1993 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 35th Parliament HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.
(Hansard)
THURSDAY, JULY 29, 1993
Afternoon Sitting
Volume 12, Number 23
[ Page 9381 ]
The House met at 2:05 p.m.
B. Copping: In the gallery today are two visitors from Calgary, Alberta: my sister and brother-in-law, Joan and Keith Hillaby. Would the House please make them welcome.
G. Wilson: In the gallery today is an individual who is a fine campaigner and a key part of the strategy to renew and redevelop my mandate as leader of the party. I'd like everybody to make welcome my son Matthew.
Hon. G. Clark: I want to just rise to pay a brief tribute to the Leader of the Opposition, who may not be Leader of the Opposition when we come back, although I suspect he might well be. I noticed today that the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and a member from Richmond are both emulating his dress code in deference to him. I'd like to just say that he obviously carried himself with distinction and dignity, and I hope he's back as Leader of the Opposition when we reconvene.
Hon. D. Miller: In the gallery is the mayor of Ucluelet, His Worship Bill Irving, who is down with a delegation from the region to discuss the very serious issues that they are dealing with these days. I would ask the House to make him welcome.
Hon. L. Boone tabled the annual report of the Public Service Commission for the year 1992-93.
Hon. G. Clark tabled the annual report of the business done under the Public Service Benefit Plan Act during the fiscal year ending March 31, 1992.
SUGGESTED SUMMER ACTIVITIES FOR CABINET MEMBERS
F. Gingell: I feel a little nonplussed, after those kind words, about standing up and asking some scathing and penetrating questions. Although it hasn't been the start of the summer for the rest of the province because of the weather, perhaps today will be the start of the summer for all of us.
Recognizing that during the past six months this government has trampled on freedom of speech, favoured the unions once again, thrust CORE into disrepute, started the process of demolishing health care and put the cost on all of the taxpayers, will the Premier please promise us that he will stay out of Victoria for the rest of the year?
Hon. M. Harcourt: If that's scathing, I really feel scorched. I might say that the Leader of the Opposition read that question about as well as it was written. It is not going to deter me from coming to the magnificent city of Victoria, where I went to elementary school, junior high school and high school. It's a wonderful city and a great part of British Columbia, and I intend to come here many times.
F. Gingell: Carrying on with the question of what we plan to do this summer, I'd like to start off by thanking the Attorney General for his consistently attentive and courteous responses to us. But I was listening to him the other evening on the freedom-of-information act. He was talking about B.C. Rail. B.C. Rail does have preferred shares and capital leases that are guaranteed by the province of British Columbia. Will the Attorney General please promise to take the financial statements of B.C. Rail home this summer and read them all, including the notes to the financial statements?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I've been looking forward to some leisure reading this summer, and I'll add that to my list.
F. Gingell: In line with the recommendations of the Seaton report, I would appreciate a promise from the Minister of Finance that he won't speculate with the taxpayers' money this summer the way he has in the last few months.
Hon. G. Clark: Obviously, hon. Speaker, it's the last question period. I would like to say for the record that the investment branch of British Columbia never speculates with the people's money. We have an outstanding track record -- it's among the best in the country -- for minimizing risk and maximizing returns for the taxpayers. I can give members of the House comfort that it will continue to operate without political interference to do just that, which is the job it's been doing for the last several years.
ENERGY SUPPLY
J. Weisgerber: My question is to the Premier as well. In just 20 months, this government has managed to reduce British Columbia to being a net importer of electricity for the first time in its history. Not only are we importing electricity from Alberta, we're also importing it from the United States. How in the world could the Premier allow this mess to occur?
Hon. M. Sihota: There are a lot of things that this government can influence and control, but one thing it can't is the amount of rain and snow that falls during the winter in British Columbia. I want to assure the hon. member that we're working on that problem as well.
More seriously, because of the low snow pack and level of rain this year -- as the hon. member knows, given concerns in the Williston Lake area in the constituency he represents -- there have been problems with generating enough electricity within the confines of our system. It's important that we keep the lights on in Vancouver and in Kamloops, and it's important that our industries remain competitive and produce the products that the world demands. This year we've had an aberration in the weather patterns. As a
[ Page 9382 ]
consequence, it's true that we've had to acquire electricity from elsewhere.
J. Weisgerber: For 18 months this government sat on its hands and ignored the fact that demand in British Columbia was outstripping our ability to generate electricity. Will either the Premier, the minister responsible for Hydro or the Minister of Energy reinstate the policies of the former government, which encouraged the development of independent power producers, wood waste generation, waste heat generation, waste coal generation and thermal generation? All of those policies were put on hold while that silly Energy Council traipsed around British Columbia for 18 months. Will you make a decision and reinstate those policies today?
Hon. M. Sihota: First, this government inherited the sad legacy of the previous administration. It's a consequence of the fiscal mismanagement of that previous administration that we found this province in the economic difficulties it is in. We've turned around the economic situation of this province. Of the 90,000 jobs created in this country during the last six months, 32,000 were created right here in British Columbia. We have said that there is a place in British Columbia for investors from all over the world to invest. We welcome people from the Pacific Rim and the rest of this country to invest, be it in projects....
[2:15]
Interjections.
The Speaker: I call the House to order and ask the minister to immediately conclude his reply.
Hon. M. Sihota: I want the hon. member to be assured that, whether it be policies such as the social-costing framework we've announced through IPPs or expansion of Hydro's facilities....
The Speaker: Thank you, hon. minister.
J. Weisgerber: I have this final question to the Premier: who does the Premier hold responsible for this mess? Is it the Energy Council?
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please, hon. members.
J. Weisgerber: Again to the Premier: who does he hold responsible? Does he hold responsible those political patronage hacks he appointed to the Energy Council? Is it people like Gathercole? Are they the people responsible? Or is it the Minister of Energy? Or the minister responsible for Hydro? Or is it the responsibility of the government and the Premier himself for failing to deal with this problem, which was completely avoidable? This problem with energy supply is the direct responsibility of this government. Will the Premier do the honourable thing and accept responsibility on behalf of his government?
Hon. M. Harcourt: I hold the previous government responsible for the mess, and I take responsibility for cleaning it up. [Applause.]
The Speaker: Order, please, hon. members. The Premier will continue his reply.
Hon. M. Harcourt: This is the last question period, and we have many questions that the members opposite have been dying to get out. I will sit down.
MOTOR VEHICLE SALES LEVELS
L. Stephens: My question is for the Minister of Finance. Twice in this House the Minister of Finance has used misleading numbers to justify his punitive tax on the car industry. He claimed that sales have actually increased, but he failed to tell us that he was not using retail sales figures but rather vehicle factory orders, which include trucks, buses, recreational vehicles, and commercial and government fleet sales. Will the minister now admit that consumer car sales have actually dropped by up to 15 percent since he introduced his punitive and poorly planned budget?
Hon. G. Clark: It is true that we have been using total sales in British Columbia, including light trucks, vans and fleet sales. Those are the same apples-and-apples numbers that we have been using each and every year. Total sales -- all those sales the member referred to -- are up 13 percent in May and 4.6 percent in June over May, the highest sales of any province in Canada.
MOTOR VEHICLE SALES FRAUD
L. Stephens: My second question is to the Attorney General. A new vehicle transfer document has been designed and is at the printers. The Coordinated Law Enforcement Unit's report to the minister's joint committee is said to have shown the Attorney General that there is massive fraud going on in reporting vehicle sales. Simply changing a piece of paper will not eliminate fraud. What is this minister doing to ensure that enforcement and compliance with a new form will be more effective than with the old form?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Since taking a question on notice today might not be particularly appropriate, I will undertake to get an answer to the member in writing.
SALE OF USED GOVERNMENT VEHICLES
L. Stephens: My question is to the Minister of Government Services. It has come to the attention of people in the automotive industry -- through audits of vehicle transfer forms -- that the provincial disposal lot is selling most of its used cars to back-yard, unlicensed dealers and not filling in or declaring the odometer readings on those vehicles. The minister must know that odometer fraud is rampant, and that her ministry is helping it. What is the minister prepared to do to bring her ministry into compliance with the law and stop
[ Page 9383 ]
making it easy for the back-yard dealers to have a ready supply of poorly documented vehicles?
Hon. L. Boone: I don't know about selling to back-yard dealers, but I know that vehicle management services sells their vehicles through a number of different areas, such as auctions and disposals. So I don't think that there are a lot going out through back-yard dealers. As to the odometers, I will look into that and get back to the member with regard to what we are doing to control anything that may be done which is not in accordance with our policies.
B.C. RAIL LABOUR DISPUTE
D. Symons: My question is to the minister responsible for B.C. Rail. Yesterday the mediator for the B.C. Rail dispute stated: "This negotiation is abnormal, because somebody could not keep their damned mouth shut." Having potentially damaged any hope of a negotiated settlement, will the minister admit he hasn't the faintest idea what's going on in his ministry, and let the bureaucrats get on with their job?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: Of course I don't have a faint idea -- I have a very good idea of what's going on in my ministry. On Monday I said that I expected the parties would be back at the table Tuesday or Wednesday. As it turned out, they are with the mediator today. Missing by half a day isn't too bad. Can you imagine what sort of a mess I would be in if I had taken any of the advice from the opposite side of the floor?
D. Symons: That's hard to follow.
I have a quote from Monday's Hansard where the minister answered my question by saying: "I am pleased to inform members opposite the union has requested, through the mediator...." That seems to be incorrect. Either the minister knew this to be untrue or he did not. I hazard no guess as to which it is, but either way, his comments were in the poorest judgment. Why did the minister make statements that were totally inaccurate and which have made a very serious situation even worse?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: As I've said already, I was out by approximately half a day on when the negotiations or the mediation would resume. With respect to misleading the House, I would suggest that the parties opposite have been ably misled by their own misleaders over the past year and a half; they don't need any help from this side.
The Speaker: Final supplemental, hon. member.
D. Symons: Well, the union disagrees with your statement that they were asking the mediator to resume negotiations; it seems the mediator was the one who was trying to get both parties back to the table. We've been requesting you to take competent action, not to make inaccurate or inappropriate statements. So realizing the damage that he's done to the negotiations, I would ask that the minister...
An Hon. Member: Butt out!
D. Symons: ...simply stay out of the negotiations and leave it up to the people who are capable of doing the job.
G. Wilson: I seek leave to table a petition of over 5,000 names of residents from Powell River who would like fairness in their ferry system between Little River and Powell River.
Leave granted.
Hon. G. Clark: I ask leave to move a motion regarding the appointment of an auditor general.
Leave granted.
Hon. G. Clark: I move:
"That a special committee be appointed to select and unanimously recommend to the Legislative Assembly the appointment of an auditor general, pursuant to the Auditor General Act, and that the special committee so appointed shall have the powers of a select standing committee, and is also empowered:
a) to appoint of their number, one or more sub-committees and to refer to such subcommittees any of the matters referred to the committee;
b) to sit during any period in which the House is adjourned, during the recess after prorogation until the next following session and during any sitting of the House;
c) to adjourn from place to place as may be convenient; and
d) to retain such personnel as required to assist the committee;
and shall report to the House as soon as possible, or following any adjournment of the House, or at the next following session, as the case may be; to deposit the original of its reports with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly during a period of adjournment; and upon the resumption of the sittings of the House, the Chairperson shall present all reports to the Legislative Assembly.
"The said special committee is to be composed of Mr. Kasper (Convener), Ms. Brewin, Ms. Hammell and Ms. Pullinger; Messrs. Krog, Schreck and Janssen; Ms. Reid; Messrs. Gingell and Farrell-Collins; and Mr. Weisgerber."
Motion approved.
The Speaker: I have the honour to present the Legislative Assembly Management Committee annual report.
F. Gingell: I have the honour to present the second report of the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts for the second session of the thirty-fifth
[ Page 9384 ]
Parliament. I move that the report be taken as read and received.
Motion approved.
F. Gingell: I ask leave of the House to move that the report of the committee be adopted.
Leave granted.
F. Gingell: I move that the report be adopted.
During this session the Public Accounts Committee has worked hard and very well. Our report, which was unanimously adopted by our committee, contains eight recommendations. The first deals with issues to do with the Financial Administration Act for the purpose of improving the reporting of government actions in the public accounts. The second recommendation deals with Crown societies, with recommendations to improve their effectiveness and their reporting on the achievement of their objectives, and to make them more financially accountable. The third recommendation deals with British Columbia Gaming Commission issues under licensing, use of proceeds and control of gaming activities. The fourth one deals with the Financial Information Act, and has recommendations to improve remuneration disclosure and to bring in clearer guidelines. The fifth one deals with the Financial Disclosure Act and is designed to clarify, simplify and improve those disclosures. There's a recommendation under the Interpretation Act that calls for more consistency and clarity in remuneration reporting.
We also have two recommendations under the British Columbia archives and records service. The first one gives the government encouragement to preserve non-governmental records of significance to the history of the province. The second one deals with the issues of physical security and preservation techniques.
The committee also dealt with the issues of effectiveness measurement and reporting. The committee is most pleased that it has started in this government and encourage its continuation. It is a most useful tool.
That is the end of the report, hon. Speaker, and before it is called for a vote, I would like to, if I may, bring to the attention of members the motion on the order paper under my name, Motion 67. I ask if there is any means that the government might consider for allowing that issue to be dealt with at this time.
Some Hon. Members: Order, order!
The Speaker: Hon. member....
F. Gingell: It deals with permission for the Public Accounts Committee to meet out of session. We are the only province that doesn't do it, and we should be doing it. If they believe in open and honest government, I know they will support it. I ask for all members of the House to move us in the Public Accounts Committee slowly but inexorably into the twentieth century.
[2:30]
Motion approved.
M. Farnworth: I have the honour to present the second report of the Select Standing Committee on Economic Development, Science, Labour, Training and Technology for the second session of the thirty-fifth Parliament.
I'd like to thank the committee and the witnesses. Although we could not achieve consensus, this is still a majority report. House rules do not allow the tabling of minority reports, so the written submission of the Liberal opposition, for example, could not be....
The Speaker: The hon. member for Okanagan West on a point of order.
C. Serwa: There is a process that the hon. member has to follow. According to section 48, he must make the appropriate motions. He has not done so.
The Speaker: I thank the hon. member for the point of order. It is quite correct, and I must ask the Chair of the committee to move the appropriate motion. I will caution the hon. member that while it is the practice of the House to have brief congratulatory comments, there is no debate permitted upon moving the first appropriate motion.
M. Farnworth: No attempt to debate was intended.
Anyway, with that, I move that the report be taken and read as received.
Motion approved.
L. Stephens: I ask leave to respond to the tabling of the report.
The Speaker: Unfortunately, hon. member, the motion that we have voted on is to be taken as read and received. We do not presently have a motion on the floor that would allow any debate.
The hon. member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi on a point of order.
D. Mitchell: There is some procedural confusion here, hon. Speaker. I think the Chair of the committee, in tabling the report, was seeking to speak to it. Perhaps the Chair would like to consider asking for leave to adopt the report, unless, of course, he doesn't want to because of some other reason -- embarrassment perhaps; I'm not sure why.
