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)

WEDNESDAY, JULY 28, 1993

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 12, Number 21

[ Page 9303 ]

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

B. Copping: In the gallery today we have four visitors from Scotland: John and Margaret Glen, and their children, Ewan and Kristy. Would the House please make them welcome.

C. Serwa: I would like to introduce Monica Rainey to the House. Monica is the founder and executive director of an organization called CACE -- Committee Against Child Exploitation. She is in Victoria to raise awareness for her particular concern among the government members in the Legislature. Would the House please make Monica welcome.

J. Beattie: I would like to ask the members of the House to welcome my son, Cedric Beattie, who is in Victoria practising at the skate board park on Esquimalt Road. I would like to thank the council in Esquimalt for building that wonderful skate board park. My son thanks them as well.

S. O'neill: It's a pleasure today to introduce a friend of many years from Armstrong. Mrs. Mildred Inglis is in Victoria visiting her sister, Laura Clarke. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. A. Hagen: I have a very sad announcement to make to our Legislature this afternoon. Last Monday, Dale Fiddick, a valued member of my ministry and a dedicated British Columbia educator, was killed in an air crash at Klemtu, near Bella Bella.

At the time of his death, Dale Fiddick was the superintendent of field services for my ministry. At various times over the past 30 years, Dale served as a teacher, principal and school superintendent in the school districts of Meritt, Kitimat, Peace River South and Prince George. Dale Fiddick's many contributions to the children in this province are well known, and include outstanding leadership in the development of special education programs.

Dale had a remarkable sense of humour. He always found the positive side of every situation. He brought a fresh and vigorous perspective to his work, as he had contact with every single school district in our province. He made many friends in his long and distinguished career. I know I speak for them and for those who may have known him in his professional career when I say that he will be deeply missed. I know, too, that I speak on behalf of his family -- his wife, Sandra and his children Thea, Scott, Brad and Paul -- and to all other family and friends when we extend our sympathy to them in this tragic loss.

Hon. Speaker, I want at this time to acknowledge the death of four other people in that crash. Their deaths bring all of us very close to the nature of our coastal communities -- the closeness of those communities, the recognition of families, the work that people do and the services that they provide. I'd like, on behalf of all of us, to extend sympathy to the families, friends and the community who are so closely involved with this tragic circumstance.

H. Lali: I too would like to join the Minister of Education in offering my condolences to the families and friends of all the people killed in the plane crash, in particular Dale Fiddick. He not only lived in Merritt but I also knew him personally. His death comes as a complete shock to me, because I knew the man and played ball-hockey with him at the local school. I was shopping at one of the malls just last Wednesday when I happened to see Dale coming down the stairs. I hadn't seen him for almost a year, not realizing that that was the last time I would ever see him. I too would like to join the minister in offering my sympathies and condolences to Dale Fiddick's family.

Hon. C. Gabelmann tabled Mr. Justice Peter D. Seaton's report of the Commission of Inquiry into Allegations of Conflict of Interest.

Oral Questions

B.C. RAIL LABOUR DISPUTE

D. Symons: My question is to the Minister Responsible for B.C. Rail. The minister considers the rail strike to be only a week old, but for businesses in the interior the effect of this labour dispute has been with them since June 19, when the union was in a legal position to strike -- that is six weeks. The rotating strikes started at the beginning of July.

The people of the interior remember that this government did not act when their schools were struck, but it did react when Vancouver went out. When will this government recognize that the interior is part of British Columbia and act to protect their interests and economy?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: I would be pleased to advise the House that the mediator has called the parties to meet with him tomorrow morning, and I am sure that fruitful negotiations will follow.

D. Symons: I would like to remind the minister that we have heard that answer before, and it has not happened yet. Some major employers are planning to shut down next week because they are dependent on B.C. Rail. A delegation representing affected interests will be coming to Victoria next Tuesday. Will the minister commit to meet them to listen firsthand to their plight?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: I have always been willing to meet with people of all persuasions, and in this case, I would most certainly be interested in meeting with those parties.

The Speaker: Final supplemental, hon. member.

D. Symons: The last time this government was faced with a major labour dispute during the teachers' strike, they became paralyzed with indecision. We waited for weeks before they finally bit the bullet and did what the opposition proposed all along. Due to their procrastination in the face of duty, the House had to be recalled for a special Sunday sitting -- we all remember that -- to authorize their belated decision. Can the minister at least assure this House that we will 

[ Page 9304 ]

not require a special recall of the Legislature, after having risen, in order to deal with this government's aversion to action?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: No, I will not give you that assurance.

MILLSTREAM INDUSTRIAL PARK

A. Cowie: I have a question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. The minister has had the bylaw on the Millstream industrial park in the Highlands on his desk for 18 months now. A decision like this normally takes one month. Will the minister explain why he has arbitrarily delayed a decision on this bylaw for so long?

Hon. R. Blencoe: That bylaw has not been on my desk for that period of time. The ministry has to review it first. I have explained clearly to the Capital Regional District why that bylaw is.... There is a pending incorporation vote in the Highlands, and that vote will be announced very soon. The people of that area will determine their future. That is a significant land use decision in that area. I have determined that it's in the provincial interest and in the interest of those citizens that they will determine what should happen in that area.

The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.

A. Cowie: Sometimes you have to make a decision. The minister prides himself in not interfering with rezoning matters in regional districts. I believed him when he said that he was at arm's length from the Bamberton proposal. Why would he interfere by delaying the Highlands proposal that has gone through full due process?

Hon. R. Blencoe: I have made my position very clear. The hon. member is aware that the Highlands people will make a decision in September. The vote has already been indicated to those people. Then they will make a decison on that piece of land.

[2:15]

The Speaker: Final supplemental, hon. member.

A. Cowie: This proposal was started some three years ago. Does it have to take three years to get a simple industrial project through? The minister has agreed, and the CRD has given approval. All the public hearings were completed a long time ago. As I say, it's gone through due process.

This proposal would mean new jobs in the Langford-Highlands area. Why is the minister not supporting his government's job creation initiative by approving this bylaw?

Hon. R. Blencoe: Once again, that bylaw came to my ministry in mid-1992, hon. member. As you know, there are all sorts of regulations and rules that have to be looked at by my ministry and other ministries. In December '92 I notified the regional district that because of the Langford incorporation and a pending incorporation by the Highlands people, who will determine their own future, that bylaw would be set aside until that was done.

HIGHWAYS PRIVATIZATION

J. Weisgerber: My question is to the Premier. Back in October 1989, the then Leader of the Opposition said that privatization was the triumph of ideology over common sense. Now his government defends the privatization of roads and bridges as the triumph of common sense over ideology. Does the Premier support his minister's position that private enterprise could design, build and operate roads and bridges in a less expensive manner than the government?

Hon. M. Harcourt: The hon. member is part of a former government that let ideology triumph over common sense. It cost the taxpayers many millions of dollars in squandered sales at distressed prices of government trucks and lands. We already had a highway system where over two-thirds was built through the private sector, and there was a good balance of public and private enterprise. As a government, we are prepared to be pragmatic about what work is done inside the government with public employees and what work is contracted out. That pragmatic approach to getting the best value for the tax dollars of the taxpayers of British Columbia is what guides this government.

J. Weisgerber: In 1988 the Premier said that the general thrust of privatization didn't make sense. In 1989 the NDP critic said that privatization was not, nor ever had been, in the public interest. Does the Premier support the position taken by his minister on the privatization of roads and highways and the construction by private operators of roads and bridges in British Columbia?

Hon. M. Harcourt: That is one option this government is looking at. We are certainly open to a private proposal. That approach of public and private enterprise has worked in many other jurisdictions. If you have been to Hong Kong, for example, you would see some very successful private sector tunnels and LRT systems built by private enterprise. They also have a very good public transportation system. So that pragmatic approach towards transportation is what the people of British Columbia want.

J. Weisgerber: A final supplemental. This year alone the government will raise $891 million in revenue from fuel tax, motor vehicle licences and Coquihalla tolls. Yet the government's capital budget for highways construction this year is $96 million -- one-sixth of the last Socred budget in 1991. Why doesn't the Premier simply commit sufficient resources to highway and bridge construction in British Columbia and fulfil his obligation to the people of this province rather than to the interests of the NDP?

Hon. M. Harcourt: The previous government left the people of this province with a $2.4 billion deficit after saying while campaigning that there was a $400 

[ Page 9305 ]

million deficit. They told the people of this province that the...

The Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. M. Harcourt: ...Coquihalla would cost $375 million. A commission of inquiry said it cost over $1 billion, and that was covered up too. They built the Alex Fraser Bridge, which was supposed to cost $130 million, and they blew $400 million on that. Now they are wondering what we're doing paying off Socred debt. We're being responsible with the tax dollars.

COMINCO LABOUR DISPUTE

D. Jarvis: Approximately one week ago, Cominco announced the layoff of another 195 men. That brings this year's total to 300. There were 500 last year. For a political party pretending to represent its workers, this continued inaction by this government is political cannibalism. I'd like to ask the Minister of Economic Development how many workers have to be laid off before he and his government finally take some action on the Cominco situation.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The whole reason that we're involved in negotiations with Cominco at the present time is to save as many jobs as we possibly can. As you know, discussions have broken down between the company and the union. Some of the members clearly don't want to listen. I might have to add that I have arranged to provide a briefing for the members of the opposition parties in order that they understand this complex issue and fully understand the government's commitment to maintaining as many jobs as we can in the Trail area.

We have said consistently that we have to have an economic plan in place. That means the union and the companies have to agree to restructuring the work-place. The provincial government is going to make some kind of commercial arrangement that deals with the purchase of future power rates. That combination in an economic plan, with contributions by the municipalities, the provincial government, the unions and the company, will provide the maximum security for the maximum number of jobs in Trail.

D. Jarvis: The job protection commissioner reported tax measures would have to be issued to save Cominco, and he recommended that this government give them a $14 million saving. Since that report the government has in actual fact increased Cominco's taxes by $7 million. How can you sit around and ignore your own job protection commissioner while more and more workers are being laid off?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The fact of the matter is that we did not sit around and ignore the job protection commissioner. A special commissioner made a recommendation that dealt with some tax concessions. We responded on the recommendation of the ministry experts on trade policy and countervail issues. The job protection commissioner advised, on the recommendations of experts in the field, that we should not do anything specific that could be countervailed by industry in the United States or by the U.S. government. We have been consistently negotiating, not sitting....

The Speaker: Order, please. Hon. minister, I must ask you to conclude your reply.

Final supplemental, hon. member.

D. Jarvis: It's obvious that he doesn't know what he's doing, Madam Speaker.

B.C. MINING INDUSTRY

D. Jarvis: I have some good and bad news for the Minister of Mines: the good news is that it turns out that all the mining companies are not crossing the border to go to Chile; the bad news is that they are now fleeing north to the Yukon. My question to the Minister of Mines is: having driven the mining industry across two of our borders, can she tell the House how she plans to bolster the mining industry in Alberta?

Hon. A. Edwards: It's a pleasure to be able to give our story about our support for the mining industry in British Columbia. The mining industry in British Columbia has been going through tough times that started some considerable time before this government came to power, and it has been getting some attention from this government. This government has said very clearly where we are, where we're going to go and how we will help the industry. We intend to continue helping the industry move ahead and recognize the very rich mineral resource in this province.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G. Clark: I call report on Bill 62.

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION AND PROTECTION OF PRIVACY AMENDMENT ACT, 1993

Bill 62 read a third time and passed.

Hon. G. Clark: I call committee on Bill 35.

LOCAL ELECTIONS REFORM ACT, 1993
(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 35; M. Farnworth in the chair.

[2:30]

Section 10, section 90 as amended approved.

On section 10, section 91.

Hon. R. Blencoe: Hon. Chair, I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper, to the proposed section 91(1) of the Municipal Act.

Amendment approved.

Section 10, section 91 as amended approved.

Section 10, sections 92 to 96 inclusive approved.

On section 10, section 97.

[ Page 9306 ]

Hon. R. Blencoe: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper, to the proposed section 97(1)(a) of the Municipal Act.

On the amendment.

L. Fox: We're working from a number of pieces of paper, and I would appreciate a little more distance between sections. I realize you're in a hurry, and the minister's in a hurry to go home, but if you'd at least allow an individual to find the amendment so that they can....

An Hon. Member: Get organized.

L. Fox: Yes, big deal -- get organized.

I will allow the amendment to pass.

Amendment approved.

L. Fox: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 10, is hereby amended by deleting from new section 97 of the Municipal Act, R.S.B.C. 1979, c. 290, all of subsection (2), and by substituting therefor the following:

(2) At least one advance voting opportunity must be held for an election by voting on the 10th day before general voting day.]

On the amendment.

L. Fox: In moving that motion, I want to speak to that a bit. As the act sits right now, it requires two advance polling days, which in many instances does not make a lot of sense. Small communities would be required to staff an advance polling day and pay the staff, when there is really no need for it. One advance polling day would be more than sufficient. But if the community or municipality decides that it's in the best interests of the electorate, a further clause would allow them by bylaw to put forward more than one advance polling day. So I would ask the minister -- and we have talked very briefly in the corridors on this issue, and I think he understands my concerns -- to seriously consider the amendment. I believe it is fairer and more workable. The clause as amended does not limit the minister in being able to allow municipalities to have more than one advance polling day.

Hon. R. Blencoe: First, I appreciate the member's amendment, and want to let him know that we have had no complaints from local government about the two mandatory advance voting opportunities that we currently have in the legislation. The required advance voting day is on the tenth day before the general voting day, and it's a workday. The voting hours of 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. mean that the staff will have to be available for four extra hours, which I don't think is totally unreasonable, given the importance of ensuring that electors have the opportunity to vote. I have talked to the hon. member a number of times on this issue and have heard his views about smaller communities. What I have suggested -- and I will suggest it now.... I even have the wording for an amendment to his amendment. It's somewhat unusual, but it's in the interest of trying to meet some of his suggestions. If the member would agree that exceptions to the second day would be allowed in communities under 5,000, then I would be prepared to accept that amendment, but two advance voting days in larger communities.... We do have the 5,000 tied into other sections of the bill, and it would be advantageous to continue to have two advance voting days for most communities. But in those communities that are particularly small and have few staff, I am willing to compromise and suggest that the second advance voting day is optional for those communities.

I don't know what the protocol is, but I have the wording of a new amendment that is not in my name.

The Chair: If it's agreeable to the hon. member for Prince George-Omineca, he can withdraw his present amendment and substitute the appropriate one.

L. Fox: Just for clarification, it is my understanding that if my amendment was withdrawn, the motion would read: "...one day for any municipalities under 5,000 people." Would it replace clause (2) as it exists?

Hon. R. Blencoe: We would allow them to opt out by bylaw.

L. Fox: In that case, I respectfully withdraw my amendment, and move the following amendment that is identified here on this paper.

The Chair: The amendment to section 10, section 97, reads as follows:

[SECTION 10,

(a) in the proposed section 97 of the Municipal Act by adding the following subsection:

(2.1) As an exception to subsection (2) in relation to a jurisdiction with a population of 5,000 or less, the local government may, by bylaw, provide that the advance voting opportunity referred to in subsection (2)(b) is not to be held for the jurisdiction.]

On the amendment.

L. Fox: I know that later on we deal with the section under school trustees, but the only concern I have with respect to this amendment in the way it is, is that we could have some inconsistency between local school board elections, regional district elections and municipal elections. Further on in the act, you may request in the same municipality two advance polling days in the school district but not in the municipality. If that's not the case, then I don't have any problem.

Hon. R. Blencoe: They can request the minister to opt out of one or both, hon. member.

Amendment approved.

L. Fox: I just want to make a quick observation under this section. Earlier the minister suggested that he hadn't heard any concern about this information from any municipality, nor had the UBCM. The minister alluded to the fact he'd been talking to the UBCM this morning. As a matter of fact, so had I. At 10 o'clock, when the bells rang, I was still talking to the UBCM.

[ Page 9307 ]

Just for clarification so that the public isn't left thinking that everybody supports everything in the legislation, one of the problems that I've been told about by UBCM and other municipalities is that 28 pieces of legislation have come through this session which have affected municipalities. They have had a difficult time trying to keep up with it. That came from the UBCM this morning at 10 o'clock. The minister shouldn't take too much comfort from the fact that there hasn't been a lot of concern identified. I think the concerns, if there are any, will come once the election process has started and some of the wrinkles appear through the process. I just wanted to put that on the record at this stage, because the minister said earlier that nobody had stated any concerns.

Section 10, section 97 as amended approved.

Section 10, sections 98 and 99 approved.

On section 10, section 100.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper, to the proposed section 100(1) of the Municipal Act.

On the amendment.

L. Fox: Could the minister give us some rationale for bringing forward this amendment?

Hon. R. Blencoe: Our legal advisers on this huge piece of legislation said that it was unnecessary to use the term "by mail" and recommended that we use "in conjunction with this voting." Mail can be interpreted to be only by post. Therefore we wanted to ensure that people could actually deliver it by hand. These are the kinds of things we go through, hon. member, in terms of putting forward legislation. It's very difficult.

L. Fox: The only question I have with respect to that is the determination of whether or not a post-date is going to be recognized as a legitimate time frame.

Hon. R. Blencoe: Hon. member, it has to be in the chief electoral officer's hands by the close of voting.

[2:45]

Amendment approved.

On section 10, section 100 as amended.

A. Cowie: I have two amendments on the order paper that refer to and ensure that the words "property electors" are in the legislation regarding the mail ballot. I move that both (2) and (3) be considered at the same time, as follows.

[SECTION 10, in the proposed section 100

Subsection 100(2) be amended to read: For a municipality, the only electors who may vote by mail ballot are property electors and persons who have a physical disability, illness or injury that affects their ability to vote at another voting opportunity.]

[SECTION 10, in the proposed section 100

Subsection 100(3)(c) to be added to read: persons who are property electors.]

On the amendments.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I'm trying to do about 5,000 things at once here.

I looked at this, because I would very much like to accommodate the member on these amendments, but mail voting is quite a new innovation for local government elections. It offers local government the opportunity to allow electors who have been effectively disenfranchised because they can't attend on every voting opportunity. Consequently, we have extended it to shut-ins and those sorts of things.

We are not making it available for general voting at this time. It is the request of the UBCM executive that the ministry not proceed with a mandatory mail ballot system at this time but rather that we consider it a voting option for shut-ins. Their concern obviously was managing it. There is already enough to manage, and mail ballots are cumbersome and difficult. As much as I have some sympathy and support for what you are doing, the request from those who have to administer this at this time is that they already have enough to do. They are asking that we let them get through some limited mail ballots to see how they do and then maybe next session extend it widely.

A. Cowie: While that may be the case, I would hope that in the ongoing years we at least consider this. After all, if one is out of the country and a person is looking at how they want to vote in advance, what difference is this than an advance poll? I don't see it as being any different at all, and I don't see what the objection would be. It does assure that property electors have an opportunity to vote, which they should have.

Amendments negatived.

Section 10, section 100 as amended approved.

Section 10, sections 101 to 109 inclusive approved.

On section 10, section 110.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I move the amendments to sections 110(2) and 110(4) standing in my name on the order paper.

The Chair: There are two amendments, minister. Shall we deal with both amendments at the same time?

Hon. R. Blencoe: I suggest we deal with both.

On the amendments.

L. Fox: Would the minister give us some rationale as to why it was necessary in subsection (b) to include "section 49 or 121"?

Hon. R. Blencoe: We have added that people can assist either under section 121 or under section 49. Section 49 is the translator one.

[ Page 9308 ]

L. Fox: Given that now you've included the translator one, is that outside or within the voting booth?

Hon. R. Blencoe: Depending on the situation and how they're assisting, it could be either.

L. Fox: Does this not give you some concern about pressure on voters? Let's suggest that a particular ethnic group has difficulties speaking. There may be the opportunity to pressure some of the individuals into voting a specific way, if they're accompanied right into the booth. Would it not make more sense that that interpretation take place outside the voting booth?

Hon. R. Blencoe: I'll try to explain this to you. If they are assisting outside the booth, then section 49(4) refers to the oath the translator would have to take. However, if they're assisting inside the booth, they have to provide an oath under section 121, which is quite definitive: "...(i) preserve the secrecy of the ballot of the elector being assisted, (ii) mark the ballot in accordance with the wishes of the elector, and (iii) refrain from attempting in any manner to influence the elector as to how the elector should vote...." That's inside the ballot box.

Subsection 121(3)(c) say that "if assistance is needed because the elector needs a translator to be able to read the ballot and the instructions for voting, the person assisting must make a solemn declaration in accordance with section 49(3)."

We try to cover it as much as possible, but obviously we'll watch it. I think we'll probably flag that area for returning officers and staff.

Amendments approved.

On section 10, section 110 as amended.

A. Cowie: I'd like to make a comment on subsection (4), where it says the candidate must not be present while voting proceedings are being conducted. I think this is a disappointing change. It's been customary in Vancouver over the years that those people who have been elected have gone and visited the polling stations and shaken hands with the polling officers. As far as I can see, absolutely nothing untoward has gone on at that time. In fact, the officials like it to be known that the candidates are around and paying attention. I think there's absolutely nothing wrong with one visit.

I say this is just somebody being paranoid. Whenever I've been in the election polls it's always the NDP scrutineers who are complaining; nobody else. I think it's a big disappointment that we cannot visit the polling stations now.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I was hoping we'd get through this. I think everyone was saying, "Hon. minister, don't speak to this section," because I definitely have views about it. But I have been asked to comment, and I will.

The Chair: To the section, though.

Hon. R. Blencoe: Thank you, hon. Chair.

I tell the hon. member that indeed there has been great discussion on this issue by me, staff, those I know and the government benches. We know that the presence of candidates at polling stations is a bit of a tradition. But I think more and more there's a sense from the electorate that candidates should go to vote, but they should not be in polling stations -- for whatever traditional reasons. The impression left is that they are trying to campaign or make representation during the voting time.

The other issue at the local level -- and reports have come back, and this is an accurate position -- is that, because the returning officers and the people working in the polling stations are invariably or nearly always the officers of the municipality or paid employees of the regional district, circumstances have arisen whereby those paid employees, acting in their dutiful capacity as returning officers, have had to tell the mayor to take a hike or to desist. Of course the mayor normally might not frown on that from a public servant, but in election time it's a different circumstance. What has happened, and I mention no names, is that once the election is over and that mayor or elected official is returned to office, all sorts of pressures or retribution is put upon the public servant, because the public servant, while acting as a returning officer, was only doing their job.

That's primarily why it's here. I must admit that it's breaking some tradition. We all know what we do on election day: we go around to the polling station and we talk to our scrutineers. But the sense today is that once the election campaign is over and it's voting day, we should be out of the polling station once we have cast our vote. Municipally, there have been circumstances like I indicated, and I think all of us would agree that we do not want to put any public servant in that position. I should also conclude by saying that the UBCM approved this recommendation; 64 percent were in favour.

A. Cowie: I belong to the other 36 percent.

An Hon. Member: You're used to it.

A. Cowie: No, I'm used to being on the winning side.

I think what this is doing is just admitting that you can't trust politicians for some reason or another. I think that's going in the wrong direction. We should be making sure we clean the act up. If that mayor is acting improperly, then we should deal with that mayor -- that's how we should be dealing with it. We should make sure that politicians act correctly and not restrict them. That's a real disappointment, in my opinion.

L. Fox: It's not often that I disagree with my Liberal colleague, but in this instance I do. Having been through this process a number of times at the local level, I appreciate the intent of that particular section. As we know, we can't hang up any advertisements or wear badges or any of those kinds of items on the premises. I think the candidate who is received the best by those in that voting place is the individual who comes in, votes and leaves, and doesn't play politics 

[ Page 9309 ]

within the voting area. I think he is respected more than the individual who attempts to, through kindness, be known or noticed at the voting place. I support that section of this legislation.

Section 10, section 110 as amended approved.

Section 10, section 111 approved.

On section 10, section 112.

L. Fox: Section 112(1) says: "If the start of voting at a place, as set by or under this Part, is delayed and the presiding election official considers that a significant number of electors would not be able to vote without an extension under this section...." That kind of statement concerns me, and I need some clarification. In other words, what this is saying is that if the polling station is delayed ten minutes in opening, that official can then suggest that it can stay open ten minutes later. I think that provides a lot of inconsistency in the process and may confuse the electorate. I strongly believe that the polls should close when they say they're going to close, because we all know the process that goes on during election day. If there is more than one poll in a particular community, and one candidate is aware of that and trucks as many voters.... As we know, we send out our vehicles to pick up voters and get them to the polls. One particular candidate could have a decided advantage, with one poll being open later than others. I don't think we want to get into that situation. I could see it if the decision were made to keep all polls within the jurisdiction open for extra time, but I think it's open for some manipulation under this scenario -- not that it would be intentional, but it could happen. It could cause a lot of concern and hard feelings.

[3:00]

Hon. R. Blencoe: If it becomes abused and a matter of concern, we will deal with it. But, hon. member, you should know that this is something that came to our attention. Much of what is in here is the result of many years of consultation with local government -- not just in my time, but in the former government's time -- and also suggestions that came in over the years for changes to this act. As you know, we're changing it for the first time in decades.

This is a safeguard, and the issue is.... For instance, sometimes a polling station can't open for half an hour or an hour because of a power failure. All we're saying is that in circumstances that are out of the control of the officials at that voting station, citizens should have the right.... Those special circumstances warrant the hours being extended for the length of time the voting station is down. It's a safeguard. I think citizens, who are used to having 12 hours to vote, would like to know that if they go to a voting station and can't vote because of a power failure, or whatever, that the hours will be extended. If it's a problem, though, we'll look at it later on.

L. Fox: Perhaps I could live with that if the minister would assure me that it's going to be mandatory by regulation to advertise it, so that all people are aware of it. Just posting it on the door or extending the hours within the premises is not sufficient, in my view. If it's closed from 8 to 9 o'clock in the morning, opening it from 8 to 9 o'clock at night is not going to affect those same voters. What's mainly going to happen is that people who want to vote in the morning are going to stay until the polling booth is open or come back early in the day. The reason they came in the morning is out of convenience, so it's highly unlikely they are going to come back between 8 and 9 o'clock at night.

But if the minister is suggesting that he could look after that in the regulations, by advertising voting hours that were extended at particular voting places so that all citizens were aware of the extension, then I could live with that.

Hon. R. Blencoe: We'll look into that. There are some problems, of course, with advertising on the day of the election if you get to the building and find you can't open it right away, for whatever reason. It's really hard to go out and advertise at that point. Obviously what we could do is post it on the voting place. But we'll look into our ability to widely advertise when a voting place is open for an extra hour or two. We will check with those municipal officers who will be administering this, and we'll see what we can do. This is for special circumstances. It's for an emergency, and obviously emergencies can't be foreseen. So advertising that might be difficult. But, hon. member, we'll look into it.

L. Fox: I have one final comment. Everybody's idea of a special circumstance or an emergency is different. For instance, if somebody has a flat tire on the way down to open the polling booth and is not there for 20 minutes, they could deem that to fall under this section. In many rural areas, in the early hours of the morning there aren't a significant number of people at that spot. In fact, many polls within an electoral area will be in a home, or just one person is there. I think we have to be extremely careful here that we don't run amok and find ourselves with so many inconsistencies, in terms of the hours that polls are open, that -- while the intention was to look after power outages in the middle of the day or whatever -- we open up the door to a very confusing situation for the electorate.

With respect to notification through the media, the media on election days cover the polling turnouts and so on on a regular basis. I think they would be more than prepared to carry a public interest story suggesting that XYZ poll, for whatever reason, will now be open to 8:30 or 9 o'clock or whatever. That way, I believe that nobody could be accused of having one poll accommodate a particular candidate bringing his voters in at the last moment. It would be known throughout the total municipality that that poll was going to be open late. I think it's very important that something along that line happens, to provide some comfort to the electorate with respect to clause 112.

Section 10, section 112 approved.

[ Page 9310 ]

On section 10, section 113.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper, to the proposed section 113(2)(d) of the Municipal Act.

Amendment approved.

Section 10, section 113 as amended approved.

Section 10, sections 114 to 128 inclusive approved.

On section 10, section 129.

L. Fox: With respect to the rules for accepting votes and rejecting ballots, now that we're going to allow a tick mark or an X.... Prior to this particular legislation, if parts of the X were outside the box a considerable amount, quite often it was rejected. But later on, in most cases, it was accepted in an official recount or a judicial recount.

I have a bit of concern with the tick mark. The issue here, in my view, is whether or not there is a clear indication of who the vote is for, irrespective of whether it is a tick mark or an X. We all know what people do with tick marks. Quite often they will go a lot further than the box. One of the reasons the X was used in the past was that most people went corner to corner in the square. The tick mark could be elongated substantially. Can the minister tell us how the previous judgments on the X outside the box are going to affect the tick mark?

Hon. R. Blencoe: I swear that the hon. member was present at the discussion I had with various people and staff on this. First, let me say the UBCM endorses the acceptance of tick marks. In their survey, 76 percent were in favour of it. You should also note -- we've actually passed this section, but I will go back -- that section 129 clearly states that "a mark of the type required by section 119(1)(b) that is out of or partly out of the location on the ballot in which it is required to be put by that provision, as long as the mark is placed in such a manner as to indicate clearly the intent of the elector to vote for a particular candidate," is to be accepted and counted. Section 129(2) says: "A mark on a ballot other than a mark referred to in subsection (1) must not be accepted and counted as a valid vote."

We've tried to cover it as best we can. Clearly, it has to indicate a preference for the candidate. In some of this legislation we are very progressive and are leading the country, and some of these things we'll monitor, hon. member. And if it becomes a problem, we'll deal with it. We don't think there will be any problems.

Section 10, sections 129 to 145 inclusive approved.

On section 10, section 146.

L. Fox: In this section we get costs of an application. I want to clarify if this is any change from the previous legislation.

Hon. R. Blencoe: This is one where I can actually read the notes. It continues the provision that the costs of unsuccessful petitions are to be paid by the local government. It's the continuation of an existing situation.

Section 10, sections 146 to 153 inclusive approved.

On section 10, section 154.

L. Fox: There is an amendment to section 154(2) standing in my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 10, is hereby amended by adding to new section 154, subsection (2), of the Municipal Act, R.S.B.C. 1979, c.290, the following paragraph:

(e) a candidate, elector organization, and any person acting on their behalf, who accepts, directly or indirectly, from a federal or provincial political party or one of its fund raising agents, a campaign contribution for which a tax credit receipt has been, or is to be issued, commits an offence, and is liable to a fine of not less than $2,000 and not more than $10,000.]

We know that an earlier amendment....

The Chair: Hon. member, unfortunately, your amendment as a private member seeks to impose a fine and a penalty, and is therefore out of order. Only the Crown can move an amendment like that.

[3:15]

L. Fox: I am still extremely concerned that this section, and earlier sections that dealt with this, show that it is certainly not the intent of this government to stop the flow of dollars from provincial or federal parties into local municipal contributions. It could be perceived, and probably is conceived by this party in government, that this is a shot in the arm for their organization -- the NDP. Probably that's primarily because they are the only party which has municipal, provincial and federal parties who are all affiliated. I think the minister wants to be sure that in the process of municipal elections, nobody is at a disadvantage in terms of raising funds.

Obviously, then, we should have a section similar to the amendment I put forward, which, in the interest of fairness, prohibits that flow of dollars. I'm disappointed, as I was in the discussion of an earlier amendment, that the minister, while he seems to talk tough on this issue, is failing to recognize it by way of legislation. That is a factor of extreme concern to me and other members who spoke on it earlier. I think the issue in Surrey raised its head very prominently and showed how the process worked. I'm disappointed that the minister would not see fit to put forth my amendment. Earlier he wrote out an amendment to me and passed it across the floor. I would be only too glad to reciprocate and allow the minister to table this amendment if it's an illegal amendment for a private member.

Hon. R. Blencoe: Let me say, hon. member, that I think we've covered this issue many times already in previous amendments and sections. Let me reiterate, though, that it is not my intention to deal with federal 

[ Page 9311 ]

legislation about who can contribute or what gets tax-receipted. If the federal government wants to make it explicit that they're not going to allow that to happen, so be it. I can assure you, hon. member, that the very nature of political campaigns, and of candidates running and donations, is sometimes not very fair. Some candidates, by their positions or whoever they are running for or whatever, do not necessarily attract huge donations, but certain campaigns may. The nature of that....

Interjection.

