1993 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 35th Parliament HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.
(Hansard)
THURSDAY, JULY 15, 1993
Afternoon Sitting
Volume 12, Number 8
[ Page 8777 ]
The House met at 2:05 p.m.
G. Brewin: For the first time since the recent election, I am proud to introduce some members of my family to the Legislature. They live all over the place. In this case, on their way back to Namibia for work with OXFAM are my daughter Gillian, her husband, John Graham, and my two marvellous, fabulous -- the best in the world -- grandchildren, Danielle, who is soon to be seven, and Iain, who is five. Would the House please make them welcome.
P. Ramsey: Joining us in the gallery today is my wife, Hazel Ramsey. I know that not everybody here is going to be as delighted as I am that she is able to come and be with me for a few days, but I would ask you all to join me in making her welcome.
F. Jackson: There are six people in the gallery today who I would like to ask the House to make welcome: Sandy Mallory and his wife, Elaine, and their son Douglas, who are visiting from my constituency; their friends Graham and Mary Rogers, who are visiting them from London; and Sandra Lawrie, who lives here in Victoria. Before I ask the House to join me in making them welcome, I would like to point out that Mr. Mallory is the vice-president in charge of hospitality and protocol for the Canada Summer Games, which are happening in Kamloops on August 8. Would the House please help me make them welcome.
F. Gingell: Joining us in the House today is a good friend Virginia Barteluk and her daughter, Jennifer, who is going to start studying media resources this fall at Capilano College. Also with them is a cousin from England, Sarah Ashley, who is a student of geography at the University of Liverpool. I ask members of the House to please make them welcome.
M. Farnworth: It's a pleasure to introduce three distinguished individuals from my constituency. The first two are Mr. Brian Kirk, the city administrator for Port Coquitlam, and Mr. Igor Zahynacz, the city engineer for Port Coquitlam. The third individual is a good friend to this side of the House, the second-longest-serving mayor in Port Coquitlam, a former president of the Union of B.C. Municipalities, the current chair of the Vancouver Regional Transit Commission and a mayor who I have no doubt will have no trouble cruising to re-election this fall, Mayor Len Traboulay of Port Coquitlam.
KEMANO COMPLETION PROJECT
Hon. M. Harcourt: Hon. Speaker, on July 9 Alcan Aluminum announced that it will participate in British Columbia's review of the Kemano completion project. As I said last January and again last week, the participation of Alcan and the federal government is important to this review. Now that 50 percent of that objective has been achieved with Alcan's announcement we hope that the federal government will also participate. In the same announcement, Alcan stated that it is seeking the government's assistance to "revitalize the economics" of the project. In subsequent media reports, Alcan said it is not seeking amendments to their contract to supply KCP power to B.C. Hydro; rather it is seeking to sell long-term surplus Kemano 1 power to B.C. Hydro. This is power that B.C. Hydro currently purchases from Alcan on short-term, firm contracts.
In order that members of the assembly and British Columbians fully understand the events and communications relating to these discussions, I will offer the following summation. On June 11, I confirmed the following Alcan position with the corporation's chief executive officer: (1) the cost of completing KCP has risen by $500 million since the project was first announced; (2) the project is not economic for the corporation under its current contractual obligations to B.C. Hydro; (3) Alcan proposes a new contract with B.C. Hydro that would have two significant consequences -- an increase in its contracted price for KCP power and a renewal of B.C. Hydro's contract for surplus Kemano 1 power for the long term at the same new price proposed for KCP power; (4) that this proposal was the Alcan board of directors' "bottom line." Without the province's agreement to this new arrangement, Alcan, which made a decision to suspend construction two years ago, would not recommence construction of KCP.
The government's analysis of the Alcan proposal indicates that the new arrangements would have cost Hydro and British Columbians an additional $350 million over the existing or reasonably anticipated commercial arrangements. This figure was arrived at by comparing the new proposed price for KCP power with the price Alcan contracted for three years ago, and by comparing the proposed price for long-term contract of surplus Kemano 1 power with what Hydro believes would be fair market value for that power, for Hydro to renew its current short-term arrangements for the long term.
My response to Alcan was the only one I could responsibly give as the Premier of British Columbia. I told Alcan that I could not accept their bottom-line proposal, nor could I ask British Columbians to accept it. Neither British Columbians nor their government could be responsible for the half billion dollar increase in the cost of completing KCP, nor should British Columbians be expected to rewrite existing contracts to pay for that overrun.
Recent events have left the government with uncertainty about the KCP and also the province's public review. I have heard directly from Alcan's senior officer that Alcan requires a higher price for KCP power before it will recommence construction. More recently, Alcan has communicated its commitment to the project, and is seeking only to increase its revenues by selling surplus power for the long term.
Given that the province is not prepared to rewrite the original KCP contract, Alcan must clarify its intentions for British Columbians. I have instructed the
[ Page 8778 ]
minister responsible for B.C. Hydro to clarify this with Alcan. The minister will inform the company that within the next 30 days the government needs to know the corporation's intention. The minister has a clear mandate from me:
1. B.C. Hydro will not renegotiate the original contract price for KCP power.
2. B.C. Hydro may enter into discussions with Alcan in order to arrive at a fair price for converting its current short-term contracts for surplus Kemano 1 power into a long-term contract. Such arrangements have the potential to mutually benefit Alcan and British Columbians.
3. Experience elsewhere has shown that by making its Kitimat smelter more efficient, Alcan may be able to free up a significant amount of marketable power that B.C. Hydro would be interested in purchasing. This also has the potential to provide B.C. Hydro with competitively priced power while providing new revenue to Alcan.
I have asked the minister to discuss with Alcan the potential of using Hydro's resource -- the Power Smart program.
[2:15]
The member for Prince George-Omineca raised concerns in this House two days ago about the time lines for the B.C. Utilities Commission review of the Kemano project. The government has heard the same concerns and has had to consider a number of issues:
1. Applications for participant assistance under the province's new program are being assessed and processed as quickly as possible. In the interim, the absence of funding has prevented some interested parties from preparing their participation in the review as quickly as they would like.
2. Similarly, we understand the commission is near to finalizing its arrangements to provide the independent expert consultants that will assist all parties in the review.
3. The government has heard two versions of Alcan's perspective on the economics of the project.
As stated earlier, I have given the minister a time line for clarifying this with Alcan. For these reasons I have instructed the Energy minister to meet with the commission chair and the chair of the review to discuss these issues. The minister will communicate the government's recommendation that the starting date for the public meetings be delayed and the deadline for registration of participants be moved back 30 days.
With respect to the issues of participant funding and the provision of technical and expert assistance, we will work with the commission to ensure these arrangements are concluded as quickly as possible.
There is one more related issue that I wish to bring to the attention of members. In correspondence sent to me by Alcan in January and again last Friday, the province was informed that Alcan takes the position that the province is in breach of the 1987 settlement agreement and that Alcan is considering taking legal action against the government. It was after the receipt of the first notice that I authorized government officials to meet with Alcan to explore what Alcan described as "non-litigious solutions" to the alleged breach. It was in these meetings that the government became aware of Alcan's desire to renegotiate its contracts with B.C. Hydro.
We fundamentally reject the allegation that the province breached the 1987 agreement. In announcing the public review in January, I made it very clear that the province recognizes the agreement as binding on Alcan, the province and the federal government.
Secondly, I am concerned with any suggestion that any action of this government has materially affected the economics of this project. Alcan has made it clear to me that its decision to recommence construction depends on my acceptance of its proposal to significantly increase the price B.C. Hydro pays for KCP power. I have told the House that the province will not do so. I expect that Minister Sihota will seek clarification on the economics of the KCP in his discussions with Alcan.
J. Weisgerber: We are hearing from the Premier the results of a problem brought on this government by itself. The government is responsible for the situation it finds itself in: dependent on Alcan and Kemano for energy for Hydro. B.C. Hydro projected that its sources and needs would be supplied by Kemano, Kemano 2, and the return of the downstream benefits on the Columbia River. During this same period, in the last 18 months in office, the government regularly turned away proposals to supply energy from independent producers in British Columbia. They have had proposals from independent power producers, from waste heat cogeneration projects, from wood waste cogeneration projects and from thermal projects. The government and Hydro have regularly and routinely turned away those proposals. All of those projects could have been and should have been under construction now. They should have been prepared to contribute to the energy needs of British Columbia now.
Instead, the government and B.C. Hydro have maintained that they have surplus generating capacity. It was only yesterday in the Minister of Finance's estimates that he again stated that British Columbia has surplus energy and surplus generating capacity. Now we see the Premier trying to negotiate a deal in the Legislature. The reality is that the government has a shortage, and Hydro has a shortage of generating capacity.
This year and next year they are drawing Williston Lake down to unprecedented levels. For a month now, the people of Mackenzie have been trying to get meetings with the ministers in cabinet to discuss the very serious problem on Williston Lake that has absolutely nothing to do with the shortages that might flow from Kemano. These are shortages outside of the Kemano system. The government has put itself in a position where it is entirely dependent on energy from Kemano and Kemano 2.
Now the Premier comes to the Legislature to try and negotiate a deal inside the House rather than outside it. The government has failed miserably in its energy policy, and its so-called Energy Council has contributed to the problem rather than the solution. It's a sad situation we find ourselves in as a direct result of the
[ Page 8779 ]
actions of this government and its failure to take action where it should have.
F. Gingell: Today's announcement is purely one more symptom of the malaise of uncertainty that this province suffers from. It is time that this government recognized that good economic growth only happens when there's a feeling of certainty and an understanding of the rules and review processes that need to go on before major projects of this type are undertaken. This government has vacillated on this subject. It's been on again, off again, and that has been the cause.
Two things: first of all, I implore the government not to spend any more money until there's some feeling of certainty on whether something is or isn't going to happen; secondly, I believe that the Premier should save speeches of this type for the defence of the province's case in the courts of the land -- which I'm sure is going to happen as a result -- and not waste these words in this House.
LABOUR DISPUTE AT CHILLIWACK CARE FACILITY
R. Chisholm: My question is to the Minister of Labour. We have yet another strike with the BCGEU at the Eden intermediate care facility in Chilliwack. Elderly residents are not even receiving the basic health care services they are paying for. Will the minister tell us what policy his ministry has to ensure essential levels of care at these private facilities?
Hon. M. Sihota: There are provisions in the Labour Code that would allow for essential services to be established in those disputes. Precedents have already been set by determinations made by the Labour Relations Board, and the employer knows full well its rights to go to that board and seek essential services. I find it astounding that the hon. member is unaware that the legislation contains provisions that allow essential services to be established.
R. Chisholm: Supplemental question. As another colleague said, I find it astounding that you don't understand your own laws. I'm going to quote from the media and from relatives of these people. They say: "Relatives and the media have reported elderly residents have not been bathed in weeks, they have open, weeping sores, and their dressings have not been changed. They are confused and frightened" -- you must remember, hon. minister, these are 80- and 90-year-olds -- "and their relatives are frustrated and demanding action." There is currently one nurse for 95 patients.
The Speaker: Your question, hon. member?
R. Chisholm: Thank you, hon. Speaker. My question to the hon. minister is: is this the minister's definition of essential service?
Hon. M. Sihota: The hon. member should know that under the legislation, the Labour Relations Board establishes the essential service levels in those areas. If they are inadequate to attend to the needs of the patients, the employer, who has the responsibility, can go to the Labour Relations Board and ask for those levels to be revisited.
R. Chisholm: Supplemental to the same minister. Unfortunately, 80- and 90-year-olds don't necessarily know what their rights are. Maybe the minister should take on the responsibility and do something for them. The Minister of Health has argued that the future of health care in our province lies in their Closer to Home strategy. What will this minister do to ensure that essential health care services for the elderly are maintained in community-based facilities?
Hon. M. Sihota: First of all, with regard to the rights, it is the responsibility of the employer to go and assert those rights in front of the Labour Relations Board; it should be doing that. I find it amazing that the hon. member, who speaks of the patients not being aware of their rights, does not realize that it is for the employer to make that case in front of the Labour Relations Board.
Secondly, with regard to essential service levels, I reiterate to that ill-informed member that it is the Labour Relations Board that makes those determinations. Under the legislation, the employer is free to bring any matter to the attention of the Labour Relations Board and have those levels set.
B.C. LOTTERIES FUNDING OF STUDENT EXCHANGE PROGRAM
L. Fox: My question this afternoon is to the Premier. Can the Premier explain why the Lottery Corporation issued a $500 grant to fund a student exchange program to Quebec sponsored by the South Sahali Elementary School? Can he confirm that the chair of the corporation advised trip organizers to apply for the special funding, knowing that her daughter was in the class?
Hon. M. Harcourt: I think the member has raised some legitimate questions. When I found out about this matter, I asked the minister responsible about it. She is going to have this matter referred to the auditor general for a review.
NATURAL GAS EXPLORATION IN THE FRASER VALLEY
G. Farrell-Collins: My question is to the Premier. Yesterday the Minister of Energy announced that the two Langley drill sites proposed for natural gas are going ahead. During the last election the Premier promised the people of the Fraser Valley, in a letter written on his own letterhead, that he wanted a moratorium on natural gas exploration in the Fraser Valley. Can the Premier tell us what happened to that promise?
[ Page 8780 ]
Hon. M. Harcourt: The matter was reviewed very thoroughly. The minister's staff dealt with a lot of the concerns raised about safety and some of the other issues that people in the Fraser Valley brought to our attention. On the basis of that very considered review by the minister, permission was given to go ahead.
G. Farrell-Collins: I will quote from the Premier's letter: "I also want David Anderson's 59 recommendations brought back to Fraser Valley residents for full public consultation, so all questions can be answered." When did that full public consultation take place? I would like the Premier to answer this question, and not pass it off to his Minister of Energy.
[2:30]
Hon. A. Edwards: Everyone should know that the issue of drilling for natural gas in the Fraser Valley has been one of considerable delicacy. Three wells were proposed. When one well was drilled -- under the previous government, under very stringent conditions -- that well indicated.... The reports that we had and the reviews by various ministries and various levels of government indicated that the drilling could be repeated safely in the Fraser Valley. That is the basis for the decisions.
The Speaker: Final supplemental, hon. member.
G. Farrell-Collins: I notice that once again the Premier has abdicated his responsibility. The fact of the matter is that the promise of full public consultation given by the Premier in writing was broken and violated. Can the Minister of Energy tell us whether these are the only wells that are going to be drilled in the Fraser Valley, or will further wells be drilled if requests come?
Hon. A. Edwards: I think the member knows full well that as far as we know, all indications are that these are the two wells that will be drilled. This does not mean that if someone has already bought a lease.... Pardon me, the term is a permit or another term; they don't turn it into a lease until later. But if they have one, then they have the right to apply to drill. If they apply to drill, the application goes through a stringent process. It is reviewed by any number of ministries and levels of government, and by the local people. It would go through that whole process before there would be any allowance to drill.
DOWNTOWN REVITALIZATION PROGRAM
W. Hurd: A question to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Is the minister aware of what percentage of grant money handed out under the downtown revitalization program has gone to cities and towns in NDP ridings around the province?
Hon. R. Blencoe: I'll take that question on notice and get back to the member with a full report.
The Chair: Unfortunately, hon. member, the minister has taken the question on notice, and there is no supplemental.
PINK MOUNTAIN BISON HUNT
C. Serwa: My question is to the Minister of Environment. The first legal buffalo hunt in British Columbia took place with the Pink Mountain bison herd, and it has been reported that almost a third of that bison population was slaughtered. Has the minister investigated this issue, and have charges been filed?
Hon. J. Cashore: The ministry has been carrying out very careful surveillance on this issue, and to my knowledge charges have not been filed.
The Speaker: A supplemental, hon. member.
C. Serwa: For the information of the minister, some 7,600 resident hunters applied for limited-entry hunting permits. Fifty permits were issued, and 33 of the bison population were taken legally. But 170 animals were taken by first nations people -- people from the Northwest Territories, the lower mainland and Vancouver Island. The obscene slaughter of 150 to 160 animals was taken by four native individuals from the Fort St. John area, who shot...
The Speaker: Your question, hon. member.
C. Serwa: ...cows and calves as well as bulls. Does the minister accept this unconscionable act that harms our fish and wildlife resources of British Columbia? Does the minister accept that as a reasonable and fair allocation?
Hon. J. Cashore: This minister does not accept any unconscionable act, but I will neither confirm nor deny the figures that the hon. member has put forward. I would certainly be pleased to review that. I want to point out, however, that in the midst of a situation that requires cooler heads to prevail, the government has come forward with a process that has very good support from the aboriginal community, the wildlife community and those who are concerned about the economic interests of the province. By appealing to those positive forces within this province, we are going to be able to resolve these concerns.
The Speaker: Final brief supplemental, hon. member.
C. Serwa: For the minister's information, the information was put forward by Pat Michiel, who was recently appointed to the chair of Northern Lights College. He's not a typical NDP flake; he's a very reputable individual.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please. Order! Would the member please state his question.
[ Page 8781 ]
C. Serwa: The only action that the ministry appears to have undertaken is a statement by the senior conservation officer in Fort St. John, who thinks that peer pressure from the native community may be imposed on the four. In the light of the situation, is that an example of the minister's concept of joint stewardship in British Columbia?
Hon. J. Cashore: There is nothing to be gained by this hon. member trying to embarrass me or by me trying to embarrass this hon. member. I would point out that I made no attempt to denigrate Pat Michiel or any such information. I said I would like to have an opportunity to review that information. Again, I would appeal to the hon. member that the way to resolve this very challenging issue is through the very process we have designed, a process of consulting with people in those communities whom we depend on in order to be able to come to appropriate solutions. We will continue to do that and to try to make information available with regard to these factors.
CLAYOQUOT SOUND
A. Cowie: My question is to the Premier. In light of the international attention garnered by the concert by the Australian rock band Midnight Oil in Clayoquot this morning, will the Premier confirm that he and the Minister of Forests are planning to helicopter up a pro-NDP government rock band called Mike's Madness in the Clearcuts to sing the government's lumberjack song?
SHAUGHNESSY HOSPITAL CLOSURE
L. Reid: My question is also to the Premier. This government has lost support among environmentalists, taxpayers and students. If you listen carefully today, you will hear the outrage of 400,000 British Columbians over the closure of Shaughnessy Hospital's emergency department. Do you not agree that all of this alienation undermines your claim of being a government that listens?
Hon. M. Harcourt: I will acknowledge that this government has had the courage to face some very difficult choices and decisions and that some people are going to be angered by those decisions -- whether it be the closure of Shaughnessy or the difficult decisions on Clayoquot and Tatshenshini. Yes, we will continue to make those difficult decisions, whether they are popular or unpopular, in the interests of British Columbians.
L. Reid: For a government that promised consensus, you have achieved it where you least expected it: the public agrees that one term of an NDP government is enough. This government seems to take great pride in the closure of Shaughnessy Hospital. But at what cost?
The Speaker: Hon. Premier, I regret that there was no question in that.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please. The bell has signalled the end of question period. I would like to ask all hon. members to be reminded of the guidelines of question period in terms of asking their questions.
Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 57. I also wish to advise all hon. members that Committee A will be convening in the Douglas Fir Room to deliberate upon the estimates of the Ministry of Finance and Corporate Relations.
MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS, RECREATION AND HOUSING STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1993
Hon. R. Blencoe: I am pleased to bring forward this legislation which constitutes the most significant measures ever taken in our province to support the role of local government in the provision of affordable housing.
Bill 57 gives local governments new powers to increase the supply of affordable housing through amendments to the Municipal Act and the Vancouver Charter to give local governments clear authority to provide density bonuses to developers in exchange for meeting specified conditions for affordable housing, customized comprehensive development zoning arrangements for large projects and legally enforceable housing agreements to ensure that affordable housing commitments are carried out.
The legislation also offers local governments optional powers through regulations that will allow them to lease land for affordable units of below market value, to establish housing reserve funds for housing purposes, to borrow for housing purposes following a referendum and to enforce standards of maintenance for rental housing within their communities. This makes the legislation flexible and responsive to the unique circumstances and needs of individual local governments.
Density bonuses enable local governments to draft zoning bylaws to permit an increase in density on a site in return for a developer building affordable and special-needs housing or amenities. We are trying to achieve a win-win situation for the community, the local government and, obviously, for the developer. The amenities could include underground parking, day care space, open space or an environmental conservation area.
This lays the groundwork for local governments to prezone land for housing as well. Comprehensive development zoning will enable local governments to negotiate with developers over the development of large, complex, multi-use sites and develop custom zoning regulations. It provides much needed flexibility and allows the local government and the developer to develop mutually beneficial solutions. This activity takes place within the context of the official community plan. I want to make that quite clear, because some
[ Page 8782 ]
concern has been expressed that it would not be within the official community plan. So I make it quite clear that it is within that context. It also allows the local government to trade increased density and relaxed building envelopes for affordable housing or site amenities. Housing agreements will provide local governments with a legally enforceable means for securing affordable housing accommodation over the longer term. The legislation allows the terms of the agreement, such as rent levels and management specifications, to be registered in the land title office and thus to be met even if ownership changes.
These amendments -- and this is very important -- implement seven more recommendations of the Provincial Commission on Housing Options, bringing to 17 the number of provisions that have been implemented in the five months since the report was released. There are 57 provisions in total, and work has been completed or is underway on 38 of the 57. We hope to bring some of them forth in the next session. These changes are practical and specific. The legislation provides much needed flexibility, and as I said earlier, it allows local governments and developers to craft win-win trade-offs. The result will be more affordable housing for British Columbians. It is an example of the way our government is working toward effective partnerships with local governments and the private and non-profit sectors so that together we can provide British Columbians with the range of housing options they need and deserve.
[2:45]
It is with this kind of legislation and innovation and partnerships that we think we can start to take up the slack in terms of the federal government withdrawal from its responsibility to help us. We are, of course, looking to the community and to all stakeholders for further creative ideas as we move in partnership to develop more affordable housing in this great province.
A. Cowie: The official opposition does not have any major objections to this bill; on the contrary, we want to congratulate the minister for bringing it forward. We have some concerns that I would like to speak about generally, and then I'll speak about them more thoroughly in committee.
To some extent, the amendments to the Islands Trust are unclear, although I believe that the objectives are forthright. The overall trust body will be able to make decisions that regional districts make; that's how I interpret it, and that's a good change. But they also have the power to delegate to the committees on the islands themselves. While I think that's a very good idea, one island could take a different stance entirely from the overall objectives that I think we should have for the Gulf Islands.
In our opinion, the Gulf Islands are a unique resource not only for British Columbians but also for the citizens of Canada. As the population doubles in the next 20, 30 or possibly 40 years in the Georgia Strait, the islands will become more and more important, especially as a conservation and park source. They will also be important for tourism and recreation purposes. Coupled with the fact that people want to live there, I think you're dealing with a very scarce resource, and it has to be worked out very carefully. So we have some concerns there, but we think this legislation is going in the right direction.
Our next concern is section 4. While I say that it's a concern, I also say it with a lot of excitement, because I think this section will allow a great deal of flexibility in local areas and municipalities. Under excellent leadership for years, Vancouver had the flexibility that we are really looking at in this bill. They have been able to look at particular zones. One example is the Fairview Slopes, which is a delightful place to live. There has been flexibility to change sections of the zones. The very thing that the minister is trying to implement with this legislation has been in place for a number of years.
I want to caution the minister, however. When one goes into that type of zoning, there will be a need for sophisticated staff to implement those sophisticated design guidelines. In many municipalities we basically have clerical-type planning staff who, while well-intended and well-equipped to do their jobs, don't have the design know-how to really make the decisions that this legislation points to. The ministry may have to give these municipalities help in training and that sort of thing.
I also want to caution the minister to use a delicate hand here, because we have in this province an excellent architectural profession, as well as an excellent urban design profession. They get terribly upset when they go to municipalities and are told exactly how to design something by somebody who doesn't have any design training. I think that we're in a delicate situation. The intent of this legislation is excellent. It's just that the experience in some municipalities where they have implemented it has been unfortunate in some cases. I think the minister will have to set up a mechanism almost for appeal, and the appeal body cannot be council.
In the early seventies in the city of Vancouver, the mayor at the time, Art Phillips, took decisions of design and detailed zoning out of the hands of council -- quite rightly, I think. Essentially, he said that they aren't paying for it and aren't capable of handling it. It has moved fairly smoothly since then. I can remember many evenings when councillors sat and debated the design of a motel or a shopping centre, and they knew absolutely nothing about it.
Putting that into a technical mechanism is a good thing at least. In Vancouver, they set up a development permit board of professionals to advise, and, on bigger projects, even took it out of the hands of the planning department. While the planning staff did the work for it, those recommendations came to council from the development permit board. I believe that other larger municipalities use a similar mechanism. In the municipality of Burnaby, they are fortunate enough to have a director of planning -- or they had a director of planning, who is now the manager. He was very sophisticated himself in these measures. It was easier to get those sorts of things dealt with, although some architects would claim that they're very authoritarian in carrying out their duties. That's an area that the minister might want to watch very carefully.
[ Page 8783 ]
I also notice that in some sections of the legislation some changes within zoning will be done by public notice, essentially, not by public hearings. Perhaps I misunderstand that. But the public really wants to make sure that they have an opportunity to look at these changes. In Vancouver, they have an opportunity to come before the development permit board to express their opinion. There are no public hearings, as long as its within the overall zoning.
I think we're into a whole new realm when one gets into vertical zoning. Again, that's kind of exciting, but it requires a great deal of sophistication. When one talks about bonusing, as the minister did, that's an area full of pitfalls if one is not extremely careful. I've come to the conclusion personally that you may as well just rezone to the upper zone; although by doing that, if you're not too careful, you'll take away the bargaining power.
But what these changes, in effect, will do is.... Essentially, if you're going to do housing or if you're going to provide the amenities, what will happen is.... We're going back to the old land use contract that was chucked out about ten years ago. In fact, I always claimed there was absolutely nothing wrong with the land use contract. What was wrong was the people who were administering it, and they didn't have the proper guidelines.
I don't necessarily want to keep on looking at Vancouver, but I guess I have to because Vancouver is one of the few places where it's really been experienced. The city has done some fairly good, imaginative development around False Creek and along the harbour with Marathon Realty. They require 20 percent social housing as part of that. The problem is that there are no programs to implement the social housing, and the minister knows that. One might even want to consider allowing that density to be built somewhere else as part of the trade-off -- a transfer of development rights. That, too, is a very complicated procedure, but we're dealing with specific objectives, as in social housing.
I personally would like to see the minister define affordable housing at some point. I was talking to someone from Prince George only this morning. This person is living on welfare and paying $550 -- even up there -- for a very little suite. You would think they would be able to get some cheaper accommodation, but that's what this person is paying, and it's simply not affordable. So I think we have to look at that. Even in the city of Vancouver, where the Vancouver Land Corporation has had some very noble objectives for getting affordable housing, if I can put it that way, rents are in the area of $800 or $900 anywhere up to $1,200 a month. For some people, anyway, that's not affordable. What they really are aiming at is the middle-income people who do not want to buy, and that does in fact allow more opportunities for those people at the bottom.
The minister mentioned that 17 objectives in the affordable housing report issued earlier this year are being implemented and that he will be implementing later this year or early in the spring some legislation regarding suites. I have put on record that I think that is an excellent objective for existing municipalities where there are already services and older houses with fewer people living in them now than in the past. I think that's where we should put a lot of our effort: making sure some of the poorer-quality suites are upgraded and making legal the suites in houses that have them. These are perfectly good accommodation, and they help people to pay for the enormous tax increases we've had in the last while.
So I will close by saying that I think the minister is going in the right direction, and I look forward to further improvements. The Liberal opposition will be supporting this bill.
H. De Jong: I'm pleased to rise on Bill 57. It makes me wonder, however, where the minister has been for the last ten or 15 years. Many of the items in this bill that he has brought forward have been in existence already in many communities -- unless here in Victoria and perhaps in the city of Vancouver they have not made use of those inventions the minister talked about. But they have been in the outlying areas, such as the Fraser Valley. The communities wouldn't have expanded the way if they did if they hadn't had some of these inventions in place in terms of providing lower-cost housing. I believe we are mainly talking about rental housing here. The minister hasn't been specific on this, but I believe that's what he's aiming at.
I have no problem with rental housing, and I don't think any municipalities have had a problem with rental housing. When the minister talks about the changes this bill will bring forward, he's basically talking about very minor things, such as underground parking in order to increase the density. Underground parking has been in place for many years in order to increase the density and provide the amenities surrounding these buildings, in terms of proper landscaping, playgrounds for children and so on. There's nothing new with that aspect.
The minister came forward with carry-forward stipulations. He hasn't been specific as to what those carry-forward stipulations would be or if they would apply to what was initially built as a low-cost housing facility that had received some government assistance along the way in terms of amenities or whatever was available. There were some programs back in the mid and late seventies. At that time there were no specific stipulations attached to those buildings. Later on, many of those were converted into strata title. If that is one of the criterion the minister has in mind, I believe he's on the right track.
The minister talked about increasing the densities. I suppose that in many communities, particularly in the lower mainland, there aren't a lot of choices. Municipalities have to increase the densities because of the limited land available for development, since many of those communities are surrounded by agricultural land. It's very difficult to get any land out of the land freeze for residential development. That has an effect, first of all, on the land price and also on the availability of land. I believe that that area certainly has to be looked into.
[3:00]
[ Page 8784 ]
The minister also talked about land being made available -- by the Crown, I would guess -- and that local communities or a developer could rent that land under a long-term lease from the Crown to provide such housing. That's not a bad idea, except for the fact that many communities don't have any Crown land within their boundaries that could be developed. How are those communities going to accommodate that? Is the government intending to purchase land within those communities for that particular purpose and then rent it out to a developer? The price would be the same, unless there is great subsidization.
Back in 1975-'76, some very inventive programs were brought forward by the Social Credit government. It appears that some of those programs were cut back over the years. As I recall, there was Bill 110 back in '75 or '76 and Bill 88. One was the sewer assistance program, and the other was the water assistance program. They really were forward-looking programs, where the municipalities could plan the servicing aspects for higher densities and expanded development and then ask the provincial government to share in the cost of treatment facilities for the sewer plants, the bulk water supply and whatever else it needed. I know that the district of Matsqui has taken great advantage of those particular programs, because it was a forward-looking municipality. We knew that the growth would happen; we knew that people would come to British Columbia and to the lower mainland. That is still the case, because people like to live in British Columbia. It has a nice climate; it has lots of beauty to admire and to enjoy. So there will be no stopping the growth that has happened over the last ten or 15 years.
Therefore I think we must look at a program expansion rather than simply deal with the small items this minister has brought forward this afternoon. We're certainly not going to see a big change in British Columbia because of the 17 items contained in this bill. In my opinion, it's not forward-looking and does not allow for long-term planning. It allows for minor improvements here and there in order to write some new, glossy paper to tell communities that the province is really doing something, but it doesn't amount to a hill of beans.
I'm disappointed that this bill isn't more forward-looking and doesn't have the potential for good, controlled, steady growth for municipalities, within the lower mainland in particular. Since practically all the items that the minister has mentioned are already in place, I don't think it's going to make any difference in terms of the need for socialized housing within the communities of the lower mainland.
L. Fox: I rise to speak on Bill 57, the Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Housing Statutes Amendment Act. When I first looked over the bill, the first thing that came to my mind was that only a few weeks ago this minister was chastising the federal government for off-loading the housing responsibilities and decreasing the transfer payments for the purposes of housing -- in fact, as I understand it, pulling right out of the housing programs. We see now a situation where -- mind you, it's only if a municipality requests the power -- there could be significant off-loading onto municipalities.
When I look at the present situation around the province, I see that there is indeed substantial need in three areas of the province. But there are also needs for low-income housing in other regions of the province. Probably they are not as significant, and maybe they haven't surfaced to the point they have in the larger lower mainland cities and the Victoria region. However, they are there, and I grant that. I understand that this is an attempt by the minister to develop a joint partnership with the private sector, municipalities and the ministry in order to create the adequate housing we all would like to see. But I'm extremely concerned about the sweeping powers this bill gives to municipalities should they choose to require them from the ministry.
An area may be developed all except for one small area within it, and that particular developer, through negotiating with the municipality, can increase the density in that neighbourhood by merely suggesting that they are going to create a number of low-cost housing units. I don't like to think about the impact that may have on the other people in the neighbourhood who may have bought their property based on the original zoning, built on the original zoning and the densities that were contained within that zoning. Those densities are now increased substantially without even a public process, it would appear. At the whim of council, that developer and council can negotiate that arrangement. Several concerns with respect to that bother me. One is the effect that density may have on land values for those people who have invested a lot of money in those areas.
Another major concern is the infrastructure that may service that area, which would have been designed according to the density put forward in the original zoning of that property. We could create all kinds of nightmares, from traffic to a sewer system that is not adequate for the density and may create a lot of off-site costs to the municipality, because many municipalities aren't in a position to put in place development cost-charge bylaws or bylaws which will enforce off-site costs back onto that development. I understand that a mayor and council, in negotiating with a developer, would obviously take those concerns into consideration. But if the need for housing is so great, they may be obligated to accommodate those initiatives without protecting the rest of the taxpayers within that community, and certainly within that neighbourhood.
As well, there are all kinds of opportunities with this kind of legislation to provide opportunities for political misuse. I am not one that doubts the integrity of municipal councils; I have the highest respect for them. But I think we could suggest that given the opportunities within this act, we may see single-interest people running for council -- not stating upfront what their issue is. They'd have a concern and they'd have an opportunity and may be able to convince the council that one of their buddies or somebody else could supply this needed housing under the guise of supplying low-cost housing but really for the developers benefit.
That almost sounds like I'm speaking from the other side of the House and that I'm not concerned about a
[ Page 8785 ]
developer's opportunity to do business. I certainly am. At the same time, having had years of experience in municipalities, I also recognize the issues that trigger concerns in neighbourhoods. Any time we put a large group of low-cost homes in a relatively affluent area -- and this can very well happen under this legislation -- we're going to have a huge concern by those neighbours. There are going to be nothing but disputes, and that has to be a concern.
If those increased densities had to go through a zoning bylaw or a new public process to amend the zoning bylaw, then I wouldn't have nearly as much concern, because the neighbourhood would have the opportunity through a public hearing to access the plans of that particular development. But I do not read that within this legislation. If I have missed something in going back and forth between this legislation, this amendment and the original legislation, I expect that the minister would correct me.
One of the problems we in this House have had since the first part of June is the overload we have been faced with in terms of trying make honest and astute critique of the legislation. We're piled with legislation upon legislation. It makes it extremely difficult to be exact on all points. However, I believe that I have stated those points correctly, and we will find that the minister will be unable to assure me that there will be a public process should the density in neighbourhoods be increased as a result of this legislation.
