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

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

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, JULY 20, 1993

Morning Sitting

Volume 12, Number 11

[ Page 8929 ]

The House met at 10:04 a.m.

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Sihota: Making sure that we keep the opposition on its toes, hon. Speaker, I call committee on Bill 57.

MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS, RECREATION AND HOUSING STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1993

The House in committee on Bill 57; D. Streifel in the chair.

On section 1.

L. Fox: In looking at section 1 of this bill, given the situation with respect to the Islands Trust policies and the need to have some flexibility to respect the different concerns on the different islands, will this section, and the additional powers and exceptions that may be granted to a trust body, allow the Islands Trust to recognize the variances in values in the different islands within the Islands Trust?

Hon. R. Blencoe: No, it's not directed at those issues. It's basically the enabling legislation that we see local government wanting, therefore we're giving the same kind of enabling.

We suggest to them enabling things they may want to come forward with, as on the housing affordability issues I have laid out in my communiqu�. The enabling we're looking forward to are the ones recommended in the Provincial Commission on Housing Options -- recommendations 55, 56, 57 and 59 -- and asked for by UBCM, in terms of special reserve funds for housing programs; standards of maintenance bylaws; authorization of bylaw referendums on loan authorization, if local government wishes to go for help for affordable housing programs; and the authority to lease residential land at below market rents to non-profit organizations. Those are the four specific recommendations we want to see local government come forward with, if they so wish, in terms that the minister or cabinet will allow through enabling.

The reason we're doing it through enabling is that we think these specific kinds of recommendations need to be tailored to specific municipalities that wish to move ahead, and we want the ability to work with them in order to make sure they work. If we get a hundred requests on a specific issue we're looking at, obviously we may put it into legislation later on. For instance, Prince George -- a community you know -- has been asking for some years for standards of maintenance. About three or four other municipalities have been asking for that right. At the moment we just want to put it into enabling legislation, so we can tailor a request by local government to meet their specific needs. If we see it's working and we've tested it and it's a tried-and-true method -- and obviously if UBCM thinks it's useful -- we can then enshrine it in statute as an automatic permissive piece of legislation.

A. Cowie: I have a question regarding the Islands Trust in section 1. We understand how the regional districts operate. There are people elected to the electoral areas, and there are also appointed people from councils; that is quite clear. But most people really don't understand the structure of the Islands Trust. I wonder if the minister would clarify for us how he sees the administration of the structure continuing in the islands. There are regional districts that have certain administrative roles in the Island Trust, and they are defined here under subsection (1)(a), (b), (c) and (d) -- that is, there is also a trust fund board. A summary would be very helpful.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I don't want to go into the details of the administration or the future administration of the Trust; that is obviously future policy and for consultation with local government. This deals with the enabling kinds of situations. If we are giving that to local government, we also want to give the Trust the ability to move ahead in those areas which I have outlined are in the Provincial Commission on Housing Options study. You should know, hon. member, that there is a review currently underway, and the Islands Trust has put forward certain suggestions for some administrative changes next year that would hopefully make their work clearer. I would suggest to the hon. member that he may wish to meet with the Islands Trust to see what they are suggesting, because I think the points he makes are well taken. They recognize that, and we hope to accommodate some of those clarity issues in '94.

C. Tanner: Can the minister explain a little more fully the delegation of authority under section 49.1(4)? Is the intention that the delegation of authority can be to a non-elected body?

Hon. R. Blencoe: No. The power granted is to the trust bodies in 49.1(1)(a) through (d) -- that is, the executive committee, a specified local trust committee, the Trust council and the Trust Fund board.

C. Tanner: Let me just make sure that it can't be delegated to, for example, a non-elected APC. Alternatively, are all the members of the Trust Fund board elected? Aren't some of those appointed, and aren't some of those appointed as non-elected officials?

Hon. R. Blencoe: It is quite specific that it's not to non-elected bodies, or to APCs. It is obviously to those who are accountable and those who are elected.

C. Tanner: Could the minister confirm that all the members of the trust fund board are elected?

Hon. R. Blencoe: I thought the member was directing his questions to things like APCs. The trust 

[ Page 8930 ]

fund board is made up of appointed members, and many of them are elected. Under certain circumstances they could be granted certain powers.

[10:15]

C. Tanner: Could the minister confirm that that's consistent with what happens in municipalities under the Municipal Act?

Hon. R. Blencoe: It would be consistent. The reason for 49.1 and this section for the Islands Trust is to make it consistent later on in section 2 under the Municipal Act, where additional powers and exceptions may be granted to the municipalities. In section 290.1 we are giving the same powers, therefore we have to try to meet the requirements of the Islands Trust in terms of those same kinds of requirements.

L. Fox: I have a question with respect to section 49.1(1) and the structures of committees in (a), (b), (c) and (d). Is the Islands Trust, in and of itself, given this particular change in powers? Will it have the opportunity to enter into these four structures at the board level without seeking the permission of the electorate? Is that the intent of this section?

Hon. R. Blencoe: Let me make it quite clear that the governance model is unchanged. The four sections that I referred to in (a), (b), (c) and (d) are the predominant governing bodies of the trust and are accountable to the electorate. All we are doing is giving them the same ability that we are going to give later in section 290.1. These are all issues that local government has asked for, in terms of moving ahead for more powers they feel are required to deal with some of these issues.

L. Fox: Well, I understand that. My question is on the Islands Trust, and obviously we'll get into the discussions later in the changes to the Municipal Act. Will the Islands Trust now have the opportunity through any of these sectors to enter into a particular initiative without the electorate's endorsement of that initiative?

Hon. R. Blencoe: The hon. member should look at subsections (5) and (6), where quite clearly it has to get the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council's authority. If they do not disobey or break the stipulations in (5)(a), (b) or (c), then yes.

L. Fox: So, in other words, the Islands Trust could enter into an agreement now with the provincial government to take on a housing initiative without going to the electorate to get an endorsement. In fact, all they need is cabinet's authorization to go forward and commit tax dollars on a long-term project. Is that what the minister is suggesting?

Hon. R. Blencoe: I'll make it quite clear that this bill does not talk about financial contracts with the provincial government. What this bill does is give local government additional tools, particularly in comprehensive zoning, inclusionary zoning, leasing residential land at low market value and a number of other things that we can get to later. We are not insisting they do it; they don't have to enter into provincial contracts, but they can if they wish to move ahead in giving themselves greater ability to work with the private sector. Let's take, for instance, comprehensive development zoning, which in a way is a variation on the old land use contract, but I think it is a refined and improved one. We've learned a lot from some of the problems with land use contracts. We are giving local governments greater authority, autonomy and ability to negotiate for their constituents, within the confines of the legislation, and to come up with win/win situations.