Hon. R. Blencoe: You're right there.

What we are doing is leading the country in terms of ensuring that whoever does make a contribution, whether it is whatever you are opposed to in terms of a Liberal party, or a Tory party, or a Conservative party, or a Social Credit party -- or whatever party, or chamber of commerce or real estate development association.... If they want to make a contribution -- you may not like it in one area; I may not like it in another area, hon. member -- that's democracy, that's the system. But I'll tell you what we are doing for the first time in the history of this province, hon. member....

The Chair: Through the Chair, hon. member.

Hon. R. Blencoe: We are saying that if you are going to donate, the people are going to know who is giving the money. It doesn't matter who you are or what party or institution you represent -- in this piece of legislation, you are going to be covered. We're going to see....

I complete my discussion on this issue, because this legislation will ensure that disclosure happens in British Columbia.

L. Hanson: I can't help responding to the remarks of the minister. The minister is deliberately ignoring the issue. The issue is that some people are taking advantage of a situation that is not available to everyone, and there is that unfairness. There's nothing unfair about people making a decision where they want their donations to go; it's the unfairness of some people being able to use the system more than others. That's what's unfair, not the fact that people decide on their own what organization they may want to contribute to.

Section 10, sections 154 to 157 inclusive approved.

On section 10, section 158.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I would remind the hon. member for Prince George-Omineca that there is an amendment he should move in this section.

L. Fox: I would propose the amendment that I'll hand in after we make two more amendments that will align this with earlier amendments. This amendment to section 158(2) deletes "as if the other voting were an election" and substitutes "as if the other voting for the voting area were an election for a jurisdiction."

Amendment approved.

Section 10, section 158 as amended approved.

Section 10, sections 159 to 162 inclusive approved.

On section 10, section 163.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper, the proposed section 163(4)(a) of the Municipal Act.

Amendment approved.

L. Fox: I move that section 163(4) be amended by adding "for a voting area with a population of more than 5,000" after "As an exception to section 97(2)(b)."

Amendment approved.

Section 10, section 163 as amended approved.

Section 10, sections 164 to 166 inclusive approved.

On section 10, section 167.

L. Fox: I move that section 167(2)(b) be amended by adding the words "if applicable" at the beginning of the paragraph.

Amendment approved.

Section 10, section 167 as amended approved.

Section 10, sections 168 to 172 inclusive approved.

The Chair: At this time I would advise the committee that section 10 has now passed, and we are now on section 11, which comprises sections 208 to 213.

Sections 11 to 49 inclusive approved.

Section 50, sections 39 to 41 inclusive approved.

On section 50, section 42.

Hon. R. Blencoe: Hon. Chair, I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper, to section 42(c)(i) of the School Act.

[SECTION 50,

(a) in the proposed section 42(c)(i) of the School Act by deleting "under of Division (17)" and substituting "under Division (17)",]

Amendment approved.

Section 50, section 42 as amended approved.

On section 50, section 43.

L. Fox: I move the amendment in my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 50, is hereby amended by deleting from new section 43, subsection (2), of the School Act, S.B.C. 1989, C. 61, the phrase "on the same board".]

[ Page 9312 ]

On the amendment.

L. Fox: The reason I move that motion -- and I think it's a very important motion -- is that when schoolteachers are sitting on school boards in another district, they have found themselves in conflict over very important issues, and certainly around the issue of bargaining. Given that we are modifying this election process for all local elections, we should give consideration to the issue that was before us only recently with respect to the Vancouver School Board. Four individuals found themselves in conflict and weren't able to vote on the compensation package because they were schoolteachers in neighbouring districts. We saw it in that situation. A few years back we saw a very similar situation in Nanaimo, when schoolteachers once again found themselves in conflict because they were trustees in a different district than the one where they taught. I have no problem at all with schoolteachers being trustees when they are no longer schoolteachers. But I really believe that it's essential, as I stated earlier, that we put ourselves in a situation where we still have a board to operate.

I know the minister will suggest to me that we let the electorate look after those issues. More importantly, I think that if we're going to give directions to the electorate, the opportunity to do it is through this legislation. We should not allow ourselves to get into those kinds of conflicts, because education suffers. Schools are shut down for long periods of time when there aren't sufficient board members left who are able to vote on a situation, because they've ruled themselves out on the basis of conflict. So while I understand that it's a significant change in position by the provincial government, I believe it's one that deserves a lot of discussion and dialogue. It isn't something that we should automatically rule out.

[3:30]

Hon. R. Blencoe: I have been joined by staff who will try to help us through the School Act amendments section.

I will make this as quick as possible. I think we had this debate and discussion on the Municipal Act section, and the member disagreed. What we're suggesting is that for municipal.... We're not going to deny someone the opportunity to run if they work for a municipality or a school board. We're suggesting that you have to take a leave of absence to run, but if you win, you have to resign. My understanding is that there's no difference to what we've done before. Currently, if I'm correct, you can't sit on a school board and be an employee of the same district. We're going to make sure that that continues within this legislation.

L. Fox: I know there are others who want to talk on this same issue. What the minister is suggesting is contained within section 43(7): "Before making the oath of office under section 59, an employee on a leave of absence under this section who has been elected must resign from the person's position with the employer." But that is not the case here. In this section we're talking about a trustee or a teacher who is not an employee of that board; she is a teacher in a neighbouring district. The amendment suggests that that individual then would have to do exactly the same thing as I have put forward, and wouldn't be eligible to run. That is the issue that's before us. Obviously the minister wasn't listening to the argument when I put it forward. All he has to do is relate to the Vancouver experience only a short time ago to understand the importance of this particular amendment -- it's very important. If we just extract the four words from there we could save a lot of children a loss of class time, and prevent a lot of difficulties in the educational system. I think it's an extremely important issue. The minister should try to understand it, and not just wipe it off without giving it any consideration.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I don't want to belabour this point, because we have had this debate. I apologize to the member, because I think I may have misunderstood. I am trying to do too many things at the same time.

If you wish to run in the district in which you work, you have to get a leave of absence or resign. The issue currently is -- and we're not changing it -- that if you are an employee in a neighbouring municipality or school district or whatever.... If you are a teacher, you can run. We aren't changing that. Conflict-of-interest rules apply. There will be new conflict-of-interest rules in the near future for local officials. We have not been able to get to that yet, but that's being worked on. Be assured, hon. member, that there are current conflict-of-interest rules that do apply. There are some changes, as a matter of fact, in terms of pecuniary interest.

I think we have debated this long enough. There is obviously a difference of opinion. Some say that real estate agents should not be able to run in local elections, because most of the work at the local level is land use and zoning.

G. Farrell-Collins: I should clarify for the minister -- and certainly for others who are trying to listen -- that the amendment put forward by the member for Prince George-Omineca is an attempt to change that. He's trying to change it, and the minister is not changing it.

The minister is referring to municipal councils and things that go on there. In the case of education, it is substantially different. The inquiry done by Judith Korbin, which came out less than a month ago, stated quite clearly that there was a problem with the bargaining structure in the school districts and the fact that there is a whipsawing effect, and all those things that went on. Indeed, the Minister of Finance agreed.

Given what we have seen take place this spring with the crumbling of the school board in Vancouver over this very issue of whether or not there was a conflict -- the uncertainties around that; the fact that it shut down the Vancouver School District, and the board was unable to make a decision because of this very problem.... On top of that, with the report from Judith Korbin and the comments of the Minister of Finance, I think we're looking at a case that is different.

It's different from municipalities, because of the bargaining structure that exists with teachers and with the school boards, and the fact that the plan under Bill 

[ Page 9313 ]

78 is to bring together all those various districts to work together to try to set a bargaining plan across a large number of districts -- at least by region. We then have a bigger problem, because while somebody may be sitting on a school board in one riding and bargaining as an employee in an adjoining riding, they will now be sitting on both sides of the table at the same time because of the coming together of the employers' groups, or the boards. There are significant problems with that in the education system right now. I think the points made by the member for Prince George-Omineca are valid. And, indeed, the points made by Ms. Korbin and the Finance minister are valid also.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I appreciate the remarks. The points are well taken. As you can imagine, I am putting forward legislation that we can currently work on. You are quite correct, hon. member, that there are some circumstances that have arisen in the Vancouver situation. I won't say there will be some changes or new legislation, but I can assure you that the issue has been raised and is of concern. I think that's probably part of the concern of my hon. colleague across the way.

In terms of the bargaining issues out of Korbin, I am told that that is under review right now.

L. Fox: The minister suggests that this is under review. I have heard that all the way through this legislation: "We're going to monitor it; we're going to see how it works." In the meantime, we end up with the same problems.

Here were have an opportunity to deal with the problem in a very simple way. We take four words out of this clause, and it deals with the problem. I'm disappointed, because this particular amendment has been sitting on the order paper for something like three weeks, and the minister didn't understand the intent of it. He couldn't even understand what I was trying to get at by putting the amendment forward. I would have thought he would have had ample time to consider it, consult and look to whether or not....

If he wants to stand up in this House and say it's the principle of his government that he is not going to allow legislation to go forward that would deny school teachers the right to run as trustees, I can accept that. The minister has an airy-fairy idea here, where he's just going to try to shrug it off. This is a very much an issue of principle. Either the minister is going to give consideration to the amendment which deals with the issue, or else he's going to stand up and say: "Look, this NDP government will not prevent schoolteachers from running for school boards" -- one of the two. You can't have it halfway in the middle. If the minister is prepared to make that statement, then fine. It's on the record, and we know where he and his government stand. That is to say, they're not concerned about the length of time the students in Vancouver were left out of school, primarily because of this type of clause and the conflicts that this type of clause provide within the bargaining system and the school districts. If the minister wants to stand up and say, "No, we are totally behind the BCTF; we're not going to put legislation forward which would prevent those people from running as school trustees," hey, I can accept that. I certainly differ, but I can accept it.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I can say to the member: yes, we are not prepared at this time to deny anyone the opportunity to run for office.

There are rules for running in the same jurisdiction: they take leave of absence and resign. That's where we leave it at this time.

Hon. member, you know as well as I do that if you start limiting or barring certain groups of people, there are repercussions that have to be looked at carefully. You can't just do that overnight. Many would say certain other categories of occupation should be limited from running for municipal office, and I've already cited one. I think our position is clear at this point. But I'm the first to admit to you and the Liberal colleague who also mentioned the Vancouver situation that that has to be looked at. It will be, hon. member.

L. Hanson: I'd like the minister to give us his rationale as to why in the circumstances of.... As we know, school districts, in urban areas are across the street from one another, if you will; they can be that close together. The minister says in the act that it is appropriate for someone running for an office -- for the school board, in this case -- to ask for a leave of absence until the election happens. But if the election happens and they work in that school district, before the person is sworn in to officially take their position they have to resign.

I'd like the minister to explain to us the difference he sees. It's obvious to everyone in British Columbia -- and I'm sure to the minister too -- that during the process the various school boards go through, what happens in one is usually reflected in the other in a short time. Even the judges said there was a conflict of interest. The least the minister could do under those circumstances would be to suggest that if a person runs for a school board, even if it is not the district that the school they work for is in, they have to resign if they're elected as a member of that school board, because it's obvious that a school board can have an effect on the next one, particularly with negotiations. I'd like the minister to explain to us and to the people of British Columbia how a person working in a school that could be two blocks from the school board where they are a trustee, who therefore shouldn't have to resign if they are elected, is now free from any conflict of interest when even the courts decide that they are in conflict of interest.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I have stated opposition to this issue. It is a complicated and delicate issue. You can't limit who can run and who cannot run by just striking out four words of a piece of legislation. The Korbin commission is not finished. There are lots of things going on in review, and the hon. member knows that if you rush in and make eliminations and changes overnight without considering the implications, you get yourself in real trouble. The issues the member has raised are well known, a number of them are being reviewed, and I will leave it at that.

[ Page 9314 ]

[3:45]

J. Weisgerber: Despite what the minister says, the issue is not complex. It is quite simple. The principle is quite simple, and the minister has one of those rare opportunities, when legislation has been tabled in which the minister neglected to deal with a serious issue around which the legislation is framed, of being presented with an amendment that resolves the issue that he failed to deal with. He has an unusual opportunity to simply accept the amendment. The difficulty for the minister is that apparently he doesn't have an opportunity to check with cabinet and his caucus to find out whether or not he has permission to proceed with the amendment. Every once in awhile every minister is in a position where they have to make a decision and simply stand up and say: "I am going to make a decision, because the rationale is so obvious and the window of opportunity is so narrow." We have seen other ministers in the House accept these rational amendments. This is an important opportunity for the minister to deal with a problem that he has acknowledged. The problem is not new, and the minister says he understands it. The minister suggests that he wants to come back and visit it. He's throwing away this opportunity to simply take the initiative and deal with an important issue in the closing days of this Legislature and resolve it. It's a disappointment to me that the minister feels he has been backed into a corner, and now, in order to save face, or because he hasn't been able to consult with his colleagues, he is unable to make a decision and so holds onto a position that I believe even he doesn't agree with. Let me finish by urging the minister to take the initiative, make a decision, accept this amendment and deal with a problem that's been around for too long in British Columbia.

Hon. R. Blencoe: On the amendment, I assume the member will send me a copy of his mailout.

G. Farrell-Collins: I don't want to belabour the point, but I think the minister is taking this issue a little too lightly. This is something that caused gridlock in the Vancouver School District this spring; it caused the government a great deal of embarrassment; it caused students a great deal of absence from classes; it caused teachers and other employees to lose time at work and the money that goes with it. I think this is an extremely important issue. I would have thought that that type of amendment would have been put in during the initial drafting of the legislation. If it wasn't put in then, it certainly should be one of the many amendments the minister has on the order paper, in an attempt to fine-tune it. If he missed it, then I thought he would have at least taken a look at the other amendments that have been sitting on the order paper which aren't his own, and dealt with this issue in perhaps a more serious manner.

I know it is getting late in the session, but I think this is an extremely important point. The government missed the opportunity to deal with the necessary changes in the education system during Bill 84 last year. The result of that was the protracted strikes and labour disputes we had this spring, and the fact that many students lost weeks of school. We have another opportunity to deal with part of that here. I don't imagine that we're going to see the Municipal Act or the Labour Relations Code come up in this House in the next session, unless there are some huge problems that the government just can't deny.

We have a window of opportunity to deal with this. There are some substantial changes in the bargaining structure with the schools in this province that are coming down the pike. The minister said that that is on the way; we have a direction from the commissioner and from the Minister of Finance that there are going to be changes in the bargaining structure. I think this type of amendment is crucial and important. If the wording is a problem for the minister, then he should stand down the section and come back when he has a better solution.

L. Fox: I just want to make one last appeal to the minister. I recognize that it's a very important issue, as I'm sure the minister does. I also understand that it's very difficult for any minister during discussion of a bill to take some responsibility unto themselves to make an amendment that would be this effective.

Perhaps the minister would utilize a few minutes before we vote on this amendment -- I notice that the Minister of Labour is available after his extremely busy agenda -- to consult with the Minister of Labour about this issue. The lack of this kind of legislation cost this NDP government a substantial amount of money to recall this Legislature for a Sunday sitting. The minister should be concerned about that necessity, and may want to consult with the Minister of Labour before he votes against this without any real consideration.

J. Weisgerber: Let me make one last appeal not to the minister, but to the Premier, the Minister of Education, the Minister of Finance and whoever is listening to this debate -- I know it is broadcast through the buildings -- and is in a position to make a decision on this issue. Would they please send a note to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and suggest that he accept this amendment? I'm sure that anyone who is listening to the debate and understands the issue would recognize that it is ultimately reasonable. Perhaps someone is already coming down the hallway with a note suggesting that he accept this amendment and do things properly. I will speak for a moment or two, in case that person is just rounding the corner and would be too late.... Perhaps calling a division would give the minister and the Whip an opportunity, even at this late moment, to change their minds and accept this most reasonable and important amendment. With that, I will wait for the minister's reply, although I don't particularly expect one.

L. Hanson: The minister owes an obligation to this House and to the people of British Columbia. Why does he think that somebody should resign from their position, if they are elected to an office, in the circumstances that we have seen happen with the Vancouver School Board? Why should those people be 

[ Page 9315 ]

allowed to continue their jobs in the adjoining school district? Why would you put the one clause in there and say that they have to resign, and on the other side say that if they are in this other school district, it's all right? Give us some idea of what you are thinking. Maybe we can understand your reasoning on why that should be. The judge and the conflict-of-interest commissioner don't seem to think that, but you do. Maybe you can tell us why you think that.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I have explained over and over again. I take very seriously the issues that have been raised by my colleagues across the way. Many of the aspects that have been raised -- the Korbin issues, for example -- are under review. Much of it is a collective bargaining issue and will be resolved. To you and to those citizens you are appealing to out there about your mailout or whatever you are trying to do, hon. members: we do take this seriously. We got the message and we will deal with it. Indeed, I have a note here: "You have my full support. Mike."

F. Gingell: This is an interesting subject, and I am surprised to see, with so many former school trustees like myself on both sides of the House.... I see one across the room from me now who has dealt with and thought about this question for many years. As you know, and I will repeat it for the record, I was a school trustee for ten years. That is not insignificant experience. I can assure you that the problem with employees, whether they be teachers or others -- and it's primarily with teachers on school boards -- has nothing to do with salaries. That's irrelevant. They can absent themselves from the discussion.

The issue has to do with what a school board is, and what the school board represents. It represents the interests of the people, not of the educators. A school board is organized in such a fashion that there are professionals who for their skills, their abilities and their merits have been promoted to the position of superintendent, assistant superintendent, deputy superintendent, supervisor or principal. They represent the interests of education within the whole facet of the administration of schools.

I am sorry that the minister isn't listening, because there aren't many opportunities that the school trustees have of speaking to these issues. Perhaps the deputy Whip would like to take his seat and allow the minister to listen.

An Hon. Member: Deputy House Leader.

F. Gingell: Deputy House Leader.

It really is an important issue. Think about what a school board is and about who represents which interests. School trustees clearly represent the interests of people -- of taxpayers and of parents. They do not represent the interests of employees, whether they are teachers or others. It's critically important to get this right, and now there is an opportunity to get it right. I'm really disappointed that you aren't taking this opportunity, and I would encourage other members of this Legislature who have been school trustees to stand up and speak to this issue, too. It is important, and there's an opportunity now to do it right. I really do ask you to consider this amendment, which will do the right thing for the right reasons, and to give it your support.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I would remind all members who are speaking about disqualifying a certain section of our community that the implications are substantial, so we should think that through. But I would also remind the hon. members that you have left an important equation out of your debate: the voter. The voter is the ultimate decision-maker. You left that out of your equation. They know who they're voting for, they know who's running, and if they decide to vote for someone on a school board who is a teacher in an adjacent community, that's the ultimate decision. We have covered it as much as possible by ensuring that if you reside in the same community or the same school district, there are rules, and you resign if you get elected.

L. Fox: I appreciate that statement by the minister, but he fails to recognize that now when many people vote, they will not have the privilege of knowing whether or not that person is a teacher, because they no longer put their professional title on the ballot along with their name.

Unfortunately, the minister is missing the point, and I think the member for Delta South put it better than any of the previous speakers when he talked about the importance of a school board being representative of the public, and being a lay body that represents the public's interest in education. I really believe that that is something which the minister should give serious consideration to. As was pointed out by all of the previous speakers who support this amendment, he has a narrow window of opportunity here to do the right thing on behalf of all British Columbians.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I have to stand up for the voters of this province. You have slandered the voters by saying that they don't check who's running, that they don't check the credentials. The voters of this province are sophisticated. Do not underestimate them by suggesting that just because the ballot doesn't list occupations, they don't know. Have some greater faith in the voters of this province. They are the ones who are going to determine the future of who gets elected at our level and every level, so we on this side don't believe in slandering the electorate. We believe in trusting the voter.

[4:00]

G. Farrell-Collins: I'm amazed that we didn't see the same minister on his feet during the debate on Bill 84, when this government took away the right of workers in this province to vote on whether or not they wanted to join a union. Where was the minister when that debate was taking place? The workers of this province aren't stupid either, and the workers of this province will make those decisions also.

[ Page 9316 ]

The Chair: Order, please. We are on the amendment to section 43. Please address your remarks through the Chair.

G. Farrell-Collins: I think it's scandalous for the minister to stand up and make that type of comment as it relates to the amendment on this section, in light of the type of legislation this government has brought in in the past. This minister voted in favour of removing the right of workers in this province to have a secret ballot vote on whether or not they wanted to join a union. That's a fundamental civil right, and the minister voted to take that right away. So to have him stand up in this House in a sanctimonious fashion and speak for the voters of this province, I think is incredible.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

Section 50, section 43 approved.

Section 50, sections 44 to 62 inclusive approved.

On section 50, section 63.

Hon. R. Blencoe: We're moving so fast here, which is a pleasant surprise.... I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 50,

(b) in the proposed section 63 of the School Act by adding the following subsection:

(2.1) As an exception to subsection (2), if fewer than 3 trustees remain in office, section 45(5) applies to require that the vacant office be filled by election or appointment and section 147(4) of the Municipal Act applies to the person elected or appointed to the vacant office and to the person declared disqualified.]

On the amendment.

L. Fox: Could the minister give us a rundown as to why this amendment was necessary?

Hon. R. Blencoe: This bill requires that if a court declaration of disqualification has the effect of reducing the number of school trustees below three, the current vacancies of the board must be filled by election or appointment. I think that's what we're clarifying in this section. Am I correct?

An Hon. Member: That certainly clarifies it.

Interjections.

L. Fox: I find that a rather humorous response, to say the least. The amendment proposes that "if fewer than 3 trustees remain in office, section 45(5) applies to require that the vacant office be filled by election or appointment and section 147(4) of the Municipal Act applies to the person elected or appointed to the vacant office...."

Given that the amendment earlier was refused, it's too bad that this section didn't say how those vacancies could be filled when conflicts occur that bring the number of trustees down to three on a board of seven trustees. I'm being a bit facetious. The only thing I wanted was clarification from the minister about the intent of this section.

Hon. R. Blencoe: Because it refers back to section 45 and is complicated, I'm going to ask that this section be stood down, and then we'll get proper clarification for the hon. member.

The Chair: Section 50, section 63 is stood down.

Sections 51 to 55 inclusive approved.

On section 56.

D. Mitchell: I'd like to ask the minister about the amendments of the Islands Trust Act under this bill. I think I understand what this section is doing. It's a very brief part of the bill. But when we deal with the Islands Trust appointment of local trustees, under section 56, section 6(1), it says: "For each local trust area, 2 trustees are to be elected to represent the electors of the area." Principally, that means each individual island within the Islands Trust. I know the Islands Trust has a special statute that is being amended. But whatever happened to representation by population? For instance, Bowen Island, which is in the constituency that I represent, has a significantly greater population than other islands within the Islands Trust. Yet it receives only two trustees; its population certainly warrants greater representation within the Islands Trust. Can the minister comment on why representation by population is not honoured within the Islands Trust, when it is within every other municipality in British Columbia?

[4:15]

Hon. R. Blencoe: These are consequential amendments. If there are to be any changes in the areas 

[ Page 9317 ]

that you requested, a more thorough review would be needed than what we're doing with this legislation. As I think you have indicated to this House, that could very well be. There is an ongoing review of the Islands Trust Act for changes to the legislation in the 1994 session. The issue of rep by pop and increasing the number of trustees in local Trust areas may be altered. I can't say at this time, though.

D. Mitchell: This is not to belabour the point, but I understand that these amendments are consequential to the remainder of the act. They allow the Local Elections Reform Act to apply to the election of trustees for designated areas within the Islands Trust. But clearly the system of having two trustees for each designated Trust area -- in other words, each island within the Islands Trust -- is preserved with this system.

Every other municipality affected by Bill 35 has a system that is far more democratic. Essentially it is representation by population within a municipal area. Bowen Island and Saltspring Island -- two of the major islands within the Islands Trust -- have much greater populations than some of the other islands. Why was this opportunity not taken to address that? Was there any specific consultation with those areas within the Islands Trust on this legislation?

Hon. R. Blencoe: As I said, hon. member, when we consulted with the Islands Trust, it was to ensure that what we have now and how the system works now would obviously fit; therefore these consequential amendments. I've already said, though, that a significant review of the Islands Trust Act is ongoing at this time. Hopefully we will have changes for '94. It may very well be that some of the issues you raise.... I think I've already said to the member he may wish to put those suggestions into the Islands Trust council, which we're working with now for legislative changes next spring.

Sections 56 to 60 inclusive approved.

On section 61.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I move the amendment to section 61 standing in my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 61,

(a) in the proposed section 23(1)(a) of the Vancouver Charter by deleting "next", and

(b) in the proposed section 24(1)(b) by deleting "next".

(c) in the proposed section 28(2) of the Vancouver Charter by deleting "an election official." and substituting "a person authorized by the chief election officer or by the City Clerk.",

(d) in the proposed section 28(3) of the Vancouver Charter by deleting "presiding election official," and substituting "person authorized to receive the application,",

(e) in the proposed section 47(4)(d) of the Vancouver Charter by adding at the end of that paragraph "or is disqualified under section 64 from endorsing a candidate",

(f) in the proposed section 62(4) of the Vancouver Charter by deleting "51(1)(f)" and substituting "51(3)(f)".

(g) in the proposed section 63(1) of the Vancouver Charter by adding ", or as a local trustee of the Islands Trust," after "board of school trustees",

(h) in the proposed section 72(1) of the Vancouver Charter by deleting "by mail." and substituting "in conjunction with this voting.",

(i) in the proposed section 82(2) of the Vancouver Charter by deleting paragraph (b) and substituting the following:

(b) persons assisting under section 21 or 93;,

(j) in the proposed section 82(4) of the Vancouver Charter by adding "at a voting place or special voting opportunity" after "must not be present", and

(k) in the proposed section 85(2)(d) of the Vancouver Charter by deleting "the ballot" and substituting "a ballot".]

Amendment approved.

Section 61 as amended approved.

On section 62.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 62, in the proposed section 137 of the Vancouver Charter,

(a) by renumbering the section as section 137(1) and by adding "under subsection (2)," after "Except as established", and

(b) by adding the following subsections:

(2) Subject to the limit that there must be at least 10 Councillors, the Council may, by by-law, change the number of Councillors, in which case the quorum for the Council is the lowest number of Council members that is a majority of the total Council size as established by the by-law.

(3) A by-law under subsection (2) must provide for an uninterrupted transition from the previous Council.

(4) A by-law under subsection (2) that would reduce the size of Council must not be adopted without the assent of the electors.]

On the amendment.

L. Fox: Given that this particular section deals with the size and quorum of a council, as well as other sectors, what is the purpose of the amendment? Does this change anything that's reflected in the existing Vancouver Charter? Why has the minister found it necessary to make this amendment to section 62?

Hon. R. Blencoe: It's done in consultation with Vancouver. It basically allows Vancouver to do what every other municipality can do to increase their size. It is basically keeping in line with other sections we have passed in this legislation.

L. Fox: Are you suggesting that this allows the city of Vancouver to increase the number of councillors?

[ Page 9318 ]

Hon. R. Blencoe: Correct.

Amendment approved.

On section 62 as amended.

A. Cowie: On section 62, section 138, we are essentially talking about the ward system. We don't like the word "ward," so we now call it "neighbourhood constituency." It's a nice, vague term that will last for two or three years, I guess. It's a ward system. It is aimed at Vancouver to start with, but it applies to the whole province. I have made some inquiries in a lot of municipalities, and they are not interested in it. But in Vancouver most people have expressed an interest in the ward system, although the present council has said they aren't interested at this time.

Previously, the requirement was for a referendum, and now a ward system can be implemented simply by a majority vote of council. Since the ward system is fundamentally a very important thing for any city or municipality, I wonder why we aren't looking at a two-thirds vote on this as we would do on a money matter. Why is that not included here? Why would it be a simple majority vote?

Hon. R. Blencoe: Hon. member, we are putting in place for Vancouver what is in place for every other municipality in the province. It's a simple majority vote and by bylaw of the council. Like other municipalities, Vancouver can have a referendum on the concept of the neighbourhood constituency system if they want. But in terms of endorsement, it is returning to a simple bylaw of the council, as in every other jurisdiction in the province.

A. Cowie: For years there has been debate for or against ward systems in Vancouver. When this legislation came forth allowing it, it was a big surprise to a lot of people, I guess. In other words, by letting the municipality decide on its own, suddenly a lot of fears come up. I just want to point out that I am not totally convinced that there should be at least a two-thirds vote on an important matter like this in order for people to have an opportunity to think it out. I just want to express my opinion.

Section 62 as amended approved.

Sections 63 to 66 inclusive approved.

On section 67.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 67(b), by deleting '"the next annual election"' and substituting '"at the next annual election"'.]

Amendment approved.

Section 67 as amended approved.

Sections 68 to 100 inclusive approved.

The Chair: The member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove on a point of order.

G. Farrell-Collins: Before we go too far, I believe there was a section stood down. I don't know if the minister wants to come back to that or not.

On the amendment to section 50, section 63.

Hon. R. Blencoe: Section 63(2) says that a vacancy holds until the final decision is made by the courts: "The office of a person declared disqualified on an application under subsection (1) must remain vacant if the decision is appealed and no election to fill the office may be held until the final determination of the matter or until the next general school election, whichever is earlier."

This amendment clarifies that there must still be three members. They can either elect them or ask the minister to appoint them in the interim.

L. Fox: I guess, then, the only question is: does this fall in line with the other clause in here -- I just forget which one it is -- that provides the opportunity for the school board to continue to operate for up to six months? If an election is within six months, could they operate with three, or would they have to appoint others?

Hon. R. Blencoe: They have to have three. It's in section 45.

Amendment approved.

Section 50, section 63 as amended approved.

D. Mitchell: Mr. Chairman, when you went through the last number of sections of the bill, including the commencement clause, I'm not sure that you took a vote on that. If you did, I would seek leave to ask a question on the commencement clause, section 100 of the bill. It's the final section.

[4:30]

Leave granted.

On section 100.

D. Mitchell: Just a question to the minister on the commencement clause, which is an unusual commencement clause for a bill. It says: "Section 2 comes into force on July 31, 1993 or, if this Act does not receive Royal Assent on or before that date, is deemed to have come into force on that date and is retroactive to the extent necessary to give it effect on and after that date." There is an element of retroactivity with this commencement clause. The second section of this clause says: "This Act, other than section 2, is deemed to have come into force on June 15, 1993 and is retroactive to the extent necessary to give it effect on and after that date."

[ Page 9319 ]

When the bill was first introduced in the Legislature, I noticed that the minister issued a news release from his ministry at the same time -- on June 14, which is not so long ago, but it has taken a little while to get the bill to this stage. The final paragraph of the news release said: "The Local Elections Reform Act, 1993, is now in effect and will govern preparations for the 1993 November municipal elections." It seems highly extraordinary to me that when the bill is introduced in the House, the minister would issue a news release saying that the bill is now in effect before the House has even considered it. So I would ask the minister if he could clarify this very unique commencement clause, explain what this retroactivity is really doing here, and address my concern about the presumptuousness of the news release that he issued at the time that the bill was given first reading in this assembly.

Hon. R. Blencoe: We put it back to June 15 -- and all local governments have been preparing as of that date -- because we had to give them a certain amount of time to prepare. There were some concerns that they wouldn't have the time. They have been preparing. You are quite correct: the news release gives the wrong impression. It is June 15, and I don't know what the date was in the news release. You are saying June 14? In the act it is June 15, and we wanted to give local government certainty in allowing them to prepare for significant changes.

The Chair: Hon. member, leave was granted for one question, and....

Interjections.

The Chair: Is leave granted?

Leave granted.

D. Mitchell: The minister has answered part of the question I raised with respect to the discrepancy in the news release, and I appreciate his apology for the error in it.

But the larger question is: at the time the minister was introducing a bill, why would he state that the bill was in effect? Whether it was June 14 or June 15 is really not the question here. Is it not presumptuous for a government to say that a bill is in effect before the House has considered it, before it has been debated in principle and before it has been considered in committee? Is there not an issue there of presumptuousness about whether or not this parliament is going to pass the bill?

Hon. R. Blencoe: There have been years of consultation with this bill. The UBCM has requested it. We would obviously not reflect on the ability of the House to debate it, but the concern of local government was preparation time, and I don't think anyone disagrees with that. If there is some semantic argument here in terms of what I said, I didn't say.... If the member has taken offence, of course I indicate to him that I apologize for that.

