1994 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 35th Parliament
HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.
(Hansard)
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 8, 1994
Afternoon Sitting
Volume 16, Number 6
[ Page 11617 ]
The House met at 2:06 p.m.
Prayers.
Hon. M. Sihota: With the indulgence of the House, I have a number of introductions to make today. Some very important guests in the visitors' gallery are the recipients of British Columbia's environment awards. Each year the Minister of Environment honours individuals, organizations and businesses who have made a contribution to the environment in British Columbia. I would like to introduce the recipients of the awards who are here with us today.
There are six winners in the individual category. With us today are Ted Barsby of Nanaimo, Melda Buchanan of Comox, Ric Careless of Vancouver, Bob and Nancy McMinn of Victoria and Leo Rutledge of Hudson's Hope. Randy Stoltmann of Vancouver will also be honoured with an award to be given posthumously, in recognition of his dedication to the environment. As members may know, Randy died in a tragic mountaineering accident two weeks ago. His parents Frank and Alita are joining us in the Legislature today.
The winner in the youth category this year is Students Acting for Global Awareness of Maple Ridge. Nadine Raynolds and Dwight Milford are in the gallery from that organization.
Mayor Sandy Santori of Trail is here to accept an award on behalf of the Trail Community Lead Task Force. There are also recipients on behalf of the Chilko Lake Study Team, namely Annie William, who is the band administrator and former chief of the Nemaiah band, Charyl Flinton of Share the Cariboo Resources group, and Jay MacArthur, co-chair of the Federation of Mountain Clubs of B.C. Rusty Joerin from the Brant Festival is also here to receive an award in the community and municipality category.
Finally, in the business and industry category, Suzanne Dill is here from Fairy Treats Family Restaurant of Kootenay Bay, and Jim Wigglesworth is here from Penticton to represent Penticton Paper Shuffle. Lastly, Neil Brookes of Enderby is here to accept an award in the environmental education category on behalf of the Kingfisher Environmental Interpretive Centre.
Hon. Speaker, I would ask that all members of the House join me in extending a warm welcome and congratulating these individuals and organizations in their success in securing the 1994 environmental awards.
D. Lovick: On your behalf, hon. Speaker, I have the honour to introduce two guests. One is a special guest and the other is a very special guest. The special guest is well known to many of us in the chamber, namely Janet Stockton Barnes. The very special guest is an 85-year-old woman from Los Angeles, California, who I understand came here with one particular purpose in mind, namely to check up on the kid. The kid of course is our hon. Speaker. I ask all members to please join me in offering a very warm welcome to Mrs. Anne Boullon, the Speaker's mother.
The Speaker: Hi, Mom. [Laughter.] Oh, boy.
Are there any further introductions?
K. Jones: Thank you, hon. Speaker. This is a very special day for you.
Visiting with us today is a group of students from my riding, Surrey-Cloverdale, from the elementary school called William of Orange Christian School. Approximately 21 grade 7 students are here. Their teacher is Mr. Mel Deglint. Some of their parents are here with them. They've been touring the precincts and enjoying a beautiful day in Victoria and the surrounding area. They've actually been camping here for the last two days and will continue through the weekend. I'd like to ask the House to extend a warm welcome to them.
R. Chisholm: I'd like the House to welcome 70 grade 5 and 6 students with Mr. D'Archangelo from Chilliwack Central Elementary School. They're here to enjoy democracy in action. I hope we put on a good show for them. Would you make them most welcome.
S. Hammell: A group of 80 grade 5 students from Simon Cunningham Elementary in Surrey is in the gallery today. With them are their teachers, Ms. Stemler and Mrs. Wallace. Could the House please make them welcome.
E. Conroy: I'd like to welcome the mayor of the city of Trail to the Legislature today. When a city like Trail takes the bull by the horns and shows there is some environmental cleanup that can be done -- and it's being done and recognized -- I think the city of Trail deserves full applause for that. I welcome the mayor and wish the rest of the House to make him welcome as well.
NANAIMO COMMONWEALTH HOLDING SOCIETY
G. Campbell: Hon. Speaker, yesterday the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society pleaded guilty to stealing charity money. The special prosecutor, Ace Henderson, said: "If you want a full public airing of evidence or testimony, the public inquiry is the forum for that." My question is for the Premier. Will the Premier commit today to following the recommendation of the special prosecutor and fully air this information before the public, so the people of British Columbia will know who in the NDP is responsible for stealing money from charities?
Hon. M. Harcourt: I think the special prosecutor made it very clear that he was looking at the issue of criminal charges and that a number of the concerns he was being asked about were not before him. I think this question is going to be before the court. There will be sentencing representations, there will be sentencing and then there will be an appeal period. I have said...
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, hon. members.
Hon. M. Harcourt: ...that I certainly would encourage the prosecutor's report to be made available. Until we see the contents of that report, statements like the one the Leader of the Opposition has made are premature.
The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member?
G. Campbell: I am sorry that the Premier doesn't understand that a full public inquiry into this matter is essential for everybody in British Columbia, including this government. I can tell you this, hon. Speaker: if this government isn't willing to hold a full public inquiry and if
[ Page 11618 ]
we ever form government, I guarantee you there will be a full public inquiry into this matter. It is absolutely essential.
The Speaker: Your question, hon. member.
[2:15]
G. Campbell: My question is for the Premier. For the Premier to have the audacity to suggest that the charities broke the law because there wasn't enough supervision from the Socreds is kind of like a bank robber saying: "I robbed the bank because the door was open." It's hardly worthwhile, but will the Premier today...? How can the Premier possibly say to the people of British Columbia that the fact that NDP fundraisers broke the law, committed a criminal act, is the fault of the former Social Credit government?
The Speaker: Final supplemental, hon. member.
G. Campbell: This affair is clearly casting a shadow over not just this NDP government but the entire NDP. The Premier said yesterday that Mr. Stupich and others involved in the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society were simply taking advantage of some loose rules to get out of debt. Loose rules? We're talking about a society that has pleaded guilty to criminal acts, not to taking advantage of loose rules. When will the Premier start to learn and understand that taking advantage of loose rules is one thing, and committing criminal acts against the people of British Columbia another? Will the Premier not show some leadership? Will he not be accountable for his party and for his government and have a full public inquiry and start that now, commit to that today?
Hon. M. Harcourt: When this matter was first brought to the Legislature's attention a couple of years ago, I made it very clear to representatives of the New Democratic Party that the relationship between the New Democratic Party and the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society should be severed. That took place.
Secondly, allegations were made by the Liberal opposition that MLAs were misusing their constituency allotments. That matter was investigated by the conflict-of-interest commissioner. After investigating that, the conflict-of-interest commissioner exonerated, cleared, every one of the MLAs. Those funds were used properly for constituency purposes.
I have said that when this matter has followed the due process of law -- and we respect that due process of law -- I will encourage the special prosecutor to release his report. At that time, after we've all had a chance to review the report -- instead of having the language that has coloured this Legislature -- we will be able to see what should proceed next.
W. Hurd: Over the last 24 hours we have been subjected to an astonishing number of comments from the government with respect to this case, the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society. Yesterday the Minister of Employment and Investment said the society was "caught in the land crash of the 1980s and they ran afoul of some of the regulations."
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, hon. members.
I'd ask the hon. member to please permit the Chair to do his job. Hon. members, it's very difficult when you have issues that appear, even to the Chair, at some point, to be sub judice and that on the other hand, are not so clear in terms of whether they are in order or not. I'm doing my best to allow members to express their legitimate concerns during question period. However, it is totally inappropriate when members lose the respect that all members should be accorded when they're asking questions or giving answers. It would be of great assistance if I could have that courtesy.
Would the hon. member please proceed.
W. Hurd: The Minister of Employment and Investment said they ran afoul of some regulations. What they really ran afoul of was the Criminal Code of Canada.
My question is to the Attorney General. In order to clear up the confusion between what the Premier has committed to with the release of both the Attorney General's report and the RCMP report into this investigation.... Will he commit today to release both those reports so the people of the province can get to the bottom of this sordid mess in Nanaimo?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: From the beginning in this matter, the Assistant Deputy Attorney General for the criminal justice branch has taken conduct of the case, and he did so, in the beginning, by appointing a special prosecutor. He did so in this case because, as members know, the Owen report of 1991 recommended that there be a clear distinction, a clear separation, of the administration of justice when cases came before us that had a potential political overtone.
From the very beginning in this case, there has been no political involvement by the government or the Attorney General; nor will there be at this point in this case; nor will there be at any point in this case. This matter is in the hands of the special prosecutor and the Assistant Deputy Attorney General, and it will stay there, because that's the thrust of the Crown Counsel Act. I am not going to use the authority the act gives to give special directions, because I think that is moving into a political arena, which I will not move into.
The Speaker: A supplemental, hon. member.
W. Hurd: The special prosecutor has advised the people of the province that he will not release the report without the ordering of a special inquiry. On the basis of the special prosecutor calling for an official inquiry, how can the Premier sit there today and refuse to call for that inquiry? Will the Premier call today for a special inquiry into this affair in which Nanaimo charities were ripped off for hundreds of thousands of dollars? Will he stand today and tell the people of the province that he is going to call for that inquiry?
Hon. M. Harcourt: The Liberal opposition has gone from using highly charged and coloured language to manufacturing what other people have or haven't said, and that is unacceptable. It's unacceptable to say that the RCMP report -- which reports are not released in any case -- should be released here. The members know better. The Liberal opposition knows, for a whole series of reasons, that that never, ever takes place. I have made it clear that I would like to see the special prosecutor's report released so that we can review it in public. When the special prosecutor has completed his presentation -- which he will be doing -- on the sentencing hearing, the sentencing itself and the appeal procedure, we will be able to see his report at that time.
The Speaker: Final supplemental, hon. member.
[ Page 11619 ]
W. Hurd: Yesterday the Premier was quoted in the media as saying that events in Nanaimo were prompted by a sour real estate market. Unfortunately, it appears the government has outlined their new policy: honesty based on market conditions. My question to the Premier is: can he stand in the assembly today and say that he is proud to be a member of the New Democratic Party, given the fact that his party stands accused -- and has been found convicted -- of ripping off charities in Nanaimo?
Hon. M. Harcourt: If members will check my statements of two years ago, I think they'll find I made it clear at that time that the New Democratic Party disassociated itself from the activities of the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society, and when this information became known, that its activities were not to be involved with the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society. I was very unhappy at that time, and I'm very unhappy at this time.
PROFIT ON LAND REMOVED FROM ALR
R. Neufeld: My question is to the minister responsible for lands. While in opposition, the NDP said that profits realized on private land removed from the ALR should be shared with the government because they are windfall profits. Now we learn that the previously unreleased 1992 Peat Marwick review on agriculture also recommended this outrageous scheme as a way to maximize profits for government. Can the minister tell us if the government has come to its senses and rejected their earlier stand and Peat Marwick's advice?
Hon. M. Sihota: This is a sensible and rational government that makes rational, pragmatic decisions.
The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.
R. Neufeld: Many property owners bought their land from the Crown subject to covenants which stipulated it be used for agricultural purposes. One of my constituents has been told that his covenant will be lifted, but only if he pays the government the difference between his land's value as an agricultural parcel versus its potential as a rural residential subdivision. Can the minister explain why the government would go through this, which amounts to extortion of the value received through rezoning?
Hon. M. Sihota: If the hon. member has a problem in his constituency with a constituent, I would be happy to take a look into the matter.
The Speaker: Final supplemental, hon. member.
R. Neufeld: It would be nice if the minister would give an answer. We notice we don't get an answer from the Premier on their little scam in Nanaimo. Maybe they should give an answer on this one.
I have a letter here which states:
"B.C. Lands will agree to lift the covenant, subject to payment of the difference in the current market value as an agricultural parcel and the value as a rural residential subdivision."
This is on 21 acres covered with trees in northern British Columbia. It's ridiculous. Doesn't the minister realize that this is nothing more than extortion by his government? How can he tolerate such an abuse of private property rights?
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order!
Hon. M. Sihota: The hon. member raises an issue in correspondence that he hasn't tabled before this House, and he refers to covenants which I haven't seen and conditions with which I am not familiar until I see them. We may be able to deal with the problem that his constituent has. It seems to me that if the hon. member were deeply and sincerely concerned about the situation faced by his constituent, he wouldn't be grandstanding in this House. He would be bringing the matter to me directly or through the policy mechanisms within the ministry. If nothing else, the way in which the member has raised the issue demonstrates again his lack of understanding of how the parliamentary system works.
IMPLEMENTATION OF NEW DIRECTIONS PROGRAM
L. Reid: My question is to the Minister of Health. Last week, the Union of British Columbia Municipalities declared that New Directions is out of control and demanded that this minister suspend this impossible plan. There is no one left who supports this plan. How many protests must be made on the steps of this Legislature before he will finally admit that his efforts to implement New Directions have been a complete and utter failure?
Hon. P. Ramsey: The UBCM has been involved from the beginning in the plans for implementing the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Health Care and Costs and in the regionalization of control in decision-making regarding health care. We are developing a framework to assess local needs carefully and involve local people in doing that. We will continue to do so.
The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.
L. Reid: The Union of British Columbia Municipalities -- 179 municipalities -- have said to this minister: "Stop. Patient care in this province is suffering." By October of this year, he will have fast-tracked this process. We will have 21 regional boards in this province. Will the minister finally put the health of British Columbians before his pride and admit that the fast-track implementation of New Directions is off track and off base?
Hon. P. Ramsey: First, I want to assure members of this House and the public of British Columbia that the reform of health care governance in this province will not jeopardize the quality of health care they can expect.
Last fall, the UBCM contacted me and said we needed to speed up the implementation of New Directions; this spring they have contacted me and said they have concerns about some of the decisions that have been made. From the very beginning, the UBCM has been an important partner in the New Directions process. They continue to participate around this province; they continue to serve on community health councils and steering committees. Like all stakeholders, the UBCM may disagree with some decisions that are made but not with others. This is to be expected.
The Speaker: Hon. members, the bell terminates question period.
Hon. J. Pement tabled the annual report of B.C. Rail.
[ Page 11620 ]
NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION WEEK
Hon. J. Pement: I would like to inform the Legislature that June 5 to 11 is National Transportation Week. This week, I invite the people of British Columbia to join Canadians across Canada in celebrating the contributions transportation makes to our economy.
[2:30]
Here in British Columbia we have a lot to celebrate. The deficit is down, jobs are up and our economy....
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, hon. members.
Hon. J. Pement: Mr. Speaker....
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order!
Hon. J. Pement: Mr. Speaker....
The Speaker: Would the hon. minister just wait until we can get some order. Would hon. members please permit the minister to make her ministerial statement. I hope when there are responses that you will receive the same courtesy. Please proceed, hon. minister.
Hon. J. Pement: Before I was rudely interrupted, I must say.... The deficit is down and jobs are up. Our economy is one of the strongest in North America, and it's getting stronger every day. We're in a good position to begin working to fulfil the promise of British Columbia.
As part of the B.C. 21 capital development strategy, we are building a safe and efficient, fully integrated transportation system to serve the people of British Columbia for today and for the next century. The economic benefits of transportation construction will be maximized and shared in all regions of the province. Jobs, training and tendering opportunities will be created for local workers and businesses.
When developing B.C.'s transportation network, we will protect the environment and our communities. We will encourage the use of environment-friendly alternatives, work with environmental agencies to lessen the impact of transportation development on the environment, and liaise with local governments to integrate land use with transportation planning to create a more livable community.
Transportation is not just about rails, roads, boats and airplanes; it's about business, industry and communities. Above all, it's about people. With that in mind, I ask you to join me in recognizing the people in British Columbia who work to keep our transportation network running smoothly, because it is people who plan, build and maintain our transportation network.
D. Symons: I would like to thank the minister for the advance copy of her ministerial statement; I appreciate that courtesy.
I would add Liberal support for recognizing the importance of transportation in our society, both for the economic health of our province and for the convenience of our citizens and tourists. I am pleased that this government has belatedly recognized the importance of transportation. I say belatedly, since for the first two and a half years of their mandate they virtually froze any highway capital construction and only completed those projects for which the previous government had already let contracts. It is refreshing to note that as they are reaching the end of their mandate, they have now resurrected black-top politics.
We do have a lot to celebrate in this province. We are blessed with a land of beauty and rich resources that have helped to carry us over the tough times faced by much of the rest of Canada. There are, however, some problems that have not been addressed but that need addressing. The provincial debt continues to grow at an ever-increasing rate, and along with that the size of government and bureaucracy has also increased. Despite our relatively strong economy, more and more of our tax dollars are going into paying the interest on the debt and not into services. This trend must be reversed.
We in Canada need a national transportation policy and agency. Through the provincial highways ministers, there is a fledgling start to such a program, but there needs to be a more determined effort on the part of all players to get it off the ground. I have proposed, both last year and again this year -- but it has yet to come forward in this House -- a motion that would ask the federal government to return at least 50 percent of the federal fuel tax -- some $500 million for B.C. -- to the province of origin in the form of transportation projects. This could become the funding arm for a national transportation agency.
We recognize that there are limited financial resources, and they must be wisely allocated. A good, efficient transportation system delivers economic benefits to us all. Quick delivery of services and goods helps our businesses compete in today's markets. Our beautiful scenery, combined with good transportation, is a tourist magnet.
Transportation Week helps to remind us of the important part that our highways and transport play in our lives every day. I hope it also makes us realize that our preoccupation with the automobile cannot continue. Viable alternative modes of transport must be developed now to meet the needs of tomorrow.
L. Hanson: It certainly is a surprise to me to hear this government's dedication to transportation in British Columbia. They inherited a provincial transportation infrastructure that recognized the important social and economic benefits to the province and also the need for a dedicated funding scheme that contributes dollars over the years.
It would be most interesting to look at the record of this government. They've presented no new initiatives; they've given us no long-term vision. Last year this government collected more in highway tolls, gas taxes, licence plate fees, vehicle permits and other related revenue than it spent on the entire budget for the Ministry of Highways. They collected $1.2 billion from the transportation systems of B.C. and spent approximately $750 million. The capital record of this government shows that in 1991-92 there was $388 million -- almost $400 million -- dedicated to capital construction for highways. They have progressed to the point where, in this year's budget, $10 million is dedicated to capital construction.
When you know these facts, it's unbelievable that the minister could brag about the deficit being down. The sad truth is that the minister has been not thrifty, but she has been ignored in the budgetary process. Highways spending has been moved from her ministry to a Crown corporation. The province has changed from a pay-as-you-go system to a debt-driven one, borrowing more than $300 million for highways construction through B.C. 21. Decisions about highways spending have been hidden away in B.C. 21 as well.
[ Page 11621 ]
Why? The government believes all government spending is political spending. They want to spend highways money in ways that benefit constituencies, based on their political importance to the NDP. They want to benefit the union bosses who bankroll the NDP election campaigns.
We have no difficulty in recognizing that transportation is one of the most important responsibilities of government. We certainly have no difficulty in recognizing all of the many thousands of people who keep our systems working and safe, and we certainly support that. An efficient transportation system moves goods to market, people to places and tourists to our towns. It is the most important economic development tool that governments can create.
But this government has ignored the importance of our transportation infrastructure and has allowed it to deteriorate. Since they got into office, the opinion that transportation is not a priority has been proven. This government proceeds to cut spending and force highways contractors across the province to sell equipment and lay off their workers. Now, through B.C. 21, it is encouraging these contractors to buy that equipment back -- as long as they become a closed union shop. Not only has this government's transportation policy been deceitful and political, it has been disrupting and damaging to the economy of British Columbia. This government has no vision and no interest in building this province through efficient and cost-effective transportation developments. Having said that, we do recognize the importance of transportation not only to British Columbia but to Canada, and to the people who have made transportation what it is today -- with no credit to this government.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast rises on what matter?
G. Wilson: I ask leave to respond to the ministerial statement.
Leave not granted.
D. Lovick: I rise pursuant to standing order 40 on a point of order. I raise this issue without rancour but only because I'm concerned about what seems to be happening more and more in this chamber.
The member for Peace River North, in posing a question to the Minister of Environment and challenging a policy of that minister, accused the government of extortion. Extortion, to my understanding, is a criminal offence under the Criminal Code, and that is simply....
Interjections.
D. Lovick: Sadly, Mr. Speaker, the lack of respect for this chamber is demonstrated instantly by members opposite, who won't even allow the point to be made.
The point I am making is that the standing orders are very clear what is admissible or permissible language and what is not. With the greatest possible civility and deference, I want to suggest to my colleague the member for Peace River North that he was quite out of order, and I think he ought to voluntarily agree to withdraw that reference to extortion. It is entirely inappropriate and out of order.
G. Farrell-Collins: On the same point of order, I think the member makes a valid point. It seems to be that time of year, as we wind toward the end of the legislative session. But hon. Speaker, I would caution that member to take some time to read Hansard, and read the comments made by his own caucus members, including the Minister of Skills, Training and Labour. Perhaps he could rise on the same point of order in objection to comments made by that member.
J. Weisgerber: I was going to suggest that indeed it was only the members of the government, when in opposition, who perfected the art of inflammatory language, and those members across the way know very well of what I speak. Indeed, having sat in the House for five years and listened to comments from the member for Nanaimo, and from the majority of the cabinet, I think the word "extortion" is rather soft language. Indeed, when I look at the conduct of this government over the last little while, "extortion" again seems like rather soft language for this government.
I recognize that there is a need to approach this House with the dignity that it deserves. But indeed, words like "extortion" are simply part of the dialogue that has gone on in this chamber longer than I've been in it, and as long, I suspect, Mr. Speaker, as you've been here. I know that with your experience and your wisdom, you'll recognize just how frivolous this point of order really is.
G. Wilson: I think the comments made by the member for Nanaimo should be taken with notice. If we are to do the people's business in this House, it seems to me that we have to have respect for all members. If there is a member who believes they have been impugned by unparliamentary language, it is customary for a member to stand and withdraw.
I have noticed the lack of decorum in this House, and I echo what the member for Nanaimo was suggesting. There are many matters in which individual privileges of members are being abused. The usual custom is that the government, not an opposition, denies an independent member leave to stand up and respond to a ministerial statement, for it is generally not the opposition that is fearful to hear from another member of the opposition but the government.
[2:45]
I think there are many ways in which the rules of this House can be tightened in order to let parliamentary business be done in a manner that not only respects the dignity and privileges of all members of this House but, more importantly, demonstrates a level of dignity to the people of British Columbia we purport to represent.
The Speaker: I thank the hon. member for Nanaimo for presenting his matter. I must say that the Chair, as well, is very disturbed by the tone of things in this House of late. It's quite apropos that he raises the matter, and I appreciate the comments by all members on this subject. I certainly intend, at the earliest opportunity, to come back with a statement in response to this situation in which we find ourselves.
