust of the amendment is to say to those very small quota-holders that when we reduce the allowable harvest rate in a timber supply area, we will exempt you from that proportionate reduction because, quite frankly, there are economic arguments. It may be that you could simply take enough away that you would leave the holder with a licence volume that wasn't economic. Judging from some of the discussions I've had around the province, I think this generally would be well received, but obviously I await the comments from the opposition. Those are really the main elements. So before I sit down, I would move second reading of the bill.

W. Hurd: I'm pleased to rise on second reading debate of Bill 69, which is a reflection of the kind of uncertainty that exists out there in many of the timber supply areas of the province. Certainly the opposition understands that annual allowable cuts are being reduced, and that overlapping studies and other alternate land use studies are in effect which will have the cumulative effect of reducing the annual allowable cut considerably in some timber supply areas. The opposition also understands that that, in turn, creates the need for the ministry to be able to reallocate timber supply across the boundaries of timber supply areas to try and secure a supply of fibre to the mills that might be affected.

[9:45]

In canvassing some of the stakeholder groups in the limited time we've had since this bill was introduced, we find that there hasn't been a great deal of consultation about the ramifications of this bill, particularly on the issue of reducing the controlling interest from 51 percent to 50 percent and on which companies in the province might be affected by this change in the legislation and how their obligations might change. We also find that some of the affected parties don't appear to be universally aware of exactly what changes are being proposed. That is somewhat difficult to understand given the fact that there are some significant changes to the Forest Act contained in Bill 69.

The opposition is particularly troubled by the ramifications of part 5 of the act, one of the few sections that does not provide for the support of the licensee when the minister makes a determination of what effect the annual allowable cut reduction will have on the various licensees within the timber supply area. Of course, as a member of the select standing committee, which recently furnished a report to the House on value-added manufacturing, one of the points that was repeatedly made to us as we toured the province was that when there is a dramatic or significant reduction in the annual allowable cut, the impact is felt disproportionately.

For example, I'm not sure that exempting a market logger from taking a hit on the annual allowable cut reduction will in any way offer more security. Certainly we will welcome the opportunity to canvass these issues in committee. Part 5, section 54 appears to us to be a situation wherein the heavier burden will be borne by some of the major licensees in a timber supply area, 

[ Page 8529 ]

or those licensees that have a higher proportion of the cut. Certainly that in itself has some serious ramifications when we consider that in some timber supply areas, such as the Fraser and the Soo, we may be dealing with reductions in the range of 30 to 40 percent. Clearly there is going to be a disproportionate burden here, and we will welcome the opportunity to raise that issue in committee.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

The other issue I've touched on briefly is the decision to reduce the definition of control of a corporation from 51 percent to 50 percent. The opposition assumes that this applies to corporations which might be held jointly by shareholders, in which case they may or may not be exempt from the 5 percent reduction of the annual allowable cut in the event of a licence transfer. Again, that's an issue we will be canvassing with the minister when we go through this bill in committee.

This is definitely a miscellaneous amendment bill. There are a number of different areas addressed here. I think it speaks of the level of uncertainty that currently exists out there regarding harvest levels and the need for more flexibility in dealing with what inevitably will be a reduction in the annual allowable cut. There is a great deal of uncertainty about what impact that's going to have on existing licensees. I'm sure the minister will concur from the meetings that he's attended how much uncertainty exists out there.

Given the fact that his bill appears to us to have been introduced in isolation -- without a great deal of consultation, at least that we could discern -- we'll certainly welcome the opportunity to raise those points in committee as some of the points come into the official opposition, and to seek clarification from the minister on the rationale behind some of these changes.

So with those few words, and with the fact that generally the principle of the bill appears to provide more control to the Ministry of Forests regarding annual allowable cut levels and allocation, we'll welcome the opportunity to debate in committee some of the more specific concerns we have which would be better dealt with in that forum.

R. Neufeld: I'll be very brief on Bill 69, and I can see the Minister of Agriculture is very happy about that. I'm sure that the Speaker is quite surprised at the decorum in the House in dealing with Ministry of Forests bills tonight.

The bill was introduced July 7, and to be quite honest we have not had a lot of time, with the amount of legislation that's come before the House and what was already before the House, to fairly take the bill apart and decide which parts we were really concerned about, other than the areas that stood out very much -- which was dividing up timber supply areas at the discretion of the minister. With the licensees' agreement changing them, I can't quite understand who wants their timber supply area carved up and some of it given carte blanche away. It will be interesting to see how the minister wants to deal with that.

Of course, the other issue that always creeps into some legislation that this government brings forward is the issue of compensation to companies, to individuals or to small firms for a timber supply that's taken away. Of course, that's another part of this bill and a small part of the other bill. It will be interesting to see just what the minister has there.

I think I would be remiss if I did not bring forward the issue that there's always a sleeper someplace in this legislation. Very seldom have I seen the government bring forward a bill which they consistently tell us is housekeeping that there's not a sleeper in there someplace. That was evident with what was brought forward in Bill 56 when we spoke to second reading. The member for Prince George-Omineca stood up and spoke about an issue about that bill that obviously touched a nerve with the minister, because he referred to it quite a bit during his response.

With that I just want to say that we will ask the time and our research people will take the time to do a little more work on this bill and try to pull out the sleepers that I think the minister may or may not have. It will be interesting to see. So we look forward to third reading.

Hon. D. Miller: I was going to say earlier that I must confess that some of the best times in my life have occurred around midnight and often involved a lot of noise. So, really -- although it's certainly not my place to advise the members on anything -- sometimes the odd night sitting is good for the soul. It allows people to get those frustrations out of their system and maybe allows us to work a little better. Certainly I'm pleased that the debate was not in the same vein as it was the other night; I sincerely don't like to do that. I prefer to have the best debate possible. Hopefully we will continue to do that.

I have just a couple of remarks. Without getting into too much detail, section 50 -- in other words the 5 percent issue -- again is a fairly important issue of principle. Those members who were on the select standing committee obviously put forward recommendations to take even more. Nonetheless the wood derived from that is used, I think, in a very important way: to continue to promote the value-added sector in the forest industry, which is the growth sector. Really all we're talking about is that we don't wish anybody in the future to try to avoid the loss of the 5 percent by the way that they structure their deals. That's essentially what we're looking at. Again, I would think the principle of that would be upheld by the opposition.

As for the proportionate issue, we'll see the particular examples. I know I have had letters, for example, from the Leader of the Opposition on behalf of small operators in his constituency requesting that we exempt those below a certain level from the proportionate reduction. I assume that will be generally favoured. Without really going on any further, I guess we'll have the same debate we normally have around the compensation issue, but that's the saving clause. I'm sure any legislative drafter can take you through any number of bills and pieces of legislation in this province that have similar types of wording. It's a normal feature of legislation not only in British Columbia but really 

[ Page 8530 ]

throughout the Commonwealth. Nonetheless I'm quite happy to debate it.

I'm also prepared, for any members who are interested, to offer some technical briefing on any points or questions that members might have if it will facilitate their understanding of the bill. I'm not wishing to preempt their discussion in committee stage at all, but if there's a feeling that the opposition parties would like staff in my ministry to offer some more technical briefing on some issues, please call my office and I'll arrange that very quickly. With that, I would move that the bill be read for the second time now.

Motion approved.

Bill 69, Forest Amendment (No. 3), 1993, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

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

Hon. M. Sihota moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 9:57 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

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

The Committee met at 2:48 p.m.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS, RECREATION AND HOUSING
(continued)

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

A. Cowie: I would like to thank the minister for some broad discussions we had on regional governance and the Georgia basin, which I appreciate. The minister could have tightened up there if he wanted to, and I appreciate that he didn't. We did have quite a free-flowing and helpful discussion.

I have a number of housing questions I would like to get into this afternoon, and I'd like to start off with my philosophy that every home owner is a potential entrepreneur and can help solve the housing problem. Through the very excellent report of the Provincial Commission on Housing Options, the minister has identified suites as one of the options. I believe that's a major option, even if one could recognize in some way the existing suites. I know Vancouver had a problem with that. It did a survey of the whole of the city, and found out that there were large areas of single families that didn't want to recognize the suites that were in fact there.

This weekend I took the opportunity to go around to open houses, as I do quite often on weekends. It's not that I'm trying to be an investigator, but I am looking for housing options for myself anyway. I find that in almost every house I go into, there are two bedrooms rented out and there's a suite. The owners are very careful to tell you that they aren't suites, and they don't commit themselves that somebody is staying in them at all. The fact is that anywhere near the university or the endowment lands there is tremendous pressure to have suites. Also, the housing costs are so high that a lot of people have to resort to having suites to help pay the mortgage. It's a real fact, and I really believe that a lot of people didn't vote for having suites in the proper survey because, essentially, they have the suites anyway. If they declared them, then they would have to pay income tax on the earnings. While that might be a suspicious way of looking at it, I believe that's probably the real reason.

As I say, the suites are everywhere. Perhaps the minister could just give us a little background on how he feels about properly designed and very habitable suites being a part of the program. Is there money to help convince people of that?

Hon. R. Blencoe: I could spend a considerable amount of time on this topic; I won't, though. First, let me say I happen to believe, as the member does, that this is a very important topic. I've indicated quite clearly -- and to some degree actually taken some criticism -- that the provincial government is prepared to provide some leadership in this area. As you know, the issue of illegal versus legal secondary suites has been contentious for a number of years. Studies have been done on it at the local level. Conclusions have been drawn that if we can move ahead to see it as a legal and reasonable form of housing and can convince municipalities to endorse it, we can dramatically create a good supply of really affordable housing at minimal cost to the taxpayer. Needless to say, however, there's always the issue of local government and neighbourhoods feeling they should have a great say in whether secondary suites should be established.

I've indicated and endorsed the Provincial Commission on Housing Options's recommendation: basically, that we accept in principle that we should move ahead and find ways to ease the secondary suite situation. In terms of the component of my ministry that deals with a building code, staff are at work now. We're looking for revisions to the building code that will help ease the situation and, hopefully, give some new direction, impetus and comfort to local government. Many local governments have said to me they're prepared to move ahead on legalized secondary suites, but the building code is a problem. They need some new rules or options, and we are doing that. Hopefully, by fall of this year we will have some new 

[ Page 8531 ]

things for people to look at in terms of the building code.

Second, I have established and just about finalized the establishment of a secondary suite working committee of UBCM, planners, building inspectors and some local politicians to work with the UBCM and local government to come up with some recommendations on how we can encourage this and, if we need legislation, what we require to make legalized secondary suites more attractive to local government. That committee is about to.... We were working on it last week, and it will be announced very shortly. Again, we hope that we will have some working programs out of that for next year.

To answer your question about funds and some sort of financial program, there is quite a distinct possibility that we may have some incentives for local government or for the owners of homes. The bottom line is that I personally believe secondary suites and legalized secondary suites are one component of an affordable housing strategy. It gives us units, but it also gives first-time homebuyers some extra income for that mortgage, which is often a challenge. We are moving ahead; we are working through the system. Some authorities of some jurisdictions have ordered it -- we haven't gone that far.

A. Cowie: If I can be permitted to make a couple of comments, we will then go on, because I really appreciate what the minister had to say. A lot of houses that I go through formerly had four, five or six people living in them when families were big, and now there are two people there. There is plenty of room for suites, and it certainly wouldn't contribute to overcrowding in any way whatsoever. I think it is an important area where we can provide housing for a wide range of people. It would also allow older people to maybe stay in their homes a little longer, because there is someone else in the house -- in a separate unit, mind you -- to help in case there is a problem. It also alleviates loneliness for a lot of older people. So I think we should be as flexible as possible and work with the community to do these things. As I said, groups like the Dunbar ratepayers' association are looking at these things, and I think they are being flexible.

One of the real problems in our society is that people will agree in principle, but it is another case when it gets down to approving it: it is all right for them over there, but not for us here. I think people are frightened, so what we have to do is implement it somewhere, put the incentives on -- that is why I will be looking for the incentives -- and try it out.

The other area where the government has a tremendous upper hand is the per capita grants. I personally have no problem with giving out per capita grants on the basis of performance. At the present time they aren't given out on the basis of performance at all. You even get municipalities that are doing a terrible job with sprawl and housing, and they get the same grant as the ones that are doing a good job. I think that's an area that the minister might want to look at.

I won't go through this book detail by detail. The recommendations are quite good, however, and I'd like to use them as a basis for clarification. The first one deals with Crown land. For many years we've been looking at Crown land for housing solutions. There's a lot of provincially owned Crown land in and around municipalities, especially in smaller municipalities. I'm wondering how the minister feels about the use of Crown land. Since the main cost with Crown land is servicing, how would we go about getting the...? With secondary suites it's easy; the services are there and you can just upgrade them. With any new community of any size, however, there's a tremendous front-end cost. I'm wondering if the minister has any thoughts along those lines.

Hon. R. Blencoe: As the member is probably aware, there has been a substantial ongoing review of Crown land policy in the province. Hopefully in the fall, cabinet will be getting the review of Crown land policy. Let me give you an indicator of what I think we should be doing with Crown land. The member is aware of the Oakalla lands that just went on the block, so to speak. My office staff negotiated with BCBC to ensure that a portion -- I think the final number will be 28 percent of the Oakalla lands, now called Oaklands -- will be for the affordable, non-profit sector. When we disperse Crown lands, if possible on a long-term lease basis -- there may be some sales; that's what the Crown land policy will derive -- there should be a social policy component to it.

[3:00]

For my portfolio I would like to see that a certain percentage of lands be set aside for the non-profit affordable housing component so we can get that in there. How it is paid for, of course, is that the market side -- and the marketing of the Oakalla lands, for example, has gone extremely well -- will help us find the finances to help drive the non-profit sector as much as possible. Very soon there will hopefully be a Crown land policy that will give us the ability to have a social component in our utilization of Crown lands.

A. Cowie: The idea of leasing social housing is an excellent one. It has been used for years, anyway, but in Vancouver it was introduced in the seventies. It was recognized that leased land is probably worth almost market value when it is up around 50 years or more, but it always seems to work out at about 10 percent or 20 percent less in value, and the city is able to allow for that and give it at a discount. In Vancouver, and even in the False Creek area, they have allocated 20 percent of the land for social housing on large projects, but the problem is that there are no programs to implement it. The real problem is the funding. I keep getting back to the fact that we are going to have to use small things in order to achieve the greatest amount of innovation in housing -- over the short while, anyway.