The Speaker: I thank the member for the point of order, but the Chair has no jurisdiction over the business of the House. A motion has been moved and adopted. I can only ask for the next order of business.
M. Farnworth: I ask leave of the House to permit the moving of a motion to adopt the report.
Leave not granted.
[ Page 9385 ]
Hon. M. Sihota: Report on Bill 35, hon. Speaker.
LOCAL ELECTIONS REFORM ACT, 1993
Bill 35 read a third time and passed.
Hon. M. Sihota: Report on Bill 80, hon. Speaker.
MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 1993
Bill 80 read a third time and passed.
Hon. M. Sihota: I call committee on Bill 58.
MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS, RECREATION AND HOUSING STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 1993
(continued)
The House in committee on Bill 58; M. Lord in the chair.
Sections 11 to 15 inclusive approved.
On section 16.
L. Fox: I would like some clarification. This is something brand-new. Municipalities will be able to enter into an agreement with the provincial government with respect to offering services to assist victims of crime. I think that aspect deserves some discussion. Further to that, in (2)(a) there is something brand-new in terms of authority, where the municipality can offer that both inside and outside the boundaries of a municipality. This is a departure from any services that have been offered before by a municipality. Perhaps before I go into further questioning, I'll allow the minister to clarify those two clauses.
Hon. R. Blencoe: I'll try to clarify as best I can. It's my understanding that the Ministry of Attorney General wants to continue to enter into victim assistance agreements with municipalities. The difficulty was that question of entering into agreements outside the municipality. This basically rectifies the situation for some municipalities that are already in such agreements, and it allows the Attorney General to continue to have agreements, even if they go outside the boundaries of the municipality.
L. Fox: As it stands in the existing legislation, in order to provide a service outside the municipality it has to be done in cooperation with the regional district on a specified-area basis, if there are any dollars involved in terms of the municipality's spending authority. Is the minister suggesting that this is a flowthrough service and that there wouldn't be any cost to the municipalities in terms of taxpayers' dollars? If there is, I think this is a precedent, and it may have ramifications throughout the Municipal Act.
Hon. R. Blencoe: There is no contribution from outside. Obviously there is a voluntary contribution from inside, from those municipalities that have these contracts and want to continue them. There is the contribution of the Attorney General in terms of partnership, but my understanding is that nothing is contributed from the outside in terms of those areas that it covers.
L. Fox: I'll try to rephrase my question. Would this new service demand that taxpayers' dollars within the municipality be spent on a management function for these initiatives in order to deliver the services outside the community? In other words, would there be any municipal tax dollars involved in the delivery of this program outside the municipal boundaries?
Hon. R. Blencoe: Yes, there would, but it's entirely voluntary. It's at their behest.
L. Fox: I understand that it's only if the municipality wishes to opt into the program, but there have been other initiatives. I'm sure the minister and his staff are aware of times when municipalities wouldn't mind going beyond their boundaries to offer fire protection to prevent a house from burning, for instance. But they are limited in doing that by the act because they expose themselves to liability in having the truck outside the boundaries. Is there any exposure in terms of liability for a municipality delivering a product -- although this is a service -- outside its boundaries?
Hon. R. Blencoe: In 1992, approximately 39 municipalities were party to such an agreement. There are a number of municipalities, though, that had already started their own agreements prior to joining the Attorney General's program. Our advice from legal counsel is that there may be some risk if we do not cover them in this amendment and ensure that there is protection of those municipalities that started agreements before.
L. Fox: I have one very brief follow-up question. Given that this is a new initiative, obviously not a lot of local tax dollars are being spent on it at this time. I know some areas later deal with regional district authorities. But should this program expand so that more of the liability falls on the municipality to pay a higher percentage of this service, would it still require a specified-area function if it was going to spend tax dollars outside the municipality and if it wanted to share that responsibility with the rural area surrounding the municipality?
[2:45]
Hon. R. Blencoe: Those are good questions. If they want to cost-share outside the area, or if the regional district wants to participate, there could very well be a requirement for a specified area. Again, those would be voluntary decisions, of course.
J. Beattie: I wonder if I might have leave of the House to make an introduction.
[ Page 9386 ]
Leave granted.
J. Beattie: In the gallery today is a friend of mine, Lakhmer Klar from Summerland. Lakhmer is a constituent and an entrepreneur who has a very successful truck canopy company. He is also a member of the board of directors of the Okanagan Valley Tree Fruit Authority. He is accompanied today by members of his family, Harminder Klar, Mandy Klar and Andrew Klar, and his friend Surjit Grewal. I would ask the House to make them welcome.
Sections 16 to 18 inclusive approved.
On section 19.
L. Fox: Section 780(2)(c)(iv) provides remuneration for a regional district director when attending a meeting of the board or of any committee of which that person is a member. That's not new. The reason I speak on it is that during the discussions of Bill 45 -- which was the setting up of the community health councils and the regional health boards -- when the minister suggested that those board members would not receive any remuneration, I pointed out that there was a disparity in the system. Presently, members of regional district boards who happen to be on a hospital board -- or will be and could be on a community health council or a regional health board -- under this and the previous legislation, were eligible for remuneration to attend those meetings.
If it is the intent of Bill 45 that no board member should be remunerated at either the community health council or regional health board level.... This legislation provides and has provided for a regional district member to receive pay from the regional district. In the absence of the Minister of Health I don't like to mention what she stated, but she confirmed that that was a concern, and that because of the disparity in the existing legislation it would be looked into. You can't have one regional district member on a board receiving remuneration from his regional district and the other eight or ten members not receiving it. Has the minister had any discussions with the Minister of Health about this concern?
Hon. R. Blencoe: I haven't had any discussion with the Minister of Health, and I don't think my staff have had any discussions with the staff of the Ministry of Health. The member has already pointed out that this is an existing section, and our statement is that reference to a committee is reference to a committee of the board. I don't know if that's your misunderstanding.
L. Fox: It may be the minister's thought that it's a committee of the board, but it doesn't suggest that. It says: "...attending a meeting of the board or of any committee of which that person is a member." He is currently representing the board on the hospital board and would soon be on a community health council. The interpretation of that by the regional districts is that he can be paid because he is the member who has been charged with the responsibility by the board. The interpretation is certainly different, at least in practice, than what the minister has suggested.
Hon. R. Blencoe: You may have had some problems with my interpretation because we have some differences of opinion. If we could go back, section 780(2)(c) says: "...all or part of the expenditures made or expenses incurred by a director or committee member when the director or committee member is...." We have faith in our interpretation, but we will check it out to make sure our interpretation is taken the way we intend it. We have not had any sense of there being problems before, but we will take your comments under advisement.
L. Fox: One final comment on this section helps to justify it. I have the right interpretation, with all due respect to the minister, because it says in (2)(c)(ii): "...engaging in regional district business...." When you've been appointed by the regional district to attend a committee meeting on behalf of that regional district, you are engaging in regional district business because you are the liaison on behalf of the regional district.
Hon. R. Blencoe: I refer to 780(2)(b) in the amendment: "...remuneration to members of committees of the board for each regularly constituted committee meeting attended...." I then look at section 780(1) of the act, "Remuneration and expenses," which says: "The board may, by bylaw, provide for remuneration of (a) the chairperson, vice chairperson, directors and alternate directors, and (b) members of committees of the board for each regularly constituted committee meeting attended, and the bylaw may limit the number of meetings for which remuneration may be paid." There is clearly a tie-in between what we're doing here and the current wording of section 780.
L. Fox: I'm not arguing that it's the same. I have said that. What I'm pointing out is the concern that both the Health minister and I shared during discussion of Bill 45.
The next clarification I want to get concerns (4)(a). It says: "...provide different remuneration for different directors and different classes of directors...." Before I deal with any assumptions, perhaps I will have the minister point out to me what the intent of that clause is.
Hon. R. Blencoe: Just as I had thought, it is as you have it now. You have directors from different areas -- electoral or urban areas -- and it allows for differences in that kind of situation, which is currently part of the act.
Sections 19 to 21 inclusive approved.
On section 22.
L. Fox: Section 789(1) is amended with (a)(f.2), "the promotion of economic development." Is this a change from previous wording? I know that, to get into
[ Page 9387 ]
economic development, regional districts in the past have had to amend their letters patent or their bylaws, and pass a function which would allow them to promote economic development. An opting-in process and an opting-out process were available to different regions within the regional district, to be part of or not part of that function. Is that still a requirement under this particular section?
Hon. R. Blencoe: This basically regularizes what has been done thus far on an individual basis. Regional districts have come to us on an individual basis for a regulation from the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council under section 790, so all this does is regularize it and make it a standard procedure. I understand that there was some concern -- I'm not sure if it was from this member or others -- that this might be perceived as a bit of downloading. On the contrary, this is essentially a procedural amendment to make the local government's extended services more easily available to the regional districts that wish to use them.
Many of the services are already being provided now by a number of regional districts -- for example, 14 are providing 9-1-1 service, ten are doing transit, and five are doing cemeteries. In general, these districts have had to apply individually under section 790, and from regulation. It's a lot of paperwork and takes a lot of time. With this amendment, regional districts that may wish to provide all these kinds of services can establish those as they would any other service. They still have the freedom to do that if they so desire. These authorities are permissive, as are all other service authorities already in sections 788 and 789. A regional district may or may not choose to provide them.
Any concern that this is downloading.... It is all basically being asked for by the regional districts or local government. They are asking us to go to the minister and then on to cabinet for a regulation or an OIC -- that's what they have been doing individually.
L. Fox: I asked no questions about downloading. At present, when a regional district enters into an economic development function, areas of that regional district can opt out of that function if they so wish, and therefore opt out of the taxation powers of that function. I specifically asked: does that provision still exist, or is this particular initiative regional-district-wide without the option of opting out?
Hon. R. Blencoe: No, they can design the boundaries any way they see fit.
Sections 22 to 25 inclusive approved.
On section 26.
L. Fox: Section 816.1(1)(b) says: "...with another regional district to provide to that regional district a service that is a work or service within the powers of the other regional district." I assume that this allows the situation that we have between the Cariboo Regional District and the Thompson-Nicola Regional District to join together into a library function. Is that what (b) represents, where it allows two regional districts to join together to provide a service or share a service?
Hon. R. Blencoe: It's similar, but not quite the same. The issue you refer to is done through letters patent. Let me go through again for you, just to let you know what we're trying to do here.
[3:00]
It's a provision to provide services to other governments. Its purpose is to authorize regional districts to enter into agreements with Canada or the province to provide services of those governments within that regional district. It amends the existing section 816.1 of the act, which currently only authorizes such agreements with another regional district or a municipality. This is significant because it will enable the regional district to assist the senior government as a conduit for a service that the government wishes to provide in the region, while ensuring that the entire cost of that service is borne by the senior government.
L. Fox: Perhaps I didn't understand what the minister was saying. The minister suggested that two regional districts could enter into a contract with the provincial government where the entire cost was paid for by the provincial government. Was that what I understood the minister to say? If so, what kind of agreement would that be and on what type of issue?
Hon. R. Blencoe: One of my staff just mentioned to me that it could be where the Ministry of Transportation and Highways wants to build helicopter pads in the Queen Charlottes. The section does refer to an agreement under section 2, where it must provide the entire cost of the service. I think that's your major concern.
Regional-district-to-regional-district contracts have basically the same powers as we have now. There is no change in that area. The bottom line is that the senior government picks up the tab.
Sections 26 and 27 approved.
On section 28.
A. Cowie: I require some explanation. Does this mean that a regional district is back doing community or regional plans and that this undoubtedly covers the area around the municipality that belongs under the regional district? Is that the purpose of this change?
Hon. R. Blencoe: No. It doesn't change the nature of the planning process, but it does remove the minister's interference in determining which areas they should plan or in limiting the area to which a regional district or official community plan applies. There are still standards for the planning, but in terms of which areas they apply to, it is an antiquated approach to them doing their own planning.
A. Cowie: It's in these edge areas in regional districts next to municipalities where a lot of problems occur and where municipalities quite often don't agree
[ Page 9388 ]
with the regional district. What happens if there isn't agreement at the regional level? Does the minister have any say at all? Would a review take place or would one of his staff try to negotiate? How does that work?
Hon. R. Blencoe: There may be some room for concern, but I think it's an area that municipalities have had for some time. In terms of the areas they're referring to, I suspect that we will have to bring back the tools under the regional planning of growth management strategies, which I think is a far more advantageous way to deal with some of the issues you're concerned about.
A. Cowie: Is the minister saying that we're bringing back regional planning in these areas? Are we going to put more emphasis on regional planning in these areas throughout the province? Is that what I heard the minister say?
Hon. R. Blencoe: I was probably off the topic of this section, but I'm saying that this is dealing with something that is basically standard now. The minister does not try to determine the little areas that a regional district should apply their community plan to. We obviously require them to do a community plan. I was saying that the issues the member is concerned about -- those periphery areas that may get left off or whatever -- are probably better dealt with when we get into our regional planning strategies, legislation and tools dealing with those issues.
Sections 28 to 33 inclusive approved.
On section 34.
L. Fox: This section "eliminates an appeal to the minister from the refusal of a Board of Variance to alter the application of a bylaw that has the effect of permitting no use of land." I recognize that we have seen consistently from this government where it has removed the appeal to a cabinet member in legislation.
But given the fact that the board of variance is made up of a local appointee from the local authority, an appointee from the provincial government and a third person appointed by those two, one might feel a little less comfortable that the board of variance may in fact be totally objective and fair. Although I don't believe it was ever used that often, one opportunity people had when they went before the board of variance was knowing -- and the board of variance knowing -- that if it did not appear that they treated that particular application totally fairly, the individual, corporation, business or whatever it was always had the opportunity to appeal it through the minister. Now this legislation has removed that. Perhaps the minister might want to comment on it.
Hon. R. Blencoe: I'll just quickly go through this. As the member knows, it removes the authority of the minister to hear an appeal and grants any relief the minister considers proper where a board of variance refuses to alter the application of a rural land use bylaw. I think you should have some comfort that it eliminates basically unnecessary and unused provincial involvements in local government planning processes. It has never been used -- or the minister's never been asked to apply this section -- and it's been in place for many years. We're simply trying to remove parts of the act that clearly are just encumbrances.
Section 34 approved.
On section 35.
L. Fox: This is one area I have some real concern with. I know my knowledge of a rural regional district is somewhat different than it is of an urban regional district, although I think the principles are very much the same. Section 973(3)(b) suggests to me that the zoning bylaw has to be "consistent with the official community plan." Does that mean that if a community plan and a property are identified, let's say as a commercial piece of property over a long-term plan, it must immediately be zoned to comply with that plan?
Hon. R. Blencoe: No, hon. member. I think it says in subsection (3)(b) that it has to be "consistent with the official community plan." But if it's ever rezoned, it obviously has to have some consistency with the community plan.
L. Fox: Just so I understand this, we can have a community plan in a small unincorporated area of a regional district, for instance, which recognizes the growth potential for highway commercial zoning or highway business zoning -- it's worded differently depending on which regional district you're in -- but there could be homes within that area that would stay zoned as residential until such time as their owners are required to upgrade them to comply with the community plan. Is the minister suggesting that this is in fact the intent?