In some areas we are not actually stipulating legislation that is automatic. That's why it is enabling. We want to see what comes forward. If it doesn't make sense or it's a problem or they are not ready to do it, then obviously cabinet can say that that power is not available to them.

From your comments in second reading, I think the inference was that they were going to go out and enter into ccontracts with the provincial government for housing and all sorts of things. What we are saying to them is that if they have the ability and they're locally elected, and they want to move in that direction in terms of leasing lands or allowing municipalities or the Islands Trust to include housing developments as an item on a loan authorization bylaw referendum.... If they come forward and it makes sense and they've got the ability to do it, then we would allow them to go ahead.

L. Fox: Later in this legislation, it gives the opportunity for municipalities to negotiate densities with a proponent who may in fact be encouraged through those negotiations to build low-cost housing. Given the different values on the various islands within the Islands Trust, my concern is that this section appears to give the Islands Trust the same opportunity to negotiate densities with the developer, based on the developer's initiative to provide low-cost housing. That's the issue I'm concerned about. If in fact the Islands Trust has that autonomy -- and I understand that it does in this section -- do they then have to go to that particular island for an endorsement of that density? Or is this going to be predicated on the policies of the total Islands Trust, rather than on the wishes of one of the islands?

Hon. R. Blencoe: It's a good discussion, and I welcome it. We're not changing the decision-making process in the Islands Trust. I would remind the member that he may or may not have a philosophical difference with the Islands Trust in terms of their mandate and philosophy. I don't know that. But if that's the issue, then the member may wish to point that out.

I want to make it quite clear to the member that later on when we get into section 3, section 290.1(2), we actually say that they cannot go beyond certain things. They cannot: "(a) confer an authority otherwise available to a municipality, including any power that 

[ Page 8931 ]

may be granted under section 287, 288, 289 or 290 of this Act; (b) override an absolute prohibition contained in an enactment; (c) confer an authority to levy a new tax;" -- which I think is one of your concerns; they can't do that -- "(d) confer an authority to grant a new tax exemption; (e) eliminate a requirement for obtaining the assent of the electors; (f) any other thing prohibited by regulation under subsection (3)." Section 2, section 290.1(3) says: "The Lieutenant Governor in Council may, by regulation, prescribe additional limitations on the authority under this section."

The bottom line is that the governance model stands. They have the authority. We're just going to give them some additional.... All the evidence coming forward to us from local government is that they want greater flexibility and enabling to do creative things, but we're going to have some checks and balances and watch them do it. Some are actually saying: "Why don't you just let us do it without having to watch us?" Well, this is new ground, I agree; we want to ensure that it works. But I think you'll cover it, hon. member, in terms of protection.

L. Fox: I'm looking for the different values on the different islands with respect to development and accommodating housing and densities. If I may, hon. Chair, I'll try to paint a scenario. It seems to me that if Ganges on Saltspring wanted to negotiate an increased density with a developer to look after some low-cost housing initiatives, the format before us suggests that if it went to the people within the Islands Trust for endorsement and there is some monetary commitment by the Islands Trust, the values of the whole Islands Trust would be the determining factor, rather than the values of Saltspring Island. That's what I'm trying to get at. In this case, for instance, one of the other islands -- pick any one you wish -- may want to keep the density significantly lower than the proposal for Saltspring. Therefore if a referendum involved the Islands Trust, their values could be reflected, rather than the values of Saltspring Island. That is what I was trying to get to. Perhaps the minister would like to assure me that the values of the respective islands, not of the whole Islands Trust, would be the predominant factor. The converse could be the same: there might be an island that doesn't want those densities, but the rest of the Islands Trust does, and the values of the rest of the Islands Trust once again would control the island that doesn't want those kinds of densities. That was my concern. Perhaps the minister would like to comment on it.

The Chair: Hon. minister, I have a caution for the committee. We seem to be treading into second reading debate here, and I would just remind the committee that we are on the specifics of section 1. We should stay on the section rather than on the principle debate in the second reading style.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I hope that everyone will take that guidance, because I think it is useful.

Just very quickly, the issue you are raising is not a new one. It is a general governance issue and one that I referred to our colleague from the official opposition. There is a review underway on some of these issues, and as I said to my colleague, you may wish to contact the Islands Trust about it. This bill neither increases nor decreases accountability; everything stays as it is. Nor does it change the governance structure. You seem to have some concerns with the structure, and they may or may not be valid. I don't think we should get into that today. We may very well get into those in terms of amendments to the Islands Trust governance model in the next session in '94. I would refer you to the Trust council to look at that.

L. Fox: With all due respect to the Chair, I believe that we are on section 1, and the scenario I painted was to deal with a particular concern within section 1. Given that this section grants additional powers and exceptions to a trust body, it would appear to me that a governance issue should have been dealt with prior to the consideration of granting those extra powers. That is a concern to me, because we are broadening the mandate of the Islands Trust. We are giving them new authorities and new powers, and it would appear to me that the mechanism of how we handle these new powers and authorities should have been in place prior to this act coming forward. That is the concern. The minister suggests I should contact the Islands Trust. I can suggest to him that my phone has been ringing constantly over the last four months with calls from people on the respective islands concerned about the Islands Trust policy and about how the granting of these new powers is going to affect them. It seems like we are putting the cart before the horse here. We are granting the additional powers before we have dealt with the issue of how we are going to utilize those powers in the governance issue.

C. Tanner: Could the minister give the House the assurance that he hasn't delegated or relegated any of the ultimate power for the Islands Trust in this act?

[10:30]

Hon. R. Blencoe: If the Islands Trust or local government can do a better job in some specific area on anything new through here that is enabling, which I have outlined, it will have to be looked at by the ministry, the minister and cabinet.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

L. Fox: We have some quick voices here. I am sure that they are in a hurry to get home instead of trying to do the government's business.

I want to ask the minister to give me a broad overview from his perspective as to what these additional powers in this section mean to municipalities.

Hon. R. Blencoe: We are trying to implement the Provincial Commission on Housing Options -- COHO -- report asking for more customized land use zoning, 

[ Page 8932 ]

particularly for large and complex development sites, allowing the flexibility to sit down with the developer and local governments to negotiate conditions that they see fit. They may particularly wish to look at recommendations 55, 56 and 29 in the COHO report. Recommendation 55 says the Municipal Act should be amended to provide local governments the authority to lease residential land at below market rents to non-profit organizations. Recommendation 56 says the Municipal Act should be amended to allow municipalities to include housing developments as an item in a loan authorization bylaw referendum, and to issue.... That's as far as we went on that one. Recommendation 57 says the Municipal Act should be amended to allow municipalities to establish special reserve funds for housing purposes. Recommendation 29 says the Municipal Act should be amended to enable local governments to enact standards-of-maintenance bylaws.