On Friday we looked at redirecting growth -- that was recommendation 2 on page 25. I think we had a good dialogue about that. In my view, it is literally impossible to redirect growth away from where growth wants to be. The jobs are in the lower mainland and Victoria, up-Island and in the Okanagan. Are there any funds or people being allocated in the minister's 

[ Page 8532 ]

program to implement recommendation 2, so that growth will be redirected away from the two metropolitan areas?

Hon. R. Blencoe: I think we covered a fair amount of this discussion in the last few days. The simple answer is that a number of ministries are taking very seriously the issue of directing growth from the two metropolitan areas. Within my ministry, we're trying to do it with enhanced planning grants and housing grants. I don't know if you had the opportunity to discuss it with the Minister of Economic Development, but his ministry is really taking a different approach as to how it gets people out in the field. It's one of those toughies, though. I'm the first to admit we're all on board for it, but how do you do it? Get it out of the lower mainland or off Vancouver Island -- the challenge is there. It's certainly a high priority for the government across many ministries. Within my ministry, we're trying to do it through various programs. It may very well be that in our review with the UBCM we are able to take a look at how we allocate those grants and at revenue-sharing in terms of communities' needs and economic growth needs. It's something we're still trying to grapple with, hon. member.

A. Cowie: I think the use of incentives is the way to go. I don't think we are able to redirect. I think that over the years they've shown that when the Ministry of Economic Development and Small Business -- or whatever it's called at the time -- gets involved, it is just a program for economic development officers all around the province. It's a waste of money.

I'd like to ask the minister if he really cares much for recommendation 5 in any of his research. Prezoning seems to be a way of giving away land, or the use of that land, without demanding anything for it. The public doesn't get any benefits. While one can prezone it in general and use the development permit as a way of still turning the developer down if he doesn't do the right thing, prezoning outright without some pretty clear ideas and incentives on what can happen seems to be a bad idea. I wonder if the minister has any comments on that.

Hon. R. Blencoe: This is a topic that comes up, particularly from the development industry, the UDI and the real estate industry. Of course, mainly what they are asking for is a constant supply of land for housing. On the surface, to some degree it has some merit since they don't have to go through an elongated process at the local level -- hearings, rezonings, potential NIMBYs, neighbourhood issues -- which can stretch out for months and of course add costs and uncertainty to the development process. The local government's concern with prezoning land, of course, is that if you prezone without any sort of development permits, comprehensive development zoning or the old form of land use contract we used to have -- some controls -- you never know what's going to happen. Local governments have been very reluctant to prezone without some way of ensuring what's going to happen there in terms of design that is attractive to the community.

We think Bill 57, which I don't want to get into details on, will encourage local governments to prezone to some degree, because they'll have greater control. We've gone to comprehensive development zoning, which is basically customized zoning that gives local government the ability to sit down and negotiate a win-win decision with developers for certain.... The developer may want some bonusing, transfer or extra densities. The local government can get something back in return. We're trying to give local government a greater toolbox, I guess -- and we've done it with this piece of legislation -- so they can protect themselves in things like prezoning.

We do hear the development industry's requirement for good available land and for process. A lot of the recommendations in here actually are to do with local government and the process, and we're reviewing those. But those aren't new issues, hon. member; they've been around a long time. I'm sure you've gone through them yourself. And there's no magic wand. One municipality -- Matsqui -- has just gone through a test run, taking a look at easing the process. I think we're learning from some things there. When I meet with local government I address, to some degree, that the perception from the development industry is not always accurate, but they face some realities and I think local government has to address them.

A. Cowie: On that subject, my personal view is that you can do general plans. Then I've come to the point of view -- and I've done many -- that detailed plans are absolutely rubbish in today's terms. Government should stay out of doing detailed area plans and customized zoning. First, the people doing those plans don't know a thing about the market; the market shifts so quickly. I think it's better if society looks after the quality standards, sets objectives -- and that's what municipalities are looking after -- and has the developers keep up with what the market is. We'll have a much more lively community if we allow that. I'm absolutely opposed to that -- not that it will make much difference.

I have a question on development cost charges, because that's a big one for a lot of municipalities. That's one of the reasons why we are getting these big houses, in that you pay the same development cost charge whether you've got a big house or a little house, a big apartment or a little apartment. Some changes are warranted in that area, and I'm wondering if the minister would like to tell us about any recent changes or anything that he's thinking about along those lines.

Hon. R. Blencoe: A very short answer. The issue of development cost charges is one that was brought to my attention early in my mandate in this ministry. It is contentious; it's not an easy one to resolve. All the stakeholders involved have different opinions of what should happen. I have given instructions to the ministry, along with many other things that they are reviewing, for a fairly extensive review of development cost charges. There are a number of ideas out there 

[ Page 8533 ]

suggested as items that development cost charges could pay for, on the social side in particular. We are taking a look at the issue to see if any changes are required. If a legislative change is made, it will be next year that in the spring at the earliest. We did make some minor changes this year to accommodate the Ministry of Education in terms of some planning changes there, but if there are to be major changes they will come next year after extensive consultation with those involved. The short answer is that I think it is very important, and quite frankly, we are spending a lot of time with it.

A. Cowie: Because of the history behind this, I accept that that's going to take a little time to implement.

The report recommends -- there are a number of pages and I won't refer to them specifically -- that sums of money be spent on the low end, providing for those people who were probably provided for in the past by places like Oppenheimer Lodge. That involved accommodations for single men and women where they had rooms, and then there was a public component to the building as well. That seemed to work very well. It's just a matter of money, however. Those programs in Vancouver have been enormously successful, but you can do only so many and you have only so much money.

At the very bottom are the street people, and that's where the greatest amount of attention has to be put at the present time -- we touched upon this the other day -- so that we don't become what San Francisco has become, and so that people can live downtown, we can have tourism and we can keep our city in a healthy state. When there are all kinds of panhandlers and people wandering around and living on the streets, it turns a lot of people off. People won't go downtown. That would truly be unfortunate if that happened in Canadian cities.

I know the minister has hired Mr. Green. I wonder if he can give us a clue as to the direction in which he's going.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I'll do my utmost. As I proceed, I'm sure staff will provide me with a note or two on more details.

First let me say that in terms of homelessness, youth at risk, transiency, single parents and women fleeing abusive situations, I have made it quite clear to my staff and to B.C. Housing that these are a very high priority on my agenda for housing. Some months ago I announced stage 1 of a special $10 million homelessness strategy. There will be 166 new units in various parts of the province, predominantly in the Vancouver and Victoria areas. For the first time specific units are dedicated to homelessness, and youth at risk. We are proceeding with those. I did say at that time that that was stage 1.

Second, in the budget this year we announced there would be another component under B.C. 21. Very shortly I will be announcing an innovative approach to homelessness. There will be more units, with an innovation. We will not only provide shelter but social benefits for those who are going to be housed. We'll be announcing that soon.

Third, single-room occupancy work is now being done, in particular under Jim Green. I will be bringing forth shortly an inner-city urban housing strategy and making some announcements on single-room occupancy. That is a high priority as well.

This year I also hope to announce more general housing units specifically out of the government's housing program for homelessness, similar to the $10 million program we did this year. It is a high priority; unfortunately, we never have enough. I'm the first to admit we're just starting to really tackle this in a forthright way. We are determined to come to grips with it. I don't want to get into who is responsible, but as you know, the federal government is removing itself from the field in terms of social housing. This is having a dramatic impact on our budget and our abilities to deal with these issues. I have just come back from a ministers' meeting with the federal minister, basically trying to get them to reinstate their programs so that we can hone our programs and direct some more money to these kinds of initiatives.

A. Cowie: I am an advocate of the old co-op system. If you look at housing, I think that we in B.C. are better off when it is dealt with at the provincial level. We are just subsidizing Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Ontario and other places, because we have the best opportunities to build houses here by far. It is a good thing. I think we should get off that campaign and just get on with dealing with it. It is a matter of targeting funds. If one could get on to the suites and the things that can fill the immediate gap, we might get enough money in the longer run for those who really need it.

[3:15]

I understand that there are a number of rent-to-own programs in the States -- I have been unable to get too much information on them, but maybe your staff has been luckier than I have. When I was working in Australia a number of years ago I dealt with a program called Home Units. Home units are just apartments. But it was easy to get: you got a grant from the provincial government, and that got you into owning something. Or you rented a unit for three years and then had an opportunity to own it. The more people that they could get into owning houses, the more money.... That was their priority, rather than drinking beer -- and they drink a lot of beer down there. I just use that as one example. I wonder if the minister has found any such information, and if in his program and budgeting he has seriously thought about a rent-to-own project on Crown land or any other land.

Hon. R. Blencoe: We have extensive work under review now, looking at other jurisdictions and how they have tackled the issue of first-time homebuyers, particularly in the starter-home initiative. One of the things that we are looking at is whether we can launch a very small test or maybe a pilot project: a starter-home, first-time homebuyer, home-ownership program. You are right that there are lots of models all over the world; some are good and some have wrinkles. What we have to do, of course, is make them applicable to the British Columbia scene.

[ Page 8534 ]

As the hon. member is aware, this ministry has been mandated to come up with programs for next year. As a program, the renter's tax credit has been eliminated. The $18 million to $20 million allocated to that program has been dedicated to my ministry for new housing initiatives to try to help those who were being helped by the renter's tax credit. One of the things that we would like to do is find some programs that could help people move from the rental situation to being first-time homebuyers -- looking at what is required from the provincial government. We don't have the major resources to do that, so we are doing an extensive review of options in the home-ownership area. But the province could move ahead in a slow way to test some ideas.

A. Cowie: We could go on for two or three days with just housing. My purpose in asking a few questions was to identify that things are happening, and what the general direction was. It would appear that some of the more concrete things will come out in the spring next year, so that will be the time to get into more specific programs. Also, there is an opportunity to deal with manufactured homes, because there is a bill dealing with that. When we deal with that bill I hope we are talking about homes that move on wheels, versus those that are in place. I think that's something most people don't understand at all. Once you put in manufactured homes, they just stay there like any other homes. In fact, ones on wheels would stay there, too. But that's something I won't get into today.

The Chair: Excuse me, hon. member. I guess we all have to rise and go into the other House, as a division is being called. I ask for a motion to adjourn, if we may.

Interjection.

The Chair: To recess -- let's be technical.

D. Schreck: Hon. Chair, standing orders provide that this committee is automatically recessed until the division in the House is completed.

The Chair: Now we know for whom the bells toll.

The Committee recessed at 3:22 p.m.

The Committee resumed at 3:30 p.m.

A. Cowie: I just have a couple of questions, as I indicated that I personally am not going to go on a great deal in housing.... It is my favourite subject, and I see that it's one of the minister's. I would like to know just how the minister could set up a review system of some kind for cases that are obviously completely wrong.

We had a case in Delta, for example -- where I happen to live until the end of the month -- where there was a piece of property, a Baptist church and a big parking lot. The Baptist foundation came up with a plan -- I think it was two and a half years ago -- for a senior citizens' development there. They had an apartment, and that was turned down. The community in the surrounding area didn't want it. But they then came back three times, and each time the council refused them. It was very split on the last one, which was a low-level project. There was an opportunity, because the area was obviously used for much more intensified use. The end result was because of three residents out of about 50 in that neighbourhood. The council didn't have enough guts to pass a seniors' centre project and instead encouraged the Baptist church to sell the property. There are now eight big houses going up on that property. I believe that's absolutely disgraceful, and I believe the community should be chastised for that -- that is, the council. Perhaps it's better that I not ask the minister's opinion on this, but I hope the minister has some strong legislation that not only controls developers that don't meet social objectives but controls councils that don't meet social objectives. Something should be done. Maybe the minister would give us a little comment on that.

Hon. R. Blencoe: The member is really asking a fundamental philosophical question about local government and its ability to make decisions, and whether someone should challenge those decisions from supposedly a higher authority -- i.e., senior government.

Ontario, as you know, has a municipal board where developers or whoever can appeal a local government decision. There's no history of that kind of approach in British Columbia. British Columbia has a longstanding tradition that local government is a very serious level of government with its own autonomy. It's elected local decision-making. And currently this minister is working to improve the local decision-making process by giving local government better tools to work on planning, housing and strategies. We've just finished a major piece of work on how affordable housing builds stronger communities called "Developing Community Housing Policies: A Guide for Local Government." I've just supplied the member, and I'll supply my good colleague from the third party with a copy. There are ways local government can ease the process. There are ways that certain municipalities are doing things in affordable housing and planning areas. Local government is encouraged not to frustrate developers. Within my ministry, we will very shortly have a staff person specifically relating just to those kinds of issues. Someone will work with local government, not to tell them what to do but to share -- particularly in the housing and municipal areas -- the different ways that things can be done to advocate improved decision-making, and to try and ease the frustration that some feel with local government.

As I've already indicated, the COHO -- Provincial Commission on Housing Options -- report has a number of recommendations dealing with the local government process. We intend to work with UBCM and others to try and see if we can improve some of these areas. Let me give you some examples in some of our housing allocations. We allocate the units. The zoning is not in place in the local level. But in the initial discussion, the local community is all in favour of that project coming. Then it gets to the public hearing 

[ Page 8535 ]

process, the neighbourhood comes out in force, the project goes down and the zoning doesn't go ahead. There is sometimes great misunderstanding. We are going to have a greater ability through my ministry to try and comfort local government on some of their concerns. Quite frankly, hon. member, you are correct: there is great frustration sometimes.

Rightly or wrongly, the bottom line is that local government is elected, and it makes those decisions. We can try and encourage them to understand things better and give them greater tools for protection. Bill 57, for example, does some of that and will be doing more of it. Unless we go to a system where you appeal local government decisions, like Ontario does, I think.... The time we're investing is to improve local government decision-making and give them a greater sense of comfort when dealing with these issues.

A. Cowie: I'll make a comment through the Chair, and then I'll allow some other people to get involved with these questions. In that particular case, however, I'd like to clarify that, to her credit, the mayor did support the project. She usually does support those kinds of projects. In that particular instance the community plan did state a number of social objectives. In fact, because the provincial government requires it, they now have some objectives for getting a wide range of housing that would have allowed that project to go ahead. I think it was a real mistake on the part of local politicians and the council as a whole. Hopefully, they don't make too many of those mistakes.