Hon. R. Blencoe: I would say that it's an existing requirement, consistent with the official community plan.
L. Fox: I'm still trying to get this clear in my mind. If a plan is redone and identifies an area as commercial which presently has some residential zoning in it, can a residential property retain the residential classification until the property owner wishes to rezone it to comply with the plan?
Hon. R. Blencoe: As always, municipalities have the freedom to make their zoning changes when they see fit. The timing is for them to decide. But the caveat, of course, is that they have to be consistent with their official community plan. Unless there's something else you're trying to get at, hon. member, I think it's quite clear.
L. Fox: I will try to explain it one more time. When you redo an official community plan, you identify in a ten-year scenario that this particular property should
[ Page 9389 ]
eventually develop into a commercial area -- a highway strip, let's say, in an unincorporated community. So you plan it as highway commercial, but there are homes that have residential zoning in that area that you've planned eventually to go into commercial. Does that residential property owner have his property rezoned at the time the plan is accepted? Or can he do it on his own initiative when in fact there's a need for that property to be zoned to comply with the plan?
Hon. R. Blencoe: The zoning is timed by the municipality or by the individual, but it's not tied to the timing of the official community plan.
A. Cowie: Originally, in the early 1980s, the Socred government had a provision requiring zoning to conform with their OCPs, and municipalities were instructed to bring their zoning into conformity. The Socred government of the day unfortunately didn't follow through with that or we'd have a more meaningful OCP process than we have today. Many OCPs are completely meaningless because that provision wasn't done. I hope this minister does something about it.
My question is on subsection (1). It says here that the board shall forward the zoning to the minister for approval after it's gone through third reading. Are there any time constraints on when the minister has to get back, or can it sit on his desk for 18 months?
[3:15]
Hon. R. Blencoe: There are no time constraints, and no bylaw has sat on my desk for 18 months, hon. member.
L. Fox: I'm still going over the minister's answer in my mind, because either I'm not suggesting it correctly, or I don't understand the minister's answer. Let me relate to it in another way. I think it's an important question, because if a residential property had to zone immediately to legally conform with the plan, then you have a situation where that residential property would immediately be classified as a business property and therefore not subject to the homeowner grant. And if in fact the house were to burn down, it couldn't be replaced. So the timing of the zoning is extremely important. I understand the need for planning; I've been part of it for a number of years. But prior to 1980, when you did an official community plan and drew out your respective boundaries for the respective classifications of land, you also had to rezone to comply with the plan immediately so that the two were in sync. That was changed in about 1980, and then you were allowed to phase in that zoning to comply with the plan, based on need and initiative by the landowner. My question now is: do we still allow zoning to be phased in based on the need and will of the owner of that land, where they can phase in the rezoning request based on their timing to eventually comply with the official community plan? Or does the zoning have to come part and parcel with the community plan so it reflects the community plan at the same time that the community plan is accepted or shortly thereafter?
Hon. R. Blencoe: There's no change in terms of consistency with the official plan. Phasing and timing or triggering of rezoning either by the individual or by the council is at the instigation of the individuals or the municipality.
H. De Jong: I have a further question on the designation process and the rezoning in relation to taxation. I know from experience that when an area is designated under a community plan and has been approved by council, there usually is a substantial change in the value of those lands because of the designation. This can cause some hardships for people who are incapable of paying the taxes on those lands, although they can defer the tax on those properties.
When a designation is put on a certain area, it creates expectations. An area may be designated as residential and then later, after a proposal for a single-family or some other kind of housing development, the municipal council may come along and say that it should be designated as a special development permit area because it has some environmental or other limitations that may have an impact on the density that the area can accommodate. My question is: when a plan is amended and an area is designated, perhaps because it clearly could not carry the density under a particular designation due to topographical constraints or a water course going through the property, should the council not be bound at the time of designation to put a development permit area constraint on that land, so that people know about the constraints when they purchase in that area?
Furthermore, shouldn't the landowners or people in general know the limitations on a piece of property, in terms of the expectations of what they can do with the land? Shouldn't they know immediately that there are limitations that will have an effect on property value, and that relate to taxation?
Hon. R. Blencoe: It's really a stretch to get this issue into this section, but I'll give a very quick and general response. The member may well be making sense about the effect that official community plans have on costs and other issues. There is some provincial interest and guidance in regional planning and in changes to an official community plan or bylaws. This ministry and other ministries are still involved and look at the provincial interest. On the whole, the tradition in B.C. is that land use planning, zoning and official community plans are local decisions and local processes within the framework and parameters that the province expects. There may be some room for increasing the provincial perspective by asking for certain requirements for good planning at the local level. But if you go too far, what happens is that you get the provincial government starting to determine local interests and local self-determination in the key issues of zoning and planning. There is always a fine line there.
I happen to have the perspective that there is a greater role for the provincial government to play in providing tools for regional planning and growth management strategies. We're working on that diligently, because we think there is a provincial interest in
[ Page 9390 ]
dealing with growth or lack of growth in some regions of the province. Generally, hon. member, the tradition in this province is that the OCP process is a local decision, with the guidance of the provincial government and with certain parameters for regional districts, etc., which I've already gone over. It's for the citizens themselves and their elected officials to determine the future of land use planning in a region.
H. De Jong: Just a short comment. Simple, broad designations of land use under a community plan can be very misleading if the topography of the land or other constraints do not allow that type of development in its fullest sense. I believe there should be an onus on the council to declare such an area a development permit area at the time of designation.
Sections 35 and 36 approved.
On section 37.
A. Cowie: I have just a short question. I take it that under section (1)(a), this really means that land within the area must not be further subdivided. There could be areas that are already subdivided. I just take that for granted.
I have another question. Supposing some of the parcels within an area designated for open space, an environmental area or agriculture are 200 acres. Surely that's unreasonable. There must be some minimal size where one can subdivide. Before a municipality can designate an area as an environmental area -- if they don't want to go all the way to designate as a park because they don't have the funds -- wouldn't they have to do some environmental assessment in the same way a private developer has to if they are preparing for a development?
Hon. R. Blencoe: As far as I know, there is nothing in our legislation that says that developers have to do environmental assessment. The municipality could require that, of course, if they so desire. I believe that would be acceptable.
A. Cowie: I don't know of one municipality where someone who wants to develop in a sensitive environmental area can get away without doing an environmental assessment in a development. That is required.
Maybe I'll ask this specific question: is there any minimal size that a parcel within an area which is designated under this section can be subdivided to? Given that an area can be designated as rural or whatever, surely there must be some minimal size.
Hon. R. Blencoe: We didn't get into numbers in terms of designating certain sizes. It's certainly not in the legislation. Obviously, if the municipality wishes to do that, so be it; that's within their purview. Subsection (1) is quite clear: "If an official community plan designates areas under section 945(4), the following prohibitions apply unless an exemption under section 945(4.1) applies or the owner first obtains a development permit under this section: (a) land within the area must not be subdivided." We don't lay out specific numbers, as you request, though.
A. Cowie: If these provisions say that it can't be subdivided, prior to about two or three years ago, there was a rule -- at least with agricultural zoning -- that you could subdivide down to 20 acres. I recognize the municipality is the one to regulate that, but at least there were some guidelines. This doesn't give any guidelines at all. I can see a municipality wanting to hold an owner who has a large parcel for ransom and refusing to allow him to subdivide it into agricultural or farm areas so that he could have two or three farms rather than one.
Hon. R. Blencoe: Currently, section 976 only applies the provision against altering land without a permit to heritage sites and areas designated for commercial revitalization. We'll check again, but we've not been told.... This is not new, by the way. There have not been any, but if you have some evidence of concerns, please provide them to us.
[3:30]
A. Cowie: I can certainly do that. There are lots of them around the province.
Section 976(1)(c) says that "a building or structure on a Provincial or designated municipal heritage site must not be altered." Vancouver, for example -- at least with a class A building -- only does that if the owner agrees. The municipality eventually would have to give them permission to alter the building; otherwise, surely compensation would have to be paid.
Hon. R. Blencoe: The member is aware, of course, that Vancouver has different provisions. The issue of compensation is in the new heritage legislation, which is currently on the order paper for exposure reasons and for further comment.
L. Fox: I have a couple questions, but before I ask them, I want to clarify this. It's my understanding that section 37 deals with the regional districts. Is that correct?
Hon. R. Blencoe: It's both municipal and regional.
L. Fox: I thought so, but I wanted to clarify that before I waded into the pond without knowing how deep it gets. Presently many rural regional districts don't even have building inspection. It now appears that it will be mandatory that a development permit be obtained throughout the regional district. Is this going to be an optional process, or is this development permit designation going to be a mandatory process that regional districts have to accept?
Hon. R. Blencoe: No, it's not automatic. It's only if they designate areas under section 945(4) and then subsections (a) to (e) kick in.
[ Page 9391 ]
Sections 37 and 38 approved.
On section 39.
A. Cowie: I have a really short question. When they are talking about acquiring parkland and using development cost charges for that, are they dealing at market value, and would there be a requirement for an independent evaluation?
Hon. R. Blencoe: We fully expect that kind of due diligence to be carried out. Subsection (a) says, "pay the capital costs," and we fully expect due process to carry that out. Maybe I should clarify for the members exactly what we are trying to do here, because it is a very important section.
It will authorize local government to use development cost charges to pay for reclaiming land as parkland. It will amend section 985(3)(a) of the act, which currently limits the use of the development cost charges to acquiring parkland. In many dictionaries it may look like semantics, but we have had a number of requests and suggestions from local government that they need it on the reclaim portion.
In response to the concerns of local governments in low-lying areas of the province, the development cost charges could not currently be used in relation to parks where the land for the park has been reclaimed from the ocean. It seemed to make sense that we should look at this.
L. Fox: Presently in the Municipal Act, the municipality -- upon subdividing three or more lots -- can take 5 percent of the land base, or cash in lieu thereof, for the purposes of building and creating parks or recreational facilities within the community. I am trying to understand how section 39 would add to that process. Is this suggesting that if the municipality were to pay for the upgrading of off-site costs, identified through a development cost charge bylaw, they could trade that for equal land or value of land within a subdivision?
Hon. R. Blencoe: I am assured that it does not change DCCs or subdivision requirements. We are adding the ability to use development cost charges to pay for reclaiming land for parkland.
L. Fox: I am trying to understand how that would work, because normally the development cost charge bylaw is set up to reflect what the municipal costs would be to upgrade the infrastructure network off-site in order to service that lot or subdivision. I don't see where there would be excess cash there. I am trying to understand how one would trade, and where you would get.... It says: "...allows development cost charges...." Unless you are suggesting that now a municipality can put a development cost charge on a region that's going to be developed in order to generate money to reclaim land as parkland, I don't understand how it's going to work.
Hon. R. Blencoe: We are not changing anything in the development cost charge system. We have that under review -- and I think I indicated that in estimates -- because a lot of people are asking for some changes. We have been advised that to be able to apply development cost charges to pay for reclaiming land.... There is a question about section 985(3)(a) of the act, which is about use of development cost charges -- it says: "...and park land acquisition." The interpretation is land, and acquisition in that sense cannot refer to reclamation. That's all we're trying to do: add that within the context of section 985 of the act.
Section 39 approved.
On section 40.
L. Fox: For the purpose of expediency, just to advise the Chair.... Most of the following sections are repetitive, and we've discussed the intent in earlier sections. Unless the Liberal critic has questions, I don't have any questions throughout the rest of the sections.
A. Cowie: I have one final question, and then nothing in the rest of the bill would be debatable from our point of view. I think section 39, the requirement that allows for the money to be spent to reclaim land for park purposes, is a good idea.
On section 40, which I stood to speak to, I just want to be assured that while these bills.... While government always assumes that government itself is always acting in the best interests of the community, and that all developers of course have to be guided, that's not always the case. There are municipalities that demand open space and parkland without having an idea of where they want to put it; or they don't have a proper park plan. I assume that in section 40(1.1) it also should apply. Or there should be some assurance that local government should be responsible, too, and have a proper park strategy plan to guide them in any of their demands. Of course, a lot of municipalities don't.
Hon. R. Blencoe: The development cost charge bylaws still do require provincial approval, so there is some degree of what you might construe as quality control, if you will. This amendment basically follows up 39, for those who are not quite sure; that section took care of 985 on development cost charges. Section 986 relates to acquisition and development of parkland, and all we are doing is putting the word "reclaim" into that section as well.
A. Cowie: I really appreciate the minister clarifying that he still has some control over planning and legislation, and is not giving it all up as he has done in most of these sections. It's good to see that he at least is looking into and has to review the development permit process.
Sections 40 to 56 inclusive approved.
Title approved.
[ Page 9392 ]
Hon. R. Blencoe: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.
Motion approved on division.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Bill 58, Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Housing Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1993, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I call committee on Bill 74.
PACIFIC RACING ASSOCIATION ACT
The House in committee on Bill 74; M. Lord in the chair.
Section 1 approved.
On section 2.
A. Warnke: As we explored this in second reading, the question of why we should establish the Pacific Racing Association arose. We on this side of the House paid close attention to the remarks by the Attorney General, and the minister during second reading was very gracious in his comments responding to the remarks made on this side of the House. We had some very serious questions, and it was gracious of the minister to acknowledge that there were and are some very serious questions.
What I would like to pursue in section 2 is something that came up during second reading, and that is that the Pacific Racing Association is now succeeding the role of the British Columbia Jockey Club. I am wondering if the minister could elaborate on what was wrong with the British Columbia Jockey Club that it was not encouraged to continue its role in the racing profession.
[3:45]
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I don't think it's so much a question of what is wrong. What is required, and what people in the industry have suggested to me, is a structure that can more effectively help manage thoroughbred racing in the province. The structure that is proposed, the Pacific Racing Association, had its genesis in the Jawl report, the report that was commissioned by the former government in 1988. It is designed to allow the industry itself to play a significant role in managing its own affairs so that it can be a more successful industry and ensure not only its survival but its enhancement. That's the purpose of the association.
The arrangements historically have been that a private operator has operated and managed the affairs of the track, and that has worked very well for many years, as I said in second reading. But it became clear over the course of the last decade that this structure was no longer working for the industry -- or for the province, for that matter -- given the public need to have a successful thoroughbred racing industry in the province. Therefore this model was adopted.
The Pacific Racing Association does more than simply replace the role of the operators at Exhibition Park, and theoretically it is possible for the association to contract out to someone in the private sector all of those operational matters that are now handled by the B.C. Jockey Club. I have made it very clear that if the Pacific Racing Association chooses to do that, the Jockey Club, like anyone else, would be able to participate in the bidding process that would ensue. So what we are doing is changing the structure. This does not replace the Jockey Club itself; this puts a structure in place which will enable the industry to participate in its future.
A. Warnke: By setting up the Pacific Racing Association, is it the minister's impression that in fact this continues what the previous provincial government began?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I think it's fair to say that this continues what a former Attorney General in the previous government was attempting to bring about. For a variety of reasons, both in the Vander Zalm and Bennett administrations, there was an inability to conclude the processes -- and I don't want to canvass the reasons for that. Having gone through this experience myself in the last year and a half, I certainly understand why it was difficult for both administrations to conclude the processes that they began to try to resolve the issues. In fact, the Jawl report was very much part of an effort by Brian Smith, the Attorney General at the time, to try to do the things that we are now trying to do by way of this legislation.