I understand the need to increase densities. I certainly understand the need to provide social housing and low-cost housing. But I'm not sure that I like this very first step. Given some of the comments of the minister and the Liberal critic during the estimates, where they discussed perhaps using revenue-sharing as a hammer to make municipalities comply with the ministry's housing initiatives, that is a real concern to me. While this suggests that a municipality opt into the program, if their revenue-sharing is threatened I suggest that it would be very difficult for a municipality not to opt into it. Whether or not they utilize that program would be one thing, but certainly they would have to opt into the program, because municipalities are not in a position to see their revenue-sharing grants decreased. Most of the municipalities, certainly the smaller and more rural ones, do not have the huge reserves some of the cities more fortunately have. Many of them are still trying to pave some of the streets that have been unpaved for years; they're still trying to catch up to the level of service that other communities are able to afford, by and large because of the larger assessments and the larger tax base.
The other concern I have with this initiative is that there is no suggestion at all within this legislation as to what a sharing formula would be should a municipality opt into these housing programs. You would think that if we were going to have legislation brought forward, it would spell out what share of the responsibility the municipality would have should they enter into an agreement with the provincial government to provide social housing by financing local housing through bylaw at the community level.
[3:15]
I suggest this because it would be in the interest of all municipalities to have some consistency in the sharing process. We wouldn't want a politically driven program; we would want one that is consistent from one community to another; not one where you would be free as a municipality, depending on your political bent, to come down, twist the arm of the minister and get some exception or favouritism in terms of a program you're prepared to put forward versus that of another community. If we are going to enter into this process, there has to be a consistency in terms of what municipalities will contribute toward this versus the share that the provincial government contributes.
Hon. Speaker, I think I've made the points I want to make, and I have outlined some of the concerns I have. The minister, at several points, has been shaking his head. I can only suggest that the minister has all the staff in the world to explain the legislation to him. But when we are loaded with some 60 pieces of legislation in less than a month and a half, it's extremely difficult for the opposition to give constructive criticism and to deal with the technical points that each one of these bills presents. I look forward to committee stage, when we can go on a clause-by-clause basis. I know it will take some time to examine what this bill can or cannot accomplish in terms of fulfilling the needs for low-cost housing in British Columbia.
The Speaker: The minister upon rising closes debate.
Hon. R. Blencoe: Hon. Speaker, I won't take much time in responding to my official critics, in terms of their response to this bill. First, I would like to say to my Liberal critic for his general support of this bill.... I think he recognizes that this legislation has been called for for a long time, and that in some ways some municipalities have been doing variations on some of this for a long time. Unfortunately, there was always a question of the legality of their opportunities to enter into -- the member is quite correct -- the old kind of land use contract. This is a definite refinement on that and an improvement -- an extension.
Hon. Speaker, basically what we're doing here, of course, is providing an extra tool box to local government for negotiating with the private sector in terms of zoning and getting opportunities for the community, but also opportunities for developers in terms of their requirements. I thank my Liberal critic for his general concern and comments. We will obviously get into some of those issues during committee.
To my Social Credit friend, I was somewhat confused because the Social Credit member for Abbotsford said that what I'm doing here is already in place. Then my official critic from the Social Credit Party said that what I'm doing here is giving sweeping new powers to local government.
Interjection.
Hon. R. Blencoe: You may want to check with your colleague, who is saying that this is already in place and there's not a hill of beans about this, or
[ Page 8786 ]
something. I recognize that this may be difficult. I've always offered to all my critics a full briefing in full detail on legislation that I bring forward, and that is still available for the committee, if my colleagues want that.
The members should know that the provincial government is not entering into any contract here with this legislation. What we're doing is giving what local government has called for for years and years: greater ability in terms of land use and community planning, and a greater extension of their tool box. Indeed, hon. member, I'm not sure if you or the member for Abbotsford are aware of this, but both of you sort of slurred the former Premier of this province, Rita Johnson, who actually said for a number of years that she wanted to bring back land use contracts, but she had no time....
Interjection.
Hon. R. Blencoe: Yes, well, I assume she still has some status within your party -- I don't know.
Anyway, hon. member, we have been thanked for this legislation. We will have extensive debate -- well, hopefully not extensive debate -- in committee. We know it has been welcomed, and I look forward to committee stage.
The Speaker: The motion before you is second reading of Bill 57.
Motion approved.
Bill 57, Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Housing Statutes 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. R. Blencoe: Hon. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 58.
MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS, RECREATION AND HOUSING STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 1993
Hon. R. Blencoe: It is my pleasure to put forward Bill 58 for second reading. This legislation contains a number of amendments to the Municipal Act and related local government legislation, as well as one amendment to the Assessment Act. The amendments are a continuation of our program to modernize all of the legislation administered by my ministry. It involves an ongoing consultation with the stakeholders in local government, particularly the Union of B.C. Municipalities.
The program has three goals: to empower local governments with the authority they need to deal with today's challenges, to streamline the legislation that governs their day-to-day business and to update obsolete provisions.
The amendments relate to the Municipal Act, and they will achieve a number of goals. For instance, they clarify and update the rules governing the way local governments provide for remuneration, expenses and benefits for councillors, at the same time requiring that council members' remuneration and expenses be reported annually in an open meeting.
As well, local governments are given more authority to protect from development areas that are designated as environmentally sensitive in their official community plans. This change will fill a legislative breach and means that development permits are required before any alteration on an area can take place.
Regional districts are given authority to provide more services, including transit and 911 emergency telephone services, rather than requiring each district to apply individually for these services.
In keeping with our goals of modernization to increase local autonomy and local decision-making, and eliminate numerous requirements for the minister's approval in relation to local government land use planning, this will streamline the process by which a regional district determines the area to be covered by an official community plan.
The amendment to the Assessment Act is a response to a recent court case. It redefines industrial improvement, thus providing stability in the tax base by ensuring that industrial improvements continue to be classified as such, regardless of the profitability of the enterprise.
I stress that the legislative modernization program within my ministry is ongoing. More can and will be done on a yearly basis to improve the way local governments do business.
A. Cowie: Again, the official opposition has no problem with Bill 58, and we see it essentially as modernization and clarification of a number of issues that have needed clarification for a long while. As I repeatedly say, whenever I get an opportunity, I welcome this government looking at anything to do with community planning and with improving the legislation that has been so badly overlooked by the previous government in the last ten years.
[R. Neufeld in the chair.]
We noticed that the method of payment has been clarified in this bill. From time to time one reads in the newspapers accusations by various municipalities setting their honorariums high, without any public scrutiny. This certainly clarifies this issue, and councils will undoubtedly have no problem in following these regulations.
Regarding the official community plan and its relationship to environmentally sensitive areas, I think this area needs to be controlled by local government. Local government clearly has to take into account that within the official community plan there has to be a method of paying for that open space. So many municipalities designate areas of open space primarily because they want to preserve them as open space. Quite often it has absolutely no relationship to being environmentally sensitive.
In many cases, municipalities claim the land has agricultural qualities. I believe that the agricultural qualities of any land in this province should be determined by the Agricultural Land Commission. Municipalities have relied on the Agricultural Land
[ Page 8787 ]
Commission as a method of zoning for too long. I'm hoping that this legislation will clarify that and that municipalities will be required -- but it doesn't state that very clearly -- to have a proper environmental assessment before areas are designated for that purpose. Otherwise, those municipalities will in effect be subject to every environmental special interest group in their area. In many cases, proper reports and the proper documentation of facts are simply not taken. I would hope that when municipalities weaken under such pressure, there will be a method of appeal. Again, that isn't mentioned in here.
If you were cynical, you could say this legislation downloads. But I believe that it actually gives the local municipalities greater rights to look after their own autonomy and their own future. I am personally not worried about the so-called downloading, because I believe that municipalities will be rationalizing their boundaries and doing various things over the next few years to become more efficient. I think they will have the proper staff to do this type of work. I'm not so worried about it. I think the minister has made a very wise choice by making the changes in this particular legislation.
[The Speaker in the chair.]
I am not going to refer to the Vancouver changes -- the board of variance and remuneration and expenses. I don't want to make a point about that; I'll leave that to others, should they wish to do it.
L. Fox: This bill is extremely distasteful. There's no common thread or principle throughout the bill. Bill 58 in fact attempts, in several areas, to take away the opportunity for an industrial company or corporation to put its plants in mothballs for a year or two because the economic times do not allow it to continue to run them. Because of this amendment, in order to get any alleviation from the taxes an operating company would have to pay, they'll have to do the Cassiar job -- which this government is certainly aware of -- where they literally knock down every building in the community to do away with the improvements so they won't have to pay tax on them. That's one concern, and I'll come back to that at considerable length in a few moments.
[3:30]
Let me go over the other issues a bit. Let me first talk about some of the issues with respect to remuneration. I'm not aware of any dramatic problem that would be caused by the public knowing what the remuneration of their councillors is. Any good council publishes that on an annual basis and publishes the increases -- if any -- to their councillors and mayor. I don't see any problem with that section of the bill, because I think it reflects what's really happening in practice. I suppose that is something the minister felt he had to stand up and thump his chest about. In fact, municipal councils are very open and honest about their expenses, which are published annually in their budgets and tabled annually at a public meeting.
Most of the bill relates to those kinds of issues. Section 38, however, requires a development permit for virtually any change to land designated for environmental protection in the regional district community plan. I am having some difficulty understanding that. If that is on public property or Crown property, I don't have a problem with it. But if this section -- and I will certainly clarify that during committee stage -- deals with private property and requires a development permit for virtually any change to the land designated, I have a lot of concerns. Private property is private property.
If an individual wishes to do anything sensitive to the environment on private property, he must go through an environmental permitting process with the Ministry of Environment. If a request is made to change the zoning classification of residential or rural land to allow either industrial or commercial activity on it, the environmental concerns are going to be front and centre during that rezoning application. This appears to be an attempt to give the authorities rather than the owner extra powers over a piece of private land. I am extremely concerned.
Now I want to get into the real zinger of this bill, the changes to the Assessment Act. Section 2 states: "Section 15.2 of the Assessment Authority Act, R.S.B.C. 1979, c. 22, is repealed and the following substituted: Application of School Act exemptions." Section 15.2 will now read: "Sections 144 to 147 of the School Act apply for assessment and taxation purposes under section 15(4) of this Act." I identify those sections at second reading stage so that I can identify the principle of that section by referring to the main act, and therefore show the Speaker and the assembly what that clause is doing in principle.
The first thing that is happening in the changes to the Assessment Act is that.... I put before this assembly a good example of an industrial complex -- a mine. Endako Mines is located within my riding on the outskirts of Fraser Lake. It has been shut down for a period of three and a half years due to the economics of the day. During that time they made an appeal that because they were shut down, they should not be assessed on the basis of an operating mine, but on the basis of actual value. There's a big difference in that. An operating mine has some value; a non-operating mine doesn't have a lot of value. The change that that makes in the tax base of that business is substantial. This mine was able to shut down for three and a half years. When the market improved, and once again there was an opportunity for that industrial body to make a return on its investment, that mine was able to start up again -- partly because it was able to save thousands of dollars over that three and a half years, through not having to pay taxes as if it were an open mine.
This legislation will literally force that mine to knock all of its buildings down in order to save on the assessment. The minister obviously does not understand the issue. When the minister's staff are here at committee stage of this bill, I know the minister will be told that that is a fact. I've researched it. I have the proof, and I will certainly get into it. This amendment was required, as the minister pointed out, because the Assessment Authority lost a court case on an appeal. That appeal was based on that exact situation. The minister doesn't realize it at this point; I can't expect
[ Page 8788 ]
him to understand everything that's happening. But certainly when his staff gets here, they will instruct him that that is the case.
I understand the need for communities to protect their tax base and to have a consistent assessment. But communities also understand the need for jobs and the need to protect the opportunity for an industrial complex to re-open. We've seen it several times over the last ten years with respect to Granisle, which is a very similar situation. The Cassiar mine is a good indication. What we have after this government closed down that town, knocked down every building and sold off whatever they could -- along with the mining company -- is a corporation looking to re-open it because the market has improved. The fear of asbestos is no longer as strong as it once was. All of a sudden there is an opportunity to open that mine again. But what happened? The capital cost of opening up that facility is delaying it. There's no longer anything at that mine for somebody to go in and re-open. The minister does not understand what this bill is doing.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please, hon. members.
L. Fox: Hon. Speaker, I'm trying to point out the importance of understanding how fragile many industries are. Many industries are extremely fragile, and I'm surprised that the Minister of Municipal Affairs has not had an opportunity to discuss these issues with the Minister of Economic Development and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. They would tell the minister that the mining industry is leaving British Columbia. We have to start to look at ways and means to be flexible.
This bill shuts those doors, and tells the mining industry once more: "You're no longer important to us, if you shut down, knock down your buildings or continue to pay the same taxes." That's what this bill is saying. It's a shame on that minister; it's a shame on that government. In fact, we will see the mines in the East Kootenays, in the Kamloops area and in the Cariboo area, when they shut down to get out -- and they're going to, because the policies of this government are forcing the shut-down of that industry.... When they do, we will see all those mines, to get out of paying those horrendous school taxes -- which they're having difficulty paying because of the corporation capital tax that has been placed on those corporations -- literally bulldoze buildings down in order to decrease their assessment base. That's what will happen.
Let's look at the forest industry, the pulp mills and the sawmills. There are times when they do not use, for whatever reason, parts of their complex. For instance, they may very well shut down the sawmills for six months to a year and apply to have an assessment adjustment based on the fact that the sawmill isn't working. They may continue to run a planer. As the act was written, that corporation could in fact apply for a decrease in assessment; it wasn't automatic. In fact, this minister has loaded the assessment appeal boards, and he's loaded the legislation against these individuals. Even with the old legislation it wasn't automatic. In fact, it was doubtful in many cases that they would win it unless they went to court. That's why the minister has made the changes to the act: they want to close the loophole that one or two corporations managed to use for decreasing their assessment. In fact, the Assessment Act reverted to actual value. Actual value, when you have a sawmill or a mine not working is, as I said before, a whole lot different than the value of an operating mine or mill.
Hon. Speaker, it's unfortunate that this minister does not even understand what this legislation is doing. He wouldn't sit over there and giggle, and he wouldn't belittle a process that allowed industry to stay in British Columbia and allowed corporations the flexibility to hold onto their holdings until the economics of the day improved, so that once again they could create jobs in the province of British Columbia.... He would not be sitting over there giggling and making heckling noises if in fact he understood his own legislation. I'm disappointed. I would expect that backbenchers on the government side who have mines and industries in their area that could shut down for one or two years -- and probably will under the policy of this government -- would stand up and state their concern over this section of this legislation. It astounds me, but then we've seen time and time again where the backbenchers are afraid to stand up on their two hind legs and point out that in fact....
The Speaker: Order, please, hon. member. I would caution the hon. member on the direction he's going and urge him to return to discussing the principles of Bill 58 on second reading.
L. Fox: I was talking about the principles of the bill, and the principles of the government as well, hon. Speaker. I believe they're one and the same. The principle of the government is reflected in the principle of this particular clause within this legislation. That is the issue; that's what I'm talking about here this afternoon. But that's not what the government seems to want to understand. Certainly it's not what the minister seems to want to understand, because they have never created a job. Other than what they've done as government, collectively the whole bunch of them have not made an investment on an independent basis that has created a job. That's a very different principle from the one we see in this bill. In fact, I shouldn't say that; it's a very similar principle to what is in this bill, because they do not understand what it takes to make a profitable investment in B.C. and how much is at risk when you do that.
[3:45]
When we make laws in this Legislature that discourage investment in the way that this section of the bill is going to, either the government doesn't understand what it's doing or they are designed, along with several other policies that have come forward, to discourage the mining industry from staying in B.C., allowing the Premier to stand on the dock and wave goodbye to the rest of the mining industry, as he suggested during question period he has done. It's really unfortunate, because they should be looking at ways to encourage a facility to reopen. We should be
[ Page 8789 ]
looking at policies that allow a facility some flexibility to reopen.
This actually conflicts with an earlier act, which we discussed, that gave taxation preference to a corporation in the Kootenays because it needed the flexibility to redesign its plant and make some investment without increasing its tax costs in order to continue providing jobs in that part of the province. That flies right in the face of this clause. The minister suggested that I had no concern about the stability of the municipal tax base, and he heckled me about it. If he wants to argue the same principle, that legislation in fact eroded the tax base. But there was a reason for it, and the reason was to protect jobs and provide opportunities for the corporation to become technologically advanced so that it could continue to get a return on its investment. I'm asking for nothing different here. I'm asking for the same kind of recognition for that plant and industrial corporation that we allow other mines and industrial plants: the flexibility to look at ways to cut its fixed costs when it's not in operation in order to maintain the infrastructure so that when the economy improves, whether it's because of a resource price or the cost of whatever that plant produces, they can reopen.
The commercial assessment does that. The commercial assessment reflects the income of the business, so when the business closes down and there's no income, automatically the assessment decreases. It's the very same principle. Why does this government want to attack the industrial sector, when the policies of the Assessment Authority reflect exactly the same principle that we used to have in the Assessment Act for the business sector, because they are assessed on an income base.
I could argue all day. I could be designated speaker and talk on this subject for two hours, because it's so dear to my heart -- as a former municipal politician, as a businessman and as an MLA who represents a resource-based constituency. It's extremely dear to my heart, because my constituents are looking for initiatives that provide for the reopening of plants, not further knocking down of plants. The amendment to this act is going to cause us to lose capital investments and cost those industries thousands of dollars in taxation. That action will not only cause a delay in the reopening of those plants, it will prevent the reopening of those plants, and therefore those jobs will be lost.
That is my major concern about this section, and I hope that I have been forceful enough in putting it forward that the minister will inform himself between now and committee stage and find out if what I have said is right. If he researches it, he will find out that everything I have said in the last 25 minutes will be fact, and this action will cause what I predicted. I look forward to the minister coming back with an amendment at committee stage that would correct this injustice to the industrial sector of our economy.
R. Neufeld: I rise to speak to the philosophies and principles of Bill 58. Much of what the former speaker, my colleague from Prince George-Omineca, talked about reflects on my constituency also. It affects investment in this province and how we are going to encourage companies and individuals to invest their money in British Columbia. We have to look at the issue rationally, and I can understand a little on both sides of the coin, because there are always two sides to a story.
If there is a slowdown in the economy -- regardless of whether it's in the forest or mining industry or any other industry -- and we close down corporations because of the market conditions and hope that they can come back at a later time and start those plants back up and employ people again.... I think that's what we're looking at. The member was speaking about the issue of whether those corporations and individuals that invest money to build those plants -- they are not all corporations; a lot of them are individuals who want to invest in British Columbia -- can come back, open those plants and start employing people again in British Columbia and provide revenue for the province.
On the other side of the coin, as the minister said when the hon. member was talking, who pays when that assessment is lowered and the taxes don't come in?
In the previous act and in other provincial acts, there are issues where the job protection commissioner or the Minister of Economic Development will get involved so they can be looked after; usually the province gets involved specifically. I don't know of a situation where local taxpayers were really burned by some company or corporation shutting down a plant just because they arbitrarily wanted to, but I'm sure the minister will let me know. That's why we have a provincial government, a job protection commissioner, an Economic Development minister, a federal government, a western diversification fund and all those things: to try to alleviate those problems so we can keep those industries in our province and allow them to close down their plants. A number of them have been closed down.
The member mentioned Cassiar. That's probably a very isolated situation, but he's entirely correct when he says that Cassiar will be leveled; there will be nothing left of Cassiar. I would think that in time, a company or corporation could come back to Cassiar and mine the asbestos that is there. When these things happen.... We see equipment and everything that goes along with making a mine that's worth millions and millions of dollars coming out of Cassiar and going for next to nothing. I don't know whether the minister paid any attention to the sale in Cassiar last September, but some of the very costly items that were moved out of there were purchased for next to nothing -- they had to be to make it viable to move them out. But it just makes it that much harder for someone else to come in and start that mine back up again.
It's indicated in the bill what the NDP government wants to target, and I'm just going to read a little of section 1, where the Assessment Act is amended:
"...(a) in subsection (1) by repealing the definition of 'industrial improvements' and substituting the following: 'industrial improvement' means an improvement that is part of a plant that is designed and built for the purpose of -- and it doesn't take long to figure out what we're targeting here -- one or more of the following: (a) mining, extracting, beneficiating or milling of metallic or non-metallic ore; (b) mining, breaking, washing, grading or beneficiating of coal; (c)
[ Page 8790 ]
producing of aluminum; (d) smelting or refining of metal from ore or ore concentrate; (e) producing, manufacturing, processing or refining of petroleum or natural gas; (f) manufacturing of lumber or other sawmill and planing mill products; (g) manufacturing of wood veneer, plywood, particle board, wafer board, hardboard and similar products; (h) manufacturing of gypsum board; (i) manufacturing of pulp, paper or linerboard; (j) manufacturing of chemicals; (k) manufacturing of chemical fertilizer; (l) manufacturing of synthetic resins or the compounding of synthetic resins into moulding compounds; (m) manufacturing of cement; (n) manufacturing of insulation; (o) manufacturing sheet glass or glass bottles; (p) building, refitting or repairing ships; (q) loading cargo onto sea going ships or barges, including associated cargo storage and loading facilities, notwithstanding that the plant cannot be operated as a going concern or is temporarily or permanently unprofitable, but does not include an improvement exempted under subsection (1.1)."
This government has specifically targeted some industries, because I'm sure that short list does not cover all the industries in British Columbia. It certainly starts out with one that is leaving B.C. fairly quickly, and that's the mining industry. We know that the mining industry is leaving and is on the decline. Decisions made in the Tatshenshini and remarks made by the Premier about helping mining companies move to Chile.... He would love to move their head offices out of the province. That's not how we create jobs or keep jobs in British Columbia.
As the minister said, they decided to change the initial act because of a court case. That initial act had been in place for a long time. I'm sure when we get into committee stage, as the member for Prince George-Omineca said, we will be delving a little deeper into this section. It is important to me, as it is to that member and as it should be to any member of this House, especially those from rural B.C. They find themselves in one-industry towns, where if the one industry goes down, there is difficulty. Why compound that difficulty? Why not do what should be done? Why not deal with the job protection commissioner, the Minister of Economic Development, the Minister of Mines, the minister responsible for B.C. Hydro and the Minister of Forests to resolve those issues in a rational way? But not this government. I don't know why they would lay the groundwork to discourage that investment in this province.
[4:00]
When I listen to those ministers, when I talk to them in estimates, when I sit through other estimates and listen to them talk about wanting to encourage development in B.C., they almost make me believe that they really want it. Then they come through with legislation like this. Again I am reminded to listen carefully. I think that's what a lot of industry and a lot of investors in this province are doing. They are listening carefully, and they are starting to read a little more carefully where this government is trying to take British Columbia. It's little sleepers like this in a bill the rest of which we could probably do without. Or it could have been in another bill. It's stuck in this bill so that we won't just dwell on that one thing -- and the Minister of Municipal Affairs smiles. This could have been in another bill.
I'm not sure about the rest of the bill either. It extends additional municipal powers to trust boards in the Islands Trust. I'm not going to speak on that, because I'm not familiar with it. But it's a small section of this bill and could easily have been in the earlier bill.
As I leafed through this bill, I underlined parts of it. The bill is about 23 pages long and there are about 15 sections that deal with granting municipalities and regional districts powers over benefits, expenses and remuneration for officers and elected people. I've listened to this and other ministers -- but specifically this minister -- stand up and say that we should give municipalities more responsibility so that they can make more of their own decisions. Yet what do we see? We see the father-type image of this government. We have to have about 15 sections dealing with "Employee and officer benefits and expenses." It goes on to say that when engaging in municipal business, they can be paid -- and so on. I can't quite understand some of that.
I was a mayor and an alderman in a community for nine years. All the time I was there, we had bylaws in place that allowed for certain things to be paid and certain expenses. The remuneration was X amount of dollars, and it was usually decided by those who voted those people in. You didn't run as an alderman in Fort Nelson and say that you wanted $20,000 or $30,000 a year. It was almost nothing, but it was in the public record for the public to see at any time, and people knew about it.
What does this minister do? It's the father image: "We're going to create another piece of legislation and throw a few little sleepers into it, such as this 'Payment for other benefits and expenses relating to municipal activity'." Why does the city of Vancouver, or a community of 10,000 people, need to have the Minister of Municipal Affairs telling them about what payments they can make or about other benefits and expenses relating to municipal activity? It just amazes me that we have to have this grandfather urge to control. If we want to give some leeway to local governments, let's give it to them and make them responsible. All this does is lead to confusion.
We have "Council members' benefits." There are about three pages referring to council members' remuneration and expenses. To me, the reporting of remuneration and expenses was always done. I would be surprised if it wasn't. What are "special expenditures"? It's really amazing that the Minister of Municipal Affairs, who wants to see responsible local government.... Under "Special expenditures," subsection (c) states: "...to provide for receiving and entertaining distinguished guests." Do we need to have legislation from the Minister of Municipal Affairs which was drafted by people...being discussed by us in mid-July, and referring to that, when the minister and I are constantly saying that we want the municipalities to have more responsibility? There's nothing wrong with that....
Here's another little subsection: "...to honour persons who have, in the opinion of the council, brought honour to the municipality." I find it
[ Page 8791 ]
unbelievable that we have to have the minister saying to the municipalities: "Yes, you can do that." I'm sure that municipalities have been doing that for a long time. I would hope they have been. I know that the municipality I came from did that. If we had to honour someone or receive someone in the town, such as the Governor General, we were able to look after it. We didn't need the minister to do that. Again, it's being done just to cause confusion and make people wonder what's going on. It causes a lot more work for everyone involved when all of a sudden it's written into provincial legislation.
Other sections are "Remuneration and expenses of directors and committee members" and "Reporting of remuneration and expenses." It's even redundant; as you go through the bill you'll see that it even repeats itself in places. Partway through the bill they go into a few other things. Then we bring up employee and officer expenses, council members' remuneration and expenses, remuneration for board members. My goodness, what else are we going to tell them? That they can have their meetings between 1 o'clock and 2 o'clock on a certain day? Why don't we let municipalities be responsible to the people who elect them? I have no problem with some provincial legislation, because it has to be there. But when it comes to commonsense, ordinary things that have been going on for decades, all of a sudden a minister has to come forward and table this kind of a bill at this time of the year, when we've already got 70-some pieces of legislation to look at. It's just a waste of time. I think it's in order to slip in a sleeper. We got caught last year at the very end of the session with the Infants Act. It was just a -- what do you call it? -- housekeeping bill, one of those bills that they're always talking about, and we missed part of it. That's what I think is happening here.
But there are other things. There's some downloading. Sections 21 to 26 are about broadening the powers of regional boards to regulate solid waste and to extend various services, including transit, airports, cemeteries, telephone, natural gas and electrification to rural areas. All of a sudden, rural electrification and gasification pop up in the bill, something that in our part of the country is very important. Maybe down here and in the lower mainland people don't think too much about electricity or natural gas. All they do is call B.C. Gas or B.C. Hydro and for a nominal fee they're hooked up and get those services. Most of that electricity -- I think about 40 percent of it -- is produced in my constituency of Peace River North. I know that all of the natural gas that's consumed in this province is produced in my constituency and the constituency of the member for Peace River South, and it's pipelined down here for these members.
Interjection.
R. Neufeld: The member laughs. It's absolutely amazing. That's how much for granted some of these members take those services. It's hard to believe, but in the north there are people who don't have electricity; they generate their own. In this province, where we produce billions and billions of cubic feet of natural gas yearly, there are people who still have to heat their houses with diesel fuel or wood. At one point the minister responsible for Hydro -- and I am speaking to the philosophy of Bill 58 -- decided to cut off rural gasification grants. Those are still not cut off, but I would say that it's close, because all of a sudden the Minister of Municipal Affairs is saying that regional boards are going to be responsible for those. If regional boards are to become responsible for them, maybe the minister should have taken this bill just one step further and said: "Yes, they're going to become responsible for those services. But they also have the ability to hold back some of the revenue that comes to the province from the sale of that electricity, natural gas and crude oil, to be able to provide those services to those people up there." That's what I am talking about.
It just goes a little way, downloading it onto regional districts. But the other part isn't there. The other part is there when we want to tell them about how much they can spend or where they should go for a meeting, how they should report it for the public, how much they should pay one another or whether they should honour someone. We list that out with 15 sections of this bill. As I said, we list it out for people constantly -- all kinds of crazy little things. So why doesn't the minister take the extra step and say: "If we're going to have regional districts responsible for that, then we'll allow them the powers to tax for it or to hold back some of the money that goes to the province in royalties, to be able to provide those services for those people"? Those people would be very happy indeed. Things that people in the south take for granted -- electricity and heat -- let me tell you, up north where it's cold about seven months of the year and where we have snow, that's where we need those services.
[4:15]
It says regional districts can provide services to Indian reserves and military bases -- I don't know why that's there. As far as I know, that was in the previous legislation. I know that in the north we have provided those services -- fire and solid waste and those services -- to reserves.
Those are some of the issues I have with Bill 58. As the member for Prince George-Omineca said, probably the most important is having the assessment part of it changed. To me, another part is the redundancy of a bunch of this bill. That's important to me; I don't see why we need it. The municipalities are probably wondering why we need it. The other part is that if this minister wants to download services to municipalities and regional districts, then along with that he should give the taxation measures, so that those services can be properly supplied.
I look forward to the committee stage of Bill 58.
J. Weisgerber: I want to speak to this legislation, particularly the area that deals with the industrial assessment, because I believe there is a tremendous potential impact on industry in British Columbia as a result of this section of Bill 58 -- particularly the mining industry. I'm reluctant, but I think it's important to recognize the tough economic circumstances that the mining industry already finds itself in. We've seen the
[ Page 8792 ]
mining industry looking at other jurisdictions across this country and North America, and indeed, many British Columbia mining concerns are looking to South America as an economic climate that is more advantageous for them.
The provisions in this section of the bill would provide for the fact that, even though an industrial plant or a mine were shut down, the mine property would continue to be assessed as if it were an ongoing, profitable operation. The current tax system in British Columbia is that should a mine or other industrial plant cease to operate, the method of appraisal of that property changes. Rather than being taxed as an ongoing, active industrial plant, the property is appraised on its market value rather than on its cost and depreciated value. Obviously, valuations of a mine that's no longer operational are very low. As a result, the tax responsibility for that plant reduces substantially when the plant shuts down. That's the situation that exists today in British Columbia. The effect of that is to allow a plant operator -- whether it be a plywood plant or a fibreglass manufacturing plant or, particularly, a mine plant -- to explore market opportunities, to explore the ore body in neighbouring areas and try to find a way to bring that mill back into production. But the effect of the legislation before us will be to encourage the plant operators to demolish the improvements, relieve themselves of the tax burden, knock down the mill and remove the improvements at the minesite.
The mine near Houston is an example that would have been treated.... The outcome of that mine would have been much different had this legislation been in place, because the mine was shut down for three years. The metal prices and efficiencies improved, and the mine was able to reopen. Had the tax regime encouraged the mine operator to destroy the plant, there is no way the plant operator would have been able to justify the rebuilding of the facility.
The minister folds his arms and shakes his head and pretends to ignore the suggestion put forward. This is not only my interpretation of this legislation; this is an industrial interpretation -- it's an interpretation by experts. It's an interpretation, I suggest, that had the minister chosen to serve the people of British Columbia well, he might have sought when he was considering these changes to the act.
This legislation is going to be harmful to the mining industry; it's going to be harmful to small, resource-based communities; it's going to be harmful to industries that find themselves having to close down, whether it be from a shortage of material, a shortage of market or low commodity prices. From time to time all of those things have caused plywood mills, fibreglass mills and mine mills to close down. There has been a very dramatic reduction in the tax assessment under the current regime -- an assessment process and a lowered assessment that made it reasonable for the operator to take a financial risk, to continue to pay taxes on the property while seeking other markets and sources of supply, or simply wait for the market to turn around.
This is one more attack on the mining industry, because mines will be most often affected by this change in the assessment. I am surprised, given some of the recent decisions take by the government -- the Tatshenshini and others -- and the commitment by the Minister of Mines, the Premier and others to support the mining industry.... Only a few days ago we heard the Premier say that the decision on the Tatshenshini was not an attack on the mining industry, that the government was committed to supporting the mining industry and that it was going to do what it could to assist the mining industry. A few short days later we see ourselves with an amendment to the tax assessment process that will be harmful to mines when they shut down, because it is clearly most often mines, mine property and mine improvements that have taken advantage of the existing legislation and that will be captured in the changes to the legislation as proposed here.
I think there is still an opportunity for the minister to change his mind and to listen to the concerns -- because they're genuine concerns -- and to decide whether or not these changes that purport to bring more revenue into the province may have the opposite effect and encourage owners to destroy properties. The minister may not recognize -- having probably not gotten away from Victoria as often as he should -- that from time to time property owners, faced with high assessments and a lack of use for a property, decide to destroy it. I could take the minister, in 15 or 20 minutes, to two or three substantial commercial sites in Dawson Creek that have been torn down because the owners couldn't see their way clear to continuing to pay taxes on property for which they didn't have a use and for which they couldn't in the foreseeable future identify a use. The same situation exists with industrial buildings. There are examples not far away from these buildings of plywood plants that have shut down because of plywood markets, and where the employees after a time have found a way to reopen the plant.
This legislation simply makes it more difficult for the owner to maintain the property and more unlikely that the property will be there when circumstances change. It is that particular objection that I have to this piece of legislation. I think it is poorly thought through. The minister smiles. We will listen with a great deal of interest to the rationale he has for this particular change.
I believe that it's going to hurt industry in this province and that it is going to particularly affect the mining industry -- the one industry in British Columbia that sees itself already under siege from this government and that sees every action of this government as one more nail in the mining industry's coffin. If it weren't for the words of the Premier only a few days ago, having made a decision on the Tatshenshini that was seen as a very serious message by the mining industry, then perhaps one wouldn't be as offended with this change. But it does have serious implications, and because of that I will be voting against this particular piece of legislation.
I will be hoping, perhaps, that the minister will be genuine enough to go back and examine some of the ideas that I and my colleagues have put forward on this section, talk to people who have some expertise in those
[ Page 8793 ]
areas and think about bringing forward an amendment that would change this section of the legislation, or better yet, simply stand down this offending section. So I will be voting against this. We will be looking for some changes from the minister, but his attitude would certainly suggest that that's highly unlikely.
Hon. R. Blencoe: Most of the discussion will happen in committee. First, let me answer the comments of the hon. member for Peace River North. I'll be very pleased to send to the UBCM his comments attacking their request. At every single meeting I can remember for a long time, the UBCM have been asking for the things I have given them. Specifically, they are absolutely delighted with the changes we've made in terms of their remuneration abilities and expenses that were often challenged legally, which put local government members in great difficulty. I'll be glad to send your comments, and I'm sure they will be very edifying for many local officials.