Of course, as I said earlier, the minister could review this per capita grant system, and if the municipality isn't meeting its own social objectives in the community plan or its stated objectives on housing, then perhaps that grant could be withdrawn or at least not given to that municipality. It's the carrot-and-the-stick technique. I know some people wouldn't like that, but it is the municipalities' own objectives that they don't meet.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I'll just add to some of that discussion, because I think this is useful. Perhaps we can get to some other issues in a minute.

I introduced Bill 20 last year, hon. member, and it is now a requirement in the official community plans for local government that they actually have to plan and look at affordable housing policies. This is an example where we are requesting, but we are also backing it up with incentives. You keep talking about incentives. This year we are putting aside about $400,000 for housing planning grants to local governments that meet the OCP requirements of Bill 20; that is, that start to look at what their policies are doing in terms of affordable housing. Rather than provincial government overwhelming local government by telling them how to do it, we are trying to encourage them; we will be giving them support and showing them that document I just gave you. Many local governments are coming to us, saying: "We want to do more, but we don't know how to do it." There are examples, and we are showing them how to do it.

The other comment I make about overturning local government decisions.... If we had an appeal system like that in other jurisdictions, what the evidence shows is that local government would say no more often. Also, if local governments know the provincial government is going to have an appeals system, they just transfer their problems to the provincial government. In the end, in land use and zoning, basically anything that smacks of any controversy would just be transported to the provincial government to resolve. Quite frankly, we are trying to deal with enough things, and it is a traditional role for local government to deal with local land use and zoning. My concern would be that if it was known the provincial government would intercede, the local governments would say: "Oh well, we will just transport that controversy to the provincial government; they can make the decision." I think that would question the relationship between the province and municipalities over what a local government is supposed to do. You have to be very careful in that area.

L. Fox: I have listened very intently to this discussion. A couple of things bother me, and I want to go back to them. I just heard the member for Vancouver-Quilchena suggest that perhaps the per capita grant -- and I think he was talking about the revenue-sharing -- should have a penalty clause if you don't meet the social housing target. I suppose that would be put forward by the minister; that there should be opportunity for the minister to perhaps withhold some of those funds. That is what I interpreted from that discussion, and it concerns me a great deal.

First of all, it is revenue-sharing, not a per capita grant. It is a share in the revenue that was designed to give the municipalities the capability of meeting demands at a local level and of being autonomous while doing that. I hope that the ministry and the government would look at an emphasis on creating a higher percentage in specific grants dealing with infra-structure initiatives, and so on, that were accommodating social housing, so that there is a positive aspect to the program, not a negative one where you are actually taking it away. The revenue-sharing wasn't designed for the municipalities to meet social housing needs. In the initial stages, it was designed to help with the infrastructures and all of the other networks and services that communities have to deliver. I hope that we will somehow look at an incentive program rather than a disincentive for not doing something, so that we put forward a positive rather than a negative approach. I think the communities would be very receptive to that. That is an observation -- it doesn't need any dialogue.

Another issue that I want to deal with -- because once again I have a little different perspective than that of the dialogue that was going across the floor -- is what role and what kind of autonomy the local councils should have in the planning and development of their communities. When we go back three years -- maybe four now, because time flies -- and look at the surveys that were done on the accountability of politicians, we find that without exception the municipal politicians were, by and large, held in a lot higher regard by the electorate than any other level of politician. That is probably because they are close and approachable, and 

[ Page 8536 ]

they're on the street virtually every day -- more often than MLAs are. I have a lot of faith in the process. If municipal councils were not representing what the electorate felt was in its best interests, it would soon look after that. On top of that, it would be extremely difficult for a provincial minister or ministry to come down with any kind of policy on densities that would make sense on a provincial basis, because every community, every problem and concern is so different. Infrastructures and all the rest of those concerns are extremely different, and the impacts are different. That's just one observation.

The other observation I have on this particular issue I would put to the committee this way. Suppose we looked at the heavy hand of government coming down on municipalities, and we supported that so that if they didn't comply with the wishes and perspective of the provincial government on what was in the best interests of the community, the provincial government could come down on them. What if we applied that same theory to the federal and provincial governments? If we look at the Health Act, which is the overriding legislation across Canada, for instance, and if we agreed that that kind of scenario should be in place, then we would also have to agree that if the provincial government didn't live up to the expectations of the federal government in terms of health care, they should have the authority to come and sit on the provincial government because it hadn't met its goals and objectives the way the Canadian government felt it should have done. So I have a lot of concern in those specific areas. Perhaps the minister might reassure me as to what his ministry directions are with respect to some of those issues.

Hon. R. Blencoe: This is again extending the philosophical debate. It is a fascinating one which we're all having in terms of governance models and getting the best out of the taxpayers' dollar while meeting the expectations of all levels of government. It would appear that with my critics, I have the hon. member for the official opposition taking a little sterner hand with the provincial government and giving more instructions on return for our investment, which I have some sympathy for. On the other hand, my critic for the third party is saying be cautious -- hands off local autonomy. What we've got, of course, is a government that takes a middle position; it comes down and arbitrates among all those views. That's what we are currently trying to do.

[3:45]

I am of the view, though, that we spend a considerable amount of money in grants through provincial revenue-sharing. This year more than $315 million will go out to local governments -- a considerable amount of money. A lot of that is totally untied and unconditional. Understand that. But there are so many problems being faced today in the regions -- environmental issues, say -- that the province is trying to tackle. My perspective is that we should not instruct them how to do it but say to them that we have these problems today, and as a provincial government we cannot tackle them alone. We could say to them that they are at the local level facing those problems on a daily basis and are developing ways to deal with them. There is a partnership evolving there. As the province was discussing, are there some provincial interests that are really also local government interests that we could share? If there is a regional or local government that tackles certain issues well -- such as housing -- and it is really coming to grips with it and doing some fundamental and progressive things, we could ask if there is some way they could be rewarded. Is there some way we could recognize that?

I am just putting out some ideas. I haven't come to grips with it yet, but we are facing some horrendous situations, particularly in the housing component, which I am really anxious to deal with. That's what the commission report is on. We have some great stuff there, and we are moving ahead. Seventeen things are done, and we are moving on about 30 others, but we can't do it alone. We are going to need a partnership. Everyone says it's federal, so it's their interest; or it's provincial and the barrier drops, and no one else is interested. Or it's municipal, and the barrier drops again. Quite frankly, our citizens are ahead of us on this. They are saying: "Look, you are all in it together, folks. You've really got to work together. Don't just say, that's local government autonomy, so don't step on our toes. Find some way to work on it together." Shelter and housing, regional planning, environmental issues and air pollution don't recognize the boundaries.

It's not a matter of a heavy hand. It's a matter of again bringing along local government: we want to work with them. Some partnerships can be developed. How can we structure our revenue-sharing or grant system to recognize those municipalities and regional districts that are tackling the serious issues of the day? Is there some incentive so they can be recognized? We're all feeling our way in these new areas, and we're certainly prepared to tackle it. But we recognize that local government sometimes can be a bit suspicious when they think the provincial government has some agenda. We have no hidden agenda. I've been upfront in terms of the issues I want to work on, and I'm asking local government to be a partner in dealing with that. Voil� Bill 57, giving them greater ability to deal with zoning and bonus transfers and inclusion rezoning, etc.

L. Fox: Close to the end the minister mentioned the key word "incentive." That was the whole thrust of my argument and presentation: there should be incentives to recognize those initiatives.

When I look back, it was only 21 short years ago when the regional districts came into being. Until that time there was virtually no planning, organization or zoning in the rural regions of the province. Why were the regional districts introduced? Primarily to have local direction, because the province had a horrible time trying to deal with the regions from a global and provincial perspective. I think it was a good initiative. The review of the regional districts in -- I'm trying to remember -- the mid-eighties proved that they had met the objectives in many cases. While there could be some improvements, it certainly was a whole lot better than prior to '72 -- before the regional district was in place. I 

[ Page 8537 ]

guess my concern is that if we get too heavy-handed in terms of government we go back to the days prior to '72, and I don't think we want to do that.

The other issue in this is a bit philosophical, but given the fact that revenue-sharing is such a large part of the budget and that the planning grant process is indeed granted on initiative.... In fact, if a community proves need and wants to go into a certain area, in my experience in dealing with the ministry it usually has met their request. They may not meet it in the one year, but quite often they'll meet the request to supply more planning dollars to get on with community planning. So I'm quite sure that the municipalities will rise to the change in emphasis and to the need.

But the problem in this -- and the minister alluded to it a little earlier -- is that growth is triggered by so many different factors -- provincial policies in regional development and in the Ministry of Social Services. You can go through virtually every ministry and tie it somehow to growth within your respective community. I was interested to hear how the minister perceived they might look at trying to encourage growth in the non-growing areas, and at the policies that would do that. I'd just like to enter into that discussion a bit, because I think it triggers right back to municipal planning and meeting demands for housing. When you look at it, policies on energy, resource use, education and social services are key factors, and all of those are out of the hands of the local municipality.

If a community is going to grow in many single-industry towns where I'm sure the government is looking to encourage growth, obviously we cannot do it when the resource industries are continuing to go through technological change, and are actually cutting back in employment instead of moving forward and expanding as we saw ten to 15 years ago. When we look at the whole picture, it's extremely complex and difficult to encourage people to move to other areas of the province rather than the three areas presently growing.

It's a similar problem for the municipalities faced with housing programs. The social issues are going to be front and centre, and they're not going to be within the municipality's framework of being able to deal with them because they are a responsibility of the provincial government. If we look back -- and I don't think we want to do that either -- we can recall some time when in fact welfare was a municipal responsibility. I don't think we want to get back to those days, because in today's world there's a whole host of inherent problems with the way that delivery was handled then. There's probably a partnership role there that will evolve somewhere down the road, but I guess that's future policy.

All I'm trying to do is point out that while a municipality may want to respond to the housing problem, there's a real complexity before them and a host of problems that are out of their control and out of their area of jurisdiction which they are unable to deal with. I'll just go a little further. One of those is in the land base. We talked earlier about Crown land. I was involved a bit with the Oakalla situation, because I sat on the BCBC board when we were looking at and wrestling with that four years ago. I know the complexities of that decision and the politics of it, and so on. Not all communities have a land bank of Crown land such as that to deal with. In fact, most often any Crown land within a community is utilized -- if not by the government -- as green space or for other issues within the community.

I guess it gets down to the fact that while there may be Crown land available, generally it's in the outskirts and away from existing development and often at extreme cost in terms of service and infrastructure costs. Is the minister going to be open to a land swap or trade or those kinds of things? You could locate these housing programs while you use the land as a land bank. It may be outside the existing growth factor, but you could look at somehow trading or dealing with the private sector in order to encourage land in a location that's more desirable than where you may have Crown land available.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I hesitate because there are other ministers involved in this issue. I think you were here, hon. member, when I said that we are in the process of reviewing the Crown land policy and trying to come up with new ways to look at the utilization of Crown land. My understanding is that there have been swaps in the past. It's not something that I have spent a lot of time on, but it has been looked at before. I'm not aware of anything substantial going on in that area that I can report to you.

L. Fox: I will explore those a little later. I was passed a note that the minister had to recess from 4 o'clock to 4:30. This may be the appropriate time to move that motion.

Motion approved.

The Committee recessed at 3:59 p.m.

The Committee resumed at 4:48 p.m.

[M. Farnworth in the chair.]

Hon. R. Blencoe: I beg the indulgence of the committee and apologize for the delay. I have had a bit of an emergency with two regional districts and library service, and I have been trying to put it back together. It took a little longer than I thought, and I am very sorry for the delay.

L. Fox: I bet I can guess what....

Hon. R. Blencoe: You know which one it is.

L. Fox: I will carry on. The member for Saanich North and the Islands wanted to ask some questions, so I will defer to him as soon as he gets back. Because of the delay, he had to run out for a few minutes.

We were talking earlier about housing and the general policy within the ministry -- and I would assume, within government -- of trying to look at encouraging growth in sectors other than the three 

[ Page 8538 ]

major ones, which right now are by and large encouraging the most growth. After my general observation, the first question I will ask is: at what stage is this process now? Where are we with this plan in terms of encouraging the growth to other areas of the province? You suggested that the ministry and the government were looking at a process to do that. What stage is that plan at now?

Hon. R. Blencoe: There is no overall plan. I think there are a number of ministries trying to cooperate. For instance, I mentioned that the Minister of Economic Development is trying to revamp and restructure his ministry as a more decentralized model -- out into the regions. You can cover that approach with him, rather than with me.

In terms of my ministry, we are looking at our grant and planning grant systems. In my travels I have been talking with local government in terms of what they require to better manage their regions. For many of them, growth management is a problem; for many, it is stimulating growth. Quite frankly, we don't have all the answers for giving them the incentives or the programs that they require.

One of the areas, of course, is the B.C. 21 program, which has been launched to try and fast-track some of those programs -- highway development programs, school programs -- that have been on the agenda for a long time and to target some of the regions that feel they have been left out of the development or the growth process.

One of the other areas is in the job protection commissioner's job -- actively trying to save industries and jobs in the regions. Again, it's not within my purview, but I can assure you that my ministry is looking at.... For instance, I get many mayors or councils coming to me, as the hon. member has, about how we look at our sewer and water grant programs and infrastructure grants. Often the dollars are utilized by larger municipalities, particularly the GVRD. Some of the smaller communities don't get the benefit of the revenue-sharing of the sewer and water programs. We're taking a look at how we can manage our dollars to ensure that those smaller communities are not left out of the system.

L. Fox: Well, the minister and I are certainly on different wavelengths. As I understand it, he's suggesting that government, through their programs, is looking at ways and means of creating growth through government spending in other areas of the province. We talk about the Economic Development ministry, and I have certainly dealt at some length with that ministry about what decentralization meant in terms of actual growth in those regions. I won't get into that now; it would only be duplication anyway.