A. Warnke: I noted at second reading that the minister's remarks were quite sympathetic to the proposal for the one-mile track and that the government actually did contemplate other proposals for a one-mile track. I am now wondering, with the establishment of the Pacific Racing Association, whether down the road there will be any further proposals. I don't want to embark on future policy or anything like that, but maybe there's a whole rethinking needed about what's going to happen with Exhibition Park. It's not altogether hypothetical, especially given the minister's remarks and the acknowledgement that there are problems with the track and the facilities. Indeed, if we already experience some difficulty getting animals between training grounds and Exhibition Park and so forth, one can imagine very easily that there may be the need to establish a brand-new facility, a one-mile track complete with training facilities and stables and all the rest of it. If that were to be located, let's say, in another locale -- whether it's Delta, Surrey or Langley down the road, or some other place -- at that point would the Pacific Racing Association not have some sort of exclusivity in those kinds of proposals?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: First of all, I think it's entirely conceivable that in the years to come the
[ Page 9393 ]
economics of the industry will be in such health that it will be sufficient to support a one-mile track.
[D. Streifel in the chair.]
You never can see into the future, but I think we're a decade away from that kind of proposal being viable. But at some point in our future, depending on public attitudes toward racing, it may be possible -- but it may not be -- that we'll be looking at that. If that were to come about, the Pacific Racing Association would be the instrument by which such a facility would be developed. That's clear in section 3, where we're saying that the horse-racing facilities are maintained, improved and operated. I think there's sufficient scope in that provision to allow for that to happen.
That doesn't mean, however -- and this is an important point that I think has escaped a lot of people -- that the Pacific Racing Association would necessarily be the operator. They would be enabled to contract out various parts of the operation. They may choose to do that in the short term, or they may not, as they try to pull together the Exhibition Park problems. But that opportunity for contracting out of the operation is available to them. I don't expect that I'll be the minister responsible that far down the road, but certainly in terms of my approach to it, it wouldn't be my intention to direct them as to how to do it. We would expect the association to provide the leadership.
A. Warnke: I have three technical questions I want to ask, and then perhaps others might want to address this section.
I notice that in section 2(3), "The Lieutenant Governor in Council may appoint at least 7 but not more than 11 individuals as directors of the association." I would like to have some clarification as to the flexibility of this number. Why not a more flexible number rather than a specific number?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: In general terms, the range is not a large number because an executive group needs to be relatively small to be effective. The number 7 seems to be the minimum that is required to provide a broadly based decision-making group, and it's not so large that it's cumbersome. The number 11 is chosen to give us flexibility in the event that various interests need to have a perspective expressed by membership on the board. It's our intention to begin by establishing a seven-person board so that it can function effectively in this transition period and in the early going. But if it becomes clear that other interests need to be represented on the board, then we have the flexibility to add up to an additional four members.
A. Warnke: I appreciate the answer given by the minister. I'm anticipating that there may be a particular issue or problem that would come before the association, and the directors would face that situation. Admittedly, this is sort of looking down the road a little. But at some point, perhaps the seven who had initially been appointed will break down over an important issue or problem -- in terms of a vote, 5 to 2. In that case, this might, as the clause states here, generate a perception that if it breaks down at 5 to 2, the best way to overcome that is to quickly appoint four more directors under this particular section to make the outcome 5 to 6. That was actually the impetus behind that kind of concern. A quick comment would suffice.
[4:00]
Hon. C. Gabelmann: That's not contemplated. In fact, before that thought was expressed here, it hadn't occurred to me; I hadn't ever thought that we would be in this kind of situation. This endeavour will not be successful unless there is an ability to develop consensus on the board for the most part. There may be particular issues on which the vote breaks down. If there is a fundamental disagreement on the board about the future direction of the industry, to try to fix it by stacking a board -- by adding enough votes to win one side or the other -- is not going to solve the problem: it will more likely exacerbate the tensions and differences. What's required then isn't stacking; what's required then is resolution and an attempt to sort out what's at stake by discussion among the industry, the government and the board, and go from there. I'm fully confident that the board will understand that their role is to improve and enhance the industry. On major issues I anticipate that there will be consensus. The numbers are not designed for that purpose at all.
A. Warnke: I have another technical question about section 2(4) regarding the appointments made under section 2(3). I want to address it in this particular way: we note that there are not any really fixed terms mentioned here. There is no indication as to the term of the appointments, and it was our feeling that this should be indicated in the bill. I am quite prepared to propose a very friendly amendment which would add that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may fix the terms of office of the directors of the association. But before I propose that amendment, I would like to draw that to the attention of the minister, because I certainly would not propose it if the issue is addressed.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: In the discussions with the industry people and others who were involved in trying to come up with solutions, I think the agreement was that in the early going we needed to ensure that persons were appointed to the board and given time enough to resolve the issues. To have a fixed term didn't seem appropriate at this particular time. They are at pleasure -- in practical terms, all appointments are. If government has a real need to change an individual on a board, it gets it done anyway, one way or another. We've avoided having a fixed term. At some point in the future, when we're through the transition period, it may be advantageous to have fixed terms. At this stage it was determined -- and there was no disagreement -- by all the parties that an at-pleasure appointment was appropriate.
A. Warnke: I would just like to follow up on that. Once the Pacific Racing Association and its directorship are in place, essentially would it be up to the
[ Page 9394 ]
directorship, or to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council? I'm assuming that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council would determine a fixed term later, when it comes to that. However, that needs to be defined. There is also the second problem that by not having any mention of a fixed term right now, might one who is appointed to this particular position present a very strong case that it's for an indefinite or even lifetime period? We really want to nail down that it isn't.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Any changes to make it a fixed term would be by the Legislature, so it's a cabinet-originated initiative, whoever the cabinet of the day is. These appointments are indefinite, but I don't think anyone would want to have to suffer a lifetime sentence to do this work. I anticipate that the work involved for the board in the first going will be tough, difficult and time-consuming, and people will want to give it their best to get the thing up and running. Some people will then consider whether they want to continue at that stage, and I suspect that there will be a change of board members once the early going has been completed. At this stage it is open so that people can complete the task that we are going to ask them to do.
A. Warnke: Before I go to the next technical point, the third one I want to mention, I guess the answer that the minister has provided is that at some point someone might want to make up their mind whether or not they want to continue on. This still doesn't satisfy what I was really after, because it sounds like the onus is on the individual to make up their mind. We can easily think of individuals who might just stick it out on this commission, and who might not want to resign at all. By the same token, they're on the commission and they are not necessarily -- in the eyes of the public or, for that matter, the Legislature or the cabinet -- really doing it in the best interests of the commission. What do we do about removing such an individual?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: If the minister responsible, following consultations with the associations involved in the industry, came to a conclusion that a particular individual had served as well as they could and had nothing further to contribute, the individual would be replaced at that stage. I need to emphasize that it's my conviction that none of this is going to work if games are being played. It is only going to work if the industry and the government work together in a cooperative way with the association that's established. The determinations about replacements need to be made consensually and in the interests of the industry, not politically or in the interests of some other agenda that doesn't help the industry.
A. Warnke: One last point I want to pick up on is in section 2(5): "The Lieutenant Governor in Council may appoint one of the directors as chair of the board of directors." There are different ways to appoint the chair of the directors. To make it simple: why has the ministry chosen this particular method, rather than the board of directors getting together and choosing their own chair?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: That was a decision we took to ensure that in this difficult early period, there would be a chair who was chosen by the cabinet. One of the things we will be doing through this legislation is providing a government guarantee of a loan to enable some of the changes that have to be made. Given that, I want to be sure that the chair of the commission is someone who has the government's confidence as well as industry's confidence. While I am not able today -- I wish I were -- to indicate whose name will likely be taken to cabinet for this position, I can undertake to assure members that it will be an individual who has the confidence of both the government and the industry.
A. Warnke: From the answer that has been given by the minister there seems to be an assumption that we're in a transitory phase. Given that, the government still wants to have some direct input or linkage to ensure that everything is -- I can't resist the temptation to say it -- on the right track.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: There is nothing we want more than to be on the right track.
C. Serwa: I have a couple of questions on section 2(3). I note that the Pacific Racing Association may consist of seven but not more than 11 individuals. The 1988 Jawl report recommended approximately 25 individuals because, I guess, of the complexity and variety of elements to be represented in this particularly major issue. Why did the hon. Attorney General make a determination to reduce the size rather than following the recommendation?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I hope Mr. Jawl doesn't mind me saying this, but he and I had discussions about this very point. It was his firm view that at this stage a small number was appropriate. I don't think he would mind me saying that he feels the appropriate number at this stage is seven.
C. Serwa: The second question was with respect to the selection. Subsection (4) indicates that there must be consultation with the directors of both the Horsemen's Benevolent and Protective Association of British Columbia and the British Columbia division of the Canadian Thoroughbred Horse Society. Two other associations, the B.C. Standardbred Association and the Horse Council of B.C., have been left out. Why have they been left out of the original recommendations?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: In respect of the Standardbred Association, this legislation is not designed to deal with standardbred issues. We have no intention of interfering in any way with the activities at Cloverdale. In fact, I've met with Mr. Keeling and his legal counsel to give them that assurance. The standardbred industry would not want to be involved in the issues at Exhibition Park and the related issues in the lower mainland. It was the recommendation from the industry that, in general terms, these two associations
[ Page 9395 ]
could best represent the interests that were required on this particular board.
C. Tanner: Could the minister indicate whether or not there will be any geographic reference to the appointment to these directors? I'm thinking particularly of the southern end of Vancouver Island.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm very conscious of that issue. I can't assure the member that southern Vancouver Island will be represented, because I don't know what cabinet will do with my recommendations. All I can say is that I think the member will be satisfied with the board once it's appointed.
The Chair: Before I recognize the hon. member, I beg the indulgence of the committee. The Chair has an introduction. I notice in the gallery, observing the proceedings this afternoon, intrepid reporter Rick Froese from the Agassiz-Harrison Observer. I bid the House make him welcome.
C. Tanner: The Chair has some privileges. But the Chair might ask for leave before he does things like that in the future, particularly while I'm in the House.
The Chair: Hon. member, the Chair took no chances. Thank you.
C. Tanner: The answer that you gave to my colleague on my right here was that the government wants to retain unto itself the power to appoint the chairman of the board. But you didn't preclude the likelihood, or even the probability, that the board could make the recommendation, which the minister could accept.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: After a few years have gone by and this is up and running, it may well be appropriate for the Legislature to consider changing it so the board could select a chair from within its membership. I think there's a lot of merit to that approach. At this stage, in its initial incarnation, that doesn't seem appropriate. The board members won't have worked together. It's very difficult at the first meeting to look around the room and decide who the chair should be, so for a variety of reasons it seemed appropriate to take that responsibility onto our shoulders. But I don't discount an amendment to accomplish that in the future; I think it would be appropriate.
K. Jones: I'd like to move the amendment in my name on the order paper.
[SECTION 2, to amend section 2, subsection (3), by inserting after the word "individuals" the following: "from the lists supplied by the Horsemen's Benevolent and Protective Association of British Columbia and the Canadian Thoroughbred Horse Society -- British Columbia Division".
to amend section 2, subsection (4), by deleting subsection (4).]
On the amendment.
K. Jones: This is intended as a friendly amendment. It's intended to follow in light of the direction that the minister has previously stated, that he's going to take the advice of the Horsemen's Benevolent and Protective Association of British Columbia and the input of the British Columbia division of the Canadian Thoroughbred Horse Society in the decisions of who will be the directors and meet with the desires of those organizations. I understand that they have submitted lists of people who have had experience in the industry to be members of that board. The reason that we bring forward this amendment is to have that type of appointment recognized.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The effect of the amendment, as I read it, would result in the entire board being chosen from the lists supplied by the two associations. I'm not in favour of that at this stage. The reason for that is that I think it's important to leave some room on the board -- not a majority -- for government interests, given the government's role particularly in this transition period, to ensure that the board has other competence represented on it, given the important financial and business decisions it needs to make. The member's amendment would mean that we would be restricted to the lists of the two associations. Inevitably, the associations' lists contain members of their respective associations.
It's my intention to ask cabinet to ensure that a majority of the board is drawn from the lists provided, but I want to have the flexibility to ensure other interests that are needed to ensure the transition and management of this operation are successful. Therefore I reject the amendment.
[4:15]
K. Jones: The associations recognize the need for that expertise, and the association has people who definitely meet all those qualifications, otherwise they wouldn't be in the business. The business does require all of those special attributes in order to run a successful business. So among those people, the associations are quite capable of choosing very competent people. Their greatest concern is that there be competent people on the board who are experienced in the industry, not outsiders who are brought in and may not be able to contribute to the extent that is necessary to make this a successful operation. That is the reason that this has been brought forward.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The lists submitted by both organizations -- which I understand the member has seen -- are of outstanding, well-qualified people. The government has an interest at this stage, however. There are a numnber of difficult issues in and around the Hastings Park area on the PNE grounds. There are obviously financial considerations, given the decision to enable loan guarantees made by the Crown. The Crown therefore needs its own direct representation. Frankly, I believe I need to have representation on the board as well, representing public interests that go beyond the interests of the two associations at this time in the development of the industry.
[ Page 9396 ]
I've had these discussions directly and indirectly with the associations. They understand and, I think it's fair to say, have no problem with the way in which we're proceeding. It won't work unless we do it with their cooperation. I've indicated that a majority of this board will be chosen from the lists provided, and I think they are happy with that. All our interests are thereby protected.
W. Hurd: I wonder if the Attorney General could describe the nature of the consultation which will go on. Are we dealing with a formal process here? I think the member for Surrey-Cloverdale had outlined a process in his amendment, and given the fact that the Attorney General has not accepted that process, perhaps he could describe the nature of the consultation here. Obviously he'll be aware that that particular definition would be an important consideration for some of the members of the Horsemen's Benevolent and Protective Association who are not directors of the association.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The discussions that go on are difficult to characterize, and I don't think I would be able to do that effectively here, other than to say that the discussions are extensive, friendly, comprehensive and leading to a mutually agreeable conclusion. I don't think I can say much more than that, other than that my involvement is often, in a sense, by proxy. But if there are any difficulties and anxieties, I certainly will be available to talk to aggrieved parties -- if there are any. There aren't so far -- as we continue these discussions, in any event.
There are always in any organization, even in political party caucuses, minority groups who don't agree with the majority. Sometimes those views are expressed loudly, sometimes not so loudly. We are hearing some concern expressed now, and I suppose the member is referring to that concern. I expect that and don't have any difficulty understanding why that minority view is present. But I think it would be inappropriate for me to deal with the minority groups in the associations. I deal with the people elected by the associations to run their affairs, and we're working very cooperatively at the moment.