D. Mitchell: I rise to present a petition. This petition deals with the long-awaited, long-delayed reforms of recall and initiative. The petition says:
"...whereas the attached petition from over 80,000 citizens of this province gathered since the 1993 provincial budget indicates that there is an anxious public waiting for an opportunity to participate in such forms of direct democracy, therefore the undersigned petitioners respectfully request that this hon. House do now bring forward legislation which will provide for these democratic reforms, empower this province's citizenry, and recognize the expressed desire of the electorate.
[ Page 11622 ]
"And that this hon. House ensure that such legislation will be effective in its ability to fulfil the mandate given in the 1991 referendums."
Mr. Speaker, 80,000 British Columbians have signed this petition.
The Speaker tabled the annual report of the British Columbia Legislative Library and the 1993 annual report of the ombudsman's office.
Hon. J. MacPhail: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply, estimates for the Ministry of Government Services. In this House, I call Committee of the Whole to debate Bill 22.
COLLEGE AND INSTITUTE AMENDMENT ACT, 1994
(continued)
The House in committee on Bill 22; D. Lovick in the chair.
S. Hammell: I seek leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
S. Hammell: The second half of those 80 grade 5 students from Simon Cunningham are just leaving the gallery. Before they leave, could the House please make these students welcome.
The Chair: I call the committee to order. We are on Bill 22 and, I believe, on section 3, section 9. Shall section 9 pass?
L. Reid: I believe we have canvassed section 9 in some detail. I would simply ask the minister to clarify community representation. I understand that last time he said that eight bodies would be appointed to the process. Could he very briefly give me some sense as to how that process will happen?
Hon. D. Miller: I think I indicated last time that we have constructed the bill so that the ratio of representatives of the public to the additional representatives -- staff and students -- being added through this bill would never be less than the two-thirds to one-third prescribed in the bill. We are certainly not limited, as currently, although the existing act calls for five, I believe, in some instances, public representatives.... I think in one case I cited about 17.
The process is really very difficult to describe, because there is no precise process. We canvass people in the community; we request the president and the board chair to supply us with recommended names. We generally canvass, as you would normally expect, and take all the names that are submitted under advisement. We strive for a balance. We clearly want people who have the interest of the college at heart -- in other words, not someone to sit on the board just for the sake of being there, but someone who has a genuine interest in the issues. We try to make a decision that reflects this government's view that we should try to reflect the makeup of our society, with respect to gender issues, ethnic issues, aboriginal representation and people from the business community. In my view, people from the labour community should be involved, and they are.
We try to reflect the makeup of our society, and I think we do, for the most part. I'm quite pleased with the people I've met who were appointed prior to my term of office, or prior to me taking this job, and with those I've since appointed. I hope that answers the member's questions. Ultimately the decision does come to me, and I must take it to my colleagues for their endorsement.
The Chair: Before proceeding and recognizing the member for Richmond East, let me just point this out to members, to clarify, if I may, some confusion. There is apparently a discrepancy between Orders of the Day and Hansard. I understand that we have dealt with section 3, section 9, on division. Technically, then, we ought not to be discussing it. However, given the minister's willingness to answer and the legitimate desire for information on the part of the member, perhaps we can entertain one more question before we go to section 3, section 10.
L. Reid: If I may beg the minister's indulgence, the question that has come to me regarding the board process has simply been whether or not the people who live in the community around the said institution or college will be drawn into the board process. Will it be representative of that locale, as opposed to the broader academic community at large?
Hon. D. Miller: Yes, it will. The distinction, if I could make it, between those and the university boards is that the university boards frequently have members who represent broader public interests and who may not necessarily reside in the community in which the university is located. Universities aren't limited. In other words, they're not prescribed by boundaries; colleges are. Although individual students are free to attend wherever they may want to within British Columbia, every college has a specific boundary, and the members of the board are drawn from that region. I don't think that we've ever drawn from outside that boundary in any case that I'm aware of.
While I'm on my feet, and bearing in mind that section 9 was passed previously, there is a motion standing in my name on the order paper for an amendment to section 2.1. I'll seek the direction of the Chair with respect to how we proceed with that. It was an issue that was identified by the member for Okanagan East. The amendment simply seeks to correct the error that was noted by that member. If it's the Chair's decision, we can proceed for the sake of convenience at this point.
The Chair: It would expedite matters somewhat, minister, if we could finish section 3 first, and then we can entertain the amendment on section 2.
On section 3, section 10.
G. Wilson: There isn't really much to be said from my perspective, save and except that the minister indicated before that board members were not paid. In fact, some colleges do offer an honorarium to board members. My question comes back to whether or not a faculty member or a student elected to a board would be eligible for the same honorarium as somebody who was appointed to the board.
Hon. D. Miller: In reviewing the Blues, I did note that I made that statement, and it was in error. In fact, a range of honoraria are paid to board members, as I think they are typically in almost every case with school board members, as an example. Where that doesn't apply, interestingly enough, is to members of boards of universities. Currently, institutions and boards themselves determine the quantum of those honoraria, but the change reflected in section 10 is
[ Page 11623 ]
that in this case the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may set the remuneration. It really gives us the power to determine whether or not it's too rich. We don't necessarily have to intervene; we don't necessarily have to set those. I don't think they're set abnormally high. I did not bring a list of all of the institutions and the honoraria that are set, but I think they range from $2,000 to $3,000. They're not high, considering the service that board members perform and the hours they put in, not just in the regularly scheduled monthly meetings but in the subcommittees that exist with all of these institutions. The remuneration is very modest, considering the time and energy put into the boards.
G. Wilson: I don't take issue with the amount, because I think the minister is correct -- the remuneration is relatively small. What I do take issue with is that this act provides for a staff member or a faculty member, on full salary at a college, to be elected to a board and then receive remuneration for sitting on an administrative board that will be determining their salary. I think the minister would recognize that that puts the individual in a clear pecuniary conflict of interest.
Hon. D. Miller: I am advised that the act only really deals with the appointed members, not the elected members who are being added under this bill. So in that sense, the only change is that prior to this act coming into force, the boards themselves would set the remuneration, and subsequent to this act coming into force, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council would have the power to intervene, if necessary. I'm further advised that that is really in compliance with the recommendation of the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts and that the authorization of remuneration for appointees to college and institute boards be consistent with the requirements for appointees to other government organizations. It's an issue that I haven't looked at too closely in the Public Accounts Committee, but it's clearly an issue they've dealt with in the recommendation they've made -- and one that we've accepted in the change that we're discussing.
G. Wilson: I sit on Public Accounts, and I think it's a good idea that remuneration be set by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. I don't have a problem with that. If different remuneration is allowable, that's fine. In some colleges, I know that board members actually turn the money back into scholarship funds and other kinds of things. So there are lots of ways it can work. That isn't my concern.
[3:00]
There is nothing in the language of this bill that isolates elected faculty or staff board members from appointed board members. There's nothing in here that says that remuneration is only available to those appointed through the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. If that's the intention, then surely there should be a section under section 3, section 10, that says that remuneration only applies to those members appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. That way it's very clear that elected people can't receive pay to sit on a board when they're on a full salary from the institution that they're governing. That puts them in a clear conflict of interest.
Hon. D. Miller: I'm advised that there really is no provision in the bill for remuneration for elected members; it's only for appointed members. My reading of this particular section doesn't allow me to draw that clear conclusion. Nonetheless, from the advice I'm receiving from my staff, that is the case. There is no legal authority in the bill for paying an honorarium to an elected member.
G. Wilson: On the same issue, I hear what the minister's saying. I don't argue that nothing provides the authority for them to be paid. I would argue that there's nothing in the act that says they won't be paid. They're going to be a member of the board. It states what the board composition is under section 9. We already canvassed that, and we lost the vote. Then it goes on to say: "Remuneration of board members." It doesn't make any distinctions as to which board members. It says: "...an institution pays to members of its board." It doesn't say those members appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. If that simple amendment would clarify that situation, I think it would go a long way to removing the potential conflict, at least in part, that faculty and staff may find themselves in under the guidelines of conflict of interest that this government itself has introduced.
Hon. D. Miller: I'll continue to insist that the advice I'm receiving from staff is that there is no provision in the act to provide remuneration for elected members; it's only for appointed members. I appreciate the member's remarks. I look at the clause and also think that it's not clear. As I understand it, there's no specific clause in the University Act that deals with honoraria for members of university boards. They're not paid remuneration. In taking the advice I'm receiving with respect to the construction of the bill, it's certainly not the intention that elected members would receive remuneration.
The Chair: Member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast, I think we've canvassed this fairly thoroughly, but carry on.
G. Wilson: What I would like to do, if I were to yield to the member for Richmond East, is quickly draft a very simple amendment that would clarify this situation, and then there would be no problem.
L. Reid: Section 10(2) says: "The Lieutenant Governor in Council may set different remuneration for members of different boards." I agree with the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast that the section is unclear as it currently reads.
I'm wondering if the minister can comment on section 10(2). Is that the section he believes will allow appointed members to receive remuneration but elected members to carry forward, hopefully, and be remunerated through a salary provision but not through an additional amount of money? Is it his intention that this section allows appointed members to be paid but not elected members?
Hon. D. Miller: No. It simply reflects the fact that the colleges are different. The boundaries of some urban colleges are not that extensive compared to the boundaries of some rural colleges. Members frequently have to travel overnight to attend board and committee meetings, and clearly that's more onerous with respect to loss of pay and those kinds of things. It's really just a recognition that they are different. It depends on the geography or the area of the province they come from.
L. Reid: For my clarification, hon. minister, would remuneration be different based on the number of students or the number of board meetings they would attend? Or is it based solely on the size of the region they must cover?
Hon. D. Miller: The prime consideration would be regional. But we would be guided by the work of the Public
[ Page 11624 ]
Accounts Committee and the recommendations that led to this clause. I might say, though, with respect to the issue of remuneration in total, that I really don't know if certain members will be satisfied. The clause as it stands is fairly clear, in that it allows the government to set the remuneration -- not that we necessarily would, but it simply allows that to happen.
It may be that some work may be required on the issue that has arisen with respect to elected members. I could, for example, using the same logic.... It now has occurred to me that an elected member may have to travel some distance and to stay overnight. It may be appropriate in some instances that there be honoraria to compensate for out-of-pocket expenses and those kinds of things.
To briefly use another illustration that concerned me to some degree -- I again draw from my own experience -- I was an alderman at one point, and we received an honorarium or remuneration. I used to note with some irony that when I left the mill I happened to be working in to go to a meeting, I went off the payroll, yet the guy who went with me was a staff member and he didn't go off the payroll. And we were both going to serve that same public function.
We're not all equal. You can't always address those kinds of questions, and I don't propose you do in this case. But I know of cases in the new University of Northern British Columbia where people indeed have to travel a minimum of three days to attend a board meeting and in some cases lose their livelihood for that period of time. I've intervened to the extent that I've talked to employers and said: "Look, I think you should contribute, as a matter of public service, for this individual who in fact is performing a very valuable public service, because I'm not able to and the university is not able to provide any pay for the job."
Maybe there needs to be some latitude. Perhaps with members of the other parties, I'd be happy to look at the issue of those elected members and where it may be appropriate in some cases. Or maybe that's an issue the Public Accounts Committee might want to revisit. It's certainly not something that I.... I don't think it's a major issue. We're talking about very small amounts of money. I think members would agree that it's important where people are prepared to serve and that we don't want that service to be an onerous thing with respect to the individual's involvement. I would prefer that we leave the section intact and that perhaps through consultation, a provincial or ministerial policy could be developed that would be appropriate. I will see, Mr. Chairman, how that floats.
L. Reid: I think the example you just cited, hon. minister, is somehow contrary to what's listed here. It says: "...different remuneration for members of different boards." The example you just cited looks at different remuneration for members of the same board. Was that your intention?
Hon. D. Miller: Clearly, I implied that, and I don't think the section here prohibits, limits or restricts that ability in any way. The example I was citing was a university board, which is not allowed to....
G. Wilson: I think we can make this more complicated than it needs to be. Most boards have an operating budget that covers matters of travel and ongoing expenses. Remuneration tends to be out-of-pocket expenditures. If faculty or staff are elected to a board and they have to go on extended trips or whatever, there's presumably going to have to be some provision within their collective agreements with respect to leave. That's not unusual; that happens now, and that's done outside of this kind of thing.
So I would offer what I hope is a friendly amendment under section 10 that would simply clarify this question -- that is, to add: "(3) Remuneration may be paid to only those members appointed to the board by the Lieutenant Governor in Council." How it's paid, when it's paid or the amount that is paid are not affected by (1) and (2), but this does make it clear that there can't be double-dipping, and it removes the potential conflict of interest that would exist for a fully paid faculty or staff member sitting on a board and also receiving money from the administration.
On the amendment.
Hon. D. Miller: I'm going to argue against it. I just think that there may be circumstances where it is quite legitimate for issues to be determined as a matter of policy as opposed to being strictly defined in legislation. I have been using an example -- and the member and others have used examples -- of a member of faculty who presumably would be eligible for a leave of absence to attend board meetings even if travel was involved. That same situation would not be true for a student representative on the board, and it might be that the student representative would be caught in that. In rural areas, where board meetings are sometimes held in different communities rather than always in the central community, it seems to me that it would be a limiting factor.
So I think it's quite appropriate to.... We're not talking about Fort Knox here. We're talking about very modest amounts of money, which are intended to compensate people in a modest way for the contribution they make and the public service they carry out. I think the member would appreciate, given what we're talking about, that those issues can be covered as a matter of policy. It is not that significant, quite frankly. I certainly would appreciate the member's consideration for me to deal with those issues as a matter of policy. I've already indicated to the House that I'm quite prepared to consult with members opposite in the development of that policy. So I think we're capable of dealing with the issue. I don't think we need to confine or limit the situation with the amendment that's being proposed, and I would really ask for consideration in passing this section intact and dealing with the issue as I've suggested.
L. Hanson: I have a question for the minister, then, to help me decide whether I should support the amendment or not. Section 10(1) says: "The Lieutenant Governor in Council may set the remuneration that an institution pays to members of its board." That would seem to me to say that if they set an amount payable to board members, it would be applicable to all board members. The minister says that they can handle the situation by policy. That would seem to say that if you set anything, it's got to go to everybody. I'd like some idea of how the policy might be used to offset that, because that's what it seems to say.
[3:15]
Hon. D. Miller: Policy can certainly provide interpretation. That sentence does not necessarily have to be read or interpreted the way you have interpreted it. In other words, saying that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may set the remuneration that an institution pays to members of its board does not imply explicitly -- one could probably read it implicitly -- that there is no flexibility to have different amounts, depending on the circumstance, for example, between those members appointed and those
[ Page 11625 ]
members elected through the faculty or the student societies. So it's not limiting.
I repeat what I have said: I am quite prepared to sit down with members opposite and my staff to try to develop a policy paper that accurately reflects the feelings there -- based on the assumption that it's not the desire of any member or party to unnecessarily restrict the kind of service that I have talked about before, in keeping with the spirit that I think has existed for many years in local councils, school boards and college boards, which seeks in a very modest way to compensate those individuals who provide that public service with some limited compensation for the time and effort they have devoted to whatever particular board they are on. Keeping with the spirit and the intent I have just described, I am sure we are capable of dealing with the tiny intricacies of whether members are appointed or elected.
L. Hanson: It's not an earth-shattering issue. I agree with the minister that it isn't the end of the world, no matter what happens with the legislation. But in our attempts to provide direction to various organizations and so on, clarity is very important. Therefore I am going to support the amendment.
Hon. D. Miller: Again, not to belabour the point, I think we recognize that we have the ability to deal with the differences that exist. Chairs of boards, for example, probably get a little more money than board members, so already there is a discrepancy or difference. We recognize in this chamber that certain members get more than others. In a party that is recognized, money is made available and everybody gets the base MLA salary. But in addition to that, if you're the Whip, the caucus chair, or have one of the officers' jobs, you get additional money. Maybe that doesn't apply to some parties, but the members know what I'm talking about. Really, what are we talking about? Are we saying that we are prepared to recognize that in this chamber and in parties but that we're not prepared to have some flexibility to develop a policy to deal with people who make very much less than we make here? I think we have canvassed this, and we should proceed with section 10.
L. Hanson: I have one last point. In another life, I had some experience at a regional district level. Because the act didn't allow for different levels of pay for different representatives, it was ruled that they had to pay everyone exactly the same amount, regardless of their responsibilities. That would seem to argue with the flexibility that the minister is suggesting. Again, it's not going to change the way of the world. Even though I would support the amendment, I'm not going to argue with you.
G. Wilson: I have one last question for the minister. Is the minister confident that the language, as it's set here, would not put elected faculty or staff, if they receive remuneration, in conflict with the Members' Conflict of Interest Act? Has that been checked through? Have you looked at that in terms of the service? This is a public board, right?
Hon. D. Miller: It is my view that the issues of conflict relate to matters that we canvassed earlier in debate. When issues come to the board that would put a particular board member in a conflict of interest in the sense that there is personal gain, the board must make bylaws to deal with that issue of conflict. The fact that remuneration is received to carry out a particular function is not an issue of conflict, I don't think.
G. Wilson: I want to be very, very specific on this now. The minister is saying that a faculty or staff member may be paid to sit on a board that is negotiating a contract for the remuneration of a staff or faculty position for which they are on full salary. That's what this does.
Hon. D. Miller: With respect, hon. Chair, we had an extensive debate and passed section 9, which dealt with these issues.
Interjection.
Hon. D. Miller: I said very clearly that if, for example -- let me construct this in a hypothetical sense -- a college board had a member of the faculty association on it, and that board was conducting negotiations with the faculty association, clearly the faculty member in that case would not and could not participate in those negotiations if the end result of those negotiations was that that faculty member had a pecuniary interest that would be dealt with. They would absent themselves. That's pretty basic and fundamental. We have said that over and over again. That issue really was dealt with in section 9. That is a conflict. A conflict is when you have something to gain as a result of your influence on the decision. Conflict is not complicated. We all know what it is.
The Chair: In my judgment we are moving dangerously away from the amendment before us, and I would therefore suggest that perhaps we could deal with the amendment. Shall the amendment pass?
Amendment negatived on division.
Section 3, section 10 approved.
On section 3, section 11.
L. Reid: Very briefly, this says "serves a 3 year term" and "serves a one year term." Could you comment on who may be holding either of those terms of office? My question relates specifically to whether or not there's been any consideration to including alumni members as part of that process.
Interjection.
L. Reid: Alumni members -- members of those institutions who are graduates, if you will. Has any consideration been given to weighting an alumnus into a three-year term as opposed to a one-year term?
Hon. D. Miller: At the college level I don't know if the term "alumni" is necessarily one that you'd want to use. An alumnus is someone who has graduated from an institution. Someone who indeed previously graduated from the institution may be appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, but that's neither here nor there; they would then fall under the scope of this section.
The current policy is to appoint board members for a one-year term, with the option of reappointment for a two-year term and then a subsequent, and final, three-year term. This policy allows for competent and qualified people to continue to sit on the board, while providing flexibility in terms of the kind of balance I talked about earlier in response to the member's question -- the issues of gender and minority groups, etc.
[ Page 11626 ]
L. Reid: Is there any maximum number of years that a person may serve? When it says further terms, is it basically open to discussion and appointment or election?
Hon. D. Miller: No, it does not limit. In other words, there is no line saying that that's it, you can never run again.
Section 3, section 11 approved.
On section 3, section 11.1.
G. Wilson: I'm curious, because the language appears to suggest that the registrar becomes involved in establishing and administering the conduct of the election of members to the board. But they can only do that after there is consultation with the chair of the board and the chief officers of the representative groups. There are two questions here. Clearly this means that in the initial round, the registrar consults with the chair of a board that currently does not have elected members, because obviously you have to do that in advance of the election. I wonder why that process was put in place, why you would have the registrar consult with the chief officers and the chair of a board to which the members are currently not elected, and why you would not have allowed the faculty, staff and student associations at the various colleges to conduct those elections as they see fit. First, why involve the registrar in that?
Second, is it anticipated that the conduct and rules of those elections will be consistent throughout the college system, or can they be determined by each college system, so that there may be quite a variance with respect to how it proceeds?
Hon. D. Miller: I'll answer the last question first. Clearly one would want to seek consistency, but in the same vein that we talked about earlier, not all of the institutions are the same. In some, in fact, there may be a single campus. I'm trying to think now if there is one with a single campus -- maybe not, but two campuses at the most. In some of the far-flung rural areas of the province, there may be half a dozen campuses. Therefore a system of elections that would seem to me appropriate but consistent with the general principles of elections needs to be adopted.
The registrar is used at the university level. City clerks are used at the municipal level to conduct.... Certainly in my experience -- maybe not always in every other municipality -- the city clerk becomes a kind of chief electoral officer, if you like. They are seen as the unbiased civil servant. Therefore it's appropriate that they discuss with the chair of the board and the chief officers of the representative groups -- faculty, staff and student associations -- a process that clearly needs to be unchallengeable. I agree that it needs to have consistency, but at the same time, I suppose, it needs flexibility to recognize different circumstances.
Section 3, section 11.1 approved.
On section 3, section 11.2.
G. Wilson: Voting is something that clearly is important on a board. We recognize that there are going to be differences with respect to remuneration. We recognize that this board, by nature, is going to.... In total, I think we're looking at eight appointed and four students. In total, there is going to be a possibility of 12 people plus the president and the chair on this board. When you come to negotiate matters of contract, you're going to immediately exclude the faculty representative and the staff member on the board. I would suggest that most boards will immediately exclude the student representatives as well. That would be my guess. I've been there, and I know what happens; I know that you've got a staff association and a faculty association -- and they often work together because there's often a kindred spirit among the union representatives -- and the students themselves are in an association which may indeed preempt it.
[3:30]
What you're saying is that the president, who is going to be an active participant and an active member on the board, will be exempt from voting. I guess the reason is that the president represents the administration. Then you say you're going to exempt the chair of the education council from voting. I guess that is because that has a majority faculty makeup; I would assume that's why you've done that. If I'm right, that seems to fly directly in the face of what the minister has said with respect to the conflict-of-interest provisions in sections 9 and 10 above. Maybe the minister can tell us why he singled out the president and the education council chair as being two people who will sit on the board but not be voting members.
Hon. D. Miller: Currently the president is not a voting member of the board; that's the way it is right now. We're not changing that.
I'll go back to the clause that dealt with the ratio; in other words, where we wanted to clearly maintain the two-thirds to one-third, at a minimum, between those appointed and those elected members. If we were to then say that the chair of the education council had a vote, we would run the danger of changing that ratio. Therefore that individual has been excluded. The education council has a specific mandate which we will deal with, but for those reasons we have not added the power of a vote to the chair of the education council.