My concern is that in the real world, when you look at what's causing those areas to grow, it isn't government spending. It isn't government spending that's causing the Vancouver region or the Okanagan region to grow. It's economics, private investment and so on that stimulates the growth. That then brings with it the problems of housing and also the rise in land prices, which, of course, compounds the problem of housing. What I had hoped the minister meant when he talked about ways and means of encouraging people to move to other segments of the province -- to encourage that growth, to look at other than the three locations presently enjoying it in the province -- was that we would be looking at some kind of economic policies that would stimulate the regions of the province and therefore create the shift through private investment and job creation. If we're suggesting -- and the minister seemed to be doing that -- that the lack of planning and infrastructure dollars to the municipalities is creating a poor investment climate, I'd have some problem with that logic. In fact, it seems to me you need growth before some of those things are real issues. Many areas of this province aren't achieving any growth. While they may still have infrastructure problems and a need for upgrading their OCPs and zoning bylaws, their problems are certainly a lot different than the Vancouver, Okanagan and even Nanaimo problems.

So I'd hope that the minister, in his wisdom and as the Minister of Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Housing, would have suggested that he was going to play some kind of lead role, with the municipalities, over what kind of policies are needed in order to stimulate the economies in those areas. That, by and large, is done by provincial policy more than local policy. I would just mention -- and I'll go through one scenario -- that if we look back at the initial design of Kemano, that was going to create 50,000 jobs in Kitimat. It didn't quite get there, but it certainly created a city. And that was done, in that day and with the values of those days, by government and industry.

If we look at the opportunities to diversify the economy in many municipalities, particularly in the north and the East Kootenay regions, there are opportunities out there -- through cogeneration, for instance. But that takes an energy policy in government that encourages that kind of thing, thereby bringing some of that growth into those regions, away from the urban areas in the southern part of the province. That was what I was hoping the minister was talking about, when he was talking about the dialogue happening between the ministries to divert growth to other regions of the province.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I don't want to belabour the point, but I'm trying to refer to the role of my ministry as one which deals predominantly with the management rather than the creation of growth. Other ministries, plus Crown corporations and other bodies, are there to stimulate it and to work on it. They are, indeed, doing that. I can assure the hon. member that there is a lot of work going on within government in terms of an economic plan and strategies for regional diversification, and those will be coming forth. But I'm not at liberty to expound upon those, and there are other ministries you can cover that with. The corporate government is very conscious of the gap between the lower mainland and other regions of this province, but I can assure you that there is no magic. We have to create incentives and encourage industries to move to those communities. One of the areas I can work on that 

[ Page 8539 ]

relates to our ministry is the infrastructure. Are the infrastructure programs available to ensure that those new industries want to move to those communities? Are those communities in British Columbia attractive to the captains of industry who may wish to come here? We are working on some of those things, but it's not a new problem and it is not resolved overnight. There is an agenda within government, not just about government spending but how we can create the environment for the private sector to want to move to other parts of this province.

L. Fox: I want to follow up on that, but I have promised that I would allow the hon. member for Saanich North and the Islands to speak at this point, so I'll take my place and look forward to coming back to this.

C. Tanner: I have risen twice to ask the hon. minister a question, and twice my timing has been so poor that we have abandoned the cause for the day. Consequently, I want to go back to the Islands Trust, something we have talked about before. The Islands Trust is made up of 26 trustees in five regional districts, and they are represented by six MLAs and I don't know how many MPs. It is the only organization I know in the province that is unique. I thought it was aptly described by the hon. member for Nanaimo when he said that they not only have internal problems, they have external problems. They're not only very defensive of their own island, they're very defensive of the islands as a whole. Those two objectives sometimes contradict each other.

[5:00]

In spite of that, and in spite of the fact that the population on Saltspring has doubled in five years, the minister hasn't raised the amount of money that is granted to the Islands Trust for three years. At least, it hasn't been raised by this minister or the previous minister. I was wondering if there's some explanation for that. While I, for one, very quickly shout when the government spends money, I'm just wondering whether the minister understands all the circumstances on the islands and in the Islands Trust, and I'm wondering why there hasn't been any increase, as there has been in other grants.

Hon. R. Blencoe: As you know, this government is facing financial constraints. Indeed, local government itself received a cut in its unconditional amounts last year. This year we maintained it at last year's level of $120 million. The simple answer, hon. member, is that we're not in a position to increase grants at this point in time. We're trying to hold onto what we have and maintain the status quo. I've explained that to the Islands Trust.

In terms of the future of the Islands Trust, there is indeed a future. Once again, I met with the Islands Trust key players last week. We have agreed to look at some amendments that are required for better governance and at some of the issues that have been raised by citizens in order to make it work a little better. One day it's probably going to be necessary to do a fairly substantial review of governing the islands in the future. Next year we will probably have some amendments to make the system work better than it is now, and maybe down the road we will do a more fundamental review of governance for the Gulf Islands.

C. Tanner: I have another question that I think you probably discussed previously. This isn't concerning the Islands Trust; this is concerning the recreational portion of the minister's budget. I'm sorry to go backward and forward like this, but I did try before. Does the minister receive any lottery funds within his budget, and if so, can he indicate what they are allocated to?

Hon. R. Blencoe: No.

Hon. Chair, on the other question, the grant to the regional district for the Islands Trust is $494,000. Last year we did an amendment allowing the Islands Trust to become eligible for planning grants, which made it about $100,000. We're finding some ways to give incremental increases to their budget in a different way.

C. Tanner: I appreciate the fact that they did get those community grants, but those are specific grants for a specific purpose that is very necessary. But the major per capita funding hasn't been increased for three years, I think.

Hon. R. Blencoe: This may very well be something we want to take a look at in terms of the new governance models down the road. The close to half a million dollars that we provide now under the structure of the Trust is to fund what is perceived to be the provincial interests. The local interests obviously come out of local taxation. I have heard the concern of the islanders that this grant hasn't moved and that the levy has gone up considerably. You're absolutely correct. I've flagged that, of course, for next year, and we've moved to see if there's some way to give them more money for the planning grant system in order to alleviate some of those concerns.

This is not the only area that's facing these kinds of constraints, and in the end the Islands Trust people will have to rationalize their levy and defend it to their constituents, whereas I may have some concern with the amount that it's going up by.

C. Tanner: If the committee would allow, I would like to make one comment. That makes it much more difficult for people living on the islands by choice. Let me make it clear. They live there by choice, but the fact of the matter is that because it's all coastline, the value of that property has increased incredibly, as it has on the peninsula where I live -- but more so on the islands. Consequently, while the rate of taxation has actually gone down, the assessments have gone so high that a lot of people are in trouble. A lot of people on fixed incomes retired there, and it particularly hurts those people who bought a home ten or 15 years ago and are now realizing assessments which are just out of sight.

[ Page 8540 ]

Hon. R. Blencoe: Yes, I'm aware of that. Of course, the islands are not alone. Assessments have dramatically increased in all sorts of provincial communities. Those citizens who have lived in them for some period of time don't particularly want to move, but they are facing costs that they didn't face 30 years ago when they first occupied those homes. Long-term residents of the islands are facing the squeeze. Certainly, through my ministry we tried to moderate some of those fluctuations by Bill 66 last year. Going back to annual increases.... Now local government has the ability to do phasing and averaging to try and take some of those rises into account and level the playing field a little bit. If someone has the answer to markets and assessments and properties that are very attractive.... Yes, the world is discovering the Gulf Islands -- you're right. Some of those little communities that have been sheltered and not known about are being discovered, and of course, the prices are rising. I'm very aware of it. If you've got any suggestions, I'll certainly take them, hon. member.

L. Hanson: I'd like to switch gears for just a few minutes. Does the minister have anyone here in his group of advisers who is expert in the fire commissioner's office?

Hon. R. Blencoe: Yes, go ahead.

L. Hanson: Some time ago there was a discussion going on -- it went on for some time -- about the delivery of fire training to different centres within British Columbia. There was discussion about a new centre and about sending out a mobile team from the commissioner's office. A number of tapes for fire training were being developed. What's the status now?

Hon. R. Blencoe: This year we've increased the budget for the contribution to the Fire Academy. It's close to $1 million, for which they have been asking for some time. We have developed a funding formula for the educational kits for volunteer fire training. We've managed to achieve a contribution from the local government in terms of the partnership on that. We are negotiating with my colleague the Minister of Advanced Education. We are prepared to pay for the operating, but would like him to pay for the capital of the mobile units.

Personally, I'm in favour of the mobile unit concept. Some municipalities wanted to have construction of regional training centres. I think we've come to the conclusion that if we had mobile units, we could move across the province and do the training from them. I certainly am in favour of that. We may have some resolution of that and the dollars to move ahead.

We're also looking at enhancing the Maple Ridge burn units. I'm trying to find the dollars for that. To make a long story short, we are close to resolving some of those longstanding differences. The fire chiefs in the various organizations, of which there are many, advised the minister on a number of issues. I think we have some good things to do. As usual, of course, it comes down to finding the dollars to do it.

L. Hanson: I'm sure the minister is right about the difference of opinion. The volunteer fire chiefs have a different opinion than the paid fire chiefs do; the lower mainland fire chiefs have a different opinion than the interior fire chiefs. There has been a lengthy and at times heated discussion.

The minister is aware that the mobile training program put in place a number of years ago -- of which I have some personal experience; I was a volunteer firefighter for a number of years -- was less than satisfactory. Not only was it terribly costly; it wasn't very effective in delivering the training to the volunteer fire departments. Not all, but most of the interior fire departments are volunteer. In the North Okanagan regional district, there are eight to ten fire departments, and I think only one of them has any significant paid component.

I'm surprised to hear the minister suggest that there is unanimous acceptance of this form of fire training; that the mobile unit, with the people that go around with it, has been accepted by all levels of firefighting. Is the minister aware of the North Okanagan regional fire training facility that is in place and has developed quite an elaborate and pretty structured training program, particularly for volunteer fire departments around the area? One of the difficulties, of course, is for the volunteer firefighters -- who are the majority in the interior -- to take time off from work to attend a training school here in the lower mainland and have the cost paid. The mobile unit hasn't been as effective in the past. If the minister is aware of the training facility that North Okanagan has developed, is there any consideration that they might be part of the fire commissioner's program?

Hon. R. Blencoe: It's interesting that the member should bring that up. It seems to me that some weeks ago the North Okanagan facility came to my attention, and it seemed like a very useful one to look at. We're certainly willing to provide the training or the staff through that kind of facility. The problem is that we cannot afford the capital construction of such facilities. From my initial look at that facility, it's serving a good purpose. We're quite prepared to enter into some working relationships or partnerships, if you will, with that kind of organization.

L. Hanson: I'm pleased, because they certainly will be pleased to hear that. They have felt that the progress they've made on their own has not been as acknowledged as it could have been. In fairness to the minister, though, the Regional District of North Okanagan is now supporting that facility financially. I'm not sure that that's a bad proposal or system to have in place. I think dedication to the program from all of the fire departments might not come without some responsibility for funding and management and the other parts, so I think that's good. But I think it would be really encouraging to those departments to know that, from a monitoring point of view, the regional training functions were not only recognized but partially authorized by the fire commissioner's office.

[5:15]

[ Page 8541 ]

One of the difficulties they are finding there now is that the Regional District of North Okanagan collects, on a levy basis, for the operation of that regional fire training facility. There are fire departments outside the regional fire training centre who want to take part in it. That would indicate the success of the training program, even though it is a regional one. So if the hon. minister suggests that he and the fire commissioner will look seriously at the operation they have there, with consideration to acknowledging and maybe taking part a bit in the financing of it, that would be appreciated.

Hon. R. Blencoe: This is one of the advantages of being a former minister -- knowing what the answer should be.

I have indicated through my staff that I like the concept that is going on in North Okanagan. There is some progress that could be developed, and we are prepared to provide the instructors. We want to explore whatever opportunities exist because we are looking for those partnerships; we can't do it alone.

I recall from our discussions that the difficulty is still that we have outlying communities, and it is still a heck of a long way to have to travel for the opportunity of going to those regional centres. You remember mobile units from about 15 or 20 years ago that probably didn't work very well and that we need to take a look at. There has been a lot of revamping and looking at a new system. My recall of discussions on this is that there are still many outlying communities that would benefit from a mobile kind of system. But that isn't etched in stone, and we want to deliver the best system in return for the money that we are putting in.

The good news for this year is that my ministry has increased funding for the Fire Academy by close to 30 percent over last year. We are just about at the level, according to all the comments made over the years, that the fire community has been saying the province should be giving to the Fire Academy.

L. Hanson: I have just one addition to that, and I am not really expecting an answer. I would like to point out to the hon. minister that any training facility that is within travelling distance, so that the person can spend a day at the training facility and still be able to travel home at night, is a big advantage. It may be a long day, but it's a big advantage over trying to come down to the lower mainland to receive the same kind of training. Even though the locations may not be right next door, if they're within reasonable driving distance, it is a huge advantage to those people who are trying to earn a living in some other vocation and still have the interest to spend their weekend getting some fire training.

Hon. R. Blencoe: Just to give comfort to the member, my staff, given the opportunity, will tell you that I'm constantly asking where we're at in terms of the fire commissioner and these new services. From all my information, I think the volunteers out there give an incredible service to the province, and we have to enhance our support for them.

I have the exact dollars. Last year the province contributed $717,000 to the academy; this year I've managed to get it up to $945,000. It's just about at the level that they've been requesting. The priorities for this year will be the volunteer certification program; programs for company officer, command officer and training officers; practical field training; preliminary staffing for the Maple Ridge training centre; standards development; improved administration; and, of course, better training and library services for the people out there in terms of edukits and that sort of stuff.

L. Fox: I just want to follow up on that, because I'm aware of a similar initiative that Fort St. James attempted to bring forward. They were trying to develop a training facility. I wonder if the minister could give me some idea of what the status of that is.

Hon. R. Blencoe: Whereas I'm sympathetic, I currently don't have the capital to give a yea to that. If there is some way that they could fund the capital, as North Okanagan has, then obviously we would look very favourably at a partnership in terms of structures and support through the Fire Academy.

K. Jones: Further to that same topic, I'd like to remind the minister that a firefighters' training fund was established and is collected regularly from each person who buys fire insurance. But there seems to be a problem with where that money is going at the present time. Could the minister tell us where that money is and what he's doing to recognize the many requests of the B.C. Fire Chiefs' Association and volunteer and professional firemen fforgetting access to that funding for their training?