W. Hurd: There was a reason for the question, because the Attorney General will be aware that the Horsemen's Benevolent and Protective Association is representative of the breeding industry in the province -- the people who raise the animals. Of course, as the Attorney General knows, they are deeply concerned about the track surface and the decision to spend a considerable amount of money on lengthening and improving the track at that location. Would it be the opinion of the Attorney General that the representative from the Horsemen's Benevolent and Protective Association would reflect that concern on the Pacific Racing Association? Indeed, would they be able to influence the ultimate decision to spend that money on the track? Or is that a decision the Pacific Racing Association cannot influence or change in any way?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The association's board will be very much involved in determining how best to improve the facility. I would think that they would conclude that the first and most important issue is the running surface, both the quality of the surface itself and the configuration or the length. Those decisions cannot be made entirely by the association, because we're talking here about public land that is, in a sense, trust land. There are issues between the province and the city, which I think we are working to an amicable conclusion on, but those issues are nonetheless there.
So the decisions that the racing association makes in respect of the configuration have to be made in concert with the city, the PNE and the government. I think it's clear that there is very much a consensus developing -- certainly an agreement -- about the need to do something. There is a consensus developing among all of us in respect of what kind of footprint the track could and should leave at the Hastings Park site. The association will advance its arguments and will no doubt be talking with the city and the PNE and ourselves about how to do all of this.
The main concern at the moment is the running surface, and that's why a lot of owners and breeders do not want their horses on that track. I expect the association will view that as a priority. I don't know of a single person in the industry who doesn't see it as a priority.
W. Hurd: I have an additional question with respect to section 2. It's just a general question, for my edification, about the Horsemen's Benevolent and Protective Association and the Canadian Thoroughbred Horse Society. I assume that these are arm's length organizations that have no linkage in any way to the government in terms of how their membership elects their board of directors. These are interest groups within the industry that are totally independent in terms of who they elect to represent them on their own boards and then potentially on the Pacific Racing Association. Is that a fair assessment of these two organizations?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Both of the organizations are completely and entirely independent from any government connection. One represents breeders, and one represents the owners of the animals which race. The only connection with the government is that we are asking them to provide names of people who can sit on the association.
C. Serwa: I am in favour of the amendment put forward by the hon. member for Surrey-Cloverdale. The reason I do this is that we have the expressed intent of the minister, whom I have confidence in. We have the intent of the legislation and then we have the letter of legislation. I hope the minister is amenable to accepting an amendment in conjunction with the recommendation of the Jawl report that two members from the Horsemen's Benevolent and Protective Association and two representatives from the Canadian Thoroughbred Horse Society be on the board. It seems to me that if you indicated in the legislation that there would be a
[ Page 9397 ]
minimum of two individuals selected from each, it would provide a certain degree of comfort that this is not only the intent but that it is expressed in the legislation and allows the minister the discretion to appoint people with a background in the horse-racing industry to fill the number of positions on the board. You would then have four positions out of seven on the board. But still, I think that the credibility of the Pacific Racing Association would be enhanced with the recognition that there was a certainty of getting two members from each of the major segments represented directly on the board from their list. That assurance would give them comfort and should not be difficult for the minister to accept.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I think that that proposal, or even more, may well be appropriate in the future. But at this stage, given the necessarily high degree of public involvement and commitment to assist in this transition, the amendment is not something I can accept. I certainly don't have any difficulty in the longer term with the principle implicit in the amendment from the member for Surrey-Cloverdale, but I can't accept it at this stage.
Amendment negatived.
D. Mitchell: Just while we're on section 2, which establishes the Pacific Racing Association, I have a question for the Attorney General with respect to the relationship between this new corporation and Exhibition Park in particular. I understand that the association is going to be operating and maintaining the facilities at the Pacific National Exhibition's Hastings Park, which is the racetrack there. I wonder if the Attorney General could elaborate any further on what he has already obliquely referred to as the nature of the ownership of the land at the racetrack at the Pacific National Exhibition, which I understand is part of a trust agreement between the province and the city of Vancouver -- much the way Stanley Park, for instance, was once created as a special trust for the province. I wonder if the hon. Attorney General could tell us who owns the land that the track is based on at Hastings Park, at which this new corporation is of course going to be operating the facility. I also wonder whether there's any potential conflict, or whether the Attorney General has sought a legal opinion as to any potential conflict in the government now owning a corporation that is operating land which at the same time is held in trust by the province.
The Chair: Hon. Attorney General, please keep in mind standing order 61 and questions strictly relevant to section 2.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I think the member and I agree that this is not particularly in order under section 2, but I think it's an interesting question. I'm sure the member will find one way or another to ask it in some section, so we may as well do it now and keep a good mood in the House.
The member asked if I had sought any legal opinions about who owns the land. There are many legal opinions about who owns it, so I think it would be inopportune and inappropriate for me to try to conclude what the status is. I think it's well known that last September or October I met with the mayor of Vancouver. The Minister of Finance and I put a proposal to the mayor that would have enabled a resolution of the land question by transferring the title to the city in exchange for commitments to enable the province to continue some of its traditional activities at the site, including racing. The discussions around that question continue. Who owns the land? All of the people of British Columbia own the land. Whose name is on the title is a question that I think will be resolved in the near future.
[4:30]
The Chair: Hon. member, I repeat the caution regarding relevancy under standing order 61.
D. Mitchell: I think this is related to section 2(1), which establishes this new corporation, the Pacific Racing Association. The second part of my question dealt with any potential conflict. He indicated that the people of British Columbia ultimately own the land, in one form or another. There was a trust agreement, I believe, going back some hundred years for Hastings Park, the site where the track is now established. The Pacific Racing Association is now going to operate and maintain that facility. This is something that perhaps would come up in the future, depending on any determination of legal ownership. Is there a potential conflict in the government of British Columbia owning the land, perhaps in trust, and the province operating and maintaining the facility through a Crown corporation? Have any special considerations been given to alleviating concerns that might arise as a result of potential conflict of interest?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: First of all, I'm not sure "conflict of interest" would be the appropriate term. There may be different perspectives on appropriate activities on a site. That's not so much a conflict of interest as it is a debate between levels of government or perhaps even within this House. It's my intention, and the government's intention, to try to resolve all of the matters that may be outstanding in respect of the development at Hastings Park by way of discussions between the PNE, the city and ourselves. I think the member knows that those discussions have been going very well. The city has publicly responded to that effect, and I can say that those reports are accurate from our perspective as well. I don't anticipate any difficulties. Saying this may leave the wrong impression, but I think it is always important to remember that the Legislature has the ultimate ability to remedy problems with respect to that. But I see no reason to expect that that would ever be necessary, because, as I say, the city and ourselves are in agreement. The city has agreed the track should be operated at that site, and apparently there are no difficulties in our way.
[ Page 9398 ]
D. Mitchell: I only have one further question on section 2, which establishes the association as a corporation -- even though its name is that of an association, it's a Crown corporation. Could the Attorney General inform the committee whether or not, as a Crown corporation, it will come under the Crown corporations secretariat, which looks at all Crown corporations in the province and, of course, is run by Bob Williams? Will this Crown corporation, as well, come under the purview of Mr. Williams and the Crown corporations secretariat?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I don't know the answer to that question; I've not given it any consideration. I expect the association will have its relationship with government through the minister responsible.
C. Serwa: I just have a short question with respect to conflict, because there is another element under section 2. At the moment we have the government as the owner, operator, regulator and enforcement agent of racing in British Columbia. When you use the term "conflict of interest," perhaps it isn't one in the traditional sense, but certainly there will be a perception of conflict of interest. The government will control racing and racing days in British Columbia, which will affect other tracks in the province as well. That's where I have some concern, and all I want to do is express it to the Attorney General.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The debate would go more quickly if I didn't keep answering, but I think it's important to answer on that point. The government itself, through cabinet, has had control over racing days; racing days have been established by order-in-council. We are devolving that power to the Racing Commission, which, without question, is appointed by government but is a regulatory agency independent of government. The decisions it makes are independent of government direction. We are having less government control and involvement by the combination of these two bills -- on the one hand, by giving the Racing Commission more authority to regulate the activities; on the other hand, by establishing an association to manage and operate -- either directly or indirectly -- the affairs of the industry. I think we are getting away from government involvement in a very clear way.
A. Warnke: On a point of order, I believe there is an amendment on the floor. Therefore a vote has to be taken on that.
The Chair: For clarification, we have voted on the amendment. The amendment was defeated, and we are now debating section 2.
C. Serwa: On a point of order. I think the reason the vote was not clarified was that the Chair asked a question, but didn't ask for the yeas and nays. In that case, the amendment was called. The Chair just listened to the sprinkling of yeas and nays, and indicated the amendment was passed. I don't think the correct form was followed.
The Chair: For clarification, we did have a vote and the amendment was defeated.
Section 2 approved.
On section 3.
A. Warnke: As it states, the purpose of this section is to make it clear that horse-racing facilities are maintained, improved and operated in British Columbia. It prompts us to ask: by whom? We understand that it's maintained, improved and operated in British Columbia. As it reads, where else would it be operated? Would the ministry guarantee that all opportunities for maintaining, improving and operating racing facilities be tendered?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: In general terms, if the association is going to contract out....
Interjection.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I think that's because I don't talk loudly enough; it's not that people are interrupting.
In general terms, if the association is going to contract out significant elements of what is has to do, then it would be tendered. The policy that applies to Crown corporations would apply here as well. As I said earlier, it may well be that in some elements of its operation the association determines that it should run them directly, and in that sense would not tender. I want to be clear about that. The general policies that apply would apply to them as well.
A. Warnke: Just as a clarification, I'll try to raise my voice, too.
From our vantage point, a number of people have expressed that. Let me put it bluntly: the government sometimes expresses a political bias in favour of trade unions. Given the nature of some of the legislation, it has been expressed to us generally that there might be select unionized sectors in which these racing facilities might be maintained, improved and operated. People want some reassurance that bias of that nature would not be injected here. The wording in section 3(1) is pretty loose and general, and perhaps it would be constructive for the minister to alleviate those fears and respond to the question.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm sorry, I'm not sure what the concerns might be. Could the member clarify what concerns he is referring to?
A. Warnke: Simply put, the concern that has been expressed to us is about union bias in granting contracts.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Contracts would be rendered to the successful bidder, and if the successful bidder has employees, the employees have rights under the Labour Relations Code. I really don't see how that leads us anywhere. If the member is talking about
[ Page 9399 ]
contracts under the fair wage policy, then the policy that applies to Crown corporations would no doubt apply. I really don't see where that's going.
C. Tanner: In section 3, the word "facilities" is in plural. Is that more than one facility in British Columbia?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: "Facilities" generally does mean more than one -- plurals do. The member is properly concerned about southern Vancouver Island. The issue here is to allow the association to operate a training track in the Fraser Valley as a facility. That's the thinking. If, when determining how to improve thoroughbred racing in the province, issues arise that relate to southern Vancouver Island and it becomes apparent that some assistance can be provided by the association, then they will provide it. I don't think this means that there's any direct concern or connection with Sandown -- not at this stage, anyway. I don't know where that's going to go in the longer term. There are a lot of issues around that. We would all like to find a way of making that facility more a part of the industry, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it has to be operated by the association. We're not talking here about aggrandizement on the part of the association at all. The plural "facilities" is designed to allow the training facility in the valley.
C. Tanner: I'm interested to hear that there's a probability of a facility in the Fraser Valley. Is the minister saying that the park in Vancouver and what might happen in the Fraser Valley is the limit of possibilities here? Is there any likelihood in the Okanagan and on Vancouver Island of keeping those facilities going?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I have no doubt that if there are horses available to race, the Racing Commission will very carefully consider awarding racing dates to the tracks in Osoyoos, Vernon, Kamloops, Princeton and at Sandown in Saanich, where and when the Racing Commission feels it's appropriate to award them. That's an issue that is separate from the Pacific Racing Association. There's no desire at all for the Racing Association to take over the facilities in any of those communities; they are well run locally. That's not where we have the problem in the industry at the moment.
A. Warnke: Under section 3 there is another aspect I want to address here. The funding for the improving of Exhibition Park is reputed to be done through a $30 million loan or something of that nature, or it may even be up to $50 million, based on racing revenue. The loan will be paid back through wagers. This was brought to the attention of the minister during second reading, but we would like some clarification. Where will the funding come from for acquiring land?
[4:45]
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The funding will come from money borrowed by the association in its role as a Crown corporation -- this is one of the reasons it needs to be a Crown corporation -- and will be guaranteed by the provincial government. But the money will not be able to exceed the ability to service the debt that is generated internally from that portion of the handle which is available for those purposes. Numbers have been thrown around. The number $30 million has been generated through work that the Racing Commission has had commissioned. It may well be that in the early going $30 million is too high a number to be sustained by the revenue, and a more modest improvement program will have to be developed. The number $50 million has been bandied about -- I don't know where that number comes from, but these numbers tend to grow. It's like rumours: they change from day to day, and the opposition sometimes -- not often -- has a tendency to exaggerate as well. But I can give the assurance that the borrowing will not exceed the ability to service the debt.
C. Serwa: I have two questions. The first one follows the questions of the hon. member. In earlier statements the hon. Attorney General indicated that we're probably a decade away from requiring the one-mile track and the expanded or enhanced type of development in the western portion of Delta. It seems to me that when you look at amortizing, say, $30 million over an anticipated lifetime of ten years, it doesn't appear to be a very wise type of investment. The reality is that if the Western Delta proposal went ahead, it would probably be two years before it could come on-line. It must be a massive construction project. But it seems that when you're looking at amortizing $30 million over a ten-year period, and then we're faced with something else that will nullify this type of an investment, it doesn't appear to be a prudent or wise decision from a fiscal point of view. Perhaps the minister would comment on that.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The moneys involved that we're talking about would certainly not all be invested at Exhibition Park. The acquisition and development of a training track would take a chunk of the money, and I'm fairly confident that in the next couple of years $30 million is on the top end, outside of any real possibilities. But it's not all at Exhibition Park, and it will be done in a way that ensures that appropriate amortization is considered. There's no sense at all in pouring money into a facility and then have it sit idle at some point in the future. So all of those issues will be under consideration. One of the reasons it's very important that the board of the association be carefully chosen is to ensure that they have the kind of business sense and ability to understand and deal with those kinds of issues.
C. Serwa: The second question has to do with wording in the Jawl report with respect to section 3. The Jawl report recommended that the mandate of the racing association should, in addition to the development and efficient operation of horse-racing facilities, include protecting and promoting the interests of the industry in general.
[ Page 9400 ]
Instead of development and efficient operation, the government is using the phrase "maintained, improved and operated." Why is "maintained" used instead of "development" and why is "efficient operation" dropped in favour of "improved and operated"? There seems to be some difference there. I would like to know why there is the change in words, because they're significantly different from the recommendations in the report.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The words were chosen to reflect the reality of what we intend to do. If the members look at the words, "maintained" is to ensure that there's continuity of racing. The next is "improved," which we've talked about often -- the need to improve -- and "operated" is to make sure that they get operated one way or another. Again, despite Mr. Jawl's report, at this stage we have a very clear and tight focus on what we're doing.
I have no doubt whatsoever that the association will, as a matter of course, be involved in the general goals that are articulated by Mr. Jawl, but we are not mandating those specifically at this time. The job they have in front of them is immense, and because we are specifying that they have these responsibilities, that doesn't mean they can't do other things beyond that.