My overall objective was that this is progressive legislation, that everyone has basically endorsed it and we wanted to get it moving. We wanted local government to have the opportunity to get ready for November, which is going to be a tremendous challenge. We wanted to give certainty to them and accommodate them. That is why we said it would be retroactive from June 15.

Title approved.

Hon. R. Blencoe: Before I move the appropriate motion, I want to thank my members of staff, who have worked incredibly hard on this piece of legislation -- really very hard. There have been many hours and many years of work. With that, I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Bill 35, Local Elections Reform Act, 1993, reported complete with amendments to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. M. Sihota: I wish....

Interjection.

Hon. M. Sihota: Welcome back? I'm amazed. I was gone for a day on business, and that's why it was so quiet and peaceful?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. M. Sihota: The heliskiing was great. In any event, I'm sorry I generated such amusement on the other side, but I would like to get out of this and call committee stage on Bill 66.

PUBLIC SERVICE ACT
(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 66; M. Farnworth in the chair.

On section 5.

J. Weisgerber: I'd like to move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 5, is hereby amended by adding to section 5, subsection (3), paragraph (h), the following: "which are consistent with hiring and promotion on the principle of individual merit".]

Right now, subsection (h) reads "developing and implementing employment equity policies and programs," and I would add "which are consistent with hiring and promotion on the principle of individual merit." It seems that it's one of those motions that one 

[ Page 9320 ]

would almost think would have been automatically included in the legislation as it was developed, given the amount of lip service that has been paid to the merit principle in this legislation. We want to make sure that the merit principle is not only part of the rhetoric around the legislation but also inherent in it. I'm confident that the minister will accept the amendment in that spirit.

On the amendment.

Hon. G. Clark: This is another example of members of the opposition pandering to the element that would say that this is somehow an attack on merit. The entire purpose of the bill is to promote merit in the public service -- merit which has not been promoted. It is widely held in the public service that the principle of promotion in the public service is not merit, and that's the entire purpose of this legislation. To suggest that we are somehow undermining that principle for the purpose of promoting ethnic minorities, women or otherwise is to suggest that there are no women, Indo-Canadians or other visible minorities who have merit for positions, and that's fundamentally wrong.

These amendments are designed to do one thing: pander to that element in society that would say that it is somehow bad for government to have a public service that is broadly representative of the people it serves. It's reprehensible, and I suggest we vote against the amendment.

J. Weisgerber: I followed the first two-thirds of what the minister said, despite the rather excessive volume, which was essentially that he, as minister, and the Crown embrace the notion of merit, that merit is an integral part of this legislation and that he embraces the idea of merit. I was expecting, despite the volume, that he was going to wind up saying that he supports the amendment. Unfortunately, then the rhetoric took over and we got off onto the question of whether or not certain groups in society have or don't have merit, which is obviously not the issue. I believe everyone wants to see a principle, a program and a set of policies that encourage a diversity in the public service on the principle of merit. I believe everyone wants to see merit be an objective, be inherent in all of the decisions and principles, and be foremost in our minds as we seek to encourage new and different applicants and a newer and broader diversity -- if indeed that's a goal we all share.

But to get on a soapbox and rant and rave because someone wants to put into the legislation those things that the minister himself has given so much lip service to causes one to wonder. Is the notion of merit an integral principle of the legislation, or simply a cloth that the minister tends to wrap this legislation in, but which he is reluctant to put into the fabric of the legislation?

Surely on sober reflection the minister will reconsider and look at this amendment, which I don't think at all undermines the principle of the legislation. It seems to be entirely consistent with the rhetoric and the public relations work that has gone on around this legislation. So I'm confident, even though it was rejected once by the minister, that he will see the benefit, the reasonableness and the importance of including in this section an amendment which recognizes that hiring and promotion should be consistent with the principle of individual merit. Surely to goodness no thinking person would reject that kind of an amendment.

Hon. G. Clark: This amendment is nothing more than political pandering. Section 8 of this bill is an entire section called "Appointments on merit." The entire part 3 of the bill deals with the question of merit. So to single out one of the responsibilities of the commissioner where merit is not discussed -- it's an administrative responsibility of the commissioner to develop employment equity policies -- to suggest that somehow we have to add merit to that is simply political posturing of the worst kind. The bill has whole sections dealing with merit. It's not required in the administrative responsibilities or duties of the commissioner, and it's certainly not required in one subsection of the responsibilities when it comes to developing employment equity policies and programs.

C. Serwa: It's interesting to note the change in approach from one minister of the Crown to the other. I listened to the tirade and the bluster based on the shallowness of this hon. minister, and I compare that to the realistic, sensible, logical type of debate from the hon. Attorney General.

[H. Giesbrecht in the chair.]

On this particular section, it's interesting to note the bluster and pandering -- I think those were the words that the minister used -- with the need to emphasize merit. The union indoctrination of the Minister of Finance is clearly evident. In the union sector, merit is not worthy of consideration; only seniority is considered. Merit should not be recognized on the pay scale, or for calling back an employee to the job earlier. That is the foundation of the Minister of Finance.

[4:45]

The fiscal fortunes of British Columbia are in the hands of what is an obviously incompetent Minister of Finance. We are in our present desperate situation primarily because that individual doesn't recognize the responsibility of merit. Merit has to be first and foremost in whatever we do. When we go to see a doctor or a professional individual, we see these individuals on their merit, their reputation and their competence. But for some reason, this piece of legislation is pandering.... There is nothing superior to the merit principle. That's the ability of all people to strive to be the best they can possibly be, not to simply be the lowest common denominator because they are no better or worse than anyone else, and that's good enough and that's acceptable. That's where we run into problems with the runaway spending in the Ministry of Finance; there isn't merit in the driver's seat. That's the concern I have.

[ Page 9321 ]

If we're talking about merit and the intent of this bill with respect to merit, as the minister continues to say, then why isn't it identified in the purposes? It's not identified. We skirt around that word because clearly it's a non-word in the union sector which the minister represents. The lowest common denominator is the height of ambition of the minister at the present time. That's not good enough for the taxpayers of the province of British Columbia. We have to have the merit principle embodied in section 5; there is no question in my mind. If you dismiss that, unless you continue to refer to the merit principle, you are denying someone the opportunity to achieve and to become the best they are.

It doesn't matter whether you're looking at visible minorities, people with handicaps, women or anyone else in society. The goal we all strive to achieve is to become the best we can possibly be. I don't care whether it's in music or in athletics, it's the merit principle. We have to hire on the basis of the merit principle. If we don't, there is no accountability or responsibility for handling and being accountable for the taxpayers' dollars. I'm strongly in support of the merit principle. It may be a non-word or a dirty word in the minister's vocabulary, but it's a very essential ingredient if we're going to talk about something that is supposed to promote the concept of merit. The minister has failed, through his blustering comments, to indicate why merit should not be included here, other than the fact that it is a non-word in the union sector, which the government of the day represents.

Hon. G. Clark: It's an interesting argument, hon. Chair. The question has to be asked: why are there very few women in senior management positions in government? Is it because they're stupid? Is that what the member's position is? Clearly it is. He's saying that we have a perfect system now; we have merit now. That's why there are no aboriginal people in senior management positions in government. That's why there are very few women in management positions in government. There are very few Chinese Canadians because they're stupid. That is precisely the logic that the member opposite pursues. He is saying that currently we have a pure system of merit. Those who are successful must have the merit. The only way they're promoted in government now is because they have merit.

What is patently obvious to anybody, other than the members of the Social Credit Party and some members of the Liberal Party, is that there are obstacles in the way of pursuing equality and of ensuring that there are meritorious applicants from a broad cross-section of the public, that women have access to compete for jobs or that people who are disabled and visible minorities have access to compete for jobs. Merit is the overall principle behind this bill. What we're simply saying is that we're taking employment equity action. The policy was passed by the government of which that member was part of in December 1990 to try to pursue ways in which we can find meritorious applicants from a cross-section of the public in British Columbia. It is not good enough to say that the current system is working well; it is not. It is patently obvious that it is not.

The particular section that we're dealing with on the commissioner's administrative responsibilities doesn't mention merit; it mentions advising the minister on personnel policies. This is the administrative section. There is an entire section of the bill that deals with merit. It is the overall principle behind the Public Service Act. It is what the Korbin commission set out to review. What we heard from public servants is that the current system does not reward merit, nor is it representative of the public that it serves. That's what this bill does. To stand up in the House and constantly move what are essentially trivial amendments to attach the word "merit" anywhere they see employment equity is, frankly, only political posturing. Pandering to that element of society which does not support taking action to promote women or visible minorities or disabled people in society is the most reprehensible politics I've seen here, and it's coming from those members, particularly from the last member who spoke. I suggest that members dispense with this and vote against the amendment. We'll get to the section on merit, and we'll deal with it there.

C. Serwa: Another interesting tirade from the minister, and that's all that it is.

We're concerned about the merit principle, and the purpose of the amendment is to ensure striving for the best possible individual. That's what is really important. The minister indicates that women are not represented in senior positions in numbers similar to their percentage of the population, which is 50 percent. What has happened over the years since the thirties, forties, fifties, sixties and seventies? The change has been systematic and progressive. It has been changing, and it has been advancing. If you look at visible minorities in government or any other field, they've made their entrance into the economic activities of this province, and over a period of time they make advances. Their children and their grandchildren make further advances.

The minister, in this self-righteous and indignant mode that he's in, thinks you can somehow legislate something automatically. The reality is that good and responsible change occurs over a long period of time, and we have made tremendous advances. You're not going to change something overnight because of some do-gooder intent in the legislation. You are going to make these progressive changes on the basis of merit and attitudinal changes in society. All that any individual is looking for is an opportunity. Then they will strive to fill the positions. The moment you compromise the merit principle, you compromise the effectiveness of the civil service. An individual who is your superior doesn't have the background, capability or ability; they are there for some other reason. There's no pride or self-esteem for the individual employed in that particular position, and there is certainly no job satisfaction for those who are subservient to that position.

My fundamental concern is that if you want solid gains, those opportunities have to be made available. You will make those gains through education and 

[ Page 9322 ]

opportunity; you are not going to make them by legislation. We talked earlier about the difficulties that the RCMP and the military have run into. Merit has to be the fundamental basis for hiring. All people have competence, capacity and ability. We all fit into different niches, but the merit principle has to be fundamental. The minister may continue with his tirade if he wishes, but it will fall on deaf ears here. Capacity and ability are inherent in all peoples. Whether aboriginal peoples or some other ethnic diversity anywhere in the world, male or female, the merit principle applies. It applies in sports, in business, in politics, in government service as well as private industry. You can't deny it.

The wealth of opportunities that we have today in Canada is because of the free market economy and the concept of the merit principle. If a business has merit, then it survives and continues to provide jobs. If it does not have merit or competence, then it fails. You cannot ignore that principle in the cost of government. If you don't employ the merit principle, and if you don't continue to advance its cause, then mediocrity is the top level that you strive for. That is my concern. I think the minister fails to understand, and wishes to try to make political hay on an issue that most people understand is critically important.

J. Weisgerber: The minister talks about reprehensible political posturing. I suppose that would suggest there is some other kind of political posturing, and I suppose he practises it often enough to have accepted it as part of his regime.

It's ironic that this minister -- who was one of the senior ministers in a government that came into office in October 1991 and summarily fired every woman deputy minister in the government -- stands up and talks about women in senior positions in government and the need to promote and encourage women to take senior positions in government. It was this Minister of Finance -- one of the most senior ministers in the government -- who oversaw that activity, and for him to give us the kind of lecture we have just had is absolutely incredible.

If the minister wants to be honest with this Legislature when he talks about women in the civil service, he would acknowledge that women under 40 are well represented in all management strata in the civil service. That is because of policies that have been in place over the last few years that have encouraged women to enter the administrative side of government. The minister knows very well that women up to 40 years of age are well represented and that that will continue to increase as those women move through the service and take more senior positions. So we've got nothing but political posturing. I find it reprehensible, and I find it ironic that the minister would stand up here, having taken part in the firing of all the senior.... All of the deputy ministers in government who were women were fired by the cabinet that this minister was part of.

The Chair: Before I recognize the next speaker, the Chair observes that the tenor in this House seems to be deteriorating. Members should avoid personal allusions in their debate and we might restore the constructive atmosphere of the House.

Hon. G. Clark: Just for the record, there are about the same number -- one more I think -- women deputy ministers today than there were when we took office. I am pleased to say that there are 12 management categories, and in every single category there are more women represented in the public service today than there were when we took office. So there has been significant improvement since we took office in every single category, although clearly not enough. More work has to be done, and that's what we're doing.

C. Serwa: On the merit principle, I think it hypocritical of the minister with his posturing. In the former administration I watched when the Leader of the Opposition was surrounded by four male colleagues, for example, and there was never reference to the women's caucus. It was protected by four male colleagues sitting around them, including Bob Williams -- who is still the power behind the throne, so to speak, at the present time.

The Minister of Finance conveniently forgets history very quickly and goes on to speak long and loud about women in management positions. That is a progressive change which is coming forward. The other aspect of concern that I mentioned enters into the statistics the minister is looking at. The number of older women apparently diminishes in the civil service, whereas men continue on longer to retirement age, so that's partially a factor in what transpires. When we talk about merit, it still has to be the fundamental basis, and that's why I would support this amendment.

[5:00]

V. Anderson: I find myself in an interesting position: I agree with the amendment, but I disagree violently with the last two speakers from the Social Credit benches. I think we're losing sight of the context of words and their meanings, and we are treating them legalistically. If words begin to be treated legalistically, whether it's words that deal with equity or merit -- no matter what they are -- we've lost sight of the principles we believe in, and we become involved in dealing with a legal document rather than with people. As long as we're concerned with people, people always have merit and have to be dealt with equitably. The two aren't opposite ends of a pole, separated from each other. If they are dealt with properly, they are an inherent part of each other.

As I understand the amendment, it's simply to remind us that merit and equity are the same, as I've heard the minister saying. I think that merit and equity need to be considered within the same context. They're not opposites or contradictory; they are one and the same. If we are dealing with merit in a legalistic sense and taking the paper qualifications of a person, it doesn't mean that that person has the experience or the 

[ Page 9323 ]

attitude that would enable them to do the best job. Somebody without the paper qualifications may be able to do a far better job -- and they have done -- than the person who has the right qualifications, because they can interact with people in a fair and equitable manner.

On the other hand, if you take the position that equity has no relationship to merit, you'd be doing exactly the opposite. I disagree violently with the last two Social Credit speakers, because if I've heard them correctly, they've taken a legalistic point of view by separating....

Interjection.

V. Anderson: They say that they know they're on the right track if I'm disagreeing with them. Well, fine.

As far as I'm concerned, they separate them and give them a complete distinction, whereas we try to put things together and develop a balance between them, rather than setting two good principles against each other. Our intention here is not to set principles against each other. Rather, we say that both principles must be considered and given equal consideration, because they are both relevant. We're not dealing with machines, which you can measure according to a certain standard and if they deviate, they don't fit. We're dealing with people here, and both merit and equity must be taken into account, because we want people who can do a certain job in a certain circumstance.

When we have done all our examination, with whatever categories we want to use, the final judgment has to be made in the minds of the people who are developing a team to enable them to do a job together. So I would not rule out the human element, and I would not want us to be legalistic on one side or the other; I would simply say that both of them must be together. That's why I would be happy to have this amendment here. I think that equity and merit must be seen together as a common opportunity for people, rather than as opposites or as contradictory. Therefore I will support the amendment, but not on the basis that the last two speakers of the third party have presented it; I will support it from the point of view -- apart from the rhetoric of the minister -- of the minister trying to say that merit and equity stand together and that one must be considered with the other. For that reason, I will support the amendment.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

J. Weisgerber: I move the second amendment standing in my name on the order paper. The amendment would add subsection (5) to section 5.

Perhaps I should pause for a moment and allow those who have other agendas to carry on with them.

Interjection.

J. Weisgerber: I would give the member for Nanaimo credit for having read the amendment, which is probably more than most of the others have done.

The Chair: Please proceed on the amendment.

J. Weisgerber: I move that section 5 be amended by adding subsection (5), as follows: "The Commissioner shall ensure that remuneration for managerial positions do not contain any incentive for the maximization or increase of numbers of persons or sizes of budgets supervised by a manager, except as expressly authorized by enactment of the Legislative Assembly."

On the amendment.

Hon. G. Clark: I have much more sympathy for this amendment, but unfortunately I can't support it. I will try to briefly explain why.

The Public Service Employee Relations Commission is not the arm of government that manages the finances or scrutinizes the spending practices of government. That is the job of Treasury Board. In terms of trying to drive productivity and the like, that is line ministry management responsibility driven largely by Treasury Board and program evaluation guidelines.

While I'm very sympathetic to the thrust here, it seems improper for the commissioner responsible for the Public Service Employee Relations Commission to have in it something that really deals with the question of the budgetary management of the public service. Another way of putting it is that the size of the public service is obviously something which the government is very concerned about. We want to promote productivity and the like, but in many respects that's not the job of the Public Service Commission. It's the job of management and Treasury Board to deal with those questions. The commission is more concerned with operational, labour relations and human resource questions. As sympathetic as I am to the principle behind this amendment, I don't think it properly fits in this section.

[5:15]

[ Page 9324 ]

J. Weisgerber: As the minister knows, it's very difficult to get amendments into Treasury Board. So one takes the opportunities that one gets. The purpose of the amendment is to recognize that there is growing public concern and, I think, growing administrative concern with the increasing size of the bureaucracy. It's important to recognize the need and responsibility of government, perhaps through the civil service act, the policies of Treasury Board or some other mechanism.

There are circumstances where the size of the bureaucracy and the size of the staff that's being managed should be rewarded. It's sometimes difficult to rationalize the opposite side of this question. You have a Ministry of Health with one-third of the budget and an enormous staff, and other ministries that are relatively small. The ministerial pay is the same, and in many cases the deputy minister's pay is the same. I believe that it should be the function of whatever process is in place to reward those who do their jobs cost-effectively. I think there should be some kind of a reverse incentive. In other words, those who are able to spend less than their budget allowance and keep their staffing levels below the target should be the ones rewarded, rather than those who have ever-growing bureaucracies. That's the point of the amendment. It's apparent that while we agree on it, it's not going to get included in this section. But I would hope that it would, in any event.

A. Cowie: Since I've had a fair amount of experience on the municipal scene and have been party to a fair bit of provincial work, I have the pleasure of adding a few words here. I believe it would be a good principle to state. I'd like to see it stated in other areas where these principles would be important. In one case where I was managing a department, we reduced it by one-third and it worked a lot better. Since then it has gone back up to where it was, and I personally think it's not working as well. I'll leave others to judge that.

It's pretty typical in the municipal, provincial and federal service for people to feel more comfortable if they have a lot of people working under them. It's almost like the military. It's not necessarily a sign that they'll perform their duties better. Especially in today's times, there are departments and operations that work well with very few people. They're the ones that make the difference, while line functions like huge engineering departments that have many people working for them.... You'll also find that the more people they have and the higher the budget, the greater the tendency to give them more pay, and they appeal to that.

So I can personally support this amendment. I'm very proud to support it, and I would like to see it go through.

F. Gingell: Perhaps the minister could advise us if there are presently any pay-incentive programs for senior managers in the provincial civil service. If there are, under what authority are these arrangements entered into?

Hon. G. Clark: No, there are none in the public service.

Amendment negatived on division.

D. Mitchell: Under section 5 (3)(h), where "developing and implementing employment equity policies and programs" is referred to, is there a conflict in the minister's mind between this and the mandate of the Ministry of Women's Equality? Is there an argument here that this is really duplicating the role of a ministry of government? Does it presage, perhaps, a possible elimination of that ministry?

Hon. G. Clark: The member is correct in the sense that currently the employment equity program in government, which has been in existence since about 1990 -- and Brian Dagdick, who is here today, is the director responsible -- essentially will move to the Public Service Commission and out of Women's Equality, although I understand Women's Equality will still be responsible in a governmentwide sense for employment equity policy -- not in the public service, but broadly applied. It may be in the public sector; we're reviewing that question, but there is going to be a substantial movement to the commission from the current mandate within Women's Equality ministry.

D. Mitchell: I guess we'll simply have to wait and see what happens with the cabinet shuffle that we're all anticipating to see whether or not that ministry will still exist. It would seem that a major portion of that ministry has been transferred, and one wonders whether or not there is any reason for that ministry to exist.

On section 5(3)(m), "establishing and maintaining a personnel management information system," I note that volume 1 of the Korbin commission's final report refers to the need for data collection. This doesn't seem to be a new function, necessarily. This is something that I think government is probably already doing. Would the minister be able to inform the committee whether or not something new is contemplated here? Would this simply be done through the current government payroll system?

Hon. G. Clark: The answer is both. We're going to do it to the payroll system. But there is no personnel management information system, as shocking as that is. There was piecemeal personnel information around from ministries. This centralizes them and pulls it into the commission. We think there is cost savings there as well. They will develop a corporate personnel management information system and also use the payroll to assist in that process.

Sections 5 to 7 inclusive approved.

On section 8.

F. Gingell: The description of the minister's response to some early discussions about the first amendment that was brought forward by the Social 

[ Page 9325 ]

Credit government was somewhat fair. I was subject to a similar attack the other evening when we dealt in section 1 with the question of diversity. I wondered if perhaps I hadn't described very well the situation that I was trying to put forward. So, if I may, I'll have another crack at it.

Included in the context of merit, when appropriate, should be a standard requiring the person being appointed to be able to respond to and serve all the diverse factions of the people of British Columbia. We all recognize that we have a very cosmopolitan population, and that it is important for the public service to be able to serve all of them fairly and equally. If the government focuses first of all on the ability of those people to deal with these diverse factions or the cosmopolitan makeup of the population, your intention of having a bureaucracy that is more representative of that diversity will happen -- and you will do it by the right method. As the most important function, you will bring in the needs of the people of the province to be properly served, and that seems the most important thing to me.

That is more important than engineering the public service to have the right quotas, or the right percentages, or some body count representing certain interests that don't want to be counted. They want to be treated as British Columbians. They don't want to be put in a special box or painted with a particular brush. The key to what's gone wrong in the past, and why our public service perhaps doesn't have the full representation that we want, is that there have been barriers, glass ceilings and old boy networks. I believe that those are things of the past.

During the course of the estimates debate I had the opportunity to question the minister on the number of women in senior positions within his own ministry. It was not a very encouraging response, to be honest, and I think the minister recognizes that. The minister also recognized -- and I support him in it -- that in his particular field there has been a great increase in the number of people from both genders and different racial backgrounds going through the universities to become economists, chartered accountants or financial managers. So the ability to make his ministry reflect the diverse nature of the province is clearly going to be easier in the future than it has been in the past. But it's critically important, especially for this minister, to have in his bureaucracy people appointed first and foremost on merit. You have now senior people -- Brenda Eaton, and a whole series of them. That's because the glass ceilings are being broken, and that's because the prejudices are being changed and that's because the old boy network is being broken down. It's not because you have done it for some social engineering purpose -- that is where our concerns lie. We support the principles of the bill, but we have problems dealing with a social engineering exercise that really disturbs us. My children and grandchildren, and your children and grandchildren, and the children of all British Columbians should have equal access whether they be male or female or whatever. It simply isn't right for them not to have it. I would appreciate your response.

Hon. G. Clark: Of course, that is what is so troubling about this debate. I think the member opposite has made an excellent case to vote in favour of the legislation, and I don't say that facetiously. There is no attempt at social engineering or rigid quotas here. In fact, what we are trying to accomplish is precisely what the member suggested he wanted to see happen. What keeps happening here for some reason is that people are talking at different levels and not listening to each other -- and maybe I'm partly guilty of that as well. But it seems to me that the member has said that he supports the notion of what we're trying to accomplish, but he doesn't support what he refers to as social engineering.

[5:30]

No one is trying to pursue anything remotely resembling social engineering, which, I guess, would mean rigid identification and quotas and all of that. We have been trying to do precisely what the member suggests: work very carefully within the bounds of the merit principle to try to smooth the way for members of the four groups that we're talking about. In other words, we're saying: "Let's try and recruit women to compete for every job, because we know that there are meritorious women in British Columbia for the various jobs." That does not mean that they are going to be successful; in fact, in many cases they have not been successful. Let's try to find what I think are called bridging positions, positions which are not as senior.

Due to systemic discrimination and for a whole variety of historical or sociological reasons, you don't find that many senior executives in the banking industry who are women, although that is starting to change as well. But you may find many people in middle management in the private sector who are women, over time. Maybe we should try to recruit women at the middle level of management in the public service, who can compete for those jobs and do well so that down the road -- in a sense, in a bridging fashion -- we can then promote women from within as they move through the system.

That's precisely what we're doing, and the member said he agrees with it. I can say, with some great justification and pride, that there are women in the Ministry of Finance who are just outstanding. The member mentioned Brenda Eaton. I could mention Anne Kirkaldy or Lois McNabb or Sunny Mathieson. These are senior women who have not necessarily been recruited by our administration. They were people in the system who have been promoted -- or some of them have been promoted in the system, I guess. They have not been promoted because they are women. They are not occupying those positions because they are women. They are occupying those positions because they are meritorious: they are outstanding and capable candidates. But it may be, for a variety of reasons, that women -- and I am not picking on those individuals, because I do not think it is necessarily the case -- would not compete for those jobs, or have not been encouraged to compete for the jobs.

We are not introducing rigid quotas, affirmative action or some kind of social engineering. We're saying: "Let's try to open up the system and remove the barriers for people to compete for jobs." I think the 

[ Page 9326 ]

member's speech very eloquently said precisely what we are trying to accomplish. This bill sets out a framework. It gives a home to employment equity in the Public Service Commission. It sets out a framework of merit and says that there are tools that can be applied in order to advance employment equity. But the employment equity policy and the administration of that policy is not in this bill. The members keep putting up straw men -- or straw people -- that they then try to beat down. They say: "This bill provides for quotas, therefore we should vote against it." The bill doesn't provide for quotas. Some government in the future may want to pursue quotas. That would be a policy decision that could be debated, attacked and probably defeated. The Legislature would be the place to have that discussion. We're not contemplating that. We're setting out a very modest, modern and excellent Public Service Act that provides a framework for employment equity. Employment equity is a policy that is pursued in every province in Canada and in the federal government. It existed before we took office. We are putting some very broad language in the act to say that this a policy of the government and this is where we think it should be advanced.

I haven't hesitated to be partisan about it, but earlier today we had debate coming from the other side accusing the government of actions that are simply not in the bill. That's why it's so offensive to me. I keep hearing allegations about the policy we're pursuing that are simply not founded in fact. The member's excellent presentation is one that, in general, I support. It commends the bill to that member to vote in favour of it. To suggest that we're doing otherwise is, frankly, incorrect.

J. Weisgerber: I would move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 8, is hereby amended by deleting from section 8, subsection (1), the phrase "Subject to section 10".]

On the amendment.

J. Weisgerber: What this amendment does is extend the principle of merit to temporary, short-term and auxiliary employees, which is what section 8 is all about. That seems to be a logical step to take. Perhaps there are exceptions. The principle of merit wouldn't apply in the area of demotions or lateral transfers, but I think there are enough conditions in section 8 to permit that. In the interest of consistency, we would like to see the principle of merit, which the minister objected to so strongly in section 5 and now embraces in section 8 -- which I concur with.... Clearly, the intent is to extend this to a broader range of employees.

Hon. G. Clark: I have no quarrel with what the member is saying, but there are some technical reasons why we can't accept the amendment. I don't mean technical with respect to clerical in the bill, but this has been on the order paper, and we looked at it. In principle, I don't have any problem. Demotions and lateral transfers are all exempt from the current Public Service Act. The problem is that if we were to apply merit and full competition for laterals, auxiliaries and temporary appointments, it means we have to go through the posting procedure, have a competition and set up a panel to review it.

The point of a temporary or auxiliary appointment is to fill a temporary or auxiliary vacancy. As you know, we are trying to eliminate the number of auxiliaries and regularize where we can. But we are still going to have temporaries and auxiliaries, and we are going to have demotions, lateral transfers, and the like. It would be very costly and inefficient to subject them to the full competition and merit that goes through a regular employee.

It's not that we are trying to circumvent merit with respect to temporary employees. I would hope that we are diligent enough to ensure that they are meritorious applications. Because of the way it's set up in this bill, merit is a rigorous test, with clear standards and panels to interview. We simply cannot apply that test to auxiliary or temporary employees without great cost and inconvenience. The advice of staff is that it's simply not functional.

D. Mitchell: I don't want to belabour the point, but in addition to dealing with temporaries and auxiliaries, it also deals with lateral transfers and demotions. When you add up all these categories -- lateral transfers, demotions, temporaries and auxiliaries in the public service -- we come up with large numbers of employees. The minister will recognize that there have been in the past -- and there could be in the future -- extremely large numbers of employees affected by these exemptions from the appointment-on-merit principle the minister has spoken so highly of. There is no guarantee that these numbers will get smaller. The numbers of employees in these categories could become larger, and these are exempted specifically from the appointments on merit so highly spoken of by the minister.

While there may be some technical reasons on a short-term basis why the merit principle may not be able to be regarded, there are other exemptions as well in this statute. These specific categories of employees, which are large numbers in the public service, could be larger in future. We don't know. There is no guarantee that they won't be larger. Why wouldn't merit -- the principle the minister is speaking so highly of, and what he refers to as the appointment-on-merit principle -- apply to that? There is no guarantee that this number is going to diminish; it might become larger in the future.

Hon. G. Clark: First of all, there are fewer than 100 lateral transfers or demotions now in a staff of 29,000 or 30,000. It is a very small number.

Secondly, they are exempt from the current Public Service Act for precisely that reason. A demotion is often, when you are demoting someone to another position, not required to go through the full range of the test of merit that is applied. So I disagree with the member, only to say that we are very conscious of it. I am sympathetic to the member's remarks but it is such a small number of people, and the current exemption is 

[ Page 9327 ]

in place. We are not extending it, and we are not at all going to try to extend it. It is there to accommodate a very small number of people who move within the system every year, and it is in keeping with current practice.

Amendment negatived.

D. Mitchell: While we are on section 8, section 8(4) deals with the powers of the commissioner, which are rather broad. Subject to the regulations, of course, the commissioner may designate certain categories of employees as being exempt from the merit principle. Certain individuals or categories that come under the Public Service Act might be limited in terms of the preference given to them. This strikes to the heart of what the minister has been addressing. He has been trying to address this issue.

But what about the powers of the commissioner? What limitation might there be on the powers of the commissioner of this new body that's being established with this act? If there is no desire or attempt at social engineering, or however it might be referred to.... If the commissioner, a public servant of the province of British Columbia, had a desire to engage in some kind of experimentation, there certainly doesn't seem to be any curb on it. The commissioner has very broad discretion under this act. Could the minister speak to the accountability of the commissioner?

Hon. G. Clark: I don't know if I introduced Gary Moser, currently assistant deputy minister of the government personnel services division, and Brian Dagdick, director of employment equity for the Women's Equality ministry, who I gather is moving shortly.

I'm advised, first of all, that there is a major check on subsection (4) in that it's subject to the regulations. The regulations require approval of cabinet -- the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. The commissioner cannot implement a policy without regulations, and the regulations have to be approved by cabinet. So there is cabinet accountability. Secondly, the commissioner is accountable to the minister responsible, who at the current time is the Minister of Finance. The commissioner is accountable to the House for debate and discussion through the minister responsible for the commission, and obviously the regulations require an order-in-council. They require the publication of regulations that are approved by the executive council. I think the accountability is similar to that which exists in a ministry.

[M. Lord in the chair.]

A. Cowie: I have no problem with section 8 until the last couple of lines in subsection (2): "...years of continuous service in the public service." Why would the minister want that? I won't bore you with examples -- I can give you lots of examples -- but I know of many very good people in project levels who have degrees and hold positions with the public service. They decided to leave for a year or two to go abroad and work in Tanzania or Poland or wherever on similar projects in allied fields. When they come back they would like to go back into the public service, and this means they would have a disadvantage in that they wouldn't have continuous service. I have always wondered why this is the case. I actually believe it's good for people to go away every few years and do something else. It broadens their education and their experience, and it would be a true benefit to our public service if they were allowed to do that. When you clean that up and allow that, I think you should allow municipal employees to do the same thing.

[5:45]

Hon. G. Clark: First of all, let me advise members of the committee that this is exactly the language that has existed in the current act for 15 or 20 years, so it's not new.