Hon. R. Blencoe: I'm not sure if you were here when I said that for the first time in a long time, through our initiatives under my purview, we've increased the budget for the Fire Academy quite close to 30 percent in one year. I hope this is seen as a reasonable response to the concern of the community. Like everything else, there are competing interests and competing desires for programs. I've certainly tried to respond this year with substantial funding to the Fire Academy; we're taking a look at the mobiles; we're prepared to fund instructors in these regional centres; and we're looking at other ways we can support the community. I've certainly indicated to my staff that I consider support a priority, particularly for the volunteer community. If we had an unlimited source of funds, we could do all sorts of wonderful things, but we have to work with what we've got. Quite frankly, we're looking for the partnerships, and we're looking for creative ways to do some of the things that we probably wouldn't even have considered two or three years ago. Now we have to consider different ways of doing things.

K. Jones: It's very commendable that you're making progress and increasing the funding to the Fire Academy's training area. Could you tell us how much money is going into firefighter training?

Hon. R. Blencoe: Funding is $945,000 this year, up from $717,000 last year.

[ Page 8542 ]

K. Jones: How much money taken in by that allocation from fire insurance charges has been earmarked for firefighter training? A sum of money is collected on a regular basis, every time a person purchases insurance. It's a certain percentage of the total insurance, I understand. Could you tell us how much money is raised through that?

Hon. R. Blencoe: I can't tell you that; that's not within my purview. The current policy of the government is not to allocate direct dollars from direct taxes or insurance policy programs. What we do is fight in cabinet, and in the budget process, for the merits of the program to get the dollars required. It may very well be that we need more money for firefighting, which goes beyond the money derived from the insurance program. If needs merit, we will do our utmost to fund it adequately. This year we've had a substantial increase for the academy. We're moving ahead on a number of other areas that I will be announcing in the near future with the Ministry of Advanced Education, but I don't know the amount. It's a general revenue item.

K. Jones: I'm not sure of the exact amount, but I understand that well over a million dollars is coming in annually. That money hasn't been allocated over the last five to ten years to the extent that it has been coming in, although it was charged as a fee specifically for the training of firefighters. Can you explain why the people are being charged money that isn't going to where it was intended?

Hon. R. Blencoe: I don't want to get into a.... There may be a view out there in the community that that's what it's for; that's not my understanding. All governments of all political persuasions are carrying on basically the same policy that this government continues to carry on: we allocate resources depending on need and priorities. I've raised the amount to the Fire Academy this year by close to 30 percent, and where possible we will continue to advocate and move the agenda forward for firefighter training.

I have to go back to the fact that the province will do its best, but I think local government will have greater responsibilities in the training of firefighters in the future. That, of course, is a bit of a moot point with local government, because they think the province should have a greater say. We have to find some common ground somewhere along the line.

K. Jones: I think that local government through the local taxpayers is already paying. Every person who buys fire insurance is already paying into that pot, but that pot isn't going to training. It's going somewhere else, and we are taking the losses in our training funding. Therefore we don't have the properly qualified firefighters out there who should be out there. We could have better-qualified firefighters, with better access to the funding that they need.

You've had several approaches from the Fire Chiefs' Association. I've seen some of the letters that have been written to you. Have you responded to them in this same manner? Are they having no success in trying to show you that they have a justified basis, and that there's documentation to show that this money is to be allocated to firefighter training, and has been from the day it was started? Could you take the time to review your decision on this and really look seriously at the fact that more money out there could be allocated to the training area, which is somewhat under your ministry, and therefore you could have more money for those people out there?

Hon. R. Blencoe: I will note your comments and concerns and will take them under advisement. But you should know, hon. member, that if you got into the business of allocating money specifically back to where it was derived from, you'd make government very difficult in terms of determining the priorities of the day and allocating resources. That's what we're elected to do, quite frankly: put it into general revenue, and on behalf of the people we determine where the resources go.

K. Jones: I'd like to go into another area that we once canvassed last year to some extent: the unopened road allowances. That's the area where a road would normally go through but, due to the steepness of the geography, it is not possible to build roads. As a result, these road ends create viewpoints and opportunities for parks. But there seems to be an attempt by some municipalities to subdivide these and sell them as housing lots, thereby taking them away from the public open space. Could the minister tell us what he's been doing in trying to rectify that? I understand there's a similar but different process that the Attorney General is attempting to address. The Attorney General, in his correspondence to me, says this actually falls into your area of responsibility.

Hon. R. Blencoe: It's not complex, but there's a longstanding tradition behind this issue in which the member is fully versed. The plan cancellation issue and windfalls are currently being reviewed by the Attorney General ministry; you would have to address that with him. I thought there might be something after this session. Talk to my colleague.

[5:30]

The standard procedure is that this ministry looks at the actual closure. We take a look at what the local government's recommendation is. Nine times out of ten the local government recommends another kind of public use. I've been trying to push them towards housing, having an interest in that. Usually it's for a park or some kind of public amenity. If it's for private use, the piece of land is usually so small that it is sold to an adjacent neighbour wishing to add it to their property. This process has been going on for a long time. Local government seems to be reasonably happy with it. They make the recommendations and we take a look at them. If we don't like the recommendation, we send it back.

K. Jones: The minister has correctly stated that the Attorney General is looking at the plan cancellation 

[ Page 8543 ]

portion of this situation. In this case, however, we are not talking about plan cancellation but about road exchange. Road exchange is a problem because the municipality does take a full 66-foot-wide road allowance, and subdivides it into two lots that are then developed or sold off not for low-cost but for very high-cost housing, because they are primarily view lots. I don't think they would be serving the purpose your ministry desires. They are just being used as a real estate game by a council that is failing to take responsibility for its own taxing process and is, in many cases, using up the only open space the community has. There are many people in the community who want the minister to take a strong position on protecting their interests in maintaining that open space, and not to allow the self-interested councils to use their power to dissolve the open space that is so valuable and so limited in many of our communities. I would urge the minister to take another look at this. I would be happy to take him to the types of locations that very clearly show what the problem is. A very large number of people in the community have gone out and said they oppose the sale, and yet the municipalities have been ignoring the public outcry and have been proceeding.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I recognize that time moves on. I will do a further look at the issues you raise, but I think some hard work has been done and is ongoing. The difficulty I have within my ministry is that I have a small number of staff with 1,001 tasks before them, but I will see if we can ask them to move some discussion along on the issue.

On that note, I would like to move that the committee rise, report considerable progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The Committee rose at 5:35 p.m.

The Committee met at 6:39 p.m.

[U. Dosanjh in the chair.]

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS, RECREATION AND HOUSING
(continued)

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

A. Cowie: I mentioned informally to the minister that I would ask a couple of questions on library services. I'm wondering how much money the ministry gives out in the form of grants to help out with the library service in the province, both regional and local libraries.

Hon. R. Blencoe: Grants to libraries are $8.9 million.

A. Cowie: I just want to refer to an article in South Delta Today by Tom Siba, who is the publisher. He puts forward a case for making local libraries into self-supporting entities. He says that they are having a problem with pay for people who want double the amount of money they are earning right now, and for less hours. The libraries are really beginning to get so they are not serving the public as such -- or at least they could reach that stage. I wonder if local libraries are necessary anymore. Mr. Siba points out that it's possible that that could be done through bookstores getting back to what some bookstores used to provide in the old days -- a little library down at the end of the bookstore. I wonder if the minister has any comments at all.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I think that the support the provincial government gives to our library system, in the overall scheme of what they provide to their communities of all ages and interests, is good value for the money, quite frankly. I suppose you could privatize them. In terms of basic service as part of our community education and schooling, libraries are a key ingredient -- kind of like the school system. All I know is that when I served on city council here in Victoria, we were always dealing with the budget. I know that the community response to libraries and the numbers of people utilizing them were substantial. I have been keen on enhancing our library services and support. More and more libraries are doing extended services in the community. For various reasons more people have time on their hands, are doing more work for themselves, are researching or actively pursuing interests. Libraries are becoming the heart and soul of many communities. Burnaby, for instance, has an incredibly well-supported library system.

There are those who say you could do away with anything. Libraries, however, are an important part of a community's social and educational fabric; they are a cultural heartland. That's one of the reasons why I introduced a bill today to set up a library foundation in British Columbia. There are people prepared to bequest considerable amounts of money to a foundation that the province could administer to make our libraries grow. All our evidence and analysis show that libraries are in great demand today.

A. Cowie: I thank the minister for his comments. I will give him this article so he'll have it on record. The city of Vancouver has an excellent library service and is building a new library. It is much needed and fits into the fabric of that community. It is needed and supported.

The situation that Mr. Siba is talking about is one in which the people operating the library are asking for twice as much money and there isn't the money. At some point comes the question of whether to keep the program going or not.

We've had that in recreation programs in Vancouver. Our community centres are also the life and health of the community. In some cases there are programs.... There are even some outdated swimming pools; certainly a lot of the outdoor ones have been closed. Sometimes you look at facilities as well. I'm open to looking at different ways of providing services. It was interesting to get the minister's comments.

[6:45]

[ Page 8544 ]

The other question concerning operations is fairly wide-ranging -- this is not a year to go over every little item. I feel that the ministry is doing a good job on a lot of fronts and going in the direction I'd like to see it go. So I'm not going to ask a lot more questions tonight. I would hope that we might be able to wind up. I don't know if the others from the Social Credit Party would be able to do that tonight. Of course, that is up to them.

I'll ask one more question and maybe then turn it over to the member of the Social Credit Party. Certainly downtown revitalization is another area that I think is worthwhile, has done some good jobs over.... Kamloops, for instance, did a downtown revitalization without any funds from the provincial government. I forget the reason why, but it went ahead without them, and it got the downtown business people going. The city itself financed it, and I notice even more funds are going into downtown revitalization.

The one example that I have of revitalization is Granville Street -- a bit of a disaster. It was done politically. If one went to Minneapolis and saw what went on there.... In fact, the people of Minneapolis said: "Don't go ahead and do the revitalization unless you do the whole downtown. Look at the health of the businesses on each side of the street, get the businesses healthy, and then eventually do the street revitalization -- it would work then." We were using Nickolet Mall as an example. Nickolet Mall also has a very raunchy street three blocks away. They do some rather creative things to keep Nickolet Mall in a healthy state. Haven't we come to a time in this province when we can cut that program loose? I just wonder what the minister feels about that.

Hon. R. Blencoe: This program was inherited from the past administration. Yes, I think it is a good program, and particularly appreciated in the smaller communities. There are the Village Square programs, fa�ade treatment, planning grants, capital works loans and business improvement area grants. We'll spend approximately $2 million out of the fund this year. I am told by staff there will be no loans this year. It is a fund that was established some years ago. If we are to continue, though, there will come a point where it will need some additional revenue. As you know, it got an initial contribution of $5 million some years ago, and the theory has been to invest and live off the interest. Because interest rates are down, our program contributions to the communities are going down as a consequence.

Generally, I think it's a good program. I get nothing but good feedback on it. In larger communities it's not quite as important as in the small communities that really want to do some reinvestment or create an improved business area. For instance, I was in Revelstoke very recently, and I've seen things they've done there. It's the pride that comes out from the communities getting together and doing it. Often we don't put a heck of a lot of money into it in terms of each community. But it's well received, and I certainly have no intention of downscaling it. However, unless it does get some new money into it, the program will run out of money in a couple of years. So the government will have to make some decisions in that area.

A. Cowie: When the program first came out, it was handled imaginatively. Today it is still handled extremely well. That's not the question. In fact, I have a lot of admiration for the person running it; he certainly puts things square. It was about three or four years ago when he first started taking the tack that we're going to keep the engineers home until we determine what the concept is. That was a good decision; it's more tied to economics than design. You could pretty well predict what some of the first programs were: new sidewalks, new underground wiring. The program was used essentially to get services, and sometimes the design was pretty pathetic. It was just trees, a few new posts and some banners. But I certainly think that was an important shift in economics: looking at the true meaning of downtown and concentrating on trying to do something really special in each small community. But like all programs, there comes a time when one has to review them and see whether they're really appropriate and if that money should be shifted to some other area.

I will have some questions later on revenue-sharing, but I think I'll leave those questions and ask if the member from the Social Credit Party has any questions, so we can perhaps wind up later tonight.

L. Fox: It's a pleasure to re-enter the debate on the estimates. To follow along with the downtown revitalization program, in most instances I've seen it do a good job. Obviously, some of the reaction and some of the need for those programs was predicated on the fact that there was a shift of economics taking place in a community. I don't think the Granville mall is any different. We've seen a shift to the Pacific Centre Mall and other areas of the community where the commercial core is taking place. Has the ministry, in cooperation with the UBCM, done any studies on those impacts? I know that Prince George is presently having the same problem as the Granville Mall situation, where the actual shift to shopping centres has taken away from the downtown core. In fact, the revitalization program is an attempt to encourage businesses to stay within that region. But are there any stats available on the success of those kinds of thrusts? I'm aware of the Chemainus situation, but I would like to know what the success rate is, and if there are any stats that suggest it.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I'm told by staff that there was an economic review in 1987; however, nothing has been done since. The review at that time showed that it was a good program. It did have an impact on the business communities in those downtown cores that were struggling -- you're right, especially in the urban areas -- against the ever-present malls on the periphery, and it was useful. We haven't done anything thus far. That might be something we want to take a look at, as per the comments of my colleague in the official opposition on the relevance of this program today. Maybe it's something we need to measure again.

[ Page 8545 ]

L. Fox: I'll leave it at that. I want to get back to the subject of housing, and specifically to recommendation 27 of your study. That recommendation has to do with the Condominium Act, where it suggests that it should be amended to ensure that condominium dwellings can be rented by their owners, by eliminating the authority for strata councils to pass bylaws restricting rentals. That draws several concerns. I have seen one response from the minister to a couple of them, where the minister suggests that he is very concerned about affordable housing. But when I look at the rent paid in those condominiums, we would be looking at between $800 and $1,200, depending which city they're in. There wasn't a lot of input before the recommendation, but I would like to hear a little more of the background, if the minister could provide it, on recommendation 27, and then I would like to get into some specific concerns.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I'm the first to admit that this is a controversial recommendation, one that has to be thought through carefully -- even if it is going to be considered. I have heard lots of comments on both sides. On this recommendation, if anything was to be done, it would be done under the Ministry of Finance, because the Condominium Act is under that ministry. The Minister of Finance has consulted with me and has asked my opinion in terms of where we're going. Rest assured, it is not under active consideration at this point.