I should read to you certain recommendations from Mr. Taylor, the executive director, on where the executive encourages the government to proceed as quickly as possible in terms of legislative amendments. It would be to establish inclusionary zoning bylaws, use bonus density and transfer density rights for affordable housing, lease residential land at below market value rates to non-profit organizations and establish special reserve funds for housing purposes. The next one is to introduce the authority of regional planning. We are working on the issue of fire safety in secondary suites -- that's not in, but we're working on it. And the last one -- which we can accommodate here -- is that the Municipal Act should enable local government to enact standards-of-maintenance bylaws.

All of the things we are moving ahead on are what Mr. Taylor and the UBCM executive have asked us to do as quickly as possible in terms of the COHO recommendations.

L. Fox: I recognize that the UBCM's thrust has been this, but I think we have an obligation to review those issues in terms of what may or may not be in the best interests of the local taxpayers, recognizing that the UBCM has a mechanism which brings all the local electorates together. The taxpayers don't have the same opportunity to make their concerns known from their perspective, other than through their locally elected representatives. Many taxpayers don't understand the ramifications of the kinds of authorities given under this act.

With respect to the authority for the municipality to lease out property below market value, it is my understanding that a municipality cannot currently lease out a property or enter into an agreement for over five years. Does this authority allow the municipality to enter into a lease for up to 99 years, or are we still on a five-year renewable process?

Hon. R. Blencoe: The member is trying to make sure it gets on the record, and he's quite correct to do so. In section (e), it is currently a requirement to obtain the assent of the electors on any issue; that still has to go ahead. On page 3, subsection (2)(e) cannot eliminate a requirement.... If it's currently required for five years, ten years, or a 99-year lease -- whatever you're asking for.... If the assent of the electors is required, it still has to be done under this change.

L. Fox: As I understand it, each proposal to lease municipal land could have a different tenure attached to it. If it has the consent of the electors, the municipality could enter into a 99-year lease. Is that what the minister is saying?

Hon. R. Blencoe: We're really getting into somewhat of a hypothetical question. If there is an assent requirement now, that still stands. Nothing has changed in the assent requirement.

L. Fox: Let me rephrase the question. Can a municipality with the consent of the electors enter into a 99-year lease with respect to leasing below market value for the purpose of creating a low-cost housing project within that municipality?

Hon. R. Blencoe: We will indulge the member by trying to find the exact answer. I would reiterate that there is no change to the requirement for assent of the electors. If it is currently required, so be it. We're not changing or adding anything.

L. Fox: Let me put it in a forthright and blunt way. Not too long ago we discussed a piece of legislation which denied non-residents the right to vote if they did not have property or a 99-year lease within a municipality. My question is: does this allow that particular proponent to enter into a 99-year lease and thus allow them the opportunity to vote within that community? In terms of the tenure, can that proponent enter into a 99-year lease with the municipality under this amendment?

Hon. R. Blencoe: This says nothing about 99-year leases. The member should know that currently, under section 542 of the Municipal Act, "council may by bylaw absolutely lease any real property held or owned by the municipality, other than land acquired or held under section 679, for any term or terms, including an option for renewal not exceeding in the aggregate 99 years." They currently have the power, hon. member. As far as I can see, there is currently no referendum requirement.

L. Fox: That comes as news to me. I happen to be involved in one where we're allowed to give only a five-year lease. I guess your assurance here is that in any proposal such as this, communities can enter into a 99-year lease. If that's what the minister is saying, then that concern is laid aside.

The other issue that I want to get into is subsection (2)(a). I know that in section 288, under certain circumstances the municipality can come to the minister for his assistance. But I have some difficulties, because section 288, especially, is pretty broad. What is the intent of this particular clause? Perhaps the minister 

[ Page 8933 ]

could give me an outline of the specific intent of subsection (2)(a).

Hon. R. Blencoe: The answer is that if it's currently available to you under the Municipal Act, under sections 287 to 290 inclusive, you cannot get that authority under these new enabling provisions we're providing. For the information of the member, in terms of the Municipal Act, section 287 is incidental powers, 288 is further powers for municipal assets, 289 is further powers for peace and order, and 290 is emergency powers "where the powers conferred on a municipal council are inadequate to deal with an emergency." By bylaw the council may, after adopting it by vote of at least two-thirds of the council members, declare that an emergency exists, and exercise powers necessary to deal effectively with the emergency. The bottom line is that it's already laid out. We're saying you already have those powers.

L. Fox: I'm just reflecting, in my own mind.... Once again, I want to clarify this 99-year lease. The minister suggested that a municipality could enter into a 99-year lease without the consent of the electorate. Is that what I heard?

Hon. R. Blencoe: I'm sorry.

L. Fox: Let me ask the question again. In his previous response, the minister suggested that a municipality had the authority under the existing act to enter into a 99-year lease without the consent of the electorate. Is that what I heard?

Hon. R. Blencoe: That is correct. The rules appear in sections 542 and 679, the parks section. But I think you're referring to the 99-year building lease. Anyway, in sections 542 and 679, in part, yes -- the way I and staff read it, no referendum is required. On the parks side, there is.

L. Fox: As I understand it, the municipality can enter into an agreement to lease a portion of their land -- not for improvements or buildings, but to a housing initiative -- for 99 years without the consent of the people.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I've covered this and said the answer is yes.

To some degree I'm trying to accommodate my critic and be patient, but to some degree I'm a little concerned for local government. A bit of a sense is coming from my critic that somehow local governments are not able to deal with these issues, enter into negotiations or deal with acquiring or leasing land. They are elected, hon. member -- you know that. I have to put on the record that I am somewhat concerned about your.... For me, local government is far more sophisticated today. They wish their requirements to move ahead in a positive way. I think that to some degree you are reflecting some of the older attitudes and more benign kind of paternalism that local government has suffered under.

We are a government that wishes to let local government go ahead. But we're not etching it in legislation; we're giving them the power to come to us. We can monitor it, and obviously if it isn't going to work we are not going to let it go ahead. It may very well be that we're going to get all sorts of requests for certain things -- as I've outlined to you from Mr. Taylor's letter. So clearly, once we test it to see if it works, we will then put it in legislation. We're being very cautious, to the point where some local governments are actually saying: "Why don't you just let us do it?" We want to be cautious in some of these areas. I think you're being cautious, hon. member, but frankly I think you are being too much so.