Secondly, if you read volume 1 of the Korbin commission report and the act, part of what we're doing here.... The whole purpose -- and the Premier had a conference on this -- is revitalizing the public service and saying: "Look, we value public services. We want to reinvigorate it and reinstate the merit principle. We want to ensure some fairness, and we also want to try to have 'continual career advancement'." I think that was one of the terms used.

I'm not disagreeing with the member or trying to limit it, but when you're looking at the matters to be considered when it comes to applying merit, one of those matters is years of continuous service. We're trying to effectively allow people to spend a career in the public service, to take training and to advance in the public service, and that has been a great source of irritation in the public service. Whether that's true or not may well be a debatable question. But the overwhelming feeling of public employees was that this was not the case, and that you could work very hard for years and there weren't the training opportunities, the ability to compete for jobs or the promotion aspects. Again, that was a common feeling.

What we're trying to do with the bill -- and what Judi Korbin and the Premier, through a major review, are trying to do -- is to say to the managers in the public sector -- not just the bargaining unit, but people in the public service generally -- that we want to try to institute a more modern regime that allows people the opportunity to develop to their full potential, if we can, as an employer. I think it's fair to say, while I don't disagree with some of the comments the member made, that years of continuous service in the public service as one of the factors to be considered in determining merit is, I think, legitimate. It may not be the overwhelming one or the most important one, but I think it's legitimate to consider that as one of the factors in judging merit.

A. Cowie: That's all very interesting, but I feel that it's completely wrong. I take the other position. I'll give you a couple of examples. In the public service in Australia, they actually require public servants to go away every seven years. They pay for them to go away, so that they can travel around the world and do other things. I think they do that so they can upgrade 

[ Page 9328 ]

themselves and learn about what's going on elsewhere in the world. One of the things that I've noticed was wrong with the public service when I worked for it is that people have been there for years. There's no way they can upgrade themselves. They get stuck in a slot, and they slowly work their way up the ladder. They're there because they've been there for a long time; they're not there on merit. I believe that people who are at least willing to take the risk and go away for a year to learn something should be on an equal footing when they come back. I'm not saying that you should require it, but they shouldn't have to lose their position.

Hon. G. Clark: Maybe this will give the member a little comfort. If you take a leave of absence to get a degree or to work in another country, which quite a few people do, that counts as continuous service. It's only if you quit and sever your employment that it wouldn't count. We in fact have provisions now for training, educational leave and the like, which allow you to repatriate, if you will, and to count that as continuous service in your employment. I think that some of the things the member is saying -- which I don't totally disagree with -- are covered by the current way in which the public service operates. We're not trying to discourage people from taking a job in another country for a year and developing their expertise. I think that can be of great benefit to the province. We have many of the provisions that I think the member is concerned about.

A. Cowie: I just want to thank the minister for clarifying that. That was an important item as far as I was concerned. It was important to clarify that for some people I know who like to go away and come back refreshed.

G. Farrell-Collins: I want to pick up where the member for Vancouver-Quilchena left off and ask a couple of questions for clarification. The minister says that a person can go elsewhere or get education leave to go school and can come back and repatriate some of that as years of continuous service, without having to break it. To help with this debate, it would be nice to know what things don't count. If you quit and take a job for two years outside the public sector but still within the province, or wherever, can you still get leave to do that? Do you have to say before you go: "I want leave to work with the private sector for a while"? What sort of limit is there on that, and isn't non-continuous experience just as valuable as continuous? What if you work for ten years, go away for three or four years and get into business for yourself, and then decide that you would like to get back into the public service at a different level? You take the experience you had out on your own and bring that back to the public service. Why penalize somebody for doing that? I am just trying to find out what the parameters are on that break -- what limitations there are and what's available for the employee there.

I want to ask another question, following up with the comments of the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi. Section 8(4), "Subject to the regulations...." The minister commented that there is accountability there, because the commissioner would have to pass regulation and come back to the cabinet and the minister responsible. Would those be blanket regulations, or would the commissioner be trying each time to limit a posting to a geographical area, for example, or limit it to employees.... Every time the posting falls within subsection (4), is that going to require an order-in-council or a change to the regulations, or are we going to have blanket regulations that set a policy, and allow us to just work within these very loose policy parameters?

Hon. G. Clark: With respect to the latter question, it has not been worked through yet. We may have some broad blanket regulations with respect to certain types of jobs, perhaps in Aboriginal Affairs. As you know, there are new types of programs. For example, there is an alcohol and drug program to deal with aboriginal people. We may want a broad application to say that that can be limited, and it may also be specific from time to time. But my sense is that there will be some broad employment equity guidelines, which will be passed by regulation. The minister will be accountable in the House, and from time to time they will need to be more specific.

With respect to the previous question, there is a fairly rigorous test. You can't just say you are going to leave for a year; you have to apply for leave. We have a fairly progressive policy of training, education and maternity and other kinds of leave. We also have international exchanges. Several individuals in the Ministry of Finance have spent a year working for a bank in Japan, for example, and can come back on an exchange. All of that counts as continuous service. I think we have a liberal -- God, I hate that word -- policy with respect to allowing public employees the opportunities to advance their education and training through international exchanges or working in the private sector, and to maintain their continuous employment with the government. But they do have to apply and there has to be approval before one can leave.

J. Weisgerber: I'd like to move the amendment to subsection (2) standing in my name.

[SECTION 8, is hereby amended by deleting section 8, subsection (2), and by substituting therefor the following:

(2) The matters to be considered in determining merit shall, having regard to the nature of the duties to be performed, include the applicant's skills, knowledge, relevant education, past work experience, and past work performance.]

On the amendment.

J. Weisgerber: I recognize that subsection (2), as it stands now, has been in the act for some time. Two fundamental changes are reflected in the amendment, for the benefit of those who have been reading both and trying to identify them. First, it moves the issue of education from the first or primary item identified on the basis of merit and expands "education" to "relevant 

[ Page 9329 ]

education" behind "skills" and "knowledge." In other words, it changes the order of the items listed and suggests that skills and knowledge would be of greater significance than education might. Second, it goes on to eliminate from that definition the continuous service we've been talking about before.

I think there's some rationale for this, particularly in view of the objectives of the act, which are to broaden opportunities for groups who aren't now represented in the civil service. If in fact you want to promote and encourage women, visible minorities and other groups that, according to the minister, are underrepresented, one of the handicaps you put in place with the argument of continuous service is that you say to people: "If you haven't been represented in the service then you are going to be handicapped -- in the strict sense of the word -- in the competition." Indeed, many of the applicants that the act would seek to encourage may find a larger degree of skills and knowledge than formal education.

Again, the amendment is put forward in a very positive way. It has some changes that I think would enhance the work that the act is trying to do. If it makes it easier for him to accept the notion of an amendment, it's not amending something that the minister wrote himself but something that he inherited.

Hon. G. Clark: The member makes two points. Moving the order of the words is a little obscure. The section says: "education, skills, knowledge, experience, past work performance...." That does not mean that they're to be taken in order of preference. Believe me, they aren't. I completely agree with the member that education seems to be the least important question. That may not be a popular overall view. Formal education is certainly worth considering, but other factors would most often be viewed as more important. This is a kind of balancing act. So I would say that the order of the words is an obscure point; it makes no difference. I suppose you could argue that I could accept the amendment, but I would say to the member that he should accept the current wording because the order has no practical effect.

The second point is removing the words "continuous service." I heard a bit of sympathy for that from other members. My point would be that we're trying to balance the rights of current employees to compete for jobs with the right of the public, who, after all, are paying the bill, to compete for jobs. I think that's the balancing act that the existing act contemplates. There are a variety of factors in merit, one of which is continuous employment. I think the current wording, which has been in existence for many years and we have a lot of experience with, is one we should stick with.

While I have some sympathy for both the comments the member made, it seems to me that we're only now considering the act and the range of factors to be considered when determining merit. The relative weighting of those will be adjudicated by the interview panel and through the ways in which we go about hiring. I suspect that from time to time some element of one of these will take more importance than others, depending on the job in question.

I agree with the member that when we're dealing with promoting aboriginal people or others, it may well be that we should look at the history and experience of those individuals rather than whether they have master's degrees or not. That may well be the case; I suspect it is. Nothing precludes that in this section. The point is that this is a broad clause which tries to canvass the various elements of merit. The order is of no relevance whatsoever. We're trying to perform that kind of balance, and I think the current language serves us well. So I would recommend voting against the motion.

As we're almost to the time, perhaps, hon. Chair, we could deal with this amendment, and then adjourn for half an hour.

J. Weisgerber: Well, I think that people looking at the wording would put greater weight on the items that you read first. I think it's a rather natural assumption to believe that there was some priority in the way that the various skills and qualifications were listed. As I say, it's a totally friendly amendment designed to clarify the section, and it's one that the minister seems to agree with. I would encourage members to vote for it.

[6:00]

Amendment negatived on division.

Hon. G. Clark: I move 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. G. Clark: I move that the House at its rising stand recessed for 30 minutes.

Motion approved.

The House recessed at 6:01 p.m.

The House resumed at 6:34 p.m.

Hon. G. Clark: I call committee on Bill 66.

PUBLIC SERVICE ACT
(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 66; R. Kasper in the chair.

Hon. G. Clark: I would like to stand down section 8 because there are two amendments from the Leader of the Third Party which I know he would like to move. We could move to section 9, which is not contentious. We could work through that, and then come back to 8 where there are two amendments and a bit of substantive debate left. If that is convenient, we will stand down section 8 for five minutes and move to section 9.

[ Page 9330 ]

The Chair: I will take it that by general consent section 8 is stood down.

On section 9.

F. Gingell: I would have thought, but I have never looked.... One question about the collective agreement between the BCGEU and the government in its various forms is whether probation and the kinds of terms that this section 9 deals with are also dealt with in the collective agreement.

Hon. G. Clark: The collective agreement deals with a probationary period, but this section deals more with employees who are not in any bargaining unit, so there has to be a policy with respect to probation periods. There is a section here that deals with allowing an existing public service employee appointed to a new position to not necessarily be subject to a probationary period. There is the act, which takes precedence, but where there is no collective agreement, it deals with excluded staff. There are two broad collective agreements, one with the B.C. Government Employees' Union and one with the Professional Employees' Association. Those are the two major ones, as well as the Nurses' Union. They obviously have provisions to deal with probation, but it's required in the act to deal with everybody who is not a member of the bargaining unit.

F. Gingell: Further to that, I presume that section 9(2) means that there doesn't have to be any period of probation at all, if that decision is made during the course of the hiring.

Hon. G. Clark: That's for subsequent probation, not initial probation. With respect to promotions and the like, it may be that a probation period is not required.

D. Mitchell: Section 9(3) gives the commissioner or a deputy minister powers to reject an employee during a probation period. There's a change here from the old act, section 6(3), which used to say that the commissioner or deputy minister could reject for just cause. This bill says that the employee could be rejected if they are "unsuitable for employment in the position to which he or she was appointed." Why the change, and who decides whether the employee is unsuitable for employment in the position? It's fairly broad. Obviously a lot of discretion could be used there. I'm interested in those two questions.

Hon. G. Clark: "Just cause" is defined in the collective agreement in a certain manner. I'm advised that this wording is there specifically not to use the words "just cause" in order to differentiate it from what's in the collective agreement. I think all members would agree that in a probation period, it's important for management to have the prerogative to discontinue the employment of an individual if he or she is unsuitable for employment.

I remember when I worked for a union.... The member for Okanagan West talks about my past life from time to time. Obviously, with employers in the private sector, the probationary period is often much shorter -- say, 30 working days. I would always make the point with the employer when a new person was hired that if that person made it through their probationary period, the union would fight as aggressively for them as for anybody else, in every way, shape or form, to defend the interests of that individual.

So it is management's prerogative, and in fact their duty, to ensure that only suitable individuals make it through their probationary period. I think the same should apply in the public sector. There should be rigid standards for probationary periods, because once a person makes it through their probationary period, then the protection and force of this section applies -- as well as in the case of collective agreements and unions, I'm sure. This is a much longer probation period than is often the case in the private sector, but it is consistent with the public sector's history and with public sectors across the country.

D. Mitchell: Who would decide? When the minister says management would decide, would it be the deputy minister, the commissioner or the individual manager to whom the position would report? That's one question.

The other question I would like to raise is: would there be reasons provided to the employee for not allowing them through a probationary period?

Hon. G. Clark: Yes, reasons are provided. But this is a management right, if you will; management determines whether someone is suitable. Section 9(3) says "a deputy minister or the commissioner," so obviously they're the final arbiter, if you will. But it would be done on the advice of the management staff, and reasons would be given.

L. Fox: Under section 9(2), a probationary period may be imposed on an individual moving from one sector to another within the public service, or in an advancement situation. I assume that whether that would be imposed would be negotiated at the time of the transfer. Am I correct in that?

Hon. G. Clark: That's absolutely correct.

L. Fox: Then I have a follow-up question: if the individual is placed on probation in the new position, and for whatever reason is discharged under 9(3), does he or she then have the right to go back to the position they held prior to that new appointment?

Hon. G. Clark: A person rejected from probation during their first six months after initial hire will be considered dismissed from the public service. An existing employee on probation resulting from their being appointed to a new position may be placed in an alternative position, subject to any regulations or policies that are set.

A. Cowie: This system works very well if care is taken in hiring in the first place, and then, hopefully, 

[ Page 9331 ]

there isn't a need to fire people. I always say that who you hire is where you really have to put the effort in, and we all know that that isn't always the case. I think a probation period of six months works very well in the public service, provided that it's accompanied by an evaluation system. A good evaluation system is always very difficult to implement. B.C. Tel and other organizations have excellent evaluation systems. It's essentially a contract between the manager and the employee, or the manager and his or her boss. Do we have an evaluation system?

Hon. G. Clark: In the public service they have rigid rules governing these questions. I gather that there is an evaluation after two months, four months and six months. The information is shared with the individual in terms of their performance, and they're given every opportunity to compete and be successful. My experience in the private sector, as I discussed a minute ago, is radically different from anything I've seen in the public sector. The public sector has a long paper trail with respect to all of these questions; they take it very seriously. There are rules governing probations, evaluations and the like. I think it's fair to say that every opportunity is provided to the individual.

[6:45]

A. Cowie: I won't prolong this. My experience tells me that in much of the public service, at least at the municipal level, the evaluation systems aren't all that hot, because nobody wants to criticize anybody or wants to say it the way it is. I think it's important to have a good evaluation system, and that's why I asked. I take it that we do have an excellent one, and someday I'll have an opportunity to look at it and form my own opinions. That was the point I wanted to make.

Section 9 approved.

The Chair: We'll go back to section 8.

On section 8.

J. Weisgerber: I would like to move the amendment to subsection (3)(a) standing in my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 8, is hereby amended by deletion of the phrase "representative of the diversity of the people of British Columbia" in section 8, subsection (3), paragraph (a), and by substituting therefor the following: "open to all British Columbians equally on the basis of individual merit".]

This amendment is similar to the one that was rejected in section 5. I had assumed that the one on section 5 would be accepted and that this would be necessary to maintain consistency throughout the act. Without belabouring the point, I still believe that it is important for that definition to exist, but it's more important in section 5 than in section 8 because of the dominance of the merit principle in subsection (1) of 8. The amendment was tabled in order to keep consistency between sections 5 and 8.

Amendment negatived on division.

J. Weisgerber: I move the fourth amendment to section 8 standing in my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 8, is hereby amended by deleting section 8, subsection (4), and by substituting therefor the following:

(4) Subject to the merit principle, the commissioner may authorize initiatives for the intensified recruitment of individuals belonging to groups which are underrepresented in the public service, either generally, or with respect to management level positions.]

On the amendment.

J. Weisgerber: Essentially, the intent of that is to follow a path of rather intensive recruitment of groups that are underrepresented. My experience through this has been, first of all, that it can be effective and that you can in fact recruit and encourage people to apply and thereby, on the merit principle, increase representation of various groups in the service.

I think perhaps another parallel to this is the representation of women in elected positions. Most parties and organizations have programs that encourage women to seek elected office, and seek to have more women representatives in office. The challenge seems to be in convincing women to seek nomination and run for office. There's no demonstration that I have seen that once women decide to seek elected office, they are any less successful than men. But the difficulty in increasing the representation of women in elected office is in encouraging them to run; in other words, in recruiting people for elected office. I'm convinced that there is a parallel in the public service and in other areas of endeavour, and it's with that intent that the amendment is put forward.

Hon. G. Clark: I fully agree with the member's comments with respect to this amendment, and I don't hesitate to say that. This is precisely what we intend to do: authorize initiatives for intensified recruitment. That's primarily the vehicle that we'll be following. However, subsection (4) gives other tools to try to accomplish the objective. My view is that they're not mutually exclusive. What the member talked about and what the amendment talks about is precisely what we should do first and foremost in terms of trying to deal with the question. But the tools that exist in subsection (4), which the member chooses to delete, are the tools that the previous government used, for example, to try to accommodate and accomplish some of the objectives the member talked about. We're saying exactly what the member said: "...the commissioner may authorize initiatives for the intensified recruitment of individuals belonging to groups which are underrepresented in the public service, either generally, or with respect to management level positions." It is an excellent idea, I agree with it and we're going to do it. This section gives a little more power than that. It is a power which we shouldn't exercise lightly but from time to time makes sense. I say again, with respect, that the previous government chose to exercise the power now in subsection (4) in order to accomplish that objective. 

[ Page 9332 ]

While I agree with the spirit of the amendment, I can't support it, because the existing section provides a bit broader latitude for the commissioner and the government to try to pursue the objectives, and what the member talks about is not required in the act to in fact pursue them.

J. Weisgerber: The difference, I suppose, is that the initiatives I'm aware of that were undertaken by the former government, certainly the ones I was involved in, were done as exceptions. They were done in a very limited way with appeals or with the permission of the human rights commission. We've heard a great deal about how many of them there were. If you examined the 36 or so examples in the last two or three years, I think you would find they represented a very small percentage of situations where the kinds of measures outlined by subsection (4) were used.

My concern, and I suppose the reason for the serious difference of opinion on this legislation, is that once it becomes law, I suspect it will very soon become the practice rather than the exception. That's the danger. The danger is not in the exception. The danger is not in those cases where it makes good sense. The danger is that it becomes the practice, and from that practice you start into the area of reverse discrimination. If there is any section that goes to the heart of the difference in approach, the exceptions notwithstanding, I suppose this would be it.

Hon. G. Clark: Once again I think the member is incorrect in his assumption. We intend to use limited preference only in exceptional circumstances, the way that the previous government did. It will not be the practice: it will be the exception. It's precisely because we want the right to use it in exceptional circumstances that we require it in the legislation. We have no intention of dealing with the question of preferential hiring except in limited or exceptional circumstances, as the member suggested. This is not a broad application; it's a specific one.

I guess the member is again saying that he doesn't trust the government or that he thinks this will lead to something. I'm saying here today that we will be using it in the way it has been done in the past, in limited and exceptional circumstances, where it makes sense and where it's reasonable and defensible. As I said the other day, the previous government did exactly that, and we will be doing the same. Further, I suggest that we will be doing it primarily in, I think, two kinds of positions. One is what's commonly called a bridging position, to try to get more people in at junior levels in order to bridge them to more senior levels. The other is in training capacities; we are trying to do it in a limited way to try to promote training objectives. There isn't as much disagreement as it might appear -- at least from the position of the member opposite in his current discussion. I suggest that if he agrees it is desirable in limited and exceptional circumstances to follow the path of giving preference to achieve employment equity objectives, then he has to support this section, because that's what this section does.

J. Weisgerber: Just for clarification, the areas in which subsection (4).... Before we get into that we should deal with the amendment, and then I'll come back to this section.

V. Anderson: Dealing with the amendment and trying to get an assumption from what the minister has said regarding the present subsection (4).... I would assume it's partly there in order to get around the fair employment regulation and being able to advertise positions. You can't normally do that unless you have some kind of a legal binder to enable you to put out those qualifications. From the minister's point of view, I cab see that that's part of what he is covering in that regard. A bookseller asked me why the government can advertise in this preferential kind of way. He was kind of disturbed about that. He understood, but he felt it was a double standard.

Apart from that, I want to raise another point. As mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition a few minutes ago, Social Services studies have looked at these kinds of concerns about equality of service to the community. When you look at the quality of service being given to the community, the cultural competence model is being recommended, and I endorse it. The focus is then on the people who are doing the work or, in this case, the people who are doing the hiring. It has not been so much a problem that people coming to be hired were not acceptable or did not have merit, but the bias of the people doing the hiring meant that they sorted people out according to that bias. I think the amendment changes that focus so there is an emphasis on the system making sure that the people doing the hiring or trying to do the promotion put on the right kind of glasses, if you like, so that their bias is not built in. It doesn't matter what the legal framework is. Even with the original legislation, it will still depend on the bias of the person doing the hiring as to whether or not people get hired and whether it's done on merit or equity.

I think what is missing here is the focus on the system taking a new approach, rather than having an onus on the persons being hired to sell themselves. What I'm hearing is that there needs to be some openness in the system to encourage and allow people to come into the system. I'm hearing that that is missing. We're trying to get an openness in the system, rather than in the person coming forward.

Amendment negatived on division.

J. Weisgerber: The question I wanted to ask would now be more appropriately asked under section 4, as it's presented. Bill 66 generally purports to deal with employment equity as it applies to women, minorities, handicapped and aboriginal people. The diversity of British Columbians is defined in the Multiculturalism Act, with regard to race, cultural heritage, religion, ethnicity, ancestry and place of origin. Those seem to be somewhat different. Is there any intent to tie the various identity groups into this need to have representation? In other words, is it the 

[ Page 9333 ]

intent of the minister to seek representation through the multicultural community, as defined under the act?

Hon. G. Clark: As I said earlier, we'll be concentrating on the four groups, because they're clearly underrepresented in the public service. But we want to try to remove barriers to access to public service jobs in the broad cross-section. So the definition the member referred to may apply to a broader category than the four categories we talked about. But I think it's fair to say that we'll be specifically looking at trying to deal with the four categories we talked about that are underrepresented. But again, we are very interested in and conscious of trying to look at ways in which we can remove barriers to access for a broader range of British Columbians.

[7:00]

V. Anderson: I want to follow up on the member's comment, because it seems contrary to what we have been doing here and were doing in the Multiculturalism Act. In the Multiculturalism Act that is being brought forward, on which we have general agreement, there is the kind of onus -- and the ministers have talked about that -- of dealing with what the Leader of the Third Party was commenting on: the inequalities in dealing with everybody, not just four categories. Stressing just the four categories is the very concern that we raised earlier: it's really not dealing with the breadth of it. If everyone who doesn't fit into those categories -- in other minorities and unrepresented groups -- is now left out, it seems to me that we're being selective. At that point, the very principle of equity that's being talked about is being narrowed down into a particular focus. I think that destroys the wisdom of what you were trying to put forward.

I want to ask the minister why other groups besides the four.... He might reiterate what those four are, because the other groups that are not in that four are going to feel angered that there is a priority which puts them in the even more difficult position of being doubly disenfranchised. They didn't fit in the beginning, and now they fit even less, because there is priority on four particular groups.

Hon. G. Clark: I guess this is one of those perfection-is-the-enemy-of-the-good kinds of situations. As I have tried to say repeatedly, we're looking at bringing down barriers for all individuals in society, to try to make sure they have access to public service employment where merit applies, and to make the public service more representative. In the four categories -- women, visible minorities, aboriginal people and disabled people -- it's quite clearly more easily quantifiable that those groups are underrepresented in every category of the public service; so it's easier to identify and evaluate how we're doing with respect to dealing with the question.

When it comes to gays, lesbians, single mothers and other groups which one might argue for, obviously we're interested in reducing barriers to access. But for the purpose of trying to continue to make the public service more representative, frankly, it's easier to concentrate on the four groups you've talked about. Those four groups, of course, were in the previous government's policy. It's so patently obvious we're not trying to exclude anybody; in fact, it's the opposite. We're trying to make it broadly representative and to bring down barriers wherever possible, and that's what we'll be pursuing. I think that those individuals, if they don't fall within those categories and feel discriminated against, would still prefer that the government try to remove barriers generally -- which is a commitment of the government. I don't think we are setting up any false kinds of competing interests.

D. Mitchell: On section 8, just before we leave it, I have one technical question that I'd like to ask the minister. In discussing section 8(2), which we dealt with at some length, the minister said there's really nothing new in it. But I believe one element is new. It goes back to section 4 -- I think we dealt with that last evening -- and the consultation process, which refers specifically to section 8(2). Section 8(2) talks about how to determine merit, and is actually the closest we come to a definition of merit in this statute. Section 4, which refers to section 8(2), says: "The commission must consult..." -- makes it mandatory. I wonder if the minister could just explain to the committee how this mandatory consultation will relate to the merit principle, in terms of the appointment of a public servant. Mechanically, how does this consultation work?

Hon. G. Clark: The absolute requirement to consult has existed in the act since 1979. I'm not sure it's always adhered to, but that is consistent.

The member has made a good point, and we talked about this earlier. Education, skills and knowledge are weighted in any competition on the basis of a variety of factors. The Leader of the Third Party said earlier that, in many cases, his bias was not to weight education as much as skills or work experience. Frankly, I tend to agree with that. That's what people do when they look at a job that has been posted. When they determine merit, they may say that for the purposes of a particular job it's much more important that the person have skills, knowledge and experience than education. Those should then be weighted more heavily for the purposes of merit in the interviewing process.

What this says is that you must consult with the bargaining unit representative -- in this case the union -- and ask their opinion as to what they think the weighting for the job should be. That is exactly what happens today. It's a consultation. It's not a relinquishing of management rights, but it is a discussion with a bargaining unit. The bargaining unit may say that in this particular case education is way more important than skills. That would be debatable, and you know from past experience that that takes place. This is consistent with what has been in place since 1979. It continues to try to weigh the relative factors which should be considered when one is hired.

D. Mitchell: I'm not going to revisit section 4. We canvassed that last evening.

[ Page 9334 ]

I have one further question, though, on section 8. The commissioner is given broad powers and we've dealt with those. Under section 8(4), the commissioner is allowed to designate certain groups for preferential consideration for hiring under the merit principle. Can the minister tell us whether or not he or any of his staff have sought a legal opinion that would give the government confidence that this could not be challenged under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

Hon. G. Clark: For the record, I'll just read section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, in which explicit recognition is provided for programs designed to improve the situation of disadvantaged groups. Section 15(2) says: "Subsection (1) does not preclude" -- subsection (1) refers to everyone being equal before the law -- "any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability." So this section absolutely complies with this particular section of the Charter of Rights. I don't think there is any fear whatsoever of any challenge.

Where there would have been a case for challenge was not under the Canadian Charter of Rights, but to the British Columbia Council of Human Rights. You used to have to apply to the human rights council for permission to deal with disadvantaged groups. That was changed by this House last session by an amendment to the Human Rights Act which paralleled the wording in the Canadian Charter of Rights. I think that was supported by all members in the House at the time. Very clearly, the law is so explicit that no legal opinion is required.

Section 8 approved.

On section 10.

D. Mitchell: Section 10 deals with exceptions to section 8. We've dealt at length with section 8. I don't mean to belabour this point, but the exceptions here could conceivably open the door for the same kind of contract abuse that the Korbin commission, on which this legislation is based, has pointed toward. In both reports, but particularly in volume 1 of the final report, the Korbin commission has referred to extensive abuse of contract employees within the public service of B.C. Yet here we are in Bill 66, section 10, dealing with exceptions that are significant. What can the minister say to the committee this evening to ensure that this kind of abuse is not going to be perpetrated, and perhaps increase, in the future?

Hon. G. Clark: First of all, we have made a tighter definition of temporary employee, which is a temporary appointment of not more than seven months' duration. Secondly, we will have to be judged over time on how we are doing, and I want to assure members that temporary and auxiliary appointments are going to be filled on the basis of merit. But we want to make sure that they are outside the prescribed process normally utilized for filling permanent jobs. The principle of merit will continue to apply to these appointments, but the selection process is frankly less rigid to reflect the fact that they are short-term appointments.

Clearly, what we have been trying to do is reduce the number of temporary appointments. But government is a big operation and there will always be temporary appointments, and there's nothing wrong with that. We try to choose the best candidate, but the Public Service Act has very rigid requirements to apply the merit principle in a very serious way, which we have debated at some length here and which I strongly support. It is simply too costly to go through that very extensive process to fill a three-month position. We have tried to tighten up the definition of auxiliary employee and the length of time that applies before they are required to go through that process. But I guess that at the end of the day we will be judged by.... I'm sure the member will and could quite properly ask in the House how many temporary employees there are and how many there will be over time, and I would be delighted to answer that question at that time.

D. Mitchell: Could the minister tell us whether or not there is an appeal process for any of these exceptions which are listed under section 10? There are further exceptions that we'll deal with later on in the bill.

Hon. G. Clark: No, there is no appeal on a temporary appointment. There is an appeal, of course, for a permanent position posting, but not for a temporary appointment.

D. Mitchell: I guess it just begs the question: why not? Why is there no appeal process for this category of employees listed under section 10?

Hon. G. Clark: It is really an administrative efficiency question. It is a temporary job, and you have to get on with filling a temporary job. Often the reason they are temporary, as opposed to permanent, is that we need someone to fill a position for three months, and to have a posting, the right of appeal and all of that for individuals when you're trying to move posthaste to try to fill a position in a temporary way is not administratively feasible. Our intention is to reduce the number of temporary employees, but obviously there will always be hundreds needed, given the size of government. In my experience over the past two years I have not had -- and I don't know if any members have had -- any complaints about that process in terms of administrative fairness, which I guess would be eligible for an ombudsman's complaint, if someone were to say that there was an administrative unfairness here. But we have not had any complaints about that. I do not expect any complaints, because this act actually tightens up that time and makes it a bit more rigid in terms of the ability of government, as the employer, to abuse that section.

[ Page 9335 ]

D. Mitchell: Admittedly it is a small group, but this section does deal with lateral transfers or demotions as well, and there is a question about administrative justice there, I guess, in terms of the lack of an appeal. But I won't belabour that.

I have one final question on this section, dealing with (b)(iii), which allows the commissioner to make direct appointments in unusual or exceptional circumstances, and these would be exempt from the merit principle that is covered in the statute. Could the minister offer to the committee some examples of direct appointments by the commissioner in unusual or exceptional circumstances? What would be referred to here?

[7:15]

Hon. G. Clark: In anticipation of that question, I have an example here. A highly regarded employee leaves government with the intention of moving out of the province. Three months later the employee returns because of unforeseen circumstances. Their position has not yet been filled. Rather than spending considerable time and money on a competition, the commissioner could appoint the individual directly to their previous position. This is just one example, but again I think the act is pretty clear; it's meant to be very clear. Just for the record, the exact wording is "unusual or exceptional circumstances."

F. Gingell: Is there any guarantee that the appointment of an auxiliary employee cannot skirt the process in any way?

Hon. G. Clark: No, there's absolutely no chance of skirting the process. If you're asking if you can get in as an auxiliary and then become permanent, the answer is absolutely not.

Sections 10 and 11 approved.

On section 12.

V. Anderson: Do the regulations on appointments in section 8 apply to section 12, or are they completely outside of those regulations regarding merit or equity?

Hon. G. Clark: Appointments of deputy ministers, etc., are direct appointments of government by order-in-council. They are exempt from the process. However, having said that, pretty well every deputy minister we've hired has been recruited. There have been extensive interviews, often with a panel, and many people compete for the job. Obviously merit is of the utmost importance to the government, but for the purposes of this act, order-in-council employees are not Public Service Act employees. As a result, they're not a part of this act.

Actually, in this case, I think deputy ministers and associate deputy ministers are Public Service Act employees, but they're treated like direct appointees by order-in-council.

I have one last point: this is exactly the same as the previous act; this is unchanged; it is not something we've added.

V. Anderson: I don't mean to push that, but if we're moving into an era of defining merit and equity, it seems that the people who work beneath deputy ministers and assistant deputy ministers would be far happier if these appointees had at least the same qualifications, approaches and outlooks as the employees. It would have been helpful to say that they should meet those standards and beyond.

D. Mitchell: While we're on the section dealing with deputy ministers, I note that in the draft act that accompanied the Korbin commission report, the exemption for deputy ministers being appointed on merit, and for the appeal process, was not included in the draft legislation. It has been inserted in the bill that the minister has brought forward. I understand what he's saying in terms of order-in-council appointments, but at the same time his answer was that these merit principles under section 8 will apply to deputy ministers, through the recruitment process that the government has issued. Why do we need to make it exempt here? Judi Korbin didn't think it was necessary.