[4:30]
In terms of the comments about the Assessment Act, I think the members know that the game they are playing is trying to play politics in the mining industry. All members are aware that there was a court case that came down with a specific change that put in question "industrial development" and "industrial classification." I have had to ensure, as the Minister of Municipal Affairs, that an assessment is balanced and that all sectors pay their fair share of taxes. The hon. members also know that if there is a concern by a mining company.... Take what we've done with Cominco, for instance. A few weeks ago, I brought in legislation that allowed for tax breaks for Cominco to ensure they could stay alive and well, and I think some of the hon. members attacked that. I think you're trying to have it both ways, and you can't. All we're doing in this legislation is ensure that there's a fair system of industrial classification, and that the little homeowner in British Columbia is not affected by a transfer of responsibility.
With that, I move second reading of the bill.
Motion approved on the following division:
| YEAS -- 44 | ||
|
Petter |
Perry |
Priddy |
|
Edwards |
Barlee |
Charbonneau |
|
Jackson |
Pement |
Beattie |
|
Schreck |
Lortie |
Hammell |
|
Lali |
Giesbrecht |
Smallwood |
|
Gabelmann |
Sihota |
Clark |
|
Blencoe |
MacPhail |
Copping |
|
Lovick |
Ramsey |
Farnworth |
|
Dosanjh |
Doyle |
Hartley |
|
Streifel |
Lord |
Krog |
|
Kasper |
Simpson |
Brewin |
|
Janssen |
Farrell-Collins |
Dalton |
|
Gingell |
Reid |
Cowie |
|
Chisholm |
K. Jones |
Jarvis |
|
Anderson |
Symons | |
| NAYS -- 7 | ||
|
Hanson |
Weisgerber |
Serwa |
|
Dueck |
De Jong |
Neufeld |
| Fox | ||
Bill 58, Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Housing Statutes 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. M. Sihota: I call committee stage of Bill 39.
MULTICULTURALISM ACT
(continued)
The House in committee on Bill 39; M. Lord in the chair.
On section 3 (continued).
Hon. M. Sihota: Dealing with section 3 of Bill 39, this provision is the essence of the legislation and lays out the expression of policy on the part of government. In many ways, if I may say so, it's historical legislation in this province, because government, through an expressed legislative enactment, not only acknowledges the importance of multiculturalism in legislation but also makes an affirmative statement as to the definition and the context of that policy, and gives colour to it.
For far too long in a society such as ours, multiculturalism has been seen in the eyes of many to be an occasion where we share food at festivals and share a little bit about our culture and dance. This section says that multiculturalism is more than that, and it enumerates in a very definitive way what multiculturalism should mean to British Columbians. I'm sure that all hon. members would agree that this articulation of multiculturalism policy is long overdue in this province.
A. Warnke: As I listened to the minister's remarks, I was somewhat impressed, so I will forgo section 3 after all.
C. Serwa: Is it the intention of the minister that the Multiculturalism Act will apply to all British Columbians, with the express purpose that we're all treated equitably and fairly in all sectors of British Columbia? Is that the expressed intention of this?
Hon. M. Sihota: Yes.
C. Serwa: In what way will the minister be able to encourage, let's say, the aboriginal community to abide by the Multiculturalism Act? The minister is most definitely aware of this situation. For example, in many constituencies, including mine, a large number of non-native residents live on band land. Whether or not you want to call it actual discrimination, there is taxation without representation. The native community residing on band land does not pay taxes, of course;
[ Page 8794 ]
non-native residents do pay taxes. In band and council matters, the natives elect the chief and their representatives; non-native individuals do not have that opportunity to make their voice known. It may be what we call reverse discrimination; I really don't know. But it's fundamentally not appropriate. It certainly doesn't comply with the spirit of the Multiculturalism Act.
Hon. M. Sihota: Maybe I should amplify on my first answer and then speak for a moment to what the hon. member had to say.
Through this policy, the government is committed to fostering the ability of all British Columbians to share equally in the economic, social, cultural and political life of British Columbia. This section requires that this participation be done in a manner consistent with the rights and responsibilities that every individual in society has. I think that embellishes upon the previous answer that I gave, which is to recognize that we are all equal but different -- and we need to celebrate that difference but also recognize that as human beings we are treated equally and with dignity.
With regard to the native issue that the hon. member notes, those situations have obviously arisen because of political conclusions found in our constitution -- the responsibilities that the federal government has with regard to the aboriginal population in the province and the constitutional non-applicability of provincial legislation. That heightens the feelings people have about the absence of taxation or benefits or privileges that may be available to one class of people and not to others. As I say, we can be equal but different in society. Inasmuch as it may be disconcerting, I think people also recognize that the lifestyle often found on band lands in itself represents a remarkable inequality in the society we have.
[4:45]
Promoting cross-cultural understanding and respect is a cornerstone of the policy that we have here, of course. The legislation cannot correct the inadequacies or constitutional wrinkles that exist in terms of responsibility with regard to aboriginal people due to the non-applicability of provincial legislation. Those issues can only be resolved through the process of negotiation for which my colleague the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs is responsible.
C. Serwa: I thank the minister for his explanation, and I will accept that. But there is a concern with respect to the provincial government's commitment to this multicultural process. I'll give an example of the aboriginal community again. We treat two different classes of British Columbians differently in the eyes of the law. We have not constructed a legislative process or passed legislation to enable government to treat two different classes of British Columbians differently, but this government's policy is in direct contravention of the spirit of the act that we're bringing forward -- which the government indicates is their policy objective.
Hon. M. Sihota: We're going way beyond the parameters of multicultural policy; we're reaching into the responsibilities of aboriginal policy, or the development of aboriginal policy, and relationships between federal and provincial governments. I appreciate that certain laws are not applicable on band lands, and I'm sure the hon. member understands the reason for that in terms of legislation and so on. Yes, it does create some feelings between people, and I guess part of the context of multiculturalism is to encourage cross-cultural understanding and respect for those differences. That's not easily done. I'm well aware of the sensitivities people have with regard to these matters, but that is to be resolved in the context of both aboriginal and constitutional policy.
With regard to multiculturalism, all we're seeking to do in this legislation is to promote cross-cultural understanding and respect for attitudes, and to recognize that we can be equal but different. But some of those tangible day-to-day things -- some people paying taxes and others not, for example -- cannot be resolved in the context of this policy, but only in the context of the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and what is occurring through interprovincial negotiations.
C. Serwa: Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. My concerns are, let's say, with respect to fish and wildlife and legislation specifically in British Columbia. The policy is creating an exaggeration or focus on the differences in what government policy will allow one or another class of British Columbians to do -- not on band land but on Crown land in the province. By that very act there is a tendency to heighten tensions, and I think that is inexcusable -- particularly with the professed intent of trying to reduce discrimination or racism, which is a truly noble objective.
Hon. M. Sihota: Yes, issues like the ones you indicate around fish and wildlife and access rights can indeed bring about strong feelings, add to sentiments of racism, or invite hatred among groups. That does indeed occur, and I recognize what the hon. member is saying. I just think that he must also recognize that we cannot resolve the impact of decisions, as they're made with regard to wildlife and fish and some of the day-to-day issues which arise, through this policy of multiculturalism.
I'm very sensitive, and I know that in the hon. member's own area in the Okanagan these are daily concerns on the part of the residents, be it fish or wildlife issues, or access to ski hills. These are ongoing concerns in his community, and I know that. We can't resolve those issues in the context of multicultural policy. In this context we can take steps to try to work towards building a society that's free of racism and conflict. But we have to take other steps as a society to reduce the indicia of conflict, by resolving those issues much in the vein that the Minister of Environment talked about today when he was questioned by you with regard to those issues in question period.
V. Anderson: On the multiculturalism policy, we have the goals or philosophy laid out here. I'm wondering if the minister would be able to provide us with some kind of programs or sense of direction. It
[ Page 8795 ]
stresses that it's going to be applicable to each of the ministries. But perhaps we can get some suggestion of the kind of program or application that this specifically has within some of the ministries.
Hon. M. Sihota: Thank you for that question, hon. member. All ministries are participating on an interministerial level to see ways in which we can incorporate these policies, and to be able to celebrate our differences within the context of the ministries we represent.
V. Anderson: I appreciate that, and I understand that there is an interministerial committee on multiculturalism. What I'm trying to get at are some of the specific programs or directions. It's one thing to have a philosophy, but you don't know the meaning of the philosophy until you get some idea of the program or directions into which this philosophy is trying to direct us.
The Chair: Just before you answer, minister, for the information of the committee, this area was canvassed thoroughly in committee yesterday by your colleague. With that information, if you'd like to proceed....
Hon. M. Sihota: Let me give the hon. member some examples. In terms of how we can deliver in a far more sensitive way, we have established a multicultural advisory committee within the Social Services ministry. In Advanced Education, we can use the opportunities available through the Open Learning Agency and Knowledge Network -- which are remarkable resources for government -- to encourage a better understanding of multiculturalism. As a member of a visible minority, I am well aware of some of the excellent work being done through the Knowledge Network in that regard. Through the Ministry of Attorney General there are multicultural law camps and day activities. Some excellent work is being done with the People's Law School to make sure that multicultural groups are attended to through the law courts education programs that are available and some cross-cultural training in equality initiatives that occur within that ministry. There are examples throughout. Inquiry B.C., in the Ministry of Government Services, provides multilingual access and the Centre for Executive and Management Development, which supports and encourages initiatives which promote a fair, equitable and diverse workplace.
Looking at the work of boards and commissions, this government has been taking a leadership role in making sure that the multicultural mix of this country is well and adequately reflected on our boards. There is a plethora of government programs. We are trying to bring them together in a more sensible way.
We as British Columbians should celebrate the fact that the we have such a wide diversity of cultures working in the civil sector, and we ought to make people proud of the multicultural heritage that they bring that benefits the quality of life and embellishes it for all of us. It's a wonderful thing we are doing within government, and this policy will go a long way towards making sure that it is not only captured in the ministries but also felt by people on the streets of Chinatown or at the Punjabi market.
V. Anderson: Perhaps I could pick up one of the words of the minister, because he responds very well, and I appreciate that. One of the words that he picked -- and I think it's an important item to bring into the discussion -- is that we do spend a great deal of time, and properly so, dealing with visible minorities. The question I was raising was about the invisible minorities -- the other aspect of that -- because that's an aspect that is often overlooked in the discussion.
Hon. M. Sihota: That's an excellent point, and I think the buzzword with regard to the multiculturalism policy is inclusiveness. It ought not to be seen as a policy that simply is an opportunity for those like myself who are part of a visible minority in society; of course, it ought to include those who aren't seen in that context. It is far more than just a policy which looks at people or asks people to showcase themselves; it celebrates differences and acknowledges that we can be equal but different in a society. Consequently, in the development and encouragement of multicultural policy, it is imperative that the invisible minorities, as you put it so well, have to feel a part of the policy. They must feel the same kind of pride and commitment to the policy as those who come from visible minority groups. It cannot be limited in any way to visible minority groups.
There are people from all parts of the world who have come and made British Columbia the special place that it is. Because of that, whether they're visible minorities or not, it's important that their culture, lifestyle, experience, religion, language, food and essence be part of the fabric of society here. What we've been able to do in this country is a wonderful thing. The wonder of that thing must be shared among us all, regardless of colour of skin.
V. Anderson: One of our daughters is a member of a visible minority. I presume the other two daughters are members of an invisible minority. None of them, however, would like to think that any of them is a member of a particular minority of one kind or another. Living with it every day in your own family raises the issue and brings it closer to home.
One of the important things is that we're becoming a society -- we've always been so but are now more aware of it -- in which some 35 percent of our people are members of a mixed minority group. They don't belong to one or another pure minority. Increasingly, we are going to have that kind of multiculturalism in which there is mixed racial and cultural background. We need to be aware that many of the visible minorities are first-, second-, third- and fourth-generation Canadians. Many of those who are thought of as members of visible minorities, and their parents, have never lived anyplace else than in Canada. It's that kind of awareness of a new Canadian citizenship.
[ Page 8796 ]
I find a focus missing here. Would the minister respond on the focus of being Canadian, with Canadian citizenship? In my own multicultural advisory group, this is being stressed again and again by those who are new to Canadian life and those who were born and have grown up here. It's the common identity with Canadian citizenship in which they take pride.
Hon. M. Sihota: My colleague the Minister of Education and Minister Responsible for Multiculturalism addressed this issue the other day in debate, and I refer to that. As one who feels strongly about this policy, let me take the occasion to point out to the hon. member that I concur with a lot of the points that he makes. The notion of citizenship is captured by subsection (d), which deals with British Columbians living together "in a manner that is consistent with the rights and responsibilities of that individual as a member of the society of British Columbia."
V. Anderson: I have one more thing in that regard. I realize that we're talking about multiculturalism within the British Columbian context, but I regret that we don't put enough emphasis on the Canadian context as well. In many acts it's appropriate that we do it within the British Columbia context. When we're dealing with multiculturalism, however, particularly in a society where there is so much mobility and interaction, the Canadian context could be stressed.
Hon. M. Sihota: I guess one can always make points. Let me just make this one. We also have a Canadian Multiculturalism Act, and this flows from that broad federal policy. I hear what the hon. member is saying.
[5:00]
H. De Jong: I want to discuss that particular point further. The other day I was speaking to one of the leading members of the native community in our own community. He commented: "I'm getting sick and tired of governments separating us all the time by our heritage from the rest of Canadian society." I think the member who spoke just prior to me made an excellent point, which I tried to bring home the other day too in second reading debate: why doesn't section 3(a) say "to recognize and promote being a Canadian," understanding that multiculturalism reflects racial and cultural diversity? I think we're missing something very important in this bill, and that is being a Canadian. I'm not sure exactly what it says in the Canadian constitution, but why do we have to be so different in this act from the Canadian constitution? I believe that the Canadian constitution specifically speaks of Canadians, not of a society within a province or a country.
Hon. M. Sihota: Well, hon. member, I guess you can always say that some things should be stated explicitly when they are evident to all of us. It would occur to me, if I may use my own experience.... I'm a Canadian. I was born in Duncan, just down the road. I grew up in Lake Cowichan. But, you know, I couldn't speak English until I went to kindergarten. I grew up as a kid in a little community in Lake Cowichan speaking Punjabi, much as I do to my kids right now, pretending I was Johnny Bower, Jean Beliveau, or Joe Kapp in Punjabi. There's something uniquely Canadian about that, you know? I don't walk around with a hyphenated chip on my shoulder; I'm a Canadian. I'm proud of it. I think most people who have the kind of background that I have know and take pride in the fact that they are Canadian citizens.
Those values that you talk about are enshrined in the federal legislation. Maybe they could have been incorporated in this legislation, but we felt that this ought to capture the essence of British Columbia. Of course we're Canadians first. But, of course, what makes us so special as Canadians is that we have come from all over the globe, and as Canadians we share our culture with others. We take a special pride, in a way that even those to the south of us don't, in sharing those cultures. No one would deny that we're Canadians first; no one would deny that when we're overseas we take a look at that maple leaf and we point to it. At the same time, when we're here, we also point to the cultural heritage that your family and my family brought to this country. Neither you nor I -- of course, we know each other well enough, hon. member -- would deny that we're Canadians first and proud of it.
H. De Jong: The minister has made a good point. He's gone back to his beginnings here in Canada and how he feels about it, and I think he spoke very well. Perhaps I should also outline specifically why I feel so strongly about Canadianism and being a Canadian.
I was born in the little province of Vreeland in the Netherlands. It was a province that had its own language; it had its own provincial song, you might say. But we sang the national anthem just as lustily as anyone else in the Netherlands. I believe that because we were so proud, we had a strong patriotic feeling about the Netherlands. I do not believe that by continually, as this bill does, speaking about multiculturalism we will foster the patriotism that is required in Canada so that we can indeed stand up, all of us as Canadians, and sing the Canadian national anthem as lustily as we should. On many occasions, I'm sad to say, when there are major community events where thousands of people are gathered together to sing the Canadian national anthem, it is a disappointment, because many people simply do not participate. That's why I so strongly believe that we must stress the point that we are Canadians, and we are proud of being Canadians.
Hon. M. Sihota: This doesn't diminish our Canadianness or take away the pride we feel about being Canadians. I'm sure that those Canadians here observing this debate in the chamber feel as strongly as you and I do about being Canadian. Those Americans sitting in the chamber today are perhaps amazed at the depth of conviction all of us in this House have about being Canadian. Nothing in this legislation diminishes
[ Page 8797 ]
that, and we know it. We know intuitively what we are, and we're proud of it.
Hon. member, I endorse what you say about the fact that that Canadianism is something that (a) should never be lost on us, and (b) should be celebrated. Part of that Canadianism is the multicultural mix that gives the country the strength that comes from diversity.
K. Jones: Could the minister look carefully at the factors in subsection (d), which states: "foster the ability of each British Columbian, regardless of race, cultural heritage, religion, ethnicity, ancestry or place of origin, to share in the economic, social, cultural and political life of British Columbia"? In subsection (e), the policy of the government is to "reaffirm that violence, hatred and discrimination on the basis of race, cultural heritage, religion, ethnicity, ancestry or place origin have no place in the society of British Columbia." Subsection (f) states: "work towards 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...." And subsection (g) states: "recognize the inherent right of each British Columbian, regardless of race...to be treated with dignity...." Could the minister tell us why, in all these cases where we want to take a very strong stand, the question of gender has not been included?
The Chair: Member, the Chair finds that this question is along the same vein as the amendment yesterday, which was ruled out of order by the Chair. That's just a caution to the committee that your attempt to add gender to the wording of this bill was ruled out of order yesterday.
Do you wish to comment, minister?
Hon. M. Sihota: I just want to say that the hon. Minister of Education dealt with that issue yesterday.
K. Jones: The Minister of Education never did address that item in the debate, because it never came up. The Chair had ruled on it on the basis that it was included with these other items. But I want the minister to give us a clarification as to why he would think it would be included with these other items. They appear to be quite different. I was wondering what the minister had to say about these factors. Certainly gender has nothing to do with race, cultural heritage, religion, ethnicity, ancestry or place of origin. These factors are included in other bills such as in the human rights bill, but so is gender. There seems to be no reference to gender in this bill. Is the government purposely leaving out gender in this case?
Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. member, those issues are dealt with in the Human Rights Act. Multiculturalism is a policy that applies to all British Columbians, male or female, and then we enumerate the indicia of multiculturalism policy. If there are concerns about hatred or violence towards women and discrimination against women on the basis of gender, those matters are dealt with in the context of human rights legislation, to use that example that you cited. That's why there does not need to be an explicit reference to gender in the legislation; it applies to all British Columbians. But if there is a violation of one's rights -- racism, for example -- it is dealt with in the context of human rights legislation, and if there is discrimination on the basis of gender, that also is dealt with in that context.
K. Jones: Yes, that's probably right. But this is determined as the policy of government, not a statement in a human rights bill or something like that. As you say, it does not include gender as a factor. But for the human rights legislation to be correct, race, cultural heritage and religion are all included in the human rights bill. Having gender in the human rights bill doesn't preclude those things from being included in this bill, so why is gender precluded here?
Hon. M. Sihota: As I said earlier, those issues are covered in human rights legislation; they're not covered in multiculturalism legislation. Hon. member, I know this issue was well canvassed earlier in debate, and you can appreciate that the minister responsible did take some time to deal with the issue -- perhaps not to your satisfaction, but she did try to deal with it as best she could. I'm not persuaded that much will be served by us having another go-around in this debate, but I appreciate the points that you're making and thank you for them and your contribution to this debate.
The Chair: The Chair recognizes the hon. member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove.
G. Farrell-Collins: I just want to step into the debate for a moment, because I don't recall that extensive debate taking place the other day with the minister, although it may have. I certainly wasn't here for that particular part. The point that the member and other members are trying to make is that often gender issues have a cultural relationship also and are dealt with differently in the different cultures. The effort to try and include the gender issues in the Multicultural Act is an attempt to make sure that the government is cognizant of that fact and is aware that there are problems that are sometimes based along cultural lines. I'm sure that the minister is aware of that. That's the intent of trying to bring that issue up here. Rather than a legality, it's trying to foster an attitude.
[5:15]
While we respect the multicultural aspect of the various cultures in the province and recognize historical and cultural relationships between male and female genders in other countries, we insist that despite those cultural differences and the history that people bring with them to this country that we all cherish, in British Columbia gender issues are not pushed aside. It's an important thing to bring up, and I think it certainly is included in this debate. The government may choose, for whatever reasons, not to include it in the act, but I think it's incumbent upon the opposition to bring up those issues and ask those questions and engage in that debate, so that we know quite clearly that these cultural or ethnic scenarios and issues won't
[ Page 8798 ]
override the fundamental principle in this province that both genders are considered equal.
Hon. M. Sihota: You are correct in your view that different cultures take different views with regard to gender issues and that people bring attitudes to gender issues. Before you arrived, I said to the hon. member for Okanagan West that we need to be treated as equal but different. What this legislation tries to celebrate is the fact that we can be different but equal in society. It is important to be treated equally and with dignity. That's why the legislation makes explicit reference to the need to treat people with dignity. I know -- and perhaps I know better than most -- the difficulties people often have in making a transition from the attitudes of the society they arrive in, to this society and its attitudes and the need for equality of treatment, which we believe is a cornerstone of our society. There are amplifications of that in other legislative instruments that don't speak to multiculturalism; this is legislation that speaks to multiculturalism. It's in the context of other legislation, and this legislation makes it very clear that we need to treat one another with dignity, as of course we should.
K. Jones: I'd like to ask the minister specifically if he disagrees with this statement: "It is the policy of the government to reaffirm that violence, hatred and discrimination on the basis of race, cultural heritage, religion, ethnicity, ancestry or place of origin have no place in the society of British Columbia." I strongly affirm that position, but I also strongly affirm that government policy should state that gender should also be included, unless this government is prepared to state that gender among multicultural people is not going to be considered as an item that they're going to stand...against violence and hatred and discrimination.
Hon. M. Sihota: I think it's implicit in the legislation. It's people from all multicultural groups. When we're dealing with a multicultural policy, we're not just dealing with multicultural males. We're dealing with the need among all of us to make sure that we promote an ability to respect race, culture, heritage, religion, ethnic factors and ancestry for both males and females on an equal basis.
As I said, I thank you for your contributions to this debate, and I mean that. I must confess that your contributions have given all the hon. members something to think about, but I wouldn't want you to leave this debate thinking that anybody believes that we ought to encourage a society that takes a different attitude other than one of equality between men and women.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us in what other legislation it states the policy of the government related to the fact that it affirms that violence, hatred and discrimination have no place in the society of British Columbia with regard to gender?
Hon. M. Sihota: In the Human Rights Act and, to some degree, one would argue, in Bill 33 as well.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us in what sections of the Human Rights Act it states that it is the policy of the government?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Look it up in the bills over there.
K. Jones: It's not in there. You may point to it, but it's not there. This is the only document, therefore, where the government policy has been clearly stated. I will leave it at that. It seems that the minister is unwilling to make a friendly amendment to allow this to come about. The Chair ruled it out of order for some reason. I still don't understand why, but it seems as if the government has a position that it wants to take that does not permit gender to be included in this bill.
Section 3 approved.
On section 4.
K. Jones: I move the amendment standing on the order paper in my name, with reference to section 4(2).
[SECTION 4, subsection (2) be amended by adding "on the advice of the representatives of the multicultural community of British Columbia, taking into consideration the various segments of the multicultural community of B.C. and the geographic regions of B.C." after "Council".]
That would make the section read: "The council consists of the members appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council on the advice of representatives of the multicultural community...."
Hon. M. Sihota: I appreciate your effort to incorporate this in legislation. Thank you for the thought that's reflected in this amendment. I should advise you, however, that the government will not accept the amendment, but -- and I want to make this very clear -- we accept the advice. The Minister of Education already does this in the process of selection and, hon. member, I will commit to you in this House on her behalf that the government will continue to do this. I wish to put that explicitly on the record, as the minister did when she introduced the legislation publicly. I acknowledge the point that you're making. I hope that in fairness you would also acknowledge what I've said and agree that the amendment, as thoughtful as it may be, reflects the practice. We appreciate the thought of the amendment. With that commitment made, I hope that you would now withdraw it.
K. Jones: With that commitment, I will withdraw that amendment, but I still don't know why we don't put it into legislation. This government seems to be totally unwilling to accept an amendment from this House -- just their own commitments. It's unfortunate.
The Chair: Thank you, member. Do you have any further amendments to section 4 that you wish to move at this time?
[ Page 8799 ]
K. Jones: Yes, I do. I wish to move the amendment to subsection (4) standing under my name on the order paper.
[SECTION 4, subsection (4) be deleted, and replaced with "The members of the council shall, at their first meeting, choose a member of the council as chair and one or more other members as vice chair."]
The purpose of that is to give the members who are appointed the opportunity to choose their own chair, so that the chair will have the full support of the council -- rather than having a person who may be appointed arbitrarily for some reason. I don't know what the reasons would be that might not be fully supported by other members of the council.
On the amendment.
Hon. M. Sihota: First of all, I appreciate the hon. member's sentiments expressed in the amendment. We've had people from all walks of life and from all backgrounds participate as chair, and I know that those who have had the honour to serve as chair of this type of council have deeply appreciated the recognition. Riasat Ali Khan is one of those great British Columbians who has chaired this kind of thing. I'm sure he is an individual whom you know, hon. member, being from your area of the province and a man who is well respected in that area -- if I may engage in a paid political advertisement on his behalf.
Interjection.
Hon. M. Sihota: Sorry, did you say he's a Liberal?
Interjection.
Hon. M. Sihota: Roop Seebaran, who is a professor of social work at the University of British Columbia, currently is the individual in charge of that council. Again, he's a great British Columbian who has made a great contribution to life in British Columbia and has done an outstanding job. I know both those individuals very well: Mr. Seebaran contributed to my education at the University of British Columbia, and Mr. Ali Khan I met through a lot of community activities. There seems to be a special acknowledgement that this kind of position should be filled by somebody the government gives recognition to.
Your point about the chair having the confidence of the rest of the council is well taken. It seems to me that if an appointed chair doesn't have that support, it becomes evident to all ministers very quickly. So although I won't support the amendment, I will say that your point is well taken. You know, we've been very good in British Columbia about welcoming people from all walks of life and all persuasions to these positions. I'm sure that that will continue as a consideration in making the appointment.
K. Jones: I'm glad the minister did recognize the fine work of the person who has done so much work in the multicultural area, Riasat Ali Khan. These amendments were made in consultation with that person, who has contributed so much. I sat down with him and went through this legislation section by section, and through his advice and consultation as a leader in the multicultural community and former chair of the multicultural association of British Columbia, I was able to get his contribution to bring to this. I was hoping that these items, being so democratic and having the interest of the multicultural community, would have been accepted by the government as being friendly and constructive contributions to the improvement of this bill.
[5:30]
Hon. M. Sihota: Riasat Ali Khan is a very decent and honourable individual, and I'm sure he will take special pride in reading this part of the debate in the Legislature to know he's been talked about in the context that he has. He is certainly an individual whom I have a lot of respect for. The hon. member says that he's discussed these issues with him. I will undertake to advise him of the reasons for the government's decision in this regard. Being the kind of individual he is, I'm sure he will come to understand why we've taken the view we have with regard to this section. I thank you and him for your contribution, and I advise you that I will let him know the reasons for the government's consideration in this matter.
Amendment negatived on division.
K. Jones: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.
[SECTION 4, subsection (6) be added, to read "The council shall have a membership not to exceed twenty-five persons".]
I believe the membership of the current advisory council is 24 persons. This amendment would provide some closure to the size of the council. Further in the bill, the council has an allocation of expenses. If it became even larger, it would add to that cost. As a proven workable size of 25, and having the support of Riasat Ali Khan, I bring this forward for your consideration.
Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. member, as I said a few minutes ago, we do consult with the communities with regard to membership, and I said we'd continue to do that. When we do, it's important that we make sure all members are involved and invited to participate. It occurs to me that the ethnic community in British Columbia may wish to have more than 24 members, and I wouldn't want to come back for an amendment. We appreciate your concerns about costs. We'll take those into account, but I don't think it would be prudent to limit the size.
Amendment negatived on division.
V. Anderson: In checking through the Blues from the other day, I confirmed that the minister said that the council will rotate and be renewed each year. What is the term of office, and what is the process for rotating the people on the council over the years?
[ Page 8800 ]
Hon. M. Sihota: One-third of the council is rotated each year. A call goes out to the community for nominations, so there's a constant turnover and a reflection of changes in the representation in the communities.
V. Anderson: As to the work of the council, how often does it normally meet, and do they have operating committees that meet apart from the council meetings and feed into that?
Hon. M. Sihota: The answer to the second question is yes, they do that regularly. They do extensive work. The answer to the first question is that they meet four times a year.
V. Anderson: Would the minister be able to share with us some of the work of the council committees so we get an idea of what the committee is dealing with? You may not have all of them, but it would give us some reflection of the work that the committee is undertaking.
Hon. M. Sihota: There are committees such as race relations, equity, communications and policy in those areas. If I may say, these are very important areas for multicultural groups. Race relations has always been an issue that needs to be attended to in this province, so those are examples of the kinds of things we would do.
V. Anderson: Taking the purpose of the council and the working committee, do reports or discussion papers come out of these that can be reviewed by the community in order to have an opportunity to be part of the educational and outreach of the activities of the council?
Hon. M. Sihota: The input papers come from the community. They don't always or necessarily take the papers back.
V. Anderson: There are two. I realize there is input both ways. There are papers from the community to the council, but I'm assuming that as the council receives those papers and as they work together on committees, they may be making reports together around the topics and issues that feed back to the community. I am interested in the process that those who are not on the council might be able to benefit and share from it.
Hon. M. Sihota: As someone who participates in that process, you can always access the information from various members.
Section 4 approved.
On section 5.
V. Anderson: In effect, the council has been in process for some time, so it's not new. We have the double role of the council, on the one hand, to advise the minister and to help her reflect on the other role of the minister and any other duties or functions specified by the minister. Are there examples of some of the functions that have been specified by the minister that the council has been performing?
Hon. M. Sihota: The minister asks for the establishment of subcommittees from time to time so that she can get advice on various issues.
K. Jones: In section 5(1) the wording would be much improved if we were to delete "and to perform any other duties or functions specified by the minister." In other words, the role of the council, according to the government's plans, is to perform any other duties or functions specified by the minister. I think that would be better replaced by "to advise the minister on issues respecting multiculturalism and race relations," because that's more directly what this bill should be calling for as it is outlined in its purposes. For some reason, it seems to be set up so that it will look after issues respecting multiculturalism and do whatever other lackey things or political things or social things the minister wants the council to do. Does that mean that they will be going out to various communities throughout the year campaigning for the government, in order to promote the NDP? Is that why this clause is in here?
Hon. M. Sihota: No, they are out to promote multiculturalism. It would be wrong, in my view, for them to promote a political party.
K. Jones: If the only purpose is to advise the minister on issues respecting multiculturalism, then why doesn't the minister make the amendment to delete the remainder of that sentence and make it clear that is the purpose?
Hon. M. Sihota: For the very reason your colleague the member for Vancouver-Langara just asked about a few minutes ago: there may be an interest in the minister referring certain matters to that council for review.
V. Anderson: Having been related to the council members as a community member interacting with them from the very beginning, I had the opportunity to relate to and work with people prior to the advisory council coming into being under the previous government. It's not a new thing under this government; it came into being under the previous government when a group of community people working in multiculturalism came together and approached the government and asked it to act. In fact, they demanded that something come from the government to respond to the people in the community.
Unfortunately, as it's written, it looks like it's something coming from the government to the people, rather than from the people to the government. Part of the concern we have is that everything is coming from the minister to the members, rather than from the members to the minister. I think the concern is that
[ Page 8801 ]
there is no reflection here of the communities' participation in working hard to bring this process into being. I think it's important that there be a recognition somewhere that this came about as a response to the community, before this government even came into power. As the act is written, it tends to usurp that kind of community participation, input and initiative. I'd just like to see if there is some way that could be brought forward, in a way that the community would be recognized for their contribution in initiating this project.
Hon. M. Sihota: If you're looking for something, let me just put this on the record. We see this as a two-way consultation process, where people from multicultural groups bring issues to the government and the council for discussion and dialogue and give advice and direction to government, as they should. We see it as being very much grass-roots oriented in that way.
There will be occasions when the minister herself may want to refer issues to the council, but it ought not to be seen or read in a one-way fashion, where the council waits for directions from above. We would encourage the council and its members to be affirmative and aggressive in the pursuit of issues that relate to multiculturalism in British Columbia. I'll put that on the record, first of all, consciously knowing that the minister agrees and, secondly, to clear up any confusion which may exist in the interpretation of the legislation.
G. Wilson: What a surprise to see Bill 39 up before us in the absence of the minister. Notwithstanding an agreement that it wouldn't come forward, here we are debating it.
I wonder if the Minister of Labour, who is standing in with respect to this bill, could tell us whether or not the role of the council in itself will be to advise matters on multiculturalism, and whether the definition of that would include the aboriginal people in the province.
Hon. M. Sihota: As with all matters, this is only before the House with the consent of all parties.
[5:45]
Let me say that I have already dealt with that issue, and I would reference the hon. member to those comments. Of course, he wasn't here for all the discussion. I did indicate that I thought that there was the scope to deal with those issues.
G. Wilson: Could the minister tell us whether or not the council's advice to the minister would also involve the broadening of representation of people from the so-called "multicultural community" in various ministries, through the hiring practices of government? Will the council be empowered to...? Will the government seek out advice from this council with respect to hiring practices in the government?
Hon. M. Sihota: The council as it currently exists has done a paper on that very issue, and has given it to the government.
G. Wilson: The reason that this question comes forward under section 5 is because clearly, as was canvassed fairly extensively under section 3 and will be canvassed under section 7, it would seem to be very much a part of this bill as it has come forward now. What the minister seems to be suggesting is that we are moving toward this affirmative action program, and that the role of the council may be a proponent part of that.
If that's so, there may be some benefit to it, I suppose, although we disagree philosophically on that particular aspect. Can the minister tell us what role in the development of the affirmative action program the council will have?
Hon. M. Sihota: Nothing specific. The hon. member knows that this group, as well as any other group in society -- including the hon. member himself -- is able to give advice to government on these issues.
G. Wilson: With respect to 5(2)(b) -- "creating and appointing council members to committees of the council and setting out the powers and duties of those committees" -- a good question was brought forward by the member for Vancouver-Langara with respect to the duties and powers of the committees. Is it intended that there would be a broad range of committees that might look specifically at issues, for example, of social service delivery, English as a second language, or items that would traditionally or conventionally be done under line ministries of government? Is it the intention that these committees have their powers and duties expanded to involve themselves in those kinds of activities?
Hon. M. Sihota: There are committees and subcommittees on those issues. They have the ability to comment on those issues; they don't make government policy.
G. Wilson: Presumably, then, with respect to the making of an annual report to the minister, which comes up next -- and I only flag that because I've been looking at that particular section -- the reports that will be made by the council, given that it is a public body, will provide the people of British Columbia with an opportunity to see what kind of recommendations are made with respect to these issues. Is it the intention that the reports from these councils will be made public? If so, what's the conduit through which the public reporting system might take place?