K. Jones: I'd like the minister to give us some idea of how the finances in regard to this would be considered. I understand that probably a settlement will be made with the Jockey Club, which will take about two to three years of track facility's profits to pay off. Beyond that, you're talking about $30 million, which is going to be spread over more than 30 years -- amortization on the payments plus interest accumulated.
Have there been economic projections done? Is there a revenue expense stream established for the next ten years? Does the minister know where the profits are going to come from for the contracted operator? He says he's going to offer the operation of the track to a contractor. If the profits are being used to pay off the capital, where are the profits going to be for the operator to have any interest in operating it?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Given the absence of any organization out there, other than the Racing Commission, to help prepare this kind of project, I asked the Racing Commission to look into all these questions -- including the ones the member raises -- last year. They commissioned several studies that looked at the economics and all the technical issues as well as the financial issues. Everything we are doing and proposing is consistent with the information given to the Racing Commission by the consultants that were retained.
As for the question of a contractor receiving profits and where those profits would come from if all the profits are being diverted to debt retirement, part of the equation is that it may be a reason for the association to run the track directly by hiring people to actually do it, rather than on a contract basis. It may be; that's a question that they will determine and I won't direct.
There is at the moment in the handle -- I think everybody's familiar with the term -- 5 1/2 cents that goes to the operator. There's money within that for operational purposes. For development purposes, there is also another 1/2 cent that has been going into a fund for some time.
As far as the arrangements with the Jockey Club are concerned, I would feel far more comfortable not talking about that in any real way at this stage, given that discussions are currently ongoing between the government and the Jockey Club, as members will know from reading the sports pages in the daily newspapers on occasion.
K. Jones: Would the profitability of the track be enhanced by increasing the racing days? Is it possible that we would have both standardbred and thoroughbred racing at Exhibition Park to increase that return, and is it possible that it even could be operated successfully? Have those factors been looked at?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Decisions about increased numbers of racing days, if that's what the member's question is, would be made by the Racing Commission. Those decisions would be based more on availability of horses than on any other question. One day this year, they couldn't even run on a particular day they had assigned because there weren't sufficient horses available. That is really one of the major determining factors. Another, of course, is public participation in betting and all that. The Racing Commission makes those decisions independent of government and independent of the Pacific Racing Association.
K. Jones: Could the minister give us assurance that the standardbred operations at Cloverdale raceway, which are fairly successful operations, are not going to be affected by this legislation?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Yes. I gave that assurance earlier this afternoon in this debate, and I'll give it again now. As I said earlier, I also gave it to Mr. Keeling and his lawyer some three, four or five weeks ago.
Sections 3 and 4 approved.
On section 5.
A. Warnke: I have a very quick question -- it was raised at second reading -- about some of the financial aspects of this. Could the minister quickly describe the criterion for turning down the borrowing request? This seems to get at the heart of the argument that was put forward on why governments should not be involved. I would like some sort of clarification on the criterion for turning down borrowing requests. It revolves around section 5(3): "The association may not borrow without the approval of the Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations."
Hon. C. Gabelmann: All borrowing would have to be approved by the Minister of Finance, and the ministry clearly has its own rules, policies and ques-
[ Page 9401 ]
tions it would ask that would have to be answered satisfactorily. The Financial Administration Act also provides the opportunity for cabinet to set policies around borrowing as well.
K. Jones: I move the amendment that is on the order paper in my name.
[SECTION 5, to amend section 5, subsection (6), by replacing "30 days" with "15 days".]
On the amendment.
K. Jones: The reason I moved this amendment to change the 30 days listed here to 15 days is that the statutory requirement for bringing reports to the Legislature is 15 days, and I would like to see it kept in line with the statutory requirements.
[5:00]
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The member talks about statutory reporting time. The statutory reporting time is contained within each statute -- the member shakes his head -- and most statutory reporting times are in fact 30 days. Reports given to government are determined by the context in which the report itself is developed. To my knowledge, there is no general statutory requirement for any number of days. Thirty is a standard provision in most statutes.
K. Jones: I believe it's in the Interpretation Act. It is one that was identified with reference to the reporting of the Korbin commission and was confirmed on several occasions when I requested copies of it.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The member has mentioned the Interpretation Act. I wonder if he means the Inquiry Act.
K. Jones: Perhaps it is.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Under the Inquiry Act, of course, we're talking about inquiries that are established without a statutory framework. Where there is no statute and a report is being done by somebody under the Inquiry Act, yes, it is 15 days. Most reports to the Legislature, the routine ones that get introduced here -- not every day, but frequently -- are produced in accordance with the statute that the report relates to. For the most part, that provision is 30 days.
K. Jones: In view of the minister's statement, I will withdraw the amendment.
Section 5 approved.
On section 6.
C. Serwa: A question for my information. Subsection (2) exempts the association from the Company Act and the Company Clauses Act, and then subsection (3) allows cabinet to order some provisions of the Company Act to apply to the association. Why is this? I know it's a Crown corporation, but why do you exempt it and then give the cabinet the opportunity to come back in?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm glad the member asked the question, because I didn't know the answer myself. I hadn't asked that question....
This is a standard provision contained within statutes that establish Crown corporations. The ability of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to order specified provisions of the Company Act to apply is in order to enable a winding up of the corporation's affairs should that ever be necessary. So the Company Act would not apply, as it does not to Crown corps; but for winding-up purposes the Company Act could apply.
Sections 6 and 7 approved.
Title approved.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Bill 74, Pacific Racing Association Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I call committee on Bill 72.
HORSE RACING ACT
The House in committee on Bill 72; D. Streifel in the chair.
On section 1.
A. Warnke: I want to explore a couple of the definitions. What should be clarified within the definition of horse racing is the distinction between conduct or presentation of all types of racing in which horses participate. The existing legislation stipulates that horse racing includes all types of racing in which horses participate. The question is: does this definition of "horse racing" permit the commission to authorize and license offtrack betting parlours?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The answer is yes.
A. Warnke: Would this include current owner-operated training farms?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Is the member still talking about the word "presentation," or is he talking about the definition immediately above?
A. Warnke: No, I'm not talking about those two; it's "designated race horse training centre."
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The purpose of this is for cabinet to be able designate the training centre in the
[ Page 9402 ]
Fraser Valley. Conceivably, of course, cabinet could make other designations, but none are on the horizon. There are none that I can think of at the moment, other than the need to have a training centre.
Sections 1 and 2 approved.
On section 3.
A. Warnke: Although section 21 specifies that the commission must make an annual report to the minister and must report on specific matters at the request of the minister, it would seem that the commission is rather autonomous in conducting its affairs. Section 3(2) indicates that the commission may adopt procedures for conducting its affairs. Are there any other checks on the commission itself?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The limitations that could be placed on the commission are contained in section 22(1), where it says, "Subject to any limitations the Lieutenant Governor in Council may prescribe," and then again in section 24, "The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations," and in subsection (2)(b): "...prescribing limits on any of the powers of the commission under this Act."
Section 3 approved.
On section 4.
C. Serwa: I'd like an explanation or clarification on section 4(3), where the reference is to some decision-making capacity: "...any one or more members of the commission or to any one or more persons or classes of persons appointed or employed by the commission." What does the minister envision with the "classes of persons appointed"? What is that in relation to? How does that fit in?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The purpose here is for officials at the track, such as the stewards and judges.
Section 4 approved.
On section 5.
A. Warnke: This is very exciting to be part of the daily double.
One point is with subsection (2). What might "race meetings or horse racing of a prescribed type" or "other race meetings or horse racing exempted by the Lieutenant Governor in Council" include? Why would such events be exempt from being licensed?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The Horse Racing Act now in place talks, in part 2, section 8(3), about trotting. For example, I'll just read this section, and I think members will see what we're trying to do in a moment: "...race meetings held under the auspices of an agricultural or exhibition association at which there are trotting or pacing races of horses in harness exclusively...."
The kind of detail contained in the previous legislation is deliberately not included in this legislation to allow the commission and/or the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to make particular regulations so that either the commission or the government can deal with particular situations as they arise, rather than being constrained by legislation that may soon be out of date.
Section 5 approved.
On section 6.
A. Warnke: Subsection (1) indicates: "...the commission may, in its absolute discretion...issue or renew or refuse to issue or renew any licence required under this Act." The commission may adopt this as its own procedures for conducting its own affairs, as stated in section 3. Therefore appeals of the decisions of the commission must be made to an appeal board -- section 17 -- made up of commissioners not involved in the initial decision. It would seem, therefore, that the commission has the last word on licence issuance. Could there not be some other kind of arm's-length appeal body or an appeal to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The appeal provision would be governed in section 17 and in section 18, where there's an appeal to the Court of Appeal. The general principle involved here is that the Racing Commission has the expertise to know whether or not a particular licence should be issued or renewed. One wouldn't expect a court to know that. The court should properly concern itself with procedural fairness and those kinds of questions, and not try to second-guess whether next Tuesday should be a race day, or whatever other decision is envisioned under section 6.
Sections 6 to 10 inclusive approved.
On section 11.
C. Serwa: In my mind this is perhaps one of the most contentious sections of this proposed legislation: the absolute discretion to assign race days. It ties in with my earlier question with respect to the perception of conflict of interest. My concern is that because of the structure of the Racing Commission, it would have some predisposition to assign race days to certain courses on certain days, and there apparently is no provision for an appeal. This seems very wrong indeed.
[5:15]
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The member and I have had this discussion before in several contexts, regarding the question of appeals of decisions of commissions or quasi-judicial bodies. The first thing the member needs to think about, when considering his own perspective on this issue, is that when cabinet has the power to set racing days -- as it has had for many years -- the decision is virtually unappealable. Only in very rare and unusual circumstances would cabinet
[ Page 9403 ]
decisions ever go before a court for review, and courts would be very loath to exercise a decision-making function. We've transferred the power from the cabinet, where it was virtually unappealable, to the Racing Commission, where there is the opportunity for a judicial review of a decision. In that sense, there is more opportunity for access to the courts through a judicial review.
I think it's important for members to know that the commission is established to make the decisions -- in this case, about race dates. No other body will have better knowledge of the industry or more ability to make the decision than the Racing Commission itself. No court could more knowledgeably put its conclusions on which days the races should be held in Princeton than the Racing Commission. So it's for those kinds of reasons. The commission has the knowledge and the expertise. I think it would be a mistake to transfer that to some body that doesn't. But the bottom line is that there is more remedy now for appeal than there was before we passed this legislation.
C. Serwa: I'm certainly not going to belabour that point. But the bottom line with respect to the appeal is not clear in my mind, other than from the individuals who are actually active in the Racing Commission, and perhaps the ability to lobby those individuals for the original decision.... If the decision forthcoming is questioned or is not favourable for one reason or another, there is no other avenue of appeal -- not through any system and not through the courts. That, fundamentally, is my concern.
Section 11 approved.
On section 12.
A. Warnke: Perhaps the minister would comment on this. A concern has been expressed that this section actually decreases whatever power the municipality has now in their involvement in the industry. The title seems to state that the municipality has lost power. Incidentally, the municipality does not include the city of Vancouver, as outlined in section 12(1). That concern has been expressed; I believe it was expressed during second reading as well. It is out there. I would like the minister to respond to that concern.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The legislation under which we have been operating is section 11, which was either passed in 1960 or before. It's a very old section, which, in fact, is replicated in section 12. What we've done with the old section 11 is replicate it in section 12, updating it in several respects. We're updating it in terms of language and in terms of the sections of the Municipal Act. It also makes the Vancouver Charter apply. Obviously the city of Vancouver is not under the Municipal Act, and so Vancouver would be treated in the same way as any other municipality as a result of this amendment.
A. Warnke: I take it from the minister's remarks that there has not really been a substantive change. I think that's important for the record.
Section 12 approved.
On section 13.
A. Warnke: There is always a concern about maintaining credibility and control, especially control of illegal activities. This was most certainly the intent of the original 1960 legislation. I believe that has to be maintained. I have no problem with maintaining the powers that are appropriate. On the other hand, the point has been raised by some people that the powers in section 13 can possibly increase interference, especially under 13(2). Persons appointed can come in at any time and demand records on the spot. In some ways, I'm very sympathetic to that. At the same time, there is the concern that this may lead to an unnecessary invasion of certain premises. Interference is what I would be most concerned about. I would like the minister to address this concern and perhaps alleviate it somewhat.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: One of the concerns that opposition members have raised during this and the last legislative session has been that a lot of law is being transferred from the legislation to the regulations. This is the reverse of that. We are transferring into the legislation powers of inspection that have been and are now in the regulations. This section is, as close as possible, faithful to the current powers that are given to the commission under the regulations. Our feeling is that it's more appropriate in the legislation.
Section 13 approved.
On section 14.
A. Warnke: I think we know that in the sports world we are far more concerned about testing and analysis of animals. For that matter, in the sports world generally we know all about steroids and the rest of it. It doesn't take too much of a leap of understanding to recognize the need for such testing. To maintain the integrity and credibility of the sport, some spontaneity as to how that testing is to be conducted is extremely important. On the other hand, one concern that has been expressed to me is that such tests might apply to a jockey or a horse.... We know that these tests before and after a race are already in operation. But what has been expressed to me is a concern that this would give the commission the power to request a test of a licensee for no evident reason. To alleviate that concern, perhaps the minister could respond.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The powers contained in the regulations heretofore are transferred to the legislation. I think it's clear that no one needs to be subject to these tests and analyses if they choose not to participate in the industry. But it's very important in this industry that there be no.... I was going to say monkey business, but I'm not sure that's an appropriate
[ Page 9404 ]
term to describe horse racing. Nonetheless, the member knows what I mean. It's very important that it be above-board, that the commission have an opportunity to exercise a very real discipline on the industry and its participants, both human and equine. They are given this power by legislation instead of by regulation, which is what they have had until now.
F. Gingell: I am just terrified I am going to ask a stupid question, because on the face of it.... I was rushing through that trying to find out where a horse is a licensee. Surely you're not talking about taking these tests from the owners. Or is there some means that the horse's blood, the horse's breath, the horse's urine, are owned by the licensee? It surely cannot mean what it appears to say.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Section 14(1) tests licensees; section 14(3) tests horses. It's as important that jockeys don't take any untoward substances as it is that the horses don't. They are each caught: one in one section, one in the other.
F. Gingell: In the definitions section there isn't a definition of a licensee, so I presume one looks through the act and finds all the people that are required to have licences. Can you advise who is required to be licensed under the terms of the act?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: If the member turns to section 22 on page 12, he will see that under the horse racing rules, section 22(1)(b) has a list of people who require licensing, described by their occupation. That's who we're talking about here.
Sections 14 and 15 approved.
On section 16.
A. Warnke: It reads here that the commission must on request give written reasons for the actions in subsection (2), but there is no definitive period of time. Perhaps we should stipulate that the commission will provide a written reason within a specified period. I'm certainly willing to propose an amendment to specify within 14 days of the decision, if that would help. The licensee should have the reasons spelled out within a reasonable period of time.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The member makes what in the ordinary course of events would be a point that I would agree with. Specified times are a useful guide to decision-making bodies. However, in this case there are possibilities of additional time being required for analysis. If you set a particular time, you may not, as a result of that, enable a proper examination to have been conducted, and then the time limit is such that the purpose fails. There's no time limit for that reason. I would expect that there is a requirement that.... I'm just going to check this out. What I was going to say is what I will say. There is a general common-law notion that this would have to be done within a reasonable period of time, so undue delay without good reason would not be acceptable.