L. Fox: It's a delicate question that I have to ask, then, because I don't want to get into the future-policy area. Is there any kind of time frame for when some of the rest of these recommendations are going to be dealt with?

Hon. R. Blencoe: Seventeen have been looked at already, and are in place. I can go through those, if the member wishes. I can also give you a long list, but it might be more useful if I were to provide you with a list of all 17 recommendations that have been acted on, and the others that are actually being considered at this time. They are quite considerable. I don't know if the member wishes me to do that. We have 17 complete, with 30 under active consideration -- which hopefully will be resolved by the spring, and the remaining seven over the next year or so. Rather than go through them, I'm prepared to give you the list of things that are accomplished and where we're moving next.

L. Fox: Which category, if any, is recommendation 27 in?

Hon. R. Blencoe: That recommendation is being looked at in terms of the pros and cons of the issue. If any change is to be made, there will be full consultation with condominium owners and those who have a vested interest in the issue. Finance Minister Clark has asked for my opinion about this recommendation.

L. Fox: Will this consultation be a formal process in which a structure is put into place and a report made to government on the viability of recommendation 27?

Hon. R. Blencoe: Although this is technically another minister's portfolio, my understanding is that there will be something from the Minister of Finance in the very near future on suggested changes to the Condominium Act and, foreseeably, a consultation process. I don't have the exact details, but my understanding is that Minister Clark has a number of areas in the Condominium Act under review, this one particularly because it was flagged by his staff as being under my portfolio -- out of this report. He has asked for our opinion. I'm the first to say that this getting any consideration is a very delicate issue, and a lot of people feel strongly about it.

L. Fox: I appreciate the difficulty the minister has addressing it because of the cross-ministry responsibilities. For the record, I would like to put forward some of my concerns and those of the condominium owners who have called me.

[7:00]

One of the most important concerns is that if a developer is allowed to sell off a number of these but can't sell the balance because the market presently isn't there, he can keep the price of those units up by filling them with renters, thereby causing an artificial pricing for the value of those units. If they were empty and the pressure was on the developer to sell them, obviously that would have the impact of decreasing the price of those condominiums. I think the artificial setting of values is really apparent when renters are allowed to occupy them, because obviously that's one way the developer can keep his costs at a minimum, and he has the freedom of evicting when he in fact sells them. That's one concern.

The other concern is that I don't believe it's fair to the people who have purchased a condominium based on the idea that they're all going to be purchased units and that a structure would be in place to govern that particular facility -- given that there are many areas where they share costs, and obviously policies are extremely important to that type of structure.

The minister suggested, in this one letter he wrote back, that in fact he was supportive of any process which would provide affordable housing, because that's a priority of this government. But the other issue that's extremely important here is that I don't believe -- and I don't believe the condominium owners believe -- this would provide affordable housing. It would be short-term housing -- it could be a few months or a year, depending on the markets of the day -- but obviously it isn't going to be affordable. When we look at rents up to $1,200 a month, I don't think we're talking about affordable housing, the way I understand affordable housing. I guess those are some of the concerns I've had related to me by individuals who have invested their money in these condominiums.

I agree with the minister's other comment in his letter, that people will often have great difficulty acquiring homes. In fact, for many it's not going to be an opportunity as we once knew it. Where everybody at one point had an opportunity to buy their home, in the real world as we see it today, it's going to be more and more difficult for young people to acquire homes in 

[ Page 8546 ]

cities such as Vancouver, Victoria and so on. That is the issue in a nutshell with respect to the condominiums. Maybe I'll just let the minister respond before I go on to the next one.

Hon. R. Blencoe: Well, I don't know if I can share much more on this. It's a thorny, difficult issue between the rights of owners to rent what they've bought and the rights of the collective, in terms of the strata council, to say that they live within a block of units and that total ownership with no rental is advisable. All I can say is that the Minister of Finance will be releasing a public discussion paper in the very near future about potential changes to the Condominium Act. It's my understanding that there is consultation going on with condominium owners in terms of some of the parameters. This is one of those no-win situations, because you can see the views of those who wish to rent, as opposed to those who want to continue to ensure total ownership. I don't know where you come down. You're right, I don't think it's particularly an affordable housing issue, but rather the rental supply on the market. People have come and said they know that there could be condominiums available if the owners were allowed to rent them out. The bottom line is that there will be consultation.

L. Fox: Just one further issue. The flip side of the coin is the desire of individuals who may leave the province for three to four months to have the opportunity to sublet their condos for that seasonal holiday they take every year. I won't go any further into that. I'm satisfied with the answers the hon. minister has given me. But the Liberal critic wishes to ask a question.

A. Cowie: It's a topic that warrants a great deal of caution. Each strata group is different. I've built a number of condos and been part of a co-op building. We built it as a co-op and then turned it into a strata, so that I owned one and lived in it. It's a cheap.... You can avoid the developer profits that way. So it is one way for people to build for themselves, and it worked out quite well.

Interjection.

A. Cowie: No, I didn't say that at all. You do your own management, and you come and do some of your own work -- it's a good way of doing it.

I know of a case in West Vancouver during the early eighties where a person was forced to pay a very high mortgage every month, something over $2,400 a month out of his salary that wasn't much more than $3,500. It put a heck of a lot of pressure on this particular person because of the constraint that he couldn't rent it. That was a quality condominium. I thought that was a rather unfair situation. In other cases, just as was mentioned recently, people do go away, and if they've got a quality condominium, they usually make sure that it's looked after and let out to a friend or whatever. So I think it's an area that one wants to be extremely careful with. That's the only comment that I wanted to make, and I would advise the minister to stay out of it.

L. Fox: I have a few more questions around housing. Earlier -- I think it was this afternoon -- we talked about looking at programs to stimulate first-time buyers. There was a little dialogue around that. Given that the government has taken away the renter's credit, there is something that deserves observation. It was a program that was started in 1971, I believe, called AHOP -- through the federal government. I believe it was a most successful program, because it gave an incentive for a very minimum down payment. In fact, in those years, as I recall, you were able to use the first-time homeowner grant as a down payment. Then your payment was based on your earnings. If you sold the house in three years, you had to pay back any moneys you received through the grant while you lived in it. If after three years you still had the home, you were then reevaluated in terms of your ability to pay the mortgage versus your earnings. It was adjusted upward according to your earnings.

Out of that program, in the small community of Vanderhoof, I saw a real shift of about 20 homes -- those people who wouldn't have had the ability to purchase their homes without that program. They were spread throughout the community in different locations, and they took on a kind of pride of ownership. In fact, almost without exception -- there were a few -- they ended up looking after their properties, but more importantly they gained the mental appreciation of value. They were also able to capitalize on the increase in house values during that time. They got the advantage. Many people, after about five or ten years, were able to move up to a larger home, because they had the equity that was built into that particular house.

I would encourage the minister, if he's going to look at an incentive program, to revisit that original AHOP program. I'm not sure what the expense was, but the success rate was very good.

Hon. R. Blencoe: Without going into detail, considerable work has been done on analysis of that assisted home-ownership program, AHOP, which was back in the early seventies. You're right: it got people into homes and home-ownership, and many were quite successful. There were also a number of problems with that, many loan defaults and foreclosures. There were deferred payment systems where people had to suddenly get to the right level of payment, and they couldn't do it. We are making sure we learn from those kinds of experiences, and we are taking a look at a variety of options that we may want to get into. There are some components of the AHOP that were useful. Obviously we want to help on the rental side, but we're just as keen to help on the home-ownership side. We're looking at an array of options. As I think I said earlier, we may want to test something in a pilot to see if certain things would work.

I'm pleased to see the House Leader....

F. Gingell: I'm not the House Leader; I'm the Leader of the Opposition.

[ Page 8547 ]

Hon. R. Blencoe: The Leader of the Opposition is here. I can't keep up; there are so many leaders over there. I'm pleased to see you here.

L. Fox: I just want to get back. Actually, it was the very early AHOP program that was the most successful. The second AHOP program was not nearly as successful. The early program in the early seventies had a very high success rate. It may have also had a higher cost rate. The reason I'm so familiar with it is that the first house I ever bought, I bought through that program, and look where I am today. Maybe I should have stayed there.

Hon. R. Blencoe: You weren't living in a co-op, were you? Or was that just Jack?

L. Fox: No, that was not me.

The other issue I want to get into -- without being facetious, and I really am serious -- is recommendation 30, which deals with the provincial Housing Management Commission and the establishment of a rental assistance program for families with children on the basis of rent geared to income. This recommendation seems to fly in the face of the actions that this government took earlier, when it did away with the rental assistance program. Could the minister tell me why the actions of the government contradict this recommendation?

Hon. R. Blencoe: The member is correct. Next year the renter's tax credit will come to a conclusion. The analysis and the belief -- again, this is instruction from the Minister of Finance because it is run under his ministry -- was that that program didn't particularly get to those in greatest need, and that it indeed was, as we all know, just a tax credit. I don't have the numbers in front of me of who benefited, but what we are trying to do is devise a system with the resources available that targets better, and the instruction I have been given is to come up with programs that, as much as possible, benefit the same clientele. Although I don't want to go into future policy, we may have something that is more targeted and will benefit families more directly in terms of the program. That's about as far as I can really go.

[7:15]

L. Fox: The other issue I want to canvass surfaces in my riding, and that is housing for special needs people, particularly in the Prince George region. I know that an advisory council was structured by the mayor to look at those issues, and it's my understanding that they have made a report to the minister on the housing needs of the Prince George region. Could the minister tell me if there is any action contemplated or what stage we are at with respect to those issues?

Hon. R. Blencoe: One of the first recommendations of the commission was that we should set aside a certain percentage of our housing for special needs, and I was pleased to do that right off the top. Five percent was automatically set aside. Last year I announced some new initiatives to deal with homelessness in terms of special needs, and we will be doing more. I'm most anxious to go beyond Victoria and Vancouver in terms of special needs, to do some new initiatives. I continue to get representatives from Prince George, Terrace, Prince Rupert and those kinds of communities saying that they have special needs requirements as well, and I'm going to try to build that into some of our announcements this year in terms of our programs.

F. Gingell: Could we turn to the municipal revenue-sharing fund? Is this a good time to deal with it? I was wondering if you could give me the breakdown of the $315 million that is going to be spent in 1993 among the various categories?

Hon. R. Blencoe: You may be aware that vote 53 is specifically about municipal revenue-sharing, so if you bear with me, I will.... We can have that discussion now, under my minister's vote, if you so desire.

F. Gingell: I thought it included everything.

Hon. R. Blencoe: Hon. Chair, let me try to give a summation to the member.

Interjection.

Hon. R. Blencoe: Yes, I remember those comments from the opposition.

Interjection.

Hon. R. Blencoe: Thank you, hon. member. I've been around here long enough to wait and see what happens.

For the basic grant this year, the proposed approval is $13.4 million; for sewer and water under the old program -- our past commitment -- it's $82 million; on highways we intend to spend -- and that's a reduction -- $4.5 million; for planning and the various things we've been talking about -- special housing grants and regional planning strategies -- it's $3 million; regional district grants are $3.4 million; for restructuring, which is the all the various amalgamations and restructures, and about 80 are ongoing in the province, there's $4 million in terms of incentives and per capita -- I think I mentioned that the other day, hon. member; unconditional grants maintained are at last year's level of $120 million; and for new sewer and water -- this is the current proposal -- it's $51 million. Hon. member, you must remember that because of the financial squeeze sometimes, like last year, I am asked to cut back some of my ministry, and some of these programs were slightly reduced from what we said we would do. That was because we were trying to cut back our costs. Independent police equalization grants are nearly $5.9 million, and public health equalization grants are $9.1 million. The total is $296 million. Spending will come out this year at approximately $315 million for local government. I'm told that total approvals are less than expenditures because part of the expenditures covers prior-year commitments.

[ Page 8548 ]

F. Gingell: If we go back and compare this to the previous year, the previous year was originally budgeted at $335 million. The unconditional grants at $120 million haven't changed. Is it true that the conditional grants have just been reduced by $20 million? You mentioned in the latter part of your response, Mr. Minister, that you had in fact cut back in reaction to the provincial government's determination to keep the budget deficit down. Could you tell us what your expenditures for 1992-93 would have been?

Hon. R. Blencoe: While staff are getting those figures for me, I can tell you where the reductions are this year over last year. Municipal highways had $15 million last year; this year we're down to $4.5 million -- a substantial reduction. Something had to give. For this new sewer and water program, about $57 million was committed or promised this year; we're going to do only about $51 million. The sewer and water was $84 million, but we're down to $82 million this year. Total payments last year for 1992-93 were $312,499,000.

F. Gingell: If one goes back and reads the Revenue Sharing Act of l977, the amendments to it in l979 and all the various things, I think it becomes fairly apparent that a fairly definitive arrangement was made between the provincial government and the municipalities. One percentage point in personal and corporate income taxes, 6 percent of social service tax and 6 percent of natural resource revenues were to be paid over to the municipal governments in a split of unconditional and cost-shared grants. Seeing that in l993-94, this year under review, you're going to pay out some $83.5 million less than the amount taken in, how do you justify this?

Hon. R. Blencoe: It's because of deficit control and getting the province's funds in order, recognizing that we're maintaining the local governments' unconditional part. I've said quite clearly to them that there is going to be some cost if the province is to get our deficit in order. Some programs will go by the board; underground wiring this year has gone. That's the reality we face, hon. member.

F. Gingell: The reality is that the provincial government's total revenues this year are anticipated to be up over 9 percent, and expenditures up 5.7 percent, I think. Yet I recognize the importance this fund has to municipalities. They're subject to exactly the same pressures, inflation and increase in population. The problems they face are no different from the problems the provincial government faces. Seeing that the province has a commitment, if you go back and read the legislation, to pay these funds out to the municipalities -- and certainly there was an intent to hold some back as reserve funds for emergencies.... In view of all these other matters, how can you justify at least not increasing your unconditional grants by 5.7 percent, the same amount as the increase in the provincial budget expenditures?