Hon. G. Clark: It's similar to the previous act. As I said earlier, it's not a question of circumventing a merit principle, it's a question of trying to treat deputy ministers and assistant deputy ministers the same way that we treat all order-in-council appointees, as direct appointments by government. The government is held accountable, and it's not necessarily appropriate that there be the same kind of panel arrangement when you're dealing with the most senior person in the public employ.

For example, with the deputy minister in the Premier's office, who would be on the panel that would deal with the question of merit? These are people who are directly appointed by the executive council, and they are held accountable through the democratic process, if you will.

The other thing we've eliminated is the appeal on that. In other words, the current system is that a panel of management peers would adjudicate someone, and if they're not satisfied, there's an appeal procedure. That's simply eliminated for assistant deputy ministers and deputy ministers. They are appointed by government. Obviously merit is the number one consideration for any government, regardless of party. They're appointed by the executive council, and there is no appeal on that decision, because obviously members of the executive council are accountable in this House and accountable to the public. That's essentially the rationale. It's consistent with what has existed in the past.

D. Mitchell: Presumably some deputy ministers are promoted from within the ranks of our professional, independent public service, and presumably they have already had -- or will at some point have -- the merit principle applied to them. But some deputy ministers are hired from outside government, and they're 

[ Page 9336 ]

brought in at the senior level. Would this exemption be inserted in here to allow for deputy ministers at the most senior level of the public service to be brought in from outside government without regard for the merit principle?

Hon. G. Clark: No, absolutely not.

Section 12 approved.

On section 13.

F. Gingell: I am pleased to see that the minister has brought in section 13.

Interjection.

F. Gingell: No, I appreciate that. I appreciate that it may not be completely popular in this room.

It always surprises me that a multiplier is applied to those at the top end of the scale rather than to those at the bottom end of the scale, who probably need it more. I don't understand or know all the restrictions of the superannuation calculations under the Pension (Public Service) Act. Could the minister advise me if this multiplier effect on deputy ministers' service while serving as a deputy minister could put them over the allowable percentages that are in the act in the first place?

Hon. G. Clark: No, you don't get more than the max.

Interjection.

Hon. G. Clark: Yes, that's exactly right. I want to say for the record, though, that the previous government had a rule that deputy ministers receive one and a half years of pensionable service for every year as an employee covered by any provincial pension act, essentially, across the country. In the case of David Poole, I think he was an administrator of a college in Saskatchewan or something. When he became the deputy minister here, he was backdated, if you will, for pensionable service. We've obviously scaled that down quite dramatically.

Just to give you a sense of it, the estimated cost savings for the new deputies appointed by this administration, who had previous eligible service under the former act, is $900,000. So the deputies we have appointed are now eligible for one and a half times pensionable service for every year they serve as a deputy minister, and they can't backdate it. The old joke, I think, used to be that assistant deputy ministers wanted to be appointed a deputy minister for one day, because they retroactively got all their service at one and a half times, which was, of course, extremely lucrative.

Obviously it's important to try to attract the highest-quality people as deputy ministers. Our act is now less generous than it is in many places in the country, and that's a bit of a problem. But it's still decent compensation for deputy ministers, and we've still been able to attract them. So this is a significant reduction from what existed in the old act.

F. Gingell: Is that $900,000 per year, or is that the future value of it?

Hon. G. Clark: It's the total.

F. Gingell: The total amount.

One other thing. When we were dealing with the doctors' retirement fund, the government didn't have any problem in making legislation retroactive to deal with what they thought were certain inequities. Does the minister intend to bring forward legislation to deal with the inequity that he just spoke about, service outside this province by people who become deputy ministers within the province and become major liabilities for the taxpayers of the province?

Hon. G. Clark: That's a good question. I'm obviously interested in any discussion by members on that. Our view generally is that it would be, I guess, patently unfair. Currently there are deputy ministers who were appointed by employment contract, and the terms of the contract were governed by the rules and law of the day. There was also guidance with respect to pension or severance arrangements set down by Nathan Nemetz. If someone entered into an employment contract in good faith and has a legal contract according to the laws of the land, it would be rather extraordinary for the government of the day to retroactively rip up those contracts. It's something we could do, and something that I think governments have to do very carefully.

In the case of the doctors, we were absolutely consistent with respect to our position both before and after the election, so there should have been no surprise. I have talked to many people about that. It was the position of the government of the day, and we took action at that time.

With respect, I think this is a legitimate question for the member to canvass, and I would be interested in the views of all members on the subject. Essentially, our position is that those who have signed contracts in good faith should be allowed to work under those contracts.

V. Anderson: On the question of consistency, since the minister has been concerned in many areas about those who are getting higher salaries and the benefits that go with them -- and deputy ministers will, of course, be in that category -- why is it one and a half rather than the regular pension, the same as anyone else?

Hon. G. Clark: I guess the answer is that this is a dramatic reduction from what existed before, and we already offer one of the lowest packages in the country. When the government is competing with the federal government or Ontario or virtually any other province for deputy ministers, it's important to be somewhat competitive, even though, of course, it's much nicer to live in British Columbia. Our salaries for deputy ministers are significantly lower than those in other 

[ Page 9337 ]

provinces, and our pensions, after this bill passes, will also be lower. I guess the question is: how much lower can you be and still attract quality people? In the case of the pension, we've chosen to try to be in the middle of the range, I guess, or a little lower. I think it's a significant reduction, frankly. Again, we have to be somewhat cognizant of the inequity between those who are now working with superior benefits and those who have been hired since the election of this administration.

Section 13 approved.

On section 14.

D. Mitchell: Section 14 allows the government to give deputy minister status to appointed public servants who are not deputy ministers. This is a section that was definitely not in the old act. I don't know why it's necessary. I can think of some examples, and maybe the minister might want to offer some. Is Bob Williams, for instance, an example of someone who has been appointed with deputy minister status but is not called a deputy minister?

Hon. G. Clark: No, I don't think it would.... Bob Williams was appointed by order-in-council. I have two examples here: Lee Doney, who was in the Premier's office in the previous administration and is now on the Round Table on the Environment and the Economy; and Sandy Peel, who was a deputy minister in the previous administration and then on the Forest Resources Commission. Basically, the government has the flexibility to stipulate that certain individuals, due to the nature of their positions, be compensated in a manner equivalent to a deputy minister. I assure members that Mr. Williams was appointed by contract, but paid at the deputy minister rate. All of that is public information, and not required. This is likely to deal with those who were in the public service at senior capacities and have moved into quasi-government positions. In the case of the two individuals I mentioned earlier, the package that they had as deputy ministers was retained in order to attract them to jobs of equivalent importance -- at least to the government of the day -- in terms of their obligations.

Section 14 approved.

On section 15.

D. Mitchell: Section 15 deals with positions appointed by cabinet that are basically exempted from this act. Roughly speaking, can the minister tell us how many order-in-council appointments there are in British Columbia right now?

[7:30]

Hon. G. Clark: I'm sorry, I don't know the answer to that question. I would be delighted to get it for the member. There are two kinds of order-in-council appointments. There are probably several thousand order-in-council appointments that are essentially non-paid, like those to commissions and the boards of colleges and hospitals. There are literally hundreds of those appointments in government. There are very few order-in-council appointments to full-time, paid positions. But I would be happy to get that information for the member. I'd be curious myself to learn the number of appointments.

D. Mitchell: I appreciate the minister's commitment to get that number. The question is important because order-in-council appointments are specifically exempted from the provisions of the Public Service Act. We don't know how many there are, which is a rather interesting revelation on the part of the minister. We know that there are very many. It would be interesting to know, because the whole Korbin commission inquiry and the legislation that now comes forward from it are based upon the assumption that there's tremendous abuse in government through the appointment process. Public servants are earning taxpayers' dollars, yet there is no accountability. Here's an example of no accountability: we don't actually know how many order-in-council appointments there are. I think it's important to develop that baseline so we can measure over the course of time. I appreciate the minister's undertaking, and look forward to getting the number.

J. Weisgerber: Perhaps while the minister's looking that up.... I assume that we're now talking about people who were appointed by OIC to full-time employment. I wonder if the minister, while counting them, could identify how many are women, how many are visible minorities, how many are handicapped and how many are aboriginal. In other words, where the government has had an opportunity to appoint without any constraints at all, let's see its track record -- as it reflects the groups that the government claims it intends to serve by this act.

Hon. G. Clark: I'll be absolutely delighted to give the member that information. As I said, there are several thousand order-in-council appointments, and most of them aren't paid. We have an absolutely unbelievable record in terms of trying to be more representative -- an enviable record. It will be provided for the member. Of the full-time order-in-council appointments, I think there are about 150 assistant deputy ministers and deputy ministers and the like. I would be happy to get the information that he requests for the member. It will be important that the government be measured against that. That's what we're trying to accomplish, and I have no hesitation in giving members the comfort that we're attempting to do that. If we're not doing a good enough job, then.... Unfortunately, the members opposite probably won't attack us for not doing a good enough job, because they don't really support this. Nevertheless, we'll be happy to provide the member with the information he requests.

F. Gingell: Could you just add to that analysis the number of order-in-council appointments of people from within the public service and the number from 

[ Page 9338 ]

outside, in the same categories we have already discussed?

Hon. G. Clark: We could certainly do that.

Sections 15 to 17 inclusive approved.

On section 18.

F. Gingell: I have one question and one concern. The first is: how does the process that has been set up here compare to the provisions of your collective agreement? And which will govern -- the collective agreement or this?

Secondly, I want to take the opportunity to express a concern. It seems that people who are already in the public service have an unfair advantage -- a different process than people who are applying for jobs within the public service for the first time. The people within the public service have the right of appeal; the people who are not part of the public service do not. That doesn't seem to me to be fair.

Hon. G. Clark: I will see if I have all the member's questions. There are a couple. One is that if you're in-service, as they say, or working in the public service, this act sets out the right of appeal. That is unlike the private sector. The appeal or grievance procedure is only set out in a collective agreement in the public service because we want to make sure that everybody in the public service has equal access. The appeal procedures are largely set out here in this act.

The collective agreement's grievance procedures complement and speak to the sections in this act. It is a bit different from the private sector, where the grievance procedure is the only appeal. In that respect, they are complementary for in-service.

For those who are outside of service, any individual -- using the vernacular, someone coming in off the street, filling in a form and applying for a job -- has the right only to ask for written reasons why they have not been hired should they not be chosen for the job. The reason is very simple. It is very expensive and time-consuming. No jurisdiction in North America would provide an extensive, elaborate and expensive appeal procedure for an individual who simply answers an ad and applies for a job.

We are cognizant of the fact that they are taxpayers and citizens of British Columbia, and that they should have the right to compete and apply for jobs freely. We want to make sure that is the case, and we will. We think it is covered simply by providing explicit written reasons, on request, why an individual has not been accepted for a particular job.

V. Anderson: I want to ask a question about appeals. I notice that they can appeal under section 8(1), on the basis of merit. Can they also appeal under subsection 8(4) on the question of whether they have been treated equitably or not? Do both of these apply in the ability to appeal? Is it only on merit, or can you apply under subsection 8(4) on the grounds that you haven't been given proper equity?

Hon. G. Clark: Only merit.

K. Jones: I'm looking for the section that relates to auxiliaries. Could the minister tell us how auxiliaries are handled under this section regarding the appeal process?

Hon. G. Clark: The member missed that section. They're not covered here. They have no right of appeal.

Sections 18 to 20 inclusive approved.

On section 21.

D. Mitchell: The section dealing with oaths -- and this is a new section -- now says: "A person appointed to the public service and a person appointed or employed under section 15" -- which is order-in-council appointments -- "shall swear or affirm an oath in the prescribed form." Section 12 of the old act specified that appointments had to be Canadian citizens. That has been deleted. In the old act non-citizens were only eligible for a temporary appointment if no qualified Canadian citizens were available for the position. Could the minister tell the committee why that has specifically been deleted from the new act?

Hon. G. Clark: Landed immigrants have Charter rights now.

D. Mitchell: Is the minister saying that this satisfies that specific concern? Is this the simplest way to do it? Are we leaving out anything? Has legal advice been sought from his colleague the hon. Attorney General?

Hon. G. Clark: No, that's my understanding.

J. Weisgerber: Can the minister advise whether the prescribed form of the oath refers to an oath to the monarch?

Hon. G. Clark: No, it does not deal with the monarchy in any way. It is just an oath of allegiance, I guess, to the public service, to the government.

Just for clarification, I guess that it does indirectly -- I apologize. We can get that for the member. It's an oath of allegiance to the provincial Crown, the representative of the monarchy in British Columbia.

J. Weisgerber: That was the clarification I was seeking. As I'm sure the minister is aware, there have been a number of cases where employees would not swear an oath to the Crown, and there have been some rather lengthy discussions on that. I was seeking assurance that there was no change in that fundamental direction, notwithstanding the comments of the member for Burnaby North.

Sections 21 to 32 inclusive approved.

On section 33.

[ Page 9339 ]

D. Mitchell: Regarding the commencement clause of this bill, I'm assuming that the retroactivity implied here has something to do with the pension credits referred to for deputy ministers. Is there any other reason?

Hon. G. Clark: No, that's exactly right. When we took office on November 5, 1991, and commenced hiring the first deputy minister in the Premier's office, we actually signed a contract that was in contravention of the law, because there were fewer pension credits than the law required. With the hiring of every subsequent deputy minister, we signed a contract that stipulated provisions which were less than what the law required. We have been upfront about this with everybody who has been hired. But if we didn't pass this legislation, they obviously would have a legal case against the government.

Section 33 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. G. Clark: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Bill 66, Public Service Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed on division.

[7:45]

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Hon. Speaker, I call committee on Bill 73.

LAND TITLE AMENDMENT ACT, 1993

The House in committee on Bill 73; R. Kasper in the chair.

On section 1, section 121.

A. Warnke: This is pretty straightforward in one way, but a number of new terms have been added to this section. The only terms from the former legislation that currently exist within this section are "plan" and "registrar." I notice that even with the term "plan" here, the term "air space plan" is included. The revised definition for plan, containing the provision for an air space plan, suggests to me some sort of clarification. I believe I understand where it's necessary to bring in "air space plan," but obviously there are buildings and new buildings with old buildings on.... By and large, what I seek here is some clarification of why this has been changed.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Well, times have changed, and air space is now a very valuable commodity in respect of title. Members are very well aware of places like the city of Vancouver and others, I'm sure, where air space is the only title that an owner might have. So the old legislation, which in this case is at least 15 years old and probably older, just wasn't adequate for today's reality.

A. Warnke: I have just a quick question. I concur completely with the Attorney General. As a matter of fact, I can think of downtown Vancouver, where there is a tremendous changeover of new buildings, tearing down old ones and so forth.

Let's use one concrete example. Property owned by the University Club of Vancouver had a two-storey building right in downtown Vancouver. Having now done away with the club -- I'm not sure exactly what the current status is -- obviously the land title associated with it includes all of the air space above it. Where you have two office towers and there's some sort of connection between the two, how would that work? The land title would still apply straight up, would it not?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The image that members might draw from to understand this is the Marathon project in the city of Vancouver, where buildings were constructed over the CPR railway tracks. Under this provision, you can now dedicate air space as actual road allowance. It seems a little strange, but it's the corridor between other uses that might occur in it. It ends up being a dedicated space that is in fact not on the ground but in the air.

A. Warnke: Section 121(2) says: "The director may appoint a person other than the registrar to exercise and perform all or some of the powers and duties of the registrar under this Part." Is this in instances only where the registrar is unable to fulfil their duties, or would this be an individual in addition to the registrar who would act in a capacity similar to the registrar?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: This is in fact a conflict-of-interest provision. For example, if land that is being considered is in the neighbourhood of the registrar, it would be appropriate to have a delegate assume those responsibilities.

Section 1, section 121 approved.

On section 1, section 122.

A. Warnke: Here there are a couple of changes in the terminology -- for example, "parcels within the plan" as opposed to "land parcels"; and "petition" in (1)(b) replaces "application." I'm just seeking some clarification as to the significance of the terminology changes here.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: With respect to the term "petition," it's a more formal term than "application," ensuring that there will be fair notification of all affected parties who might have an interest in the matter. And "petition" is consonant with section 123, where reference is made to a petition in both this bill and the former act.

[ Page 9340 ]

I think the second question the member asked was about "parcel" rather than "land." The parcel is that part of the land that is actually owned by an individual or corporation.

Section 1, section 122 approved.

On section 1, section 123.

A. Warnke: First, I point out that -- the way I read it, and perhaps I'm not reading it correctly -- as I proceed through 123(1)(a) to (d), that (c) says: "A petition under this Part must be...signed by the owner...." I don't see a reference to a solicitor. I have a quick question: can a solicitor act on behalf of the owner? It appears that the term "solicitor" is omitted here. I'm seeking some clarification on that.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I hope this is the answer to the member's question: the owner has to sign; he can't delegate that.

A. Warnke: Since the owner has to sign, is there possibly any circumstance -- I can imagine a few -- where the owner might be dependent on a solicitor to sign on his or her behalf? Is there any kind of merit in having under this section some additional provision for something like the owner's solicitor? I'm prepared to move an amendment, but before I would do so I seek some clarification from the Attorney General.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The solicitor could sign if a power of attorney had been entered into. Otherwise, the owner is the required signator.

A. Warnke: I would like some clarification on section 123(2)(e). I note that the term "occupation" has been included -- "the name, occupation and address of the petitioner...." When we were debating Bill 35 there was a rationale put forward by the minister that to include occupation is not necessary. It may well be that the term "occupation" is necessary here. In section 123(2)(f) there is a reference to "freehold owners of parcels." In both cases I would like to ask why "occupation" and "freehold owners of parcels" are included. Is that for identification purposes, and is it seen as really necessary?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The reason for including the word "occupation" in both cases is that the occupation is shown on the title. This section replicates the information on the title.

A. Warnke: I have absolutely no objection to that. That's very reasonable and fairly straightforward.

Under subsection 123(3), could the minister tell us, in regard to the phrase "the petition must contain a notice," whose responsibility is the preparation and circulation of a notice, and to whom is the notice submitted?

[8:00]

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The second part of the question relates to service of the petition after it's filed, and that's in section 125. As I read this and listen to advice, the notice is a clarification of the process, so that people will know what is required and what is to be done. As I mentioned, the service is dealt with in another section.

Section 1, section 123 approved.

On section 1, section 124.

A. Warnke: I have a very quick question. Is there a fee for obtaining a report of the approving officer? I believe section 124(1) refers to filing a report with the registrar. I was just wondering whether there was a fee attached to obtaining such a report.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: There are no references to fees in the legislation. That could be dealt with at the local level, if they chose.

Section 1, section 124 approved.

On section 1, section 125.

A. Warnke: Under section 125(2)(g), I notice that (a) to (f) specify all the parties involved. How is the determination to be made in subsection (g)?

[E. Barnes in the chair.]

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Again, as the act says, it's in the opinion of the registrar. There may be, for example, a lawsuit underway, and as a result of that, individuals should be notified according to the opinion of the registrar. If the registrar doesn't exercise the function bestowed in this subsection, then there is obviously a potential review of that decision or lack of decision. It's a discretionary provision to allow the registrar to make that notification.

Section 1, sections 125 and 126 approved.

On section 1, section 127.

A. Warnke: What I am looking at here are subsections (3) and (4). There is no time specification indicated here. Could the Attorney General clarify that?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: This section is designed to ensure that filing occurs prior to the date of the hearing, and it precludes the possibility of filing during the course of the hearing. That's all this is designed to do.

A. Warnke: Given that, the argument could be put forward that there might be an element of surprise if it's left too late. If, for example, a petition put forward arrives 48 hours prior to the hearing date, what sort of problems could occur from that?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The filing won't take anybody by surprise, because all the people who have 

[ Page 9341 ]

the opportunity to file will have been notified in advance, so the petitioner.... I just want to be sure I have the terminology correct. This is, for me, a different terrain than I'm normally used to dealing with. The petitioner won't be taken by surprise because notifications will have gone out, and the respondents can reply, but people should expect that any of them might.

A. Warnke: The flip side of that is: is there any merit -- so that respondents don't leave things to the last minute -- in suggesting that we add here: "...but at least 48 hours before the hearing date"? I'm really applying this to both (3) and (4), incidentally. I'm just trying to make it very clear if there is any advantage to all parties involved in adding something extra to a 48-hour period prior to the hearing date.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: For wording in subsection (4) we've picked "the day before." The member is suggesting 48 hours, but the day before seems, based on the practice and how these things work, sufficient notice.

Section 1, sections 127 and 128 approved.

On section 1, section 129.

A. Warnke: An argument could be put forward here that there is the appearance of counsel being excluded from this process. The reference to counsel is deleted in the new section, as was the case in section 123. Perhaps the minister could explain why it appears that legal counsel is now excluded from the process.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: No, it's a fundamental right that anyone who appears can be accompanied by counsel.

Section 1, sections 129 and 130 approved.

On section 1, section 131.

C. Serwa: It appears that this section allows local governments who decide not to use dedicated-purpose public land for that dedicated purpose any longer to continue to retain it in perpetuity and allocate other uses for that land. That's inherent in this section.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I think that's a subsequent section. Section 131 is "Powers of the registrar to cancel or alter a plan." The municipal authority is in a later section. About dedication and changing from that use, I think the member is asking what happens if it has been a road and the municipality wants to make it a park. That's in section 3 of the bill, which is section 533.1 of the Municipal Act, and we'll get to that a bit later. That's where that particular power is vested.

Section 1, sections 131 to 134 inclusive approved.

On section 1, section 134.1.

A. Warnke: Something in section 134.1 was brought to my attention. Could we get some clarification of the concept of "estate in fee"?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I wonder if the member would be kind enough to make the reference again. The title says: "Registrar may vest an estate in fee simple." The first sentence refers to fee simple, but fee simple and fees are different matters. I wonder what the member is referring to.

A. Warnke: I'm referring to the first sentence, where it talks about an "estate in fee simple." I'm sorry for not adding that extra word, but I still think the question raised.... The way it's put, it's not clear exactly what is meant by an estate in fee simple. That's what needs to be clarified.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: It might be helpful if we talked about what this section deals with -- if I understand it correctly. I will be corrected very quickly if I'm wrong.

If a subdivision is being developed or planned, and changes are to be made to it -- by the original owner, who still owns all of the parcels and decides to redesign the subdivision -- and the roads are in a different place than they were before, then those rights-of-way don't revert as in the procedures under the rest of the bill. They are kept within the original estate that is in the process of being subdivided. This is simply to prevent unfair treatment of developers who may be reshaping and redesigning a particular subdivision.

Section 1, section 134.1 approved.

On section 1, section 134.2.

A. Warnke: I'm seeking a clarification. Does this mean that if the owner's land is adjacent to Crown land, the owner will be restricted in its use?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: This provision is the same as in the existing legislation. It allows the minister to cancel the plan if all of the land is owned by the Crown.

Section 1, sections 134.2 and 134.3 approved.

On section 1, section 134.4.

A. Warnke: This deals with transition. The Land Title Amendment Act received first reading on July 9, 1993. Hence, does "as it existed immediately before the date the Land Title Amendment Act, 1993 received First Reading" mean July 8, or just before first reading on July 9? While I'm asking that kind of question, section 4, "Commencement," says: "This Act is deemed to have come into force on the date it receives First Reading...." Does this particular section say this?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: It does seem unusual, and I asked the question myself. In this kind of provision we sometimes say on the date of first reading, and sometimes the day before. This is the day before. It 

[ Page 9342 ]

doesn't affect any particular petition, so no one is affected one way or the other by the choice of these words.

[8:15]

A. Warnke: Section 4 also says: "...retroactive to the extent necessary to give it effect on and after that date." I would just like some clarification of what this means.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Once there was public knowledge of the intention to introduce this legislation, or of the legislation introduced and sitting on the order paper, it was important to ensure that people didn't take advantage of the old rules to launch what is being characterized as a bit of a gold rush in applications. This is to ensure that the law is effective on the date it was introduced, so people couldn't take advantage of the interregnum between the introduction and the proclamation.

Section 1, section 134.4 approved.

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

A. Warnke: I would appreciate a quick clarification on the meaning of "Power to cancel the dedication of a highway."

Hon. C. Gabelmann: This is designed to....

Interjections.

The Chair: Order, please.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The member for Nanaimo is most welcome to carry this for me. I won't say he knows as much about it as I do, but it's close.

Interjection.

The Chair: Order.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: This provision is designed to allow local government to change the originally declared use of a particular roadway where it's clear that that right-of-way is no longer needed for its original purpose. Perhaps in the view of the municipality, the landowners or the neighbourhood, another use is more appropriate, such as a linear park, a bicycle pathway to the beach or a public square, which is a broad definition, I think.

The best examples are in the constituencies of some members in the member's party -- in Surrey, White Rock and other communities where this has been a very real issue. It seems to be good public policy that these old roadways that aren't needed as roads any longer are better in the public domain for some other purpose. We're just making it easy for local government to get the best and highest use of these cancelled plans.

A. Warnke: Can the action be taken unilaterally by the municipality or the local government without an application to the provincial government, or anything like that?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Yes.

C. Serwa: Hopefully my question fits into this section. I listened to the minister talking about old roadways. The powers of expropriation of any government are fairly restricted in what they can expropriate for a specific purpose. Linear parks or town squares, for example, may not be expropriated. You have constructed a vehicle at the moment. It appears to me that the potential exists for a government that has powers of expropriation to decide that it wants a linear park alongside a river or the ocean, for example. It can then expropriate the land for a roadway and after a year or two decide that the roadway is not necessary. By utilizing this section, it can obtain something that it couldn't have obtained in any other fashion. Is that a legitimate concern with respect to this?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: No, it isn't. This land is already owned by the Crown. This is land that has been set aside in a subdivision for road purposes, but is no longer needed and clearly never will be needed for road purposes in the future. This is public land that under the old statute could accrete to neighbouring private property owners for no charge if they applied. Under this legislation the land could be used by the municipality for the purposes of a park. It's Crown land which could still end up being in public hands, but for a different purpose. No longer would it be an unused roadway, but now perhaps a linear park. There's still the opportunity for neighbouring property owners to acquire cancelled roadways, if the municipality, Highways and everybody else who has to approve these matters feels there's no other public purpose that merits preventing the landowner from acquiring it. Then they could buy it at market value.

K. Jones: Could the minister tell us whether a municipality could take property that has been dedicated under this section and subdivide it as a building lot for sale?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The answer to that is no.

Section 3 approved.

On section 4.

D. Mitchell: This is a similar question to one that I asked the minister's colleague, the Minister of Municipal Affairs, in a previous debate on a previous bill that had a similar commencement clause that said it was retroactive to the date of first reading. Why such a commencement clause? His colleague couldn't answer the question. I wonder if the hon. Attorney General can.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: This is not a competition between cabinet members. I answered that question a 

[ Page 9343 ]

few moments ago on another section which dealt with the same issue of retroactivity. The member for Richmond-Steveston pointed out that the act came into force on the day before introduction for first reading. The reason is that once it was clear we intended to make these changes, there was a very real possibility -- and I mean that -- that there would have been a flood of applications from neighbouring property owners to acquire road cancellations under the old rules. As I mentioned in response to an earlier question, we just couldn't allow that kind of gold rush to occur between the introduction and the proclamation.

Interjection.

The Chair: Order, hon. members. If there's any confusion, we are on section 4. Is that the member's understanding? Section 3 was passed.

With leave the member may comment on section 3.

Leave granted.

The Chair: Leave has been granted, hon. member, if you wish to continue on section 3.

On section 3.

D. Symons: I was slow in rising. I just wanted to revisit the question that the member for Okanagan West asked. Just recently a situation occurred in Savona where a bridge is being built across the North Thompson River. Land was expropriated for the bridge approaches, but a portion of that land ended up going into a waterfront park. The owner of the land was quite concerned that it was expropriated for one purpose and ended up being used for another. I believe that after a while he was satisfied because there was a financial satisfaction given to him.

You talked about roadways that were already in existence. But suppose the situation is that land is expropriated for one reason, and whether intended or not, is never really developed as a road and remains that way for a month or ten years. You seem to be implying that it's the ten- or 20-year land that's sitting around. What if land were expropriated for one purpose and then within a short period of time -- in this case it was within months -- it was decided that it wasn't really needed? Could it then be put it into a park? Could the municipality have it for a park? Is there anything in here that would preclude that happening?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The Land Title Act doesn't deal with the issue as described by the member in any way at all. What the member is describing is an expropriation under the Highway Act, which is not affected in any way by these amendments. We are not talking about expropriation here. We are talking about the use of public land, whether it's going to stay in an unused road situation or be given to neighbouring property owners, or whether it's going to be used, as a municipality might decide, for some public park or other purpose. There is no expropriation at all in this provision, and the concern that the member has about the Savona issue is one that is dealt with under the Highway Act and ultimately resolved through the Expropriation Act.

V. Anderson: Maybe I'm just dense on this, but it would seem to me that after the land has been expropriated by the Highways department, it then falls under this as being a piece of highway that's not being used. So at that point, once it has been expropriated, it is public land, is it not -- and therefore this could apply?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Let me go back to the basics. If the member has a hundred acres and decides to subdivide it, and he gets all the approvals to subdivide it, the requirements will be that some of that land has to be dedicated as roadway and presumably some for schools and other purposes. But we are talking about roadways here. So the landowner gives up some of the land that he or she owns to allow for roads. Fifty or even ten years from now it may be that a particular road allocation has never been used, and it might become clear it was never needed for future use. That is land that's in the public domain, and we are talking about what the disposition of the land is once it has been decided that it's no longer needed for its original purpose. But it's Crown land, not private land, at that point.

Section 4 approved.

On the title.

A. Warnke: I appreciate the recognition here. I want to bring to your attention that I did not speak on second reading because I was out of the House at the time. The efforts by the member for Vancouver-Quilchena in my place were most notable, and he summarized very quickly and succinctly and offered his support for it. As we've gone through the various sections in committee, there has in fact been a lot of reason to support it, and I was really quite surprised at the remarks by the member for Okanagan West -- and this pertains to the title, hon. Chair.

The member for Okanagan West said that we members of the opposition capitulate too easily, and yet I notice that as we go through the bill both in second reading and through all the committee stage, there was not a heck of a hullabaloo to be made. I'm not sure exactly what the member for Okanagan West was really getting at when he was talking about the opposition supposedly rolling over dead. It has been illustrated that the remarks by the member for Okanagan West were really out of character, but in that context I would move that we support the title of this bill tonight.

C. Serwa: Thank you for the opportunity of illuminating my respected colleague in the official opposition. There are two processes, and I hadn't been aware of this specific process. The other one was the power to close highways under the Highway Act, which is an entirely different process than what I was familiar with. The whole process is conducted quite differently 

[ Page 9344 ]

than this one, so when I was discussing it in second reading debate, I was talking about the opposite one, not the one that was in front of me that I was unfamiliar with. I assumed there was only one process in the system, so for my hon. member with his query, this has given me a splendid opportunity to indicate that there were two similar processes that are handled in very different manners. That was the reason for the energetic display in second reading and a rather quiet display here.

[8:30]

Title approved.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: 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 73, Land Title Amendment Act, 1993, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I call committee on Bill 80.

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 1993

The House in committee on Bill 80; E. Barnes in the chair.

On section 1.

A. Warnke: I just have a quick question on the first section. Does an act currently exist that regulates fundraising on behalf of blind or partially blind people?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The answer is no.

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

On section 4.

A. Warnke: The description states: "...clarifies that the authority can act through subsidiaries and that the authority can take advantage of commercial opportunities approved by the minister." I am seeking some elaboration on how the authority can act through subsidiaries, and on the intent of taking advantage of commercial opportunities. Could the minister just elaborate on that?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: In the first instance, the section is designed to give B.C. Transit the same kind of authority as other Crowns. The examples of subsidiaries -- I think that was the member's question out of subsection (a) -- include possible other uses of the SkyTrain guideway. For example, as a fibre optics link, it's a very opportune route through the city. Also the possibility of....

Interjection.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I hope my English is sufficient to meet the member's severe standards.