[5:30]
Section 16 approved.
On section 17.
C. Serwa: Again, the appeals section is my section. Notably absent from the appeals are the racing days, which I know the minister has elaborated on. I'll have to accept the minister's response on that, although there's a peculiar paradox here in that section 17(3)(a) says: "...if there are 3 or more members of the commission who were not involved in making the decision being appealed." The commission is to be constituted of not less than three members, but I take it from this that there can be a minimum of three members on the commission. It seems that it would be very difficult for anyone to successfully appeal anything, because three members would have to be absent from the particular meeting that made that decision. It appears that we have an appeal process that is fraught with the difficulty to be implemented, and I'm confident, knowing the hon. Attorney General, that that's not what he envisioned, so perhaps he'll explain it to me.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm glad the member is confident, because his confidence is well placed, if I may say so. The decisions that we're talking about here are almost always decisions of stewards -- not decisions of the Racing Commission but rather of stewards, who make decisions during every race. Those decisions can be appealed to the commission. However, if the commission makes a decision, and there's no ability to have another part of the commission hear the appeal, then the appeal is to the Court of Appeal, as noted in the next section.
Sections 17 to 22 inclusive approved.
On section 23.
A. Warnke: The penalties stipulated in the existing and new legislation are similar: both contain a fine of not more than $5,000. But the new legislation has the stipulation of a cash penalty or imprisonment of not more than six months. I would also like clarification on who imposes the fine or does the sentencing -- especially of a jail term. How is it possible for the commission made up of laypeople to impose a prison sentence? Is this not a matter for the courts? I think we need some clarification here.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The courts would apply this provision, so these are penalties that a court could apply following a trial in the Supreme Court, presumably.
Sections 23 to 29 inclusive approved.
Title approved.
[ Page 9405 ]
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.
Motion approved on division.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Bill 72, Horse Racing Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.
Hon. A. Hagen: I call committee on Bill 39.
MULTICULTURALISM ACT
(continued)
The House in committee on Bill 39; E. Barnes in the chair.
On section 7.
V. Anderson: On section 7....
An Hon. Member: Take your time.
V. Anderson: Hon. Chair, if I have a little pressure from behind me, it has nothing to do with this bill. They've got a pool going on what time we finish today.
A. Warnke: And no conflict of interest here.
V. Anderson: No, mine was 3 a.m., so I'm all right. We won't go that long.
All the way along we have appreciated the intent of the Multiculturalism Act, and we have supported it because it has come from the community and clearly out of community involvement. I appreciate the minister interacting with the community in this regard. I realize that during the progress of the act, we have raised a number of questions about the implications of the act, and I think that's important, because its implications are fundamental.
As we move into section 7, this is an area of the act that is very important and significant. I would like, first of all, to ask the minister if she would like to comment on section 7 and its implication and intent.
Hon. A. Hagen: I thank the member for his question, because this is a very significant clause in the bill that we are debating. This is what we might call the accountability clause. It's a very simple one in its language, but this particular section requires that every ministry of government and every Crown corporation reports annually on initiatives taken by that ministry or Crown corporation in pursuit of the goals of multiculturalism. Those might be broadly stated in respect to the policies that are enunciated in the act, but they may also be specific goals that we would set for the year.
So we have both those elements that can play upon the work of government in respect to our multiculturalism goals. There will be opportunity, I might note, for us to comment on those through estimates debate, which is one of the ways in which we look at the achievement of initiatives of government. Each ministry and each Crown will report annually to the minister responsible for multiculturalism, and those reports, along with the reports of the advisory committee, will form the basis for the annual report on multiculturalism achievements, which will be tabled in the Legislature each year.
V. Anderson: The minister talked about initiatives, and perhaps she could give some examples. I'll tell you why there is a concern there. One of the concerns that we've heard from the community in relation to other bills is the question of equity and whether this is being used in a narrow sense only in the area of equity and merit -- that's a discussion I don't want to get into at the moment, because it has its own validity -- and whether there are other areas or a different perspective of that which the initiatives are meant to cover. While she is responding to that, she might also indicate whether the goals that are going to be set out for the ministries will come from the minister. Or will those goals be directed by the council?
Hon. A. Hagen: Just to be sure that I heard the last part of the question, will they be goals set out by the minister or will they be directed by the council?
V. Anderson: Yes.
Hon. A. Hagen: Thank you, I didn't quite catch that last word.
Initiatives will come from a variety of perspectives. First of all, as minister, I will be establishing certain goals. Those goals are articulated through the inter ministry council, which is dealing with some specific goals that we've talked about through this debate. For example, the issue of equity is something that is being discussed throughout government, and there are initiatives and opportunities being made available for people from the equity groups -- not just the multicultural groups, but women, aboriginal people and people with disabilities.
So those goals are there. They are being addressed more fundamentally by ministries other than mine. For instance, employment equity is an issue that is covered by the Women's Equality ministry; it's also an aspect of the Public Service Act that we have been debating, and I know we're not going to get into that discussion again.
Individual ministries have taken initiatives around the policy that has existed. We've talked about the fact that in this legislation we have embodied four or five years of work around achieving goals that are defined through multicultural policy. There's nothing in our work that would suggest that this is a one-person show, where the direction comes from one minister. Initiatives and activities in fact will come from ministries themselves: the Minister of Labour spoke about some of the work that had happened in his ministry; the Minister of Advanced Education is doing work in his ministry on education and bridging for multicultural groups. Those initiatives need to be there.
Just to look at my own ministry, we will be continuing to refine the Newcomers' Guide. We have simplified that guide from being a very bureaucratic
[ Page 9406 ]
effort that was hard to read and hard to access to what is now a plain-language document that is also being made available in five different languages. So we'll continue to refine that work. The work that we're doing, for example in education, with our learning resources branch, our multicultural branch and with the school districts around anti-racism and multicultural education within the schools will be a very important initiative.
Broadly speaking, I think we will be looking at how our services are culturally sensitive. In discussing these initiatives, we have looked at Health, Social Services, the Education ministry, the Attorney General ministry, and the ways in which we can look at achieving our goals in those areas that are fundamentally serving people in a variety of ways.
[5:45]
I expect too that we will be hearing from the Multicultural Advisory Committee on initiatives that we should be taking, because it has both the capacity to initiate on its own topics and issues that it wants government to address. They set their own agenda this year, and they set up subcommittees to prepare reports for me; and I also have the capacity to ask for their advice on these matters.
Let's say that this should be something that we infuse into our government rather than it being something that is highly structured. But the structure needs to be there, and the annual goals need to be there and reported by ministries through the estimates process, and then through an annual report, where we will see that kind of progress and be able to move forward from the point that we've arrived at. I hope that next year the annual report will have a very good focus on the multicultural achievements of our government.
V. Anderson: That's very helpful, because I agree with the minister. This responsibility of all of the ministers of government to report is probably the most significant actual structural activity within this as far as the government, and the kind of services that they can provide to the community in a cultural sensitive kind of way, is concerned.
I was hoping the minister might say something about cultural competence -- and I'm taking this from the study on multiculturalism done by the Social Services ministry. I want to highlight that British Columbia has always been a multicultural community. It's the awareness that this is not a new thing that needs to come about. This is a recognition of something that has always been there. I think that's important. It may not have been recognized, but it's always been there.
I have just a couple of comments which seem relative, and I'm wondering if these are the kinds of things that the ministries will be asked to become aware of. Talking about the evolution of multiculturalism, it says: "...it's an age-old reality for Canada. Before colonization, aboriginal communities themselves were multicultural, with different languages, religions and cultural practices." From that time to this, we have added that kind of awareness. I'm curious about this. It seems to me that one of the things that needs to be done is to help each ministry realize on whose behalf they are serving. I'm afraid that the discussion about hiring and equity has overshadowed the other, more significant part of the service aspect of cultural sensitivity.
The Charter of Rights states: "This Charter shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the preservation and enhancement of the multicultural heritage of Canadians." It says "evolution and enhancement," and not the creation of something new. It seems important to me that this reflect an educational process for those of us who are part of the government and the ministry. It will be through that growing awareness within the staff of the ministries themselves that processes will automatically change, because the attitudes have changed. It's that change of attitude, understanding and awareness within the members of the government that will be most significant -- that is, how you relate to people, and how you understand what they are trying to say as you live and work with them in the community.
It seems to me that the real effect of this is going to come primarily from section 7. That's why I have stressed this for the moment. Instead of this happening in one ministry, it's being suggested that it will happen in all ministries. I'm sure that many of those who endorsed it in theory are not really aware of what it takes for any one of us to be culturally competent in the work that we do. It will involve a very drastic change in how we do the work of government. It seems to me that's crucial. I wonder if the minister would respond. I want to take a few minutes on this, because I think it's the key item we have left to deal with. It's how the whole government and all its ministries will interact with the community.
Hon. A. Hagen: I couldn't have put it better. In fact, much of that work is going on now through the interministry committee and through education courses that are available and being encouraged among our staff. It is the idea of managing for diversity, and the issue of relationships in cultural understanding. You have put it very well, hon. member. Those elements that you've described are indeed critical parts of this section. They are ones that we'll be able to tangibly report on as ministries talk about the work that they are doing, both in their own ministries and across ministries. It is a shared task that, as you say, needs to be infused across the whole government. Thank you for your comments.
C. Serwa: I have a question, but before I get onto that question, apparently there's some sort of a pool going on.
The Chair: Order, please. There are some members in the chamber who are carrying on a separate debate. It's making it difficult for the Chair to hear the members who have the floor.
C. Serwa: I just want to let you know that I have been exposed to some pressure. Some of the members who have picked a later time than that on the clock have asked me to speak a little slower, sssoooo iiifff yooooou thiiiiiinnk thhhhhhhe mmmmmmeeeemmmber foorrr
[ Page 9407 ]
Riiichmoonnnd-Steeeevestonnn taaaalks sloooowwww, juuuust yoooouu waaaait. [Laughter.]
It is not clear to me that there is a realization of the difference between multiculturalism and ethnicity in this section. When I listen to the minister and look through this bill, it seems to me that there is some confusion. They are two different things altogether. In my view, the essence of the Canadian culture is multiculturalism. I truly believe that, but I see through this particular bill a flavour of ethnicity that is substantially different from multiculturalism. Perhaps the minister would assure me that the true intent is the concept of multiculturalism, not the extension or expansion of ethnicity in Canada. First and foremost, we are all Canadians. I am a Canadian of Ukrainian descent, but I am a Canadian first and foremost, and my concern is always related to that.
Hon. A. Hagen: I agree with the member. We are dealing with understanding across the different cultures that make up the mosaic of our country. That doesn't mean that we don't understand some of the individual cultures and what they contribute to that mosaic. That, of course, is a part of the blending and the understanding. The focus on us recognizing diversity and the blending of those diverse cultures into our government, our society and our political and community life, is what this is all about. Everything that we do in the policies that we enunciate in Multiculturalism B.C. are very strongly focused in that direction. As we come to the grants section, I will be able to comment about the focus on multicultural activities of community groups as the basis for grants that we, under my ministry, provide to promote these things that we're talking about.
V. Anderson: I want to thank the minister for the Newcomers' Guide that she mentioned. I have one comment about liability insurance -- which is not in the guide -- that I hope will included in the next revision. I noticed an article in the paper today commending the minister for that action. That's the kind of direction in which I understand we are going. Picking up on that, it seems to me -- and I relate it particularly to section 7 -- that the government ministries are going to need a common guide about the meaning and implication of words, just as the previous member has asked. What do we mean by multiculturalism? What do we mean by ethnicity? These words have different meanings in different cultures, so we need to develop some common understanding of them.
As an illustration, I think the minister has probably seen a letter that came from David Spence which questions the use of "race" and what we mean by it in our present context. I would like to take a little from that letter: "Today I ask what does race mean that is different from other words like cultural, heritage, religion, ethnicity, ancestry and place of origin, which are used many times through the bill? Does race mean something which is not included in these more specific words?" He then goes on to ask if race means the colour of the skin or some of these visible things -- what is the implication of this? I won't go into detail, but it raises the question that when the ministries are working on it from a variety of different cultural backgrounds, those of us who have not had to deal much in thinking out the implications of these terminologies.... If there is a guideline for these ministries, both within and out, with an understanding of these terms and meanings and a guideline for implementing the other parts of the act, it would be most helpful. It's crucial that there be a common understanding in every ministry, one that is the same and is using the words in the same way in applying it to their particular areas of interest.
Hon. A. Hagen: I know that the federal government has put out such a guide, and we are looking at that. Some of these matters have been discussed with the interministerial committee. They are important issues of understanding.
V. Anderson: One of the other questions is probably the last one we will ask at the moment. In putting this out from the ministries, what will be the means by which we'll be able to evaluate or measure the change that takes place from one year to another? Is there a kind of measure of the starting point, and how are we going to measure it? We can't do it just by programs, although that's one measure. It would be the effectiveness of those programs in trying to undertake the purpose of the act.
Hon. A. Hagen: We have a baseline that's an inventory of services, and annual reports by their format can serve a very useful purpose in this regard. As minister, I intend to be very sensitive to that, because we do want to say where we started from, where we have gone and where we need to go.
V. Anderson: My final comment on this section. In my church terms, I would like to be a church mouse sitting in on the cabinet meetings when all the different ministries are there trying to work out the implications and meanings of this from their variety of perspectives. It would be a most interesting and exciting philosophical discussion as the cabinet works through it. That's the crux of what is going to happen in that particular area. Thank you for your comment.
Section 7 approved.
On section 8.
K. Jones: With regard to the grants program, could the minister give us an idea of just how this is going to be operated and how much money is involved?
Hon. A. Hagen: There is currently approximately $1 million in grants for multiculturalism, and that is an increase over last year. The process we use is a consultation process about the criteria and the main needs. We go out to the community and ask them to work with us in establishing the main needs. Once we've done that, the applications for grants are available. They are being offered twice a year at the present time, and the criteria are very clearly spelled out. At the
[ Page 9408 ]
end of each of those periods, we are also doing a review of the work that the grants have done during the year, again in consultation with the community, and we take a look ahead for the next year, toward where our focus should be. This year, with the additional money that is available, we will be initiating some new programs on race relations and dealing with racial understanding. We are now in the process of community consultation about some of the focuses for the use of those grants. They will be available in November of this year.
[6:00]
K. Jones: Would the minister be including in the process a measure of the value for money in the initial evaluation of the application? Would there also be a similar check when the program is nearing completion, or on a progressive basis if it's over a long period of time?
Hon. A. Hagen: Yes, hon. member. Not all funds are disbursed at the start of a grant. There is some holdback and a constant process of evaluation and accountability between my ministry officials and the community. This is a process in which the community is very much involved, and they are concerned that the grants be well-targeted and well-used. We have their very thorough support on this. We also welcome their recommendations as we develop means to use the dollars in the best way for the tasks identified.
V. Anderson: First of all, I understand about the grants for the purposes you have mentioned. But is there not also a program for new immigrants which is separate from some of the other grants? Would you like to comment on it?