Hon. M. Sihota: I can't see any reason why the reports could not be accessed if they're requested by the public. We'll deal with the annual report when we get to it.
C. Serwa: On section 5(1) again, I guess I have great ambitions for the council. My concern is with the requirement to perform any other duties or functions specified by the minister. My concern is that the advisory council appears to be somewhat compromised by this requirement. Certainly I can see that the
[ Page 8802 ]
advisory council could accept other responsibilities and duties, but rather than be seen as somewhat co-opted or compromised in their endeavours by the specific directions of the minister, it seems to me that it would be better if they perhaps entered into the awareness or if the council was actually given the latitude in legislation to travel through the province and endeavour to elevate their profile and raise awareness, accepting responsibility for the initiatives rather than being directed to do so by the minister.
Perhaps the minister would comment on that.
Hon. M. Sihota: A council and its members are free to do that. They do not have to wait for direction from the minister. As I said earlier, it's a two-way process. We would encourage them, in the development of multicultural policy in British Columbia, to take affirmative steps to ensure that there's good cross-cultural understanding, racial harmony and respect for the dignity of all British Columbians, and to ensure that we are recognized in this society to be equal but different.
Section 5 approved.
On section 6.
K. Jones: For those persons on both sides of the House who had my original amendment to section 6, the date of this amendment is changed from May 31 to August 31. I'll therefore move the amendment as tabled. I move that section 6(1) be amended by adding "on or before August 31 of each year" to the end of that subsection. It would then read: "In addition to the report referred to in subsection (1), the council must, at the request of the minister, report on specific matters, in the manner and at the times required by the minister, on or before August 31 of each year."
Hon. M. Sihota: They are required to report annually. If the reference to annual wasn't there, then I would see a need to have a provision that explicitly stated a date. Being aware of the point I've just made, I'm sure that the hon. member will now agree to withdraw the amendment.
K. Jones: I read it into the wrong clause. The amendment to add "on or before August 31 of each year" is to amend section 6(1). That is: "The council must make an annual report to the minister on or before August 31 of each year." I apologize.
Amendment negatived on division.
Section 6 approved.
On section 7.
H. De Jong: With respect to the reporting by "every ministry and every government corporation...." I realize that the religious symbols of various cultural or religious groups are used, and that there has been a lot of discussion about this in the past and a lot of concern expressed by the groups involved as well as by the corporations. In particular, the WCB and hospitals have had some problems here. I wonder whether this specific clause -- "every ministry and every government corporation" -- is here with respect to those issues that have been, to say the least, controversial and bothersome to the people as well as to those who have to provide services?
Hon. M. Sihota: I take it your point is why aren't schools or hospitals, for example, captured by this legislation?
H. De Jong: Yes.
Hon. M. Sihota: First of all, as a government corporation, WCB would be captured by that provision. I appreciate that it's a peculiar kind of a corporation. Secondly, we felt that we had to get our own house in order first, and that every ministry should take a leadership role in that regard. In that context, the Ministry of Education or the Ministry of Health can easily report what steps it's taking to encourage those which are statutorily responsible to it to achieve the goals of the multicultural policy within the context of its statutory responsibilities.
V. Anderson: I have had some discussion with members of the multicultural community in regard to some of these undertakings. I know there have been a number of courses and programs that they have participated in, in trying to work on cultural awareness -- or as some people have called it, cultural competence. I am trying to get an understanding whether this is the kind of program that is envisioned within this...? The ministers talk about getting their own house in order. Is this the kind of program within the ministry that's being discussed to increase cultural sensitivity, awareness, understanding and competence? Is this what's being envisioned here or are there other things in spite of this that are part of...? What would people be reporting on? What kind of assessment would be made within these programs that they might be relating to?
Hon. M. Sihota: Very much the kinds of issues you just outlined, hon. member.
G. Wilson: Following the line of questioning from the member for Vancouver-Langara -- whom I think is in a very good and important line of questioning -- it says: "Every ministry and every government corporation within the meaning of the Financial Administration Act must, on or before May 31 of each year, submit an annual report to the minister setting out the initiatives that it has undertaken in the period for which the report is prepared to promote the policies referred to in section 3."
Section 3 was a long and very involved section, one that we looked at in some detail. I wonder if the minister could tell us what kinds of initiatives he has in mind -- let's choose, for example, the Minister of Labour in the Labour ministry -- that might look
[ Page 8803 ]
toward something that we might see under section 3(a), for example. What is the Minister of Labour going to do in his own ministry to deal with and "recognize and promote the understanding" as it "reflects the racial and cultural diversity" within British Columbia? What would the minister report on?
Hon. M. Sihota: The ministry will report on a wide range of cross-cultural training and equity initiatives. The kinds of programs and initiatives that we take in our ministry deal with policies on multiculturalism. I'm pleased to say that recently we as a ministry, in a lot of the material we've produced in terms of residential tenancy, for the first time provide information in Spanish, Punjabi and various Chinese dialects. We do the same with regard to the workers' compensation program.
So you reach out. We as a government take great pride that we for the first time in the history of British Columbia have made sure that farmworkers are covered by the Workers' Compensation Board, an initiative which I know each member of our caucus takes great pride in. We made sure that members of the farmworking community, many of whom are members of visible minorities, now know of their rights in a language they can relate to, hon. member. Every element of government will take those kinds of leadership initiatives, be it the Labour, Education, Finance or whatever other ministry.
This government -- unlike any other government in the history of this province -- is standing up front and centre, saying that multiculturalism is an important facet of life here in British Columbia and that we take pride in the kind of country we've been able to create and the kind of diversity we have in British Columbia. We on this side of the House take great strength in that diversity. It defines the very character, let alone the personality, of British Columbia.
[6:00]
Multiculturalism is a wonderful policy. It speaks loudly and in volumes about the kind of society we've tried to create in Canada, where we try to live in peaceful coexistence with one another, and where we take some pride in sharing our culture, religion, language and heritage with one another. No other country in the world does what we do. And there ought not to be any other province that does any better than British Columbia, because we as a province situated on the Pacific Rim have a special obligation in this country to take leadership around multiculturalism. This government -- in particular the Minister of Education and the Premier, who did a remarkable job in his tenure as the mayor of Vancouver in taking a leadership in the development of multiculturalism policies -- take great pride in what we are encouraging each ministry in this province to achieve by making sure that there is cross-cultural awareness, racial harmony, dignity, respect and equality of treatment. This government, unlike any other government in this country, has reached out to multicultural communities in a way that's never been seen in British Columbia.
I invite the hon. member and those who are members of multicultural communities to take a look at the kinds of appointments that we've been making as a government. There are representatives of the Filipino community, the Korean community, the Indo-Canadian community and the Chinese community on board after board. There are people who are representing a first for the communities that they represent. For the first time in the history of this province, we have an Indo-Canadian, Herb Dhaliwal, sitting on the board of B.C. Hydro. I want the hon. member to know how much pride that community takes in the fact that that door, which was closed for so long in British Columbia to that community, has now been opened. That community takes special pride in seeing that we have an individual of the calibre of Mr. Dhaliwal on the board of B.C. Hydro. That's one of the things that I'm responsible for in terms of the Ministry of Labour.
For the first time to my knowledge, a member of the Chinese-Canadian community, Stanley Kwok, an entrepreneur and one of the leading business representatives in this province, is sitting on the board of B.C. Hydro. Again, something which we in the context of the Ministry of Labour....
The Chair: Excuse me, minister, the member for Surrey-Cloverdale is rising on a point of order.
K. Jones: I know that the minister is waxing well towards a great speech here, but I would like to ask the Chair to remind all members that we are on section 7 of this bill, and that we'd like not to have a 6 o'clock news speech but rather a continuance of the questioning so we can get this bill through.
The Chair: Thank you, member.
Hon. M. Sihota: This is not a 6 o'clock news speech. This is a reflection of the passion this government feels, and the degree to which it is committed to achieving a multicultural society in this province, and making sure that it is representative in every aspect of government life in British Columbia. There are people in the multicultural community in this province who have been waiting a long time to see this reflected in legislation and to see this kind of legislation come before this House. They take pride in the fact that in a legislative instrument, we have directed every ministry of government to make sure that those policies enumerated in section 3 are found in every aspect of ministerial life in British Columbia.
Let me conclude by saying that this section best reflects that passion and the commitment to make sure that multiculturalism is not the superficial policy that we saw introduced some time ago by the federal Liberal Party, but something which has meaning and means something to those people from different walks of life -- something that says yes, they are wanted in government life; yes, their contribution is cherished; and yes, we recognize the special characteristics that they bring to Canada, and we want those characteristics reflected in the work of our ministries. This government makes no apologies; we celebrate the fact that we have this kind of provision in this legislation.
[ Page 8804 ]
With that said, Hon. Speaker, and the time being what it is, I move that the committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Committee of Supply A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. M. Sihota: I move that the House at its rising stand recessed until 6:30 p.m.
The House recessed at 6:06 p.m.
The House resumed at 6:38 p.m.
Hon. R. Blencoe: I call second reading of Bill 59.
VANCOUVER CHARTER AMENDMENT ACT, 1993
Hon. R. Blencoe: It is my pleasure to put forward Bill 59 for second reading. This bill contains a number of amendments to the Vancouver Charter, which is the legislation that governs the administration of the city of Vancouver.
The charter is for the city of Vancouver what the Municipal Act is for all other local governments in the province of British Columbia. These charter amendments are a continuation of the ongoing initiative to modernize all the legislation administered by my ministry. In addition, they have been made at the request of the city of Vancouver. All amendments are made through negotiation and discussion with the city of Vancouver.
In general terms, this bill updates archaic provisions, ensures consistency with the provisions of the Municipal Act and provides new powers for the city of Vancouver to deal with issues of unique concern to this large metropolitan area.
For example, the amendments will enable the city to manage its debt in a more fiscally prudent way by being able to refinance it over a longer term, thereby receiving more favourable rates.
The city will have greater authority to protect heritage buildings, while still allowing for growth. Where a parcel proposed for subdivision contains a heritage building, the city will have the flexibility to relax minimum site requirements, such as setbacks or lot size, rather than move or demolish a building with historic significance to the community.
The legislation gives council the authority to hold a property manager, rather than just the property owner, responsible for complying with building bylaws. The legislation resolves such nuisance problems as authorizing the city to tow and impound vehicles on the street when a faulty horn sounds for an excessive amount of time. This may seem small, but I'm told that it can be of extreme nuisance value when this sort of thing happens.
In addition, there's an amendment giving authority to the city to appoint certified general accountants, in addition to chartered accountants, as auditors of city accounts.
There's an amendment that permits the city to finance property acquisition without the assent of electors if the mortgage or other obligation is for ten years or less, and one that provides Vancouver with additional powers so that it can include saltwater pumping stations as part of its water system. In all of these cases, these amendments will permit the city of Vancouver to meet the needs of its citizens more effectively. I'm pleased to move that Bill 59 be read for a second time now.
A. Cowie: The official opposition is pleased to support this bill. I think the minister outlined the basis of it. As the minister said, it was requested by the city; from time to time the city looks at the requirements for changes and makes those recommendations. Although this deals just with Vancouver, I think it's important, especially because of the discussion we had on the last two bills -- Bills 57 and 58 -- to perhaps speak for a few minutes.... It does relate to this bill, in that there are urban problems that large municipalities have that smaller municipalities don't have. It's becoming clear in this province that perhaps we really have to look, because of the growth in the greater Vancouver and greater Victoria areas, at the special needs of those high-growth areas, urban areas.
It was quite obvious, when I was listening to the members of the third party, that they were dealing specifically with problems associated with small municipalities or more rural communities. They also took the opportunity to hijack one small part of that bill and talk on and on for over an hour on mining, which I think should be the subject of another bill. However, I can understand that people want to do that so that they can send messages back home about their interests.
Again, I just want to say that in the next few years we will perhaps be moving to a ministry of urban affairs and transportation to deal with these more urban, higher-growth areas. The rest of the province will probably have a minister of municipal affairs and highways. I would suggest that more and more we're dealing with those kinds of problems, and the problems we discuss in this House tend to get divided into those two categories: those people who are and who should be interested in smaller-community concerns and those people who have larger concerns in the fast-growing areas. I just wanted to point out that both are valid, but there is a difference.
I also want to point out that, in my opinion anyway, most of the growth, industry and money are going to come to the large urban areas. It's quite obvious around the world. Look at Singapore, Hong Kong, Japan and other places -- the larger city-states, if you want. These are the areas of growth and power and the areas where the knowledge industries are developing. That's going to create an ever-increasing problem for the rural communities in this province, which we have to consider. We have to truly look at those industries. At least the third party had a valid concern in looking at
[ Page 8805 ]
those industries. Although it was the wrong time to talk about it, it is a valid concern that has to be addressed.
I wanted to make those few comments, which I grant are not totally to do with this bill but are linked to it. I thank the Speaker for allowing me to do that.
[6:45]
As for the sections of this bill, we'll be looking forward to the dramatic discussion that will probably take place on snow removal from sidewalks and a number of other subjects, such as horns. Those are big issues. Actually, it is kind of a concern, if you live in the West End and one of these horns is going on for a half-hour -- and you're trying to get to sleep at six o'clock in the morning. A lot of people arrive home at six in the morning in the West End. What we want to be able to do is tow those vehicles away.
Section 8 was particularly interesting to me because Vancouver leads the way with this particular legislation. I guess what we're doing with Bill 59 is recognizing what actually happens. This section says that one should design subdivisions to suit the configuration of the land being subdivided. That's an important item. For instance, the slopes of Puget and Eddington look over Vancouver and the harbour. It's a beautiful area of the city, essentially between Dunbar and Kerrisdale. One really had to design homes that people could look over. The subdivision had to be designed in such a way that the new homes going into the community would fit in well. A fine job was done with that particular subdivision, and the people who did it certainly deserve a great deal of credit.
Interjection.
A. Cowie: Wait until you find out who did it. That was just one example, and I was being a little facetious.
There are other areas in the city where special design considerations have to be met. As I mentioned earlier this afternoon, the Fairview Slopes are an example of that, and although that isn't a suburban subdivision, it is a subdivision. I want to thank the minister for getting this particular bit of legislation in there; it will in fact help. It will also help the situation where we have street-ends that can now be made into miniparks or other uses, and the problem of who owns them and how you buy them and all that sort of thing is resolved by this legislation.
One issue I want to mention has to do with section 9, the ability of the city to have a saltwater system for pumping water. That issue is a result of Vancouver doing away with its big fire boat, which was basically a tourism attraction. It is now down in San Francisco, and I understand it's doing a good job. Essentially, it didn't meet the conditions of Vancouver. Vancouver very wisely, under the leadership of the council, managed to buy five -- I can call them vehicles -- boats, which are very efficient. You can get to a fire very fast and put it out. In doing that, Vancouver was able to see that other municipalities in the surrounding area helped with that. Three of the boats are located in surrounding municipalities. It's a very efficient service, and it's necessary to have a saltwater pumping system. I notice that the legislation deals with that.
I also notice that we have permits to assume local levies. The way I essentially interpret that is that improvements are needed from time to time, some heritage items have to be rebuilt and the city has to be maintained. This allows the municipality to put levies on a particular neighbourhood. That's a very wise thing, because those neighbours, and the neighbourhood as a whole, benefit from those improvements. This legislation allows for that.
In closing, as I say, I am looking forward to debating some of these sections in third reading. The Liberal Party, the official opposition, will of course support this bill.
L. Hanson: The member for Vancouver-Quilchena will, I think, someday realize the significance of Bill 58 in the mining industry. In any case, Bill 59 changes some of the abilities of the city of Vancouver. The city of Vancouver has always had a different charter than the Municipal Act, and most of the things in here, such as clearing snow from sidewalks.... It surprises me that Vancouver needs that, because I thought they got liquid snow. In the interior we've had this problem for years and have found ways of handling it. But that is more in humour than in opposition.
There's only one that really affects our thinking. It's certainly one that we hope the minister has considered in some detail, because the eventual result is to extend the same thing in the Municipal Act. If the minister is aware of past practice -- and I'm sure he is -- things that get changed in the Municipal Act very shortly get applied to the Vancouver Charter, and things in the Vancouver Charter usually work back to the municipalities in requests to change their legislation. The issue I'm referring to is the extension to ten years for the financing of property purchase. That's quite a major change from past practice.
In the past there had to be a referendum to the taxpayers to see if they agreed with the purchase and financing of something over a period of time. It was done, I think, to ensure that a sober second look was given to a purchase or the borrowing of money on behalf of taxpayers, and in my opinion it was a fair and reasonable safeguard. The minister has extended this considerably. Municipalities were able, I believe, to have a five-year term in the past, and from this it looks as if the city of Vancouver had a two-year term, which I wasn't aware of. The relief from the necessity of going through the democratic process to get voters' assent for the approval and financing of property, even though ten years is the limit, is quite a change in the philosophy that has been in place for a number of years, and I know that municipalities and the city of Vancouver would like to have this authority. I'm not suggesting that it's an authority that will be abused.
The city of Vancouver and the rest of the municipalities and the regional districts in B.C. are children of the provincial government, in effect, by the application of the Municipal Act and the Charter Act. For that reason, certain restrictions have been put on them, as I said earlier, requiring them to get the assent of voters in the case of major purchases or long-term financing. What the minister will have to ask himself --
[ Page 8806 ]
and he probably already has decided in his own mind -- is whether ten years is long-term financing. There is, of course, a responsibility on the part of all municipal councils to ensure that the ability to make payments over a period of years is there before they go to this purchase, but the test of that was to see whether the people they represent would agree to the spending of that money.
It's difficult to take an opposing position on the bill, because it really is not a major difficulty for the Social Credit Party to support it. But it is a major deviation from what we have seen in the past, and it's a major deviation from the requirement of the municipality having to go to the electors to get their assent in major types of purchases and long-term credit commitments. We still think that that is a good process and should be retained. We would sooner see the term at less than ten years. We may bring forward some amendments in committee stage of the bill, but that's our only concern with it.
The Speaker: The minister, upon rising, closes debate.
Hon. R. Blencoe: I appreciate the comments of both opposition parties. The speaker who just indicated his concerns with section 3.... I, too, mulled this one over. Whereas the member says municipalities are the child of the provincial government, I think, as you know -- and you lived through this as minister -- they are growing. They are getting more sophisticated, and I think they are quite capable of handling their own affairs. I will be the first to admit that we will monitor it very carefully, and if it becomes a problem we will deal with it. We are moving ahead to modernize legislation of local government, giving them the ability to make decisions quicker and with more power, and I think thus far it's been successful. This was asked for by Vancouver; they are elected, and we will see what the results are.
I have to say yes, we looked at that very carefully, and your comments are well taken. I move the bill now be read a second time.
Motion approved.
Bill 59, Vancouver Charter 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. R. Blencoe: Hon. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 75.
LIBRARY FOUNDATION OF BRITISH COLUMBIA ACT
Hon. R. Blencoe: It is with great pleasure that I put forward Bill 75 for second reading. This bill establishes the Library Foundation of British Columbia. We have introduced this legislation in response to requests from the library community and the city of Vancouver, which is 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 such a foundation was recommended by the 1988 ministerial task force on public libraries but was not acted upon. I can't remember who the minister was at the time. The Library Foundation of British Columbia will facilitate and encourage donations and bequests of money and other assets from the private sector and from individuals on behalf of the province's public libraries. It will also manage those assets on behalf of public libraries throughout the province to assist them in the development, maintenance and improvement of library services for all British Columbians.
Bill 75 stipulates that the foundation, as an agent of the Crown, can provide 100 percent tax deductibility for donations. The Vancouver Public Library will be one of the first beneficiaries of this new legislation. That important public institution has launched a major fundraising campaign to equip its new facility.
The Vancouver Public Library not only serves the population of our larger cities, it is an important resource for all British Columbians. This new foundation will help it greatly in establishing its new home. But of course -- and I want to make this very clear -- all other communities in British Columbia will also benefit from the advantages offered by the foundation as their local libraries look for funds required to keep pace with the demands of the growing populations they serve. Local public library boards, long established under the Library Act, will work with the foundation in receiving and managing donations and bequests and in administering projects undertaken by the foundation. As the foundation works for the people of the province, it will forge partnerships between the public and private sectors, increase support for public libraries and stimulate private-sector donations.
[7:00]
It is with great pleasure that I put this forward on behalf of the government. One of the more interesting and very rewarding components of my ministry is the responsibility for libraries. We are moving ahead more and more in our society today. With its information and complexities, people are turning to libraries. People who work in libraries are indeed very special. It is with great pleasure that I put this forward today on behalf of the government.
A. Cowie: The official opposition party is not opposed to the legislation establishing foundations to attract private sector and individual funding of public libraries. The bill shifts some of the cost back to the federal government. That should be recognized through the sharing of the income tax field. With this, there is also some exposure for the provincial government, although very little because the money is going to be spent here for the benefit of provinces and individual municipalities.
Again, this legislation was requested by the city of Vancouver, as the minister said, essentially for its new library. I want everybody to know this library is not just the Vancouver library; this library is a resource that all people in the province will be able to use. It is state of
[ Page 8807 ]
the art; it not only has books but records, tapes and videos. It will be a great resource for all those people who live around Vancouver, in Vancouver or visit from as far away as the far north, Mackenzie and other municipalities -- Fort St. James, Fort St. John -- everywhere, even up the valley. They will be able to visit this library and be very proud of it.
Vancouver has led the way in this type of legislation, setting up foundations to which people can contribute. I mention only one small organization that has a great foundation program for benches: the Vancouver Parks Board. We have now run out of spaces to put benches because of the popularity of this particular program. It costs $2,000 to put a quality bench in Stanley Park or in Queen Elizabeth Park, but there are literally thousands of people who wish to make donations. This deals with foundations. I'm trying to give an example of an excellent program that this provincial government was able to follow through with.
Again, I want to thank the Speaker for her generosity in allowing me to speak positively on this bill in a wide-ranging manner. I look forward to this going to third reading.
J. Weisgerber: On behalf of the Socred caucus, I'll speak in support of the bill as well. I'm quite happy to see us introduce legislation that will support the Vancouver library and, indeed, libraries all across the province. The legislation quite correctly creates a foundation that has an obligation to serve all of the libraries. As I read the legislation, contributions to the foundation cannot target funds toward any particular library. This is good legislation; it serves a good purpose.
I do have a caution. When we extended the opportunity to create foundations from hospitals to universities and entered into the matching program with universities, it was very well received, and well taken up. But the criticism at that time -- and, I suspect, the criticism again with this legislation -- is that these kinds of foundations, with the tax treatment they receive under section 1(18) of the Income Tax Act, encourage large donors to funnel their charitable donations toward foundations. For other charitable groups, the effect of that is more and more difficulty attracting large contributions. It's one of the saw-offs that flow from it. There will be some legitimate criticism from groups such as the United Way, the Cancer Society and others. They will suggest that because of the growing number of foundations established to help build hospitals, universities and now libraries, and recognizing that there is a limited amount of money available for contributions for charity and these kinds of works, there may be that downside to it.
Nonetheless, the support that the legislation provides for libraries generally, and for the new library in Vancouver, qualify this proposal equally with other foundations that have been created. My only caution is that I would hate to see us establishing a whole range of foundations and continuing to push other charities to the margin as far as their ability to attract donations. But with that, it is a pleasure for me, on behalf of the caucus, to support the legislation.
Hon. R. Blencoe: I appreciate those rational comments on this bill from the Leader of the Third Party. I wish we'd had such rational comments on an earlier bill earlier on, but I appreciate those comments and indeed....
Interjection.
Hon. R. Blencoe: I recognize that some of the matters you raise are valid. There are obviously limits to what we are doing, but in terms of libraries, I think all British Columbians support our library system. With that, I move the bill be now read a second time.
Motion approved.
Bill 75, Library Foundation of British Columbia 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. R. Blencoe: I call second reading of Bill 77.
ENGINEERS AND GEOSCIENTISTS AMENDMENT ACT, 1993
Hon. T. Perry: I move that Bill 77, the Engineers and Geoscientists Amendment Act, 1993, be now read a second time.
Bill 77 contains amendments to the Engineers and Geoscientists Act that will promote the protection of the public safety and interests by: (1) increasing the number of lay members on the council of the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of the province of British Columbia; (2) providing for the issuance of a limited licence to practise professional engineering or professional geoscience; and (3) addressing some of the concerns raised as a result of the Save-On-Foods roof collapse in Burnaby in 1988 and the subsequent public inquiry by the Closkey Commission. I'm not sure if that roof collapse occurred in your riding, Hon. Speaker, but if it did, I acknowledge, although it was an unfortunate event, the contribution that it made to the development of this bill.
The Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of the province of British Columbia, which governs the practice of professional engineering and the practice of professional geoscience in the province, is requesting these amendments.
Increasing the numbers of lay members on the council of the association from one to four addresses an issue raised by the ombudsman in the 1991 annual report. In that report the ombudsman suggested that professional associations consider encouraging a significant lay membership on their governing councils to reduce public suspicion that these associations are self-serving, and to improve the quality of regulatory decisions by bringing to them a broader perspective.
Providing for the issuance of a limited licence to practise professional engineering or professional
[ Page 8808 ]
geoscience will recognize not only engineering technologists, but also specialists in other related fields of engineering and geoscience. This amendment, which is the result of ongoing, very productive discussions between the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists and the Applied Science Technologists and Technicians since 1990, is an important contribution to the concept of the engineering team. In addition, it allows the association to maintain its responsibility to the public by regulating the practice of professional engineering, the practice of professional geoscience and the related technologies all under one act.
The other substantial amendments contained in Bill 77 are a result of the Save-On-Foods roof collapse, and the subsequent inquiry by Dan Closkey. One of the recommendations of the Closkey commission is that firms providing professional engineering services to the public should be required to be registered under the Engineers and Geoscientists Amendment Act, in addition to individual engineers. Bill 77 provides for voluntary rather than mandatory registration, and thus will allow the time necessary for further consideration and consultation to determine which organizations should be required to register in the public interest.
Another amendment, which is a result of the Closkey commission review, is one enlarging the scope of professional supervision by the association. This amendment will enable the association to review the practice of individual members and registered corporations, partnerships and other legal entities in a more expansive way, for example, on a random basis or upon request. Currently the act provides for investigation into the professional practice of a member only after a complaint has been lodged, or if the investigation committee becomes aware of an alleged breach of the act or code of ethics. In this sense, the amendment will follow the recent evolution of practice by, for example, the College of Physicians.
Bill 77 allows the association to make bylaws requiring the disclosure of errors-and-omissions liability insurance coverage. This is one of the recommendations of the implementation task force which was appointed by the government to develop the best method of implementing the Closkey commission recommendations.
Bill 77 strengthens the disciplinary provisions of the act by adding fines as a penalty option, and by allowing for suspension or restriction of the scope of practice of a member, licensee or certificate holder pending the completion of an inquiry. It also expands the investigation and discipline process in the act to include registered corporations, partnerships and other legal entities. A few miscellaneous amendments are also included in this bill.
To conclude, I would like once again to thank the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of B.C., particularly for their courtesy and constructive response to the government's request earlier this spring to expand the lay membership on the council. And I would like to thank the Applied Science Technologists and Technicians for the very constructive approach they have taken in negotiations with the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists.
In closing, I'd like to acknowledge that although I've occasionally been accused, hon. Speaker, of having my foot in my mouth, tonight I have feet on my tie! This is the official tie of the Applied Science Technologists and Technicians of B.C. I believe that the feet stand for the federation of engineers and applied technologists, but I'm not certain. I can assure you this is not a demonstration; this is an article of apparel. It acknowledges the close work that the ministry has enjoyed with the two professional associations.
With that said, I will be supporting second reading of Bill 77.
G. Wilson: I'm sure that the great value of the tie that the minister's just described to this House was duly recorded and reported, as should be done with a ministerial gift. We look forward to looking at the values ascribed.
It's a pleasure at this hour of the night to be able to stand and speak in support of a piece of legislation that's been a long time coming. I think it really does address some outstanding concerns that have been, in large measure, looked at in two particular facets -- one with respect to the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists and the geoscientists' involvement in the drafting of much of this legislation. Their involvement is evidenced as you go through this bill. As we deal with it in committee stage, there are some questions we have that I think we might want to discuss with the government. But in large measure it's a very well-thought-through and well-drafted bill. The mark of the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of British Columbia is clearly made in this bill.
We welcome the notion that there will be an inclusion of the Ombudsman's recommendations on the lay members. I think it does give a certain comfort to the public, when you have a professional body and it becomes self-regulatory, with investigative powers, to make sure that standards are being addressed and that, where public safety is an issue, there is more than just this small professional association dealing with it -- that in fact lay members are encouraged.
[7:15]
Similarly, I think the limited licence provisions are valid and very useful prescriptions, in order to include in this process people who have specializations that ordinarily or otherwise would not be included. As such, I think we are able to see in this bill -- and I applaud the government for its energy and effort in bringing this bill forward -- the inclusion of all of those agencies under one umbrella. I think that is something we can be thankful for in British Columbia.
In the first instance, and on the first part of this bill, clearly this is something that has been a long time coming. In the interest of positive and constructive opposition, it's nice to stand in support of a bill that has been extremely well drafted and well thought through, and has brought a positive step to both the associations that were mentioned earlier by the minister and that I've just outlined.
[ Page 8809 ]
I would say that on the second part, with respect to the Save-On-Foods provisions, there may be some questions that we'd like to get into in committee stage, with respect to how far we've gone with some of the sections in this bill. It's safe to say, on the principle of it and in second reading debate this is not the venue or the time to get into outlining those sections.
But I do think that we have to be extremely careful, notwithstanding the excellent report and recommendations of the Closkey report and the fact that those recommendations have been addressed in substantive measure in this bill. There are some questions we might like to bring forward, for which we look forward to hearing responses from the minister.
I appreciate the briefing that was provided by the minister and -- I would like to say publicly -- by the members of the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists, as well as by the members of the Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of British Columbia. It's been delightful to have that kind of direction and background work provided to the opposition so that we could do a thorough and detailed analysis of the bill prior to its coming into the House.
The Liberal opposition supports this bill. We're delighted that it's finally here; it has been a long time coming. We do have some questions with respect to some of the Closkey provisions that aren't evident in the bill, and we would like to question why they're not here. With that said, I would support this bill.
H. De Jong: I'm pleased to rise on Bill 77. It would appear that almost the only difference we have on this bill is the different colour of tie that the minister is wearing from us here in the opposition.
Having said that, I recognize -- and the bill recognizes -- that the insurance won't be mandatory. That has, of course, two sides to it. I realize that these amendments were sought by the engineers' association, and the fact that it isn't mandatory is good, in that engineers are free to take up insurance to cover their engineering work, while some others will.... On the other hand, if some level of insurance was indicated in the bill, it would perhaps make it a little easier, or a little more comfortable, for those who wish to buy the insurance. I would hate to see a horse race developing out of this in terms of the amount of insurance and what such insurance would cover -- certain structures that are being built or designed and engineered by certain firms.
Of course, all of these things are a cost to the private entrepreneur and engineer versus those who work for the government. The government, at whatever level, will probably provide insurance that would certainly give the ultimate in coverage, and that, of course, would be paid for out of the public purse, which could be a problem. However, I've discussed this with the engineers' association, and they don't see it as a problem. But I can still see that if there is an unlimited insurance policy, the government of the day, because it is so easy to pay it out of public funds, may in fact go a little overboard in providing that type of insurance and will perhaps make it very difficult for private engineering firms to pay a similar cost. So while I'm in agreement with the bill, I have some concerns in that direction. I hope it won't happen that way, but there is the potential for it.
In conclusion, I commend the minister for bringing this bill forward. We certainly had a good preview of it with his staff, and I think I speak for our caucus when I say that we will support the bill as it is brought forward.
A. Cowie: I just want to stand for a minute and support this bill. The professional engineers in our society fulfil a very important role. As official opposition critic for Municipal Affairs, I want to point out that it's important now that professional engineers can qualify to do building inspections and other inspections in municipalities. I believe this is a great saving to the taxpayers in those municipalities. In doing so, they take the professional responsibility.
I happen to know the persons who own the professional engineering firm Tam Tacey, which unfortunately was part of the Save-On roof collapse in Burnaby. It was most unfortunate for them professionally and personally. It was most regrettable, and they paid the price for a situation at that time where competition was so tight that there was not sufficient money to do proper inspections. That's no excuse at all, and that's what this legislation is all about. It's what the engineers are saying here: regardless of what happens, they're going to be professionally responsible, and their organization will back them up and be professionally responsible. That's what's important. I don't often credit engineers with having broad design sense or philosophical sense in the planning field, but when it comes to life and death, structure, traffic and all that sort of thing, I take my hat off to them, and we do have to support them. I notice the Minister of Highways is in the chamber and undoubtedly supports those comments.
It's important that the professional engineers, as all professionals -- whether they're landscape architects, planners, doctors, or lawyers -- have a responsibility for their organization and that they regulate their organization. But what this bill also respects is the right of the public to have a say. I think it's excellent that lay members can now be on their board to monitor the situation and see that those boards, for all general public purposes, are managed properly.
So with those few words I want to thank the minister for bringing this bill forward at this time. As our lead critic says, he will undoubtedly get full support from the opposition.
The Speaker: The minister, upon rising, closes debate.
Hon. T. Perry: I compliment the opposition members for both their kindness and their brevity. I believe we will be able to address any questions during committee stage to the satisfaction of the member for Abbotsford. I acknowledge the comments of the leader of the Liberal Party about the quality of drafting, which were echoed by the member for Vancouver-Quilchena, and I'd therefore like to acknowledge the hard work,
[ Page 8810 ]
particularly in the last few weeks and on a weekend, of Rob Langridge, Stella Bailey and Dr. Har Singh of our ministry staff, who worked with the engineers and the applied science technologists and technicians to get this through.
I think many of the comments, particularly those of the last speaker, have reflected very favourably on the very high standard of professional engineering in this province, which is acknowledged internationally. Engineers, including the hon. member for Kamloops, have brought a high standard to public life, and there is a growing role for technologists and technicians and their integration into a efficient utilization of human talent.
I think it's a good day for B.C. I'm very pleased that the opposition is supporting the bill, and I look forward to committee stage. With that, I suggest that we approve second reading.
Motion approved.
Bill 77, Engineers and Geoscientists 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. R. Blencoe: I call committee on Bill 18.
MOTOR FUEL TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1993
(continued)
The House in committee on Bill 18; H. Giesbrecht in the chair.
Hon. G. Clark: Hon. Chair, I'm sorry, but all of this bill has passed with the exception of one section, which was stood down. There was a message amendment introduced into the House. I believe, if it's not out of order, that the only section that is not passed is section 2. If the Chair would call that section, I'll move an amendment.
On section 2.
Hon. G. Clark: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.