G. Wilson: Then it directly contradicts what has been said earlier. However, I don't want to belabour this point. Quite honestly, save and except for getting our commentary on the record, one wonders sometimes what this whole process is all about.
The other concern we have with respect to the voting provisions on the board.... The minister has already indicated that it is possible for a faculty member or a staff member to be elected board chair. That's unlikely, I would grant you, because the majority of people who are on this board are appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, therefore the voting weight given is of real concern. It is conceivable under this legislation -- I'll grant you not likely, but conceivable, and it is allowed for -- that the chair of a board would have to absent themselves from a vote taken on the collective agreements of faculty or staff if they happen to be a faculty or staff member. That's an unthinkable proposition. In that case, if it were to come about, surely the president should be given the opportunity to cast a vote in order to keep the balance the minister is concerned about and the ratios similar to what he is suggesting now.
Hon. D. Miller: I'm not certain I followed the path the member was on. Let's try to deal with it on a more simplistic basis.
The board is comprised of appointed members and elected members. We've gone through the debate about whether or not people agree. The member who is a former instructor from Langara agreed, I think, as I recollect his
[ Page 11627 ]
remarks. But there has been a variety of opinions, so we're proceeding there.
The next question that arose was the issue of conflict. We've clearly stated that there have to be bylaws that deal with the issue of conflict -- guidelines for members to avoid putting themselves in a situation of conflict. I've described conflict as a situation where a person exercises the authority that they have, knowing that that would result in a personal gain for them. For example, if, as a member of the board, a member of the faculty was elected chair of the board by the other members of the board.... I guess one could argue that the likelihood of that happening may be slim, but it could happen. Clearly, there may be a disincentive in that a member of faculty, given the ratio that I've talked about -- two-thirds to one-third -- might want to say: "I don't want to be elected chair, because by doing that I deprive myself of a vote." Therefore they diminish the ratio and their ability to exercise whatever influence board members exercise through their persuasive powers. That member knows all about persuasive powers.
Perhaps a fairly elaborate scenario has been constructed that is just a little too hypothetical. The facts are pretty clear and straightforward, and I don't know.... We're here to get into it. I want to answer legitimate questions; I don't want to deny members the opportunity to ask them. I try to treat them seriously, but I just think this construction is fairly elaborate and probably unlikely. In any event, other sections deal with issues of conflict.
Section 3, section 11.2 approved.
On section 3, section 11.3.
G. Wilson: The concern we have with section 11.3 -- and we'll canvass this much more thoroughly in section 11.4 -- is the fact that we have now established a provision where the government, by edict, is telling every institution that they must establish an educational council. This is not something the colleges have willingly come forward with. As I've mentioned, many of those colleges already have instructional boards; many of them have internal advisory committees. For example, PAC, the principal's advisory committee, is something that's pretty common in a lot of colleges. They're set up because the people who are involved in the business of delivering education, the teachers, and the people who are in the business of receiving education, the students, and the people who are involved in the administering of education deem them to be necessary in order to facilitate an orderly, proper and progressive way of doing business.
I have to say that whenever government comes down and by edict says that an institution must.... That's what this language says in section 11.3(1): "Each institution, other than the Justice Institute of British Columbia, must have an education council." It begs the question: why must they have an education council? Why is it that this government knows better than the colleges -- many of which have managed extremely well to this point -- how they should internally organize advisory capacities on matters of curriculum, class size and so on?
Hon. D. Miller: In previous debate we've talked about some parallel between the universities and the kind of traditional model that has existed in academia for centuries, I suppose, and that is that the faculty are involved in those issues of curriculum and education. At the university level it's through the senate. We didn't wish to duplicate that, but we felt, given the advancement of degree-granting status to four of the community colleges and two of the institutes -- and potentially more of the community colleges in the future -- that it was prudent to have a system with faculty involvement in curriculum development in the issues that are listed in the subsequent section, in order to ensure that not only the quality of education but the degrees that were ultimately obtained by individuals from those institutions had credibility. It is time-honoured; it's a slight adaptation of the university model. We obviously don't want to recreate university at the college level, because in many ways they have been quite different and carry out a very different and important role. But it allows that same situation to develop at the community college, if I can draw that analogy between the universities.
W. Hartley: I would ask leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
W. Hartley: Today in the House we have a group of grade 5 students from the Haney-Pitt Meadows Christian school in my constituency. They are here with their vice-principal and teacher Ms. Kifiak. Today they asked me a number of excellent questions on the front steps of the Legislature, and they are in the House to observe legislative procedure. Please welcome them.
L. Reid: In terms of the minister's most recent comment that each institution must have an education council, I am suggesting that for many institutions this may simply constitute a name change, not a real change in structure. A lot of these institutions may have a structure that resembles an education council already, and there may be just some fine-tuning. Is that your understanding as well?
Hon. D. Miller: Yes. Before introduction of this bill I visited community colleges where I talked about this proposal. In a joint meeting with one president and a couple of faculty members, they said that that's what they do now. In that institution it simply formalizes what has already existed.
L. Reid: May I just seek the minister's clarification. Under section 11.3(2), it says: "The board of the Justice Institute...has the powers and duties of an education council...." What would constitute a quorum on the board of the Justice Institute for them to be involved in those kinds of decisions?
[W. Hartley in the chair.]
Hon. D. Miller: For clarification, was the question: what is the quorum for the board of the Justice Institute?
The Chair: The member says yes.
Hon. D. Miller: A majority constitutes a quorum.
L. Reid: If it's a majority for the Justice Institute, is it a majority for all the colleges and institutes? Is the quorum the standard across every institution and college in this province?
Hon. D. Miller: Yes, I believe that is the case.
[ Page 11628 ]
L. Hanson: In this section the education council brings up an issue that has been of some concern. We had to almost go into double overtime to decide to support the bill in second reading. While there are a number of good things in the bill, there seem to be a number of things that are going to complicate and bureaucratize the administration advisory system to a point where it is going to be difficult for that system, which is working quite well. I think it pretty well has a reputation as an efficient, well-run organization, providing a very acceptable service. Not only is it recognized in British Columbia, but I think it is recognized across Canada as a system that is delivering an excellent product efficiently and with great benefits to our students.
[3:45]
The difficulty we had with the bill was the cost and the complication of the administrative system. It appears that the formation of the education council -- which is the one in section 11.3 -- is mandatory. It's going to have some responsibilities that are explained later, but there are dual responsibilities along with the board, as I read the act.
The concern is that we have a system that is working very well. Why do we need to change it and complicate it? Why do we want to add more cost to it, make the system more cumbersome and make it more difficult to assist the education program? While I recognize that that is not only in section 11.3, that concern has been expressed to me and my colleagues by a number of people who are directly involved in the education system at this level.
[3:45]
I think it's appropriate that we ask the minister to comment on that aspect of this bill. I don't mean to go over second reading again, but because this mandates the education council, I think this is an appropriate place for the minister to comment on that.
Hon. D. Miller: I'm prepared to, hon. Chair, but I seek your guidance. I also don't want to get caught belabouring this. In other words, to get into a debate at this point on the powers of the education council and then to have to repeat it when we actually get to the section dealing with the powers of the education council.... I'm sure that member has no intention of doing that, and perhaps others don't, but we could be fairly relaxed in our approach. I've got some legitimate interests here. I'm not going to get hung up, but I don't want to be inflexible.
There has been a change. We are proposing a change that is fundamentally linked to the establishment of education councils. Although the member is correct, there have been those who disagree, and some disagree more strongly than others. There are also those who agree quite strongly on the issue of the education council, its advisory role, whether it should have specific powers, and all those kinds of questions.
I've explained that we are expanding the role of the community colleges and two of the institutes in a significant way as part of a broader thrust. We are trying to refocus our education system -- not totally, but in part -- to try to have curricula and degree-granting programs that are more relevant, that give community colleges and institutes the opportunity to grant those degrees in their own right, autonomously and separate from established universities. We're going through a bit of a change with respect to the role of these institutions. As the role of the education council is laid out in the further sections of the bill, you can see that they are focused on the issue of curriculum development.
Just let me look at two sections: sections 14.1 and 14.2. Section 14.1 talks about the advisory role of the education council: it must advise the board; the board must seek advice from the education council; mission statement; non-credit programs; qualifications for admission policies; criteria for awarding certificates, diplomas and degrees -- just a whole range of things that currently have the involvement of faculty. Further, under the powers of the education council in section 14.2, it must make bylaws, with my prior approval, for the conduct of business. Subject to the policy and directives, it will set policies concerning examinations, evaluation of student performance and student withdrawal from courses. It will set criteria for academic standing and for awards recognizing academic excellence.
We've tried to be very clear in laying out those areas of jurisdiction for the education council and how that relates to the board -- all with the intention, as I've said, to complement the changes that are taking place in the institutions themselves. As has been pointed out by some members, there really is a bit of inconsistency across the piece in community colleges. Some see this as simply formalizing what they already practise, in some ways. In other words, they involve their faculty in a very extensive way, and there is a very good relationship established between the faculty, the board and the administration. As for others, I guess you could argue that maybe there's some distance and they're not as close as the legislation calls for.
In seeking to get some level of consensus, we engaged in some pretty good discussion with members of the faculty association and members of the Advanced Education Council of British Columbia. As I indicated in our previous debate, it wasn't as you would expect, as an old Labour minister would understand -- that you always have absolute unanimity on every point. But broadly speaking, there was some consensus. I know there have been letters written; I have copies in here from some colleges, boards and presidents, saying: "No, we were concerned about this." I suppose it's true that almost any change would produce a similar result. There might always be people who would say that there was some concern.
Notwithstanding that -- and not to say this in a political way -- I repeat that the response I have received from community colleges has been very enthusiastic. I was in Prince George yesterday. I met briefly with members of the administration, and subsequently with members of the faculty. It was a pleasure, obviously, to be there and to confirm that there's....
Interjection.
Hon. D. Miller: The member from Prince George enters her endorsement.
Clearly, there was some enthusiasm there. We are providing some new capital money for new buildings. The college sees itself as being in a key position to deliver the kind of change, the focus that we're talking about, in the technical area. We had the pleasure of going to a local manufacturer, Canadian Woodworks, and in the first announcement under the quick-response portion of the skills initiative, we have now provided some $89,000 in conjunction with the employer for a series of training programs for the employees of that organization to make them more efficient. By the way, it's one of the wonderful little value-added plants in this province that produces finished windows and doors, not only for the domestic market but also for the European market. There's a lot of enthusiasm about the skills initiative and the changes that are taking place. I suspect there will always be some level of concern. Broadly speaking, I have said to the parties -- the boards, the administration and the faculty -- that there's a challenge in
[ Page 11629 ]
this legislation. Some wanted to go further. Some didn't want it to go as far. I said that the challenge now is for all of them to make this work. As we'll see, there's an override there. If the thing falls apart completely, I guess it will land on my desk and I'll try to make it work. But I don't think it will fall apart. I think it will work. But it is a new relationship. We've tried to be clear in terms of the roles of the various parties, and I have a lot of confidence that it's going in the right direction and that, indeed, it will work. Undoubtedly there will be the odd wrinkle along the way, and we'll take care of it.
L. Hanson: Hon. Chairman, thank you for the flexibility you're giving us in this discussion.
I certainly won't argue with the minister. Most of the things that are here, and the responsibilities of the education council, were in effect in the past. Nobody is arguing about that. But I think the minister would recognize that once it is written in legislation, as opposed to being done within an organization because it has to be done, there's quite often a different approach to it.
I know the minister, and I was pleased to hear him say that he thinks this will work and that it will improve the system. I have some grave reservations that it will, but I don't say that on a partisan or political basis. I think the university college is one of the most important educational institutions that we have in the province. I really want to see them delivering that product. I don't want to be able to say later: "See, I told you that it wasn't going to work." I want to make it work; I want to see it work. That's where those concerns come from. After those few remarks, I know that the minister will pay special attention to making it work.
Hon. D. Miller: I appreciate the member's remarks. It is often a challenge to try to get people with some differences to go in the same direction, but it's not one that I'm unfamiliar with. Clearly the forest sector had some of those same elements, yet out of that we were able to forge some alliances that I think will pay dividends in the province.
I think the clincher with respect to these changes at the community college level will be the other programs that go with them. They're going to be busy. I've said to the colleges: "I think you're going to be where the action is." I think that both the faculty and the board's administration are going to be occupied and, as I say, quite excited about the changes that are taking place. That's a good, positive atmosphere to work in and in which to make it work.
Finally, I did point out that somewhere in here there is a short clause that says: "If all fails, you can put it on my desk." What I've really said to the parties is: "You don't want to do that. You don't want to have me make decisions about what's in your interest." I think they understand the message that's quite implicit in that statement.
J. Tyabji: I hope the minister will recognize that I was attending to other duties in my job, and I have missed some of the debate on this. It seems to me that when we look at section 11.4(3), there isn't a limit to the number of people who will sit on an education council, except the limit that would be dictated by a majority vote of the education council. I heard the member for Richmond East ask some questions about a quorum. I'm not sure if this was covered. If the education council has been made larger by a vote of the education council, so that there are more voting members, is it the larger voting membership that will vote on more members, or is it going to be the original education council, basically the core?
The Chair: I would just remind members that we are dealing with section 11.3. We may wish to pass that section before we get into section 11.4.
J. Tyabji: I'm sorry, this is part of the difficulty with losing sight.... Have we been canvassing the cost and who pays, with regard to education councils? I didn't hear any questions on that.
Hon. D. Miller: Before I answer that, I want to go back to what I said at the outset. I'm quite prepared to be flexible, and I have no wish to limit debate. But neither do I want to have it so free-ranging that once we cover one section and substantially move on to another, there's this wide-ranging latitude so that we can hop back to one which we've already spent a considerable amount of time on. I honestly and sincerely don't want to dig my heels in here, but I really must insist that there has to be some logical progression in this debate. So I seek your advice, Mr. Chair.
The Chair: I would take the submission from the member for Okanagan East -- if you're dealing with section 11.3 and the question hasn't been answered. I've just come into the chair, so I'm not familiar with that.
J. Tyabji: It sounded like the minister was saying that if I plan to canvass this subject in section 11.3 and then bring it up again in 11.4, he'd object to that. I don't plan to bring it up in section 11.4. We are talking about the education councils, not the composition of the councils, so it does belong in section 11.3.
My question to the minister is whether there has been adequate canvassing of the cost, and who will pay.
Hon. D. Miller: Again it's part of the difficulty of members coming in after having missed part of the debate. For example, we've already talked about some institutions where all this legislation really does is formalize what has been and currently is in place.
[4:00]
Clearly there may be some very minor, modest budgetary issues, but those will be dealt with internally by the administration. There's really no additional cost.
J. Tyabji: While I was upstairs I did hear that debate with regard to the existing informal structures that the minister is saying are identical to the education councils -- or the education councils make those structures formal.
I'm sure the minister has seen the College-Institute Educators' Association of B.C. Profile, in which they talked about education councils being established and about this being a new body. It's interesting that the College-Institute Educators' Association sees this as a new body, with 50 percent from faculty and then, as laid out in the bill...and talks about the powers of the council. Certainly, from their perspective this represents a new development. As the minister has said, some bodies in some of the institutions resemble education councils. But clearly, for it to be something that comes out in Profile, it's relatively new.
I'd like to ask the minister, since he hasn't answered the question yet, if there's been any budgetary consideration for these new councils by his ministry.
Hon. D. Miller: With all due respect, I just answered the member's question. She chose to ignore the answer and repeat her question. I can do no more than answer it, and I don't intend to answer it an infinite number of times.
[ Page 11630 ]
J. Tyabji: The only thing I heard the minister say is that there will be no budget cost for these education councils. I heard him say this represents no new cost. Perhaps he's saying the cost of the education councils will be borne by each individual institution, and therefore he hasn't budgeted any more in his global budget.
But surely he has recognized that each institution -- especially the ones that don't have anything resembling an education council -- will be having to budget for the education council. It will consist of a minimum of 20 voting members plus two non-voting members, with remuneration rates to be set by cabinet. If remuneration is going to be set by cabinet, then there must have been some consideration by this minister.
Hon. D. Miller: With all due respect, the member has not participated in the debate. We have canvassed the issue of remuneration quite extensively; it does not apply to the education councils. Had the member been here, she would have understood that. I really say we should move on.
J. Tyabji: It's a very simple question. It seems the minister isn't even prepared to answer the question as to what the new bodies in these institutions will have to pay. There's no question that cabinet is setting the remuneration for the board. However, the education councils will be costing institutions money. I'm sure the minister recognizes that. He's saying he doesn't recognize that they will be costing any money -- which is interesting, because surely they have a mandate.
I know some more questions need to be asked under this section. I'm not sure if the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi has some questions.
Since the minister is not willing to answer that, the last question I have on this section is: in his discussions with the College-Institute Educators' Association, when he was talking to them about Bill 22 coming out and the new education councils, did the issue of the internal budgets of institutions come out as part of their discussions?
Hon. D. Miller: Not that I recall.
D. Mitchell: I seek leave to introduce some guests.
Leave granted.
D. Mitchell: We have in the galleries this afternoon a group of grades 4 and 5 students from Signal Hill Elementary Shool in the Pemberton Valley. This very enthusiastic group of students are here for the first time to see the House in action. I would like to ask members of the committee to welcome them here this afternoon.
J. Tyabji: Could the minister let us know at what point he began discussions with the College-Institute Educators' Association on the establishment of education councils?
Notwithstanding the eagerness of the Liberals to pass this section, I didn't hear the minister's comment, because he kind of mumbled it while he was still seated.
Hon. D. Miller: Again, with all due respect, I fail to see what the question has to do with the bill. At what point did I start to talk to members of CIEA? The member has been around these chambers for some time. If she had paid attention, she would know that the issue of this change in governance was the subject of the Carter commission, which made various recommendations about changes in governance. There have been ongoing discussions over a number of years on the issue of changes in governance. We have canvassed this issue extensively. We have already described the fact that we are expanding our university college system to give degree-granting status to some of those university colleges and institutes.
It's interesting to note that if those institutions are now going to have the kind of credibility that we think is important, if you're going to get a degree from BCIT or Emily Carr College or Malaspina or the University College of the Cariboo or the University College of the Fraser Valley or Okanagan University College, you want that degree to have some credibility no matter where you go in this country or in this world. By having these education councils, by having the kinds of changes in governance that we're talking about, we will satisfy the criteria of the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada, for example, which will give us the credibility to move forward and provide educational opportunities for the young people we see sitting in these galleries today.
A question about when I first talked to somebody has absolutely no relevance to the issues at stake in this bill. Hon. Chairman, it tries my patience -- as is obvious -- to continue to have these kinds of questions. Let's get on with this thing.
J. Tyabji: It's really unfortunate that the minister's patience is tried by due diligence in committee stage debate. I find it interesting that the minister talks about credibility. On the one hand, he's telling us that the education council is just a formality to entrench something that already exists, and on the other hand, he talks about the revolutionary changes he's making by bringing in education councils. Which is it? And when did he start talking to post-secondary institutions about an education council? Why is he afraid to answer the question? Was it this minister or was it his predecessor? I see the minister is going to have a hard time answering the question. In that sense....
G. Wilson: Question.
Section 3, section 11.3 approved.
G. Wilson: On a point of order, hon. Chair, there are two members of the government in this House; there are one, two, three, four, five members of the opposition in this House. Clearly the vote failed. I did not rise on a point of order when the previous Chair took a vote, not only once but twice, and then sent a note saying they are more interested in appearance than in reality. Hon. Chair, clearly that vote failed, and if the government wishes it to pass, the question must be put and the motion must then be called on division.
The Chair: In my opinion as Chair, the vote was taken, the decision was made by the Chair, and if you wish to have a full division you can call for one.
J. Tyabji: Notwithstanding the eagerness of the government and the Liberals to pass this section, I would like an answer to the question. Was it this minister or his predecessor who began discussions with the College-Institute Educators' Association?
The Chair: Shall section...?
J. Tyabji: A question was directed to the minister. I'm not sure if he heard it, because I know he left the chamber for a minute. The question was with regard to discussions. I am
[ Page 11631 ]
sure he's not afraid to answer the question and that the question is very easy for him to answer. I hope he is not just in such an obstreperous mood that he has decided not to participate in the debate of a bill that he's so proud of...that he'd like to crow about to the people in the gallery who are trying to see how democracy operates in British Columbia.
On section 3, section 11.4.
J. Tyabji: With respect to the composition of an education council -- although we don't know whether this body is just a formality of something that already exists or a revolutionary change in governance of the post-secondary institutions -- under section 11.4(3) the education council can be increased. Throughout this section it talks about votes of the education council. It's not clear whether there is a differentiation of status between those who are established as voting members of the education council by this bill and those who are added to the council by a majority vote of the members so established. Which would it be?
Hon. D. Miller: My understanding is that they may vote on other issues, but not on the issue of expanding the size of the council. The section deals with the ability to expand the council. It's really intended to deal with.... The wording states quite clearly that there needs to be agreement, but it allows additions to the council to deal with specific educational issues where the expertise may be lacking in those members who are already sitting on the council. That's why it requires agreement from both parties, essentially.
L. Reid: I would refer specifically to section 11.4(1)(c): "...4 must be educational administrators appointed by the president." My sense of that is that these individuals, hopefully, will be representing the corporate interests of the institution -- some kind of fiscal accountability. Was it the intention to have such individuals appointed -- i.e., to appoint people with a very strong background in some fiscal management for those institutions?
Hon. D. Miller: I think, rather, that the administrators should have a very strong background in educational issues. Ultimately, perhaps there may be some cost implications when change takes place, but those are really dealt with by the board. The primary focus of the education council is to deal with educational issues. That's really the area of expertise.
L. Reid: Four "must be educational administrators...." Am I to understand that each institution in this province has at least four? I understand the corporate structure, being what it is.... Would maybe half of their current administrative quota be represented here?
Hon. D. Miller: Yes, and further to that, the member may wish to look at the definition section that defines the term "educational administrator" -- deans, really.
J. Tyabji: As a follow-up to the original question, how is it laid out in the bill? Will it be by regulation that there be a differentiation between the voting members in this section and those who are brought on by a majority vote of the original members? As I read this, there is no difference. Is the minister planning to bring something in by regulation? The minister had said, as well, that the number of its voting members may be increased for one year -- provided that subsection (3) is used for the purpose of adding people with qualifications that don't already exist on the council. That's not specified in that section, so how is that understood?
[4:15]
Hon. D. Miller: Section 11.4(3)(c) describes the circumstances where these new members can't vote. Therefore, with those exceptions, they can vote.
J. Tyabji: With reference to the minister's comments that people would be added for the purpose of adding qualifications or experience to the council that didn't already exist, how is that understood by this section?