Hon. R. Blencoe: Look, I am the first to admit that I want to give as much support in financial or other ways to local government.... Whether it's a revenue-sharing account or part of a special fund, if we spend out of it, it's an actual.... A dollar is a dollar, hon. member, and you know that. If I spend more out of the revenue-sharing fund, it's still added to the deficit. We've tried this year to keep our levels at fairly record levels, other than -- I forget how many years ago.... But this last year was the second-highest ever in terms of expenditures -- money out the door -- to local government.

Hon. member, you may not be aware.... Let me give you a little background to the revenue-sharing fund. The fund is a fund in name only. The reason is that prior to l988 the fund was a special fund. In '88 the fund was changed to a special account within consolidated revenue, in keeping with all other special funds at that time. As a result, transfers out of the fund are controlled through normal controls established for expenditures from the CRF, and no expenditures are made without the authority of an appropriation. Although the fund shows a balance, this is not represented by liquid assets. In other words, there is no cash in the fund. That is right out of the Peat Marwick report. The bottom line is that in 1988, revenue-sharing became part of the budget stabilization environment.

F. Gingell: I don't want to suggest that I have the audacity to question Peat Marwick and their company, because I used to be a partner of a different international CA firm.

It is completely true that these funds do exist.... I know there is not a bank account, but you've been taking these various revenues that clearly belong to the municipal revenue-sharing fund and paying them into the general account. Because you haven't been paying all of the money out, you haven't been borrowing as much as you needed to. That's simply what has happened. You haven't borrowed as much as you would have otherwise. That doesn't mean to say that your credit isn't good. The province has borrowed these funds and used them to pay for education, health and all kinds of other things. You've actually gone and borrowed that money. If you had put it in a bank account, instead of borrowing it from this special fund -- as it was originally; it's now this special account -- you'd have borrowed it from American bankers.

[7:30]

I think it's important to get this particular subject dealt with now; this is really the only opportunity that we've had. The Minister of Finance has been going around the province bringing up this spurious argument. I attended on a couple of occasions when he did it. It is spurious; let's admit the facts of the case. Why do we bother with this fictitious bookkeeping if the province has no intention of ever paying out the $361 million that at the end of the year it will hold on behalf of the municipalities, $207 million of which is not committed. I appreciate that the $153,500,000 represented by the grants stabilization account, the local government emergency account and committed but non-disbursed grants are really going to be paid. 

[ Page 8549 ]

You have accountants employed to keep track of what is really a meaningless exercise. I wonder whether the government has any intention of wiping it all out.

Hon. R. Blencoe: The member got to the nub of the question about how real it is, and fictitious accounts; and the member heard the comments during the consultation process. In terms of the so-called unexpended portion in the account, we could argue back and forth about how the money got there or if it is there. The question really is: should we spend it, whether it's real or not, and how much?

L. Fox: You should have honoured the deal.

Hon. R. Blencoe: Is there any government that in one year is going to issue $350 million, or whatever the fund is today?

[D. Streifel in the chair.]

We've flagged that and had that discussion. I communicated with Mr. Trewhella, the president of the UBCM, and Mr. Taylor of the UBCM executive. We have laid the groundwork for a review of revenue-sharing, laying out some of the terms of reference for discussion. There is no question that we have to continue to fund local government. They need to know what the transfer levels would be and about multicommitments. They need predictability in their grant system and we want to talk to them about that. We also have to recognize that we have this so-called unexpended portion that we've clearly said we cannot afford to give. It would add to the deficit. We're prepared to discuss it with local government, we have set up a system, and we believe the UBCM has accepted the process. We're about to start the consultation on a new grant system for local government -- that's our intention.

F. Gingell: As this develops, with the UBCM as the representative of the municipalities, does the minister intend to have some public consultation process on this issue?

Hon. R. Blencoe: First, I hadn't really gotten that far. We've been trying to get some arrangement with the UBCM for the province and the UBCM or local government to get the parameters of our consultation, but it may very well be in the cards to go beyond that. To start with, we're about to put cards on the table from both sides and see where we're going to go from here. I fully presume that the issue of consultation between the province and local government will be front and centre at the UBCM this year. There will be lots of discussion. Hopefully, by then we will have started the process. I cannot see how we can avoid a greater consultation, in terms of service to local government and what the province provides in terms of levels of grants, etc.

L. Fox: I just want to jump in for a minute on this issue. The revenue-sharing stabilization fund was a creature that was really designed and asked for by the UBCM members, as responsible politicians, because they perceived there was a need to make the revenue-sharing payments to the municipalities consistent, so that we didn't have lower payments in down economic years than we would have in more boisterous economic years. I really believe what we have is a situation where this government and this minister reneged on a deal made in good faith with the UBCM and the municipalities throughout the province, because it was not without a lot of discussion on behalf of the municipalities and the UBCM that this fund was generated. In fact, many municipalities wanted to suggest that you could never trust a provincial government: when the money is there, we should take it and create our own fund and stabilize ourselves; we shouldn't allow that to be kept in the hands of government. I recall the discussions quite well, because at the time I was sitting on the UBCM executive. We persevered and convinced those municipalities that no, a deal is a deal, and we could trust the provincial government to live up to any negotiation. But obviously this government didn't do that, and now we have a situation where the Finance minister is suggesting that he doesn't have the dollars. But I think that's been explained very well by the Leader of the Opposition. Then we have the Minister of Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Culture....

Hon. R. Blencoe: Housing.

L. Fox: Sorry. We've changed these ministries so much over the last couple of years that I'm tending to forget the titles.

Anyway, now we have the Minister of Municipal Affairs agreeing with the Finance minister. I'm sure he doesn't have any choice in that. But obviously, what's really happened here -- the nub of it -- is that the government reneged on a deal similar to other deals that we've seen this government renege on, such as the pension to the doctors.

Hon. R. Blencoe: Well, I was hoping we could avoid the political statements and grandstanding that has plagued these committees in the past, but I have to respond to the hon. member.

Very simply, this minister has been in this portfolio for just over a year and a half. We did not do the work in 1988 to change the nature of this fund. We didn't make it part of the stabilization account. We didn't change it so that real money.... I believe, hon. member, that it was your colleagues prior to you getting here, the Social Credit administration. Peat Marwick clearly indicates that if there was any reneging, it started in 1988 when your government quietly, through the back door, decided to renege on a longstanding tradition of real money to local government. So, hon. member, I think you should be very careful with how you explore this issue.

I want to put that aside, because we can all take our positions on who is right and who is wrong, and the politics of the day and the politics of tomorrow. The issue is that we have to serve local government. We have to come up with a system that works and that really gives them the stability they require.

[ Page 8550 ]

Let me go through the gist of my proposal to Mr. Trewhella, the president of the UBCM, which I understand has been accepted. I believe we start our meetings on Friday on moving ahead to the son or daughter of revenue-sharing as we head into the l990s. I am quoting from a letter I have written to Mr. Trewhella:

"Assuming that you are willing to accept my proposal to focus the intensive part of our consultation on finding a realistic successor to revenue-sharing, I would like to suggest a specific process. It would be based on the preparation and discussion of a policy paper.

"Given my earlier undertaking to connect UBCM to other processes for examining related issues, the scope of the paper will be confined to identifying the attributes of a practical and sustainable grants system to succeed revenue-sharing. This would include such matters as: guiding principles, amounts, timing, distributional mechanisms and the balance between conditional and unconditional forms of assistance. The most convenient way to present all of these dimensions in a manner that facilitates choice would be to formulate a number of scenarios. Although the status quo is clearly not an option, I would even be prepared to have the paper include an analysis of the current revenue-sharing system for comparison purposes.

"Phase one of the consultation process would therefore be the composition of the policy paper by a team of UBCM and ministry staff. Phase two would involve discussions between UBCM and the government with the purpose of ensuring that UBCM's views on the paper's scenarios are clearly understood. Phase three would consist of the government's own deliberations on the paper and consideration of how these issues connect to the overall provincial fiscal situation.

"I am convinced that, with the tight terms of reference, energetic staff work and focused political discussions, we can complete phase two in time for this year's UBCM convention. It may even be possible to complete phase three, although this is not entirely certain. With the exception of minor technical amendments to protect provincial taxpayers against hypothetical exposures, the government can probably refrain from legislating a new grants system until the fall of 1993 or the spring of 1994, but we are not prepared to base 1994 grants on the current statute; in light of our own findings, confirmed by independent financial analysis, allowing a discredited revenue-sharing system to limp through another year would not be a responsible course of action.

"The completion of phase three will not terminate the process of local government grants reform, nor our consultations with the UBCM. I also envisage a phase four aimed at discussing micro-issues of individual grant program design that traditionally reside in regulations rather than legislation. Take, for example, unconditional grants. I would imagine that, by the end of phase three we might have identified a base amount and an index which we could embed in the statute. There would remain, however, the question of whether we might want to replace the current allocation rules, based 80 percent on population and 20 percent on expenditure and assessment, with more sophisticated measures of municipal performance and need. This question could be reviewed as part of phase four, and the regulations could be amended if and when our consultations yielded a superior solution. Similarly, some or all of the conditional grant programs could be reviewed during phase four, without the pressure that meeting a deadline for legislation implies."

I put that forward to the UBCM in good faith. I don't want to get caught up as in the past, in 1988's BS fund or anything else. All I know is that local government needs predictability. They need to look at multi-year commitments. Their needs are changing, and we are prepared to take a look at it. I am the first to admit that local government needs provincial support -- you are right. Revenue-sharing is derived from what they generate in the regions, and we get it back. But the system as it is now is problematic, and we want to deal with it in an open and honest way. In many ways it may be politically difficult. It's very easy to say we should leave it alone and not bother with it, but I don't think anyone is being served by that. I put this forward in good faith: we should sit down and maybe -- just maybe -- we might get a better system. It has been some time since it has actually been reviewed in any fundamental way. It was last done in 1978, so there is some room for another look.

L. Fox: I appreciate the minister reading us excerpts from his letter. I look forward to the process as it unfolds. One always has to be suspicious when we see what's happening with respect to government spending and off-loading on municipalities, as to whether or not, at the end of the day, this process is going to give the municipalities the comfort they might be looking for. In the interests of fairness, however, I will wait and see. I will watch with great interest the dialogue that takes place between the UBCM and the ministry.

[7:45]

I have a few other questions that I want to get to, not with respect to revenue-sharing but about the numbers the minister put out earlier. You talked about specific programs and about the road program, and I believe you quoted, if my memory serves me correctly, $4 million for that program.

Hon. R. Blencoe: What program?

L. Fox: The highways program -- $4 million.

The Chair: Would it be appropriate if the Chair were at least recognized in these proceedings?

L. Fox: On occasion we'll do that, hon. Chair, so you don't feel lonely way down at that end of the room.

The Chair: Thank you. I don't want to feel inconsequential here, hon. members, so thank you very much.

L. Fox: That has been a significant drop over the last couple of years. But the minister would have to agree, by and large -- at least my thinking is -- that that's program-driven. The question is whether there are sufficient initiatives by municipalities to request more than the $4.5 million. And if so, how is the minister choosing who gets and who doesn't get?

[ Page 8551 ]

The Chair: The minister in reply.

Hon. R. Blencoe: Thank you, hon. Chair -- and heaven forbid that we were going to make you redundant to the process, hon. Chair.

As I indicated, there is $4.5 million this year, down from $15 million last year. The minister determines the actual total allocation, because through the budget process I'm told how much revenue-sharing is going to come, and then we have to divvy it up. We made the decision this year what would unconditionally be maintained. Municipalities submit applications through the Ministry of Transportation and Highways for grants up to 50 percent of the cost of works on roads designated as major municipal highways. Forty-six municipalities submitted 120 applications totaling $44 million. The Minister of Transporation and Highways has developed a list of recommended grant payments to be submitted to the minister.... Oh, that's done. Priority one: those applications which cover work continuing from last year, five recommended for a total of $1.27 million -- so, ongoing requirements. The Ministry of Transportation and Highways, I presume, has a fairly sophisticated system of recommendations of what is required when they go through Municipal Affairs. Priority two: those applications which cover the next phase or section of a road where funding was previously approved for the first phase or section, nine recommended for a total of $2.27 million. Priority three: those applications which cover new work, right-of-way acquisition and/or construction with a focus on small communities, eight recommended for a total of $910,364. In addition, $50,000 is recommended for the design of a pedestrian-cycle grade separation in Kamloops; the amount applied for was $600,000, and we came up with $50,000 out of this program.

The requests, of course, far outstrip the amount of money that's there. The Ministry of Transportation and Highways are the experts in taking a look at these kinds of projects and applications, and the minister makes those recommendations to me. It's very rare that the Minister of Municipal Affairs actually does change those recommendations.

L. Fox: I didn't have a calculator, nor did I write down the amounts the minister gave me. But can the minister tell me if he used up the total of the $4.5 million in those numbers?

Hon. R. Blencoe: Yes.

L. Fox: The reason for asking the question was that I was concerned whether or not anything was left for an emergent situation, or whether or not the minister has another pot of money somewhere to address emergent situations. In some communities this year there has been excess of water and water damage on some side streets or alternate routes, which I believe would qualify for this kind of funding. Can the minister tell me if any emergency funding is available within that program?

Hon. R. Blencoe: No. I wish I had emergency funds. If it was a true emergency and was required, I would just have to undercommit in some other program, probably in sewer and water. That's about all we can do.

L. Fox: By the minister's suggesting that, I take it there are other funds not allocated in some of the other areas. Is that correct?

Hon. R. Blencoe: Most of the programs this year, hon. member, have just about all been allocated now, except for the new sewer and water program. We won't be allocating the $51 million until probably towards the end of July. The planning grant money has some discretionary in it; if there's a true emergency we could reduce that. Restructure has $4 million; we could reallocate some funds within that section of the grants. But the public health, independent police, unconditional, regional districts, the basic.... No, there's no room. So in certain conditional components there are some areas where I could reduce and reallocate some money, but there's not much room in this budget.

L. Fox: I guess that prompts the question: given that there were $44 million worth of demands in the highways section of the budget, are there demands in these other programs of similar magnitude? If there aren't, I guess one would also have to ask the question why more priority wasn't given to the highways issues and less priority given to some of the other issues the minister just mentioned.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I guess that's what comes with being in this job and having to allocate priorities. If the member can give me some thoughts about where we should have done it differently....