[SECTION 2.1, by adding the following section:
2.1 Section 11(a) is amended by deleting "3�" and substituting "4�".]
On the amendment.
F. Gingell: The amendment to section 18, which is section 2.1, changes the gasoline tax transit levy in the lower mainland from 3 cents to 4 cents. I would like to start speaking to the amendment by clearly establishing that I support urban transit. I support transit in all of its forms, and I believe that it is an important part which has not had the focus and the resources given to it in the past that it should have. We're now paying the cost of that lack of concern as the community grows and grows. I start with that statement because I'm going to say something again this year that I said last year in relation to the way transit is funded, which caused the minister to make remarks about the kind of car I drive and how old and decrepit it is.
[7:30]
We simply cannot continue to add to the gasoline tax; next year it will probably be the Hydro levy. This year they've added an additional source of taxation for the greater Vancouver share of the subsidization that is required to pay for B.C. Transit. The policies this government brings in and the things they allow to happen have economic consequences in our community. The greatest effect of this is cross-border shopping.
Cross-border shopping is really a very critical problem. Our small retailers that create jobs for people are being hurt by cross-border shopping. This government recognizes that problem. They continually speak about the need to start programs and to act in a manner that will discourage cross-border shopping and will encourage British Columbians who live along the border to shop in Canada. We simply cannot afford to continually have our citizens buying the goods they need across the border. But that is a very natural thing that happens when the price differentials become too great. It is without question -- and it is clearly proven -- that the price of gasoline is one of the major causes of people crossing the 49th parallel to shop. I know this is only 1 additional cent, which now brings the additional gas tax from 3 cents to 4 cents, but it's going in the wrong direction.
We recognize that we have problems financing urban transit; in fact, we had an opportunity to discuss this subject today during the Finance minister's estimates. It's a matter of some interest to note that fares -- the money people pay to use the system, or the user-fee portion of it -- constitute substantially less than one-third, and perhaps as little as one-quarter, of the total amount that is required to operate the system.
B.C. Transit has had two consultants' studies done dealing with the efficiency of those operations. One of them has resulted in a review of B.C. Transit's budget this year, which reduced it by some $20 million. The consultant's report that I have seen, which I know has also been seen by B.C. Transit and the minister, had a series of proposals and propositions to make this operation more effective.
What do we hear today? We hear a long discussion about a move. They're moving all their offices from Airport Square out to the new tower that's going to be built in Surrey. They've increased the number of square feet of space they require for their offices, as I understand it, by roughly one-third. I know that when private industry faces the kinds of problems that B.C. Transit faces, they have to deal with these things in a sensible manner. They really have to take action that means something. Without it, they go out of business and finish up in the bankruptcy courts. But here, one gets concerned that the solution is to increase taxes, and that simply isn't the right thing to do. We have to find ways of ensuring that our ridership goes up, that the system works efficiently and well, and that user fees -- the fares people pay -- play a larger and larger role in funding the cost of the system.
[ Page 8811 ]
I'm going to finish my remarks on this amendment the way I started, by saying that I strongly support transit. We've got to get people out of their cars onto the buses, onto the SkyTrain. It has repercussions through all the areas that government is concerned with: firstly, the environment; secondly, the need for more bridges and roads; and thirdly, the quality of life. Our transit systems need to operate in a sensible manner.
With those few words, I'm going to sit down. But I'm going to vote against this amendment because I believe it's more important for the government to look for other solutions and to find better ways of trying to get B.C. Transit on a firm financial foundation.
G. Wilson: The Leader of the Opposition made some excellent remarks just now. As someone who has previously been involved with motor fuel in the private sector and who is aware of the tax implications on industry, he raises an interesting point: there are other options which could and should be explored that would get people out of their cars and into transit.
As we are in committee stage on this bill, maybe I could ask the Minister of Finance what alternatives have been looked at. What alternatives has the Minister of Finance sought to try to offset this rise in taxation so that we can in fact encourage ridership on the transit system without putting an undue penalty on them through increased taxation?
Hon. G. Clark: This is an excellent question from the member. When we initially came to office there was a very large deficit -- what's called a local deficit -- for the share of funding for transit. As members know, in this province the provincial taxpayers subsidize transit more than in any other province in Canada. What's euphemistically called the local share is in fact provincial taxes, by and large, like the gas tax. So the way proposed by Mayor Campbell and others to solve the deficit was a 1.5 cent-a-litre gas tax increase.
I rejected that a year ago and instructed B.C. Transit and others to work with the commission to try to find alternative models. About a year ago, with the first budget we brought in, we suggested a tax on square footage of parking lots as one option to raise about $15 million. And unilaterally, as a province, we cut the budget of B.C. Transit by about $20 million. In other words, we found operating efficiencies which had the corresponding effect of reducing the deficit for the local share.
Unfortunately, led by Mayor Campbell and the downtown business community, they fought any tax on parking and proposed -- again the idea came from Mayor Campbell -- a brand-new tax of about $50 to $75 on every car in the province through ICBC. So the suggestion was to put a tax on ICBC. I would think that anybody sensitive to the concerns of taxpayers would know that ICBC rate increases were not popular as they tried to get their house in order. I thought it unwise to set up another structure to impose a greater bureaucratic burden on ICBC and put a brand-new tax on automobiles. I rejected that option -- although it is an option. I understand there's some merit to it environmentally, but I think it's a cop-out for the municipal governments to try to impose that burden on a provincial Crown corporation and have us collect yet another tax.
I put forward a variety of options as we worked through it. All of those were rejected, particularly those that involved the municipal tax base. My position from the outset was, and still is today, that it makes sense to devolve the authority over transportation to the local authorities. But that also means that they have to take responsibility -- financially -- for running and managing the system.
What we have to date is a situation where the province pays all the bills and the municipal governments involved in the transit system want complete control. I even said that we'd maintain our existing subsidy and they could pay incremental additions to the system out of their local tax base. Remember that in Kelowna, Powell River or any other municipality in British Columbia, municipal governments run the transit system with B.C. Transit, and they pay for a share of it through property taxes. But in Vancouver, the lower mainland and Victoria, they have not done so. The Victoria transit commission is now trying to move incrementally in that direction, but not Vancouver.
I decided that while I rejected the suggestion by Mayor Campbell for 1.5 cents per litre, we had significantly reduced their deficit through our operating efficiencies, and -- unfortunately -- we imposed a sales tax on parking receipts, which generates about $10 million. So I offered to give that to the local transit authority. And then they proposed a 1 cent-per-litre gas tax to make up their difference. I must say it's with a bit of reluctance that I come forward yet again to impose a further provincial tax, if you will, for the local funding deficit. Of course, it was unanimously approved -- not just by Mayor Campbell but by all others on the commission -- that they would support a 1 cent-per-litre gas tax, provided the province gave $10 million to the Transit Commission to make up their share.
So that's why it's here before you members of this House: the province is yet again giving a further $10 million annual subsidy to the Vancouver Regional Transit Commission from the sales tax receipts we receive on parking. And they've in turn proposed a 1 cent-per-litre gas tax to make up the difference, and I've brought it forward here today. I guess it's fair to say that it is broadly supported in the community among municipal politicians as a way to deal with funding. It does have some legitimacy -- I don't say it doesn't -- in terms of shifting people out of cars and into buses.
The biggest concern I have, which was raised by the Leader of the Opposition, is cross-border shopping. Fortunately, the devaluation of the dollar and some other measures we're taking have minimized that impact. It's a much better time for a gas tax than it was a year ago when it was first proposed -- if there is a good time -- because the pressure is less on cross-border shopping, the prices are lower, and through our actions we've managed to reduce the request from 1.5 cents to 1 cent per litre.
So that is why this is here. We've explored a series of options. Peat Marwick was engaged, and they came up
[ Page 8812 ]
with a range of options; all of those have been rejected by the Transit Commission.
C. Serwa: It's going to be a real pleasure to have a second reading debate on the amendment in committee. I'll take the same latitude that's been extended to the hon. minister, the hon. Leader of the Opposition and the hon. opposition party leader. Transit is incredibly important, indeed -- and I notice the Chair fidgeting a bit; nevertheless, I'll take the latitude that has been extended.
[7:45]
We agree that transit is very important. It's funny -- not really funny, but very strange -- that the government has departed so radically from the user-pay philosophy which they have imposed through increases in taxation on every other individual in the province. Whatever it is, the delivery of services.... For wharves on Okanagan Lake, for example, the taxation load is $600, I believe, and there's no cost other than administration. There's no user-pay philosophy, because this is central to the minister's home. The fact is that some 95 percent or more....
Interjection.
C. Serwa: Yes, on section 2.1. The fact is that more than 95 percent of transit costs are incurred in the lower mainland and in the Victoria region of the southern part of Vancouver Island. That's a reality.
What bothers my constituents, and constituents throughout British Columbia, is that every time one of our freight trucks goes down there we have to pay this additional levy. It's not 1 cent. It's a 25 percent increase in one year, and over a 100 percent increase over the previous year; that's what we've got here. This is absolute robbery on the part of taxation. It's not responsible action on the part of the government. There are a variety of options to tie it to local improvements and opportunities for those in the particular area. We've accepted proper tax and responsibility for the transit system, as the minister indicated, in the central Okanagan and in many other communities in this province.
I'm affronted by this 25 percent taxation increase that not only impacts on the local residents who benefit from transit in the lower mainland but also is an additional cost to all of us who travel by auto or who ship goods and freight from the interior to the coastal areas of the province. We have to pay the additional cost for those additional taxes. There's nothing wrong with a user-pay policy. If the demand is there and the service is required, the users should pay the cost of that facility, one way or the other. The users of that facility should be bearing the cost, not the general taxpayer of the province.
Interjections.
C. Serwa: I think the minister has been poorly advised in this particular matter. He is misguided and perhaps subjective in the ultimate decision, because it favours the constituencies in the lower mainland. It is unreasonable....
Some Hon. Members: Oh, oh!
C. Serwa: Heaven forbid that there is anything political in the decision to charge the rest of the people of the province 25 percent more for a system that they cannot use and will never use, but just happen to frequent Vancouver and the port.
In second reading, I stand in solid objection to this 25 percent increase outlined in the proposed amendment, section 2.1.
Some Hon. Members: It's 331/3 percent.
C. Serwa: Incredible! I thought the BCGEU wage increase of 6 percent, three times the inflation rate, was really something. Unconscionable! You will answer to the people for this, hon. minister.
R. Neufeld: I'm not going to make a speech on this. I have one quick question. I'm doing the committee like the committee should be done, not second reading. "Section 2.1 shall be deemed to have come into force on July 1, 1993 and is retroactive to the extent necessary to give it effect on and after that date." How do you go back to July 1 with a gas tax? Should that be changed?
The Chair: Order, please. That part of the amendment hasn't been moved yet. We're dealing with section 2.
R. Neufeld: Okay.
Amendment approved on division.
Section 2 as amended approved on division.
The Chair: There's another amendment on the order paper, which is a consequence of this. We're going to section 11.
On section 11.
Hon. G. Clark: This is a consequential amendment, which is precisely what the member asked about. I'll answer the question now so he doesn't have to ask it again.
When these kinds of tax statutes are brought into the House and made effective on a certain date, the tax is implemented then. Unfortunately for someone who lives in Vancouver, the 1 cent per litre was applied July 1. The oil companies simply pass it on immediately. It's already been collected and is there subject to approval by the House.
G. Wilson: Has it been applied to the consumer, or has it just been applied to the company that will be liable?
Hon. G. Clark: It's basically applied to the company. The tax officials in the Ministry of Finance
[ Page 8813 ]
inform the oil companies of an amendment that's before the House to raise the gas tax by 1 cent. It was a matter of public debate; the Transit Commission passed it; it was on the front page of the Vancouver Sun. They voluntarily impose the tax, subject to the House passing it. It has been in effect since July 1, and that's why this is what we call a consequential amendment, really.
Amendment approved.
Section 11 as amended approved.
Hon. G. Clark: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; D. Streifel in the chair.
Bill 18, Motor Fuel Tax Amendment Act, 1993, reported complete with amendments to be considered at the next sitting after today.
Hon. G. Clark: Hon. Speaker, I call second reading on Bill 46.
TOBACCO TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1993
J. Weisgerber: I had anticipated that we would hear something from the minister. Are we in the process of doing that? Having had one or two of these pass in this way, I was reluctant not to take my place.
Deputy Speaker: Hon. Leader of the Third Party, the bill has not been moved yet.
J. Weisgerber: All right.
Hon. G. Clark: I'll make some remarks at the end of the debate. If I could, I will make some preliminary remarks on second reading. Essentially, we've had some significant problems with smuggling and some problems associated with the sale of tobacco products on native reserves to individuals who aren't eligible for the tax relief that is available to aboriginal people. The Ministry of Finance tobacco tax collectors do a superb job. I think it's fair to say -- and I don't say that just because of my bias -- that the Ministry of Finance in British Columbia does a better job than virtually every province in Canada. The very difficult problem of smuggling, particularly tobacco products, is such that if it gets out of hand, it's much tougher to enforce and to maintain the integrity of the system. Where you get a very serious smuggling problem, even if you toughen up the regulations after the fact, it's very difficult to turn it off.
We obviously have a smuggling situation, and I'm not saying otherwise, but it is less significant in B.C. than it is in virtually any other province. We also have a very enlightened aboriginal leadership that is concerned about some of the consequences associated with the illegal sale of tobacco and spirits. Some of the problems that existed back east, which I don't have to mention, had their roots in the sale of these products. As a result, since I've been here -- and prior to arriving in this position of Finance minister -- there have been a series of amendments to try to deal with these questions. Some of the original amendments, which were very creative approaches by the Ministry of Finance to curtail the smuggling, were struck down in court. As a result, there was a dramatic increase in smuggling for a period. Then legislation was brought in last year to deal with that. On appeal, the government of B.C. was successful.
I'm giving you a long background, but we now have in place in this bill before you what we think is very sensitive and very good legislation which enables us to better police tobacco products. If I could give a lay interpretation for a second, one of the things that the bill contemplates is called a tax marking system. As you know, if tobacco is sold without the appropriate tax, there's no way of tracking it. If you go to a grocery store or a gas station and buy cigarettes, right now as we speak, you have no way of knowing whether tax was paid on them. Potentially, some individuals are illegally selling wholesale to retail outlets. What this enables us to do is to require the manufacturer to print a label on the cigarette that says either "tax paid" or "tax free." If a grocery store or a gas station were to illegally purchase tax-free cigarettes for resale, this will enable the tax inspectors to see if there is a big mark across them that says "tax-free cigarettes."
It is a very simple thing that started back east. Ontario requires this, I'm quite sure, to deal with their very serious problems. We're not at that stage; we want to get out in front of it. The ministry has worked very hard on this question. It's basically a question of the integrity of the tax system, and I think it's good public policy. It's been through a lot of consultation with various parties. Again, we have a good record. There have been some ups and downs in trying to provide enforcement in court cases and the like. Even though we are currently successful in court, we think this new regime of regulating tobacco sales is a significant improvement. It will allow us to continue to do a good job in British Columbia before we get the serious problems that exist in other parts of the country.
F. Gingell: I don't intend to speak for many moments on this bill, because we support the efforts of the government to stop illegal and improper smuggling of tobacco products as a matter of principle. When one goes through the details of the bill, parts of it seem a little like overkill, but I would hope that we will have the opportunity to discuss that in committee stage.
With that, I advise the House that we will support the bill in principle but want to discuss some of the horrendous penalties brought in under it.
J. Weisgerber: It's a pleasure to rise and speak to Bill 46. We too support moves to control, reduce and in any way constrain tobacco smuggling or any other kind of smuggling. I know that it's a problem. I know that the increasing tax on cigarettes and the increasing cost of cigarettes.... I'm not being critical of the decision to tax cigarettes at all, but the reality is that cartons of
[ Page 8814 ]
cigarettes have become so valuable, and the amount of tax on them is such a significant part of the price, that there is an enormous temptation to smuggle and get around the tax.
[8:00]
Where I have difficulty is the notion that anyone in possession of more than five cartons of cigarettes is going to be presumed guilty of smuggling them unless they can prove otherwise. Last night on television, I saw a discussion in Ontario about human rights questions, where one was assumed guilty unless they could prove otherwise. It's tempting and easy for government to step over that line. I'm not sure that it's necessary. I'll be really interested, as we get into committee stage, to hear the rationale for that from the minister.
Again, nobody wants to make it easy for smugglers, but I can imagine situations -- and I'm sure most people thinking about it could envision them -- where, for very legitimate reasons, there might be more than five cartons of cigarettes in a household. To be able to come in and suggest to someone that because they have these cigarettes in their possession, they are guilty and it's now their obligation to prove to us that they are not.... Again, one would expect that with reasonable people making these inquiries and enforcing this, it may not be a difficulty, but any of us who have been through customs checks know that from time to time, the person asking the questions doesn't seem to be quite as reasonable as you might have hoped.
Interjections.
J. Weisgerber: There is, I suppose, a tendency to trivialize those kinds of things, and indeed the members opposite can do that if they wish. The reality is that it's a serious change in some of the fundamental values that we have. Quite honestly, regardless of what laws are broken or the circumstances, I am very reluctant to see us move the onus for proof of innocence to someone who is simply presumed to be guilty. So the only hesitation I have about this legislation is with section 5; it's a serious reservation about the need for those restrictions and requirements.
As we get into committee stage of the bill, I will be interested to follow a bit more with the Premier-in-waiting some of the nuances around the "tax-free" and "tax-paid" stamps, particularly as they would relate to cigarettes sold to aboriginal people, where the tax is not paid and cigarettes which are intended for resale by aboriginal people. I would be interested to know how those will be stamped, because it poses some real questions when it is taken in conjunction with section 5, which says that if you have more than five cartons of these cigarettes, you may well be called on to prove that you're innocent and that you have obtained them legitimately.
So with those couple of reservations, I will vote for Bill 46, and I'm sure other members of the caucus will also.
Hon. G. Clark: I share a lot of the sentiments of the member opposite in terms of concern. One of the problems with these tax collection bills is that when you read them, they tend to appear quite draconian. Of course, all tax collection bills tend to do that, because they're trying to restrict the ability to evade them. So I share the concerns, and I look forward to the debate.
If I could, I would just say that the member made one point that argues against himself a little. He is correct: five cartons of cigarettes in someone's car could open them up to questions; but combined with the tax marking system, that is not as draconian as you would think. It's not just stopping everybody and saying that they are guilty of trying to resell cigarettes if they have five cartons in your car. There obviously have to be five cartons in their car with a big mark across them saying "tax free," which they would have to then justify.
Anyway, we'll go through it. The bill hangs together a little better, and maybe it will give a bit more comfort to members, I hope, that it's not as draconian as it might appear upon plain reading of some sections of the bill in isolation. With that, I move second reading of this bill.
Motion approved.
Bill 46, Tobacco Tax Amendment 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. G. Clark: I call committee on Bill 29.
PROPERTY TAXATION STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 1993
The House in committee on Bill 29; D. Streifel in the chair.
Section 1 approved.
On section 2.
Hon. G. Clark: There's a package of amendments that I believe opposition parties have, and I move the amendment at this time.
[SECTION 2, by deleting the proposed section 2 and substituting the following:
2. Section 1 of the Home Owner Grant Act, S.B.C. 1980, c. 18, is amended by adding the following definitions:
"farm outbuildings" means improvements, other than a residence, that are on land classified as farm under the Assessment Act and that are used in connection with the farm operation;
"residential value" means the value of property, other than farm outbuildings, that is classified under the Assessment Act as Class 1 property;.]
[SECTION 3, by deleting the proposed section 3 and substituting the following
3. Section 2 is amended by adding the following subsection:
(2.2) Notwithstanding subsections (1) and (2), if
(a) the net taxable residential value for school purposes of an eligible
[ Page 8815 ]
residence as assessed under the Assessment Act, or
(b) the amount determined under subsection (2.3) for an eligible residence
exceeds $400 000, the amount of the grant shall be reduced at the rate of $10 for every $1 000 of residential value in excess of $400 000.
(2.3) If an eligible residence consists of the owner's principal residence and one or more other residences, the net residential value for school purposes of the eligible residence as assessed under the Assessment Act shall be divided for the purposes of subsection (2.2) by the total number of residences.
(2.4) In subsection (2.3), "other residence" means a detached house, cottage or other self-contained residential dwelling unit that has cooking, sleeping, bathroom and livingroom facilities, but does not include a suite or other accommodation in the owner's principal residence.
On the amendment.
Hon. G. Clark: I'm sure the opposition parties will support the amendment. It's one of these things that take place from time to time when you're changing a tax statute. I want to give entire credit for these amendments to the member for Burnaby-Edmonds. I'll tell you exactly what happened.
The elimination of the homeowner grant for homes valued over $450,000 and the scaling-down of the homeowner grant after $400,000 is an initiative that's here for debate. We had the case of someone who owns a strata-titled duplex -- they own both of them separately -- and one side is rented out. You're eligible for the homeowner grant for the home you live in, but because the other half that you're renting out is strata-titled, you would be eligible for the homeowner grant for that half as well. However, someone in exactly the same circumstance who owns a duplex and lives in one-half and rents out the other half but has not strata-titled it would, under the rules, have to declare the entire value of the duplex, which in many cases would be beyond the $450,000 and therefore ineligible for the homeowner grant.
From my perspective, and certainly from the perspective of the member for Burnaby-Edmonds, that is completely unfair. The member for Burnaby-Edmonds does, I believe, own a fair amount of property, but he was representing a particular constituent, and I think he made a very good case in terms of fairness of the tax system. Regardless of what one thinks of eliminating the homeowner grant at any level, I want to make sure that we try to apply it consistently. This package of amendments is designed to allow the person who lives in one-half of a duplex to declare, for the purposes of the homeowner grant, half the value of the duplex, to make it consistent with someone who owns a duplex but has it strata-titled. In that respect I think it's good news. I hope all members support it.
That's the purpose of the amendments. Like any amendment, they look more complex than what I've just described, but they're designed to do precisely that.
J. Weisgerber: Just for clarification, the amendment to the act that I was given had several other sections to it dealing with farm property, farm buildings, definitions of residential value and a transition provision under section 7. Are we moving all of these?
Hon. G. Clark: Just for the clarification of the committee, what I spoke to a minute ago is the main purpose of the amendment to section 3, but there are a few others.
The amendment to section 2 means that farm outbuildings are not counted in the assessed value. We want to make sure that we're dealing with the assessed value of the principal residence; we don't count them as part of the overall assessed value. Also, there's just a definitional change: "residential value" means the value of a property. So it's a positive amendment, but a minor one. The more major amendment, that I mentioned earlier, is the amendment to section 3.
The Chair: For clarification of the committee, and the Chair, we're on the amendment to section 2.
J. Weisgerber: There are a series of amendments here to section 2.... I'm going to have to sit back for a minute. It seems to me the minister described amendments under section 3 while we were on section 2. Now he's described the amendments under section 2 -- and we still have section 7 to go then.
Amendment approved.
Section 2 as amended approved.
On section 3.
Hon. G. Clark: I move the amendment to section 3, which the Clerk has, and which I described fully under the previous section. This is the section that Mr. Randall deserves full credit for, in terms of convincing me and the government that the duplex anomaly should be fixed, and so we've done that with the amendment to section 3.
R. Neufeld: Just a quick clarification: would that also apply to a triplex? I don't have the amendment in front of me. As long as it applies to anything, a fourplex or whatever, that's fine.
Hon. G. Clark: Just for the record, it does apply exactly in that circumstance.
Amendment approved.
On section 3 as amended.
F. Gingell: I ask for a little indulgence from the Chair, because I wasn't here when second reading of
[ Page 8816 ]
this bill was presented. It was one of these things that happens when there's an agenda one moment, the government changes it the next moment, and they change it again the third moment, and so it goes on -- they look down the list, throw a dart in the board and up comes Bill 29.
Interjection.
F. Gingell: You know how I feel.
To me, the concept or the philosophy of reducing homeowner grants is nonsensical. The purpose of the homeowner grant originally -- and I remember it well, because I was on the school board at the time -- was to be a form of assistance against the payment of school taxes. Whether we need to look at the way schools are financed, and whether there should be any property tax proportion of them, is not, I think, a subject for debate at this time, and I think both sides of the House feel that way. The only thing I'd like to mention about that is that this particular government, before they were elected, promised in their election manifesto that they would remove the cost of schools from property taxes. I'd be pleased to see that happen.
[8:15]
But what they've done here is create an anomaly in the tax that has very different consequences to people in different parts of the province. I have a suggestion for the minister, because I think it is a solution that will appeal to him. He well understands the problem of the value of building lots in Victoria or in Vancouver compared to the price of those properties in other areas of the province. He has linked the ability to pay to the assessed value of these properties. But what's really involved is the type of home. If people are living in a big home with seven bedrooms and seven bathrooms and quarters for the maids, and those kinds of things, the minister is suggesting that they are able to pay a little more in the way of school taxes by losing their homeowner grant. But he has heard case after case of circumstances where the assessed value properties caused a dramatic problem -- dramatic as far as this is concerned and even more dramatic than the proposed property surtax. The solution -- and I would really like the minister to seriously consider this -- is to apply this calculation only to the value of the building and not to the value of the land. I would suggest to you that we can make that amendment now if you would consider it, because it's the sensible solution. I still think that it is not as good a solution as changing the whole method of funding schools, but it is the solution here.
It takes care of the problem in the true case of the 89-year-old gentleman, a retired CN employee, who lives on waterfront property in West Vancouver that they bought in 1929 before the Lions Gate Bridge was built and that has an assessed value of $1,083,000. The house is assessed at $1,500, and the land is assessed at $1,081,500. He has a pension of around $20,000 a year. Of course, the circumstances under the property surtax would have been a disaster for him, but he's still going to suffer under this situation.
It seems to me that the solution is so simple. You reconsidered the consequences of the property surtax and withdrew it. Reconsider the consequences of this and make the change to apply the reduction of the homeowner grant just to the value of the building; leave out the value of the land.
Hon. G. Clark: That suggestion has been made, and I will certainly review it for next year. I don't think it's likely. I want to give a bit of background for members of the committee, just so we're clear. I know that the homeowner grant is broadly supported. Every province in Canada used to have a homeowner grant or some version of a property tax subsidy. The homeowner grant was brought in, as you know, by W.A.C. Bennett. Every province in Canada, except for Manitoba and British Columbia, has abolished the homeowner grant or their version of a property tax credit -- pretty well every one. The only other province that has a kind of universal program like ours is Manitoba, and the Conservative government, in the budget that was passed at exactly the same time as ours in this province, cut it in half for everybody -- a dramatic wiping out of the property tax subsidy for homeowners.
Obviously, in the budget process, given our fiscal considerations, the government and I considered eliminating the homeowner grant, because it's hard to justify a continued subsidy program for property taxes when you're dealing with the other costs of government.
F. Gingell: School taxes.
Hon. G. Clark: Well, it's for school taxes in the lower mainland, but in many regions of the province it pays for more than school taxes. That's another question one could look at. In terms of the committee here, regardless of who's in power, it's going to be very challenging for governments, regardless of ideology, to maintain these kinds of universal subsidy programs across the board. That's true of social programs as well as property or school tax subsidies from the provincial taxpayer. We decided not to eliminate the homeowner grant, because it is popular and broadly supported. It is an attempt to deal with some of the problems associated with school tax burdens placed on property tax payers. Instead, what we decided to do was shave off the top. Less than 5 percent of homeowners had their homeowner grant reduced or eliminated. The other 95 percent had a very modest increase in their homeowner grant.
I appreciate that it is a legitimate matter for debate in here, but it is a very moderate response to difficult fiscal circumstances and is much more moderate than any other province in Canada. I appreciate that it's difficult for those 4 or 5 percent of the province who had their homeowner grant reduced or eliminated. When you look across the country, I think it's a very temperate and moderate response under difficult fiscal circumstances to try to protect the homeowner grant for 95 percent of the people and phase it out for the top 5 percent.
J. Weisgerber: The difficulty with the decision to phase out or reduce the homeowner grant on certain properties was that it seemed to those people that they had been singled out, identified and somehow
[ Page 8817 ]
assaulted -- if not by a tax, at least by a reduction in some tax relief. I think too, quite fairly, that people saw this as the start of the elimination of the homeowner grant. They saw the supplemental homeowner grant go last year and they saw the threshold here at $400,000. Those folks who had reasonably long memories remembered other taxes that were brought in at a relatively low threshold and climbed their way up. They saw income surtaxes brought in at a relatively high level and move their way down. Many people read into this the beginning of the end of the homeowner's grant. That would be unfortunate. It would be a tragedy.
The better approach that is obviously still under consideration -- at least I take from the minister's words that the decision hasn't been made -- is to simply look for new ways to finance education. We've got to move education out of the property taxation area. That will pose challenges of its own. Rather than simply doing away with the homeowner's grant, which I would fiercely oppose, it would be far more positive to consider getting education off property and taxing property for those services that property receives. There's no correlation or service relationship between education and property. It's been a handy way of financing education, but there's really no relationship between property ownership and value and service from education.
I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this as well. I realize that we are getting somewhat off the topic of second reading.
Hon. G. Clark: Maybe it's being a Finance minister, but this is the second time tonight where I find myself not really agreeing with the Leader of the Third Party but having a substantial amount of agreement with what the member is saying. I'm not sure whether that means he should come over here or, more appropriately, that I should go over there.
Interjection.
Hon. G. Clark: My colleagues are urging me to cross the floor.
I want to make it very clear that it was my very strong view that eliminating or phasing out the homeowner grant for 5 percent of the population was in order to protect the homeowner grant for the other 95 percent. We have no intention of abolishing or reducing the homeowner grant. I agree with the member that it is a fear that people have, and that's an argument, and I certainly understand why they might. The member made that point better than I will tonight. That's not our intention; we have no intention of doing that. Quite the contrary, we want to try the best we can to try to maintain the homeowner grant.
All I can say for the committee is that no province in Canada has been able to hang on to this grant program, except for us. Admittedly we phased it out for 4 or 5 percent of the population. That's not something I wanted to do, and I hope, if the fiscal situation improves, that we can in fact restore it down the road. But frankly speaking, I think this is a very challenging fiscal environment we are in, and it's going to be extremely difficult.
I think the member has made some excellent points about the question of funding schools and whether property tax is an appropriate vehicle. It's an age-old one. I want to say for members of the committee that property taxes now fund about 13 percent of the cost of schools, so it's not as if they are the dominant source of revenue for education financing -- and that 13 percent is barely more than existed when we took office. As we have increased the education budget, we have not loaded up on property taxpayers to pay for it. In fact, the proportion has been more or less constant. It's a little higher. I think it was 12 percent when we took office; and now 13 percent of the education budget is paid for by school property taxes -- in spite of some of the changes the member has alluded to. It is not the dominant source of education financing, although it's a very visible form of taxation which, as a property owner, I know hurts very much when you have to make that cheque out once a year.
So it's very visible and one which is not very popular. We are going to do the best we can -- I say this for the committee -- to protect the homeowner grant and to try to even enhance it. That's what we want to do. We think it's a program which, although expensive, is one that largely cushions the property tax payer from the burden of school taxes. But it's going to be very challenging indeed.
As I said at the outset, this is a moderate response to those fiscal pressures, and I appreciate -- and again agree with the member -- that some people felt it was unfair. In fact, we were trying to protect the vast majority of people, and we did -- 95 percent of British Columbians. So we just phased it out at the top end, and I appreciate those individuals are not happy about that. It doesn't make me happy, either ideologically or politically or any other way, and we're going to continue to monitor this and review it as best we can.
F. Gingell: Could the minister please advise us of the amount of additional revenues the province will receive in the way of school taxes through the reductions in the homeowner grant, and at the same time perhaps advise us of the cost of the increase in the homeowner grant?
Hon. G. Clark: The answer to both questions is about $20 million. Again, that reinforces my views. We wanted to try to maintain the homeowner grant and also maintain it at that level, so that if school taxes were rising there was a corresponding rise. We looked at it. The costs were in the $30 million range. Every other province in Canada is eliminating it or dramatically cutting their subsidy. So we said: "How can we find the $20 million, or thereabouts, required to raise it?" That's precisely why it phases out at the $440,000 assessed-value mark. That's what was required to pay for the very modest increase for 95 percent of British Columbians.
J. Weisgerber: Just as a matter of clarification, a reference to "Budget '93: Choices and Challenges"
[ Page 8818 ]
suggests that the cost of the increased homeowner grant was in fact $15 million and the recovery as a result of elimination $20 million.
Hon. G. Clark: I apologize to members of the committee. That was my original intent, but the actual number is $15 million for the cost of the increased homeowner grant and $20 million for the elimination. The logic is that applying the 3 or 4 percent increase for everybody would have been closer to $20 million, but because of the elimination at the top end, it ended up being an extra $5 million. When one looks across the country, it is again proof that we've done a good job of protecting the bulk of the homeowner grant.
Section 3 as amended approved.
Sections 4 to 6 inclusive approved.
On section 7.
Hon. G. Clark: I move the following amendment to section 7, which I have handed to the Chair.
[SECTION 7.1, by adding the following section:
Transitional provision for the 1993 tax year
7.1 (1) Where the gross property taxes for the 1993 tax year have been paid on an eligible residence described in section 2(2.3) of the Home Owner Grant Act before that section was enacted by section 3 of this Act, the person who was the owner of the eligible residence at the time the property taxes were paid may apply to the collector on or before December 31, 1993 for any amount that, as a result of section 2(2.3) of the Home Owner Grant Act, that person is entitled to receive as a grant for that tax year.
(2) An application under subsection (1) must be made on the form approved by the grant administrator.
(3) Where the collector approves an application under subsection (1), the Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations shall pay the amount approved to the owner out of the consolidated revenue fund.
(4) In this section "collector" and "grant administrator" have the same meaning as in the Home Owner Grant Act.]
On the amendment.
Hon. G. Clark: I will just clarify this transitional provision for members. I made the amendment before about duplexes and triplexes, which I described in great detail. There are individuals who have not received the homeowner grant, because we have passed that deadline and the municipalities have mailed them out. Because we are bringing in changes to that to allow them to claim it, essentially retroactively, we require a transitional provision, which means that when they're up for their next payment, they won't have to pay; they'll be able to declare it at that time. So the purpose of the transitional amendment is to deal with that fairly small number of people -- but I'm sure I've heard from every one of them who is in that position.
I would just say to members of government and the opposition that from time to time we try to listen to members who have complaints. The member for Burnaby-Edmonds was absolutely dogged in his determination that this was unfair, and he sat in my office repeatedly to ensure that this happened. From time to time I want to acknowledge that, simply because I know that it's important that when members of the House who are not members of the executive council have pursued something very aggressively -- and this clearly is a very positive initiative, and I know that it's is supported by all members of the House -- they should be recognized and given full credit in making such changes to legislation.
[8:30]
J. Weisgerber: Now that we know how to get tax changes, I hope that you'll put a coffee machine in your office, because there may be quite a crowd sitting around there.