Hon. D. Miller: That's the intention. I don't know that it has to be defined, because the council cannot be expanded except by agreement of the president and a majority of the education council. Clearly, those members who have much more experience than you and I in dealing with these issues, having considered the matter and having agreed that there's a need to expand, would, I presume, make the right decision.
J. Tyabji: The minister had said, though, that the intent of that section was to allow them to increase their voting members for specific reasons and that that would be the intent of having an increase in the number of voting members.
Under subsection (5), it says: "The board may appoint one person to be a non-voting member of the eduction council to serve for one year." What is the purpose of that section? What was the need to include that in the education council?
Hon. D. Miller: Just so there's an awareness on the board's part of the issues that are being discussed at the education council -- so they can be apprised of those issues.
J. Tyabji: Under subsection (1), it talks about the composition of the education council. How was that formula arrived at?
Hon. D. Miller: The discussions that were conducted through CIEA and the Advanced Education Council.... As I said before, there wasn't always unanimous agreement, but they arrived at that through discussion.
J. Tyabji: To what extent were students involved in the discussions, particularly since we find out that they're elected for one year as opposed to the other members of the education council being elected for longer terms?
Hon. D. Miller: There were discussions with students. In fact, it may be that, given the vagaries of student life, they may be on the campus for only one year.
J. Tyabji: The minister has said that there were discussions with the students. Were those discussions undertaken by the ministry, or were they represented to the ministry by other bodies within the institutions?
Hon. D. Miller: No, we talked to them.
J. Tyabji: Not only did I not understand what the minister said, but I don't know if he answered the question. Could he repeat that?
Hon. D. Miller: That makes us even.
J. Tyabji: Hon. Chair, we're doing our job in committee stage of a very important bill. Notwithstanding the
[ Page 11632 ]
snickering from the Liberals, who will again be voting with the government in favour of this, this minister should be answering questions on the sections of the bill. We can be here a lot longer if we're going to have exchanges where I have to ask the same question two or three times before I get an answer.
The question is a simple one. The minister has said that there were discussions with students with regard to the education council. I note that the terms of the students serving on the education council have been limited to a shorter period than those of the other members of the council. In asking if there were direct representations to the students, I couldn't hear the minister's answer. I don't think he answered the question. I think it's an important point for the students attending these institutions. Out of respect for them, I think it deserves an answer.
Hon. D. Miller: I've never been able to detect a specific rationale for why that member might ask a question two or three times, as opposed to once. But now that I know the secret, I would refer the member to section 11.5 -- and hopefully we'll get there fairly soon.
J. Tyabji: As I said, if the minister had answered the question -- which has nothing to do with section 11.5 -- the first time, we would have had the answer, and we could have moved on. The minister has not answered whether or not there were discussions with the students, although he said: "We talked to them." What I'm trying to determine is: did the ministry have discussions directly with the students, or did the minister accept representation from people who were speaking on behalf of the post-secondary institution, who claimed to be representing the students?
Hon. D. Miller: I have discussed this piece of legislation extensively with members of the faculty association. I have discussed it extensively with members of the Advanced Education Council of British Columbia. I have discussed it extensively with students directly, through the Canadian Federation of Students. I have discussed it with members of the public. I have discussed it and discussed it and discussed it. Hon. Chair...
An Hon. Member: I am disgusted.
Hon. D. Miller: ...I am to the point of getting disgusted.
Seriously, I appreciate that the member has legitimate questions, and I'm quite prepared to try to answer legitimate questions. But I am not prepared to go around in circles. For example, if the member asked when I first discussed this with the member of such-and-such organization, I think it's legitimate to say that I have discussed it. I may not recall the actual date that I first discussed it. But is the precise date on which I discussed an issue relevant to the issue at hand, or is the issue that the matter was canvassed quite fully?
I've also been very candid in saying that there continue to be some areas of disagreement. As we get to the end of the bill -- which we hope will come in our generation -- there is an area where the students take exception to some of the language in the bill. Throughout the bill, there are areas where I've been very clear to suggest that there's not absolute unanimity among all the interested people who will be impacted by this legislation. Nonetheless, it's an important change.
I did say that section 11.5 deals with it. There is really no limit. Although the students were limited, I think it clearly is a reflection of the fact that the most transient population at a college or institute are the students.
H.L. Mencken got a letter from his father once, receiving some sound advice. After he'd been going to university for years and years and had gotten into the habit and didn't want to leave, his father actually wrote him a letter and suggested that it had to come to an end -- which may be sound advice for this debate. He had to actually leave the institution at some point and venture forth into the real world and do what most of us do -- struggle to survive.
Nonetheless, the point I was trying to make was that students generally have a fairly short life at any institution, and the bill reflects that. But it does not restrict.... You will note -- and I did try to suggest that if we got on to section 11.5 we could see this -- that under subsection (2), students elected under section 11.4 serve a one-year term and may be elected to further terms under that section.
I am feeling genuinely frustrated as I attempt to answer the questions, but I think I do have the right, as every member does, to express that frustration. When a question is asked three or four or half a dozen times and I continue to answer it and finally say that it's just a waste of time, I expect, hon. Chair, that perhaps you might provide some direction to the members as to whether or not we have fully canvassed a section, whether or not we are tending to get tedious and repetitious and whether or not it might be timely to move on. Really, you're my defence -- if I can put it that way -- in this debate. I want to repeat to that member and every other member that I will seriously and legitimately attempt to answer every question they have, but I think there's an onus on the members to try to ensure that their questions are not simply intended to fill the silence, but to become more informed about the bill.
G. Wilson: I find it incredible that the minister feels frustration, when he has all the power, all the members and all the numbers to railroad this thing through the House. They are indeed attempting to do so.
Interjection.
G. Wilson: He's saying that everybody feels frustrated. Of course, what this minister would like is for all members of the opposition to simply put up no opposition whatsoever to the government program and to allow it to go through unscrutinized and unquestioned, and pretty much just push on regardless. That's what the minister would like. Of course, he certainly isn't going to receive that from the Alliance members, if he receives it from others.
The point here is that the minister has determined that every one of these institutions must have -- he didn't say they should have; they might have; it's recommended they think about it; or maybe the colleges, now that they've moved to degree-granting status, should have -- some form of administrative committee to look after the degree-granting question. This minister has dictated to the colleges that they must have a council; that that educational council must have 20 voting members; and that, of those 20 voting members, there must be faculty, students, educational administrators and support staff. It even tells them how many members they have.
Then he goes on to say that if they wish to reduce or increase the numbers, they are able to do so. But guess what. It has to be agreed to by the president and the majority of the voting members of the council. So we've set up this educational council, told them it has to be there and told them how many people have to be on it and what the
[ Page 11633 ]
makeup has to be. This isn't decided by the colleges; this is decided in this legislation by this minister. Then we turn around and suggest that if they're going to increase it, the president has a veto over that. So we're giving the administration veto authority over the reconstitution and restructuring of that. Then he suggests that even if they can get the president to agree, the total voting members....
Keep in mind that we're talking about voting members here, because there are also opportunities for appointment of members who are non-voting. We're setting up two classes of representatives on this board -- the same as we've just done on the college boards -- where we're going to have people who will get remuneration and others who won't, some who can vote on collective agreements and some who can't, and so on. We're now setting this up, and it says: "...(d) the total of voting members exclusive of those elected or appointed under subsection (3) is 20 or more." So 20 becomes a kind of magic number here. That's problematic, and I think the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi has some questions along those lines.
My question to the minister is this. If educational institutions are going to be charged with putting together recommendations on the list.... And under section 14, there's a long list of things that they're supposed to do, some of which, I would point out to the minister, are currently covered by collective agreements -- which, of course, this government takes with a grain of salt and is ready to toss out, as it tosses teachers into provincewide bargaining and has just now introduced a new commissioner to literally gut the health commission and the unions.
I see the Minister of Health laughing. He might well laugh because -- guess what -- those unions have just started to read what this government is attempting to do. So has the LRB, which is quite upset with this government. But that's another issue.
The issue here is that the government has dictated.... It has determined how these things are going to work and has told the colleges they must have these faculty members. The member for Okanagan East asked a simple question about cost, and there is a cost value here. If these education councils are going to be charged with the kinds of things that you're saying they have to do in section 14, they're going to have to spend a lot of time meeting, deliberating and setting down policy.
[4:30]
Collective agreements are going to have to provide, I would argue, for time off or release time for faculty and support staff that are going to sit on these councils, because that's the way it works right now. That's what happens when faculty take on duties on instructional boards, when they take on administrative roles as coordinators, when they set up programs with respect to articulation -- when they set up all of these kinds of programs that happen right now. So the minister must have thought this through.
Can the minister tell us, then, what is the cost of the faculty and staff component with respect to the release time that this ministry is suggesting will now be shunted away from direct educational delivery into administration? That's what this is: it's an administrative, middle-management committee. How much is going to be taken out of the classroom and put into this education council? Or has the minister decided that this educational council is going to provide additional funds to those degree-granting colleges that are going to actually have use of this educational council when it comes into play? What's it going to be: are they going to get more money, and if so, how much? If they're not going to get more money, how much money is going to be lost from direct education?
Hon. D. Miller: The member answered his own question right at the end, when he asked: exactly what happens now? You can make a ten-minute speech and arrive at the conclusion that the ten-minute speech was a waste of ten minutes.
I repeat.... The members talk about costs. They seem to be wanting to know what's the price of a cup of coffee. If two people get together and have a meeting, we'll have to put a cost on it. You tell me what the cost is, hon. member, for us not to proceed with degree-granting status for four university colleges and two of our institutes. You tell me what the cost is if we don't do that -- the cost in lost opportunity for students in this province.
I would have thought that this member, having taught in a community college, would be an enthusiastic supporter of this legislation -- not be nitpicking here about the cost of a cup of coffee, but instead be enthusiastic about getting on with the job of providing these kinds of opportunities for students in this province: an opportunity to get a technical degree from the B.C. Institute of Technology; an opportunity for Emily Carr College to advance their animation program into a degree-granting program; an opportunity for the University College of the Cariboo and Malaspina College to move into those applied areas where we have skills shortages, where employers are looking for people to fill real job vacancies right now. And that member, who taught in community colleges, is wasting everybody's time nitpicking over the price of a cup of coffee. He should re-examine his purpose in being here. Is he in favour of this kind of change, or does he want to endlessly chatter about how many angels can dance on the head of the pin? Let's get on with the business at hand. I've got all the time in the world; if the member wants to waste every member's time, carry on. There's little I can do to prevent you. If that's your wish, hon. Chair, within the rules.... I guess the job is up to you, because I certainly can't satisfy either one of these two members.
G. Wilson: That was somewhat entertaining, although it is becoming a bit repetitious. The fact of the matter is that the minister didn't answer the question, and the reason he didn't answer the question is that he doesn't know what the answer is. He hasn't got a clue what the cost of this is. The minister says this exists right now. It does not exist right now. If the minister had any knowledge at all of how the community college system works -- and as we move into the degree-granting institutions, how they're going to work -- he would know that it doesn't exist now.
I believe not one member here in this House has spoken out against providing degree-granting status to some community colleges. I don't believe there's a single member who doesn't think we ought to move that way. But why is it that we need to have an education council composed of a mandated number of faculty, students and staff? That was the question. Why is 20 the magical number? That's what we asked this minister. What is so necessary with respect to this that could not be done -- as it has been done over the years -- through instructional boards that are established within the institutions, and by having degree-granting disciplines develop the prerequisite amount of course requirements and decide on those course requirements on a provincewide basis through a provincial articulation system, as happens right now?
We know what's going on here. It's a movement to get college boards to start redirecting the system of education, directed by government. That's clearly what's going on in this system. The minister has said quite clearly that the intent
[ Page 11634 ]
of this ministry is to start to direct program funding into the institutions that supply the kinds of courses this minister and this government think are important -- not what college communities think are important, but what this government thinks is important.
The reason they don't care if you have faculty and student members on a college board so they can negotiate their own collective agreements is that they know darn well that they're going to do to college instructors what they did to teachers. We're going to have a centralized bargaining agent; we're going to have a CIEA or some other provincial bargaining agent, and we're not even going to worry about whether the local boards have an issue on that, because it will be done provincewide. It's the same thing they're doing to health unions right now. That's the ideological agenda of this government. Do you know what the net result is to the taxpayer? More money. It costs more, that's what it does, and less is going into the delivery of education.
The second thing it does is allow this government to direct how those educational programs are going to be developed and delivered in this province. It's the heavy hand of Big Brother government telling us all how we're going to do it. That's what this legislation is all about, because if it wasn't, it would simply say that community colleges or colleges that have degree-granting status must have an education advisory board or council to provide for the following. That's where it would leave it. It wouldn't tell us that it had to be 20; it wouldn't tell us how many faculty, students or staff had to be on there. It certainly wouldn't spell out a whole list of things as it does under section 14, some of which are already covered under collective agreements that are going to have to be amended to take account of this particular piece of legislation.
My question to the minister -- or to the minister's delegate, since this minister clearly knows so little about this particular subject.... It is not surprising that a Minister of Labour who's looking after advanced education would not be able to adequately defend his own bill....
J. Tyabji: Especially when he has left the room.
G. Wilson: To whomever the minister's delegate is, since the minister has left this debate, can they tell us why there is the magic number 20? Why is that set as a minimum? What's so magical about 20 for colleges, when the colleges and the size of colleges vary substantially around this province?
Hon. P. Ramsey: I thought I might stand and participate in this debate on the establishment of education councils at colleges in this province. I have to confess I'm having a tough time recognizing, in the comments from the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast, any relation between his characterization of these councils and the reality they will have in colleges around this province, any relationship in his characterization of the plans for developing a comprehensive education system that inculcates skills for the people of this province who need to find jobs to employ those skills, any relationship in his characterization of long-term educational planning by this government.... Quite frankly, I see almost no connection between the words he speaks and the legislation before us.
Let's deal very specifically with the establishment of education councils. I am quite frankly amazed that this member -- who, like me, has taught in colleges in this province -- fails to see the paramount need for establishment in legislation of a council that hears clearly, on appropriate matters, the voice of those who deliver programs, study in the institutions and provide support for the ongoing operations of colleges in the province. This member would simply deny those internal voices the right to have their say on appropriate matters.
Here we have established in legislation a clear mandate, a clear composition and a clear set of requirements for the operations of education councils. The member would say that somehow this is unnecessary and has come about by happenstance. I cannot believe I am hearing that from this member, who I understand was at one time considered a leader in his faculty association and even purported to speak for them.
Here we have a proposal to supersede an ineffective provision in the current legislation for program advisory committees which were not uniformly adhered to, had varying powers and compositions, and were often more ignored than heard in the operations of colleges. Here we have a government that takes clear direction to establish the right of those who work in institutions and deliver educational programs to have their voices heard.
He would talk about some magical number. Well, as my colleague the hon. Minister for Skills, Labour and Training has said: "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" He would talk about whether it should be this, that or the other number, ignoring the clear provision in this act for the number to change to meet the needs of a particular institution. He would simply go on and on, quite frankly ignoring the reality of those who work in educational institutions and colleges, ignoring the reality of their mandate to deliver high-quality training and ignoring the educational initiatives of this government.
[D. Lovick in the chair.]
G. Wilson: As I heckled from the floor -- and we might as well put it on the record -- we can see right now that 20 angels can dance on the head of this pin. They're all called the angels of the education council. Ten are faculty, four are elected students, four are educational administrators and two are support staff elected by the support staff. That's the number.
Nobody has yet answered the question. It's a very simple question: in this bill, why is the number 20 so important that you have legislated it as a minimum?
Hon. D. Miller: Various members have tried to point out that it's really not important; it only seems to be important to that member. Twenty is a number that allows the kind of balance described in the bill. I have answered this question; it has been answered time after time.
With respect, hon. Chair, I ask that you allow these proceedings to move forward.
G. Wilson: The number is important; it must be important. If it isn't important, then delete 11.4(2)(b). Get rid of it, because that talks about making sure the ratio is maintained. If you increase or decrease the numbers, the ratio....
I notice the minister is now reading the bill; that's good. Section 11.4(1)(b) says the ratios have to be maintained. It says under section 11.4(1)(d) that the total of voting members, exclusive of those elected or appointed under subsection (3), is 20 or more.
Interjections.
G. Wilson: Under 11.4(2)(d)....
[ Page 11635 ]
Hon. D. Miller: Does the member know what section he's on?
The Chair: Excuse me, hon. minister. Is there a point of order or clarification?
Hon. D. Miller: The member is referring to 11.4(1)(d), and clearly he's on the wrong section. Does he know what section he's talking about?
The Chair: I'm sure that's a rhetorical question, so I will simply go back to the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast and see what happens.
G. Wilson: It may be a legitimate question for this minister, to get the section so he can follow the debate. Maybe that's important, because I doubt that he's familiar.... If you look at section 11.4(2)(b), you can see that it talks about the ratio....
J. Tyabji: It's (d).
G. Wilson: Excuse me. Section 11.4(2)(b) talks about the ratio....
J. Tyabji: Oh, he's talking about the ratio.
An Hon. Member: The honeymoon is over!
Interjections.
The Chair: Order! Perhaps the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast could wait until the accolades die down.
J. Tyabji: You're right: he's right.
G. Wilson: I know I'm getting a great deal of help from the back-bench members behind here. The member has said that I am correct, and I appreciate that.
J. Tyabji: He is right. I was wrong.
G. Wilson: The section is 11.4(2)(b), and in that (b) it says that...
An Hon. Member: I've got it.
G. Wilson: I'm glad that the members behind me are with me on this. Now we can move forward.
..."the number of voting members after the increase or decrease is apportioned to represent faculty members, students educational...in the same ratios as under subsection (1)." Then under (d) of the same section, it goes on to say: "the total of voting members exclusive of those elected or appointed under subsection (3) is 20 or more." So the bill makes it an important number. I don't make it an important number. This bill stipulates that number. The question is: why?
[4:45]
It is going to be an unwieldy educational council at best. Some community colleges are smaller than others. Others would like to set this up in a different way and have so indicated. In a letter to this minister from the Applied Science Technologists and Technicians of British Columbia, Mr. Leach suggests that there might be a better way to do this. That is a letter directly to the minister, so this isn't all my idea. These are people who are trying to give constructive criticism of this bill and make that constructive criticism work. Maybe the minister can tell us why 20 is such a key number.
Hon. D. Miller: As I said in my last answer, 20 is the number that was determined. It represents the kind of balance that is described in the bill. It was determined after consultation. I don't know why the member is concentrating on the number 20. I suppose if the number were 30 he might be making the same speech. But it was arrived at through consultation. The bill is quite straightforward. Section 11.4 describes the variety of circumstances where the education council might be expanded. The member acknowledges that institutions currently have education councils on an informal basis. In some cases they are larger than 20. In subsection (3) the bill provides for the expansion of the education council where it's appropriate and where it's agreed to by the president and the majority of the education council.
With respect, this has been going on for a considerable amount of time. We have long passed the point where the debate is germane to the bill, and I would ask that the question be put on this section.
The Chair: Before I recognize the member for Okanagan East, I would just say that it seems to me we have had a detailed articulation of the question and a detailed response to the question. I'm not sure whether we will be served by carrying on with that procedure. So unless we have other refinements, I would suggest we are extending the boundary.
J. Tyabji: I'd like to say two things. First of all, I'd like to apologize on the record for disrupting the debate of my colleague. He was right when he was making a reference to the section of the bill, and I was wrong. I want to put that on the record...
The Chair: I suspect that this qualifies as privilege....
J. Tyabji: ...for those who are following the debate. I should have known better and deferred to his expertise on that, but I was confused.
This has to do with a fairly lengthy question that came up at the beginning of this section but hasn't been answered. It could be because there were a number of other questions asked at the same time. To make it very specific, what is the relief time to the faculty and staff who will be assigned to this council going to represent in financial terms?
Hon. D. Miller: Those issues will be determined by the board.
J. Tyabji: Since those issues will be determined by the board, and since we recognize that there will be a cost in terms of relief time for the faculty and staff, will that cost be borne by the budget of the institution, or will there be an additional allocation of funds by the ministry?
Hon. D. Miller: I have not confirmed that there will be an increase in costs. It's not necessarily so. Those issues are in the purview of the administration and the board of the institution.
J. Dalton: I hate to break into this scintillating debate, but hours ago the minister very kindly, in response to a question about subsection (5) of this long-suffering section we're dealing with, responded that the board may appoint
[ Page 11636 ]
someone as a non-voting member because the board needs to be aware of council issues. I'm curious as to why, later on -- if we ever get to it -- we're going to be dealing with section 7, section 14.1, whereby the board must seek the advice of the council. So I'm a bit confused, hon. minister, as to why we need subsection (5).
Hon. D. Miller: I think there will be some kind of free flow between the two. There are issues that the council deals with that the board does not deal with -- in other words, where the council has authority. In fact, subsection (5) is permissive in that it says "the board may." There is that cross-flow because of the chair of the education council being a non-voting member of the board. It really allows everyone to know what everyone else is doing, which I think makes the system work better.
Section 3, section 11.4 approved on the following division:
|
YEAS -- 40 | ||
|
Petter |
Marzari |
Edwards |
|
Charbonneau |
O'Neill |
Perry |
|
Hammell |
Lortie |
Giesbrecht |
|
Miller |
Cull |
Gabelmann |
|
Ramsey |
Barlee |
Blencoe |
|
Janssen |
Evans |
Randall |
|
Farnworth |
Conroy |
Doyle |
|
Lord |
Sawicki |
Jackson |
|
Kasper |
Brewin |
Copping |
|
Schreck |
Lali |
Hartley |
|
Stephens |
Hurd |
Farrell-Collins |
|
Reid |
Dalton |
Tanner |
|
Jarvis |
K. Jones |
M. de Jong |
| Symons | ||
|
NAYS -- 6 | ||
|
Neufeld |
Fox |
Hanson |
|
Weisgerber |
Wilson |
Tyabji |
Section 3, sections 11.5 and 11.6 approved.
On section 3, section 11.7.
J. Tyabji: I have a quick question to the minister. The section says the chair of the education council must be elected by and from the voting members of the education council. Would that include the voting members who have been appointed to the education council by the council constituted by the bill, or not?
Hon. D. Miller: It was discussed in the previous section. There are two areas where the individuals who are added to the education council by agreement are prohibited from voting. The previous section, section 11.4(3)(c), says that: "these new voting members are deemed not to be voting members for the purposes of a vote under subsection (2)(a)...." That deals with the increase or decrease in subsection (3). So those are the only two areas where the new members who may be added under section 11.4 may not participate in a vote.
Section 3, section 11.7 approved.
The Chair: That concludes the content of section 3. Shall section 4 pass?
I recognize the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast on a point of order.
G. Wilson: I think we had agreed that at the conclusion of section 3, we would introduce and pass the amendment to section 2.