It will also allow, for example, joint ventures with B.C. Rail and B.C. Hydro; the possibility of sale of rapid transit expertise overseas -- and that's obviously the kind of export opportunities that we're looking at; the possibility of the SkyTrain yard as a testing ground for technology; and other issues, such as bus refurbishment and the like.

D. Mitchell: The section that the Attorney General was referring to is amending the purposes and objects section of the transit authority's statute, so it's a fairly significant amendment. It really changes the purpose and objects of the B.C. transit authority. As the Attorney General said, it allows it to diversify into other businesses and commercial ventures. I wonder if the Attorney General can tell the committee whether anything specific is contemplated in terms of the kinds of commercial ventures that B.C. Transit will now be able to engage in. How will they be used? How will the revenues of these commercial -- presumably profitable -- enterprises be used? Will they be used to pay for reductions in transit deficits? Will they be used for improvement in transit services? Or will they simply become a cash cow for the government? What is the intention of this fundamental change to the Crown corporation, B.C. Transit?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The revenues would be used for public transit purposes, not for helping to draw down our deficit here.

D. Symons: My question is somewhat along the same lines. Besides the examples the minister gave earlier, it would seem that this would be an opportunity for B.C. Transit, if it so wishes, to become a property developer. I believe it is doing that in Surrey at one of the SkyTrain terminals. I see the minister pointing to the minister responsible for B.C. Transit. This was seen to open the door for a totally new venture for B.C. Transit, I think, to get involved in property developments, become a landlord and speculate in the real estate market. I'm not quite sure that that's what we want B.C. Transit to be doing. I believe it's a transit company and shouldn't be trying, let's say, to make its ends meet financially by getting into other lines of operation as a landlord and getting into property developments.

Hon. G. Clark: That's an interesting philosophical discussion we might have another time. But just so members of the committee know, anybody who's been to Japan can see the tremendous Shinkansen bullet train and others, and a huge, very expensive, transportation system. That was almost fully paid for by the transit authority of the day purchasing land around stations or where the stations would be. Recapturing the value of land -- for the purpose of the appreciated value of land, as a result of public investment -- happens in virtually every country around the western world, and in fact finances many transit authorities.

[ Page 9345 ]

We don't do that in this province. Except -- I'll say this -- the Bill Bennett government did something for the first time, which I think was innovative in British Columbia and which I support, and that was the SkyTrain station at Main and Terminal. When they announced the SkyTrain station, the value of the land went up dramatically. One of the Docksteaders made $1 million or something in literally one or two days of flipping the land after the government announced the station was going in. The government said that, depending on the zoning on the site, so many cents per square foot would go to the transit authority -- recognizing that the city would likely upzone right next to the station, and that the public sector, which, after all, was investing $1 billion in an infrastructure, would benefit from any upzoning of the day. I think that was a very modest attempt to say there's some benefit to the public for the investment they're making.

In any event, that's a philosophical discussion not contemplated here, except to say that in the arrangement around the Surrey station, I think there was an innovative way in which we could achieve a better deal than was the case just shortly after we took office -- to exchange some land for the purposes of allowing the station to be constructed. We are saying that from time to time there are opportunities, with developers largely, where there is land that can change hands, or that can be arranged with B.C. Transit. Financially, B.C. Transit can benefit significantly from some of those transactions, and we did that in the Surrey case.

Again, we're not talking about B.C. Transit becoming a developer or anything of the sort. Transit is a huge landowner, and from time to time commercial opportunities arise with developers where it makes sense for the public sector to get some share if it's a good commercial transaction -- and, after all, this is a public system of over $1 billion.

D. Symons: I still have some problems on that discussion, I guess. We see that B.C. Rail -- since the minister is also familiar with that -- is expanding into telecommunications, trucking and other things. I rather suspect that once you open the door for B.C. Transit here, we'll see that the real estate arm of B.C. Transit could grow considerably. I really don't think Transit, as transit, should be concentrating on that and not putting its energies into something else. Bureaucracies have a habit of growing, and indeed if you start this sort of aspect -- which you seem to be alluding to as a possibility there -- this will happen. It seems to give Transit a motivation for transit decisions based on real estate decisions.

[8:45]

Hon. G. Clark: No, that's incorrect. Let me say this: I think I've been consistent in this House, and I say to members of the committee that right now we have the opposite incentive. We have a corporation that is massively subsidized, more subsidized than any transit system in Canada. There are commercial opportunities that come along, but they don't take advantage of them because there's no advantage to the corporation to do so. Here we have proposals from a developer which make absolutely perfect economic sense, commercial sense and business sense, proposals which could potentially reduce the subsidy to the taxpayer. In the past Transit has said that they are not in that business and they're not really interested. What we are trying to do, not just for the Crowns but through the public sector, is to say to people that this is not an appropriate response. Tax money is at risk here; there's a huge tax investment. It obviously requires approval by the minister, so we aren't talking about letting them run amok, but where it's appropriate, it makes sense to try to ensure that we're trying to get a return to the taxpayer for the money they have invested.

I'll give you another example: the SkyTrain guideway. We have had several companies approach B.C. Transit and suggest that on the guideway that goes through the city they could string up fibre optics or some other sort of utility. They have suggested that as private operators on a strictly commercial basis, they would potentially like to rent a piece of the guideway or the right to run underneath the guideway, or something like that. Transit currently has no interest in that, even though there's revenue to the government to be had. They don't have any interest in it, nor would they pursue it. They don't get any revenue from it.

All we are saying is that if a reasonable proposition comes along, and if it's approved by the minister, then it makes perfect sense for occasional -- usually private sector -- participation and benefit to B.C. Transit. It makes perfect business sense, and it's a very modest miscellaneous amendment. I hope there's a sufficient caveat in the ministerial formal approval which would give members comfort that this isn't any kind of grand scheme. This is just good business practice by one of the Crown corporations.

J. Weisgerber: I don't have any concerns at all with the kind of commercial venture that the minister describes. My concern is with the expansion of B.C. Transit's activities into competition with private transportation companies. As the minister has indicated, Transit receives large government subsidies, and if they were to move into related fields of activity, it would be very difficult to identify the amount of subsidy that might be involved in the competition with the private sector operator. I would have preferred wording that kept Transit out of competition with private sector transportation companies. Failing that, perhaps there could be some undertaking by the minister that there would not be approval if Transit were to come forward with a plan to run a bus schedule to Whistler, for example, in competition with an existing carrier.

Hon. G. Clark: I can give the member assurance that we are certainly not contemplating that at this time. More to the point, I advise members of the committee that I have met with several private bus operators, and in some cases the employees. I am actually quite concerned about Transit running operations from time to time that are subsidized and competing with what was a perfectly viable operation.

Here's the problem, and I would be interested in the members' comments on this. The service is determined 

[ Page 9346 ]

by the transit commission, not by B.C. Transit. I'll give you an example. There is now subsidized bus service to Butchart Gardens, and there are commercial operators going there as well. The appeal has been made to me that that's unfair. Why should there be a subsidized service to Butchart Gardens when there's currently a successful private operation? I'm very sympathetic to that, but the transit commission sets the service plan, not the government or the minister responsible. I have made my opinion known, and I hope that in that case there will be some accommodation to ensure that there isn't unfair competition. That's the only wrinkle I have. We don't intend to try to do that where there's a viable commercial operation, but the commission itself sets the service plan, and sometimes there's a bit of overlap.

J. Weisgerber: I suppose that would make the wording in 4(b) even less comforting. The fact that the minister's approval is required was somewhat comforting in the first argument, and also that Transit wouldn't go off and do something unless the minister approved. In his last comments, the minister suggested that in the case of competition or extended routes, the minister may have no direct control over that. That might speak even louder to the need for the legislation to be more restrictive in allowing commercial ventures related to transportation.

Hon. G. Clark: First of all, I'll give the member some assurance that we're dealing with commercial ventures other than the existing transit system. Maybe that's a better distinction. I'll give the member assurance that we're not planning -- and I don't think I would ever support -- a new commercial venture that's going to compete with the private sector in the transportation field. Where you're dealing with the existing system as opposed to a new commercial venture, the service plan is determined by the commission, except in the small communities.

There is constant tension between the private sector and the commission. The example is pretty clear. If you are living on the outskirts of the Vancouver Regional Transit Commission -- I'm not sure which ones it would be now, but in the past it was Maple Ridge -- and you're a municipal councillor, then you want Transit to expand into your area, because you would get subsidized service in your area. They had a very fine but not really subsidized private operation. When Transit expands, it finishes that private operation. It becomes a subsidized one, although there is a gas tax applied. There is constant demand from communities and from city councils to expand the subsidized service area, if you will. There is a natural conflict, when that happens, with the private sector. That's almost normal business with the B.C. Transit system, which I'd be happy to debate with the member.

This doesn't speak to that; this speaks to commercial opportunities that are outside that normal friction. I'll give the member full comfort that the commission would not have any influence over some kind of tour bus subsidiary. That would not be the commission's mandate; that would be, in this case, with the minister's approval. I can give all members comfort that that is not contemplated, nor will it happen.

K. Jones: Could the minister confirm that this section would be used to establish a SkyTrain car plant in partnership with Bombardier or another similar partner that is in the business of designing and building SkyTrain cars?

Hon. G. Clark: If the question is whether it could be, I guess the answer is yes. If the question is whether it would be, the answer is no.

K. Jones: Is there agreement already in place for such a plant? Does Transit already have an agreement with Bombardier or someone else, which this facilitates?

Hon. G. Clark: Hon. member, absolutely not.

K. Jones: With regard to the Surrey station the minister mentioned, the minister mentioned that there was land that Transit received. Is that land actually held in the Crown's hands, or was that just a tradeoff in the agreement?

Hon. G. Clark: It's public information, but I would be happy to give the member the details of the transaction. Essentially, B.C. Transit acquired I think 2.3 acres of prime, street-front property from the developer in exchange for the developer completing the station. At some future date that land will probably be sold or developed at a significantly enhanced price. So that was a creative way of trying to provide the funding to ensure the station got built while trying to enhance the Crown's position. Again, I will at any time offer the member a full, detailed explanation of the transaction on the Surrey station, because I think it's good news for the taxpayers and for the people of Surrey.

K. Jones: It's my understanding that no land actually ended up in the hands of the Crown after that arrangement; that the actual land went back to the developer in exchange for parking facilities, I believe. Could the minister clarify that?

Hon. G. Clark: No, that's not correct. In the deal that we negotiated, B.C. Transit acquired land from the developer.

K. Jones: With regard to the minister's statement about the use of guideways for communication purposes, I'm sure the minister must be aware that B.C. Transit already has a fibre optics system along the guideway that they could utilize for that purpose.

Hon. G. Clark: It has never been utilized. We've never sold that access to the fibre optic network to the private sector or anybody else.

C. Serwa: By the time an amendment such as this comes forward, some fairly concrete decisions must have been made to seize the opportunities, and we've 

[ Page 9347 ]

heard a fair bit of discussion with respect to the land. But the hon. Attorney General had indicated the potential for joint ventures between B.C. Transit and B.C. Rail, and possibly B.C. Hydro. Could the minister give us some idea of the type of joint ventures being looked at, and what area they would be in? When you're talking about joint ventures with B.C. Rail, a transportation system, and Transit, which is also transportation, the implication is there that we go back to some means of utilizing bus services to expand. The concern there, again, is whether it is competitive with the private sector.

Hon. G. Clark: Yes. I'm not trying to be evasive. The member is correct: there is a specific thing we were talking about, and the Attorney General alluded to it, but if this is a commercial transaction.... No commercial transaction has taken place yet, and I'm simply not at liberty to discuss on the floor of the House a commercial transaction that might take place. But you've pretty well got the elements of what we're talking about.

Section 4 approved.

On section 5.

F. Gingell: Could the minister very briefly describe the intent of this section?

Hon. G. Clark: Let me give an example. We are examining putting in turnstiles at SkyTrain stations. No decision has been made. If we were to put turnstiles in right now, it would cost $1 million in capital, but all the revenue would go to the local authority. So it's kind of ridiculous. We want to be able to make an investment to enhance revenue but make sure that the revenue comes to the people making the investment.

A. Warnke: Somewhere along the line I have to get back into this. We're on section 5, and I have a very quick question.

Interjection.

A. Warnke: I need all the help I can get.

The explanatory note says that section 5 "permits regulations to be made respecting the revenue obtained by the authority." I wonder whether this has been done in consultation with the authority.

Hon. G. Clark: The transit authority is a provincial Crown corporation, so yes, we've had the discussion. B.C. Transit now allocates the distribution of revenues under a formula, but as I said, the formula is a bit ridiculous. If B.C. Transit invests some money, you don't want the provincial taxpayer investing the money and any revenues going to the local share. We might do some sharing of revenues, but we want to be able to recover the cost of that investment. That's all this does.

[9:00]

Sections 5 and 6 approved.

On section 7.

A. Warnke: On this particular section, and with liberty from the minister, I'll refer to something that does not appear here but is within the act. It's a quotation: "The Attorney General may intervene in a proceeding and contest or argue a question or matter arising in the proceeding that affects the public interest." In that context, especially the effects of the public interest and how the Attorney General intervenes and so forth, how does that relate to the amendment that's being proposed here? Is there a consistency between the two?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I don't think there's any connection to the reference the member is making to another provision of the Family Relations Act. This simply deals with the appeal process.

Sections 7 and 8 approved.

On section 9.

F. Gingell: Just to start this section off, does subsection (6.1) refer to counting in numbers, or in dollars? "Total actual staff utilization for a fiscal year shall not exceed the authorized staff utilization set out in the estimates of revenue and expenditure...." Expenditure, one presumes, is measured in dollars. Utilization could be measured in dollars or in a head count. I wonder which this means.

Hon. G. Clark: No, it's not dollars. Maybe I could just spend a minute explaining this. As you know, the Korbin commission had some comment on FTEs, and so did the Peat Marwick independent financial review. We struggled with this question, because both of them essentially recommended abolishing the FTE system and replacing it with budgetary, rather than FTE, controls. It's fair to say that we have not accepted that recommendation with what you have here before you, because the Korbin commission -- and members of the House, I think -- would say that we need an accurate count of how many people work for the government. We struggled with how we could accommodate some of the criticisms of the FTE system and replace it with something which more accurately reflects the number of people who work for government.

You may recall that in the Public Service Act, which was passed -- I believe it was passed; I believe it's in the Public Service Act.... In subsection (6.2), we have decided to say that everybody who is a staff person, for the purposes of the Public Service Act, will count as an employee of the government -- every FTE who is covered by the Public Service Act. That number is dramatically higher, obviously, than the current FTE count, which excluded several thousand people. We're saying that everybody who is employed by the government under the Public Service Act will count as a staff person, first of all. That will be the base.

[ Page 9348 ]

Secondly, we're saying that in the estimates of revenue and expenditures, or what we call the estimates book, right now there's an estimate of how many people work -- FTEs, by each ministry. We're now saying: "That's not good enough. Every year you must show exactly how many people work for the government under the Public Service Act, and if you are over the total published in the estimates book, you must pass an order-in-council in aggregate." So I think it is a refinement of the current FTE system which more accurately reflects the number of people in government. It gives the safeguards, which members of the House might have been concerned about with respect to Korbin and the independent financial review, that there is an accurate count and a continued requirement for an order-in-council if there are more people than the accurate count. That gives you, I think, an overall view of what this section does.

F. Gingell: I recognize that you are discouraging the use of contract employees, but there may be very good and valid reasons why you use them from time to time. In the normal course of events, I presume that they will not be appointed pursuant to the Public Service Act. Does this mean, then, that they won't be counted?

Hon. G. Clark: Yes, persons who are not appointed pursuant to the Public Service Act will not be counted in this section. I am just trying to see who that is. We tried to find a definition of who works for the government, and that was a bit more challenging than you might think. The best and the broadest definition that we could provide was the Public Service Act. The only people not counted as Public Service Act appointees who might be construed as employees are: the legislative staff, the Queen's Printer, justices of the peace, judges, B.C. Systems Corporation secondments -- if you understand how that works -- and other secondments from, say, the school system into the Ministry of Education.

By using the Public Service Act definition we have dramatically increased the accountability and the scope of who is recorded as working for the government, which very accurately counts the number of people who work for the government. Just to use a reverse example, that is, who is not counted, and again there are very few. Who isn't counted today? There are 2,291 people working for the liquor branch who don't show up anywhere in the estimates currently. They're not FTEs, and now they will be counted as staff working for the government. Glendale Lodge and B.C. Mental Health Society have 1,800 employees. So everybody covered under the Public Service Act will be counted as employees. I'm sorry, I now have a more accurate figure. Some 7,362 individuals who are employed under the Public Service Act are not counted under the FTE system, and I see the Superannuation Commission has 148 people.

J. Weisgerber: I would like to move a motion standing on the order paper in my name.

[SECTION 9, is hereby amended by deleting from section 20, subsection (6.1) of the Financial Administration Act, S.B.C. 1981, c. 15, the phrase "approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council", and by substituting therefor the following: "prior approval, by resolution, of the Legislative Assembly".]

On the amendment.

J. Weisgerber: I appreciated the explanation that the minister gave of the transition from the FTE count to the actual staff utilization count. The difficulty that I have with this amendment is that you effectively repeal the regulations or the legislation as it relates to the FTE count, and you don't provide an actual staff utilization estimate until the estimates come down next year. So you are essentially in limbo between the time you pass this amendment and the time your new regulation comes into effect. By his explanation the minister has suggested that he agrees that both the FTE count and the actual staff utilization count both serve the purpose of bringing discipline to the individual ministries with regard to the number of employees, whether you call them FTEs or actual staff persons. So the point of the amendment is, in effect, that it would continue the discipline around the FTE count until after the next budget. In other words, the effect of this change would come into force with the next budget. The FTE discipline would continue for the remainder of the current fiscal year.

By changing the words "approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council" to "prior approval, by resolution, of the Legislative Assembly," I believe that you can accomplish what I assume the minister and government want to accomplish -- an orderly transition between the FTE count system and the new actual staff utilization count. Without that, as far as I can see, the FTE count no longer has any validity. The government is not bound by the FTE count that is in the current budget. Ministries and the government can run over the FTE count without any obligation to pass an order-in-council, such as has always existed under the FTE count system, imperfect though it may be.

Hon. G. Clark: I have a couple of points. One is that section 32, the transitional section, says that for the purposes of this year, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council must pass an order-in-council saying what utilization is estimated for the Public Service Act.

I'm not absolutely sure that the amendment the member suggests does what the member suggests it does. The point is this: what we are providing here is substantially more information and accountability than has existed in the past. Just so we're clear about this, we are not only going to provide estimates of staff utilization under the Public Service Act for next year, we're also going to provide actual numbers of how many there were last year. You're going to be able to have two columns of people. The member is suggesting that the government should not be able to change that by order-in-council; it should have to change that by voting on it in the Legislature. I think that's what the amendment does. Of course, that's not the case today and never has been the case. It's always been by 

[ Page 9349 ]

order-in-council. When we vote in the House, members don't vote on the FTEs, they vote on the budget. The FTEs are only controlled by order-in-council. We're not changing that. The order-in-council is still there, and the government still determines that.

My view would be that controlling the size of the public service is the responsibility of the government. The role of the Legislature is to debate the government's plan, how they are doing and whether they are doing it right or not. The Legislature shouldn't be directly involved in the management process. It's a government process. In other words, with respect to the Legislature versus the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, I would suggest that the current system is the same as the system that we've had for some time, except it's more accurate. It's far more descriptive and provides further safeguards.

J. Weisgerber: Let's try and deal with this one issue at a time. The current FTEs are listed in the estimates. If the ministries run over the FTE count, or if the government as a body exceeds the FTE count, there is a requirement that an order-in-council be passed to flag for the public's attention the fact that the FTE count has been exceeded. Section 9 will repeal that requirement, and it will no longer be necessary. For the remainder of the fiscal year, the government can run over the FTE count to any degree it wishes -- without any obligation in the legislation to report the fact that the FTE count has been exceeded.

Hon. G. Clark: No, that's absolutely incorrect. Subsection (6.1) says: "Total actual staff utilization for a fiscal year shall not exceed the authorized staff utilization set out in the estimates...for that year, except with the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council." It still requires an order-in-council if the government is to exceed the total amount listed in the estimates for staff utilization.

J. Weisgerber: Maybe we'll try it this way. Is the minister suggesting that the authorized staff utilization spelled out in subsection (6.1) is the FTE count for this year that's shown in the estimates?

Hon. G. Clark: No. That's a good question. There is a transitional document that says that for this year only, by order-in-council, we will deem how many people are covered by the Public Service Act. If we exceed that, then we require another order-in-council.

[9:15]

I appreciate the member's concern, and I want to tell the committee that I share his concern. In the transition period we had to find a benchmark. The benchmark was the Public Service Act. We are doing the work now. The number of people covered by the Public Service Act will be published by order-in-council. If we exceed it, we will have to pass another order-in-council. It's a transitional period between now and the next budget, when you will have much clearer documentation.

J. Weisgerber: The FTE count in the current estimates has now been approved by debate in this Legislature in the current estimates. The minister simply....

Interjection.

J. Weisgerber: Well, they form part of the estimates. They can't be exceeded without an order-in-council being published. I am suggesting that every other year the government was bound by the FTE count shown in the estimates. This year the government now has the option in June or July -- outside of the Legislature -- to say, without any examination, what their count of the staff is today and how they are going to deal with it in the future.

Hon. G. Clark: The member is right. The problem is that the current FTE count does not even come close to resembling what this system provides. We can't use the current published estimates for FTEs, because it's a completely different base. There are some 10,000 more people now, which will be fully accounted for. I appreciate the member is saying that there is a little loophole there -- which we have no intention of attempting to hide behind. As soon as possible we will publish what we see is the number of people covered by the Public Service Act, and they will be measured henceforth therein.

We simply couldn't use the published estimates, because they are completely different from the base we are trying to move to, so we needed a transitional period. If we wanted to try to hide behind it, we wouldn't have put in that transitional section, which requires us to pass an OIC to say how many people are covered by the Public Service Act; we would have just ignored it. As much as we can, we have tried to give members as much comfort as possible as we move through the transition period to provide full accountability for the number of people.

I accept the member's criticism. To the extent that I have canvassed it, he is correct, but it's a transitional year where we are trying to change the system.

J. Weisgerber: To suggest that the FTE count has no relevance because of exempted employees, I don't think is a valid argument. There is a table and there is an identified number of people who aren't covered under the FTE count. I believe that if the government was going to undertake this kind of program, then it should have listed the number it was going to use this year in the estimates.

Hon. G. Clark: We just got the Korbin commission report.

J. Weisgerber: Well, you just got the Korbin commission report, but surely to goodness this didn't come as a total surprise to the Minister of Finance. I mean, only the other day the Korbin commission report recommended one and a half years of pension for deputy minister ministers only on the period of time since they'd been hired in 1991. Somehow you had the foresight in 1991 to read into the contracts what's in the 

[ Page 9350 ]

Korbin report today. But you didn't have the foresight three months ago to put in this utilization figure.

Hon. G. Clark: Let me just briefly try to give the member an example of what we were dealing with. In the B.C. Mental Health Society, 1,898 people are currently not covered by FTE....

Interjection.

Hon. G. Clark: No, but here's what I'm trying to get at. Where are there usually OICs for "over-burning" FTEs? Since as long as I've been here, the main area is Health. So the member is saying that if we go over the FTE number in the book, we should have to pass an order-in-council stating that. I don't have any problem with that, except we're now adding, because of the Public Service Act, several thousand more people. We know we're going to be over what's in the estimates, because we're adding several thousand people who will be counted as part of the FTEs. Once we pass this, we move to the Public Service Act definition. If we're judged by the FTEs in the budget, then in almost every case we'll be over the number of FTEs, because we're adding all these new people to the definition of who's counted as an FTE.

Another area that's a good example is the liquor distribution branch, which will now be folded into the Attorney General's number of employees.

A. Warnke: Interestingly enough, a number of the questions put forward by the opposition leader are identical to mine. But there is still an aspect that I want to cover, and it certainly follows to some degree what the member for Peace River South was getting at.

Perhaps to clarify the situation a little bit, the base that the government is trying to move towards, in terms of putting forward the number of FTEs.... I suppose, first of all, it shows alongside the moneys that would be allocated. The FTEs, however, have shown the actual number of FTEs, especially when we review past accounts or the ministry operations for the past year. That is accurate in itself.

All in all, I have to compliment what the ministry and the government is trying to achieve here; I'm not trying to be critical. By the same token, by putting forward what we have here, is there not the prospect of creating an incentive to put forth not an accurate number of FTEs, but essentially some sort of anticipated ceiling for FTEs, so that the various departments do not have to go back to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council? What I'm concerned about, and what I'm seeking clarification on, is that as a result, would there not be a possible distortion of the account? Here is the government trying to move the base to something else. They are to be commended for it. But by taking this approach, is it not creating an incentive for a ceiling so that the ministry and the departments don't have to go back to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council? Henceforth might we actually expect an opposite result -- that is, a distortion of the account rather than greater accuracy, which is what we're aiming for?

Hon. G. Clark: I would say not, because we're covering everybody who's covered by the Public Service Act, so we can't hide anybody anymore. They all have to be covered and be counted, and we want the ministries to have to come forward for an order-in-council. That's what we're saying. We're retaining that in here. We're saying that if the global amount is exceeded, then there has to be an order-in-council.

Where I think there's a possibility for better accountability is the time series that we will be developing, which doesn't exist today. Each year we will be able to say, "Here are the actuals from last year and the estimates for next year," and I think that gives full accountability. If you're going over in aggregate, then the ministries will have to come forward and ask for that from executive council. We'll have to actually pass an order-in-council approving it, and I think that kind of discipline and pressure on the system is still worthwhile.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

Section 9 approved.

[9:30]

On section 10.

A. Warnke: With regard to this particular section, I'm just seeking clarification of the intention of this amendment. Basically, I'm wondering whether the amendment is to simplify or expedite the inspection process and also whether the inspection process is to be done by local authorities.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The amendment is simply to allow, where municipalities so choose and request, the delegation to them of the powers of inspection, regulation and control. So the regulatory work and inspections that would be undertaken ordinarily by a provincial employee can be delegated to the municipality at the municipality's request. That's really all this accomplishes.

[ Page 9351 ]

L. Reid: In terms of the ability to set permits and possibly collect fees and the like, I understand from this section that you are basically downloading the authority to do that. Are you also downloading the ability of those municipalities to collect and retain the fees? That has been a significant issue over the last number of months in terms of fee increases, when they believe the services would far exceed the services they would need to provide.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Municipalities which opt into this scheme can set and keep the fees they charge. Subsection (2)(c) says that the government can specify the terms and conditions that a municipality must meet. The meaning here, for example, is that the municipalities would have to set fees on a cost-recovery basis so they couldn't use it as a tax. I'm not sure they could in any event, but that is the kind of power that would be provided. Beyond that, the fees would be set and kept by the municipality as part of their revenue.

L. Reid: Some months back, when a fee increase was being debated for sewage and pool inspection and the like, there was much discussion that the actual fee -- even if it was cost-recovery -- was not in place to allow anyone to provide that service and actually break even. Will there still be provincial dollars at their disposal to cover the costs? Some of the smaller municipalities have said and continue to say that even with the ability to collect the fee, they could not collect enough money to allow them to provide the service.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: No. In that event, there would not be provincial moneys provided to the municipality. The likely outcome would be that the municipality would simply not opt into this provision, and would leave the responsibility to the province to continue to set and collect it.

L. Reid: Subsection (3)(a) also looks at "the issue or the refusal of a permit for a sewage disposal system." I'm interested to know if there is a limitation on the appeal process. A number of my constituents have had difficulties with this particular issue, and have had no satisfaction in terms of trying to work through the process. Would the time line that you have set here extend back in time? Could issues that have not yet been resolved come before this appeal process?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: There has been no decision made yet in respect of retroactivity. There is an intention to discuss the issue with Health and the Environmental Appeal Board before such a regulation is promulgated.

L. Reid: Would you perhaps give a time line as to when that discussion might take place? There are individuals in the throes of trying to resolve issues about sewage disposal, and they need an immediate response.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: There have been initial communications, but not much has happened yet -- pending the outcome of this process. I think the answer is: the discussion is imminent. There is no intention to delay unnecessarily.

Section 10 approved.

On section 11.

A. Warnke: I want to pursue this a bit. I appreciate the intent of adding to the Health Emergency Act the provision of immunity for acts or omissions in good faith. At the same time, I suppose there could still be circumstances of, for want of a better phrase, involuntary negligence. In other words, negligence may occur, perhaps with well-intentioned behavior, but sometimes due to unclear thinking or just the wrong actions -- not due to the emergency itself, but maybe something to do with lack of concentration on the job, or whatever. There is a notion that this might be a proviso to get people off the hook who are involved in some form of negligence, involuntary or otherwise. I'm just seeking some clarification as to just how extensively this section might be applied.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I may not be answering the member's question directly, and if not, I'd ask him to repeat it. This section deals with an oversight earlier on in respect of protecting the members of the commission, the staff and the members of the Emergency Medical Assistants' Licensing Board from suit. The provincial government is vicariously liable for actions that are taken on good faith by these individuals, and this corrects that oversight in the earlier drafting.

A. Warnke: I appreciate the Attorney General's answer. It coincides with my sentiments that the workers in emergency situations who are described here -- the members, commission staff and so forth -- need some protection. Perhaps it's reflective of our society to some degree, and how suit-oriented we have become. Certainly we do not want to move in a direction of encouraging suits. But by the same token, if particular individuals feel aggrieved, maybe even in an emergency situation, then this particular section might provide a deterrent. But I'm not too concerned about that after the answer that the Attorney General gave. But this does not contain some reassurance for the victims of an emergency, who may be further injured or whatever. That's essentially the clarification I'm seeking.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm not sure that this section would encourage or discourage suits. It's a question of protecting the individuals who are acting in good faith on behalf of the government in respect of these particularly identified services.

Section 11 approved.

On section 12.

A. Warnke: Four sections within this bill have a similar problem: the use of the phrase "for different 

[ Page 9352 ]

classes of persons." It's of some concern to us here. By the way, sections 22, 26 and 28 use it as well as section 12. Since the exact same phrase has been used in those other sections, I'd just as soon deal with it in section 12 and get it over with so we do not have to proceed with the same question on the other sections. But the term "different classes of people" is used here, and the province may describe different methods, conditions or requirements for different classes of persons with regard to the Hotel Room Tax Act. I seek further clarification about the phrase in the context of the Hotel Room Tax Act.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The answer that I will give on this section applies, as the member noted, to three other sections of this miscellaneous bill. The purpose is to require electronic remittance -- in this case, of hotel room tax payable -- and the current plan is to set the amount at $100,000 per month, by regulation. Rather than paying out at the normal times people who are in business remit their tax, they will be required to remit electronically if they are doing the kind of volume that produces $100,000 worth of tax.

L. Fox: If they so wish, municipalities have the authority to put in place a hotel tax with respect to their municipality, for the purposes of tourism. When the minister is talking about collecting this tax, does he collect the municipality's portion as well as the provincial portion? If so, and he collects it on a more rapid basis, is it going to be paid out to the municipalities by the same formula?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The member and I are both smiling. The 10 percent, which is the amount that would be involved if there is a 2-cent surcharge for local purposes, would be remitted electronically to the government on a required day -- that's set out in the regulations -- and the government would then remit the 2 cents to the municipality. I am not sure that would be done electronically, but it would be done quickly.

[9:45]

Section 12 approved.

On section 13.

L. Fox: For my benefit, could the minister explain what this does?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: We are getting a head start on the auditor general who, in his next annual report, recommends the abolition of this statute. It was enacted in the 1970s in response to, I think, the Anti-Inflation Board -- the AIB program that was established in '75-76. At that time, legislation was enacted to coincide with that. Since the federal legislation was repealed many years ago, this act has been null and void and it deserves to come off the statutes.

G. Farrell-Collins: I assume the Attorney General is saying, in anticipation, that the auditor general may recommend.... I don't get the auditor general's report until it hits the table here. Maybe he has some advance information the rest of us aren't privy to.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: That was simply a good guess on my part. I think the auditor general has identified this as an issue. The auditor general is obviously in constant communication with people who work for the government and has identified it, and we anticipated it.

Sections 13 to 16 inclusive approved.

On section 17.

K. Jones: Could the minister tell us the reason for adding the reference to "lottery," as having the same meaning as "lottery scheme" in the Criminal Code?