The Chair: For clarification of the committee, we will be calling section 7 first, and then the amendment -- or section 7.1, as it appears on the paper here.
Section 7 approved.
Section 7.1 approved.
Section 8 approved.
Title approved.
Hon. G. Clark: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Bill 29, Property Taxation Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1993, reported complete with amendment.
The Speaker: When shall the bill be considered as reported?
Hon. G. Clark: With leave now.
Leave granted.
The Speaker: The motion before you is third reading of Bill 29.
Motion approved on division.
Bill 29, Property Taxation Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1993, read a third time and passed.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I call committee on Bill 42.
[ Page 8819 ]
CABINET APPEALS ABOLITION ACT
The House in committee on Bill 42; D. Streifel in the chair.
On section 1.
A. Warnke: I just have a very quick question. The member for Peace River North may elaborate on this, and I'll be most anxious to hear what he has to say. My question is on section 1, but in a sense it's related to some of the other sections of the bill. During second reading we pointed out that this section and others disallow the right to appeal to cabinet. We've heard the reasons for it, and when we reflect on some examples that have occurred in the past, the principles are fairly sound. Yet, as we explored during second reading, there is the question of whether directing that right to appeal to cabinet to some other body moves us away from some sort of administrative responsibility. So there's a bit of philosophy here that I want to explore with the minister.
The other point that was raised during second reading also applies to some other sections, but I want to explore it in the context of section 1; rather than repeat myself, it will suffice for those other sections as well. That point is that the recourse to an appeal seems to be limited to errors of law. In other words, if there are some errors of legal logic, an appeal can be allowed.
Interjection.
A. Warnke: One of my colleagues says that legal logic is an oxymoron. That may well be, except to those who have been trained in legal thought. On the other hand, he was trained in legal thought. Maybe he knows something.
So there are two aspects here. First, the philosophy of moving or shifting away -- or the appearance of shifting away -- from making an appeal to cabinet gets us away from ministerial responsibility because we're shifting the onus somewhere else. I understand the summary remarks that the Attorney General made, but nonetheless, I would like some response to that. Secondly, the recourse to an appeal seems to be limited to errors of legal logic. What about those cases where perhaps an appeal is warranted, but it's not based strictly on legal inconsistency?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I think we have a very straightforward provision here. Under the existing legislation, applications to add land to the agricultural land reserve from municipalities, regional districts and also owners of land have to have a cabinet decision. I was going to say cabinet "routinely deals with" them. It feels like it routinely deals with these issues, given my role of chairing the legislation committee for cabinet, but I understand there are around 50 of these applications a year. These are routine applications for inclusion into the ALR. This provision, section 1, will simply give to the ALC the right to add those lands to the reserve.
H. De Jong: I'm not planning to belabour section 1 all that long. At the same time, though, the agricultural land reserve was established by cabinet and legislation following that -- or vice versa; but the boundaries of the ALR were initially set by legislation under cabinet's jurisdiction. It seems strange that with this amendment cabinet now wants to withdraw itself completely. What is the basic intent of that? Why is cabinet withdrawing from something that this province and the government generally have been reasonably proud of -- the establishment of an agricultural land reserve?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: This principle is in keeping with the general thrust of the legislation, which we debated in second reading. It is to take from cabinet the authority to make decisions about inclusion or exclusion of land with respect to ALC and ALR issues. I think both parties over several governments in the last 20 years have had an honourable list of members on the Agricultural Land Commission. They are people respected in their communities who have a good track record of making decisions. We're talking about technical decisions here, whether or not land should be included in the agricultural land reserve because it has an agricultural capability -- an agricultural assessment in the small-a sense of that word.
It's our view, and it's the view of many in our society, that these decisions shouldn't be behind closed doors; they should be made by a body appointed to make them. If the decisions by that body are bad, then the people on the commission can be changed. But to have cabinet make decisions about applications from landowners to add particular parts of their landholdings to the ALR doesn't make sense -- there's no logic. In all the time that I've been in cabinet, which perhaps isn't very long compared to other members of the House, we haven't denied an application. These are matters that should properly be in the domain of the Agricultural Land Commission, which, by statute, is given the authority to make decisions about the technical capabilities of the land. That's what we're talking about here.
I'll go back to a little of the second reading debate. In the early seventies a decision was made, rightly or wrongly -- I strongly feel it was right -- that, with very little agricultural land, we in this province needed to do what we could to preserve that land so it would be available for agricultural purposes in perpetuity, hopefully. At the same time, we recognized that government had an obligation to provide programs to ensure farmers could operate with some viability on that land, and that was the other side of the issue. Hopefully, those programs will continue.
[8:45]
To go back to the point without belabouring it, we really believe that if the Legislature says agricultural land should be preserved because it has an intrinsic value as agricultural land, then it's a technical question, not a political question to be decided behind closed doors by a group of politicians. It is a decision to be determined in an open process by a body appointed to administer the law as the Legislature has enacted it.
[ Page 8820 ]
H. De Jong: The minister mentions closed doors. When we talk about decisions being made behind closed doors, it's something the public would have some sympathy with. Yet I think that the government should realize that even though the amendments, additions or the deletions by the Agricultural Land Commission may be to some degree technical decisions, there is also a very principled point in the whole establishment of the agricultural land reserve. I therefore question whether removing that decision-making entirely from cabinet is right.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: This is an echo of the second reading debate, and we clearly divide on this point. I don't think it's appropriate to canvass the second reading debate again. There is a difference of opinion and philosophy, and that's good. It enables voters to make a decision about which of us they will choose in the next election.
Section 1 approved.
On section 2.
H. De Jong: I have greater difficulty with section 2 than section 1, because again, it's the preservation of farmland and of that very principled point. In section 2, we are leaving this totally in the hands of a few appointed people, embraced by an army of bureaucrats, to make decisions on applications by regional districts, municipalities or individuals for the release of land for whatever purposes from the agricultural land reserve. I have some real difficulty with leaving that totally to a committee without an appeal process to another body. I suppose that in further sections we will get to the actual appeal processes that are still contemplated.
[R. Kasper in the chair.]
Requests for releases from the agricultural land reserve, if they were not supported by municipalities -- particularly when it came to community growth plans to allow communities to expand, which were in most cases supported by municipalities or regional districts -- would many times not come to the cabinet. I have some real difficulty moving this totally within the Agricultural Land Commission and it being the appeal board for a decision that they have already made, simply because it removes a lot of the local autonomy from the whole process. While we are talking about a very special type of land for preservation, I believe that equally essential is the logical expansion of land use for residential areas. It should be noted that in most areas where there is a base of agricultural land, there are also towns, cities and villages. They were built there because of the agricultural components in such valleys, and they have chosen their own governments to represent them. I believe that through the proposed changes to the appeal process -- the minister stated in second reading that there will still be some appeal process -- a lot of that local autonomy is going to be lost.
It may sound good in terms of it being more difficult -- or, as the minister said, in terms of these decisions being made behind closed doors. In any level of government, when it comes to land use, development of zoning bylaws and community plans, a lot of discussion occurs behind closed doors before a government finally presents a decision to the public, or perhaps gets public reaction to a proposed decision that they have studied for some time. I believe that the process contemplated in this type of appeal is insufficient, and it lacks public input from the local community, as well as local autonomy.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Before I respond to the member, I have to say that I earlier neglected to introduce the two people who are beside me. Given that at least in one case it's probably a first appearance, I think I should do that. On my right is Erin Shaw, who works in the legislation branch of the Ministry of Attorney General, and on my left is Daphne Stancil, director of the legislation branch of the Ministry of Agriculture. They are here to help prevent me from making mistakes. Any mistakes I make are my responsibility, and I should be held accountable; not them.
The member asserts that there is a loss of local autonomy as a result of the changes in section 2. That's not the case at all. The old system that we are attempting to replace required an individual who was making an application for exclusion to be heard by the Agricultural Land Commission, and there was no appeal to that. Applications made by municipalities or regional districts for exclusion could go to cabinet. Prior to that, there had to be a local public hearing for local autonomy concerns to be heard.
Let's just deal with the regional and municipal applications, because those are really what we're talking about here. The old process was a local hearing, on through the ALC and then to cabinet. This process continues local hearings. There continues to be local discussion about the issue. The final decision is changed, and that's what the amendment does. Before the amendment, the final decision would be made by cabinet; not locally at all. Under this process, the final decision will be made by the Agricultural Land Commission, which spends all its time dealing with ALC and ALR issues, as opposed to cabinet, which spends a miniscule amount of its time dealing with those issues. On top of that, cabinet isn't accountable in any public way, because it makes the decisions behind the scenes. No one knows whether there was justice being done at the table; no one knows whether cabinet heard all the arguments that should be heard; no one knows whether all of the presentations on the varying sides of an issue were actually heard. There is a denial of natural justice when that happens in a closed setting like that.
There is no diminution in local autonomy; that continues, in terms of the local public hearing. The final decision changes from a political decision in cabinet to a technical decision by the Agricultural Land Commission. We think that is better; the former
[ Page 8821 ]
government doesn't. That is a difference of opinion between us.
H. De Jong: Can the minister perhaps enlighten us on whether the mandate of the Agricultural Land Commission has been changed in order to take up this new challenge? I believe that if a parcel of land is to be used for community expansion, then the body that deals with that appeal process and has to make that final decision should have a broader mandate than simply the preservation of farmland.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The mandate is not changed, as the member knows. The member suggests that there should be a broader mandate. We think the mandate is clear and sufficiently broad now. The primary mandate of the Agricultural Land Commission is to preserve farmland; that is what they look at first. But as every member in this House knows, they also look at other issues. All of us can cite examples of agricultural land in communities around this province that has been taken out of the reserve by the commission for dealing with local pressures. I know that that happened in my old hometown in the south end of the Okanagan Valley, and I know that it happens in my current hometown in the north end of Vancouver Island. Agricultural land gets excluded by the commission in order to deal with local pressures and realities. But the mandate is, first of all and primarily, that they look at the issue of agricultural land. Their task is to attempt to preserve it. They make decisions to exclude all the time, and sometimes those decisions are painful for those of us who believe that agricultural land is precious in this province.
H. De Jong: In that process, was it normally the regional board or municipality that would make the approach for exclusion, and support those exclusions? Perhaps there is still sometimes some fear by the Agricultural Land Commission -- being locally elected officials -- that it is a political process from the local community. Would the minister then perhaps suggest that in addition to an approach by the local elected authorities, the community, municipality or regional district where it occurs should appoint an advisory committee to look in a real way at whether the application makes sense, and whether it is needed in terms of economic growth -- be it residential, industrial or whatever? I do feel that if it simply stays as it is proposed, and as the minister has just explained, we will have a reaction on many occasions by the Agricultural Land Commission that it is overly political. That's why I'm suggesting that the minister consider it. Of course, it would eventually be a decision by each community to do that, but would it be considered advantageous in the decision-making process if such an advisory committee was established in the various communities when these decisions need to be made?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: There is an advisory committee, in a sense. The public in the community, by way of public hearing, are enabled to make their views known to the local government. That is probably the best combination of advice to local government about what they might or might not do. The public hearing is mandatory. That's a better way of doing it than suggesting they need to have some advisory body to add to the bureaucracy at the local level. I don't think that's necessary.
[9:00]
R. Neufeld: I have a number of questions. As I understand it, CORE is responsible for a provincial land use plan of some sort over a period of time. Shouldn't it be involved when new land is added to the ALR? I can see a bit of overlap here. Who really makes that decision? Do they make it in isolation of CORE?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The Agricultural Land Commission is involved at the local level whenever there is a local resource use plan being put together that has CORE involvement. To put that another way, if CORE is in the process of making decisions about land in a particular part of the province, and there are agricultural considerations at stake -- sometimes there are and sometimes there aren't -- the Agricultural Land Commission is involved in that process.
R. Neufeld: Under this new legislation, doesn't cabinet really retain the ultimate responsibility to deal with ALR decisions, under section 5, sections 28.2 and 28.6?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: We will get to the public interest considerations later as we go through committee. It is more appropriate to debate it at that stage, but the answer is yes, in some circumstances.
R. Neufeld: To be perfectly honest, I can't say that I have ever been involved in an ALR application for either removal or inclusion. But in the part of the country where I live, agricultural land is quite a bit different from agricultural land in the Fraser Valley, for instance. I have been lobbied a lot about land that is currently in the ALR that shouldn't be, specifically because it's on a steep hillside and was included because of maps, of surveys that were done back in 1974, probably, and it has always stayed in. Some people have tried to get that kind of land out of the agricultural land reserve -- and it's not good farmland; I'm talking about land that could have development of homes on it -- and have been unsuccessful, simply because, as the member noted earlier, the Agricultural Land Commission is really there to preserve agricultural land, not to take it out.
It's interesting to note that the minister doesn't believe that the mandate of the Agricultural Land Commission is going to change if you're going to give it this responsibility. I think it should be changed and that they should look at areas such as this. It's probably not peculiar to my area; I'll bet that there are probably some other areas that could easily have these same problems.
I'm not saying that I disagree with the ALR. I'm as concerned about farmland and keeping good farmland in the ALR as most British Columbians, I think. But I see some problems with keeping the mandate and not
[ Page 8822 ]
being able to remove some of that land from the ALR if it's not needed.
I want to just bring forward a few figures. The minister, during second reading and in debating this issue tonight, has talked about decisions made behind closed doors. I don't think he alluded to the fact that there was a tremendous amount of land removed from the ALR, but I get that feeling that that's what's trying to be put across. My records show that currently the ALR encompasses 4.7 million hectares: 99.6 percent of the area originally set aside by the NDP government in 1974. Very little land has been excluded -- very little. In fact, 92 percent of the land that was excluded from the ALR since 1974, was supported by the Agricultural Land Commission. Actually, very little land was taken out of the ALR specifically by cabinet on its own. Those are the numbers that I have, hon. minister.
I think at times it was done for reasons much the same as your cabinet dealt with the Six Mile Ranch issue, and for much the same reasons that your government is going to have to deal later on with issues that become a problem in the province. You have the ability to intervene under the act, and the government is going to have to intervene anyhow. So it really amazes me that we would just turn all that responsibility.... I think the people who made those decisions since 1974 probably looked at them very hard and very close -- they weren't taken lightly. I would bet that part of the reason why we have some of the land in the ALR today that's really not agricultural land is because they were very nervous about making decisions about taking land out.
But if we're not going to change the mandate a bit of the Agricultural Land Commission, how are we going to deal with these issues? Do they become boiler-head ones? You say that you have local autonomy on the commission -- that's right, we have a member from Peace River North. But that person's voice is not that great when it comes down to the lower mainland and trying to take land out of the Fraser Valley, or even land out of the Peace River to build a golf course -- which was done just recently too on good farmland.
So I think you have to change it a little bit, hon. minister, to be honest. I'm not being light about this, and I'm not trying to point fingers. I'm trying to say that there are going to be issues and times that those hard decisions are going to have to be made by cabinet. If we are not going to change the mandate of the Agricultural Land Commission in some way, where are we going to be five years from now? Obviously, the record speaks for itself. The previous governments, whether they were NDP or Socred, certainly didn't give away the farm and agricultural land. So it is an issue.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: First, it's important to acknowledge that the fine-tuning I think all of us think needs to happen with ALR land has not been concluded. The member obviously can talk quite knowledgably and accurately about situations in his constituency. I can do the same in mine, where land in the ALR is, in my view, in some cases better for a gravel pit, or for growing trees and should be in a forest reserve of some kind, or probably better off being part of the urban growth area in order to properly develop the community. In each of those three kinds of examples I cite, parts of the land are still in the ALR.
In my community it's not been a high priority for the Agricultural Land Commission to finish its redefining of the boundaries, which were done fairly arbitrarily in the first instance. They end up dealing with them as a response rather than in a way that gets ahead of the process. They end up responding to issues as they develop. I think it's fair to say. I don't know whether the ALC would agree with me or be happy with me saying that as directly as that. But I see it in Campbell River, so I know that to be a reality.
But it doesn't take cabinet to fix that; it takes the Agricultural Land Commission to fix that. Governments -- ours and previous ones -- have been unable to fund it properly to do the kind of real work that needs to be done, so that we can in fact get the boundaries defined properly. That's the first point.
The second point, because I detected two major issues the member was raising, is that the member suggests there were 4.7 million hectares at the time of the initial designation, and that's correct. Then the member says there are approximately 4.7 million hectares now and that there's been very little change. The fact is that in that intervening period there have been 92,000 hectares excluded and 82,000 hectares included -- up to 1988. That doesn't include the last four and a half years; the latest figures I have include '88. There have been quite a few exclusions and inclusions.
The former government had a nice little dodge that I didn't learn about until I got this job -- a very clever dodge.
Interjection.
[M. Lord in the chair.]
Hon. C. Gabelmann: No, we're going to get rid of the dodge.
The dodge was that if grazing leases were granted on Crown land to agriculturalists for grazing purposes and the land was in the forest reserve, it had to be added to the Agricultural Land Reserve at the same time as the lease was granted. So the numbers went way up for inclusions in agricultural land, to hide the fact that there were a whole bunch of exclusions in really prime important areas such as Terra Nova and others. It was a clever little dodge that no one cottoned onto. Give the old government credit for political smarts and for success at fooling us all, the press gallery and us included. Maybe others didn't miss it and picked up on and talked about it. But I missed it, for one -- maybe I'm the only one who did.
So the reality is that, up until '88, there have been 92,000 hectares excluded from the ALR in various ways. I'm not saying cabinet did it all, or all for political reasons. But anybody who voted in the last election sure had on their mind that cabinet had made decisions about prime farmland, in respect of whether it should be preserved or not or could be developed by a developer. Voters in this province, particularly in the
[ Page 8823 ]
lower mainland and many in the Okanagan, knew full well that decisions were made politically about whether land should be in or out. I cite Terra Nova only because it was the obvious major example. We say that that kind of process is wrong. The proponents of the issue, or the opponents, aren't given a fair opportunity to come to cabinet and make their case; it doesn't happen. There is a denial of natural justice in that process. The Canadian bar has made that point. Many organizations across the country that are concerned about natural justice issues, including the Law Reform Commission of Canada, make the point that cabinet decisions do not contain within them a natural justice process. They don't, and we think that's important.
However, we're straying. We're really back in second reading in many ways, because we're talking about whether or not cabinet or a body set up to make a decision should make the decision. As I've said before, and I'll say again and will probably say in the next election campaign -- and I'm looking forward to this debate -- we say that cabinet shouldn't; you say cabinet should.
R. Neufeld: When I posed my question, what I meant was that there is an issue here. There is something that has to be dealt with in regard to agricultural land. I was trying to make the point that almost all the agricultural land that was there in 1974 is still there. The minister brought forward allegations, and he was here -- I wasn't here -- through those years. I am going to correct or put on the record for the minister's information that 92 percent of the lands excluded from the ALR were supported by the ALC. When you talk about all these little shenanigans moving around, obviously when you were excluding land out of the ALR -- and that's what we're talking about -- 92 percent of it was supported by the Agricultural Land Commission. If the minister is making some reference to people in the past doing something shady, then obviously every person on the ALC was shady; I don't think so. I don't think that's what we're trying to say or to get at. The minister brought it up, so I just have to bring it back, that's all. I know some of those people on the ALC quite well, and have for quite a few years. I know that they are not shady characters who would do something negative toward the agricultural land reserve.
[9:15]
The minister brings forward some interesting arguments. I still say that it's not the answer. If you are going to change the decision-making, you still have to change some of the mandate to the Agricultural Land Commission so they can deal with issues that they are certainly going to have to deal with in times to come.
I want to put on the record again that cabinet, under Bill 42 -- though the minister stands up and says that we're going to take all those decisions away from cabinet, and we're not going to have them there anymore -- can still ultimately make the decision under this regulation. We'll deal with it later on in 28.2 and 28.6. Cabinet is still going to retain that right to a certain degree, so it's really not.... If the minister wants to take it totally out of cabinet, then take it right out. But you don't want to do that. That's exactly right, because then good decisions.... The leader of our party talked about the Six Mile Ranch decision. It was a good decision. We don't have any problem with it. Those are the issues I'm talking about, hon, minister. I didn't mean to get political, but I did. With that, I'll leave it.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Heaven forbid that politics would rear its ugly head in this chamber. It's the last place it should ever occur. It's better reserved for our friends above us over there.
I don't want to get political either. The member cites some facts, and I think they're right. For the most part it was decisions by the ALC, and those decisions will continue, as I said earlier. There's a lot of work yet to do in terms of ensuring that the boundaries are properly drawn. It's interesting to note that of 176 requests during the period from '74 through to the present, in 109 of them, or 62 percent, cabinet reversed the decision of the Agricultural Land Commission -- not a lot of acres, but high-profile acres; land that people care about. It's land that ends up at cabinet because there's a big debate about it.
What we're really talking about here isn't the bulk of agricultural land. We're not talking about the routine decisions that need to be made and the fine-tuning; we're talking about the small percentage of high-profile issues where in the past cabinet has decided, five times out of eight, to overturn the ALC decision. We say that's wrong except under certain circumstances, which we'll deal with in another section.
H. De Jong: In relation to section 3, I know that the minister....
The Chair: Just to clarify, member, we're on section 2.
H. De Jong: Okay, under section 2, then. We're still dealing with the appeal process. The minister sort of wandered off into second reading debate, and I may have to do a little of that as well, hon. Chair, in order to make my point.
The minister said that the fine-tuning of the agricultural land reserve hadn't been completed yet. Fine-tuning can be looked at in various ways, of course. It sounds like a good idea to fine-tune things, but there's also some real dangers in fine-tuning. It depends on the basis for fine-tuning. What if fine-tuning occurs mainly on the basis of the land classification? In the area where I live there's a mix of soils from class 3 right down to class 7 within a one-mile radius, and if the land commission wanted to fine-tune on that basis we would have all kinds of little hamlets of development all over the place. When we look at it in light of the agriculture environmental act that has just been circulated to the farming community, where the Minister of Environment puts forward some real restraints in terms of what a farmer can do, and at what times, I can see a public outcry at city councils to the provincial government for allowing this type of thing to happen.
Fine-tuning in terms of the land surrounding communities already I think is a good thing. If the need
[ Page 8824 ]
is there for growth and fine-tuning can be done on a reasonable basis to expand a community, great; but I would be very reluctant to see fine-tuning on the basis of land classification throughout a predominantly farming area, because then we are defeating the whole purpose of preserving farmland and the farmer. More than that, the other day I had a phone call from a person on a five-acre farm, and he said: "I understand that the government is now proposing a $2,500 minimum amount of produce to be produced from a five-acre farm. It is absolutely impossible to meet that goal, even though my total five acres, except where the house sits, is being farmed." Taking those things into consideration, if the government is indeed proceeding with that $2,500 as a minimum acceptable level in order to retain farm classification for a farmer, I can see many appeals going to the ALC for that five acres to come out of the ALR again, eventually defeating the preservation of farmland.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: It feels like the cabinet shuffle has happened; that I am the Minister of Agriculture, and we are in estimates.
Interjection.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I didn't know either, but here we are. It is really an estimates issue, and it is not really the issue that is at stake under section 2. I think that the member, who is well versed in agricultural land issues, knows that the land commission has documents that describe how they make the decisions. These are available publicly, and certainly to all applicants. Clearly, the viability of a parcel of land or of an area is a crucial issue in fine-tuning. You may have a lot of class 1 and 2 land, and there may be a little class 5, 6 or 7 in it, but you will want to keep the class 5, 6 or 7 land in the ALR in order to help the viability of the class 1 and 2 that surrounds it. I think the ALC considers those kinds of questions all the time in making their decisions.
As I said earlier, in general terms, they make decisions based on agricultural concerns, but they also make decisions based on regional and community objectives. They talk about non-farm use. They talk about other things they can do to ensure that surrounding land is protected from the encroachment of urban development if a piece that is agricultural needs to be used for urban development. Within the ALC there is an ability to consider all the issues that are of concern to local government. To get back to the point of the clause we are on, I think the ALC is in a much better position to make those kinds of decisions than is the cabinet.
[R. Kasper in the chair.]
The Chair: I'll just remind the hon. members to try to keep the debate to section 2.
C. Serwa: I am mindful of your comments. I will be talking specifically on section 2, but I will have to establish some foundation for my specific question.
I was down in my office a few minutes ago, so I have to take this opportunity to respond to the minister. The minister has accessed some facts, but he has unintentionally drawn some wrong conclusions. I have to respond to this -- with your goodwill, hon. Chair -- because the minister indicated that he would certainly use this in the next election.
With agricultural technology, what has happened in the northern areas of the province is that we are farming areas that we never before thought could be farmed, and we're doing it in a cost-effective way. A lot of the land north of Prince George, the geographic centre of the province -- in the Vanderhoof area, for example -- was not really considered viable agricultural land. But large tracts of that land have been cleared, originally on leases, and continue to be farmed. The farming income is fairly substantial. It was a tremendous amount of capital investment. I think the minister has to agree that it's only right that that land be included in the agricultural land reserve. That's the one point I wanted to make.
The minister had an idea that this covered up some sort of devious plot. The second part of that scenario, for the minister's information -- I think he is probably aware, but I'd like to reinforce it -- is the reality that when the Agricultural Land Commission drew up the boundaries of agricultural land in 1973, the Canada land soils inventory map was not completed for British Columbia. The lines were drawn wiggly-squiggly all over the place in a conservative effort to make certain that the farmland was covered. A lot of land with poor soil was included in the area marked out. Many areas in my constituency in the central Okanagan that have very steep slopes, bedrock and other things were included because it was an expedited process. The factual information was not readily available to the New Democratic Party government of the day. That's the second part of the story.
Since that time everyone, including the government, has talked about fine-tuning. No fine-tuning has taken place. The Agricultural Land Commission has made no effort to reassess on the basis of the Canada land inventory maps now established. I've seen no results. When we talk about land inclusions and exclusions, the minister has drawn the conclusion and perhaps unintentionally created the wrong impression for the people in the province.... Much of the land that has come out has no agricultural capability. I agree with the minister that some land -- Terra Nova, for example -- has fairly high agricultural capability. At some point the hon. minister's own government is going to have to make some hard decisions with respect to land in the densely populated and growing urban areas.
[9:30]
Part of the original design of the Agricultural Land Commission and the agricultural land reserve was to take due care and consideration for expanding communities and their growth. One of the first things that the government of the day did when they brought in the Agricultural Land Commission and the land reserve was to withdraw 6,000 acres in the Roberts Bank area for industrial purposes. That was done right after that was made.
[ Page 8825 ]
In section 2, we have to remember that it is primarily the agricultural aspect that we're concerned about. It was not intended to be simply greenbelt legislation. Over a period of time, certainly in the urban areas, there has been a tendency to consider it greenbelt legislation.
I think the hon. member mentioned an increase in the minimum required to maintain that farm classification for taxation. The concern is that the minimum parcel size is two acres, so we recognize that there is a limited potential for agricultural production. We can't put people between a rock and a hard place. Either we have greenbelt legislation, to a degree, and farmland protection, or we don't. But if we tax them out of it, what can they do? Walk away from their home, their property, their land? So it becomes untenable.
I wanted to seize the opportunity to speak specifically on section 2, hon. Chair, to clear this matter up. Thank you for your tolerance.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Much of what the member says is true. I just want to quarrel with one part of it. In conjunction with local government, the fine-tuning exercise does continue -- slowly, but it has been happening and it is continuing.
Section 2 approved.
On section 3.
A. Warnke: We've spent so much time on section 2, I've almost forgotten what I was going to ask on section 3. This section repeals the section that stipulates that appeals go to the Environment and Land Use Committee of cabinet. If the decisions of the Agricultural Land Commission are not going to the land use committee of cabinet, where are they going?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The decisions of the commission are final, subject to judicial review, which would be available whether it was spelled out or not.
A. Warnke: In that case, will the commission's decisions regarding appeals be subject to review under the Judicial Review Procedure Act?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: It's not an appeal as such. The court doesn't make a decision. What the court does is review the way in which the decision was made. If it determines that there was procedural unfairness, or that some other component of the decision was unfair, it's returned to the commission to rehear it. The court can say why they're sending it back and order that it be conducted properly.
Sections 3 and 4 approved.
On section 5.
A. Warnke: On this particular section, could we proceed from 28.1 to 28.6 seriatim? It might be a little bit easier than trying to do all of section 5 at once.
The Chair: That's fine. Carry on.
A. Warnke: In section 28.1, there is the establishment of the Environmental Assessment Board. The first question I'd like to pursue is: what is the role of this board in terms of appeals? Is there any linkage between them and the appeals of the Agricultural Land Commission?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The member, quite logically, wants to do this seriatim within the section. But when we talk about this, we're clearly talking about the whole section. I don't think we can limit discussion.
What we're really talking about in this particular part is the period prior to the enactment and functional operation of the Environmental Assessment Board under the Environmental Assessment Act. In the period prior to that board being operational, there is an alternative vehicle being envisioned, and that is a public inquiry under the Inquiry Act. The principle here is that if cabinet is going to designate land as having a public interest and therefore requiring cabinet's involvement in a decision about the use of that land, we're saying that unlike the old system -- which is that cabinet would just do it -- there has to be a public inquiry which reports publicly, and then cabinet can do whatever it likes. Cabinet can say no, the board has recommended this be farmland; and cabinet can say no, there's a greater public purpose, and we're elected to make decisions, and we think that there's a greater and higher public purpose in using this land some other way.
But then when cabinet does it, it's accountable. The public knows what, in this case, the board has heard and recommended, and cabinet then has to make a political decision in the full glare of public attention, with the public knowing all of the considerations that have been raised and the recommendations of the particular panel. But this particular section is for the interim period prior to the establishment of the Environmental Assessment Board, which comes under legislation that I think is still before the House.
G. Wilson: On that point, with respect to this interim period, the only thing that's different, essentially, is that cabinet has to run it much as a municipality would run a land use bylaw public hearing. It sounds much the same to me. The public hearing or public process is not binding on cabinet in any way, although it's difficult to fly in the face of public opinion, presumably.
With respect to the Environmental Assessment Board under the bill that's before the House now, my recollection is that there is no such public process there that would give us the same kind of comfort. So I wonder what the discrepancy is between.... Well, I don't think there is one. With respect to the establishment of the board and the extent of the conditions that the board must weigh and consider under Bill 32, how would that apply to decisions with respect to the agricultural land reserve?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Under the legislation in front of us, the references to the Environmental Assessment Board would require a public hearing on
[ Page 8826 ]
any matter referred to that board with respect to agricultural land for which cabinet has declared there is a public interest to be considered. In the interim period, which comes under section 28.1, a public hearing would be held under the Inquiry Act. When the Environmental Assessment Board is established, there would be a public inquiry under that board. There would be no difference in how they would operate in respect of holding a public hearings process and issuing a public report.
G. Wilson: The definition of board, then, simply refers to the composition of the board, not necessarily to the variance in regulations that may be applied under the other act. Is that correct?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: That's right.
G. Wilson: Just for clarification, did we agree that we were going to do section 28.1 through to the other sections, or are we going to do the whole lot together?
The Chair: Based on my past experience in the chair, I think it would be easier to allow discussion to carry on, and we will call the vote on section 5 as a whole. So members can speak to all sections under section 5, such as sections 28.1 and 28.2, to give a bit of latitude. I think that many of these sections are interrelated.
A. Warnke: It doesn't matter to me; we've got plenty of questions.
I'm actually looking at section 28.2 here. While the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council is attempting to create an arm's-length distance from decisions pertaining to land use, the reality is that this section, it would seem, still permits the government to make decisions where it deems that necessary. Therefore what I'd like from the Attorney General is some clarification of the intent of section 28.2. Under what type of circumstance or scenario would the government order the board to hold a public hearing?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Maybe it would be worthwhile for me to back up a bit and do an overview of the section.
The former government, the third party here, has argued strenuously that decisions relating to public land use should be cabinet decisions as opposed to technical decisions. I think that's the essence of the argument. To a certain extent, I think we agree that there are situations where the elected government of the day needs the authority to make decisions that are in the broader provincial interest or the broader public interest. We spent a fair amount of time thinking about and wrestling with this issue, because we -- I am speaking of cabinet -- recognize that there may be and probably will be instances where prime agricultural land may be needed for some broader provincial purpose.
So we said that there are several ways of handling that -- a couple of ways, at least. One is that cabinet can just say: "We need it for a broader public interest; we're going to overrule the Land Commission." We said to ourselves no, we don't believe -- this is the difference between us and the third party, and we won't go back over that debate -- that cabinet should make those decisions in the way that they get made, because the process is wrong. It is subject to political interference and to lack of public confidence, because the public doesn't know why we are making the decision. So we said that it's important for cabinet to retain the right to make a decision that would override the Land Commission in particular instances, but when cabinet wants to do that in respect of farmland, it has to subjct itself to full public scrutiny on the issue.
[9:45]
How do you do that? You refer the question.... Cabinet decides if there is a provincial interest, then refers it to either a board under the Inquiry Act in the interim period, or to the Environmental Assessment Board once it is established. That board holds a public hearing, which is specified in subsection (2) of 28.2, and which goes on without cabinet directing it in any way; it is an independent process. There is a report from that public hearing. The recommendations of the board will be whatever they are. They may be to keep it in farmland; they may be to build a factory on it; they may be whatever.
Whatever the recommendations, the public knows what they are, and then cabinet will make a decision. In a sense, cabinet is no longer making a closed decision, because all the evidence is out on the table, and out in the media. If cabinet makes a decision contrary to the recommendation of the board, cabinet subjects itself to the glare of public opinion around the issue. The public may say, "We think agricultural land is the higher priority," and the cabinet says: "No, we think this industrial project or this particular development is a higher priority." Cabinet is free to make that decision, but it subjects itself to the glare of public opinion, which we think is the appropriate test for cabinet when it overrules a technical decision of the.... In a sense, it doesn't overrule, because this case is not an appeal, because it has taken it out of the Agricultural Land Commission and has set up a different and separate process. That is pretty tough. If cabinet wants to overrule an Environmental Assessment Board recommendation on a particular piece of land, it is going to have to have a really good reason. The really good reason won't be that the owner of that land is going to make a nice donation in the next election campaign. They are not going to get away with that one. The really good reason is going to have to be that there is some economic development purpose or some other purpose that so transcends the agricultural purpose that the public can accept the decision. That is the way we have found to make these important decisions, and frankly, from a public policy perspective, I think it is an excellent way to go.
R. Chisholm: I guess I am one of the skeptics around here. I saw what the former government did, and I see what this government is doing with the ALR and the ALC. I have seen abuses from both sides. When we go through this section, there are a lot of questions
[ Page 8827 ]
that can be asked, but the final question that needs to be asked is on 28.6(3), where it says: "An order made under this section is final and binding." Does this mean that the individual is not allowed to take this government to court over what happens within 28.6, in section 5?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: If we are talking about a decision by cabinet under this section, then the courts generally will not intervene. The courts say that cabinet decisions are political decisions, and it is not the court's business to intervene in what are political decisions.