The Chair: You're absolutely correct, member, and I thank you for drawing that to the Chair's attention. Minister, we are ready to deal with the amendment under your name.
[5:00]
Hon. D. Miller: The amendment, as I indicated, is standing in my name on the order paper. It simply deals with an anomaly in the existing bill.
[SECTION 2.1, by adding the following section:
2.1 Section 3 (o) is amended by striking out "principals" and substituting "presidents".]
This is because "presidents," as opposed to "principals," has become the operative word.
On the amendment to section 2.
J. Tyabji: I was just wondering if the minister is prepared to eat crow for his attitude when I brought this up under section 1.
Hon. D. Miller: That's a perplexing question, but I think the fact that the member.... I acknowledged this morning that the issue was raised by the member. Actually, in error I thought it was your colleague. I advised the House that you had indeed raised the issue and that as a result, we brought in an amendment. I don't know if that constitutes eating crow, nor do I know or feel that if legitimate issues are raised by members of the opposition and recognized by the government, and amendments are made, there's anything wrong with that. In fact, it may provide some comfort to those members who, I think, feel on occasion that that is not the case. I'm quite happy to bring forward the amendment.
J. Tyabji: It wasn't my intent to get the minister to make such a long statement, but his having said that.... It wasn't the amendment per se. I would encourage the minister to review Hansard for the debate that morning when I raised the point. That was what I was referring to. It reminds me a lot of the attitude that we've had this afternoon in debate.
Hon. D. Miller: I just would say that having lived through these debates once, it may not be advisable for any of us, actually, to read Hansard.
Amendment approved.
Section 4 approved.
On section 5.
G. Wilson: I have just one question on section 5(c). It says: "...in subsection 1(b) by striking out 'professional employee' and substituting 'faculty member, educationaladministrator....'" Maybe the minister could just explain what he sees to be the relevance of that change in this bill.
Hon. D. Miller: Section 5 amends section 12 and, in a sense, the series of amendments that members see in the bill are more or less consequential and really amend the powers and duties of the boards, to complement the new powers and duties, regarding some academic matters that these sections
[ Page 11637 ]
confer on the education councils. As I said, it also contains consequential amendments reflecting changes in terminology.
G. Wilson: I recognize that, and I don't know that this is necessarily a huge point. But I don't think the minister understood what I was asking. In subsection (c) under this, we have changed the term "professional employee" and substituted two distinctly different entities within the college. Under the existing act.... That's a very consequential amendment, in that it makes a distinction where a distinction didn't previously exist. I just wonder if the minister can tell us why.
Hon. D. Miller: It's just a technical amendment. There's a very complicated explanation. If you look at the division of definitions under section 1 and section 5, the language is used in part 5 of the existing act. I hope that satisfies the member.
G. Wilson: If I understand what the minister said -- and I'll try to sort it out -- the reference is to the definitions section and section 5. I'm not quite sure I follow what section under section 5 he is talking about here. We're dealing with the change in the classification, in a sense, of professional employee to faculty member or educational administrator. I'm not quite sure that I see the relevance of that answer.
Hon. D. Miller: We're mired in technicalities here. I repeat that in sections 30 to 43 of part 5 of the existing act, the term "professional employee" is used. I guess that gets into the labour relations section. The new definitions are really reflective of the changes that have taken place generally throughout the bill, in the parts we have been debating. So there's a division, I guess. We have retained the definition in part 5, in the sections I have dealt with, but for the purposes of the changes we're dealing with, we are substituting "faculty member, educational administrator" for "professional employee." Of course, the bill deals with those specific individuals in terms of them being named to education councils and the like. They're throughout the bill -- the changes that occur in the bill.
G. Wilson: Just a last point, in clarification. The reason I wanted that is that the existing act -- if I've got it right -- essentially provides for a subclassification of professional employee, consistent with the Labour Relations Code. Is that correct? Where the Labour Relations Code talks about professional employee and also about professional staff, it actually sets up two subclassifications to make it consistent with the act. It doesn't have anything to do with, for example, eligibility and bargaining units, or matters that might be more specific to the Labour Relations Code -- i.e., the definition of a trade union. Or does it?
Hon. D. Miller: I think my last explanation really dealt with the issue. As I said, that term is used under part 5 of the existing act. Clearly it has some labour relations connotations, but in the changes that we're making with respect to the education councils, we required the definitions that are being substituted. We need those definitions in terms of making these new sections work. In effect, two separate definitions are used, but there's really no conflict between the two. I thought the member understood the explanation that I offered.
J. Tyabji: Yesterday, when we were debating the change that this government is bringing in with regard to teachers, we found that teachers had moved from being a professional association to being a trade union for the purposes of the Labour Relations Code. Is there a change in these definitions that represents a movement toward viewing faculty as part of a trade union?
Hon. D. Miller: That issue is not dealt with at all in this legislation.
Sections 5 and 6 approved.
On section 7, section 13.1.
G. Wilson: Under section 7, section 13.1, I just want to take an opportunity to actually congratulate the government on bringing in what I think is a good piece of legislation. I want that to go on the record so that people don't think we're entirely negative in our comments.
The matter with respect to the assigning of student association fees and, in particular, the need for audited financial statements is a first-class introduction in this bill. It needs to be said that there are many institutions where that has not been done in the past. This is a positive step forward, and we can support this section and should say so.
Hon. D. Miller: I want to put some words on the record. I appreciate the support of the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast, because, as I indicated, there have been some disagreements in some areas on various clauses of the bill. Although it was my view and I will hold to the view that, broadly stated, we had the support of the Canadian Federation of Students with respect to this change, bearing in mind that the current act is silent.... In other words, there are no legislative clauses dealing with this issue; none, in fact, compel the boards to collect and remit those fees at all. We see this change as being a good one, but there have been concerns raised by people from the Canadian Federation of Students, and they're generally around the issue of whether or not their legitimate interests could be frustrated by a board for some other motive.
I want to say for the record that that is not the intention of this clause. It was simply to allow the board to be satisfied that the funds were being properly administered but not to interfere with the rights of student societies to make their own fundamental decisions in matters that clearly are in their interest. I hope that reassurance will satisfy those members of the CFS who have concerns and have written to me and, perhaps, to other members expressing their concerns. I thank the member for his support.
J. Tyabji: I also think this section is good in introducing some accountability to the accounting records. But just for clarification, it says under section 13.1(2): "The board may direct that the institution ceases to collect or remit the student association fees if the student association (a) does not comply with the Society Act...." Is the non-compliance going to be in the board's judgment as the board reads the Society Act, or is it something that will be determined by the registrar of societies?
Hon. D. Miller: The registrar.
J. Tyabji: In the event that the board has difficulty getting a ruling from the registrar of societies that agrees with what
[ Page 11638 ]
it thinks, is there an avenue of appeal there to the Minister of Finance or the Minister of Labour?
Hon. D. Miller: The issue is not dealt with in this bill, but rather in the bill that regulates the activities of societies. That is for them to determine.
Section 7, section 13.1 approved.
On section 7, section 14.1.
G. Wilson: I genuinely feel sorry for the deflation that was in the face of the minister when he thought we'd passed, all of a sudden, up to subsection 14.3, only to find we hadn't. It's just too bad.
I think most of the comments with respect to education councils have been made, and I don't know that we need to go back through all of them. I do think there are some issues surrounding the role of the education councils with respect to the provision where advice must be given to boards and boards must seek advice from education councils. Then we look to see where they are developing educational policy. I'm hoping that the key word here is policy, because that would be institutional in nature and presumably would be non-binding on parties. There are some matters here -- for example, policies on faculty member qualifications with respect to instruction -- that are covered by collective agreements.
[5:15]
There are other issues here with respect to priorities for the implementation of new programs and courses leading to certificates, diplomas and degrees which are going to be a functional part of a degree-granting institution. The procedures by which those can be implemented are also covered by collective agreements. So my question is: if there is a conflict between educational policies and a collective agreement, I assume that the collective agreement prevails.
Hon. D. Miller: In the discussions that I and my staff have held with the Advanced Education Council and the CIEA, the concerns that were expressed with respect to boards seeing some intrusion on their powers, and issues such as that.... The council, first of all, cannot.... And the board is not obliged to accept advice that is in conflict with policies or directions that are established by myself as the minister responsible. As I've noted in a previous section of the debate, if we look at subsection 14.3(5), in the event of an impasse, issues can be referred to me for resolution.
I also want to say this. I have cautioned both sides that if, in my view, I see the development of traditional labour relations issues in this forum, I am prepared to take some action. It is not a forum for labour relations issues; it is a forum for educational issues. It is fundamentally important that the parties understand that. I'll repeat what I said earlier: if the degrees that these institutions will be offering are to have the credibility that I think is so important, we need this governance model to get the approval of the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada. It's important that we have this, but the parties will not be allowed to denigrate the process into those traditional labour relations areas. I think it's a clear understanding. As I said earlier, I have some confidence and I retain that confidence, but I certainly gave that warning, if you like, during our discussions.
J. Dalton: I just have one point about section 14.1, and I'll lead with an editorial comment. I have a fear, quite frankly, that we're getting a little top-heavy and bureaucratic in the administration of a college and a campus. However, putting that aside, I thought I would share my experience at Langara. Of course, Langara has changed a bit since my day, because it's now the independent Langara College. I can assure the minister that in my day -- and I was there for 19 years -- we had an education council. It wasn't legislated. It was there because the administrators and the faculty, and even the students, felt that was a basic and necessary component. That's why I say I have a little trouble with this, at least editorially.
The point I would like to make -- and I invite the comment of the minister -- is: why is it necessary that we legislate that the board must seek advice from the council and that the council must advise the board? I think that's a little heavy-handed, quite frankly. That, in fact, happens on campuses, and I don't think we need to legislate it.
Hon. D. Miller: I think it formalizes the relationship.
G. Wilson: Just one or two quick questions on this. I guess we could get into a protracted philosophical debate about what each of these things suggests. I'm not going to do that, because presumably each college is going to respond to it in an appropriate way. I do come back to this question on collective bargaining, because this is a very difficult problem. Again, it says in section 14.1(1)(d): "...priorities for implementation of new programs...." Most collective agreements already have a proposition in place with respect to the approval of new programs because of the staffing of those programs. In most collective agreements there is some form of seniority recognition within divisions, and even within departments. As new programs are implemented, and as degree-granting status occurs, if money is shifted from one division or department into another by virtue of that decision -- which will be taken largely on the advice of this council, I would assume -- you will be impacting on collective agreements because of the need to refocus faculty personnel.
I ask this because I've been at the negotiating table when we've been dealing with this. The problem is, when you have shrinking funds and there is a seniority position in place within divisions, you're going to have a conflict with respect to "(i) policies on faculty member qualifications" in terms of who is qualified to teach those courses. I say that because you will have people with years of seniority who believe they have qualifications, who, on the advice of this educational council, may be forced into a situation where they will be seeking to maintain employment, even though this educational council may in fact be acting against the best interests of that faculty member and therefore against the terms of a collective agreement.
The minister may think this is hypothetical, but I assure the minister that this is likely to be a reality if there are shrinking dollars in the college system. If that's the case, which of those two authorities is likely to prevail in the mind of the minister? Would that constitute an opportunity to reopen a collective agreement, or would it simply have to be dealt with through a grievance procedure?
Hon. D. Miller: The board has the authority. If you turn the page, you'll see under 14.1(2) that the advice must not conflict with policy directly established by myself. But I repeat: therein lie the challenges. I don't believe that in our society.... Those conflicts that you talked about take place today. I'm aware of proposals to drop courses and bring new courses in in my own college region. That has been the history of community colleges. That's why the caution I
[ Page 11639 ]
talked about in my last response was really issued. This is not the place. This is an opportunity for expanding and changing and refocusing our system, which will benefit the institutions and the faculty and will ultimately benefit the educational opportunities of British Columbians.
G. Wilson: I ask a question on behalf of a constituent, actually, who has sent this forward to the minister on behalf of Mr. Leach, the executive director of Applied Science Technologists and Technicians. Given the mandate and the advisory nature of the educational council, it would appear that if you had an alumni component, that alumni component may be able to provide valuable advice, particularly with respect to implementation questions on courses, diplomas, and so on. Perhaps I should have asked this question earlier on, but I ask it now. Was any consideration given to having an alumni component on these educational advisory councils, which is strongly recommended by John Leach, the executive director of Applied Science Technologists and Technicians of B.C.?
Hon. D. Miller: No.
Section 7, section 14.1 approved.
On section 7, section 14.2.
G. Wilson: I need some clarification from the minister with respect to these bylaws that the educational council must make. I'd like to know what binding force these bylaws have on boards and administrators. Again, I raise the question with respect to existing collective agreements and a clearly established hierarchy within student associations in terms of the members elected to their associations. Can the minister clarify what these bylaws are all about, what their effect is going to be and what jurisdiction they have?
Hon. D. Miller: Every organization needs a set of bylaws. We've got a set that govern how we conduct business in this House; it's called the rules of order. These bylaws are for the education council. They don't have an impact on the board. They really are the operational bylaws of the education council.
G. Wilson: If they are simply that, why do they have to have the prior approval of the minister?
Hon. D. Miller: I would want to make sure they are doing it right.
G. Wilson: I think I heard the minister correctly: he wants to make sure they do it right. I think that's what the minister said. This is the minister who said that there wasn't going to be direction by government; government wasn't going to intercede and tell them how they ought to conduct their business.
With respect to subsection (2), some of the matters with respect to "policy and directives established under section 2(1)" are matters of concern to students and to the accreditation of each institution with respect to transferability. It suggests that these councils are going to set policies on examinations and evaluations of students and courses. Then it talks about academic standing, academic standards and the grading system. I have two questions. Presumably the bylaws referred to in section 14.2(1) have no relevance to setting academic standards and grading systems. We're not going to do that within an institution by bylaw -- or are we? Right now a provincewide accreditation system is done through an articulation process. There is wide negotiation and discussion, especially on the matter of grading, because there is a difference of opinion on how the grading systems ought to work to accurately reflect the skills and abilities of students. Maybe the minister could talk about that.
Hon. D. Miller: With respect to the policy areas, we don't intend to direct the activities of the council by bylaw. Bylaws are really operating guidelines, and one must give some credit to the faculty members and others who are part of the education council. Their objective would be to maintain or increase the currency of the various diplomas, certificates or degrees one might earn at an institution, not to devalue that currency.
[5:30]
G. Wilson: I appreciate the answer from the minister. I can tell you that the things most people involved in academia are very jealous and protective of are academic standards, the process by which academic standards are reviewed and put forward, and the grading system. It doesn't impact only the welfare of the student -- which, of course, is paramount -- it is also a large determining factor with respect to the quality of degrees within each discipline.
My question is: if the powers in these education councils are, as it says under subsection (2)(f), to "set curriculum content for courses leading to certificates, diplomas or degrees," does that mean that this education council is intended to take the place of discipline-by-discipline articulation? Or are we going to have the provincewide articulation processes on that and then have them ratified by this council? Is that the way that's supposed to proceed?
Hon. D. Miller: As is normal when a curriculum is developed even in lesser institutions, it still needs to pass those tests or, in other words, be articulated. There would be, as there is now, faculty and other involvement in establishing curricula for various, as the section says, "courses leading to certificates, diplomas or degrees."
L. Hanson: The powers of the education council would seem to have -- and I asked this question of the minister -- some impact on the administration costs and finances of the college, because they have the power to set some of these things, while the board is responsible for setting tuition fees and so on. Does the minister not see any conflict between the responsibilities of the two bodies?
Hon. D. Miller: No, I think you really have to try to separate them in terms of how you view them. Go back to some of the previous sections that deal with the powers of the council to advise the board and the powers of the minister that relate to the government ultimately setting policy direction. Try to look at this a little more narrowly in terms of the specific content and development of courses. It really focuses on the educational issues, but it doesn't have the kind of direct link back to the board that you're suggesting, where, in other words, the education council is driving the board and its costs in a certain direction.
L. Hanson: The difference I see between section 14.1, which is the "Advisory role of the education council," and 14.2(2), which says: "the education council has the power and duty to..." is a responsibility to do those things as opposed to an advisory capacity. Some of those things that it has a duty and a power to do have some financial relationship to the institutes. As the board is responsible for tuition fees,
[ Page 11640 ]
budgeting, and so on, there would seem to be a bit of a conflict there. I point that out because it has been pointed out to me by a number of people in the business, if you will. It would appear to be a conflict that could have some influence on tuition fees, whereas the board has to face the responsibility of whatever those tuition fees are.
I think the minister can appreciate that as a society, we have had difficulties in the past when an authority that manages something and establishes the cost of doing it is not the authority that gets the criticism for the bill that eventually results. I think the minister gets my point.
Hon. D. Miller: Let me illustrate the relationship in a different way by using the expansion of the autonomous right to grant degrees. Some colleges are now looking at new degrees in new fields. Let's argue hypothetically that they currently offer two years of a particular program, and that in the board's view it's desirable to expand that into a four-year degree-granting program. The course content, the curricula, etc., for the final two years which currently aren't offered would be sent to the education council. They would determine the course content, at the request of the board, that would create that four-year degree-granting program. Does that clarify the relationship a little better?
L. Hanson: I didn't have a whole bunch of difficulty understanding the relationship between the two. I simply said that some cost factors in the responsibilities of the advisory council may affect the board, which has responsibility for tuition and other things. It's a point I wanted to make without belabouring the discussion.
T. Perry: I realize it may be almost impossible for the minister to give us some insight at this point, but I'm curious about what, if any, illustrations he can give us concerning where policy is likely to lead us on conflict-of-interest issues. I thought of an example that might be intriguing.
It has always amazed me that in legislative debates or elsewhere in society, nobody ever seems to ask why the universities arrogate unto themselves the absolute discretion to determine who shall be granted entry into a faculty of medicine, law, education, etc., where entry is severely limited. In particular, it has been traditional for ancient professions like medicine or law to mould individuals in their own image.
There was a rebellion against this in the universities in the 1960s and 1970s. I was unfortunate enough to get sucked into that when I agreed, as a student, to serve on the medical admissions committee at McGill University, thinking I could change something. At the end of three years I knew, like everyone else who had ever served on that committee, that I couldn't; the students would outwit us no matter how we tried to select them.
Looking at it again 20 years later, it has always struck me that there is an inherent conflict of interest in, let's say, a faculty of medicine deciding that only doctors, by and large, or people in the faculty of medicine can decide who gets in. Yet it would never be perceived that way within the university. I could get myself into a lot of trouble for what I'm saying right now -- and probably will. The faculty of law would operate in exactly the same way and so would the faculty of education. Given our experience here, most of us would probably be excluded, by definition, from admission to any of those faculties. I am curious about what examples the minister has or if he's got any thinking yet on what we are going to see. I think there can be some rather creative and revolutionary developments out of this concept, but I'm darned if I can foresee what they are going to be.
Hon. D. Miller: I would be delighted to engage in a more lengthy discussion. This was covered in previous sections of the bill. I appreciate the member's comments, though.
G. Wilson: It's unfortunate that the minister didn't respond. If the member for Vancouver-Little Mountain had been given just a few minutes more, he would have racked up more minutes in this debate than the official opposition.
I have one last question with respect to the powers of the education council. It has more to do with the matter of setting policies in terms of academic standing. With respect to these education councils, is it the intention of the minister that academic standing is going to be determined not only in terms of eligibility criteria for entry into programs but also with respect to the financial situation of a student? At the moment, students are often given a grace period after enrolment that allows them an opportunity to pay fees by a certain date, and that rests largely with the registrar. Is this academic council going to have authority in that jurisdiction or not?
Hon. D. Miller: No.
Section 7, section 14.2 approved.
On section 7, section 14.3.
J. Dalton: I am a little worried that this is going to produce more tangle than it's going to solve. My specific question to the minister is: what is the distinction, if any, between joint approval, as this subsection deals with, and joint authority? Obviously the authority of a college is ultimately administered by the board, and that's its responsibility. Are we not going to get into some jurisdictional dispute with this joint-approval concept?
Hon. D. Miller: That's why we have subsection (5) under this section.
J. Dalton: I'm sure the minister thinks that he or his successors -- if there are any before they go down in the next election -- will be able to deal with any dispute that may be referred to them. But I don't have that confidence, quite frankly. I think this government, like any other, should leave the colleges well enough alone. They're functioning quite happily now. Again, I feel that we're just adding layers of bureaucracy and the burdens of committees and other things that are probably uninvited.
However, my other question deals with section 14.3(1)(b). What other responsibilities can the minister share with us that might be covered under clause (b)?
Hon. D. Miller: It's really educational matters. Subsection (3) really deals with the right of either the board or the education council to terminate. If I've taken the member's question.... It's really educational issues. Again, it has to be by mutual agreement.
G. Wilson: I have just a couple of really quick questions. I actually think the joint approval process here is not bad, given that there's going to be a move toward degree-granting status in various programs at different colleges. Transferability is going to become important; accreditation is going to be important.
[ Page 11641 ]
We understand that new colleges or educational institutions -- I don't know if they're exactly colleges -- are being set up that will be directed more specifically within the aboriginal communities as part of agreements the Nisga'a won, which we're familiar with. I assume that there's going to be some need for a joint program there. This bill, presumably, and this joint approval process will also apply to those programs that are developed. Is that correct?
Hon. D. Miller: It's really hypothetical, and it's not dealt with in the bill. There are no plans in this current year to create any new institutions. Any public post-secondary institutions that are created will be governed by this legislation.
G. Wilson: Okay. I'll take that under advisement. I hear the word "public" in there, and that may be a caveat. But I don't want to get into hypotheticals. My understanding is that there are certainly procedures underway, but we'll deal with that in some other forum, perhaps.
The only other question I have -- because, as I said, I think this is a reasonably good section -- is under section 14.3(5). It's a question about "...60 days of the board or education council requesting the other to consider its proposal...." It's been my experience that there needs to be an elastic period there. Depending on the size of the program being talked about here and the manner that's required for joint approval, it may not be possible within the 60-day period. There presumably is some opportunity to bypass that. It looks like a pretty rigid date. I hope it's not intended to be that way.
Hon. D. Miller: It's permissive in the sense that later on you'll see the word "may." But it's also appropriate that there be some reasonable time in which matters that have reached an impasse be forwarded.
[5:45]
J. Tyabji: I think this has already been answered. The minister has said the joint approval is just between public institutions; it wouldn't be between a private and a public one. Is that correct?
Hon. D. Miller: I'm a bit confused. I thought the question I had earlier was with respect to the creation of new institutions or aboriginal institutions. My answer was that any public institutions that are created, that currently don't exist.... The ones that currently exist will be governed by this legislation or Bill 23, which I hope will pass in a matter of mere seconds subsequent to this. Any new public institutions will be governed by this legislation. We really can't deal in hypothetical situations with regard to other.... The private institutions are covered under the private post-secondary training institutions. So everything that's there is covered one way or another. If something new is created and needs to be covered, we'll cover that.