I believe that local government wishes these kinds of flexibilities. They are far more sophisticated. They know their local circumstances. They are elected and accountable, and have to meet the requirements of their electorate at election time like anybody else, hon. member.

L. Fox: I guess it's because it's the third week of July that the minister is extremely testy here and making assumptions. One should note that assumptions are always dangerous in politics.

The real fact is that we're going to see municipalities receive a downloading in housing issues. We are going to see the opportunity, after this legislation, for the government to suggest that municipalities now have in legislation the opportunities to react to housing needs within their respective communities, and we're going to see a consistent downloading of those responsibilities onto municipalities. Whether or not the municipalities or the UBCM recognizes that -- I'm sure they do -- is one point. But I think it's important that the taxpayers who pay municipal taxes also recognize what's happening and recognize what the mechanisms are for controlling what's happening.

[10:45]

The fact of the matter is that you could have one council now take an initiative to enter into a new housing project on municipal property for a period of up to 99 years, which is a new power and a new authority. It's something that the people of British Columbia and the municipal taxpayers should understand. The reason that we clarify these points is so that it is on the record and people understand that municipalities have the authority now to enter into a 99-year lease without consulting the electorate and without confirming with the electorate that that's what they want.

With all due respect to the minister, I'm really trying to draw out what the mechanics are of the initiatives allowed in this legislation. I want to talk a little about section 290.1(2)(b), which says: "...override an absolute prohibition contained in an enactment...." That suggests that the regulation under this act does not do the following.... The minister might want to suggest how the legislation would prohibit and what that clause would prohibit, because I had some difficulty in understanding that.

[ Page 8934 ]

Hon. R. Blencoe: First, let me directly answer your question. It's to do with the issue that if there is something in the act that clearly says you cannot do it, you cannot do it; you cannot override an absolute prohibition.

Hon. member, I have to say that you're categorically, absolutely wrong in terms of downloading. I know the politics you're trying to display here. I think it's unfortunate that you're prepared to do it over housing. We're a government that's prepared to move on housing and affordability and to give local government the ability to help. We are providing them with the voluntary ability to request.... There's nothing compulsory; there's nothing laid out that they must do. Quite frankly, we are moving ahead on a progressive agenda with local government. If you wish to play whatever games you wish to play with this, that's your right, but there's nothing compulsory here. If local government wishes to enter into progressive partnerships with whomever on enabling or leasing -- the things that I've outlined to you -- they may come and discuss it with us. We're not saying they have to do it.

A. Cowie: I've been listening to what amounts to second-level debate, and I'm going to form a question. I want to express the opinion that I think this legislation has been gone over by the UBCM. It's perfectly contemporary legislation, and we should get on with it. The proper place to put the onus on housing is at the local level. The local level, as the minister said, is very sophisticated now -- most of it is. In Vancouver these things have been done for years, including 99-year leases, and they work extremely well. So I think we should talk about contemporary needs and get on with this legislation, rather than talk about archaic concepts that perhaps were relevant ten or 20 years ago.

L. Fox: Perhaps because I don't come from Vancouver and I'm not a planner, I have a different perception of what municipalities can and cannot afford. Vancouver may very well be able to afford the housing problem, and that member has a pipeline directly into the mayor of Vancouver, so he should know that. But I am concerned about municipalities that do not have that kind of autonomy and in fact may be forced into situations which they are not in a position to deal with. While the minister suggests that this is a voluntary program -- and I do accept that -- I see it as being the first step, and then later on there will be another step that would in fact put more pressure on municipalities to react to the housing needs within their respective communities. In principle, I don't have any problem with municipalities trying to be a partner in the process. But knowing what I do about smaller municipalities and their ability to meet their everyday needs, to suggest that they have the ability to enter into low-cost housing schemes is generous to say the least.

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

L. Fox: I recognize that this is exactly the same clause, but powers will be granted to regional districts, not municipalities. Previously regional districts had to have the support of the electorate to enter into a function, but this appears to subvert that process. Regional districts were formed for a planning function, but any other initiatives under a regional district had to have the support of the electorate before the regional district could enter into them -- this was a necessary tool to raise those dollars. Besides that, regional districts do not have the opportunity to hold property; they lease property from the Ministry of Lands for the functions that they create. So I want to know how all that fits into this.

Hon. R. Blencoe: My understanding is that the regional districts can hold property as a function, if they so desire. I think the discussion you're talking about revolves around sections 287, 288, etc., of the Municipal Act, that outline the current powers they have. The same discussion point is in section 790.01(3)(a): "...confer an authority otherwise available to a regional district, including any power that may be granted under section 786(1)(h) or (j) or (2) or 790 of this Act." Currently they are able to do that. It's not new powers that we're giving them in those areas.

L. Fox: I recognize that regional districts can own land under a function, but in order to do that they have to have the support of the electorate. Does this subvert the process of going before the electorate and achieving the electorate's support to create the function?

Hon. R. Blencoe: If they were to request additional service, then they would have to come under section 790 of the current act.

L. Hanson: Despite the obvious haste of the member for Vancouver-Quilchena to get out of here and on with their leadership event, I would like to ask a question of the minister.

In sections 2 and 3, one grants the ability to municipalities and regional districts. We have talked quite a bit about the issue as it relates to housing and to land being available for low-cost housing and other things like that. If I read this correctly, would the minister agree that it could confer a lot of other powers on those bodies -- the exemptions being that it's not allowed to confirm an authority that's otherwise available, nor override a prohibition of authority; but it could grant almost any authority and not be restricted to housing?

Hon. R. Blencoe: Yes, the member is absolutely correct. I cannot and I do not define what we're suggesting you can do in enabling.... I have concentrated on housing. I specifically said that that's what we're interested in; that's specifically what the UBCM has said they're interested in. There may very well be other things that come forward that they wish in enabling legislation -- things that they don't want to wait six or nine months for us to come back here; they want it through as quickly as possible. We get an 

[ Page 8935 ]

opportunity to take a look at it and see if it works -- other than, of course, protections under the former section, where we lay out the protection that they cannot override the assent of the electors or confer an authority to levy a new tax and those sorts of things.

But yes, I guess that's part of local government growing up. Also, what I've heard, and what I think you've heard, is that sometimes we can't wait six or nine months to get enabling legislation, or MEVA. That's something else. We want it; it's a bit of an emergency. It gives us the opportunity to adapt as quickly as possible with a little more flexibility in the system, but also making sure there's protection in the areas raised by yourself and your colleague.