R. Chisholm: That being the case, if the individual or organization does not have the right to take this organization to court over a decision made by cabinet, as stipulated under 28.6, then this is no different than what we have, where the cabinet can make decisions. They might pay some political rent on it, but we are now into politics, and we have seen what happens in elections. My problem here is that I firmly believe the ALR is exactly the way we have to go, and we have to protect it. The cabinet does have to have some control and some final decisions, there's no doubt about that, but there has to be an appeal process to take the cabinet to court, if necessary, if the individuals or organizations firmly believe that they are in the right and the cabinet is in the wrong.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: This debate could be fun. The member says he agrees with the ALR, and that it needs to be preserved -- I agree -- and he says that cabinet needs to have the authority in certain circumstances to make broader public policy decisions -- and I agree again. Then the member says that if cabinet makes a decision and somebody doesn't like it, they should be able to go to the courts to have it overturned. I disagree. We are elected to make decisions; the courts are not.
R. Chisholm: And here is exactly the problem. In former governments and the present government, we have seen abuse of this system. We have seen cabinets abuse the ALR and their authority, and now we're at the stage of trying to solve the problem and make this cabinet look at least a little honourable. You have the final authority, and I have no doubts about that; but the problem here is that in years to come, some cabinet may make the wrong decision. There is no appeal process for the public to take this government to court. You should have the final decision; but then again, there should be a process whereby somebody can appeal to the cabinet, or to the court system to at least get their day in court.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Every citizen has the right to appeal to cabinet every day by way of letters, phone calls, visits in constituency offices and whatever other lobbying efforts go on constantly every day of our lives -- including in this forum, where members are able to stand up and say the cabinet should make such and such a decision on a particular issue. In that sense, there is always an appeal; it may not be successful, but there is always an appeal.
Interjection.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm going to resist the temptation to wade in on some of this stuff, because it could be fun; but I wouldn't want to have fun in here, because that would defeat the whole purpose of what we're supposed to do.
But seriously, the member suggested that it is no different and is subject to political decision-making, and that's true. It is subject to a political decision under this particular section, but the mechanism that we have built in to give the public some comfort about that decision is that there will have been a full, independent public review that will hear whoever wants to come to it. It will be made public, so that cabinet...
Interjection.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I get the signal.
...won't have made its decision because it had a nice dinner with somebody who might own the land and just gave a nod and a wink, but in an atmosphere of full, public discussion.
G. Farrell-Collins: I'm trying to resist getting into this, too. In all fairness, the Attorney General is making some very good points, and I understand his approach to this system to try to make it fair and look fair. But he's been in politics long enough to know that the general public doesn't vote on one decision of a government. Very rarely is there an election where one issue is up for grabs; accountability is spread over a lot of issues.
I think the member for Chilliwack makes some pretty valid points when he says that a person should be entitled to have their day in court on that specific issue. Yes, there's political accountability. Yes, the system the minister is bringing in is more open -- we hope, if it works properly and if it's done with good intent -- but there should still be that ultimate recourse for citizens. I think when the government takes away the right of individuals to take them to court, they are infringing on some of the rights of people. People shouldn't have recourse just through the ballot box; they should have recourse through the courts. I think it's a fundamental principle. We may disagree on it, but that's the case.
Then the minister turned around and stated that the public has the recourse of appeal to cabinet on a daily basis through letters, faxes and telephone calls. Well, I would love to itemize for the Attorney General the number of appeals that have been taken to the Minister of Labour on behalf of citizens in this province, and they've had to wait nine, ten and 11 months in order to get a reply. If that's what the government is relying on in this bill to try to ensure that people have access to justice, it's not good enough, and I don't believe the people of the province think it's good enough.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: What we're relying on in this bill is a public process through a public hearing and a public report.
[ Page 8828 ]
R. Chisholm: The minister is saying that he relies on public support and all the rest of it. That's great. And you talk about comfort zones, and that's great too. But if you're making good decisions, you'll never be taken to court. And if you want a comfort zone, allow the public the option to take you to court. As long as you make a good decision, you won't end up in court. So I don't see where you should have a problem giving this comfort zone to the population. After all, they're rather skeptical, just like me, and it's time that we got rid of the skepticism, and it's time we put the actual tools out there for them to use. After all, we make the laws here. We're not supposed to apply the laws; we're supposed to debate the laws, enact the laws, and then the courts will take care of them after that. So give them that opportunity; give them that comfort zone you're talking about; give them that out. If you make good decisions, you will never have to go to court over your decisions.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I think it's important to take a minute on the serious side of this issue -- not that everything hasn't been serious, but I think there is a fundamental question here about the nature of democracy. The member is suggesting that cabinet decisions should be subject to appeal in the courts. Every decision that cabinet makes -- and they make dozens, if not more, every week -- has somebody who is unhappy about it. If every decision that cabinet made was appealable to the courts, no decisions would ever be made. Courts can take five years before ending up with the Supreme Court of Canada. No decisions would ever be made, government would end its ability to function, and the system of public accountability would be denied, because judges aren't accountable.
A. Warnke: During that entertaining exchange, the Attorney General made reference to the term "provincial interest." It also shows up in section 28.2. There is also a reference to the "broader provincial interest." I think this coincides with the press release by the Agriculture ministry as it pertains to this bill. I believe the reference was made to "cases that are deemed to be of significant public interest." I am interested in what factors or what terms of reference define the provincial interest, because it is critical how the provincial interest is defined in terms of where we go to refer these matters to the board, and then to appeal and so forth.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: There is no easy way to answer that question. It's not public interest; it's provincial interest. It may be a nuance, but I think there is a difference. It is impossible to define that provincial interest in advance. Cabinet will perhaps make a decision that a particular area, which is subject to a decision at the ALC, is in fact in the provincial interest. It will do so facing the scrutiny of the public, because everything that happens after that is through a public process. So the constraints on government are in fact built in by way of the public process. I suspect the provincial interest provision will not be used frequently. I can't predict when it will be used, but it needs to be available to deal with the concerns that we've dealt with in the House prior to this point.
[10:00]
A. Warnke: I see. I suppose the way I read how a matter is appealed to the board by the cabinet is that it has to be defined in terms of the provincial interest. What I was looking for was some sort of trigger. I get from the minister that first, it's not used very frequently; and second, it's of such a general nature, because it's subject to the public whim maybe even later on. I was actually looking for something more specific that would trigger an appeal launched by cabinet.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: There will be no rules or regulations around it. It will be a political decision of cabinet to say it is, in cabinet's considered judgment, in the provincial interest to take a particular decision away from the Agricultural Land Commission process and refer it to a public process under the Environmental Assessment Board. There is nothing more to it, other than a political decision of cabinet to do that. Once it does it, it's subject to all of the public glare of the public process.
A. Warnke: Just to follow the logic of that, what is different? Again, as the hon. member for Chilliwack has pointed out, a cynic might well ask: "Well, what's the difference between that and the previous government?" But you have, I suppose, pointed out that what makes this different is that once the appeal is being made, at least it's made in reference to the public -- the openness is in that kind of context.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I wouldn't describe it as an appeal. It's not an appeal, because prior to a decision of the Agricultural Land Commission, it will come to cabinet's attention by whatever means that a land use decision is being made potentially, and cabinet will say it is an issue which requires a public policy decision by cabinet outside the narrower constraints of the Land Commission. I think it's important for members to look at section 5, section 28.5, and consider that after the reference is made by cabinet the hearing has to consider probable environmental, economic, social, cultural, and heritage effects and, without limitation, the agricultural effects. So all of those concerns have to be considered by the board. But whatever their conclusion, cabinet can still make its own decision. I think members understand this, but I'll just say once again for the record that the difference between this and the old process is that the old process required no public hearing process and no public report.
G. Wilson: Just to follow up on the minister's comment about 28.5 with respect to the conducting of a public hearing and the probable environmental, economic, social, cultural and heritage effects, notwithstanding the "without limitation, the agricultural effects," that simply makes this consistent with the requirements under Bill 32, with the addition of the agricultural effect, and we recognize that.
[ Page 8829 ]
But I notice something interesting in respect to 28.2(a) and (b) -- which essentially amend the Agricultural Land Commission Act or refer back to the existing Agricultural Land Commission Act with respect to the items and conditions that may be put before this board once it is established -- with respect to designation or order of land, exclusive use of land and so on, which is spelled out in the existing act. I notice under section 28.2(2) that in this instance it's cabinet that must specify the written terms of reference for the purpose of the public hearing by the board, whereas in Bill 32 it's the board that determines its own terms of reference. Why is that distinction there?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: There is a difference between the processes. In the Environmental Assessment Act, which we're not debating right now, the minister sets the terms. That's in section 40 of Bill 32. The minister sets the terms of reference. In this particular section in front of us now, it's cabinet that sets the terms of reference.
G. Wilson: I understand that. My question is that because of the nature of Bill 32 -- which we're not debating right now -- I understand there may be matters brought forward with respect to a reviewable project that are determined largely within the ministry itself. Therefore I can understand why the minister would be directly involved. My question is: if the terms of reference are established in a different way, and if we recognize that within the specified procedures and the conduct of a hearing, I wonder why the terms of reference would not be stipulated or spelled out by the Minister of Agriculture as one of those line ministries. Why would we have to include the entire cabinet?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I think that brings us to the nub of the issue here, because we're talking about a provincial interest. We're no longer talking about a presumably agricultural interest when cabinet, under this legislation, invokes that provincial interest. The agricultural interest is in a sense protected by the Agricultural Land Commission. What we're saying by this is that we want to take the decision away from the Agricultural Land Commission because there is a potential provincial interest which is greater than the narrow agricultural interest. It goes back to fundamental principles, I guess, and I'm not sure the official opposition has any disagreement with this, actually. The fundamental principle is that it's essential to protect farmland -- if it's good farmland -- and that when you no longer protect it, there needs to be a very good public policy reason why not. There needs to be a very good public process in order to delete it from the farmland. Whenever there's a decision by cabinet that it's a provincial interest, then it's cabinet's view that cabinet as a whole should be part of determining the terms of reference.
G. Wilson: I'm not sure at ten minutes past ten that we want to get too far into the philosophical questions on that issue....
An Hon. Member: Especially in committee.
G. Wilson: Right. With respect to what the minister just said and in reference to a comment made earlier by the member for Okanagan West -- which I think was valid -- when the agricultural land reserve was set aside, it was not set aside as greenbelt per se. It was set aside to protect land that was dedicated to the production of agricultural produce. In fact, under the Land Commission Act, it's fairly specific as to the reason it was assessed as that. One of the main ways of getting it out is to demonstrate that no viable economic action can be taken. Given that the mandate of this board under 28.5 is to conduct its public hearing to look at probable environmental and economic -- and I underline "economic" -- social, cultural and heritage effects, one can argue very strongly -- certainly from a municipal level, if one is looking at widespread municipal bylaw changes -- that it is to the economic advantage of any community to see fairly significant tracts of agricultural land withdrawn, because you'll be able to put it to other uses that would generate far greater tax returns than you will see from farmland that may or may not be viable.
So I ask -- it's a question that we raised in 32, and I think it's legitimate to raise it in 42, because the language is consistent: to what extent in this public hearing process will the terms of reference put greater emphasis on environmental, economic or social questions or on the very nature of the agricultural land reserve, which is the agricultural effect?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The terms of reference can't supersede the act of the Legislature. That's the first important thing to remember here. So whatever the terms of reference, the public hearing has to consider the probable environmental or economic effects -- all the words are there. It's impossible to predict what the terms of reference would be. They may be different in different instances. Members can use their imagination to think about the different kinds of circumstances that may warrant the declaration of a provincial interest. The terms of reference are going to be unique, and I've learned, having charge of the Inquiry Act and having to work on terms of reference for several inquiries in the last little while, that they are incredibly complex matters to determine. You worry all the way through about getting the wording right. There is no way I could stand up here now and give any clue as to what the terms of reference would be in some hypothetical situation which we aren't even talking about.
G. Wilson: With all due respect to the minister, we're not talking about a hypothetical situation. We're talking about a statute that is being introduced which is going to subject municipalities or people that may wish to include land or exclude land from the agricultural land reserve to a public hearing process that this minister has said will be final and without appeal. I think that's what he said to the member for Chilliwack. He said there was no appeal, and that he didn't believe in an appeal.
[ Page 8830 ]
Interjection.
G. Wilson: Or from the board, which is ultimately going to make its recommendation to cabinet. Unless cabinet is going to overrule the board that it has just referred it to.... It can, but I just heard the minister say earlier that it's unlikely, if you go to a public hearing process and that process deems something is in the public interest, that cabinet is going to overrule it. This is going to mean that people are going to be subject to terms of reference which will be by necessity -- because this act doesn't specify -- arbitrarily set on the basis of "public interest," as determined by whomever. Right now, if one argued the validity of the agricultural land reserve under the Land Commission and if one looked at the straight application.... Under the first section of this act, which we talked about earlier on, it would seem that there is some fairly clearly defined physical, geotechnical information that can be looked at in terms of soil type, qualities, classes and all those sorts of things that determine whether it is in or out. If we are going to get into the broad sort of cultural and social and economic questions.... I wouldn't necessarily argue that all the decisions will be bad ones, because I personally believe that we should be preserving agricultural land in perpetuity; but you have to make farming a viable activity to make it work. What I am saying is that you may be locking people into private ownership of land -- sort of in the public interest -- that they can't make a return on and can't get out of.
So I come back to section 28.5, and argue that surely it would be better for the minister to stipulate the terms and conditions by regulation, or however -- not unlike the Municipal Act, which stipulates with respect to land use questions -- where there is an effect on land use deemed to have been created by changing land use, so that there is a set of parameters within which those public hearings can hear material. But generally I don't like the view that how this is going to look.... It's not an acceptable criterion that can be used.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Briefly, the terms of reference of an inquiry will, of necessity, be different in different parts of the province when different purposes might be under consideration by cabinet for a particular parcel of land. But whatever the terms of reference, the board will have to consider 28.5(1) and take that into account as part of its decision-making.
A. Warnke: Since the Attorney General has put a lot of emphasis on the public hearing, I suppose that would be an attempt to expose to the public the implications of and the circumstances around a decision, and all the rest of it. In this section I do not see a time frame for establishing a public hearing, and I wonder if the minister has any notion of a period of time for that. Obviously, if a public hearing is delayed for a long time, then to a certain extent the government may well be accused of delaying or obscuring decisions.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: In section 28.3, there is a reference to a 90-day time limit. That is as long as a decision of the Agricultural Land Commission can be suspended if cabinet determines that there is a provincial interest.
[10:15]
Let me just go through the process from the beginning, because otherwise I am going to confuse myself and everybody else. If an application comes to the Agricultural Land Commission, and cabinet decides there is a provincial interest involved in that issue, it can direct the ALC not to hear the matter. In that 90-day period, which is set out in this subsection, cabinet will be required to make a decision to set up an inquiry. If they don't, the Agricultural Land Commission can make a decision when the 90 days expires. That decision would be binding.
A. Warnke: As I understand 28.3(1), the cabinet would have to make up its mind within the 90-day period about when to hold the public hearing. But I wonder if there is any time frame, I suppose, after the cabinet makes its decision. Could it call it for a year or two years, to delay it?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: There's no reference in the legislation to a time frame in that respect. It could be part of the terms of reference; or they could be silent on that. Obviously, if cabinet is going to make this kind of monumental decision -- and believe you me, it will be a political decision that will be in the full glare of public attention -- it will want to get on with it and have the matter resolved. The time pressures are considerable from a political perspective, and aren't necessary in the legislation.
G. Wilson: My last question on this section has to do with the full glare of the public -- whatever it is that the public's glaring at. And believe me, the public is glaring at this government right now in no uncertain terms. This new board is empowered to actually exclude the public under Bill 32 if they deem it to be in the public interest. I know we can't debate Bill 32, but I'm curious as to whether or not the section in this bill that says there must be a public hearing is impinged on by section 54(5) of Bill 32, which says that the board may exclude the public from a hearing for the purpose of receiving evidence, etc., if they deem it to be in the public interest. Are there provisions in Bill 42 that say cabinet can't do that in the terms of reference -- saying the sensitivity of a land use decision may mean a decision will have to be made excluding the public? If so, I don't know where it is in here. Will it be by regulation?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: It's in section 28.2(2), I think. A public hearing is public; it cannot be a private hearing.
R. Chisholm: Again to the Attorney General, this is the skeptic back again. There was a press release that talked about significant public interest in rare circumstances, and the circumstances and scenarios where you would hold a public hearing. It talked about things such as economic, social, cultural and heritage effects, but the public has no standard to judge this by.
[ Page 8831 ]
The cabinet can go to this board and basically take anything away from the board and make a decision on it, and the public doesn't have a way to appeal. This is where my problem is. There are no standards in here of when and how you can do this and why you should do it. The way I read this bill, it is so loose that you can do it for just about anything, and when it comes down to section 28.6, the public hasn't got any recourse. Until we tighten this up, I'm not going to be comfortable, and I'm sure John Q. Public is not going to be comfortable.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The skeptic is back arguing a point he argued earlier, essentially, and I reject it categorically. Cabinet is the final appeal body; it is elected by the public to make decisions. To suggest that some unelected, appointed judge who is unaccountable should make a subsequent decision on a cabinet decision is, frankly -- with as much respect as I can muster -- ludicrous.
Section 5 approved.
On section 6.
A. Warnke: Two quick questions concerning the substitution: "If surface rights are restricted under this section, the minister must serve the licensee with a notice of the restriction." What would be the conditions under which a restriction of surface rights could be declared, and how would these conditions affect, say, people's mineral rights?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I just want to be sure that I understand what's being asked. If the member is asking when the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources can restrict the rights of a licence holder.... Free miners, for example, can acquire surface rights to large areas relatively easily, but those rights can interfere with other rights, and therefore the minister can resolve conflicts between different resource users -- different licence holders, in fact. If a free miner has surface rights and a gas pipeline is to be constructed through the area, there's the possibility of a conflict, and the minister can involve herself or himself in resolving those conflicts. There has been a cabinet appeal in the legislation, and for the interest of members, that cabinet appeal has never been used.
Sections 6 and 7 approved.
On section 8.
A. Warnke: Just a quick clarification here on section 36(7) of the Company Act: "The registrar may refuse to issue a certificate of continuation." I'm interested in the grounds upon which a registrar may refuse -- how subjective or objective they are. Here's a situation where someone may actually be developing a strategy based on an assumption that an operation will continue, so a concern that the registrar may exercise such a subjective evaluation could seriously affect one's calculation of whether a company continues or not. I would really like to see some clarification of that.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: This section doesn't deal with the nature of how and why the registrar might refuse to issue a certificate of continuation. It deals with what happens after that refusal. Currently, the applicant could conceivably appeal to cabinet to have the registrar's decision reversed, and that, too, has never happened; there has never been a cabinet appeal in this respect. What we're replacing it with, if this passes, is arguably a better process, because the appeal could now be made to the commercial appeals board, and there is the opportunity for what the lawyers call a de novo hearing so that the whole issue can be argued from scratch.
Section 8 approved.
On section 9.
A. Warnke: I'm looking at section 326 of the Company Act: "The registrar may refuse to register an extraprovincial company...." To alleviate fears, could the Attorney General clarify the conditions of refusal for extraprovincial companies?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I am not able to answer that question. That's not really the question here. What is at issue is exactly the same as in the previous section, which I explained. This legislation doesn't deal with the process up until the first decision. I'm not able to comment on how that works. I just don't know.
A. Warnke: As far as I am concerned, that answer is quite satisfactory. I did want to explore this feature of extraprovincial companies and how they are affected. That's fine with me.
Section 9 approved.
On section 10.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.
[SECTION 10, by deleting the proposed section 29(1)(b) and substituting the following:
(b) the suspension or revocation of a permit.]
Amendment approved.
Section 10 as amended approved.
Sections 11 to 14 inclusive approved.
On section 15.
G. Wilson: If there was ever an act that needed to have a major overhaul, it's the Motor Carrier Act, with the commission and how it operates. I'm curious to know why we have decided to move to this panel system. What's the purpose of it? Could the minister explain its benefit?
Maybe we can deal with all the sections at once, as with the Motor Carrier Act. It might be a lot easier than
[ Page 8832 ]
trying to deal with them one at a time. Some of them are interrelated. I'll wait for the ruling of the Chair on that.
The Chair: With the agreement of the committee, we will discuss sections 15 through 22 under section 15.
G. Wilson: That would be acceptable provided that doesn't exclude the possibility of amending the sections. I believe there is an amendment coming forward.
Could the minister tell us why he has moved to this panel system of two or three and made the commission larger by moving from three to not less than seven? What's afoot -- or atruck?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The question "What's afoot?" implies a nefarious agenda. I assure the member there's nothing of that kind whatsoever.
[10:30]
There is a three-member Motor Carrier Commission. One member is full-time and two members are part-time. Their decisions are subject to cabinet appeal. We have an elaborate, expensive bureaucratic process which concludes with a "cabinet appeal." Almost always -- probably without exception -- the cabinet appeal is heard by one cabinet member. That's bad. With the exception of the member for Peace River South, no one feels comfortable with the process. I am not going to invite members of the executive council who have participated in this process in the last 18 months to enter the debate. One very anxious member behind me could probably tell the House some horror stories about how decisions get made. It's not the proper forum. The cabinet member who happens to be hearing the issue may not be as conversant with the policies that have been developed through the Motor Carrier Commission as the commission should and must be. It has probably never happened, but it's possible that a decision could be made by a cabinet minister that is inconsistent with the policies, practices and previous decisions. The cabinet is simply not the proper forum to make the decisions.
So how do you remedy that? It's not appropriate that a decision about a licence which has the potential of attracting some financial benefit to an applicant be made in the way it has been made. I know the member for Peace River South disagrees with this. That's the beauty of our society: we have some clear divisions between political parties, and that makes it easy to go to the voters. Let me tell you that I've spent a lot of time trying to figure out what would be a fair way of ensuring some consistency in decision-making so that applicants would know that they wouldn't be subject to whimsical or inconsistent decisions and so that there would be some predictability and, very importantly, consistency.
How do you design an appeal process to do that? In the beginning we thought about a variety of schemes. After several months of agony -- I don't mind saying -- over this issue, we settled on a model that is essentially based on the Labour Relations Board. You have a panel, and a group of that panel, essentially starting with a full-time commissioner, makes a decision. If there is an appeal, it is made to another part of the panel -- that is, different people. That's why it needs to be bigger. If you have a three-person panel, you're not going to have enough resources from which to construct an appeal board. So the idea is that there would be a decision made by the commission itself, and that would probably be either by the commissioner or, perhaps in some important cases, by as much as a three-person panel. If there is an appeal, it would be to other members of the commission. They wouldn't be picked whimsically by the person who made the first decision. There would be an established process so that there would be no ability for the initial decision-maker to pick an appeal board to suit their particular purposes. Hopefully, that process will enable a fair appeal which is going to be dealt with in a manner consistent with the policies of the commission itself.
G. Wilson: Just one more question and then I'll yield to my colleague. On the first point about society having differences between political parties, I have to tell the Attorney General that we in the Liberal opposition are way ahead of you guys. We have deep differences within our political party. So we're light years ahead of you. At some point you'll progress to that level of freedom of thought.
An Hon. Member: But we're fixing it.
G. Wilson: Yes. Nevertheless, whether that level of freedom of thought exists throughout society, who knows.
Coming back to the idea about this commission and setting up an appeals process, I can tell you, hon. Chair, that I know of four instances since I've been an MLA where there have been grievances around a licensing question because of what was perceived to be a very unfair process. So notwithstanding the differences that may be there in the process, clearly some people do feel aggrieved.
I'm not certain, though, that this is really going to provide any kind of freedom from that. It would seem to me that -- if there's an appointment of one person with six other commission members, and you simply segment them into panels to hear particular issues -- rather than being quick to overturn a position of their colleagues, to get consistency the panel would not want to be supportive of one decision or another. Maybe I'm prejudging the system before it actually works, but I can tell the minister, with respect to the provision of licensing in areas where monopolies occur, that in trying to break monopolies on A licences in particular communities, it has been like pulling hen's teeth to get the commissioner to recognize that there has to be a broader scope. That's been generally accepted policy: "That's the way we're going to go." As a result, for anybody who wants to try to break that it's just not a possibility, it would seem. So I'm not certain that this is going to solve that problem.
The minister says there will be a defined process. I don't see where that is. Is that perhaps following in some form...? Yes, a defined process for the hearing -- who's selected, how it is to be selected, and so on.
[ Page 8833 ]
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Procedures that will be developed, in respect of how the appeal panels are constructed, will be done by the commission, keeping in mind that they have to conform to principles of natural justice. Otherwise the judicial review that's always available will end up throwing it out.
As to the fundamental question the member raises -- is this going to work and be a real appeal? -- if we hadn't had experience in two other areas, I would have been skeptical myself and not sure I would have chosen this model. But there are two other areas where this model in fact exists and works, I think, relatively well. One is the Labour Relations Board, which I mentioned. The other is the Gaming Commission, where appeals are made to either the Labour Relations Board, another panel of the board or another panel of the B.C. Gaming Commission. I think there can be improvements in the Gaming Commission as well. And there may well be improvements in this one. The fact is that that has worked, and initial decisions have been overturned on appeal.
I guess my familiarity is greater with the Labour Relations Board, historically. I know for a fact that a lot of initial decisions are overturned by panels of the board, following an appeal. They're for all kinds of reasons, but no peer pressure is evident at all to support the initial decision in either of those institutions.
Given that history, I felt that it was certainly worth a try in the Motor Carrier Commission. Frankly -- and I really mean this -- we spent a lot of time trying to think of various ways of doing it. In my judgment, in the final analysis this was the best.
A. Warnke: At the outset, I would agree with my colleague that it's refreshing for the people of British Columbia that our differences of opinion are expressed not in camera but on camera.
D. Lovick: You think that's refreshing?
A. Warnke: Well, that's another dinosaur from Nanaimo.
I want to look at a concern -- it actually follows up on comments of my colleague for Powell River-Sunshine Coast -- with regard to section 19. It expands the number of persons on the commission to not less than seven members. If the minister recalls, last year there was -- on some sort of similar bill, I believe -- an expansion of members on a commission. We were rather skeptical whether that would lead to opening up the floodgates, so to speak. Does the Attorney General foresee the commission growing? We have here in section 19 the reference to not less than seven members, and that does seem, at the outset, to have the potential for opening it up to a number of appointees. Is there some idea of a number that is a cap rather than this rather loose, open thing that could expand easily from seven to heaven knows how many members?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The number that we envision is seven. In fact, if the language in the act read seven it would be fine by me. There's no additional cost to government, because these are per diem appointments that are paid for whatever hearings -- except for the commissioner. If you had 20 instead of seven, they would get a third as much revenue because they would sit on a third as many hearings, so there's no additional cost. But it's clearly my intention that seven is sufficient.
A. Warnke: Under section 20, section 31.2(1), it states that the chair may organize the commission into panels, each comprised of one or more members. I'm wondering whether the ministry has any idea how many panels. It uses "panels" in the plural sense, and I'm just curious as to how many panels might be envisaged.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: That provision is simply to enable the commissioner to delegate a group of commissioners rather than the whole group; otherwise the whole group -- all seven -- would have to hear every application, and this is designed simply to allow the establishment of panels.
J. Weisgerber: I'm tempted to prolong the debate somewhat, thinking that if the leadership debate to my right continues on camera we'll probably be back to a two-party system by morning, the Liberal Party having destructed right on camera and moved back to polarized politics in British Columbia where they belong.
Interjection.
J. Weisgerber: Indeed, my next thought was that if the Minister of Advanced Education had sat on many of the appeals, I could understand the flood of complaints that might have come in around the current system. So I'm finding myself more and more persuaded that abandonment of the current model might be more justified than I was first led to think when I spoke in second reading of the bill.
[10:45]
Having decided on passing second reading of the bill, to go to appeal committees, why wouldn't the government simply decide to go to a committee of three on appeal? It seems to me that if you argue in front of the commission and come to the point where you want to make an appeal, the idea of having the appeal heard in front of a three-person commission would lend some confidence. I also think that the decisions may well be more balanced. There may be less of a tendency for an individual appeal panel to simply support the earlier decision of a colleague. I'm curious to know why the minister chose this one-, two- or three-commissioner model for appeals.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Unless I misheard the member.... The one, two or three is for the first decision and the appeal is three or more. That's contained in section 22.
D. Symons: I just can't pass up the opportunity to say that if the third party is going to wait for the Liberal Party to self-destruct, they've got a long wait. This leadership is a building procedure, not a tearing apart,
[ Page 8834 ]
as you might think -- in spite of what you might have heard.
Interjections.
D. Symons: We're all having a bit of fun with that -- within the party as well, I can assure the member.
I have some concerns with section 22, the appeals procedure. What I see built into the appeals procedure is that if somebody has a concern about the decision that's come down from the first panel, they will appeal. They will have to try to convince the same group that they want an appeal of that decision. Nowhere in here does it say that it will be a different panel than the original panel they had. It simply says that they will appeal back, and there's no guarantee that it's going to be a different panel. On top of that, I think that an appeal should go to an outside body on appeal, not to the cabinet -- and that's the purpose of this bill. To avoid the difficulty of going back to the same body that has rejected their motion or licence requirement, or whatever they're asking for, I would like to see what I consider a somewhat friendly amendment, where we take out the words "a panel of the commission, consisting of 3 or more members," and substitute "the Commercial Appeals Commission." I move that as an amendment.
The Chair: Hon. member, is this a proposed amendment to section 22?
D. Symons: Section 22.
The Chair: I would call the question: shall sections 15 to 21 pass?
Sections 15 to 21 inclusive approved.
On the amendment to section 22.
D. Symons: We discussed earlier that we were going to take the whole part dealing with the Motor Carrier Act together, so I don't mind if you pass part of it, but we had agreed before to do it all as a unit.
I have very little to say on the amendment I'm bringing forward, other than to say that we have a Commercial Appeals Commission, and that this would remove the difficulty of an appeal going back to the very body that rendered the decision that's under appeal. By putting it to a different body, without going to cabinet and turning it into a political matter, we can go to an organization that is set up for hearing appeals in the commercial field. Most of the appeals coming before the Motor Carrier Commission are from truckers, and this would be an excellent place for the appeal to go to. I'll wait for the minister's response on that.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The first premise the member bases his amendment on is that the appeal would be to the same people, because the member says it's not spelled out in here that the appeal would be heard by different members. It's a matter that the courts would throw out immediately if it were the same people. It's not an appeal if it's to the same people; it has to be to different people. The clear intention -- and the courts would allow no other practice -- is to have the first decision made by one, two or three members of the commission, and if there is an appeal, then three or more of the remaining four, five or six, depending on how many are left, would hear the appeal -- they would be different people.
The member suggests that we go to the Commercial Appeals Commission, instead of an appeal within the system, and I don't mind saying that we spent a lot of time thinking about whether that wasn't the right way to do it. We have a Commercial Appeals Commission which deals with a variety of appeals now. The reason I rejected that in this instance is for the same reasons that Labour Relations Board decisions aren't appealed there or to another body elsewhere, nor are gaming decisions appealed elsewhere.
It is really important in this issue of motor carrier decisions that there be some consistency. If you go to the Motor Carrier Commission, you're going to a specialized board whose only job, role and function is to deal with motor carrier-related issues and motor carrier policies, and make decisions within that framework. If you go to the Commercial Appeals Commission, they are at the present time making decisions in a wide range of areas from liquor to film classification to cemeteries to dozens of other areas -- they are not a specialized board at all. Unless the legislation constrains them, they have de novo hearings so they hear matters afresh. It's a system that will not allow for what I think is really important, which is consistent and predictable decision-making within the framework and policies of the organization -- in this case, the Motor Carrier Commission.
So I reject the amendment. I intend to vote against it. But I will say to the member that I spent a considerable amount of time actually considering whether or not this was an option, and following intensive consultation and reflection, I rejected it.
D. Symons: I would like to pursue it for just a moment, and I don't really intend to take time. The problem here is that there's a potential conflict, I think, when you have to refer to the same commission that has made the decision. So I'm just wondering if the person has any recourse if their wish to have an appeal is turned down. What's the recourse in that case? Since you're going back to the same commission, the likelihood of that happening seems to be fairly significant. So what recourse would the applicant have at that stage?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: As always, judicial review is there for the applicant if they feel that a decision was made in an unfair manner.
Amendment negatived on division.
G. Wilson: I only have one last question with respect to this appeal under section 22. I'm searching within the existing act and within this cabinet appeals alteration to section 52 for what the act's intention is with respect to people who may have had an unfavourable hearing under the old system; and given that there's a 30-day period for appeal, I'm wondering
[ Page 8835 ]
whether there's any opportunity for appeal of a past ruling. Do they have to commence application again? Is there any restriction for a person who, for example, may have been trying to get a motor carrier licence for truck entry into a particular community which was denied because it was deemed to be already served by existing licences? Is there any restriction on them making a new appeal under this act?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: It's my understanding -- and I haven't checked the act -- that the Motor Carrier Commission can reconsider an application or hear a new application from someone who has been there before and has been turned down, and they may come back with new evidence or a fresh application. I wasn't sure whether the member was asking me about how it works in the legislation now. If so, I would have to spend a bit of time looking at the act and get more consultation. But if the member is asking about transitional effects, I think what we're saying here is that from proclamation on, applications that are then initiated would go through this process. But if they had already been in the pipeline -- and I'm speculating when I say this, but I think it's a natural justice way to go -- they would use the old system. During the transitional period the old system would apply. New applications following proclamation, upon which there was an appeal, would follow the new system.
G. Wilson: I have two quick questions for final clarification. If they're heard under the old system and are unsuccessful, they would appeal under the new system. Is that correct?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Quite candidly, I don't have the answer to that right now. In other statutes, transitional sections usually deal with that issue. That issue isn't evident to me at this moment. We're just having some quick discussion here. I would need more time to consider it. My own sense of natural justice -- and this is contrary to what I'm hearing from whispers around me.... My own sense of how these things should work is that if you make an application for a licence and a law is in place, while that application in and of itself is still in the pipeline, the law when you first applied for it should apply. That's what I think should happen. I'm unable to go through the Motor Carrier Commission now to put all this together and see whether or not that is what is accomplished. But it's something we would deal with by regulation.
The member certainly knows from my answer what my view would be on that issue. I don't think it's fair to say to somebody who applies under one system that we've changed the rules in midcourse while that application is still going through the process. To me there's an unfairness around that. So that's what my response would be.
G. Wilson: I have a final question. I caution that the statutes there are fully consolidated, so be careful with that. There is nothing in this act -- looking at the consolidated statute on motor carriers, there doesn't seem to be anything here -- that precludes a person who has failed under the old system from immediately applying under the new system. There's nothing to suggest here that you couldn't state as new evidence a stated bias of the system itself. I'm thinking of two applicants right now who believe they were unjustly treated because of political bias, for example. They will be applying, I can assure you, within 24 hours of proclamation, and there's nothing to preclude them doing so.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I don't believe so.