T. Perry: I'd like to ask the minister what section 14.3(2) means. I can't figure out what one sentence there means.
Hon. D. Miller: What it prohibits is interference in the manner in which the curriculum is delivered; in other words, it could be through distance education. So really it underscores that the importance is on the curriculum itself, not the manner in which it is delivered.
T. Perry: So is this protecting the student from a faculty member saying: "I don't like the way you learned French; you may speak French better than I do, but you didn't study it from my textbook"? Or is it protecting the faculty from the board saying: "We think the Open Learning Agency is just as good as your teaching; you have to recognize that one"?
Hon. D. Miller: If you look at the flow through the bill that we've discussed.... We talked about the areas of joint authority, the advisory role of the council, the powers of the council -- which really focused on curricula development, etc. -- and on to the issues of joint approval. If you go back to the previous section on curricula development, it's just prudent that there could be no prohibition if it's determined by the board that.... Having delivered curricula through distance education, providing the curriculum is one that has been agreed to through the education council, then no one could say: "No, no, you can't do that. It must be taught by a live instructor standing in this particular classroom." That's really, in its simplest form, what it's intended to do.
T. Perry: So section 14.3(2) -- "Subsection (1)(a) does not include curriculum evaluation based on instructional methods" -- is actually reinforcing the power of the boards and ultimately the minister. If so, I like it.
Section 7, section 14.3 approved.
On section 8.
G. Wilson: It's important under section 8 to realize what we're doing here with section 15 in the act. Beyond the education council and beyond the board, it takes out "a board" and says "an institution." Here it says: "Functions and duties of college or Provincial institute." I think that's what we're dealing with here. This is the way it reads now: "Subject to this Act and the resources available to the board, a board shall (a) establish and maintain courses of instruction; (b) establish fellowships, scholarships..." -- and so on -- "...(c) provide a program of continuing education; and (d) generally promote the objects of the institution."
If we are saying the institution shall do that, as opposed to the board -- and I think that's what is intended here -- then with respect to the functions and duties of a provincial institute, what it seems to me we've done is downloaded a lot of the responsibility to two functional committees: the board and the educational council. We then have turned around and said that subject to the resources available, the institution as a whole has a responsibility to look after the interests of what they are doing.
How is that going to affect employer-employee relations, given that "subject to...the resources available to the board" is now going to be "subject to...the resources available to the institution?" Do you see what I mean? All of a sudden, we don't have an employer-employee relationship here with respect to the assignment of funds -- collective bargaining as a functional part of that. We now have the institution all working together, which is a great concept, but in terms of the labour relations model that affects the institutions, I don't see how that can happen without a major conflict of interest.
Hon. D. Miller: The amendment is really quite innocent. It simply deals with changing the term "board" in section 15 and using the word "institution," to reflect the changes we have been debating here since about 2:30. We have changed things; we have education councils, there are areas of joint authority and there are advisory areas. That's really all it is.
[ Page 11642 ]
It simply removes the term "board" and puts in the term "institution."
Section 8 approved on division.
Sections 9 to 11 inclusive approved.
On section 12.
G. Wilson: I just need a clarification with respect to the appointment of a public administrator. This is quite interesting. This allows for a public administrator to replace a board and an education council, if the minister thinks that is what should happen. I realize that there have been duties.... This is nothing dramatically new, in the sense that the government has always had the authority to come in and do that. But in light of the fact that under section 7, section 14.1(2), which we've already passed.... It says: "Advice given under subsection (1) must not conflict with policy or directives established under section 2(1)(a)." That effectively is this minister. It seems to me that, all of a sudden, a public administrator who is given the powers and responsibilities stipulated in that really does hold a pretty heavy hammer over the institutions to do as the minister dictates they do.
Hon. D. Miller: I should say, and I want to make this very clear, the relationship between the ministry.... Let's face it, as a minister, I don't deal.... It's the staff in this ministry who deal on a routine basis with staff at the college level, and the relationship, believe me, is a good one. Go ask anybody in the colleges; it's there. But it seems to me that there is some prudence as well. We maintain clauses like that in the School Act. It's really the ultimate responsibility, not in the sense of interfering on an educational basis. This ministry, this government and this Legislature, in fact, approve budgets in excess of $1 billion of taxpayers' money that flows out to these institutions. In the event of some unforeseen circumstance, or some deliberate circumstance on the part of a board -- and I'm not suggesting for a minute that that would happen -- we would need the powers to intervene. That's it. It's very short and simple. It's there in other bills.
G. Wilson: Obviously we're going to vote against this. Again, this is an area where we could get into a protracted philosophical debate. But we're hearing this minister say -- and I think this minister's words need to go out to all college administrators, faculty and staff....
Interjection.
G. Wilson: The minister is saying that he'll mail it to them, and that would be a good idea because it will save some money from our meagre budget.
They've set up these new councils. This is a government that refused to go to an elected college board, despite their promise in the last election. Now they've given themselves a caveat that says that if these new councils and these newly constituted boards.... Notwithstanding the fact that there's a real probability for conflict of interest in collective bargaining, if the faculty or staff become too powerful in directing these boards, if they go in a manner that is not to the liking of this minister or this government, they can simply wipe out the board and the education councils and appoint a public administrator to direct the college in the manner that the government sees fit. That's exactly what this says. I think it's important for people in the province to know what this government has just given itself the power to do with respect to colleges. Quite contrary to the movement toward elected college boards, which was the promise -- local autonomy -- we have now moved to the ultimate authority of big government to direct post-secondary education in the province.
Hon. D. Miller: That's certainly one interpretation, hon. Chair.
Section 12 approved on the following division:
|
YEAS -- 42 | ||
|
Petter |
Sihota |
Marzari |
|
Edwards |
Charbonneau |
O'Neill |
|
Perry |
Hammell |
Lortie |
|
Giesbrecht |
Miller |
Cull |
|
Harcourt |
Gabelmann |
Ramsey |
|
Barlee |
Blencoe |
Janssen |
|
Evans |
Randall |
Farnworth |
|
Conroy |
Doyle |
Lord |
|
Simpson |
Sawicki |
Jackson |
|
Kasper |
Brewin |
Copping |
|
Schreck |
Lali |
Hartley |
|
Neufeld |
Fox |
Anderson |
|
Jarvis |
Tanner |
Dalton |
|
Hurd |
Stephens |
Hanson |
|
NAYS -- 2 | ||
|
Wilson |
|
Tyabji |
[6:00]
Sections 13 and 14 approved on division.
Title approved.
Hon. D. Miller: Hon. Chair, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; D. Lovick in the chair.
Bill 22, College and Institute Amendment Act, 1994, reported complete with amendment.
Deputy Speaker: When shall the bill be read a third time?
Hon. D. Miller: With leave now, hon. Speaker.
Leave granted.
Bill 22, College and Institute Amendment Act, 1994, read a third time and passed on division.
Hon. D. Miller: I call committee on Bill 23.
INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY AMENDMENT ACT, 1994
The House in committee on Bill 23; G. Brewin in the chair.
On section 1.
G. Wilson: I think it's important that it go on the record for Hansard that Bill 23 is a mirror image of Bill 22. Therefore precisely the same arguments that were advanced under Bill
[ Page 11643 ]
22 would be advanced under Bill 23. For the record, I think it should be stated that our arguments stand for both bills.
Hon. D. Miller: I'd like to thank the members opposite. Clearly, as the member stated, this is a mirror bill to the one we have debated extensively. All the comments that applied to that one, I presume, apply to this one. I thank the members for their courtesy in allowing this speedy passage of Bill 23.
Sections 1 to 11 inclusive approved.
Title approved.
Hon. D. Miller: Hon. Chair, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.
Motion approved on division.
The House resumed; D. Lovick in the chair.
Bill 23, Institute of Technology Amendment Act, 1994, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I move that the House at its rising stand recessed for 30 minutes.
Motion approved.
Committee of Supply A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
The Speaker: When shall the committee sit again?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Later today, hon. Speaker.
I move the House do now recess.
Motion approved.
The House recessed at 6:11 p.m.
The House resumed at 6:43 p.m.
[D. Lovick in the chair.]
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Tonight in Committee A we will have the Ministry of Government Services estimates, followed, I hope, by the Ministry of Education. In the House we will proceed with Bill 21, followed by the estimates of the Ministry of Skills, Training and Labour.
HERITAGE CONSERVATION STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1994
(continued)
The House in committee on Bill 21; M. Farnworth in the chair.
On section 9 (continued).
W. Hurd: Sections 9 and 10 both refer to the Forest Act. The minister will be aware of considerable concern out there about the potential impacts of the Forest Act amendments, where there may be a reduction or a limiting of harvesting activities. I wonder if the minister could advise the committee whether his government or his ministry is aware of how much forest land in the province has the potential to be alienated by bringing the Forest Act into this bill. Does he have any idea of what's involved here? Are those legitimate concerns with respect to the impacts on forest harvesting -- which have been addressed, I'm sure, to both the government and the opposition? Perhaps the minister could amplify on that.
The Chair: On a point of order, the member for Saanich North and the Islands.
C. Tanner: Mr. Chairman, sections 9, 10, 11 and 12 were stood down at the last sitting, and we were on section 13. It is my understanding that we were to continue from section 13 on through the bill and then come back to those at the end.
[6:45]
Hon. B. Barlee: My understanding was that we'd come back immediately to sections 9, 10, 11 and 12, resolve those, and then go on through section 13 and right through the entire bill.
Frankly, the previous member mentioned something that is essentially not covered in sections 9, 10, 11 and 12; it is addressed later on in the bill. The member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast moved an amendment last time we were sitting. We looked at it very, very closely. There were other concerns brought up as well. I have a statement that is rather lengthy, but I think it will answer a number of questions that were of concern to all members of the House.
C. Tanner: On a point of order, I think it's only fair to the member who brought in the amendment that he have the availability of the House to discuss it. I would suggest to the minister that if we continued on section 13 and the others, we could always come back to that when he's here, and I think we'd make far more progress.
The Chair: If the minister is agreeable, we can start from section 13.
Hon. B. Barlee: It seems like a reasonably fair response. He'll get here sometime tonight.
The Chair: With the cooperation of the House, then, we'll go on to section 13 and hopefully come back to sections 9, 10, 11 and 12 later on this evening.
Section 13 approved.
On section 14.
C. Tanner: Section 3(3) states: "Despite the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act...." I'm concerned that we are overriding what I consider and what I think the government considers a very important piece of legislation. I wonder whether the minister would give us some reason that we would want to override the privacy act. That's number one. Two, can the minister anticipate that this is something we're going to see in all future legislation? I think it's defeating the very purpose of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.
Hon. B. Barlee: Subsection (3) provides for maintaining the confidentiality of information in specified circumstances. Clause (a) parallels a provision in the Freedom of Information Act; clauses (b) and (c) are needed to enable the ministry to work effectively with first nations in the conservation of cultural heritage sites.
[ Page 11644 ]
C. Tanner: Could the minister be a little more explicit on subsection (3)(c)? What would be confidential? What information would first nations, or anybody else, not divulge if they wanted us to put it aside and protect it? Why would that be a secret from anybody?
Hon. B. Barlee: Well, essentially, anthropological information that is of a mystical, sacred or spiritual value to a specific first nation may indeed be important to them and may have been obtained under conditions of confidentiality. That's why that is in there.
W. Hurd: On subsection (3) and the issue raised by the hon. member for Saanich North and the Islands, I was troubled by the answer from the minister. I would like further clarification on exactly what the minister means by confidentiality.
Hon. B. Barlee: To be quite specific, the major example that comes to mind is an ancient grave site. They are considered sacred by first nations almost universally across the province, whether it's in the Okanagan, in the Similkameen, where they're marked by olallie sticks, or whether they were sand or talus-slope burials. Occasions like that probably have a different sort of value for the first nations than they for do for us.
W. Hurd: Could the minister explain how, in his opinion, divulging that information might affect the site? Is he concerned about desecration, or some other type of activity? Would that not be governed by other regulations? If the minister could clarify that, I'd be more satisfied.
Hon. B. Barlee: That's certainly a reasonable statement and a reasonable question. There are innumerable cases in British Columbia. I can probably start at Lytton and go right into the Lillooet area -- certainly in parts of the Okanagan and Boundary country -- where disclosure of these sites has invited plundering and grave-robbing, to be quite candid.
G. Wilson: I appreciate the indulgence of the committee. I understand we are going to go back and talk about section 9. I appreciate that.
I have a couple of questions on section 3(3)(b), which has already been discussed. With respect to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and so on, it would seem to me that where there is a first nations concern, if that concern results in some form of agreement with the province on a designation and therefore protection of particular land, and it impacts upon some third-party action that may be taking place on that particular land, then within that negotiation there is presumably going to have to be some kind of disclosure with respect to what has been agreed to between the province and the first nation.
Tenures and licences in the forest industry are likely to be impacted. It would seem to me that if a forest company is going to be able to set out a proper five-year or ten-year cut plan, they are going to have to be aware of any interest the province or the first nations may have and any negotiations that must be undertaken by the province. I wonder if the minister might comment on that, because I think that's a legitimate concern by industry. If there is confidentiality in that prospect, how can it work?
Hon. B. Barlee: In most cases, the precise location or the exact details could not be given. An approximation of a location could be given. It alludes to a question I answered several minutes ago, where it could lead to desecration of a very valuable site if the precise information were given to the third party or to others.
G. Wilson: I want to seek clarification on that. Is the minister saying that it would be more detrimental or less detrimental if information were shared?
Hon. B. Barlee: Obviously, I think we cannot make this information on a sacred site or a burial site publicly known. That stands to reason, I think. Some of us are relatively familiar with this area; therefore the general area could be known but not the precise and exact information that would pinpoint the site.
I mentioned very briefly some examples that came to my mind. This occurred on the Charlottes and in the Kwakiutl territory, where sites were specified. It certainly occurred all the way along the Fraser River, from about Hope right through the Milliken site and all the way up, where people had exact information of where these sites were located. The result was vandalism of the sites. This bill is generally designed to prevent that. I don't think that a third party would have any objection to that as long as they knew it was valid.
W. Hurd: Knowing it's valid -- I think the minister has hit the nail on the head. He will be aware that there have been incidents in the province where blockades have been erected by aboriginal communities based on spiritual and heritage values. Is the minister saying that in those particular cases, an individual with licence rights to timber, minerals -- whatever it may be.... Would that individual or company have the right of access to the heritage registry in order to make a determination that in fact the activity, while it may not be lawful, was nevertheless directed at a specific site that the ministry would have registered?
Clearly the minister would agree that that would be of considerable concern to resource holders who have found themselves behind these kinds of blockades in this province with an inability to really determine what heritage or spiritual site they might be dealing with. I wonder if the minister could respond to that scenario. It's admittedly hypothetical, but one that has the potential to cause greater problems in the province than we even see today.
Hon. B. Barlee: Let me give you an example, and then I'll answer it more fully. If, for instance, somebody were to go in to Keremeos Creek, part of which is on Indian reserve, and remove Guardian Spirit -- which, by the way, was attempted.... It's probably the most famous pictograph in the province. Somebody knew the location of that, and they went in there and purposely attempted to remove it. It was too heavy; it was about 300 pounds. They cut it away from the cliff face.
A number of options are open to the government. We could advise this individual to approach that first nation to see if it did impact upon their spiritual values or other values that they hold. We have some options, not all of which are perfect. But I think it's better to take that optional road, rather than the route we have been taking for a number of years.
I remember years ago when I was working along the Similkameen River. I found a gas company driving right through the pictograph stretch, which is probably the most famous pictograph stretch in North America. Not many other places can touch it. They were destroying and turning the boulders because they got in the way of the pipeline. I
[ Page 11645 ]
walked in and said: "Look, if you do that again, I'll sue you." I wasn't going to sue this major company, but I stopped them and prevented them from doing it for the rest of the trip. They were about halfway along. They destroyed some sites which will never be recovered.
Those sites have probably been there for 200 years, because the pictograph paint is better than ordinary paint. You could paint over a pictograph, and the pictograph will survive. Our paint will disappear after about ten years, especially in an area like the Similkameen where the prevailing wind is steady -- in fact, even the trees are bent there. Frankly, if they had gone to see the first nations, they undoubtedly would have been turned down. They did not go to see the first nations.
[7:00]
This bill is essentially designed to prevent that sort of stuff. That has been going on, not for five or ten years, but probably for very close to a century and perhaps beyond that. When I look at the bill, I see that it isn't perfectly drafted. I think we all know that. The basic philosophy behind the bill is very sound. A certain amount of discretionary power is left with the minister. Certainly there should be communication between any third parties and the first nations.
If we were to go through this bill clause by clause -- which we are -- we'll be here until August, and that's fine. I have no objection to that, because, as I say, I think the bill is very sound. Most of this was covered in the original 1977 bill, so we're adding something to it. That's true. But it does strengthen our ability to preserve what I think are very valid cultural values, whether they're first nations values or not. Some of these statements, which I've heard very clearly....
I sometimes cannot give you a precise, definitive answer, because it covers such a vast array and importance. How do you quantify the sites? How do you prioritize the sites? What is more important? Is an ancient Indian burial site more important than a pictograph or a petroglyph site? I don't know. I can't answer that question. Certainly the first nations people in that area would answer that much more adequately than I would.
But remember that these are fractional sites. The vast majority of these sites are on the fringe of rivers, because the river was their highway in most areas of the province. We're not looking at vast tracts of timber at risk -- very, very unlikely indeed.
W. Hurd: Of all people in the chamber, I have no desire to see us here in August, either, but there is an issue with respect to this particular section that really has to be addressed. The minister will recognize the potential for a heritage or cultural site to become embroiled in the land claims issue in British Columbia. I again try and focus the discussion on a hypothetical situation where a woods crew will go down the road in the morning to access their employment, find a blockade in place and be told that their activities are threatening a heritage or cultural site and that access to this region is not going to be allowed anymore. There's the court redress that's available, I suppose; we've seen that happen in the province.
But my question to the minister is: would the third-party interest have the right to access the registry to determine that the site was a legitimate one that had been identified by the province? As the minister well knows, some of the discourse between third parties and some of the bands is not as good as it could or should be, particularly when a blockade is up and feelings may be running high. What ability would this registry have to identify the site? I see a real danger of this statute becoming wrapped up in the land claims issue in the province, and I don't think that would be in the best interests of heritage conservation, the resource sector, aboriginal affairs or anything else.
Hon. B. Barlee: That's a good question from the member for Surrey-White Rock. Firstly, the answer to that question is that this bill does not give the first nations any right at all to break the law, especially over tenured holders. Secondly, if this were to occur, we would advise those tenured holders as to whether or not that is in the registry. Essentially, we are the ones who designate the registry.
Section 14 approved.
On section 15.
G. Wilson: I hear what the minister is saying. When you have a bill this thick, which is based on a lot of history and past legislation, we could get into long philosophical discussions on every single section. I don't think anybody really has an intention to do that.
Section 15 really does speak to the heart of the concern of a number of people in the resource sector, because there are provisions here with respect to agreements that can be made, with the province entering into formal agreements. We're not just talking now about local matters, in terms of agreements that may be made with respect to a third-party interest simply deciding with the first nation that, yes, these areas are going to be set aside or reviewed; we're talking about formal agreements, in writing, approved by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. Quite clearly, they are in addition to, or will be seen to be in addition to, agreements entered into under two other sections of this bill: sections 8.3(1) and 20(1)(b).
The concern here is that if we're going to have a number of processes at work concurrently in the province with respect to alienation of land through a land claim and the potential alienation of site-specific areas as a result of agreements that may be entered into under this section of the bill, and if you can also have the Trust empowered, as well as the minister, under sections 20 and 8, it would seem that there is no overall coordination of how this application is going to occur. I would suggest that it might be wiser if, instead of section 3.1(3) reading that subsection (2) -- which refers to an agreement under the first subsection, which is a formal agreement in writing with the aboriginal people -- does not apply to agreements entered into under section 8.3(1)(b) or 20(1)(b), it read that it does apply. You could then have a central coordination of those agreements, and people who may deem that their own interests may be affected, especially the resource sector, would recognize that there is really only one overall process by which those sites will be recognized, identified and protected -- as opposed to several parallel processes that might make the administration of this act a lot more complex, first of all; and second, create inconsistencies in terms of the approval process that would be required to set aside some of the sites that are being discussed in this bill. So I would ask the minister how he feels about that and if there is any sense in exploring that. If there is, I would be prepared to move an amendment to that effect.
I would very much like the minister to think about it. It clearly does impact on the intent of the bill. I'm not certain that the amendment would be in order, although with the indulgence of the Chair, I'm sure that wisdom would prevail and the Chair may find it in order. In any event, I'd like to get the minister's thinking on that, because it would seem a sensible way to go. It would be a
[ Page 11646 ]
sensible approach, because it would eliminate this sort of parallel process of approval.
Hon. B. Barlee: Section 3 potentially involves protection in regulation; hence it would require cabinet OIC. The other sections -- which, as you mentioned, are sections 8.3 and 20 -- do not involve legal protection in regulations, so that comes under my authority as minister.
G. Wilson: I fully understand that one requires approval by order-in-council; one gives powers to the Trust, which doesn't require order-in-council approval; and the other is the minister, who doesn't either. My argument is that they should. Maybe I'm going to have to argue that when I get to those sections, but I'm trying to flag it here so that when we get there it isn't suggested that we should have flagged it here. Why wouldn't there be a process whereby -- either through the Trust or through the minister -- those areas are designated, so there is some kind of provincial strategy in place that could recognize that these are the areas that are sensitive, have them go through a single approval process through OIC, and then through OIC be designated? As opposed to having OIC powers, there would be powers to the minister which are parallel and powers to the Trust which are parallel. In fact, there is even further opportunity under a separate bill before this House, under the Land Act, whereby community associations can seek designation. That's under a separate piece of legislation currently before this House which will be up for debate shortly -- which is a little bit concerning. What I'm arguing is that there should be a single process.
Hon. B. Barlee: I think the member understands that section 3.1 ensures that all interests are considered, and with sections 8.3 and 20, this is only an agreement. We do this all the time. So there is a differentiation between sections 3.1, 8.3 and 20.
G. Wilson: I don't want to belabour this, but I do want to understand it, because it is a source of considerable concern. When you suggest that it doesn't apply to an agreement that's entered into under section 8.3 or section 20(1), those agreements are still binding, are they not? There is still a binding agreement between the government or the Trust and a jurisdiction -- in this case we're discussing first nations -- with respect to the assignment. Rather than have parallel processes by which agreements can be made, we're arguing that surely it makes a lot more sense to have one single arrangement, whereby through the order-in-council process the minister would have to enter into something statutorily binding on government and on the first nations party.