L. Hanson: Would that preclude the need for MEVA then? Will MEVA still be required when an action has been taken by a municipality or regional district that isn't truly authorized? Can you go and retroactively authorize it?

Hon. R. Blencoe: Validation legislation would still be required. If you wanted to enable beyond the areas in which the bill says no -- i.e., the authority to levy a new tax -- you can't override. You'd have to come back here. There's no question about that.

L. Hanson: I guess the only other point -- and I think the minister has admitted to it -- is that this piece of legislation will take away from the Legislature the ability to discuss changes to the Municipal Act -- not in a complete sense, but most of the time when changes come about, they are brought to this House for discussion. This would circumvent that process.

L. Fox: I just want to go back to the point so I can clarify it. I've tried to look up the sections of the act the minister referred to. Once again, I want to go back to whether or not a regional district -- prior to entering into any of these powers or authorities that it is given under section 790.01 -- has to go through the process of creating a function. The minister rapidly quoted off some legislation numbers, but it could be a clear yes or no, rather than forcing me to try to go through this massive act and dig out what those sections are.

Hon. R. Blencoe: Section 790 of the Municipal Act is the section I referred to. It talks about additional local or extended services. If a local government wishes additional services that are currently under section 790 of the Municipal Act, that's where they'd go. It's quite clear what they are:

"(1) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may, by regulation, grant additional powers to a regional district to establish and operate services by bylaw.

"(2) Without restricting the generality of subsection (1), The Lieutenant Governor in Council may, by regulation, grant to a regional district the same powers the municipality has under this Act and the following Acts: (a) Cemetery and Funeral Services Act; (b) Emergency Program Act; (c) Health Act; (d) Heritage Conservation Act; (e) Library Act.

"(3) A regulation granting a power under subsection (1) or (2) shall specify whether the service is a local service or extended service and may, in connection with its implementation, (a) prescribe terms and conditions for its operation, (b) confer regulatory powers on the regional district, (c) bestow the authority referred to in section 786(1)(f)....

"(4) A regulation under this section may, notwithstanding anything in the Acts listed in subsection (2), make special provisions that the Lieutenant Governor in Council considers are necessary or advisable with respect to the following matters only:

(a) voting procedures on a bylaw that pertains to the exercise of the powers;

(b) expenditures, apportionment and cost recovery."

Hon. member, I refer you to section 790.

[11:00]

L. Fox: Very simply, is it the intent of this particular clause that regional districts will not have to go forward and create a function with the support of the electorate within a specified area? Or will the regional district still have to go to the electorate and get their endorsement to create a function which allows them to enter into this particular authority?

Hon. R. Blencoe: If a new service is needed, you go through the sections that are currently numbered 786 to 790. If a service already exists, assent cannot be waived wherever required. I refer you again to the protection sections. If it's currently required, it is still there; nothing is changed in that area. All we're doing here is allowing them to come forward case by case, municipality by municipality or regional district by regional district for some enabling in an area of interest or concern that they wish to move on as quickly as possible. I have specifically said that we're interested in, and moving ahead on, the UBCM's request for the enabling that I already read to you half an hour ago.

L. Fox: One last attempt. I think the minister said that if regional districts are going to enter into any additional powers which they presently do not have, they will have to have the support of the electorate to create that function. I think that's what the minister said.

Hon. R. Blencoe: The answer is yes. If you look at section 790.01(3)(b), it says: "...anything prohibited under paragraphs (b) through (e) of section 290.1(2)." It refers you back to section 290.1(2): "...(b) override an absolute prohibition contained in an enactment; (c) confer an authority to levy a new tax; (d) confer an authority to grant a new tax exemption...." It is not allowed, and therefore it does not overrule current regulations.

Section 3 approved.

On section 4.

[ Page 8936 ]

A. Cowie: I think this is good legislation. I have some questions, however. I think it's important that when one brings in legislation like this in smaller municipalities like Prince Rupert or other smaller municipalities that have been very sophisticated over the years in their way of doing things.... But they don't necessarily have the staff to carry out some of the complex design and enabling procedures as projects get examined. As with the old community plan process, I am wondering whether the minister is considering giving some funding to help municipalities that want to carry out this new legislation so that they don't have to learn it all over again, and they can get some assistance from experts.

Hon. R. Blencoe: Planning grants are available, and I fully expect that some municipalities may not be sophisticated and may want some assistance. To answer your generic question, that's why the legislation says "may." Obviously, some municipalities are ready to go; they have the ability, and obviously we want to encourage them. There may be some who wish to do it, but.... We will be putting out guides and assistance on how to carry it out. I have already shown you some of the things we are doing. We expect a full guide on this. We will also be working with the Planning Institute of British Columbia on this legislation in terms of assistance. We are looking at key seminars in the province to work around some of these issues.

It is significant legislation. It is probably one of the most advanced in terms of greater planning tools that we have ever given in this province, and we recognize that we have to provide assistance and financial ability to those municipalities who wish the grants to be able to carry it out.

A. Cowie: From calls I have made to the UBCM and Richard Taylor, the UDI, the Canadian Home Builders' Association, the Planning Institute of B.C. and the engineers, I recognize that they have all, one way or another, been contacted, especially through the Provincial Commission on Housing Options, and I think the people generally want to do this. They want this kind of sophistication, and they are willing to tackle it in a better administrative way than the old land use contract. Essentially, this is the old land use contract that was in place 20 years ago. It is being recognized again for its value and has been restructured.

I have one detail question on section 963(3)(d), where it mentions different standards of works and services provided. Some years ago there was a report done at the greater Vancouver level to indicate that it's amazing how close the municipalities are with a lot of their standards. But in order to simplify.... I know that there are some 80 different fire hydrants, and in every element of servicing -- lamp posts and everything else.... I am wondering if the ministry is going to dust off some old reports and try to give some assistance to municipalities on standards, so that municipalities -- especially some of the smaller ones -- don't have to go through all of the analysis of what's available and what's not available and how they can save on some costs and things like that.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I am not aware of all of them, but some interesting pieces of work have been done over the years that avoid any controversy, but have innovative and creative planning tools, models and suggestions that have not been acted upon and are probably.... Depending on the interest, we may very well bring them out, dust them off and move ahead on some of them in terms of further discussion. My understanding is that there was some work done and a report called "Residential Services and Site Planning Standards" in approximately 1980. It sounds like it might be a useful document for us to revisit, hon. member.

L. Fox: I have several concerns with respect to this section. As I understand it, we are discussing all of section 4 -- sections 963 and 963.1. Is that the understanding of...?