Sections 22 to 24 inclusive approved.
On section 25.
A. Warnke: The amendment replaces "Lieutenant Governor in Council" with "minister" in this section. Just for clarification, why is there a reference to the minister?
[11:00]
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The appeal of a decision of the inspector of municipalities in this part is changed so that the appeal no longer goes to cabinet; as the member said, it would now go to the minister. That is in fact consistent with a lot of provisions in the Municipal Act. The Minister of Municipal Affairs oversees the final appeal on a variety of decisions, and this one will now be included.
Sections 25 to 30 inclusive approved.
On section 31.
A. Warnke: There's a point I want to raise here with regard to the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act being amended. Just to keep it simple and short, could the Attorney General explain the purpose and implications of the repeal, and the substitution in this section?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: This is one of those sections under which, curiously, there has never been an appeal to cabinet, and apparently there has never been a appeal to the minister. So I guess there are very few appeals under this section. But we have retained the right of appeal to the minister.
Sections 31 to 34 inclusive 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 42, Cabinet Appeals Abolition Act, reported complete with amendment.
The Speaker: When shall the bill be considered as reported?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: With leave now, hon. Speaker.
[ Page 8836 ]
Leave granted.
The Speaker: The motion before you is third reading of Bill 42.
Motion approved on the following division:
| YEAS -- 26 | ||
|
Perry |
Priddy |
Edwards |
|
Jackson |
Pement |
Beattie |
|
Schreck |
Lortie |
Hammell |
|
Lali |
Giesbrecht |
Smallwood |
|
Gabelmann |
Clark |
Blencoe |
|
MacPhail |
Lovick |
Evans |
|
Dosanjh |
Doyle |
Hartley |
|
Streifel |
Lord |
Krog |
|
Kasper |
Brewin | |
| NAYS -- 10 | ||
|
Chisholm |
Dalton |
Farrell-Collins |
|
Wilson |
Weisgerber |
Neufeld |
|
Symons |
Warnke |
Anderson |
| K. Jones | ||
Bill 42, Cabinet Appeals Abolition Act, read a third time and passed.
Hon C. Gabelmann moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 11:10 p.m.
The Committee met at 2:47 p.m.
[D. Streifel in the chair.]
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FINANCE AND CORPORATE RELATIONS
(continued)
On vote 35: minister's office, $335,102 (continued).
D. Symons: I would like to revisit one topic that we discussed before lunch, dealing with changes that have been brought about. One change I mentioned was the moving of the headquarters. Another is that it seems some contracts regarding a purchase of SkyTrain cars were cancelled soon after this government took office. They are now going to reorder those cars, but because of the delay in the previous order being placed, and the order being replaced, those cars will not be ready in time for the crush that is going to come when the new line is opened. The train is at near capacity in the downtown area already. I wonder if the minister might explain the problems that have now developed because of that delay. Secondly, I remember reading in the press a couple of years back that those cars could possibly be built in B.C. What has happened to that proposal? Has the government given it serious consideration and promoted it?
Hon. G. Clark: First of all, let me make the point that the original SkyTrain vehicle order that B.C. Transit wanted to pursue was for about 60 cars, and it was rejected by the previous government and previous Treasury Board. It then came back to this government to review the need for SkyTrain cars for the new service out to the Whalley station. We then picked up the ball and said that we obviously had to revisit this question as we moved forward. I can tell the member that we have had intense -- and I mean intense -- discussions with the suppliers about this question. Further, we have had a more sophisticated analysis done on our requirements. It is true that we believe we will need some additional SkyTrain cars, although we will likely need significantly fewer -- probably about a third of the cars that B.C. Transit originally requested. I can tell the member that very shortly I hope to be in a position to make the announcement about what we have done. It takes about two years to produce one of the cars. We have designed a system to deal with this question. We have installed a new computer system to make the trains run more frequently. There is a new seating configuration in the existing SkyTrain cars that allows us to add more people. We are using system management techniques from around the world, demand-side techniques and others, to try to deal with the question. We are going to do some short-turning of some of the SkyTrain cars to pick up some of the slack.
So as a result of a very measured and fairly sophisticated analysis, we'll be reducing the requirements of B.C. Transit by several million dollars from what they originally requested. We will be in a position to improve service without adding any cars, and then we should be in a position to pursue the few more cars we do need in the very near future. By way of a number for members, we've saved the taxpayers a little over $100 million as a result of interest cost savings, not pursuing the original request of 60 cars, and the more sophisticated techniques. I think we're in a good position to deal with the increased demand in an interim way through efficiencies and modifications of the existing cars. Some new cars should and will be ordered in the near future to accommodate what we perceive to be growth, largely in the Surrey area.
D. Symons: I find the minister's words about making savings sort of interesting, because he used that term in this morning's discussion also when he was talking about savings on the budget. We were discussing at that time the $37 million shortfall because of the change in the tax that wasn't imposed. He talked
[ Page 8837 ]
about the way he made savings in the budgets. But I think many of these savings are things we're simply putting off.
Indeed, the savings here is from putting off buying something. It's going to create problems when those cars are not there when they're needed, and we're going to have overcrowded situations. I'm not so sure you can claim that as a saving. Indeed it's a dollar not spent now, but it's a dollar that's going to be spent in the future and that wasn't spent when the need first arose. So I don't necessarily agree there's that rosy side of this change in plans.
Unless the minister wants to respond, I would move now into the topic of safety and accidents. The greater Vancouver transit system for the past 16 months did suffer a great number of accidents -- and they were serious accidents, with people killed, runaway buses, a SeaBus slamming into Canada Place and so forth. I think this raised a serious question of safety on our transit systems. Indeed, the government reacted, and I must compliment them on it, by initiating a study by Mr. Williamson and doing a safety audit of it. What he came up with, just reading from his report, is that there are inadequacies in the organization which result in a lack of hands-on management, and as a result, the unions have occupied a major role in this area. This theme, that there seemed to be a lack of control, comes out again and again in his report: a lack of emphasis on first-line management, a structure in which the senior safety officer has limited influence and so forth. There have been, I suspect, some problems over jurisdiction between the transit unions and management. I'm just wondering if those problems have now been addressed, and whether there is a more cooperative effort between management and the workers in order to make sure that this company: (1) is safe, and (2) has harmonious relationships which will lead to a much better workplace for the employees.
Hon. G. Clark: Before I answer that question, I want to make this point. While there were some high-profile and very unfortunate accidents, which we obviously take very seriously and have responded to, B.C. Transit's overall safety record is still an enviable one relative to other transit systems. In fact, the Victoria transit system has just recently won an award as the safest transit system in North America, and that's part of B.C. Transit as well. The handyDART system, which is a very large and growing system, also won a North American award for the most improved safety record of any similar system. So I just simply want to make the point that while there hav been some high-profile problems, which we acknowledge and have taken action on, there is also some very good news at B.C. Transit.
We commissioned the Williamson report -- the member alluded to that, and again I appreciate the member's response. We did act immediately. Just to give a bit of an update, there were 40 recommendations and 20 of those recommendations have been implemented. The most significant ones were approving wheel block procedures, driver refresher courses, dynamic braking system, accident response, drill exercises on SeaBus and the like. There are 16 other recommendations which are scheduled for August and September. Three of the recommendations should take place at the end of July, and the final recommendation simply suggests that there should be an annual review and update of our following up on the recommendations. In fact, all Mr. Williamson's recommendations are being implemented. I can safely say that the relationship between the union and Transit on safety questions is a significantly improved one. There is a strong buy into the recommendations made by Mr. Williamson. We think that we have made great progress, obviously. It was a really sobering review which requires Transit to take its safety mandate more seriously, both for the people who work there and for the people who ride on it.
D. Symons: I am aware of the 40 recommendations, and I think some of them have received a bit of publicity in being implemented. You indicated that all 40 are going to be implemented. I gather there was one that suggested there be attendants on the SkyTrain. I know that at the time, management was suggesting it was one recommendation they weren't willing to implement. Am I wrong in that?
Hon. G. Clark: First, there are 40 Williamson recommendations; they will be adopted in full. The member refers to an almost simultaneous Toronto Transit Commission review of SkyTrain safety. That one is not being completely implemented. We can discuss that if the member wishes.
D. Symons: That explains it; it wasn't part of the Williamson recommendations. Because there are situations where not having a driver on those trains, which isn't really required.... Having somebody there to protect the property of B.C. Transit and the riders is something that has to be considered.
One of the recommendations was that "a joint management-union group review the wording and promulgation of B.C. Transit directives relating to recommendations one and two above to ensure that all concerned know the rules, the reasons for them and the consequences for drivers, supervisors and managers of failure to comply."
The reason I read that particular one is because I believe it apparently had to do with the bus that ran away in the Kootenay loop. There was an action taken, and -- I commend the management -- they fired the man. It was gross negligence. The union got up in arms and basically said: "You can't fire him." In that case it seems that the union won.
We had the same sort of situation, but not quite as serious a penalty, with the SeaBus people. It seems that there are real problems in dealing with safety issues where the union, on behalf of its employees, does not allow the management to take what I might call sufficient punitive action to make certain to all workers that laxity in their jobs is just not acceptable. Through the committee that was referred to in the recommendation I read, have you come to some agreement with the union so that it understands exactly
[ Page 8838 ]
what actions management wants to take? Have they accepted this so that in future there won't be this problem of which action will be taken and what reaction the union may have in response?
Hon. G. Clark: It is important for the committee to clarify the role of a trade union. The union has a legal obligation to represent its members in the event of a disciplinary action. It cannot simply say that it thinks the company was right. It would then be vulnerable, and I know the members of the opposition would certainly not want to take away the right of individuals to take action against the union for failing to represent them. It has a legal obligation to represent its members.
[3:00]
The issue under arbitration as a result of that obligation on the part of the union was whether you can go from zero to 100 miles an hour overnight. If no action on similar situations had taken place for years and years at B.C. Transit, can a new management, with one action, completely alter the rules of the game? The arbitrator said no, though he was sympathetic, I think it is fair to say, to the management's perspective. There was a very lengthy suspension, and I believe the arbitrator said that the rules are now clear. Management has made the rules clear, and if this happens again they will be more likely upheld at arbitration.
The point is simply this: when you're changing from a very lax management style, which existed in the past when it came to these kinds of questions -- with runaway buses, seriously injured individuals and no disciplinary action taken -- and then new management goes to the other extreme of taking very strong action, the union has an obligation to represent its members. They took it to arbitration, and the arbitrator gave a lengthy suspension, probably the longest in the history of Transit. Our position is now clear, and we will take similar action. The union will have an obligation to represent its members, but we anticipate that with the kind of experience we are now having, we will be more successful.
The relationship with the union at B.C. Transit is a good one, and it is improving. We are working hard with them on some of these questions, but that does not take away from not just their right but their obligation to represent their members on all these questions. Now that we have made it clear that lack of attention to safety concerns won't be tolerated by management and that we will take that kind of disciplinary action, we feel that, over time, this will mean that decisions at B.C. Transit on these kind of questions will be upheld.
D. Symons: I thank the minister very much for that answer, and I'm sure that the riding public will feel a little safer in the sense that there seems to be if not a resolution, at least a determination on the part of management to see that there are consistent standards now. I think one of the criticisms during that hearing was the fact that the punishment and the past behaviour had not given a consistent set of responses to accidents and so forth. That's the important thing, and I'm glad to hear from the minister that indeed that seems to be the case.
I have just two other items dealing with that sort of thing. I'm wondering if the minister might be able to tell me how many illegal work stoppages we've had in the transit system in the last year compared to 1990. We can go back three years and compare the number of work stoppages in those years.
E. Denhoff: I haven't got the actual numbers with me, but if my memory serves, in the last year there were something like three illegal work stoppages from management's point of view. That is probably less than half the average for the last four years. I think there were 24 in the four years previous to this year, so there were six or so a year on average. They have come down this year as a result of some of the actions we've taken.
D. Symons: That sounds as if there is getting to be a little more cooperation with each other -- or at least understanding. I see the minister crossing his fingers, and we can all hope so.
What prompted that question was the problem that arose during the last contract negotiations, and one of the plums that the union was given was an extra pass for a family member. It was discovered that maybe management didn't have, without going to the board, the right to issue that extra bonus, and they were going to take back the pass. I'm just reading the headline in the Province on June 9 of this year, which says: "Free Ride or Else! Okay Our Pass or We Strike: Transit Staff." It seems that the union does indeed flex its muscles at times. I think that has been part of the problem. There seems to be a predisposition to jump to the picket line one way or the other -- legal or illegal -- and I hope that the management can somehow overcome that.
That also relates to something that was said regarding questions this morning on sick leave. I note the company's perspective during the negotiations was something to the effect that the sick leave plan could not be addressed in bargaining unless there were going to be some trade-offs or cost offsets. In order to bring up the sick-leave issue, I wonder what those trade-offs might have been, because it is a give and take here. Granted, they seem to be overusing the sick leave, but what was Transit willing to give up so that this could be brought to the table?
The Chair: The Chair recognizes the chair of B.C. Transit, with a caution that we are getting into an area that may require a theoretical answer, which becomes quite difficult unless it is something that is already being discussed across the table. Whatever would come and go through a set of negotiations would not necessarily be examinable in these estimates. With that caution, I recognize the chair of B.C. Transit.
E. Denhoff: Absolutely. I will deal with the second half of the question first. In dealing with sick leave, the union's proposition was that if we could work together more closely to allow some flexibility in the holiday scheduling for union members, and in the banking of overtime -- which they are not now, or weren't, allowed to bank -- they would trade us for a cohesive, joint effort to reduce sick leave. So we agreed on
[ Page 8839 ]
a clause in the new agreement that for the first time allows transit operators and mechanics to bank up to five days of overtime. The language is explicit: it says that there will be a corresponding reduction of five days of sick leave. That will be our first attempt in this contract to try to deal with it jointly, and we will see. As I mentioned earlier yesterday, it may or may not work, but it is an attempt.
Dealing with the other question on transit passes, I think a couple of things should be made clear. During the course of negotiations with the unions involved, we reached an impasse. The monetary offer that we had on the table was about 2 percent -- a little less, I guess, or almost exactly on -- while other settlements around us were in the neighbourhood of 2 l/2 and 3 percent, with some even slightly higher, and we simply felt that we didn't have the financial resources to put more money on the table. In the course of negotiations, union members said that they thought other things might be of value to the corporation that would not cost us significant amounts of money and that might also provide a public benefit. They argued that, as in the airline industry -- and I don't know if it is still the case, but it used to be in the railroad industry and others -- providing family-member travel passes or discounts for one individual in addition to the bus driver, who obviously travels free because he is driving, wouldn't cost the corporation a lot of money. We costed it internally based on existing programs we have, and our financial people estimated that it would cost us around $300,000. A single point in bargaining would have been about $1.5 million a year to B.C. Transit, so if we had settled at 3 percent instead of 2 percent, or at 2.5 percent instead of 2 percent -- which people around us were doing -- it would have in fact cost us a great deal more.
One of the things that the union said quite passionately in negotiations was that they had split shifts; they got up early in the morning, often started their shifts at 5:30 or so and had to drive an hour to get to work; then they finished sometimes very late at night. They were very committed to public transit; they had a large investment in public transit, as did their families, and a way we could recognize that without a major monetary cost was by the provision of this family-member pass. I think that less than half of Transit employees have signed up for those passes, and they're being used mostly during the off-peak periods. So we don't think there are large financial costs.
A legal opinion was provided by the former Attorney General to the previous government as to whether we had breached our legal obligations to the transit commission in Vancouver. He found that we had not breached our legal obligations; we were within the law. We asked after the fact, nonetheless, for the formal approval of the commission, and all the commissioners there -- in my memory, at least -- voted to approve these passes.
D. Symons: I guess those numbers you were giving.... I heard that the value of a pass could be in the neighbourhood of $1,200. But of course the value you're giving it is paper value, because the buses are there and they're running. In a sense you could say that there's no loss to the company because one more passenger really wouldn't make a difference. Only if these people were all going to ride the bus and pay would that amount of money be lost, actually. You paint it as good; I paint it as bad, but maybe it's not as bad as I've painted it.
I have just one last question in this regard that deals basically with what I'll refer to as driver productivity -- differentiated from just a sick leave, but the overall productivity. Are there figures that give the driver productivity for different routes -- Victoria versus Vancouver and maybe Vancouver versus Toronto -- just to see how the productivity of employees here might compare with different areas in B.C. and also with other jurisdictions?
Hon. G. Clark: I think I said earlier that when I took office it was a surprise to me that no one knew which routes made money and which ones lost money, and how much. We're actually doing that kind of detailed review now, and we're looking at the cost per service-hour per passenger. Of course it varies. Coming from Richmond, the member may not want to hear this, but the rule of thumb is generally consistent; it's consistent here as it is elsewhere. In the city they are very productive. Some of the routes make money, including debt service and everything. In the suburbs, they all lose money. It's because people live on fairly large, spread-out lots.
The history of public transit in North America is that in the sixties almost all routes broke even or made money. In the seventies, with the growth of the suburbs and the expansion of transit there, they all started losing money. Now they lose a lot of money, partly because they are going farther and carrying fewer people per hour. It's the nature of the land use pattern more than anything else. That's a challenge.
Some of the routes are very expensive. Those are being reviewed intensely. We want to have a better handle on that and are getting one. The transit commission deals with the route question. This year they dropped three or four routes that had a $35- or $40-per-person subsidy. We are continuing to monitor.
D. Symons: I appreciate the answer.
When the fares went up a few months back, I was asked to go on CBC's morning show. Being a dedicated person, I took the bus down. I usually don't ride the bus at that time of day. I was quite amazed that at 6:30 in the morning I stood from the centre of Richmond until I was in the downtown area, when the passengers got off.
Interjection.
D. Symons: I made it on time. I had a co-interviewee -- I guess you can call him -- Mr. Denhoff, on this program. We had a very nice chat about my experiences on the bus and the reaction of the public to the fare increases. That's a problem; our fares in Vancouver are about as high as anywhere else in North America. It's a problem of balancing this. The other side of it is that this bus was loaded. You mentioned the Richmond runs, maybe being a
[ Page 8840 ]
suburb.... During rush hours they are filled to capacity, but in the evening hours they make runs with not that many people in them. Balancing the two -- the capacity need at rush hour and the lack of ridership in non-rush hour times -- is a real problem.
I want to move on to a topic that I brought up with the minister a year ago during estimates. I commented about buses going through the Deas Island Tunnel and the fact that right now we have a bicycle service that goes through there with a little trailer car that rides people through at certain hours during the summer only. I've managed to ride there from the ferry and just miss it, because I'm not that fast a rider, and have been stranded on the Delta side.
[3:15]
I suggested at that time a year ago that possibly racks could be mounted on the buses. The minister thought that sounded like a good idea. It's done in other jurisdictions -- in Seattle, for instance. This could be one way of alleviating congestion, even having a trailer system going through there at only specified hours. You could catch any bus going through the tunnel and be sure of getting through. So I'm just wondering where that's at, because it is a good idea. I think it should be expanded not only because of the difficulties of the tunnel, but also to other areas in the city where riders could go partway on the bus and do the rest of it by bicycle. This would cut down some road traffic if people could use their bikes more easily.
Hon. G. Clark: I'm actually very pleased to inform the member, and I think it's been announced -- usually this member is aware of all these announcements at Transit -- that we have just formed an advisory group, and we're looking at a pilot project starting in the next month or two. The advisory group consists of people from the bicycle community, the union and the company.
In fact, I was with Mr. Denhoff down in Portland almost a year ago now, and they have a very interesting program where they have the rack on the front of the bus. Anybody can come and load their bicycle -- they have to load it themselves -- and get on. It's a bit of a pilot project down there, and they are working on it. We are very keen on it. It would be a challenging prospect to outfit all the buses with racks, and they would slow the buses down. But I'm quite keen on actually looking at it, because I'm not absolutely convinced that it can't be done. It makes perfect sense to me on the Deas Island route or some other routes, and I think we should have done it long ago. It's not only under active consideration, it will happen. We are just working on the design now with the various players to make it happen.
D. Symons: That's great. I've been lobbied by the bicycle interests, and I am sure the minister and the Minister of Transportation and Highways have as well, so this will be a great improvement. I look forward to that happening soon, particularly on the Deas Island one because I occasionally go to the Gulf Islands by bicycle.
You mentioned that this is a pilot program. I think another one was done in North Vancouver, the request stop program, where the bus will stop in the evening hours midway so that the person does not have to walk on a dark street. It was of six months' duration, but I believe the time has run out on it now. Are you going to expand the program? Will this take place in more areas and maybe throughout the whole system? I gather it was successful in North Vancouver. Can it be expanded and implemented on a full-time basis rather than just as an experiment?
Hon. G. Clark: Very timely questions today, hon. Chair. Just last month B.C. Transit went to the transit commission, because it's their domain, and suggested to them that we expand the request stop program to the entire system. They've agreed to that, and now Transit is in the process of working out how that might work. There are a few little problems. We want to make sure that the stops are safe places, because we don't want to be liable for people twisting their ankles or the like. So there are a few little things to work out yet. But I think it will be expanded to the entire system in the very near future, because we now have formal approval from the transit commission.
D. Symons: Boy, we're really asking the right questions. As a matter of fact, the few that I have left more or less fit in the same way. I'm just giving you a chance to say what wonderful things you're doing.
I've ridden the buses since I was about ten years old, and I know even back then -- when streetcars first started -- often the odd driver would stop at a place for a person who was elderly, or whomever. I guess they did it with the liability being on their shoulders if something had happened. It would be nice if Transit makes it a policy, so it is not up to the individual driver to make these decisions.
I have another one that fits in with this same series of questions. I notice for the l994 Commonwealth Games that the ticket which one buys to an event includes a ride on Victoria transit to that event. I think that's a wonderful idea; it will cut down the traffic going to and leaving the event, and will reduce the congestion around that particular area. I would like to suggest that this idea could be expanded maybe into Vancouver, for when you buy a symphony ticket, a football ticket, a hockey ticket or something. If you could talk these organizations into building a fare for transit into the ticket price, it would cut down the parking problems. You might upset the parking lot people, but I think the majority of people would think it was a great idea. Any ideas on expanding that?
Hon. G. Clark: This is constructive opposition. The member is absolutely correct: it is an excellent program, and I think Transit and the government should be congratulated for it.
The Commonwealth Games idea is essentially a new one to allow people to use that ticket for access to transit. I am not sure that I am supposed to do this, but I will advise the member that we are in discussions with the Vancouver Canucks to try to convince them of the
[ Page 8841 ]
merits of this kind of idea. Just so the members know, we are being paid by the Commonwealth Games -- for a discounted amount, but nevertheless we are being paid some amount -- for that service. So it is all very well to say that we think the Canucks should do it -- I do, and the member does -- but they are going to have to pay Transit for some of the costs of that. Some negotiations will take place. I am keen on expanding it. I think it is an excellent idea, and it is nice to have one success story that we can then build on for other events.
D. Symons: One other area deals with the PNE, which takes place in Vancouver. But that may be a little more complicated because there may not always be advance ticket sales. The people in the east end of Vancouver, which I am sure the member is very familiar with, have a huge parking problem there for ten or 12 days every year. If you could somehow get those people to ride transit with some inducement of that sort, I think it would be great.
Residents of Bowen Island seem to be paying the gasoline tax and the Hydro levy for transit services, but they are getting absolutely none, until they get across on the ferry to Horseshoe Bay. I see that the minister is being filled in on the background of this one. They get to Horseshoe Bay, and then they can get on the blue buses in West Vancouver. But to that point on Bowen Island itself they are paying these fees, shall we call them, for transit services that they are not receiving. There has been quite a lobby group over there pressing for this, which B.C. Transit is familiar with. One of their concerns is that in response to their requests, they feel they are perhaps being treated unfairly compared to areas in Vancouver. As a small community, they feel you could compare them to some other small community -- i.e., some of the ones on Vancouver Island like Colwood or Sooke. Comparing them to Sooke, which is further out and has a small population, would be a fairer comparison when you are considering their request for implementing a small bus service, at least on an experimental basis. It would not involve a great deal of transit on the island, just the main routes to get people to the ferry. If you could somehow integrate that and create an intermodal system with the ferry and West Vancouver, it would be a great boon to the people of Bowen Island.
E. Denhoff: The hon. member knows that I have some familiarity with this issue. We have about 50 to 75 Bowen Island residents who use West Vancouver transit on a daily basis. The Horseshoe Bay express road has been tailored specifically for the arrivals and departures of the people on the Bowen Island ferry, so in a sense, given that we have a special express service designed to meet those people, they get some service out of the tax money they pay. It is perhaps not as great as it is in some parts of central Vancouver, but it is probably as good as it is in some of the more rural parts of the lower mainland.
We have looked at this in considerable detail, and we continue to review it frequently for the Vancouver Regional Transit Commission. I will just make the point again that B.C. Transit itself doesn't make these decisions. I know that the individual who has been the spokesperson for Bowen Island community transit has been trying to get this service for many years -- through the time that Mayor Campbell chaired the commission, and on through the current commission chaired by Mayor Traboulay -- and one of the difficulties, as the commission has outlined to him, is that the cost of providing the service is about $160,000 a year. The additional revenue that B.C. Transit would derive is very modest, since those people are already taking our express service. It would represent a cost for the passenger of between $6.50 and $8. Given other, competing communities that would be able to put more riders on buses for the same amount of money, they don't quite seem to get by the commission each time they make their presentation.
But certainly we are quite prepared to review that service again and take another look. I'm sure over time, as the island population gets a bit denser, they may require service. I have a friend who lives there, Stephen Rogers. But he doesn't seem to require transit too much, and he doesn't often complain on behalf of residents there. So I don't know how quickly it'll be a major issue.
D. Symons: I'm sure the member's friend on Bowen Island is not likely to be riding public transit; he probably has his own method. I have some concerns about your traffic count, in that it may not necessarily count people who are using other modes now. They can't easily get to the ferry terminal on Bowen Island, so they end up driving their car there, and maybe driving it all the way. Some drive, of course, and create a parking problem around the ferry terminal there. Of course, if they want their own vehicle on the other side, that's almost an impossibility in Horseshoe Bay now. It would seem that you would build a ridership more than your figures would indicate if they could get to that terminal on Bowen Island much more easily.
I don't know if it's really a satisfactory answer to say, "Well, once you get to the other side," because that same story could have been used out in Maple Ridge. You could have said: "Once you get into Port Coquitlam, you have public transit there." Why weren't you charging them the gasoline tax and the other taxes in Maple Ridge all these years? You can use that out in the Fraser Valley, wherever you get to the edge of wherever the Vancouver regional transit system goes, and say: "Well, we'll charge the next one, because once you get into our area, of course, you're using our public transit." Unless you're going to expand that philosophy to all the other areas where you're not currently using it, I don't think it's fair to people on Bowen Island.
Don't you think it possible that the numbers may be larger than you've been saying, from the viewpoint that if you made it accessible on the island side, that would increase the ridership all through there, right into Vancouver?
Hon. G. Clark: I guess my response would be simply to say that, of course, these questions are entirely up to the commission. As the member knows, I've been trying to convince the commission about a free bus for downtown Vancouver, without success. The
[ Page 8842 ]
commission is responsible for routes. This presentation has been made. I'm happy to ask Transit to continue working to see whether that's possible. But at the end of the day, the transit commission looks at the expansion of service, at ridership and the cost per ride and those kinds of figures, and there are others that seem to win the day other than Bowen Island. Again, we'll keep it up.
I suggest you might want to talk to members of the transit commission on behalf of the people on Bowen Island -- Mayor Campbell and others who are on the commission -- and make the point to them that you think it's a good idea. Again, from B.C. Transit's point of view, we'll continue to work on it in terms of the numbers. In a general sense -- I know this sounds a bit trite -- all of us would like to see transit service expanded to as many places as possible. So we're always sympathetic, to try to make it work, but there are other competing demands. And the commission is charged with the responsibility of weighing and making the decision on those competing demands.
M. Farnworth: I'd like to touch on a couple of issues related to transit and the northeast sector, in particular the issues concerning Port Coquitlam, Coquitlam and the Lougheed area. Traffic and transportation is the major issue, without a doubt. The minister has indicated on a number of occasions that we're looking at a variety of options -- commuter rail in particular. I was reading in the Vancouver Province that they took a jaundiced view of commuter rail, and all I can think about the Province is that obviously none of them have ever lived in Port Coquitlam or Coquitlam. They obviously don't live anywhere near the area. I'd like the minister to tell me: where are we now in terms of commuter rail? What sort of process does he see happening? Are we on track in terms of getting commuter rail to Port Coquitlam?
Hon. G. Clark: I've no hesitation in saying to the member that one of the problems we face in the commuter rail option is that there were some figures announced many years past to justify not proceeding with commuter rail. Some of them, generated by the CPR for their own purposes, are floating around in the public domain. It is constantly bandied about that this is an expensive proposition. First, what we're trying to do is get accurate information as to the cost and the possible ridership and the functionality of proceeding with a commuter rail option. I am pleased to report to the committee, and to this member in particular, that the capital costs are coming down dramatically as a result of this very thorough review. This is probably in part because the CPR is sympathetic now to this area of business and is looking at its business opportunities.
[3:30]
Once you bring the capital costs down as dramatically as they appear to be coming down -- around $80 million.... We're still doing work on that. When you look at the phenomenal growth in the community and ridership starts going up, then the numbers are dramatically better than any that have been bandied about in public. Unfortunately, the Vancouver Province and some others continue to work off numbers which were never really worked through in the first place, because it was never taken that seriously. Secondly, they were ballpark figures generated in some part by a railway that wasn't particularly interested in pursuing it.
So here's where we are in the process. We've commissioned some of the finest talent in this field in North America. Mr. Carl Englund from New Hampshire and Brian Sullivan, a consultant from Calgary, have been working with fine B.C. Transit staff such as the vice-president of planning, Glen Leicester and now, of course, with the new CEO, Frank Dixon -- all having incredible expertise in the railway field. They've been working for several months now on firming up the numbers and working with the railway, and they've put some talent to bear on the problem. How much will it cost? Does it make sense? Is this a real option? In addition, we're getting the hard numbers with respect to the capital costs, and we're also getting some much better numbers in terms of the ridership. That is happening as we speak.
There will be a report to government in the next few weeks. Then we'll be weighing options, including those with respect to Richmond and other areas. The cabinet will have to make a decision early in the fall to decide whether these numbers justify proceeding agressively on a commuter rail option.
I must tell the member, and other members of the committee, that all of the numbers are improving. We haven't made any decisions or gotten the final report, but more work and refinement being done shows this to be a very viable proposition.
I'll be talking to the federal government about whether they're prepared to contribute to the capital costs which, of course, changes the cost per passenger quite dramatically from our perspective. I intend to be meeting with Mr. Corbeil. We have gotten some messages in to him over the summer to see whether that federal commitment still stands. They originally committed to 50 percent of the capital costs, and we'll certainly be pursuing that. Once we get all that information, then we'll be able to proceed further.
I agree with the member that this community has very serious transportation problems. If this is proved to be efficient, although not a panacea at all for that community.... It is not a substitute for rapid transit down Lougheed, or a SkyTrain option, or another major option; those are going to have to be pursued by the government over the next few years. But as an incremental step to dealing with some of these traffic problems, we think it has real possibilities if the numbers continue to work the way they do. To give the members a sense of the time line, we want to be in a position in the fall to make some major decisions as to transit options, transportation in general, where and how we are going to pursue it -- Richmond, the northeast corner; commuter rail, LRT -- and make some major announcements. If commuter rail makes the grade and cabinet decides to proceed, it takes about two years -- maybe a little less than that -- to build the stations and do the realignments to some double-tracking, the computerized signaling and the
[ Page 8843 ]
other things that are required to get the thing up and runnning.
So that gives the member a sense of it. We will be able to announce in the fall whether or not we are proceeding with commuter rail and other options that are available to government across the board to help the very serious problems of the northeast corner. I know that the chairman, the member for Maple Ridge, the member for Port Coquitlam, the Minister of Environment -- all of the MLAs in that community -- and the mayors have been consistently beating a path to my door since we took office, demanding action be taken. I had the privilege of meeting with people in Port Coquitlam for a bit of a ceremony around the Northeast Corner Citizens' Advisory Report. It took me an hour and a half to drive out there in rush hour to get to city hall to talk with people about transit. It was a good lesson for me about the very serious problems we have as a result of the spectacular economic growth in British Columbia -- as a result of very progressive government policies, of course.
D. Symons: I would like to correct one statement the minister made yesterday, when we started on transit. He commented about the density in Richmond. I might add that our new official community plan has a very dense downtown core in it now. In the 30 years I've lived in Richmond, I have seen a fantastic infill taking place, which is pretty well complete now. What we're doing now is going up rather than filling out. You will find that the density is certainly going to build there. I don't want to give in to the northeast sector on this. As you mentioned, both areas need some form of rapid transit.
Hon. G. Clark: I want to clarify that for the record. I apologize if I left that impression. You are absolutely right: there has been more densification in Richmond than in many other suburban communities. What I think I said, or meant to say, was that the GVRD's own studies suggest that there should be limited development in Richmond, and that some of that development should be pushed to the other side of the river, including up the north side of the Fraser Valley. What I was saying was that when you look at the GVRD's own documentation and the way in which they are driving it, it is probably fair to say that Richmond City Council doesn't really agree with this kind of planning. I'm not passing judgment one way or the other; I'm just saying that the GVRD's planning documents suggest growth development on the north side of the Fraser River. As a result of that logic, that's where the transit needs would be greatest, I said, in keeping with their planning documents.
D. Symons: I will update on those planning documents, because I have attended some of these Creating Your Future meetings. It seems that when they had the three options, the north side was one of the three; we voted on them, and the other team ended up being the one that was most popular. Unfortunately, none of the three densification techniques, or the sprawl out the valley, seemed to catch the imagination of the participants at the last meeting where those three options were discussed.
The one last thing I want to ask relates again to the studies that have been done. The 2021 study is, I believe, a cooperative one between the GVRD and the government. That report was due out about now, or last month. Can we find out where that is, or when it's due to come out? Will the report be tabled and made public, or is the government going to hang onto it and study it before the public sees it?
Hon. G. Clark: My understanding is that there is a kind of working draft, which is almost ready. I think the game plan is that it will be a final document this summer, and then will go out for public consultation. We don't have any intention of keeping it inside for our review. It will go right out to public review and discussion. It is very interesting indeed on some very challenging questions, because the land use questions are critical to transit, and they are also very tough political issues, particularly for local government. Nevertheless, it's a little bit behind schedule. The member is right; I think it was due out in June. That rings a bell: more realistically, it looks to me as if it will probably be August or September before it is actually published and out for public comment.
I appreciate the general tone of the estimates debates this year, if I could just say that for the record. With that, I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The Committee rose at 3:39 p.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]