Hon. B. Barlee: Essentially, however, the province respects third-party interests when negotiating agreements with any first nations. That's understood.
G. Wilson: Perhaps I'm not articulating this clearly enough. By way of an example -- I'll try not to stray too far, but this is a real example -- this morning I chaired a forestry advisory task force in Sechelt, an ongoing entity which has a member of the Sechelt Indian band as one of its voting members. We were talking about allocation of foreshore in Hotham Sound for longline oyster culture. It was pointed out that those beaches have had a lot of wild oyster, and as a result, there have been settlements by the aboriginal people at the head of Hotham Sound for many years. Therefore they deem that a site at which they have heritage value. They're arguing for no longline oysters at the head of Hotham Sound because it's historic and has heritage value -- I believe it's because there are pictographs and what have you in that area.
An Hon. Member: Got any middens?
G. Wilson: Maybe. I don't know if there are middens there.
But the fact is that they're talking about oyster spawn that is going to be affecting a large area of water. If an agreement was made that this site should be designated, that could preclude economic activity from taking place there. It wouldn't impact only on the intertidal zone because that is the area in which the wild oyster culture is taking place; it would affect the whole head of Hotham Sound. An agreement could be set up by the minister on that. It could be done through the Ministry of Lands, through this act. If there's going to be an opportunity for these agreements, then it seems to me that the whole head of Hotham Sound is going to be closed to that enterprise. I'm not sure that is a sensible way to go. On the other hand, if there were a process by which there was a single approving authority -- through order-in-council by formal agreement -- then it seems to me there would have to be a more broadly based negotiation. So these minor agreements wouldn't be cropping up, through either the Trust or the minister, at any given time when somebody wants to do something economic in an area that may not be deemed desirable. That's what I'm getting at.
Hon. B. Barlee: An agreement like that definitely would have to be done under section 3.1, not 8.3 and not 20.
[7:15]
G. Wilson: Okay. Well, I'll take that under advisement. When we get to 8.3 and 20(1) we might find out why.
If we can change this a bit, I have another question with respect to section 3.1(4)(c), which says: "...circumstances under which the requirements of sections 6(1) and (2) and 7(1) do not apply with respect to heritage sites and heritage objects, or to types of heritage sites and heritage objects, for which the first nation administers its own heritage protection...." The question is: does that exempt first nations from heritage protection by virtue of their self-administration? Or can the government deem that sites that may be under this jurisdiction have heritage value to the province as a whole, and therefore the government will have the authority for the designation and protection of those sites?
Hon. B. Barlee: It states: "...circumstances under which the requirements of sections 6(1) and (2) and 7(1) do not apply with respect to heritage sites and heritage objects, or to types of heritage sites and heritage objects, for which the first nation administers its own heritage protection...." In some instances they do that. Essentially, that's the answer.
G. Wilson: All right. But my question is: in the administration of those heritage sites, if they deem that it no longer has value but the province deems that it does have value, who has the upper hand?
Hon. B. Barlee: There has to be an agreement between both parties. Both parties, both the first nation and the government, would have to agree that this is a legitimate site.
[ Page 11647 ]
G. Wilson: Here's a hypothetical situation, granted, but one that was put to me by a coastal group that was attempting a development along a marine area. That development, which was by private financing, was turned down because heritage value was deemed to be at the site. I believe there were middens and pictographs and a bunch of other things.
Interjection.
G. Wilson: Right. I think it was an old village site.
When that was turned down, an application for jurisdiction over that land was made by the Indian band. The Indian band was administering the heritage site themselves. They deemed that it didn't have the kind of value that they had initially believed, so they put in an application for a housing development themselves, acquired the land and moved forward to make that development. Here we've got a situation where, on one hand, development is precluded because it's deemed to have heritage value; but when the monetary interest shifted in terms of jurisdiction, then it became a heritage site that was not of that great a value, and a subsequent application was put forward. There was a bit of a conflict around whether it should proceed or not. I think it won't, because of financial barriers. But that's the kind of thing I'm talking about.
If you've got self-administration, does the province have a role to play in making sure it isn't used to favour one group over another group or that it doesn't simply allow legitimate sites to be plowed under or bulldozed for whatever reason -- financial interests? Remember that not all aboriginal people necessarily agree with all of the things their councils do. I mean, there's an internal politics within....
T. Perry: Like the rest of us, huh?
G. Wilson: Yes, exactly. As the member for Vancouver-Little Mountain says, there's really not much difference. When politics prevails, there will be people who don't agree with their elected officials and those who will.
Hon. B. Barlee: I think I know whereof the member is talking. I think he's talking about an island north of Powell River on the east side of the Inside Passage. That was a village site. Essentially, no agreement was reached in that case; I'll admit that. That would have to be resolved, and that's partly what this bill covers.
G. Wilson: Where, though, is the resolution mechanism? Is there a resolution mechanism here that I've missed somehow?
Hon. B. Barlee: The process -- which was not reached there -- between the government and the first nations is to reach a compromise or an agreement between the two parties involved.
G. Wilson: That's a kind of "trust us in the negotiations, we'll take care of it" approach. It isn't written in here, and that's a concern. So we'll register that concern and move on.
Under section 3.1, we notice that where agreements are made that may impact specifically on Crown land under tenure, there is no requirement for the government to notify tenure holders of the agreements. Notwithstanding the confidentiality question of hiding midden sites so that they're not vandalized, it would seem to me that if agreements made by the government with first nations impact on Crown land that is traditionally under tenure to third-party interests, there should be some provision for written notice to those third parties. There's nothing in this bill that requires that be done.
Hon. B. Barlee: It goes without saying that the province must respect third-party concerns, otherwise cabinet will not enter into an agreement with the first nation. That stands to reason. We would be very, very vulnerable.
J. Weisgerber: I'm curious about this particular debate. Is the minister familiar with the situation that exists at Beattie Peaks in the Peace River country? There has been a longstanding question as to whether or not areas, and what specific areas, in that mountain range are sacred sites. The minister says he's going to respect third-party interests, negotiate with first nations and somehow they're going to come to a resolution. In the case of Beattie Peaks, that dispute has been going on for years. I'm also curious about the question of the onus of proof. Who is required to establish the authenticity of a historic or sacred site? Is it the first nation, the third-party interest or the Crown? Does somebody take responsibility for proving or disproving an allegation that a historic or sacred site exists?
Hon. B. Barlee: First of all, the onus is only upon cabinet. Cabinet must have the final say. It's not decided by the first nations or the third parties. It must ultimately be decided by cabinet itself.
J. Weisgerber: That's like saying the judge has the final say and that neither the Crown prosecutor nor the defendant has an onus to provide proof. Someone must make a case. The first nation can say that a historic site exists, and the cabinet can leave it to other parties to disprove that. Or cabinet can say to first nations that if you allege a historic or sacred site exists, then the onus of proof is on you to establish that is the case. Or thirdly, the Crown could get involved and try to do the necessary research. In many cases, a lot of research is required. The experience at Beattie Peaks would suggest that years of research is required to make a determination. Who has the financial obligation in making the case?
Hon. B. Barlee: I thought we made this relatively clear; I guess we didn't. Both sides have an obligation to make an argument. We will have to weigh those arguments and the evidence and ultimately make a decision. That's all.
J. Weisgerber: It's not so much so that I'm clear, but so that interested parties are clear, because this is going to affect an enormous number of people. If a proposition is put forward by a first nation that a particular area is a sacred or historic site, then the cabinet is going to sit as judge and jury. They're going to say to the parties -- perhaps third-party interests, perhaps people who own a fee simple right in the property -- to each bring their evidence, and the cabinet will make the decision. That's what I understand the minister to say. Will the minister then say that they have 45 days, 90 days or two years to bring forward their evidence and at that point the decision will be made? How does cabinet go about making this determination?
This would be a radical change in policy from what has existed and what has been the experience, particularly with situations like Beattie Peaks. The minister, if he's bringing forward this legislation, must be familiar with that longstanding dispute at Beattie Peaks.
[ Page 11648 ]
Hon. B. Barlee: I think the member is wandering rather far. I think those arguments would be marshalled by the two interests, the third-party interest and the first nations. They would go through staff and eventually work their way up to cabinet, and the ultimate decision would be made there.
J. Weisgerber: I'm reluctant to belabour this, but what the minister is saying is contrary to the experience of people over the last several years. The practice has been that the government, through the appropriate ministries, has said to third-party interests that the onus of proof rests with them. They must prove that this is not valid, and they must provide the funding. They, as the third party, have the obligation to prove or disprove the situation; and if there are going to be third-party consultants hired, they have the obligation to do that. The minister is saying now that that's changed, that each party is going to take responsibility for the burden of proof.
[7:30]
Hon. B. Barlee: Frankly, I haven't the details of the case in the member's riding. I have some knowledge of some of the cases around the province, but I don't know all the hundred-odd cases that are probably trying to be resolved between the third parties and the first nations. If the member would care to give me the details on that, I could get back to him on it. Otherwise, we could spend all night on it.
J. Weisgerber: I'm not going to belabour the Beattie Peaks point. What the minister is saying is that when a dispute arises around the designation of a historic or sacred site, the burden of proof rests equally with the first nations making the claim and any other interested party disputing the claim. Will the minister simply repeat for us that that situation exists -- that when a claim is made and there is a dispute over the claim, the burden, including the financial burden, rests equally with the two parties to the dispute?
Hon. B. Barlee: This may answer the question. If an order for a heritage inspection or heritage investigation is made under subsection (4), the minister may require the person purchasing, subdividing, developing or using the property to undertake or pay for the heritage inspection or heritage investigation. If that's what the member was alluding to -- and I think it probably is -- that should be a sufficient answer.
J. Weisgerber: The minister is saying that the burden of proof rests with the person or entity disputing the claim, and that if a third party on Crown land or an owner of property wishes to dispute or question an allegation of a heritage or sacred site, then the burden of proof is not on the first nation to prove that is a sacred site, but on the owner or third-party interest holder to prove that it isn't.
Hon. B. Barlee: If it were frivolous, we would not order that. That's why the word "may" is in there; it says "may order."
J. Weisgerber: If what were not frivolous? Either the burden of proof rests on one party or it rests on the other. If the minister wants to say that the burden of proof is going to be with a party other than the first nation claiming a heritage or sacred site, that's fair enough, because I think that's the existing situation. The minister says the government "may." Perhaps he would tell me under what circumstances they may not?
Interjection.
J. Weisgerber: The minister says "hypothetical"; he says "frivolous." If we're going to stay within the parameter of his words, could he explain what he might think a frivolous case would be?
Interjection.
J. Weisgerber: No. Frivolous is when you're 18....
Hon. B. Barlee: We seem to be going around here. I think an absence of legitimate or reasonable evidence would probably result in what I would generally say would be a frivolous case -- by a first nation, say. Part of the responsibility of government is to decide whether or not it is frivolous, quite obviously.
We have a number of cases in the Okanagan, some of which I would probably say are frivolous, and some which are quite legitimate. Haynes Point would be very legitimate -- a historic area, village sites, and it goes on and on. That would be a legitimate case, and we'd have to look at that very closely. If you look at somewhere else, it would probably be the opposite. The smallpox epidemic of 1862 wiped out the first nations in the Boundary area; it simply annihilated them. If that were brought forth by an Indian band from outside the area, I would consider that very frivolous. There are a couple of examples; there will probably be dozens of others -- no, hundreds.
J. Weisgerber: I will resist the temptation to go on to other examples. Is it fair to say that the initial burden of proof rests with the first nation? In order for the minister to determine that it isn't frivolous in making a claim, I would assume that some fundamental burden of proof would have to rest initially with the first nation. If there were no visual indication, then I would expect that in order to determine that the claim wasn't frivolous, the band would have to provide some proof.
Hon. B. Barlee: They would have to provide a very solid, legitimate argument if they were to take this case to a decision by government. Just picking a notion out of the air would not suffice. If they had a very legitimate argument, they would have to prove that, and in some cases that would be difficult. McIntyre Bluff would be very difficult to prove; Haynes Point would not. Kettle River canyon would be difficult to prove. It goes on and on.
G. Wilson: I want to come back to what we were talking about before, and it has to do with agreements with respect to Crown land. The points that were being made by the member for Peace River South are legitimate. I think we have to recognize, in the spirit of the responses given by this minister, that it's in everybody's best interest -- the public's, the first nations' and the resource users' -- that there be some referral process that allows for an interchange of ideas and discussions around agreements prior to agreements being signed. So I would move an amendment to section 15, under section 3.1, which would add:
"(6) Where an agreement under subsection (1) may affect access to Crown resources by licensed tenure holders, those licensees must be notified and provided an opportunity to be involved in the development of such agreements, including arrangements whereby they will have access to all information necessary to avoid contravention of sites protected under section 6(2)."
You might want to see it first, before you throw it out.
[ Page 11649 ]
The Chair: While the Chair examines the amendment, the hon. minister may wish to....
On the amendment.
Hon. B. Barlee: Thank you very much, hon. Chair. I frankly don't think the amendment is necessary. It's covered in a number of clauses in the bill.
Interjection.
Hon. B. Barlee: We'll call a division on it, then. That's fine.
G. Wilson: It isn't covered anywhere in the bill. The fact is that....
Interjection.
G. Wilson: I hear the member for Mission-Kent saying: "Yes, it is." I'd defy him to get on his feet and tell us where it is covered, because it isn't. In fact, notwithstanding the secrecy portion of section 14, even though a site-specific designation may be kept secret, the balance of Crown land under agreement doesn't even have to be made public. There is no public notification, no public involvement and no public inclusion in negotiations with third-party tenure holders, and that's a concern. I tried to point out earlier that section 6(2) and section 20(1) have secondary processes, by agreement. So I think the amendment is a sensible one, and it doesn't in any way derogate from the purposes or intention of this act. In fact, it provides comfort to all British Columbians that they will be included in decisions that are made with respect to the heritage of British Columbia; and in particular, to licence holders, whose welfare is dependent on the use of Crown land.
Hon. B. Barlee: I tried to make the point before that the Crown has an obligation to respect the interests of third parties and first nations and to examine the evidence and come down with a reasonable conclusion.
C. Tanner: I didn't catch all the amendment, and the Chairman hasn't ruled on it yet that I know of. I would refer members to section 4.1 on page 8, which covers most of the things that I thought I heard in the amendment.
G. Wilson: Section 4.1 doesn't cover it at all. What that amendment says.... Maybe it would be useful to have that passed around; I apologize for not having sufficient copies to give to members. What it talks about here is an inclusion in negotiations. It asks that they be included in discussions on those matters so they can have some input into the decision prior to the decision being made. I don't want to jump ahead to discuss section 4.1; it's just a question of notice of objection and review, and that's quite a different matter entirely.
[7:45]
Quite clearly, I think that if this government is going to stay true to its word that all British Columbians be involved in the decision -- and the minister says that there is an obligation -- that obligation is not spelled out in this act. There is nothing in this act that requires the minister to do that. As a result of that, what he's saying is: "Trust the goodwill and good nature of government to involve tenure holders and licence holders on Crown land to ensure that their interests are going to be protected." I think that most British Columbians would recognize that governments and ministers change, and maybe this minister is well-intentioned, but others may not be. So the act should stipulate a requirement that there be that kind of interaction and involvement of third-party interests in these negotiations.
The Chair: Before I call the question, I will just read out the amendment so all members are aware what the proposed amendment says. It deals with section 15, and it would add section 3.1(6):
"Where an agreement under subsection (1) may affect access to Crown resources by licensed tenure holders, those licensees must be notified and provided an opportunity to be involved in the development of such agreements, including arrangements whereby they will have access to all information necessary to avoid contravention of sites protected under section 6(2)."
Amendment negatived on the following division:
|
YEAS -- 7 | ||
|
Weisgerber |
Hanson |
Neufeld |
|
Fox |
H. De Jong |
Wilson |
| Tyabji | ||
|
NAYS -- 32 | ||
|
Charbonneau |
O'Neill |
Perry |
|
Dosanjh |
Hammell |
Lortie |
|
Giesbrecht |
Miller |
Harcourt |
|
Gabelmann |
Ramsey |
Barlee |
|
Blencoe |
Lovick |
Janssen |
|
Conroy |
Doyle |
Lord |
|
Streifel |
Simpson |
Sawicki |
|
Jackson |
Kasper |
Copping |
|
Schreck |
Hartley |
Farrell-Collins |
|
Dalton |
Tanner |
Jarvis |
|
Anderson |
|
Warnke |
Section 15 approved.
On section 16, section 4.
Hon. B. Barlee: I move the amendment to section 16 standing in my name in Orders of the Day. [See appendix.]
[D. Lovick in the chair.]
C. Tanner: Section 4(2) states: "A designation under subsection 1(a) may apply to land that does not have heritage value..." I'm somewhat concerned about that. Could the minister give us some reason why they would be designating land that does not have heritage value?
Hon. B. Barlee: It's simply to protect the site itself.
C. Tanner: The bill we're debating is the Heritage Conservation Statutes Amendment Act, and we're here to protect heritage sites. Why would we want to set aside property or anything else that does not have a heritage value?
Hon. B. Barlee: I think perhaps the member would.... I'll give you an example: Hatzic Rock, which is quite a well-known site in what I call the upper Fraser Valley. You would have to take a significant area around that -- several hectares probably -- to protect that site adequately.
[ Page 11650 ]
C. Tanner: Shouldn't it say that, in that case? We are saying here that: "...if, in the opinion of the Lieutenant Governor in Council, designation is necessary or desirable...." Shouldn't there be something to define those areas of the province that have a value, a related value or an adjacent value, rather than just say, carte blanche, they're going to designate land that hasn't got an obvious value?
Hon. B. Barlee: It does vary from area to area, and the government would have to make that decision. For instance, it might not be a rock site, such as Hatzic Rock. It might be the Dewdney Trail, the Ghost Pass Trail, the Brigade Trail or a number of different trails in British Columbia. Each one is decided on its own merit. If we decided that there was an historic rock, such as Standing Rock, Speaking Rock or the Rain Stone, and we required.... One of those sits right in the middle of the river; that's difficult. The others are on rather sweeping desert land. Each one of those varies, and you have to decide each case on its own merits. To be specific, as the member asked, would be extremely difficult.
G. Wilson: I have some questions under section 4(2)(d), with reference to section 9.1. I know we can't jump ahead to section 9.1, but I have a problem here. It comes back to what I talked about earlier in this debate -- some weeks ago, or whenever it was. A designation under section 4(2) applies to a heritage value and its land. You talk about conservation of heritage property. Section 9.1 talks about heritage property in terms of artifacts associated with the site, and so on. It seems that what the province is able to do, if I'm correct.... Section 4.1 says that you can designate land as a provincial heritage site, you can designate an object as a heritage object, and then you are able to assign a value to what you consider to be heritage property generally. It provides fairly sweeping powers to the province on the designation of that property. I am concerned, because it doesn't talk about that in the definitions section. I talked a little about that under definitions, and it was referred to this section. If the minister could answer that, we can maybe move on.
Hon. B. Barlee: I think there are some good examples. In Fort Steele, Barkerville and Hat Creek Ranch, we would have to have, for instance, parking lots. A parking lot is not historic, but because the administration of that site probably requires a parking lot, we would have that included.
G. Wilson: In other words, you are saying that if there is a need to enhance, that would fall under the general classification of property. Is that as I understand it?
Hon. B. Barlee: Yes.
G. Wilson: I had a couple of other questions with respect to the designation made under this section applying to a single property or to part of a property. I'm a little concerned in the sense that under section 4(3)(a) it says that designations made under this section may do one or more of the following, and then it says: "...apply to a single property or to part of a property." Then it says: "...apply to more than one property including properties owned by different persons." It would seem to me that there may be a problem, given that in later sections of the act when you talk about differential taxation and some of the aspects of property tax associated with lands designated.... If you are moving to only designate sections of property, not only is it going to impact on what the landowner may or may not be able to do with that section of property, but it's going to greatly change the value and therefore the tax on the property attached to it. Later in the section it talks about the municipality and the role of the municipality. I think it's important for us to know what is intended with respect to that.
[8:00]
Hon. B. Barlee: I'll give you an example. In the city of Fernie, if we decided that was an historic area -- which it is -- you might designate a specific building and not the lot. On the other hand, on that marvellous old Main Street, you might designate five lots in a row and the buildings. It gives us some latitude, which we require.
G. Wilson: I'm prepared to accept that. But under the example the minister gave, presumably it's not one parcel of land under fee simple title to one owner. This implies that it may be. You may come in and designate a part of one fee simple title lot, and/or you might even link it to an adjacent property owned by another person. At that point, you've impacted on the owner's ability to use that land. I would assume it's also going to impact on the tax that will be assigned against that land.
Hon. B. Barlee: There is really no unilateral designation of private property.
G. Wilson: I'm not sure that that answered my question, but we can pick it up later under the taxation section.
Once the designation is made under this section, one or more of the following things can apply. It talks about specified types of alterations to the property, which may be without a permit under section 5. But then it goes on to say: "...specify policies or procedures concerning the issuing of permits under section 5...."
There's wide latitude here, and I have some concern. Understand that I'm not necessarily in opposition to this. In fact, it might be a good thing. It seems to say that once that designation has been made, there are going to be very specific regulations with respect to alterations, and specific policies and procedures will be established for permits to make those alterations. I'm a bit concerned that that's going to put people who would find that property transferred into a heritage site into a very unworkable situation. Maybe the minister might comment on that.
Hon. B. Barlee: This would essentially ensure the efficiency of the regulation to benefit both the owners and the government, that's all.
Section 16, section 4 approved.
On section 16, section 4.1.
G. Wilson: We've been talking about the need for notice and involvement. In subsection 4.1(1), it says: "Before a designation is made under section 4" -- which is what we've just canvassed -- "the minister must serve notice of the proposed designation on the following persons...." Then it specifies that in the case of land, it has to be somebody, in accordance with the Land Title Act, who is the registered owner or who has an interest in the land. Then it says "the local government or local governments having jurisdiction over the land." Then it goes on to say "the first nation or first nations within whose traditional territory the land to be designated lies." That needs some clarification. Currently we're under negotiation on traditional territory. I don't think this is intended to be an impediment to the development of these heritage sites, but it may result in a problem. If the
[ Page 11651 ]
notice proposed in the designation.... Given the fact that we've already determined that agreements with first nations will determine whether or not sites can be applied, it might be an impediment to the government. I wonder if the minister might respond to that.
Hon. B. Barlee: Anyone who is affected is required to be notified by the province.