The Chair: Hon. member, if the committee wants to go through all the subsections, it's within the hands of the committee. I haven't heard any objection, so I am assuming that we are examining all that is under section 4.

L. Fox: These are extremely new powers. I am not suggesting at this point that I don't support it, but it triggers many concerns. One is where you have a subdivision that has been built but perhaps not completed. It has been developed and promoted on a certain density, and the infrastructure has been put into place to meet that density. Then a developer comes along and acquires the part that is not developed, negotiates with the municipality and has a separate zone created within the old subdivision which can have different densities, values and so on. Obviously, those homeowners who purchased in that subdivision knowing what the initial requirements were would be somewhat concerned when all of a sudden there is more traffic on their street than they had expected and an increase in infrastructure costs which could up their frontage charges. All these concerns come to mind.

It's also my understanding that in this section, if that separate zone were created, you could limit any support, referendum or whatever to that new zone. You can section part of the municipality so that the whole neighbourhood wouldn't have an opportunity to vote on whether or not that initiative should go forward. Perhaps the minister might want to explain some of the mechanics, and whether or not my concerns are legitimate.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I don't want -- and hopefully the member doesn't either -- to get into the intricacies of what is within the purview of local government if they decide to take up the offer made by the provincial government in this legislation. We are offering the ability to enter into comprehensive development zoning if they so desire and feel they have the ability.

In terms of the servicing requirements or the problems you consider in terms of costs or whatever, again I assume that local government has the ability to determine that. They can restrict those services; they 

[ Page 8937 ]

can control it if they decide to move ahead. I presume they will consider the servicing restrictions when required. All we're doing here is giving local government the ability to move ahead in this area if they wish to, but they will have to know -- and I'm sure we will point out to them -- that there are many things to think about.

L. Fox: I'm really surprised at this minister's willingness to get into a friendly debate.

Let me put it another way. If that area of the municipality that this new initiative is going to take place in.... What portion of the municipality will have the authority or opportunity to be...? I'm trying to work this out so I stay within this section. Normally when you look at a zoning bylaw change, there is a public notification that goes out, within the requirements of the act, to the interested specified areas. When you do this spot zoning, which in essence is what it could amount to, what will the new requirements for notification be? Who would be involved as a signatory within that framework?

Hon. R. Blencoe: Section 956 still applies in terms of public hearings. These are zoning bylaws. They may be specific to giving local government more power on a specific site -- that's what we are trying to do -- but they are zoning bylaws. Public hearings will be required. The bylaws must be consistent with their official community plan and, as I said, public hearings will be required, as under section 956 of the Municipal Act.

L. Fox: With respect to a complex.... You can regulate a zone within a building, in structures. Would all the residents of a complex or a site be involved in whether or not that initiative should go forward? Would it just be that particular building, or would it be the neighbourhood that has the opportunity to get involved in that?

Hon. R. Blencoe: Back to section 956(3) of the act: "At a public hearing all persons who believe that their interest in property is affected by the proposed bylaw shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity to be heard or to present written submissions respecting matters contained in the bylaw that is the subject of the hearing."

[11:15]

L. Fox: I recognize what the hearing does, but that doesn't mean that you have any say. You can go out and spout off all you like at a hearing. If a municipality decided that it was such a controversial issue that it was going to hold a plebiscite, who would be entitled to participate? Would it be all the community or would it be just within that relative building? This is a new initiative. I have never before seen the opportunity to have different densities within a structure.

Hon. R. Blencoe: It's a zoning bylaw. It has to be consistent with the OCP. Zoning bylaws have to confer in terms of public hearing -- anyone who is or feels affected by that zoning bylaw on or close to, or in proximity, or anywhere in the community. As you know, hon. member, you and I have been on local councils. You get people from great distances coming to talk to the specific zoning bylaw who....

Interjection.

Hon. R. Blencoe: Right, that happened. It is subject to all the current democratic rules and procedures that local governments go through, rules I continue to have faith in. If you're referring to a plebiscite, the boundaries and the eligibility would be determined by the council, but in terms of the bylaw, OCP, zoning changes or whatever they come up with, they are subject to public hearing.

Sections 4 and 5 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Bill 57, Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Housing Statutes Amendment Act, 1993, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. R. Blencoe: Committee on Bill 59.

VANCOUVER CHARTER AMENDMENT ACT, 1993

The House in committee on Bill 59; D. Streifel in the chair.

Sections 1 to 7 inclusive approved.

On section 8.

A. Cowie: This section needs a little more clarification. Section 8(b)(i) says: "be suited to the configuration of the land being subdivided." Well, a lot of Vancouver is already subdivided. I'm just wondering if this was requested or whether this is just putting general legislation in order.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I recall the discussion with Vancouver on this one. All of these were specifically requested by Vancouver.

Sections 8 to 12 inclusive approved.

On section 13.

A. Cowie: I think this also needs some clarification for the record. Are we talking here about a situation where you've got a heritage street or a redevelopment, and it's necessary to collect some money in order to pay 

[ Page 8938 ]

for that. Is this section in here in order to do that specifically so that it wouldn't be a tax on the whole municipality?

[M. Lord in the chair.]

Hon. R. Blencoe: The purpose of this section is to permit the city to assume a local improvement levy if an improvement such as a street, sidewalk or bridge is replaced, removed or destroyed, and the levy is not yet paid off. The city currently has no way of assuming levies still being paid by property owners for local improvements, even if they have been destroyed or replaced. We will now give the city the ability to relieve property owners with local improvement levies for improvements that may no longer exist, which they would still be paying for if the amendment were not made. This parallels a similar provision in the Municipal Act.

A. Cowie: I'm still not sure. I take it that it applies basically to smaller projects: street improvements, small bridges and that sort of thing. But in Vancouver, for instance, even repairs to major buildings, like roofs, are taken out of capital, believe it or not. There is not a separate fund for maintenance built up over the years. That is something that I believe is being changed and will be changed over time. But this certainly wouldn't apply to the Cambie Street bridge or anything as large as that, where you have to go out for a referendum. I just want some assurance there.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I would be surprised if the Cambie Street bridge was done out of this. It is local improvement areas, local improvement levies, and what is currently allowed under part 24 of the current charter, which I don't have before me. We could find out very quickly.

Section 13 approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Bill 59, Vancouver Charter Amendment Act, 1993, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I call committee on Bill 75.

LIBRARY FOUNDATION OF BRITISH COLUMBIA ACT

The House in committee on Bill 75; M. Lord in the chair.

On section 1.