Hon. A. Hagen: I will just note that we have two programs. The grants we are speaking about in this bill are developed with Multiculturalism B.C. But because we're very often dealing with communities that have some common ground.... We are certainly learning from each of the processes about how to have good community consultation. One of the things that's happening, too, is that we're learning how to manage our resources well, and the communities are working very closely with us in that regard.
K. Jones: With regard to the $1 million, how was that determined? Did the minister have some sort of budget and program set up to determine that, or is it actually a figure out of the blue? Why wouldn't $500,000 be a better amount? The other $500,000 could be used more constructively in other areas, rather than just handing out money.
Hon. A. Hagen: Decisions are taken on particular needs, and the decision was taken this year that this need was identified. We agreed that we would then discuss with the community the ways in which we could best use those resources. The program is evaluated each year, and the goals of the program are reviewed and may be adjusted on the basis of our discussions with the community about how the resources might best be used for the coming year.
It's an annual program, which is determined and evaluated in consultation with the community and redirected in ensuing years on the basis of those consultations. That happens with both the immigrant settlement branch and the multiculturalism branch. That way we're able to make sure we are using our resources in the best way, and the communities help us decide that. I'm very pleased that since we became government, funding for the Multiculturalism B.C. grants has doubled.
V. Anderson: To follow up on that comment for a moment, I'm assuming -- and you can correct me if my assumption is wrong -- that with the experience of last year, when the grants were $500,000, you had a basis for projecting the need, and that brought forth the $1 million this year. That amount didn't just come out of the air; I'm assuming that it came out of the experience with the communities.
In response to the minister's comment, I'd like to highlight something we have raised on a couple of occasions here. It's a multiculturalism act. But when we were talking about the grants, the minister kept referring to racism and race relations, rather than to multiculturalism and multicultural relations. I think that's the very concern that David Spence and others were raising. We have been caught in a trap. In trying to deal with multiculturalism, which is a very positive coming together and sharing with one another, and in recognizing our strengths -- as cultural competence does -- we get caught in the negative aspect of that, dealing with racism and anti-racism campaigns, rather than putting them into the context of multiculturalism.
I raise that because I think it's important that we as Canadians go beyond race relations and racism to multiculturalism, as was mentioned earlier. I think it's that larger context. There is a concern in the community that we not get dragged back to where we were. Those issues have to be dealt with. But as the act indicates, they have to be kept in the area of multiculturalism rather than in the others concerned with the problems.
Hon. A. Hagen: We really need to deal with both for the kind of understanding and relationship that we want to develop. Of the grants that were administered last year, just under 20 percent went to activities that were designed to promote positive race relations. The community has indicated that there is a need at this time for us to work in that area, and we are responding to the need the communities have identified. As I say, we're developing the criteria for those grants in consultation with the communities.
Section 8 approved.
On section 9.
K. Jones: With regard to section 9(3), "The minister may impose the terms and conditions on a grant made under this section that the minister considers appropriate," I find this to give the minister exceptional power.
[ Page 9409 ]
It allows the minister to utilize this power to be discriminatory. It provides an opportunity for discretion that could favour her own friends within the multicultural community or even people outside the multicultural community. I think that is pretty hard to do because everybody is in the multicultural community, aren't they? Does the minister consider everyone to be in the multicultural community?
Hon. A. Hagen: The member raises a question about subsection (3) on the terms and conditions of a grant that the minister may require to have in place as appropriate. Some of that comes out of the Financial Administration Act, where there has to be means by which the minister is accountable for funds that are disbursed through grants. Those are clearly set forth for the groups. In fact, they are frameworks for accountability. It's a standard clause in any granting process.
K. Jones: If the minister has intentions of accountability, why does she not put that down within this section, specifically calling for value for money and accountability, and also provide for an audit process to be put in place to determine how these grants are given?
Hon. A. Hagen: "Terms and conditions" is a very broad definition that would encompass any of the elements the member has spoken about.
K. Jones: But there is no commitment by the minister to do this, and that's what we're concerned about. Is the minister prepared today to make a commitment that she will, in the utilization of this clause, not be discriminatory in the distribution of approvals and that she will be expecting value-for-money accountability and will be putting in place an audit process to monitor and ensure that these programs are not wasting taxpayers' money?
Hon. A. Hagen: Yes, hon. member. I noted earlier that the criteria were set and that there were processes in place. As the grants are being utilized for monitoring, there is evaluation at the end of those grant processes. All of those are in place and will continue to be in place.
V. Anderson: I would be remiss if I didn't pass on to the minister, regarding the use of grants over the last year, the great appreciation from many of the multi-cultural communities for these grants and the manner in which they have been made available and for the freedom, in consultation, with which they've been able to use them for their own specific needs and programs. I think it's unique in the development that's taken place over the last couple of years, which has moved ahead very rapidly. For that reason there will be increasing pressure; it's self-defeating when it's successful. I wanted to pass on to the minister from many of the people I've talked to in the multicultural community their appreciation for the support and the opportunity that they've had.
Hon. A. Hagen: I can't resist the opportunity to thank the members of the multicultural branch and the multiculturalism and immigration part of the ministry for their role in that regard. This is a process where the cooperation of both government and the multicultural communities is essential, and I want to pay credit to the ministry people who have helped to contribute to the sense that people are being well served. They deserve a lot of credit for that as well in setting up the processes and working with the communities.
Sections 9 and 10 approved.
On section 11.
V. Anderson: Just a last comment. It seems to me that commencement here is superfluous, because this is a continuing process that has been very much underway. I was looking for an analogy, and the only one I could come up with that seemed somewhat close is that there has been a period of gestation and the babe is now being officially born and officially named.
Hon. A. Hagen: Hon. Chair, I'm going to have the last word. As a person who this last week has been celebrating her grandmotherliness with her two-year-old grandson, I am aware that gestation takes many forms and that we are parents and grandparents of this work. I hope that this particular piece of legislation flourishes and that our multicultural community flourishes in the years ahead.
Section 11 approved.
Title approved.
Hon. A. Hagen: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.
The Chair: With the House's indulgence, this is the last chance that the Chair will have, as well, to make a few comments. If hon. members will permit, I would like to recognize the presence of Dan Rose, Helena Turner and Jim Gordon, who are with the Queen's Printer. If anybody is glad to see the session end, I'm sure it would be those wonderful people up there. We would just like to thank them.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Bill 39, Multiculturalism Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed unanimously on a division.
The Speaker: Hon. members, I am informed that the Administrator is in the precincts and will shortly enter the chamber.
[6:15]
His Honour the Administrator entered the chamber and took his place in the chair.
[ Page 9410 ]
Law Clerk:
Social Service Tax Amendment Act, 1993
Advanced Education, Training and Technology Statutes Amendment Act, 1993
Motor Fuel Tax Amendment Act, 1993
Consumer Protection Statutes Amendment Act, 1993
Property Taxation Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1993
Local Elections Reform Act, 1993
Teaching Profession Amendment Act, 1993
Emergency Program Act
Multiculturalism Act
Cabinet Appeals Abolition Act
Health Authorities Act
Tobacco Tax Amendment Act, 1993
Special Accounts Appropriation and Control Amendment Act, 1993
Representation Agreement Act
Adult Guardianship Act
Public Guardian and Trustee Act
Health Care (Consent) and Care Facility (Admission) Act
Beaver Lodge Trust Lands Renewal Act
Health Professions Amendment Act, 1993
Forest Amendment Act (No. 2), 1993
Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Housing Statutes Amendment Act, 1993
Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Housing Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1993
Vancouver Charter Amendment Act, 1993
Pension Statutes Amendment Act, 1993
Pharmacists, Pharmacy Operations and Drug Scheduling Act
Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 1993
Employment Standards Amendment Act, 1993
Public Service Act
Residential Tenancy Amendment Act, 1993
Forest Amendment Act (No. 3), 1993
Health Professions Statutes Amendment Act, 1993
Horse Racing Act Land Title Amendment Act, 1993
Pacific Racing Association Act
Library Foundation of British Columbia Act
Cultural Foundation of British Columbia Act
Engineers and Geoscientists Amendment Act, 1993
Public Sector Employers Act
Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1993
Clerk of the House: In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Administrator doth assent to these bills.
Law Clerk:
Supply Act, 1993-94
Clerk of the House: In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Administrator doth thank Her Majesty's loyal subjects, accept their benevolence and assent to this bill.
His Honour the Administrator retired from the chamber.
Hon. M. Harcourt: As today will, hopefully, be the last sitting day of the current session, I wish to bring to the attention of the House an event of great significance. That is a day that started about 36 years ago in 1957 when a young, dashing lawyer by the name of Ian Horne was, by resolution of this House, appointed Deputy Clerk and Law Clerk to the Legislative Assembly. He was appointed Clerk of the Legislative Assembly in April 1973 and has served in that position with distinction until this year, when he is going to be formally leaving the post of Clerk of the House on August 31.
Ian was educated in Victoria at Victoria College, graduated from the University of British Columbia and came back to practise law as a barrister and solicitor in Victoria. He gained some insights at the grass-roots level of politics serving on the Oak Bay council for three years in 1968, 1969 and 1970. He also served in many other capacities here in Victoria -- as a director of the Royal Jubilee Hospital, honorary solicitor to the Queen Alexandra solarium, and as well -- and some may regard this as a dubious honour -- he was appointed in 1984 as an honourary life member of the press gallery. I didn't say that I thought it was a dubious honour, of course. Mr. Horne was appointed Ian Horne, QC, in 1979. He has the distinction -- which I think brings quite a remarkable honour to this House, in the choice of Ian -- of having the longest-serving record of any table officer within the Commonwealth.
Now we're going to have to await his best-selling book on the events that have occurred in and out of this House. But we'll have to wait a while, because upon his retirement he will continue to serve the assembly and the people of British Columbia in the capacity of Clerk consultant over the next two years.
Although we cannot give the traditional good wishes that we would on a retirement, as his duties to this House will continue, I think all of us would indeed like to express our gratitude to a member of this Legislature who has served as an officer to our great institution: Ian Horne. Thank you, Ian.
[6:30]
F. Gingell: British Columbia is reputed to have la cr�me de la cr�me of Clerks' tables in this country, and I concur. True parliamentarians are hard to come by. What's the recipe? A portion each of dignity, decorum, honesty and goodwill, and a double portion of integrity.
Ian Horne is a valued friend of so many people who have passed through this House. I am honoured to have him as a friend, as are so many of us in this building. He has served this institution loyally and with distinction for many years. I'm relieved he will not be leaving us entirely -- not that I question in any way the safe hands and competence of his successor. It's just that this Legislature will not be the same without him.
I don't know what new career Ian is planning. I know that he can make a little pocket money playing bridge, and I do know that he will continue to give his energy, his talent and his resources to his community, and I join the rest of you in wishing him well.
[ Page 9411 ]
J. Weisgerber: I have known Ian Horne for only a relatively short time. I came here as a backbencher in 1986, and from time to time have had an opportunity to consult with Ian and ask for his advice. It has always been advice that was well thought out, well researched, well understood and given in a totally non-partisan way. I think all members of the House have tremendous respect for the table and for the people who serve at it.
We in British Columbia are very fortunate to have been served so well and to have had the opportunity to know and be served by such capable people. Ian obviously has led the table for many years in British Columbia. We all owe Ian a debt of gratitude for the service he has given to British Columbia, and I am relieved that we will be seeing more of him in the next couple of years. It is an opportunity for us to wish him well, and the Social Credit caucus joins with other members of the House, and past members of the House, in expressing their deep regard for the work that Ian has done for the House.
The Speaker: Hon. members, it is rare for the Chair to have an opportunity for personal comment, but I trust that I have the indulgence of the House on this very special occasion.
The hon. Premier and hon. Leaders of the Opposition have paid tribute to the tremendous contribution that Ian Horne has made to this parliamentary institution and to the people of British Columbia. Through four Premiers, eight Speakers and hundreds of members, as Clerk of the House he has served them all with skill and consistency. I am sure that there were countless times during these past 37 years when his quiet diplomacy helped calm the tensions of this place.
On a personal level, I am pleased to have this opportunity to publicly thank the Clerk for his perseverance and patience in assisting this rookie Speaker, who was also a rookie member. I consider it a great personal honour on this his last day as chief Clerk-at-the-Table to make a presentation on behalf of all members of this House, both present and past.
This token of our collective appreciation is a talking stick carved by the renowned local artist, Joe Peters Jr., who was born on Cormorant Island near Alert Bay. Mr. Peters completed this work specifically for this occasion, graciously sharing the history of his family through countless generations, symbolized on this talking stick by the raven, the woman of the woods, and the cedar man. I thank Mr. Peters for permitting me to present this gift to Mr. Horne on behalf of all hon. members.
Like our Mace, a talking stick is a symbol of authority. It is used at potlatches to determine who has the right to speak. After 37 years of listening, Ian Horne now has his own talking stick -- perhaps a dangerous thing to place in the hands of a Clerk. Nevertheless, I am sure that we all willingly take this risk.
I know all members join with me in wishing Mr. Horne well and in presenting this token of the esteem in which he is held by the members of this House and, indeed, by all members whom he has so ably served through his long career as Clerk.
Finally, in a departure from parliamentary traditions -- of which we have often been gently but firmly reminded by the Clerk of the House -- I will now leave the Chair to present Ian Horne with this gift.
Hon. M. Sihota: I move that the House at its rising do stand adjourned until it appears to the satisfaction of the Speaker, after consultation with the government, that the public interest requires that the House shall meet or until the Speaker may be advised by the government that it is desired to prorogue the second session of the thirty-fifth parliament of the province of British Columbia. The Speaker may give notice that she is so satisfied or has been so advised, and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated in such notice and, as the case may be, may transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned to that time and date. And moreover, in the event of the Speaker being unable to act owing to illness or other cause, the Deputy Speaker shall act in her stead for the purposes of this order.
Motion approved.
Hon. M. Sihota: Before moving the final motion, I will take this opportunity to thank Hansard staff for their dedication and the incredible hours that they have put in. I think all hon. members are mindful of the conditions that Hansard staff work under, and being here every night until midnight, as was occasionally the case during this short session of the House. I know that their work was much appreciated.
In addition, hon. Speaker, on behalf of all members of the House I would like to take this opportunity to express our gratitude for the assistance that was ably provided by the Sergeant-at-Arms staff, and to take a moment to wish our colleague who sustained injury on the first day of the commencement of this House the speediest of all possible recoveries.
In addition to that, I want to take this opportunity to thank those at the Queen's Printer, who made all of our work possible and kept us up to date with regard to the progress of the material in the House; those in the library, who provided us with the materials necessary to engage in the informed debate that characterized discussions in this House over the past few months; and those in the dining room, who attended to our other needs.
May I also take this opportunity to thank my colleagues the House Leaders for the Liberal Party and the Social Credit Party. The three of us, I think for the first time, engaged in overseeing the activities of the House. I know I speak for all three of us when I say it was an enjoyable experience.
I know that the stained glass has been repaired and things have returned to normal. Consequently, I think that it must be noted that at 6:41 p.m., I move that the House do now adjourn.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 6:41 p.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]