Hon. L. Boone: The purpose of this is just to give a definition to the word "lottery," which has a clear meaning in law. The Criminal Code establishes the manner in which the provincial governments may undertake and regulate gaming. This is just to give a definition and clarify the meaning of "lottery ticket."

K. Jones: Could the minister indicate whether the definition of "lottery ticket" also covers a bingo card?

Hon. L. Boone: No.

K. Jones: The definition given in this section would fit the definition of a bingo operation. I believe that this provision would accommodate a slot machine or video bingo operation. Could the minister confirm that this will not be used for such a use?

Hon. L. Boone: I already stated that it is not for bingo; it is strictly for lottery tickets as we know them.

Section 17 approved.

On section 18.

K. Jones: Could the minister indicate whether it is intended that agreements be entered into with people providing video lottery machines or other electronic machines for the gaming process?

Hon. L. Boone: No. This enables us to enter into agreements with other organizations that have a licence to conduct gaming, such as bingo halls.

K. Jones: It is my belief that this is broad enough to include other types of agreements, with the intent of widening the scope of lotteries and gaming in the province. It could be the intent of the minister to bring this through by this means. Could the minister tell us all of the purposes that are intended to be utilized by this clause?

Hon. L. Boone: Yes. I'll be very straightforward. As I stated earlier, it's strictly to deal with the issue around bingo and video bingo as it exists right now 

[ Page 9353 ]

with the Starship community association. They've been operating on a month-to-month basis as an agent of the Crown. This enables the Lottery Corporation to enter into an agreement with Starship charities and the corporation to provide the video bingo. This section only deals with video bingo.

K. Jones: I understand that there is a plan underway to extend video bingo into the Langley bingo hall and perhaps other halls in the province. This provision would also accommodate that. Is that correct?

Hon. L. Boone: This would enable the corporation to enter into agreements to provide video bingo in other jurisdictions as well, but it would have to be an agreement that was made with the Lottery Corporation. It would not enable other bingo operations to enter into bingo without entering into an agreement with the corporation.

K. Jones: Is the Lottery Corporation presently in negotiation with contractors of other bingo halls to provide the extension of electronic bingo into those other locations, as is the fear of many people in bingo organizations throughout the province of British Columbia?

Hon. L. Boone: This section of the act does not deal with what the Lottery Corporation has done. The Lottery Corporation is not able to enter into any negotiations with anybody until this section of the act is passed.

K. Jones: Based on that information from the minister, as soon as this act is passed, is that going to give the signal for video lottery terminals to be utilized throughout the province? I understand that the Lottery Corporation already has the terminals under contract or has subsidiary agreements to provide lottery terminals in the order of several hundred or maybe even thousands in this province.

Hon. L. Boone: I explained this to the member before. You haven't quite grasped this, so I'll explain it again. This is strictly video bingo; this has nothing to do with VLTs or anything else. This is strictly video bingo. This will, with the approval of the minister, enable the corporation to enter into agreements with other charities or organizations to provide video bingo. It has absolutely nothing to do with any other lottery terminals whatsoever.

K. Jones: Could the minister tell us how many video bingo terminals are planned to be established in the province of British Columbia this fiscal year?

Hon. L. Boone: The member is asking me to make a commitment and to give information on something, when the act hasn't even passed. I can tell you that there are no arrangements right now to proceed in any way. At the current time we are trying to deal strictly with the issue around Starship Bingo, which has been operating on a pilot basis for four years -- probably the longest pilot in the history of any government at all. It has been operating on a month-to-month basis as an agent of the Crown, which is really an unacceptable basis. This will enable us to deal with this and to enter into an agreement with that organization. We will take it one step at a time, and the Lottery Corporation will deal with that. But to ask me for any plans of the Lottery Corporation really has nothing to do with this amendment whatsoever and is entirely out of order. This amendment deals strictly with the ability of the corporation to enter into agreements.

K. Jones: Hon. Chair, we'll let you decide what's in order and what's out of order -- not the minister.

Will the minister please tell us whether this clause permits entering into an agreement with a supplier of electronic equipment, such as Gtech, to build and distribute video bingo terminals throughout the province of British Columbia?

Hon. L. Boone: No, this section doesn't do that. They don't need this section of the act to do that; it's a commercial operation. But they need this section of the act to utilize those machines and to enter into an agreement with an organization to enable them to use those machines. But it does not enable the corporation to enter into a commercial agreement. They can do that at any time.

K. Jones: Could this be utilized to enter into agreements with other provinces or countries or with aboriginal lands to operate video bingo, as you're saying, at the present time?

Hon. L. Boone: The existing legislation, as I understand it, already allows the provincial government to enter into agreements with other provinces.

K. Jones: My question was also including aboriginal organizations. Would this allow the Lottery Corporation to enter into an agreement with an aboriginal band, or representatives of aboriginal peoples, for the operation of video bingo?

Hon. L. Boone: This section does not distinguish between any organizations. It allows the corporation to enter into agreements with persons or organizations regarding video bingo. There is no distinction between an aboriginal or other bingo hall.

K. Jones: The minister said yes in answer to that question. I believe she said that it does provide for an agreement to be made with aboriginal peoples.

Hon. L. Boone: If they are a licensed charitable gaming organization, the same as any other charitable gaming organization out there -- if they are a charitable bingo operation -- then this would enable the corporation to enter into agreements with them, as they would with any other organization.

[ Page 9354 ]

K. Jones: Does this also provide for the establishment of a casino-style agreement with regard to bingo operations in British Columbia?

Hon. L. Boone: No. I think this is the third time I've answered this. It enables the corporation to enter into an agreement with an organization that already has a licence to have paper bingo. If they have a paper bingo licence, whether they be an aboriginal community or an organization elsewhere, then it enables the corporation to enter into an agreement with that organization to operate video bingo.

K. Jones: Perhaps the minister should read the piece of legislation put forward here. In this section it says: "...enter into agreements with a person regarding any lottery conducted or managed on behalf of the government...." There is no restriction as to what she is claiming to be the case.

Hon. L. Boone: As I said earlier, they must have a licence to conduct a bingo game. The Lottery Corporation cannot enter into an agreement with them unless they have that licence.

[10:00]

K. Jones: Could the minister tell us in what part of the legislation it states that a licence is required? It says only: "...a person regarding any lottery conducted or managed on behalf of the government...."

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Given that there are some issues here that deal with the Criminal Code, I thought it might be useful to back up and take a minute to explain why, from a legal perspective, this particular section is included.

Traditionally, the province has had bingo operations which have been exclusively paper operations. Those operations have been licensed by the Gaming Commission of the province. The recent -- four years ago -- advent of electronic bingo, where instead of using paper you use the modern technology, has meant that we are moving away from.... The Criminal Code requires the government to operate and license those kinds of gaming operations.

The Starship operation, which is the experimental program in Vancouver, is operating, in effect, outside the law as it stands now. In order to allow it to operate legally, the government, through the Lottery Corporation, has to enable it to operate electronically. That's what this provision will do. It simply extends the opportunity for paper bingos, where they are licensed by the Gaming Commission, to move into electronic bingo if the Lottery Corporation establishes an agreement with a licence holder to do that particular electronic activity. That's what we are talking about here. So it's simply dealing with the modern technology combined with the Criminal Code to ensure that the Code is complied with and that the government, through the Lottery Corporation, conducts the activity, which is required by the Criminal Code.

[D. Streifel in the chair.]

K. Jones: Perhaps the minister isn't familiar with the fact that the Lottery Corporation is already demonstrating to the public, through the demonstrations that I've received by the Lottery Corporation and demonstrations that have been presented in media interviews, that the video bingo machines -- the same machines that you are authorizing under this legislation -- can be, with just a minor change of software, turned into video lottery machines and can have blackjack, pull tabs and any type of gambling facility provided on those same machines. Can the minister really say that this is intended to be only a video bingo operation and not a full-fledged video lottery operation?

I recognize that video bingo is a very lucrative business for those in the bingo business, because it increases the take by about four times over that of paper bingo. But the video lottery is even greater. Video lottery is seven times better than slot machines are in Las Vegas. They took out their slot machines in most cases and replaced them with video lotteries. This is certainly the direction the government is obviously going in, even though they are doing it without being upfront and telling the public exactly what they are doing. Perhaps the minister isn't aware of this, in that it's being done by the Lottery Corporation on its own, since it operates somewhat as an independent board.

Hon. L. Boone: This member has said this in estimates, and did so before. He is always trying to insinuate that the Lottery Corporation is doing things without the permission or the authority of the government. The Lottery Corporation is not doing anything. They have developed some prototypes; they have the video bingo machine. This act and this amendment, hon. member, deal strictly with video bingo.

At this particular time we are here to try to deal with the issue around Starship Bingo. The first job we will be dealing with is to work around Starship Bingo, which has been operating on a month-to-month basis. There are 45 charities dependent on the dollars coming from that video bingo. We are providing a basis so that they can enter into an agreement and continue to provide video bingo, and continue to provide the dollars to those 45 charities that operate in the Vancouver area.

There is nothing in this section that deals with VLTs; this is video bingo. This is video bingo; this is video bingo. For the third time, this is video bingo, and that is all it is, hon. member.

K. Jones: Bingo! The minister is a winner!

An Hon. Member: How big was the jackpot?

K. Jones: Very small. There wasn't much money in the pot.

Hon. minister, I'd like to start by asking you whether this piece of legislation is necessary at this time. Is it needed to legalize the actions that are contemplated?

Hon. L. Boone: I thought I just told you that it was required because we have 45 charities that are on a month-to-month basis, waiting for this government to 

[ Page 9355 ]

take the necessary action so that they can enter into an agreement with the Lottery Corporation. Without this change to the act, we would be unable to enter into an agreement with Starship Bingo, and all the charities that were gaining revenues from those bingos would find their operations at risk. So this is necessary now. I'm sure that the various charities that are involved will be very glad to see that this amendment has taken place.

K. Jones: Since there is no legislation that permits breakopen lottery machines in bars and clubs in the province to operate legally, are they operating illegally? The minister said she had corrected that problem a year ago with the transfer of the breakopen lotteries away from the charities.

Hon. L. Boone: No, they are not operating illegally. Yes, we corrected that problem.

K. Jones: If the minister were to read this piece of legislation, she would see that it covers the same situation that the breakopen lottery operations are in: they are contracted to the various bars. Therefore they would have to have this legislation in order to operate legally; if this legislation is not there, they're operating illegally.

Perhaps the minister would also like to address the problem where, when other people have attempted to bring a form of entertainment into those locations, operators of these facilities have been told by representatives of the Lottery Corporation, rather heavy-handedly, that they are not allowed to have anybody else's units on their premises if they want to have Lottery Corporation equipment there. This has become quite a problem for the operators. They are very incensed and upset about being intimidated and having to restrict their operations strictly to Lottery Corporation equipment. I presume it's in order to keep the facility open for future video lottery and video bingo machines that are going to be put into all these bars.

Could the minister tell us what she is doing to prevent intimidation by the employees who are under her direction?

Hon. L. Boone: There's only one part of that question that had anything to do with this section of the act. You questioned whether video bingo would go into the bars. Video bingo will not be going into the bars. Video bingo must be attached to a paper bingo licence, and that is the only place where bingo will be operating. They will not be in retail outlets such as bars.

The rest of your questions about VLTs, as I said, have nothing to do with this section of the act. We are really going right back to estimates debates here, and at 10:10 p.m., I don't feel like dealing with anything other than the section that's before us.

K. Jones: Might I remind the minister that if she would read this clause that is supposedly put forward in her name, she would see that it relates to lotteries conducted or managed on behalf of the government. That includes breakopen lotteries. Perhaps she doesn't understand that, but it does, and we are talking directly to that item. She is not answering that question. She refused to answer the questions regarding this area during estimates, and now she is implementing the thing without being open and upright about what's happening in an area of very serious concern to people throughout British Columbia.

R. Neufeld: I have one quick question. I heard the minister quite clearly say that this covers video bingo. The second line in (c.1) includes the words "with a person regarding any lottery." That leads me to believe that it means any kind of lottery. If it's specific to only one kind of lottery, why would it not be named?

Hon. L. Boone: It's because lottery is defined in the Criminal Code.

V. Anderson: I would like to follow up on a couple of comments that I've heard here. First of all, I think the Attorney General indicated that the video lotteries operating at the moment are operating illegally, but I gather that they have been operating illegally with the permission of the province.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: We are talking here about the electronic bingo operation at Starship in Vancouver. The arrangement is not illegal at the present time, because on a month-to-month basis Starship Bingo is made an agent of the Crown. That is the only way to deal with the fact of the Criminal Code. This provision enables the Lottery Corporation to enter into an agreement with Starship so that the agent-of-the-Crown provision that is now in place will no longer be necessary.

V. Anderson: That raises the concern that the agent of the Crown is using its good name to extend the whole gambling enterprise through the lottery undertaking. I know many people in the community are very concerned about the extension of this whole lottery undertaking and the influence it has on many people. There's a moral question as well as a legal question here. It's unfortunate that the government is making this extension, and doing it with an agent of the Crown without making the community aware of it, and without a clear mandate from them.

In bringing in this bill, the minister said that a number of charities -- I think she said 45 -- are presently raising money through the electric bingo. Am I to understand that once any group has started a new, semi-legal undertaking through the Crown, and the people begin to rely upon this, the government will come in and make it legal so they can keep on extending this indefinitely to as many categories as possible? I raise that because that's a concern with this kind of legislation.

[10:15]

Hon. L. Boone: No, this group did not enter into anything illegally. They entered into an agreement with the previous government some four years ago -- or maybe even longer ago than that -- to provide a pilot 

[ Page 9356 ]

project with video bingo that was connected to their paper bingo operation. It was done through Starship Bingo. There are 45 very worthwhile charities that are currently getting a lot of money through video bingo. Last year it was brought to our attention by the Attorney General's department that they were in contravention of the Criminal Code because they were operating the gaming aspect -- the machines. The Criminal Code clearly states that only the government through the Lottery Corporation can operate gaming machines. We did not want to shut down this organization; we saw 45 charities that provided extremely good services to communities. So we entered into an agreement to make them an agent of the Crown to enable them to continue operations until such time as we could bring in the necessary changes and amendments to the act so that they could continue their operation.

I agree that there is a moral issue here, and there are people on both sides of this House who find gaming activities and gambling not particularly nice operations to be in. But equally not nice is the fact that we would see 45 charities suddenly finding their revenue decreased. As you know, they would come to government for those revenues, and we do not have the revenue to support the charities that are out there. They are providing some extremely good services to the community as a whole. If you look at the balancing act that has to be done, recognizing the needs of the people out there and the concerns that individuals have around the gaming issues, this is the best we can do, which is to provide the necessary abilities for these organizations to continue their operations. If they have the ability to do those operations and to have video bingo, then other charities should also have the same abilities. It's really not right for one operation in Vancouver to have those abilities, when other charities may also like to have the video bingo.

V. Anderson: If this is being done on the basis of it being a project that was undertaken by the previous government, that doesn't mean that this government needs to continue it. There are many other projects undertaken by the previous government that this government did not continue, so you can't put the blame on them. It has to be accepted by the government itself.

If it was a project, what project evaluation has been done of the effects of it besides money going to charities? What was the project evaluation of the implications of this bingo for seniors and low-income people in the community where these bingos are held? What is the project evaluation by which the minister indicated that the evaluation was positive -- I assume -- and that therefore these should be continued? And is that project evaluation available?

Hon. L. Boone: The Lottery Corporation has done an analysis of many different areas there. I don't have all that information with me here at this time, but I can tell you that they found that revenues to the paper bingo did not go down, that the revenues went up with the paper bingo. There have been some implications, as there always have been, with the social cost of any gaming activity. But I can tell you that the social costs that would be felt in the Vancouver area without all of those charities gaining the revenues would be extremely high. And I can tell you that your critic over there really gave me what for when I took back some of the revenues from the breakopen, which is a small thing compared to what would suddenly be taken away from charities if we were not to enable this operation to continue. You would find that all of you would have your doors pounded on, quite regularly and vehemently, by any number of organizations out there that would suddenly find their revenues cut in half. They would be unable to continue their operation.

It's a balancing act with the services being provided, recognizing that there are social costs there -- and we certainly do recognize that social costs are involved with that. We are not saying this is all the former government's fault or what have you; we are entering into these agreements willingly. We recognize the costs involved there. But we also recognize that there are high costs to suddenly pulling the rug out from under these groups, which have become very dependent upon the dollars coming into this organization.

V. Anderson: I have to follow up on the principle of that. If I go with the minister's statement, then we should be opening them all over the province. We should ask the food banks to undertake a bingo, so they can get the income. We should ask the low-income people on social assistance, who don't get enough money to live on, to get into bingo. I hear the minister recommending that the social and individual needs of the community and the province now have to be met by gambling, rather than by government planning. I think that's a very serious concern. I inform the minister that I have people knocking on my door who are concerned about this trend of the government, and about this backroom planning that the community is not even aware of until after it happens.

Is the minister serious in saying she's recommending to any other charity that has need of money that they should be going into electronic gaming right across the province? Is that now the recommendation of the minister? This is what I heard her saying.

Hon. L. Boone: No, I'm not recommending to any charity to enter into anything. I'll leave charities to make up their own minds as to what they're going to do. We are merely enabling an existing charity, Starship Bingo, to continue with its operation and the dollars they have, recognizing that they provide some very worthwhile services. We're also enabling other paper bingo operations out there to enter into contracts with the Lottery Corporation to provide video bingo if they so choose. But that is up to them, hon. member; it's not up to me to judge or tell the various charities how and what they're going to operate.

V. Anderson: I'm trying to figure out how far the minister would extend this. I'm sure if we would allow the sale of liquor with the undertaking of these bingos, we could increase the sales considerably. And the 

[ Page 9357 ]

profits to the organizations could expand continuously if we were to add certain kinds of entertainment. I'm trying to understand what the minister is trying to do.

The Chair: Hon. member, order, please. We are on section 18 in committee stage on this bill. Standing orders require that debate be relevant to the section, and there is no mention of liquor sales or other extensions within this bill. If we could concentrate our comments and questions, under the standing orders, on section 18 of Bill 80.... Thank you.

V. Anderson: I don't think that what we've gone to.... If the minister would make available to us the studies that recommend this extension, and a paper on the planning of the government -- the agreements they're planning.... What agreements are they planning to enter into as a result of this extension?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Let me clarify again for the member that this is not an extension. This is to enable Starship Bingo in Vancouver to continue to operate. They have been going for four years. There is an established basis of activity. They will not be able to continue, because we will not continue a month-to-month arrangement delegating Starship as an agent of the Crown. Only the Lottery Corporation will be able to do that -- if we pass this legislation. If we do not pass this legislation, Starship Bingo will cease operation of its electronic portion. That's the consequence of not dealing with this, and that's all we're dealing with. If I may say so, Mr. Chair, the debate has strayed far from the provision of this section dealing with the legalization of electronic bingo operations.

The Chair: Keeping in mind the earlier comments from the Chair and the direction from the Attorney General, would the hon. member for Vancouver-Langara deal only with Starship Bingo.

V. Anderson: Am I to understand, then, that the Lottery Corporation can allow Starship Bingo to operate any place in the province if it should choose to do so?

Hon. L. Boone: This little section enables the Lottery Corporation, with the approval of the minister, to enter into agreements with other paper bingo operations, but it does not enable Starship Bingo to operate anywhere else. It does not enable the Lottery Corporation to operate video bingo anywhere else, other than in connection with the existing paper bingo.

K. Jones: I think we've had an extensive debate on this issue. We've tried to get the government to be forthright on it. It's shameful that the government should bring this in at this late hour of the day....

The Chair: Order, hon. member. The Chair has directed on the debate on section 18. It has been explained by the minister that this section deals with Starship Bingo. Standing orders require that debate in committee be relevant to section 18. So could we have questions that are relevant, please.

K. Jones: Hon. Chair, I'm dealing strictly with section 18. I'm not dealing with Starship Bingo; I'm dealing with the issue of the wording of this section of the amendment that's being put forward. The issue is that operations of the Lottery Corporation and electronic bingo operations are being extended throughout this province, and it is being put through on a sleeper basis in the last bill of the legislative session in order to try to sneak it through, much like the Infants Act was sneaked through last year. I think it is really the intention of this government to be sleazy once again in the presentation of legislation.

The Chair: Order, hon. member.

Section 18 approved.

On section 19.

K. Jones: With regard to "any payments the corporation is obliged to make under agreements entered into in respect of lotteries under sections 4(b) or (c.1)," could the minister please explain what those obligations might be?

[10:30]

Hon. L. Boone: Currently, the net profit of BCLC after prizes and expenses must go to the consolidated revenue fund. The amendment permits the BCLC to make payments to, the partner of that gaming activity. I will again use Starship Bingo as an example. This enables us to make those payments to Starship Bingo, which would be a partner with the government in this operation.

A. Warnke: I would like a little bit of clarification here. The amending section stipulates that net profits shall be paid into the consolidated revenue fund -- unlike now, where profits are paid into the Lottery Fund. As a result of this section, what is the nature of the change from the profits going into the Lottery Fund to going into the consolidated revenue fund?

Hon. L. Boone: We made those changes last year. The money used to go into the Lottery Fund. As you know, money went into consolidated revenue last year. As it stands right now, all those moneys would have to come from the Lottery Corporation into consolidated revenue. This allows us to make payments to Starship Bingo, which we wouldn't be able to do otherwise. It enables us to make payments to the bingo organization that we would be in partnership with.

K. Jones: I would like to ask the minister to finish answering the previous question I asked with regard to this clause. She answered the part with regard to subsection (c.1) but not with regard to subsection (4)(b), which goes on to state that the Lottery Corporation may enter into agreements on behalf of or in conjunction with the government of Canada or the government of 

[ Page 9358 ]

another province, or an agent of either of them. The agent of either of them could be aboriginal bands.

Hon. L. Boone: Those are payments we make to Canada as part of the Interprovincial Lottery Corporation agreements.

K. Jones: Could the Attorney General confirm to us that an agent of Canada would be an aboriginal band?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: No.

Section 19 approved.

On section 20.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 20, by deleting the proposed section 10.1 of the Lottery Corporation Act and substituting the following:

Resale of lottery tickets to person outside Province prohibited

10.1 (1) In this section "resell" means, in relation to lottery tickets,

(a) to resell one or more lottery tickets after they have been purchased from a person authorized under this Act to sell the tickets at retail,

(b) to sell an interest in one or more lottery tickets that have been or are to be purchased from a person authorized under this Act to sell the tickets at retail, or

(c) to sell an interest in any prizes won as a result of participation in a lottery scheme for which one or more lottery tickets have been or are to be purchased from a person authorized under this Act to sell the tickets at retail

(2) A person must not, directly or indirectly, do any of the following:

(a) resell or offer to resell lottery tickets to a person outside British Columbia;

(b) advertise to resell lottery tickets to a person outside British Columbia or advertise regarding the possibility of such resale;

(c) distribute lottery tickets for the purpose of reselling referred to in paragraph (a);

(d) have in the person's possession lottery tickets for the purpose of reselling referred to in paragraph (a);

(e) conspire with another person to do anything referred to in paragraphs (a) to (d).

(3) A person who contravenes subsection (2) commits an offence and, on conviction, is liable to a fine of not more than $100 000.

(4) If a corporation commits an offence under subsection (2), an employee, officer, director or agent of the corporation who authorized, permitted or acquiesced in the offence also commits the offence and is liable to the penalty set out in subsection (3) whether or not the corporation is convicted of the offence.

(5) An information in respect of an offence under this section must be laid within 2 years from the time when the subject matter of the information arose.]

On the amendment.

K. Jones: Could the minister tell us if this is intended to put people who are currently doing this out of business?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The purpose of this section is to make illegal the resale of lottery tickets outside this province.

Amendment approved.

Section 20 as amended approved.

Sections 21 and 22 approved.

On section 23.

A. Warnke: I want to pursue the purpose of this section with regard to the Provincial Court Act.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The purpose of this section is to enact the recommendations of the Connaghan report. They were endorsed by the legislative committee, which was asked to examine the report, and by the Legislature which passed unanimously the legislative committee's recommendations that the Connaghan report be implemented. The report in respect of salaries was adopted by this House. That happened automatically under the Provincial Court Act, so the salaries were in place following the resolution's adoption here. The reference to the pensions requires legislative change. This simply enacts that recommendation.

G. Farrell-Collins: I am seeking a bit of guidance from the Attorney General. I sat on that committee, and there were some recommendations made by the committee for the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to seek alternative forms of financing for a pension plan for those judges who continue to sit on the bench beyond the age of 65 up to the age of 70. Was that matter explored and is it reflected in these sections?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: That matter and several others that were included in the report are now being examined by the Ministry of Attorney General.

Sections 23 to 26 inclusive approved.

On section 27.

A. Warnke: I want to explore again the implications of this amendment as it affects rural areas, and perhaps have some clarification on how those areas are affected.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I think the note on the opposite page is probably the best way of understanding this particular section. It validates notices that may not be legal as a result of not strictly complying with another section of the act.

[ Page 9359 ]

G. Farrell-Collins: I am not a whiz on rural taxation policy, although I am getting better at it. The minister says that would make some notices legal that were illegal before or not in compliance with the act. I would like a little more specific detail on exactly what the intent is here. I can read it, but I want to know what it means.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Given that this is not within my responsibility, I think the best thing I can do is read the briefing note that was provided to me, which I think is much more explicit than the note in the bill.

"The amendment adds two subsections which will deem pre-1992 notices of forfeiture to have contained the proper detail when issued. This amendment will retroactively correct deficiencies found to invalidate the notice of forfeiture by the B.C. Court of Appeal in September 1992. The court found the notices were defective in two areas. The date of the forfeiture was referred to as November 30 of 'this year,' instead of the specific year, and the message to the charge holder about potential loss of their security was not sufficiently clear. The result of the decision is that if the Crown were challenged on almost any of the 1,650 forfeitures since 1972, the courts would determine that the forfeiture was invalid due to these deficiencies. This means the province cannot deal with the 900 forfeited properties held in inventory by the Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks and has financial exposure regarding the 750 properties already sold. The notice deficiencies are minor and were not misleading to the taxpayers. Retroactive legislation will legally correct the errors, as noted by the Court of Appeal, whether we agree or not."

G. Farrell-Collins: I'm glad I asked.

I am sure the government doesn't agree with the courts, just as they don't agree with the ruling of the court on the Social Service Tax Act. And I understand. My reading of that is that there's a huge amount of liability or exposure on the government's part.

If the Court of Appeal made a statement that the notices were not sufficiently clear for the person receiving them to understand them and if they're anything like the briefing notes that the minister just read, I can sympathize with them. Doesn't the government have to take some responsibility for that? It seems to me that the courts have ruled that the government blew it. Now the government is going back and saying: "Sorry, we blew it; but we're going to do it anyway." I don't want to spend a lot of time on it, but it pricked up my ears a little bit. I'd like to hear a little more about it.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: We're not allowed to have exhibits in the House, and I think the same rule applies to committee, so I won't talk about what I have in my hand. But the Court of Appeal decided that the final notice-of-forfeiture form, which said in one line "Amount due by November 30" and in another line "If taxes are not paid by this date, you will lose your property" was sufficiently unclear as to invalidate the earlier legislation.

So it's simply a matter of ensuring that.... The courts do this on occasion. They detect failures on the part of legislators to draft perfect language and develop perfect forms. When they detect these errors, they usually point it out to us, and our remedy is to come back here and try to fix it. We've had those kinds of things happen with traffic ticket forms on many occasions.

Sections 27 and 28 approved.

On section 29.

G. Farrell-Collins: I'm looking specifically at sections 29 and 30, but I have the same question for both. Maybe the minister could pass on the advice to me. My understanding from reading these two sections is that they merely allow the Workplace Act specifically and the Workers Compensation Act to comply with the new policy of applying workers' compensation to all employees. Perhaps he can advise me if that's the correct interpretation or if there's other meaning above and beyond that.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Prior to this amendment, the offence section of the Workplace Act would provide a remedy of penalties. This makes the Workers Compensation Act penalties apply to the Workplace Act as well, as I understand it.

G. Farrell-Collins: I've read through both acts and compared them, and I understand what's being done here. I'm just wondering about the intent. Is this a necessary amendment due to the changes in Bill 63, which has already passed in this House? Is it related to that, or is it an independent change to allow the same penalty and collection procedure for violations of the Workplace Act as exist under the Workers Compensation Act? And is that related to what we did under Bill 63?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: No, this particular amendment was requested by the governors of the WCB prior to the Bill 63 changes, and it is not related directly in that sense.

G. Farrell-Collins: Perhaps the Attorney General can explain -- I know what it does -- the reasons why we're doing this. What was the justification for the request, and what's the intent? What are we trying to achieve by doing this?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: It's to make the regulations symmetrical with the Workers Compensation Act regulations and also to deal with the enforcement issues which were very problematic, given that the only remedy was the offence provisions of the Workplace Act. As I said before, the assessments that could be levied by the Workers' Compensation Board are now available under this act, as they are under the Workers Compensation Act.

V. Anderson: Subsection 4(b)(d), just over the page, deals with the nature of the public hearings before making regulations. I see that they must have 

[ Page 9360 ]

public hearings before they make regulations. What is the nature of the regulations they are making that require these public hearings?

[10:45]

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Section 4 of the Workplace Act says that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may make regulations, etc., for the protection of health, safety and comfort of persons working in or contributing to the operation of a factory, office, etc. It is those kinds of regulations we're talking about here, and those have to be made as in 4(c)(2.1), following public hearings on those regulations.

G. Farrell-Collins: I am not trying to belabour the point. I'm just trying to get my mind around the reasons these changes are necessary. The only thing I can understand as to why these changes are necessary is that the workplace and the role that the Workers' Compensation Board plays in the workplace have been expanded. The need for the Workers' Compensation Board to set these regulations, therefore, and to do these types of things in all the workplaces in the province, is larger. That's why we need to make these changes to the Workplace Act. If I'm going down the wrong path, I would like direction as to why. I still don't have it clearly from the minister. I know he's working with something he's perhaps not totally familiar with in this act, and I'm finding it difficult to understand the rationale for making that change and what the need is for that change. I know who asked for it; I know what it does. I'm just wondering why we need to do that at this time.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: As I tried to explain earlier, it is simply enabling the Workers' Compensation Board to have some ability to actually enforce the rules under the Workplace Act. The offence provisions in the Workplace Act were not sufficient. The member talked more recently about the expansion of the coverage of the Workplace Act and the Workers Compensation Act, for that matter. That's not necessarily relevant to this particular provision. The Workplace Act previously covered some jurisdictions which were also covered by workers' compensation and some which were not. What we were really looking at here, as I understand it, is making the administration of the Workplace Act simpler and more effective by having comparable regulations and penalty provisions.

G. Farrell-Collins: I understand the portion on the enforcement provisions: the levies, the fines, the collection procedure, etc. The provision that now allows the board to make regulations under the Workplace Act is meant to put in a set of regulations under the Workplace Act parallel to what exists under the Workers Compensation Act. Is that correct? Is that the requirement there?

I guess we are now dealing more with section 30 of this bill, amending section 4 of the Workplace Act, but it's difficult to deal with one section without discussing the other.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The Workplace Act regulations were passed by cabinet until this change. This change will enable the Workers' Compensation Board, following public hearings, to enact regulations under the Workplace Act in the same way as they now can and have been able to do for some time under the Workers Compensation Act.

G. Farrell-Collins: It's more a change in the process that's taking place, not necessarily a change in all of the regulations. It's just an easier way of doing it, having the board do it of their own accord without having to come through cabinet every time they choose to change those regulations.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: There is an ongoing review of the regulations, including the old occupational environment regulations. The point here is that regulations are under review. The board wants the ability to work the same way they did with the Workers Compensation Act, and this will enable that.

Sections 29 to 31 inclusive approved.

On section 32.

J. Weisgerber: Section 32 is a transitional amendment that deals with section 9, which we discussed earlier at some length. During that debate, the Minister of Finance indicated that comparisons between the FTE count and the new actual staff utilization count would be available. In the meantime, someone has been kind enough to provide me with information that suggests that Judi Korbin has already done that. On page 34, in table 8 of her report, the comparison between the FTE count and the actual staff count has been done for the years 1991-94.