L. Fox: We can be thankful that we have so much legislation before us that we can concentrate on it all at one time.

This is a brand-new opportunity, and I want to be sure that we understand all aspects of this bill exactly. Is it the intent to have a provincial board which administers this structure? Are we going to go out and encourage private funding? The reason I ask that is that it says "board" under section 2.

Interjection.

L. Fox: I'm going to go into the definition of "board." Is this perceived to be the board functioning...? I'm sorry, hon. Chair. I'll let this section go by and deal with it in section 2.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

L. Fox: This is where I wanted to enter into the discussion. I want to get some idea as to how this board.... Does it interact with the existing board? Is it an extension of the existing board? Is this a brand-new board?

Hon. R. Blencoe: In the three options the member put forward, it's option three: a new board.

L. Fox: Obviously the 11 members are going to be appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council for a term of three years. Will there be some consideration given to appointing library people from around the province? Are we going to once again look at straight patronage for NDP members, or are we going to involve the respected library boards or regional library boards in this initiative?

[D. Streifel in the chair.]

Hon. R. Blencoe: My ministry probably makes the greatest number of appointments of any ministry: over a thousand. I have tried diligently to make them on a regional basis, geography being a big issue for us, as well as gender and some other issues that we think are important. Quite frankly, I have tried to make my appointments based on merit. There may very well be people of my political persuasion, but I can assure you, hon. member, that there are people of all sorts of political persuasions on the boards that I appoint. I welcome the member's analysis of the appointments I have made over the last year and a half. The boards are working well. We will make every effort to make sure that this board represents the province and library interests, and I presume we will have lots of people putting their names forward.

L. Fox: I'd take the minister up on his challenge to analyze all the appointments, but unfortunately, given the amount of legislation and all the amendments we've 

[ Page 8939 ]

had to face, there is just not enough time available to analyze the horrendous number of patronage appointments this government is making.

I am concerned, however, that if we're going to look at an appointment of the Library Foundation of British Columbia, we are going to involve the libraries in that appointment process. Would the minister give me at least some assurance that perhaps he would consult with library boards on a regional basis and look for some nominees for appointments to this Library Foundation?

[11:30]

Hon. R. Blencoe: This minister consults with the Library Trustees' Association and members on a regular basis. I have attended their meetings and their annual meetings, and I think we have a good working relationship. I've indicated to them that I am personally interested in their issues, and I can assure the member that I will consult with the Library Trustees' Association. I presume they will be coming forth for such discussions.

C. Tanner: Could the minister indicate why he chooses 11 members on the board?

Hon. R. Blencoe: It's based on other foundations that have been established by past administrations -- the universities foundation and the hospitals. Anyway, there's no magic in 11. It could be larger or smaller.

C. Tanner: Later on today we have another bill coming up which is very similar to this bill, and no numbers are prescribed to the board. It's a question that I have for the upcoming bill. But 11, just out of the air -- is it based on geography? Is it based on need? What's it based on?

Hon. R. Blencoe: Yes, 11 would allow us to do a sort of geographical appointment system. Again I offer that the member look at some of the appointments I have made over the last year and a half. That's always an issue, in terms of regional issues and concerns coming to the boards under my purview.

C. Tanner: Would the minister see that this board would choose its own chair? In other words, where it says in subsection 2(3): "The Lieutenant Governor in Council must designate a member to be chair of the board," would that chair be designated by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council as a recommendation of the board?

Hon. R. Blencoe: The legislation is clear that the leadership, in terms of the chair, would be designated by the cabinet. I can assure you that this minister obviously would want to have some discussion with the other members who might be useful. I think it's quite clear that predominately it will rest with the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.

C. Tanner: The section and paragraph does read: "The Lieutenant Governor in Council must designate a member to be chair of the board." Obviously, the authority of the designation of the chairman must rest with the government. But would the minister give this committee his obligation that the board, having been chosen, will choose their own chair -- which makes sense; it gives them a sense of loyalty -- and that's the member the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council would designate?

Hon. R. Blencoe: I must admit I have no chair in mind. But I think we will want to retain some flexibility. It may very well be that there is an excellent person out there who could be recommended by the community and would be acceptable. We may want to recruit a chair to help us recruit board members. We don't want to remove our flexibility in that area. Again, the section is quite clear. The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council designates the Chair. As I said, we could do the chair and then ask that person to give us a hand in recommending the other ten members. That would be true consultation with the community.

C. Tanner: To operate successfully, these boards must have a unified voice and some feel of collectivity. I'm suggesting that if a board chose its own chairman, you, the government and we would all be better served. I still haven't heard the minister say that he agrees with that point of view. Can he categorically say that the board will choose its own chairman, as recommended to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council?

Hon. R. Blencoe: No, I'm not categorically going to state that at all; I'm not ruling out the possibility. This is a new board of 11 members. I suspect what will happen is we will look for a chair on merit, one who has the ability first time around to give us a hand in looking for other members. It could very well be, as this board moves ahead and if the chair leaves for whatever reason, the government would talk to the current members and ask if there is someone who they think would be advisable. But you don't want to tie yourself down. There may very well be someone outside the current board who is an obvious chair for such an organization later on.

I don't know what will happen with future ministers, but my modus operandi is to work with the boards. As we did with the Assessment Appeal Board, it is quite conceivable that we will bring a new chair on to give us advice in terms of looking for board members. But remember that this is the government of the day, and the government of the day does the appointment.

C. Tanner: Now that the minister has given us that point of view, may I express mine? One is that these boards are only as good as the people on them. It doesn't matter what the government does; it's what the board does. The government gives them authority to operate and be successful. I have been involved with boards like this for a number of years, and I claim some success in protecting the public's funds and helping the organization be funded. It is essential, in my view, that the board appoint its head from among themselves. That's number one.

[ Page 8940 ]

Number two, I would not necessarily see that person as a librarian. In fact, I think it might be better if they weren't a librarian. Generally speaking, if you get too much technicality on these boards, they're not successful with the people they serve.

Hon. R. Blencoe: Hon. member, I don't want to belabour this. I think I know the member's point. If you get too close to the issue, sometimes objectivity is difficult. I hear you, hon. member, and clearly we will take that under advisement. Obviously we want a board that has sympathy for libraries and for what the foundation entails, but they are there to administer.

L. Fox: I think the discussion has been worthwhile, but I'm still concerned about how we're going to appoint members to the new library foundation board. I think the minister has to agree that it's going to be imperative, if this new initiative is to be successful, that it understands the needs of the B.C. Library Association, and that it interacts on a regular basis with the B.C. Library Association. If it's going to be successful in promoting funds, there has to be a close liaison with that association. The minister is nodding yes.