All our conditional programs are oversubscribed. I suppose we could have eliminated the new sewer and water program or cut it back dramatically. It seems to me that we have about $232 million worth of requests within the ministry in that section and only $51 million this year. So I think that would create some consternation. We could cut back on the unconditionals and put some money into highways. We could have reduced or eliminated the police equalization grants; in many of the smaller communities that would not be a popular item. As for the public health equalization -- although my colleague the Minister of Health might be concerned -- quite frankly, I sometimes wonder why it's under revenue-sharing and why I'm dealing with it. I understand it was a trade-off by the former Minister of Finance, Mr. Couvelier -- all the details of which I don't know. It's pick your poison, hon. member, in terms of where you decide to cut. In underground utilities, we had $2 million last year. I felt that for one year we could do without anything for that, and it's totally gone.

L. Fox: I wasn't questioning your priorities; my question was if there were similar overdemands on the other ministries. It appeared that you had some unallocated money by the suggestion that in fact you 

[ Page 8552 ]

might be able, for emergency purposes, to go into some of those funds.

Hon. R. Blencoe: Timing.

L. Fox: One area that I'm unfamiliar with is the health area. What is that?

Hon. R. Blencoe: The argument that is utilized for this section of the conditional portion of the grant.... The current rationalization is that certain municipalities -- i.e., Vancouver, Burnaby, Richmond, New Westminster and the North Shore Union Board of Health -- contribute considerable municipal funds toward health. According to an agreement that was achieved some years ago, the province agreed through revenue-sharing to try to moderate some of those municipal contributions to health costs. It's according to an agreed provincial share -- the shareable cost base. These grants enable the province to share the cost of providing public health services in the municipalities I've already mentioned. Forally, the grant is the total shareable cost base multiplied by the provincial share -- 70 percent of the cost base -- less any Ministry of Health contributions.

Hon. member, I am the first to admit -- although I'm told that it's a well-accepted program, obviously -- that it may very well be one that we want to take a look at in terms of whether or not it should be under revenue-sharing. It was brought in in 1988 under Mel Couvelier, the Minister of Finance at the time. I believe it was in return.... Now that I think about it, it could very well be in phase four of our consultation process with UBCM; it may be one of the items that we could take a look at. The bottom line is that these municipalities that I outlined to you have municipal public health units, and all other public health units are provincial. So this is some way of returning some support to them. I think it was lobbied for for some years, as I recall.

L. Fox: How may dollars?

Hon. R. Blencoe: It is $9.1 million.

A. Cowie: I think we're getting to a point where we could go on for quite a while with questions. I've got a few tag-end ones that I'd like to ask.

[8:00]

I believe that a lot of municipalities don't get their approvals for sewer and water grants until halfway through the year. The expenditure never does take place to its full extent, so there's always some money that can shift on to the next year. There is a fair bit of flexibility in that particular area, so you can never really run out of money in one year. But anyway, that's just how the figures are juggled.

I want to see if the minister had done any research on the homeowner's grant. Now there's an arbitrary $400,000 figure where it's cut off. For instance, somebody in Delta who lives in a house worth $320,000 gets a homeowner's grant, and then the person who works right beside the other person, earning the same amount of money, lives in a house in Vancouver that's worth $338,000, and that person doesn't get the grant. It seems to me that there's really no equality there, because that same house is worth half in Delta, simply because of the land values. I know this takes place, and maybe it's arbitrary, but I just wonder how we came to $400,000 as the figure?

Hon. R. Blencoe: Hon. member, you should put that question to my good colleague the Minister of Finance. I think you are aware that, although done in the budget process, the dollars allocated and those kinds of policy decisions are predominantly the purview of the Minister of Finance. My ministry administers the homeowner's grant. We are actually the good cops and the bad cops, because we have to go after those.... Anyway, I won't go into those kinds of details. But as you know, we've made some changes this year to the homeowner's grant, and we are trying to make some cost savings in terms of those who are abusing the system. Generally, most don't. But you would have to check the figure with the Minister of Finance.

A. Cowie: Perhaps we will do that because those estimates still aren't finished. So I think that's one question I might ask.

Of the other couple of questions I had that might satisfy my need for answers, one would be on regional policing. There are a number of people in the greater Vancouver area -- and I have talked with those police chiefs who are nearing retirement, or have come through the RCMP -- who tend to think that regional policing is inevitable. We are gradually moving towards that. The same thing is happening with fire departments; the younger firemen coming up seem not to be threatened so much by regional fire departments. And then you get, of course -- the hon. member for White Rock isn't here -- the absurd situation in White Rock, where there are two stations within a quarter of a mile of each other, each having big, high aerial ladders. It's a completely absurd situation that is surely unnecessary. I wonder if there are any ongoing studies about these particular issues.

Hon. R. Blencoe: Let's take policing. The Attorney General ministry is moving delicately to take a look at some of those regions that appear to have a duplication of service. Take my community here, the Capital Regional District, where we have numerous municipalities with numerous police departments, and I don't think they're.... We are not saying amalgamation, but I think that what the citizens are saying, and what the evidence is from the other jurisdictions, is that there are some economies of scale in terms of integration of services. They don't all have to have a special tactical squad or something like that. It's time to see that there are all sorts of other things in a region they can share collectively. Quite frankly, I think the citizens are demanding it, and they're ahead to some degree of the local bodies, which sometimes get into defending certain empires and saying that the status quo is an option. In this region and some other regions the Attorney General is working with local 

[ Page 8553 ]

government to see what changes can be made for cost savings and which services can be integrated. As you know, when you start talking about eliminating or amalgamating police departments, lots of people get uptight. I think the Attorney General is not saying that; he's asking what we can work toward in terms of improving service and eliminating duplication, and moving in that way.

In terms of fire, it's the same kind of thing. I think some thought has to be given to integration. We cannot continue in these regions with the duplication of services. There are some economies of scale to be introduced, and the citizens are demanding it and in many respects are ahead of the locally elected officials in some of these areas.

L. Fox: I have a few questions left, but one of the last issues I want to get into is the Bamberton project. I don't want to get into it in the way that it hit the media, in terms of minister's conflict of interest or anything. But this has a significant impact on the growth of that area. I know that the minister will have final approval after it goes through the regional process. A real concern of many people who live around that area is the impact it will have on the environment of that area and on the road networks. Prior to the minister approving or giving his support to the project, will he be requesting an environmental study of the issues and ensuring that all those issues are dealt with prior to the approval? Will he also be looking at ensuring that the transportation issues are covered off by the Ministry of Highways prior to giving that approval?

Hon. R. Blencoe: First let me say yes, the Bamberton project is a big project. It's significantly controversial, and the regional district continues to go through the analysis and public hearing process, although I think that is now concluded. I don't intend to go through a long description of the process, but let me say that, as the member is aware, the standard procedure for land use decisions at the regional district level -- and I've indicated this to the Cowichan Valley Regional District -- is that they should determine the land use decision. They should make a decision whether they in principle accept the scope, nature and depth -- are they in favour? -- set aside the technical issues that will have to be dealt with, and go to the first three readings. As you know, under the system that we have in place for approval, between third and fourth reading, if the regional district decides to go to the next step -- i.e., they want it to come to the province -- it then indeed comes to the province, which then kicks in a considerable review system, which is standard at third and fourth reading. There's a lot of feeling out there in the community that when it comes to the province it's finished. It's not; it goes back to the local government for fourth reading. The member is aware of that.

I have said to the Cowichan Valley Regional District -- and I'm quite prepared to make available to the member my letter to them -- "Let me know your position in terms of the scale, scope and location being proposed," and endorsing the parameters of provincial government participation outlined in the attached tax document. I went on to say that if they wanted to go to the next stage, when it comes to provincial government my ministry is like a clearinghouse: that bylaw goes off to all the provincial ministries for statutory review.

Very quickly, the proposal will have to be reviewed in terms of liquid waste treatment and disposal, by the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, to ensure the cost-shared technical assessment of the ability of Saanich Inlet to assimilate the discharge is carried out. My understanding is that through the Ministry of Environment there will be a public process -- public hearings will quite likely be mandated -- and full analysis will be done on the ability for treatment and disposal. Despite what the community seems to think -- that this is going to go ahead without that being done -- between third and fourth reading it will get done.

Work will be done around the water supply. The developer must provide to the Ministry of Environment an assessment detailing water requirements and the quantity available without creating adverse impacts.

Geotechnical suitability. The developer must supply the Ministry of Transportation and Highways with a detailed geotechnical report, prepared by an accepted licensed professional, which provides assurance of no detrimental effects on surrounding properties from slope failure.

Road design and layout. Will the road design for resident parking and vehicle, pedestrian and bicycle traffic and emergency vehicles be acceptable? An enormous amount of work has to be done around the transportation issues when it comes to the provincial government. The developer must provide the Ministry of Transportation and Highways with a detailed traffic assessment, including internal traffic volume on roads at intersections, as well as safe and practical access to all lots, including emergency response vehicles.

The requirements go on and on. Predesign approval and predevelopment concerns. Drainage -- the developer will be required to provide a detailed report prepared by a professional competent in assessing storm water runoff. The report will be provided to the Ministry of Transportation and Highways and the Ministry of Environment, who will jointly assess and approve, hon. member.

Despite what the public say, even if the regional district goes to the next step, this project could fall very easily on the technical issues. Be assured that those technical issues will be done properly. In terms of my dealing with it, it's been by the book and by the letter of the law, and I have indicated that quite clearly.

Macro traffic impact. The Ministry of Transportation and Highways must do a comprehensive evaluation of this proposal's impact on the Trans-Canada Highway between Mill Bay and Victoria. The developer must provide a detailed assessment of traffic operations and infrastructure required at each access to a controlled access highway.

Contaminated site cleanup. The developer must submit to the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks a contaminated site cleanup report that includes a site assessment and schedule for cleanup. The location and method of disposal for contaminated materials 

[ Page 8554 ]

must be provided in the report. Immediate cleanup may be required in some areas.

And it goes on. Community solid waste -- the developer must reach agreement with the regional district, with approval from the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, on how solid waste from the community will be managed. It is anticipated this will include a plan for recycling and composting, including sewage sludge.

The regional district got back to me after my requests because it basically wanted the province to take over this project. I told them it was still a land use and zoning matter and that we would give them assistance. They came for planning grants; we have provided that. We said we would give them assistance when they needed help in determining whether they wanted to go to the next level. If they wanted to do that, they would have to come to the province for the traditional assessments that are made on such a project.

[8:15]

The bottom line is that the regional district has accepted that process. Lately some adjacent municipalities and the Capital Regional District have stated that they wish to have some say, because this project is so large that their regions would be impacted. There will be every opportunity for adjacent members who are impacted by this if the regional districts decide.... They control whether they want to move ahead. If they want to move ahead and it comes to the province, there will be statutory hearings and processes. I will ensure that those who wish to participate and have their views heard are able to do so at the various stages.

L. Fox: I thank the minister for giving us the background of his letter.

I only have one other question. Through the course of virtually all the estimates, the minister has made known his biases about incorporation. This is a sizable project where it's my understanding we could see anywhere from 15,000 to 20,000 people in an unincorporated area. Has the developer looked at and had discussion with the minister about setting up a whole new community and looking for incorporation under the act?

Hon. R. Blencoe: The developer has had no discussions with me on that or any other topic. Let's make sure the member understands my comment, because this project is in the public eye. All my official communications and dealings are with the regional district. I have met face to face with the CVRD regional directors directly involved, their staff and administrators -- we had a session. I met once with the developers, who asked for a meeting. I met with the opponents of this project, Friends of South Cowichan -- I believe that's their name. I've made it quite clear that I've met officially with all those groups, and also indicated this to Mr. Hughes. There aren't any dealings with the developer. I don't know whether the developer is thinking about incorporation. The current prognostication is that this project will be built over about 25 years. I presume at some point it's going to get to the level of population and sophistication that incorporation would be an issue. The role they want would be determined by the new residents of that new town. I'm not sure -- perhaps staff can remind me -- but it seems to me that when I met with the regional district, they mentioned that the concept of incorporation had come up in some form. However, I haven't had any discussion with the developer on that issue.

C. Tanner: Mr. Minister, you made the offer to give us a copy of your correspondence to the regional district. I would be very interested in getting a copy of that. Could you tell us the dates of the correspondence you had with the regional district and when they requested you to intervene?

Hon. R. Blencoe: I have to make sure that I get this right, because there are so many dates. On September 14, 1992, the CVRD expressed its concerns about a number of issues before me and asked the provincial government to review the project a number of ways -- I think it's September 14 that it got to me. My letter back to them was January 27, 1993. This is a public document. I'm very pleased to present it. It has been out in the media, and I'm very pleased to let you have a copy of it.

C. Tanner: Just one further question on the two dates, September 14 and January 27. That is approximately three and a half months. Did the minister take that long because he had some reason to think that he didn't want the local regional district to follow the normal procedure?

Hon. R. Blencoe: The request in the September letter to me had to be looked at in terms of other provincial agencies. Remember that this is a significant project, and yes, it took some time to get back to them in terms of an official response and my advice to the regional district.

C. Tanner: Since the minister has been in the position he presently occupies -- and he was critic for a number of years before that -- to his knowledge has there ever been a circumstance where the provincial government has done for a regional district what the Cowichan Valley Regional District requested of the minister on September 14?

Hon. R. Blencoe: No is the best answer, but as you know, there have been certain projects such as Whistler and Tumbler Ridge which have been under different legislation and different time frames. Where the province has been the carrier of the project, it has usually been because of an absence of a local government being able to make those kinds of decisions, or they apply to the provincial government for the assistance they require to manage these kinds of projects.

Vote 51 approved.

[ Page 8555 ]

Vote 52: ministry operations, $162,464,609 -- approved.

Vote 53: municipal revenue-sharing, $398,900,000 -- approved.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I want to thank my hon. colleagues across the way for some interesting debate, which we will report back into the House. On that note, I move the committee rise, report resolutions and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The Committee Rose At 8:23 p.m.

ERRATUM

Volume 11, Issue 21 of Monday, July 5, 1993, p.m.

At page 8218, column two, paragraph three.

The sentence "There is not a non-union housebuilder in this province" should read: "There is no union housebuilder in this province."

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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