Before I deal with the amendment that is standing in my name, I wonder if the minister would confirm that the government agrees with the calculations of Judi Korbin for the years '93-94, which essentially say that the budget FTE count was 30,256, and some 7,900 previously exempted were added to bring the total up to 38,100. Is that the figure that the government will work from in their new actual staff utilization figures?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Unfortunately, the Minister of Finance is not here at the moment, so I can't answer the question precisely. I apologize for that. No doubt the numbers provided in the Korbin report will approximate those numbers, if not be them exactly. That is the basis on which the decision will be made. That has to be followed after section 32 passes.

J. Weisgerber: We've had the Minister of Finance refer regularly to the Korbin report. I'm somewhat disappointed that in our discussion of section 9 we didn't have the opportunity.... I think it's important for us to know. It's one thing to know whether or not there is a transposition of the numbers from FTE to the new count, so that someone can take and measure what happened last year, what happened this year, and what is going to happen by the end of this fiscal year -- 

[ Page 9361 ]

compared with simply abandoning one system and trusting the government to come up with a new count some time after the session adjourns, and then be judged at the end of the year on that new figure. I was hoping that I would be able to get some indication from the government that they at least agreed with the Korbin report on this area. That report has been used as the reference for many of the legislative changes that have been brought in, and it would be helpful to me, because I don't know that I will get an opportunity other than the one I have here tonight to get the government's consensus on that number.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: As I said before, I can't give a specific answer other than the fact of the number being provided as a result of the order-in-council that will be required under this section. What we will have for this year are the FTE counts under the old system in the estimates book, plus an order-in-council that establishes a number based on the new system -- the Public Service Act numbers -- which will be a larger number than the old system, obviously. That number will come down at some point following the passage of this bill. If there are overages in the total number at the end of the year, then there will have to be another order-in-council to enable those overages to occur. In the next fiscal year this new system will be fully operational.

J. Weisgerber: I don't want to harangue the minister, but the fact is that Judi Korbin was paid $1,200 a day -- $300,000 in total -- in order to produce a report that says the actual count is 38,100. The Minister of Finance decided not to reveal this when he suggested that some calculations would be made and a new number arrived at. Now the minister won't indicate whether or not the government supports that number. It's frustrating. I would have expected the government to say: "Yes, we spent a million dollars getting the Korbin report, and we're confident that the numbers reflected in it are accurate."

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I have no doubt that the numbers are close. When the order-in-council is passed, we will see whether they are exactly accurate or not.

J. Weisgerber: The only other point that I want to raise and put on the record is that according to Ms. Korbin's report, the number of public-service-based employees -- the number that the government proposes to change its count to -- has increased from 34,474 for the year '90-91 to 38,100. This indicates to me that by the government's new method of accounting for staff, there has been an increase of 3,626. Obviously, the minister wouldn't be able to confirm that -- or perhaps couldn't confirm it.

The Minister of Finance is coming in, so perhaps we'll get some numbers.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The only thing I can say in response is that I've read the Korbin report and seen the same numbers, as, I'm sure, every member of this Legislature has. The numbers stand on their own. In respect to this section, the order-in-council will be passed in due course, and we will see what the number is.

J. Weisgerber: I know that the Minister of Finance will have this number tucked away in the back of his mind. In our early discussions around the FTE count and the actual utilization numbers, no reference was made to the fact that Korbin had already calculated those numbers. If the minister is kind enough to confirm that he agrees with the 38,100 in the Korbin report as the actual utilization number that will be the basis of this year's count, then I'm happy to move on to the next section and withdraw my amendment.

Hon. G. Clark: No, unfortunately, I can't confirm that number. If we had confidence that the number was absolutely accurate, we would have put that in the section here and not had to rely on an order-in-council. We want to make sure that this is an absolutely accurate count of the number of Public Service Act employees. The Korbin commission has been very close, but we want to make sure that the base line that we're dealing with is completely consistent with reality.

I'm a bit frustrated by this as well, because this is a much broader definition than anything we have had in the past -- including things like the liquor board and others. The Korbin commission has estimates; we're trying to get the actual numbers. So it will be very soon. It will be close to the Korbin numbers, but we don't have 100 percent confidence that the numbers are sufficiently accurate to actually put them in the act.

J. Weisgerber: The Korbin report gave actual numbers for the liquor control board and others. As I said to the Attorney General, one would have expected that with a report commissioned at $1,200 a day for the commissioner -- $300,000 for her work alone -- and $1.4 million for the report, one would have been able to say: "Yes, we agree with the numbers; we have some confidence that the information that we gave Ms. Korbin was translated into some accurate numbers." I don't want to prolong this, but would the minister have the confidence within 100 one way or the other?

The Chair: For the clarification of the Chair, did the Chair hear the Leader of the Third Party withdraw his amendment?

J. Weisgerber: Unfortunately, I didn't get the answer I was hoping to get, and I'm not in a position to try to barter one off against the other. The amendment to section 9 didn't pass, and there doesn't seem to be any logic to pursuing the amendment to section 32, so I will withdraw the amendment standing in my name.

The Chair: Thank you for the clarification, hon. member.

Sections 32 to 34 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

[ Page 9362 ]

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Bill 80, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1993, reported complete with amendment to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

[11:00]

Hon. R. Blencoe: I call committee on Bill 58.

MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS, RECREATION AND HOUSING STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 1993

The House in committee on Bill 58; D. Streifel in the chair.

On section 1.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I want to take a few minutes on section 1 to make some clarifications, and to put the record straight in terms of some of the misunderstandings that have been shared by the opposition and some industries. I met yesterday with a number of people from the mining industry and others who are interested in this section. As I have always said, this section is basically reinstituting the status quo of legislation that was introduced by the former government in 1987-88 and 1990, and I will go through that in detail later on if so desired.

The first point I want to make is that this government believes that everyone -- including businesses and individuals -- must pay their fair share of taxes. If businesses find ways to avoid taxes, ways that contravene the spirit of duly passed legislation, their tax burden is transferred to individual citizens, and that simply isn't fair. The purpose of section 1 is to ensure that everyone's tax obligations under the Assessment Act are clearly defined, by removing any ambiguity so that the intent of the original legislation introduced by the former government is maintained. By clarifying the definition of industrial improvements, Bill 58 seeks to support, not change, the status quo that has existed since the former government amended the Assessment Act in 1987. Industrial improvements are valued for assessment purposes on the basis of depreciated replacement costs. The significant change from the pre-1987 valuation based on market value was not affected by two subsequent amendments in 1988 and 1990 -- I categorically state that tonight. The former minister is here who put those through, and I have some comments from that minister at the time, if we so desire.

Occasionally there are circumstances when this government sees eye to eye with the previous administration. We agree with their decision to assist local governments by passing legislation to keep the property tax base stable. More than that, we have taken action through this bill to ensure that that stability will continue. Local governments rely on a stable tax base because they do not have the flexibility to finance deficits to help them bridge economic cycles. This stability was threatened, because the Assessment Act was open to interpretation that could have exempted certain industrial properties from paying their fair share of property taxes -- a situation that would have resulted in higher taxes for individual property owners.

Bill 58 clarifies the definition of an industrial improvement to ensure that all industrial properties are subject to property taxes. It will not capture any new properties within the definition of industrial improvements. It will not affect the valuation of a plant if its uses change. If the equity and machinery associated with the current uses are removed and the plant is used for a purpose not listed under section 26.1(1), the plant will no longer be defined as an industrial improvement; in this case the plant will be valued at the market value of the new use. The British Columbia Assessment Authority has assured me that the amendments proposed in Bill 58 will not affect these valuation procedures. It also will not in any way affect existing legislation designed to assist the owners of plants that are shut down. A plant that is permanently closed can still have its valuation reduced to 10 percent of the cost of the improvement, as can a plant that is closed for a minimum of three years.

Bill 58 will prevent the erosion of the property tax base at the community level by eliminating the ambiguity in existing legislation. The chief characteristic of any property tax -- the thing that makes it suitable as a local tax -- is its stability. The best way to ensure stability is to base taxation on the value of the property, not on the income or profits of residential, commercial and industrial occupants. A property tax sensitive to income or profit would result in an unstable tax base, and that is unacceptable, because it would shift an unfair portion of the tax load from industries to individuals. These are taxes. There are taxes -- income tax, for example -- that are sensitive to profits. Our responsibility is to blend various taxes, including income, property and consumption taxes, in a fair and balanced way. I believe that this act helps us fulfil this responsibility. It does so without changing the closure allowances for industrial improvements. We are well aware of the devastating impact the closure of a major plant can have on a community. We believe, however, that the assessment system is not the best; in fact, it is not even a particularly efficient way to assist communities and companies in trouble. There are other tools such as the job protection commissioner designed expressly for problems such as these. The government is committed to consultation with stakeholders when we are changing policy. We are not changing policy in this amendment. The amendment corrects a technical ambiguity that could affect the stability of the tax base, and we are returning to the status quo.

As I said, I met yesterday with the chair and vice-chair of the Canadian Property Tax Association and the president of the Mining Association of B.C. to discuss this amendment. The concerns expressed by these associations were fully answered as far as I am concerned. They now understand that Bill 58 does not represent a change to but rather an affirmation of the status quo and will not affect existing valuation procedures following a plant closure or change of use, and I have confirmed that understanding in a letter to them today, and I have shared that with the opposition.

[ Page 9363 ]

In closing, I am going to make what is probably an unusual statement. Because the issue of assessment is so delicate and people misunderstand it so quickly, I think it's important to affirm that this bill was introduced to ensure a fair and equitable stable property tax base for the benefit of local governments. As I have previously noted, section 1 of Bill 58 simply clarifies the definition of industrial improvements thereby preventing the erosion of the property tax base at the community level, and I clearly want to put that on the record to ensure that there is no misunderstanding in this area.

F. Gingell: I'm lost for words. That was quite a speech. We haven't come prepared with a speech, but we don't need one, because we know that we have fairness and equity on our side. The first problem is that there is a letter that I have not received. I don't know anything about that, and I've spoken to the critic for Municipal Affairs, and he doesn't have it either. I do have a letter from the proponents, but I do not have the response from the minister that he spoke about.

At any rate, the first item of business is the opening statement of the minister where he talks about a fair share of taxes. On that issue we're all on the same side. Taxes have to be fair, and in this particular case the whole basis of taxation is that the bill is divided up -- or the mill rate is applied to some value, and there is some process of determining value. What is happening here is what happened this time last year. The Assessment Authority lose a case, and like crybabies they come back to the House looking to make changes, because they don't like to lose. The cases that were brought up last year to deal with the Grand Pacific Hotel in Victoria and the Hyatt Regency in Vancouver were not loopholes at all. They were the right and proper decisions determined by the judges of our land.

This particular case, decided by Justices Goldie, Southin and Carrothers, I believe, is a clear instance where the interpretation of the act produced an assessment which was patently unfair. A facility had been built. It had cost something like $5 million. It didn't work, because it was wrongly designed, not because of problems with the value of the ore or the reduction in metal prices. It never would work; it was valueless. There was a difference of, I think, something like an assessed value of $5 million and an appraisal for scrap of $300,000. Clearly the value wasn't $5 million. There wasn't any business there. They were closed down. They were in trouble over problems to do with discharges, and they had a mill that didn't work. Just because they had poured $5 million down the drain in building it -- or $6 million or whatever the amount may have been -- is really immaterial. The only important question was: what was that worth?

The minister started off by saying that all they are trying to do is put the legislation back the way it was. Before this change, the legislation read: "'industrial improvement' means an improvement that is part of a plant that is designed, built and can be used" -- the words "and can be used" have been extracted -- "for the purpose of one or more of the following..." -- then a long list. From the previous legislation, it was clearly intended that if it couldn't be used for the purpose for which it had been built, then it was not to be valued under section 26.1. It clearly had to be valued under some other section that dealt with market value. That's the whole basis of this property taxation. To suggest that you've got to have them closed down by charging outrageous municipal taxes against a business operation that is closed down and out of business.... You have now got to the point where you bring in the job protection commissioner. The minister believes that the protection is to bring in the job protection commissioner. That isn't any way to run a ship.

The minister also said that there has been consultation. Well, there may have been consultation in the last 48 hours, but we received substantial complaints that there had been no consultation before the amendments to section 26.1 under section 1 of Bill 58 were brought in. It isn't any good saying: "Once we've decided what we're going to do, once we've printed it up, once we've got it written in stone and we're not going to change it, then we will consult with you." That is meaningless consultation.

In my opinion -- and I am sure the minister will disagree with me -- the reason this amendment has come forward is simply because the B.C. Assessment Authority has lost another tax case. Their feelings have been hurt, and the best way of solving the problem is to convince the minister to extract from the act, and that can be used so you have the opportunity to create higher assessments on property that cannot be used for the purposes for which it was built. That simply isn't equitable. During the course of debate in this House on the issues of taxation, the most important issue is that it is seen to be fair and equitable.

The problem of the growing underground economy in this province is caused by high taxes. It is caused by people believing that they aren't being treated fairly. The way the justices of British Columbia interpreted this act to me -- and I have read their judgment -- was clearly the intention of the original legislation and was clearly in the interest of fairness and equity. I plead with the minister to set this amendment aside and let it sit, and have some consultation. We will be back to this House next spring. You'll have lots of time, I believe, to more clearly understand the consequences of the amendments you propose. That is an honest plea for the minister to stand this section down. Let us have an opportunity to talk to other people and to recognize all the consequences of this very ill-timed and ill-conceived change.

Hon. R. Blencoe: First I have a comment to that member directly. He gave virtually the same speech last year, predicting that the sky was going to fall with Bill 66 and that all sorts of horrible things were going to happen, in terms of the amendments we brought in. We insisted they were correct, in terms of loopholes and what was happening to the tax base. And you know what, hon. member? It has not happened, and you know it, hon. member.

F. Gingell: You decided not to follow through.

Hon. R. Blencoe: You know, hon. member.

[ Page 9364 ]

First let me say, in terms of consulting, that obviously we consult when we're changing policy. I categorically state there is no change in policy here; we're not changing policy. We're ensuring the stability in the tax base. In a minute I will give you some numbers, in terms of some communities that some members may be interested in, concerning the impact on the residential homeowner if we support the opposition's viewpoint in not going through with this legislation.

This bill is not directed solely at the one case, as you suggest, hon. member. Nor will the bill prevent that mine from closing, removing machinery and thus getting a lower valuation. Quite frankly, hon. member, I'm surprised at you. It's not a matter of the B.C. Assessment Authority being a loser. It's a matter of social responsibility and of equity in the system, of ensuring that the tax base is stable and that there is indeed some equal sharing of the tax load. We have an impasse like last year's. I disagree with you.

I go back, and will later, to reiterate what the original legislation was all about and why we're maintaining the status quo of the former government. We'll even quote some former ministers, in terms of what they said and what we're trying to reinstitute here tonight regarding this issue. I'll get an opportunity to do that later, hon. member.

L. Fox: I'm not sure whether this is second reading or committee stage, given the long dissertations. I found the Liberal opposition leader's comments rewarding, given that only one member of that opposition party spoke against this bill. He spoke in favour of the bill, in fact, and congratulated the government for taking action that they and the previous government should have taken, with respect to the contents of Bill 58.

I'm pleased that during this debate the Liberal Party has identified what the Socreds had identified initially: the concerns -- specifically as addressed by the Leader of the Opposition -- around section 1. The minister obviously had a guilty conscience after second reading, because he came back with a 15- or 20-minute speech to open committee stage. The Leader of the Official Opposition was quite right: what prompted this change were two claims and two court cases, Carolin Mines and Fletcher Challenge. What this section does -- and the minister alluded to the intent of previous legislation -- is change that intent merely by removing the four words that were mentioned earlier by the Leader of the Opposition. It changes the intent of the whole section of this particular act.

I want to read into the record a legal opinion I have obtained on this section of the act, for the benefit of the minister and for those listening, because I believe it takes issue with the minister's comments.

"Bill 58 amends the definition of industrial improvement so that not only profitable operating plants are included within the classification, but as well those which are struggling, obsolete, physically incapable of operating or even closed, either temporarily or permanently. Two court decisions have concluded that some plants included in the latter categories were not industrial improvements" -- those are the two court cases that I alluded to -- "under the existing definition. The usual impact of industrial improvement classification will be a significant property tax penalty as those plants, as industrial improvements, will be subject to both higher tax rate and higher assessments than if assessed under another classification at market value. For example, even a permanently closed plant would be assessed at 10 percent of the replacement cost under the new industrial improvement regime. There are unlikely to be many plants which will be added to the tax rolls as industrial improvements as a result of this change and little new revenue to the province will result. The amendment appears to be introduced for administrative convenience alone. However, the property tax impact on those few plants, which are to be included as industrial improvements as a result of this change, is likely to be significant and could lead to an earlier closure and demolition of struggling plants. A reluctance to mothball those plants in hopes of improved markets will be in favour of early demolition and the resulting impact on the workforce and the province's income tax revenues that such decisions will entail.

"Given that more revenue to the government is generally provided by personal income taxes of the employees in the struggling but operating plant than by property tax, it seems dubious tax policy to encourage the demolition over operation or over preservation of a closed plant until the market returns."

That's the issue that we have seen, and I will cite one other issue, because this is a very important one. We have seen many instances where plants have indeed been closed.

I want to make one other case known, because this incident happened in Revelstoke, involving a mine of Bethlehem Resources Corp., which is a property of Noranda. When they purchased this mine, they had to spend two years before they could put that mine into production or employ a soul. This particular legislation, as it was written in the previous act, allowed that particular mine to have a reduced assessment, which had a cost in taxation of $34,000 a year. This change in legislation would have impacted that mine and brought it to $300,000 a year. It would have stopped the purchase of that mine, and the people working there now would not have had the opportunity to do so. Because the municipal and the provincial tax base under this legislation, as it is written and before us today, would have put such a financial hardship on any purchaser of that property, it never would have been purchased and put into production. That's what this change in this legislation does.

I'm concerned that this minister doesn't understand the impact that it's going to have on future investment. We know of many mines right now that are mothballed. If this legislation goes through, it will take away the ability to hold that mill in a mothballed state until it's either viable for somebody else to purchase or viable for the existing owner to reopen it. This legislation is going to prevent that. The minister should know that he holds within his grasp, within this legislation, the opportunity to kill the industrial sector of this province which is presently waiting to reopen.

Hon. R. Blencoe: First I want to respond to the Leader of the Opposition about his letter. Hon. member, my staff have confirmed that a copy of the letter you are 

[ Page 9365 ]

talking about was delivered by hand to your office at 4 p.m. today. That has been confirmed; you have it.

Another point I want to take up was one that crossed my mind as I listened to my hon. colleague across the way. It was that the Legislature makes the laws; we don't necessarily rely on the courts to make our rules. In this bill, as in all other bills dealing with assessment in the last few years, the laws have been made by the Legislature.

Responding to my hon. colleague across the way, I would just like to tell him again that the 10 percent closure provisions are not changed; they're still there. Closure allowances are still present....

L. Fox: Not according to this.

The Chair: Hon. members, the debate should progress through the Chair.

[11:30]

Hon. R. Blencoe: The ability of a plant to change use and get lower taxation is not changed.

The Assessment and Property Tax Reform Act (No. 2), 1990, which was introduced by a member on your side -- the member for Okanagan-Vernon, I believe -- was a major overhaul of the definition of improvement. The legislation was in response to a series of court decisions from Ontario and B.C. that defined machinery and equipment very broadly to include items typically thought of as buildings. It amended definitions to be very explicit on what is defined as an improvement so that certain types of improvements would not be able to escape taxation. The purpose was to provide stability in municipal tax bases. Much of what we are doing in Bill 58 is to return to the status quo before that legislation was introduced.

I want to quote the hon. member who was minister at the time in terms of his bill:

"The new measures address municipal concerns about the erosion of the industrial tax base resulting from a number of judicial decisions that have narrowed the scope of property that can be assessed under the current legislation.

"The application of the definition to the 1987-1990 period will ensure that a number of industrial improvements which were assessed for those years will remain assessable, and that municipal tax refunds in respect of possible court decisions will not be required.... However, these measures will keep unintended deletions from the existing property tax base from impacting local government, while maintaining competitive industrial property tax levels."

It's interesting how things change when you sit on the other side of the House.

I also want to go back to the 1987 legislation introduced by Mr. Couvelier, which is part of the discussion we're having tonight. That legislation, particularly section 26.1, the one that concerns many people, created procedures by which major industrial properties would be valued -- assessment based on cost rather than income. It included properties such as mines, smelters and pulp mills, for a total of 400 in the province. The purpose, clearly stated, was to restore certainty to the tax base for municipalities. I won't go into the comments made by Mr. Couvelier at the time. Basically, they were very similar to what other members of the Social Credit Party have said over the years. All I'm saying is that we're returning to what we had before that was introduced by the former government. The 1993 amendment is an amendment to the definition of industrial improvement. The purpose is to maintain procedures created in 1987 and continue to provide stability in the municipal tax base.

Hon. member, you are not just arguing to drop Bill 58, you're quite obviously asking to drop the 1987 legislation and make communities hostage to business decisions and cycles. I would point out that if we supported what you're saying today, and all the industrial property owners took your advice, the increase for the average residential taxpayer in your community of Prince George would be $351, because of what you're supporting tonight. If we allowed all the industrial property owners to use this, the residential tax increase for the average property owner in Vanderhoof, in your riding, would be $262. In the Leader of the Third Party's riding, Peace River South, the increase for the average residential property would be $1,707. For Tumbler Ridge....

The Chair: Order, hon. minister. The hon. member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi on a point of order.

D. Mitchell: The minister is raising some interesting points in attacking members of the opposition at 11:30 at night. Maybe he wants to go further, and maybe we should let him. I thought we were here trying to pass Bill 58. We're here to discuss section 1, which deals with some very important changes to the Assessment Act, and the minister, incredibly, is launching attacks on members of the opposition. I wonder why.

The Chair: Hon. member, your point of order is relevancy. If the committee and the minister would bear in mind standing order 61.... Speeches in Committee of the Whole must be strictly relevant. We seem to have lapsed into a second reading style of debate this evening -- whether it's the hour or whether it's the Chair, I'm not quite sure.

L. Fox: The minister spouted the fact that in Prince George they would receive a $300 residential tax increase and in Vanderhoof a $200 tax increase. I want the minister to state the other side of the equation: on what assumptions are those increases based? Closure of every plant in every community? Is that the assumption on which he makes these ludicrous charges? Or is it straight cheap politics and numbers picked out of the air? The minister should have to justify on what basis he quotes those numbers.

Hon. R. Blencoe: What I am saying is that if we do not introduce....

L. Fox: Justify it.

Hon. R. Blencoe: Just calm down, hon. member. What I'm saying is that if we do not introduce this amendment and ensure that all industrial properties and all classes of property pay their fair share, and if we support what the hon. member is suggesting here 

[ Page 9366 ]

tonight, there would be a transfer of tax load to those residential taxpayers. That is the calculation. If every industrial property took advantage of what you're saying tonight, and we didn't do this....

Interjection.

Hon. R. Blencoe: Yes, hon. member, I'm saying that -- that's right.

The Chair: Order, hon. members.

F. Gingell: To start off, there was a little look of unsureness on the opposite side of the House when the member for Prince George-Omineca referred to the Fletcher Challenge case. It's Crown Forest Industries Ltd. v. Courtenay Assessor, Area 06, 1987, volume 10 of the British Columbia Law Reports, second edition, page 145, of the British Columbia Court of Appeal. I'm sure you will make a note of that reference, and maybe that will give you some second thoughts.

In the course of an earlier response, the minister was speaking about the movement of the tax burden from industries to business. It's important to state that we aren't talking about there being a change in the method of valuation when the property can be used for the purpose for which it was constructed. It is simply ridiculous to suggest that if a business has closed down and isn't operating, and is virtually in the hands of the receiver -- the trustee in bankruptcy in Canada; Chapter 11 in the United States or the Corporation Creditors' Protection Act under our federal laws -- the burden isn't going to be transferred, because you can't collect taxes from a bankrupt business. They simply aren't able to pay them. I guess what you'll do is take possession of the real property under a tax sale, and be stuck with the problem of trying to sell off what turns out to be junk.

The issue involved in the proposed amendments to section 1 deals with fairness and equity. I would like to read one short sentence from the decision in the American Swiss Mining Corp. case on the Carolin mine. Mr. Justice Goldie said: "To arrive at actual value by determining the cost of replicating what has always been an economically dysfunctional plant would verge on the absurd." It clearly is absurd. I can't accept the minister's statement that all they're trying to do is move the rules back to the way they were originally. All the words in the act have a specific meaning; they are there for a purpose. When the previous government was writing the original act, they put in the words "and can be used" that you now wish to extract. They must have been there for a purpose. One of the good things that has happened to the political environment of British Columbia -- if it is true, as the minister says, that the original intention of the Social Credit government was to create the circumstances that you have now.... Thank goodness there's a third party in this House, because clearly, if that was what they intended -- and I don't believe that to be true, but then, they didn't know what they were doing.... I would like to suggest that the hon. minister doesn't have the right feel for what is clearly the intention of assessments for property tax. The purpose is not to raise a specific amount of money; the purpose is only to divide in a fair and equitable manner the burden that has to be shared by all for the delivery of services by regional or municipal governments.

The minister also stated that it is not the job of the courts to write legislation or to determine legislation. But it is the role and the responsibility of the courts to interpret the intention of the legislation. Justices Goldie, Southin and Carrothers did exactly that. They read the words of the act with great care and then proceeded to bring in their judgment. I really think that we are creating a horror story here. We will be putting ourselves into a set of circumstances where unreasonable assessments of property taxes will be assessed against bankrupt corporations and non-operating plants, which will not be collectable. There will suddenly be at some subsequent date a need for the municipality or the regional district or whoever is involved not only to collect this year's taxes, with a changed tax base -- because now the business really is closed down, particularly after the 30th -- but also to pick up the shortfalls from the previous years because of this minister giving businesses a little push over the cliff into receivership.

[11:45]

We do not suggest a change for the purpose of continuing a cost of replication, subject to some reasonable depreciation for the purpose of providing assessments for MIPs. That is not the intention, and I clearly understand that they are different from residential houses, where there is a market and they are buying and selling. If you were to value these types of businesses on income only, or the price of ore, the price of labour, the demand for the metal, changes in transportation costs and strikes, all these kinds of things would create a set of circumstances that would make it very difficult to value them. We're not talking about that. We're just saying that when the equipment doesn't work, when it's no darn good, and when it's merely junk, do not value it on its replacement cost. That's illogical and, as Mr. Goldie said, it is clearly absurd. I would ask the minister to reconsider my earlier request to stand this section down and think about it in the ensuing six months, and bring back something next spring if he believes that is appropriate.

[E. Barnes in the chair.]

Hon. R. Blencoe: Like last year, we have had hours of debate on the philosophy of this, and I disagree with the member. Fundamentally, I think it is my responsibility to ensure that there are no massive value reductions on temporarily unprofitable operations....

Interjection.

Hon. R. Blencoe: Well, the Carolin mine was permanently unprofitable, hon. member.

We're quite concerned that the precedent might also cover the temporarily unprofitable situations, and we have to be concerned about that. Much of the original legislation dealt with that kind of issue. We are obviously concerned about the stability of the tax base 

[ Page 9367 ]

for local government, and that's the advice we are accepting.

Last year, hon. member, you and I had a fundamental disagreement on Bill 66, and I contend that what you said didn't come true, and everything's worked out just fine....

Interjection.

Hon. R. Blencoe: No, no. Nothing was changed at all.

F. Gingell: The night is getting late, and our having an exchange back and forth isn't going to serve any purpose, because we're two people who aren't intent on changing our minds. So with one last remark, I will take my seat. I honestly believe, Mr. Minister, that you're trying to kill a mosquito with a nuclear bomb. This is overkill. We are talking about an unusual set of circumstances that should be taken into account and should be able to be interpreted the way the legislation was originally written.

L. Fox: I will try to keep my contribution pertinent and factual, if the minister will promise that he will do the same. In the case of Carolin Mines, the minister is saying that he would like the mine to do away with the improvements in order to lessen its obligations. That's really unfortunate.

I spoke earlier about a Bethlehem Resources property in the Revelstoke area. They purchased the property from Noranda in 1989. After purchasing it, they had to hold it for a further two years as a non-productive mine. During those two years they were able to achieve a reduction in taxes to $34,000 a year. This amendment would have raised their taxes to $300,000 a year. Since 1991 the mine has had an annual payroll, including contractor personnel, of approximately $6 million. It now produces about $88.7 million worth of copper and zinc, at a time when the B.C. economy -- particularly the mining industry -- has been depressed. That's what the previous legislation has allowed.

Under this legislation, in order to save taxes, Noranda Mines would have had to knock down those improvements and would probably not be open today as a result. That economy would be lost to Revelstoke. That's what I'm talking about. I'm not talking about the fact, as the minister suggested earlier, that I'm not concerned about the local taxpayers and that I favour transferring all this tax to residential taxpayers. We are looking for a system that protects the opportunity for the workers of this province at some later time to have a job and lessen their dependency on the welfare rolls, which I'm sure this government should be concerned with. That's one case.

I'll give the minister another case. Endako Mines shut down for three and a half years because molybdenum was not at a market value at which they could operate. That mine currently is back operating in the municipality of Fraser Lake; it employs in the vicinity of 150 people and provides a tremendous payroll to that community. The way this legislation is drafted, a shutdown for that period of time would have caused Placer Development or Endako Mines to level those improvements. That's the only way they could save on the taxes -- a non-operating way. Given an unknown market and that they don't know whether or not there is going to be a market, because ore prices are certainly difficult to predict today, they would have done that to save these horrendous kinds of taxation we'll see under this legislation.

I hope the minister would try to understand the idea and the way I'm trying to put this forward -- in a very important and, I think, factual way. It's not a case of a difference in philosophical beliefs. It's a case of concern for future jobs in the rural parts of this province, where people are dependent on the resource industry to supply those jobs. That's the issue.

Hon. R. Blencoe: Again, obviously, it's late; we've been here some months and patience is fraying. Hon. member, much of what you're saying and the case you're suggesting is somewhat hypothetical.

L. Fox: It's fact.

Hon. R. Blencoe: Hon. member, it's obviously a judgment call on our part. We believe the possibility of interpretation is potentially very dangerous to local government. Many of the concerns we have today were the same ones that were expressed in earlier legislation on these very same issues.

We had a meeting on some of the issues you are raising now with the Canadian Property Tax Association yesterday, and the president of the Mining Association of B.C. was there. On two or three occasions in that meeting, when we clarified what the legislation was or was not doing, Mr. Livingstone clearly indicated that he felt that we had cleared up the misunderstandings.

I quite agree that it is a judgment call. My colleague the Leader of the Opposition says that we may be going too far in terms of the analogy used. I guess that is a judgment call in terms of what we feel, to ensure that we protect the tax base and the stability of the local tax base for local government, and to be sure that there is equity in terms of who pays at the local level. In our estimation, if the interpretation or decision made in the Carolin Mines case is used widely, there is no question that there will be substantial instability. The playing field will be uneven. We are going to disagree on that, as we disagreed last year on Bill 66. I keep saying that those charges you made at the time simply haven't come true.

L. Fox: The minister spoke a few moments ago about a meeting he had with three individuals -- John Lakes, Gary Livingstone and Jeanne Elliot -- and he suggested they left the office with some comfort and were satisfied. That isn't a direct quote, but it is the impression he left. For the record, I want to read a paragraph from a letter I received from those individuals, which....

The Chair: Order, hon. member. I want to remind the committee that we are in committee, and there are guidelines with respect to the rules of debate. I was not in the chair, of course, for the matter you're referring to, 

[ Page 9368 ]

and the minister may indeed have been stretching the guidelines in raising it. But we are dealing with industrial improvements and the definition of same, and I'm having difficulty seeing the line of debate relating to the section.

L. Fox: In fact, this is pertinent to section 1 and industrial improvement. It reflects a meeting in which a concerned group was discussing this section with him, and the minister left us with an opinion that that group went away satisfied. With respect to that, I would like to read this, because it is pertinent to this section and certainly to what the minister suggests.

"We left with the understanding that there's no change in policy regarding major industrial properties, and with the promise of a statement in the House and that the minister would take under advisement the wording of the legislation, with a possible addition of a few words or lines to clarify the same." That group left that meeting with this. To this point, I haven't seen any changes within the legislation, as he promised those individuals, nor have I seen any statement that would comply with the promises that he made to them.

Perhaps I will leave him overnight to consider that. At this time I move 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 report progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. M. Sihota: It is with great pleasure that I move adjournment.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:58 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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