Hon. Chair, at this time I propose an amendment, because we have an agreement with the minister -- he's nodding yes -- that there needs to be that very close liaison with the B.C. Library Association. I propose an amendment as follows: "is hereby amended by adding to section 2, subsection (1), the following" -- immediately after "appointed" -- "'from a list of nominees made by the Library Association of British Columbia, and from non-affiliated public libraries.'"

On the amendment.

L. Fox: On speaking to the amendment, I can only suggest that it's something that I'm sure the minister will have no difficulty endorsing, because, as I said earlier about the interaction, the close relationship and the liaison needed between the Library Association and the Library Foundation, it makes great sense that there should be a lot of commitment by the B.C. Library Association in nominating names which in fact would form.... The minister would have the opportunity to select from those nominated names and form the Library Foundation of British Columbia.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I understand the intent of the member's amendment, but I'll just say that in my estimation to accept a list from an organization that is quite rightly tied to libraries and has the interests of libraries at heart.... I think that would be limiting the government. I think we have to give ourselves flexibility. There are all sorts of people in this province -- consumers and users -- who are enthralled with our public library system but who aren't part of that amendment that the member is suggesting, and who would be shut out. I don't think we want to limit that, hon. member. I cannot accept your amendment. I wish I could; it's just too limiting for the government.

I should also let you know that Revenue Canada has expressed its direct wish that the government make the appointments.

L. Fox: I have never heard such a rationale for government appointments in my life. Revenue Canada is now going to tell the Minister of Municipal Affairs of the province of British Columbia that the government should be making appointments to a provincial council. I'm really impressed. I would suggest that if that directive is pertinent and legal, there are all kinds of councils around this province that are in great jeopardy of being dismantled because they had some advice from outside in the structure. I look at the advice that comes from the NDP in structuring these provincial councils, and I would suggest that the whole thing is suspect with respect to that recommendation from Revenue Canada.

[11:45]

The minister is suggesting that the B.C. Library Association would not have the wherewithal or the knowledge to select individuals out there who might meet the needs of the Library Foundation. I suggest that the minister is not giving the Library Association the credit they deserve. They're spread throughout the province, are directly hooked up to all the municipalities in B.C. and have direct consultation with virtually all the business people who have an interest in libraries. I suggest they would be the best tool for bringing nominees forward, not a limited tool as the minister suggested. They have great access to huge resources with respect to what there is around the regions of the province and could be extremely knowledgable and bring a lot of ability to the Library Foundation and help it achieve the mandate that it's given in this legislation. I'm disappointed that the minister doesn't see the advantages available to him through the amendment. He could utilize this huge resource to tap into the market out there -- which would expose him to far more credible individuals than his NDP membership is going to.

A. Cowie: In some way I regret this, but I will have to be voting against the amendment. I believe it's better to be flexible. This is a new system we're setting up. I believe the B.C. Library Association will be able to contribute and put names forward, but I think it's important that we primarily have business people on these boards. One will have advice from the Library Association and other specialists, and I think's that only proper.

But when we're looking at libraries in particular these days, we're looking at communication centres -- distribution of information more than anything -- or knowledge centres, you might want to call it. I don't think we should be limited to any particular association when choosing people to sit on these boards.

L. Fox: I have one last appeal to the minister. I heard the opposition critic suggest that the amendment limits the thing. I suggest that if we don't involve the British Columbia Library Association in the nominee process, as this amendment suggests, we are limiting. What's going to happen is that this minister is going to go immediately to the NDP party list and pluck out some regional people that they have not yet been able to accommodate, and make them the new members of the 

[ Page 8941 ]

association. I would guess that if anything this amendment opens the process to something which would allow the Library Association to nominate names which are not from the NDP party list. It opens it up to a process that could enhance the appointment process substantially in this situation.

Hon. R. Blencoe: The jaded cynicism of the former government party doesn't surprise me. They continue to reside in Jurassic Park, where they will be forever. We do not wish to limit it. We want it to be inclusive. There are all sorts of citizens who wish to participate. You may wish to take a look at the appointments that I make; there are people of all political persuasions among those appointments. If the hon. member wishes to limit it, let him do so. This government wants to be inclusive. There are many British Columbians who wish to help us in this kind of foundation, but the hon. member is cast in the past and cannot move to the future.

C. Serwa: I have to speak in favour and in support of the amendment. With the Library Foundation of British Columbia Act, we are looking at a vehicle that will strengthen the opportunity for voluntary contributions into the foundation and strengthen our library system throughout the province. It's an admirable goal. The legislation itself falls far short of inspiring the type of confidence required in this. The amendment, however, gives the minister an opportunity to have people truthfully represent various regions of the province, selected by those people who are vitally concerned about libraries and library boards throughout the province.

If you are going to get the confidence of individuals who are willing to invest in the future of British Columbia, you have to have a structure that is perceived realistically, not simply a captive of the government of the day. I have seen nothing that provides me with any comfort that the government of the day will do any different than go to the czar of appointments and put their political people on this foundation. I assure you that the philosophy and principles of striving to establish a foundation for strengthening the funding of our library system is a very worthy one. If we fail to structure the foundation with the appropriate appointments, and if the heavy hand of government is in there with their appointments -- for a variety of reasons -- I think they will compromise the concept of the foundation. What has the potential of otherwise being a very good, solid initiative will fail, because the confidence of the public is not there. It's evident, even though it's a voluntary position, that there will be perks associated with this these straight patronage appointments. There is no question in my mind, or in the mind of any other British Columbian.

If the minister really believes in the cause, he should appreciate the validity and value of the amendment put forward by my colleague. To a great degree, the future of the acceptance of this foundation is directly dependent upon the choice of the chair and the directors. If this is perceived simply as a captive of the provincial government -- an opportunity for Municipal Affairs, for example, to minimize their funding by encouraging private funding for the foundation -- and they think that it will succeed, it will not; and that's my concern. When a good idea comes along, it's a shame to see it compromised by the heavy hand of government wanting to put in political hacks -- probably from Alberta; there must be a flood of new immigrants from Alberta -- to be appointed for this purpose.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

The Chair: Shall section 2 pass?

Hon. M. Sihota: I move that the committee rise, report progress and seek leave to sit again.

The Chair: Hon. member for Prince George-Omineca on a point of order.

L. Fox: Just for clarification, I hope section 2 is not passed. I stood to speak.

The Chair: No. Section 2 is not passed; the amendment is defeated.

The motion before you is that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. M. Sihota moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12 noon.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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