L. Hanson: The minister made a statement earlier that there will be no unilateral designation of private property -- I think those were his actual words. While I can see in section 4.1 a requirement to advise the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council of objection, and so on, nowhere do I see that after having gone through that process, there is actually any restriction on a unilateral designation on private property. Could the minister show me where that is covered in this section?
Hon. B. Barlee: There are opportunities for objection and reconsideration. I think that's fairly explanatory in subsections (5), (6) and (7).
L. Hanson: I don't mean to delay this, but the minister made the statement that there was no unilateral decision. I recognize and accept the need for notice and the ability to file an objection, but I'm not sure that it says, after all that is done, that the minister may not make a unilateral decision. To me a decision that isn't unilateral means that the parties sit at a table and agree that a decision is reached; that, to me, would be the ultimate.... But the way I read this act, and the way I read it before, is that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, after following the procedure outlined in section 4.1, can make a unilateral decision. Granted, they would have the benefit of further advice by the notice of objection process, but the fact is that the unilateral designation is available to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council and the minister.
Hon. B. Barlee: There will be no lightning decision. After due consideration of all parts of this puzzle, there would be a decision. That means listening to third parties, listening to the first nations and listening to the individual land owners, etc.
A. Warnke: I want to follow up on what the member for Okanagan-Vernon has pursued here and seek some clarification as well on subsection (1)(b). More than anything else, I want reassurance. Since "notice of the proposed designation on the following persons...in the case of objects" might include "the person who has possession of the object," would that include artifacts that were perhaps given as a gift or something like that, especially to anyone who is not an aboriginal? Could the minister just clarify that and confirm that it is not the case?
Hon. B. Barlee: That is a hypothetical question. Under subsection (1) it says: "Before a designation is made under section 4, the minister must serve notice of the proposed designation on the following persons...." Then it mentions, in the case of objects, the person who has possession of the object.
G. Wilson: That's clearly what it says, but I'm not sure that answered the question.
How's the notice to be served? I don't know that that's clarified here. I'm assuming that it's to be done through some kind of registered....
Interjection.
G. Wilson: Well, it could be just an ad in the newspaper. That's the way Crown Lands does it.
Hon. B. Barlee: I would think, in the normal process.
G. Wilson: The normal process varies, and I can tell you that there have been many issues around policies on Crown land designation and referral with respect to notice to landowners. It used to be that it was just given in the The British Columbia Gazette, and clearly nobody reads that. Then it was in local newspapers, and now I assume that there's going to be some personal notification. It may be that in the depths of this act I have missed the section, or maybe it's under regulation.
Hon. B. Barlee: I think that's resolved rather adequately under regulations, in section 32.
G. Wilson: Okay. I'll have to look that up, because I guess I missed that when I read through it. I'll take that under advisement.
Subsection (2) says: "A person or party served with a notice under subsection (1) may serve the minister with a notice of objection...." So with respect to the proposed designation, then, the onus falls on the individual within 30 days of receiving the notice of the proposed designation. I think that clearly, especially where it applies to land.... If it's on an object, I can see that a person who has possession of an object may be the individual who should be applying. But if it's talking about land, and about capital improvements on land within a community, it would strike me that before a designation is made there should be some form of public meeting or comment, because a little later on in this act, it provides an opportunity for municipalities and regional districts, through the amendments to their official community plans, to designate sites. When any kind of land use regulation changes and the use of land alters, if a designation procedure is going to be made, it strikes me that it would be sensible to hold some form of public meeting so the community -- not just the person who holds tenure to the land -- has an opportunity to know that the designation is underway and there may be an opportunity for a report back.
[8:15]
Given the fact that this act grants substantial powers to the minister and government through order-in-council in previous sections and in sections yet to come, plus the fact that this act creates substantive powers for the Trust, it would seem to me that there is an obligation for this government to allow some form of legislative committee to review that process. Therefore I would move an amendment that would replace subsection (2):
"Before a designation is made under section 4 and section 9.1, the ministry must convene a panel of three members of the Legislature to hold public meetings in the area in which the designation is to be made, and to report back to the minister within 30 days."
The Chair: I'm wondering whether this particular amendment might be beyond the scope of the section, but before deciding that, perhaps I could just allow the minister to respond.
[ Page 11652 ]
On the amendment.
Hon. B. Barlee: I think it's very clear about two paragraphs down. Subsection (4) says:
"Before a designation is made, the minister must advise the Lieutenant Governor in Council if any notice of objection to the proposed designation has been received and, if so received, provide the Lieutenant Governor in Council with a copy of each notice of objection received, the results of the review of the notice or notices of objection and the terms and conditions of any amendment to the proposed designation."
The Chair: There is a question as to whether the minister would ever have the power to convene a panel or whether that's the prerogative of the assembly. However, that's probably a fine point and not sufficient to rule the amendment out of order. Therefore I'm going to allow the member to continue.
G. Wilson: I think I've got a really good shot at getting this one passed. Let me just respond to the minister. Subsection (4) simply says that if the minister gets written objection, or even some phone calls or whatever, the minister has to notify the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council that that has happened. It also says that he has to review and consider them. But it's all done behind closed doors, with no direct public involvement, and the minister has to recognize that. It says: "Before a designation is made, the minister must advise the Lieutenant Governor in Council" -- that's his cabinet, his colleagues -- "if any notice of objection to the proposed designation has been received...." So you say: "Yes, I've had some objections to this, but we're going to go ahead anyway, because I've reviewed the objections, and I've decided that they are without merit." That's all that says.
Now, what the amendment is saying is that if you're going to make a land use designation to a heritage site, the community -- because it's going to be a community asset -- may very well want to be involved. It would strike me that beyond just giving notice to the landowner, there should be an opportunity for the public to have input into those decisions, so that the decisions of this government are known publicly and the minister can take the advice of the community at large, not just that of somebody who might happen to be writing to the minister.
C. Tanner: I'm wondering whether or not we can support the amendment, and I doubt whether we can. But could the minister assure me that there is somewhere or other -- I can't find it in the original act, and frankly I couldn't find it in the amendments -- an appeal to the court if the parties to this case have a difference of opinion? I see in the original act where the minister can appeal to the court, but I don't see where anybody else can.
The Chair: Given this hiatus in debate, I am going, as the Chair, to make a ruling. The ruling is this: the amendment as presented to us does not seem to fit at all with subsection (2). It is structurally incompatible, as nearly as I can make out. That doesn't mean the intention of it might not be legitimate, but it simply isn't coherent with the remainder of subsection (2), and on that basis I simply can't see the reason for it. Accordingly, then, I must rule it out of order.
Interjection.
The Chair: However, member, I must advise you that subsection (2) deals with notice to a person presenting a notice of objection, and this section, rather, talks about convening a panel. That doesn't necessarily seem to connect with filing a notice of objection. I have no choice; I must rule this out of order.
C. Tanner: I wonder whether the minister could show me, in either the amendments or the original act, where there is an appeal to the courts. Or is it the intention in this bill that there be no appeal to the courts?
Hon. B. Barlee: The legislation is silent on that, of course. I think that all members should bear in mind that if an evenhanded decision is not made, the government or the minister will bear significant repercussions, politically and otherwise. So it is silent on that.
C. Tanner: I suspect that a lot of the reservations that some members have about that fact.... And perhaps, being silent, it automatically means that there is an appeal to the court. It's all very well for the minister to stand up and say that there are political repercussions. Of course there are; there are for every decision we make. But the fact of the matter is that if the ordinary citizen of British Columbia feels aggrieved, he surely has an appeal to the court, and I'd like that assurance from the minister.
Hon. B. Barlee: If the member for Saanich North and the Islands perhaps was aware that since 1925 -- and that's 69 years ago.... That's slightly more than one designation a year.
An Hon. Member: Were you born that year?
Hon. B. Barlee: Close.
C. Tanner: I asked a very direct question of the minister, and he's talking about the designations happening since 1925. We've had a piece of legislation on the books since 1972, which the minister and I and virtually everybody agrees hasn't worked very well. That's why we've got this enormous piece of legislation today. All I'm asking is a pretty simple question. If it is silent and a party is aggrieved, does it imply that there is an ability to apply to the courts for restitution?
Hon. B. Barlee: You can go to court if it's an issue before the law. You cannot appeal a decision of cabinet.
G. Wilson: Of course I'm disappointed with the ruling, because I think there should be some public input.
Anyway, under subsection (7) it says: "No designation is invalid because of inadvertent and minor non-compliance with this section." I just wonder exactly what the minister is referring to in that.
Hon. B. Barlee: This is legalese. The lawyers inserted that, and I imagine they mean precisely what they say. Minor would mean minor non-compliance -- capital italics on minor. I don't really know whether that means some object of no historic significance.
G. Wilson: Whenever you get lawyers involved, my experience is that it usually just costs you money.
But anyway, who determines that? Is that at the discretion of the minister? Is the minor non-compliance a discretionary power of the minister, as I would assume?
[ Page 11653 ]
Hon. B. Barlee: Essentially, this is an issue not for MLAs or cabinet ministers to debate but strictly for the lawyers to debate. For instance, in subsection (5) it says: "Within 30 days after...." Well, it might be 31 days after.
Section 16, section 4.1 approved.
On section 16, section 4.2.
L. Hanson: This section is the greatest difficulty that I have with the act. It was the same difficulty I had when all the various White Papers and so on were circulated.
It's a given fact that we as British Columbians respect and acknowledge the need to retain some of our heritage, or the heritage of British Columbia, in various forms, and that should be done. But we also recognize that there is a need for society as a whole to pick up the cost of that preservation.
I know in some circumstances.... My experience in a particular one was that we were able to reach a heritage designation and an agreement with the owner of a house in my own community, and it was put to a use. Eventually the public purchased the property. It made an awful lot of sense -- just a good, commonsense situation. But the people in the community paid for the cost of retaining that particular property's heritage designation.
This section deals with compensation for heritage designation, and only with when the provincial government would do the heritage designation. There are other heritage designations as we go through the act. The principle I am concerned about is fair and reasonable compensation for the effect on the private property owner. This section of the act says quite clearly that there is a form of arbitration and a process for resolving any disagreements, but the owner is entitled to compensation for the devaluation of the property as a result of designation.
Quite often in the use of property, there may be a particular purpose that the person has that property for. For that reason, a heritage designation would make it totally useless to that individual. I don't see anywhere in this section where it gives the flexibility to deal with that sort of situation. I recognize that it deals with the situation where there is a reduction in the value of the property. But there are circumstances where the property becomes unusable or useless to whomever the property owner is. That's then a reduction of the value, but not only a reduction of the value; it would seem to say here that compensation for reduction in value is required. I suppose you could stretch that to mean that if it has reduced the value to zero, then the effect is that compensation would have to be the purchase of whatever the property is.
That doesn't appear as clear to me as I would like to see it. I think it's the main issue, as far as the people of British Columbia are concerned. There isn't an issue as far as the retention of property for heritage reasons is concerned, and so on; it's an issue of the individual not being hurt as a result of that. I'd like to hear the minister's response to that, because it has been a concern of mine since I first saw this act about four or five years ago.
Hon. B. Barlee: I think that's a legitimate question. The specifics of it are that section 4.2 clarifies the existing requirement that owners are entitled to compensation if a property's value is reduced because of a provincial heritage designation, and that would mean in any of a number of ways. Secondly, it also establishes a compensation arbitration procedure if agreement cannot be reached between a designating authority and the owner of a designated heritage property. I think it adequately covers it.
L. Hanson: I respect what the minister is saying. I do agree a little, but not totally. It seems to say if there is a reduction in value, and to me that wording means that the individual or private person who happens to have the use of that property or ownership of that property.... The value of the property as far as market value is concerned may be reduced by 25 percent, but the value of the property to the individual for the purposes he or she or they wanted to use it for is absolutely zero. There seems to me to be a conflict there in the reduction of value to the owner.
[8:30]
It would seem to say that if there is a reduction in the market value, the owner of the property should be compensated for that reduction, but in fact the reduction to the market value may not have any relationship to the actual reduction in the value to that individual.
Hon. B. Barlee: I have to go back to another example. Several months ago -- probably five or six months ago -- an individual in the Ucluelet area bought a site for a hotel. The Indian nations of that immediate area, which would be the Kwakiutl, objected. So the Crown was required, because it was an ancient burial site -- there was not much doubt about that; there was archaeological evidence -- compensate that individual fully, which the Crown did. We bought it completely -- outright.
L. Hanson: That's sufficient for me. I just wanted the minister to acknowledge that there are circumstances where a reduction in value is far more than a reduction in a commercial value that may be attached to a piece of property.
The Chair: Shall the section pass?
G. Wilson: No, I don't think this section should pass. This talks about compensation to owners. I'd like the minister to comment about the fact that it doesn't compensate tenure holders. If there's compensation for heritage designation, tenure holders ought to be treated in a manner similar to owners. The minister might talk about why the licensed tenure holders are not included for potential compensation if there's a loss under section 4.2(1).
Hon. B. Barlee: First of all, compensation for resource-interest holders will depend upon whether their interest constitutes ownership under general legal principles or legislation implementing new government policy.
G. Wilson: That begs an interesting legal question. If a licence has been granted to a tenure holder, and that tenure holder has made investments on the basis of some length of tenure in a parcel of land that then falls under designation, and if that new designation prohibits that licensee from fulfilling whatever the terms were of the original licence and they therefore lose their investment, presumably that's the same loss as a person who purchases a parcel of land with the expectation that they will be able to do whatever that land is zoned to accommodate and finds that if that designation occurs, compensation is going to be provided under section 4.2(1).
Hon. B. Barlee: I'll fall back on another example. In that sweeping desert country south of Keremeos, which goes right across to the American line, there's a huge rock called Speaking Rock. On it is a pictograph. It's on the old Richter
[ Page 11654 ]
ranch, which is now called the Ace Elkink ranch. It's a huge rock. It's a glacial erratic. Indeed, this would be a historic site. Would it affect the cows grazing around the rock? Probably not. At least, I doubt it very much -- except that if the rock weren't there, there would be a touch more grass, but not much. So in many instances, this would not impact the land owner. If the same rock were located in a forested area in the highlands of the Okanagan, I don't think that would dramatically affect -- or even affect very much at all -- the ability of a forest company to harvest in that area.
G. Wilson: In the example that the minister gives -- and I'm not familiar with it at all -- that may be true. But in other areas that may not be true, especially for people who have mineral licences or timber-cutting licences. This is something that we feel very strongly about. We have recognized the power of government in the designation of land. We recognize that this government has already acted with respect to the loss of mineral tenures in one case. An area suddenly went under designation that made it a park and therefore eliminated the potential for mineral activity to take place. This government recognizes that a compensation package may have to be negotiated or litigated at some point. It strikes me, therefore, that it's entirely consistent with fairness of the government. If there's to be a proposition or provision for a private landowner, the same kind of consideration should be given to a licence holder.
Therefore I would like to move an amendment under section 4.2(1) that would, after "the designated property," add the words "or, in the case of Crown land, the licensed tenure holder or holders that may be affected by the designation," and after "and the owner" add "or licensed tenure holders," so that the whole clause would provide equal opportunity for compensation for owners as well as for people who are licensed tenure holders.
The Chair: I thank the member for that, and we at the table will take a look at the amendment. We'll ask the minister if he wishes to comment while we do that.
On the amendment.
Hon. B. Barlee: There is a provision under the Forest Act -- and there has been for about 20 years -- which covers this, and there is provision under the law. I think it's totally unnecessary.
G. Wilson: I would remind the minister that there is a clause in this act which says that if this act is in conflict with any other act, this act will apply. That's what it says. Clearly the Forest Act isn't going to protect them. The minister is saying that it isn't a conflict. It will be a conflict because, quite clearly, licence holders may not have an opportunity to get compensation if designations remove their opportunity to exercise the rights they have under that licence.
It would seem to me that the amendment is not a major amendment that causes any kind of grief. What it does is simply say that there's going to be equal weight given to people who have fee simple ownership of property or to those that have licence to Crown land. It provides for Crown land the opportunity for people to be compensated. I would caution the minister that we're not trying to be obstructionist, that this is something we feel very strongly about. It's one of the major objections we have to the way this bill is drafted, and we do intend to put members on record on this particular question.
R. Neufeld: Just briefly, the issue that the member for Peace River South brought up before was Beattie Peaks. The Crown has sold the drilling rights to Amoco on that portion of land, but it still hasn't been decided whether that's a heritage site or not. In that case, would there be compensation paid to Amoco if it's designated as a heritage site, and if so, how would that be determined? It's a little bit different when you're talking about trees, since you can see them, but minerals that are beneath the surface, or oil and gas -- gas in this case -- are hard to determine. If the company feels there is a quantity of gas there, they'll drill, and once they drill they'll find out what they're going to drill into, in most cases. It could become quite a field.
It would become an awfully cumbersome arbitration process, I would think, to come up with any kind of compensation. Maybe the minister will tell me. Maybe there is no compensation at all. I'm not sure.
Hon. B. Barlee: I think that the member alludes to a number of different things, and I don't know the specific case he's alluding to, as I mentioned to the member for Peace River South, but I do know that there was fair compensation in the Tatshenshini and other areas where the government felt that compensation was necessary.
L. Hanson: The Tatshenshini, as the minister is talking about, was a designation as a park, as I understand it, and comes under a different act, I would suggest. I think the question very simply is that this amendment would ensure that people who have an interest in land...and compensation in this simply relates to ownership. In the case of Crown land, where there is some tenure or rights granted by the Crown to some entity, would they receive compensation if their tenure or rights to the land were devalued as a result of designation? In the simplest of terms, if the minister can tell us where that is covered in this act, we'd be quite happy to vote against the amendment. Under the circumstances, where my colleagues and I don't see where that circumstance would be compensated, the amendment makes an awful lot of sense.
Hon. B. Barlee: I really do think the explanation I gave before is sufficient. It says that compensation for resource interest holders will depend upon whether their interests constitute ownership under general legal principles. So that is a legal question.
R. Neufeld: Taking that one step further, from what you're saying, in the case of Beattie Peaks -- and Beattie Peaks is an issue that's been around for a number of years -- the oil company, Amoco, would have to sue the Crown to prove that there was loss of compensation, then it would have to negotiate with the Crown for compensation. Explain that a little further, please.
[8:45]
Hon. B. Barlee: The member for Peace River North has me at a slight disadvantage, in that I'm not familiar with the particulars of the case. To comment on a case that I'm not familiar with would be dangerous, to say the least, and probably foolhardy, to say the most.
R. Neufeld: I'm not trying to be difficult with that case. You quote cases from all over the neck of the woods that you come from, and I'm not familiar with them. But I am familiar with Beattie Peaks, and I am familiar with Amoco. Why is it so different with Amoco and Beattie Peaks than with something to do with where you come from? Actually, Peace
[ Page 11655 ]
River South is the constituency it's in. You should be able to answer the question. That's a cheap out, you know.
Really, there's an issue here. Does the oil company affected...? I agree with the member for Okanagan-Vernon: I don't have any problem with setting heritage sites aside, if it is warranted. But I do have problems when a company has for almost five years now -- and to be safe I should probably say four years -- been trying to gain access to land where it has already paid the Crown for the right to drill and explore for natural gas and oil. You're saying that it has come to point, under this legislation, where the oil company would have to take the Crown to court to prove they had the right to drill, and then take the Crown to court to get compensation. Is that the way it works?
Hon. B. Barlee: Well, I think I should ask the member for Peace River North: has that land been designated a heritage site?
R. Neufeld: To my knowledge it hasn't been designated; that's the problem.
Interjection.
R. Neufeld: No, that doesn't negate it at all. You guys have been sitting on your hands. You talk about how easy it's going to be to deal with these things, but for two and a half years your government has sat on its hands and done nothing. Amoco, in fact, was here recently trying to get something done. So you are sitting on your hands. Somehow you have to deal with it, and if this whole thing is just a cop-out, then what's the point?
The Chair: Before I recognize the minister, can I just suggest that we're in danger of getting into a rancorous pitch. Would all members remember that our comments are directed through the Chair, rather than as "you" -- the minister -- and "you," the member opposite. If we could be mindful of that, we'd all benefit from it.
Hon. B. Barlee: Thank you, hon. Chair. I take that point.
Section 4.2 says one thing: "Compensation for heritage designation." That is what we're supposed to be talking about.
L. Hanson: A little rancour sometimes keeps us awake at this time of night.
I'd like to ask the minister what paper he was referring to when he suggested that ownership could also be interpreted as a lease, a tenure on land, or certain minerals rights or cutting rights. How does that come into this act? It very clearly states in an earlier section, in the requirement for notification, that "all persons who, according to the records of the land title office, have a registered interest in the land to be designated...." You recognize there that people may have an interest in land, other than simple ownership of the land. Yet when you get to the compensation section, you have no reference to anything other than ownership of land. What I think we're all trying to determine is how those two relate. Is there a requirement in the act that would interpret ownership to include those people who have an interest in land, other than a fee simple interest in terms of ownership?
Hon. B. Barlee: Simply put, the law decides ownership.
A. Warnke: Unfortunately, this is not the federal Parliament, where I could maybe directly ask the member who put forward the motion about what to do. I would also like to avoid putting forward another friendly amendment to it. But the amendment that's proposed now reads in such a manner that it is awkwardly placed. It could actually be seen as injected either in line 2 or line 3, or, for that matter, if one wants to stretch it, in both lines 2 and 3. Perhaps the best way to approach this is, when the member put this forward.... Maybe I could seek clarification from the Chair whether it was intended to be injected in line 2 or line 3, or both.
The Chair: Excuse me, member, I'm just checking.
Our understanding was to insert "market value of the designated property" on line 2. That's my understanding of the amendment. Am I right, member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast?
G. Wilson: That's right, hon. Chair.
The Chair: Does that clarify it for the member for Richmond-Steveston?
A. Warnke: Thank you, hon. Chair, it does.
C. Tanner: I'm having problems with the amendment, because I think it's placed in the wrong section. I don't have trouble with what the amendment is trying to do; in fact, it seems like it makes some sense to me, at last. But it surely would add to and would read an awful lot better if it was in subsection (2) rather than in subsection (1). If it was in subsection (2), it would be very clear, and it would identify exactly what the member is trying to do. Now, I don't know how we'd do that technically, and maybe I'll seek the advice of the Chair. But if the mover agrees, perhaps the Chair can tell us how to proceed.
The Chair: The Chair's only recourse is to say that we have an amendment on the floor that has been accepted, as I just clarified -- namely, under subsection (1), line 2 -- and that's where it belongs. We are debating, then, the desirability of that change. That's the only question on the floor. If we deal with the amendment, hon. member, then the other questions you posed may be in order.
Amendment negatived on the following division:
|
YEAS -- 9 | ||
|
Dalton |
Hanson |
Wilson |
|
Tyabji |
Jarvis |
Tanner |
|
Warnke |
Fox |
Neufeld |
|
NAYS -- 28 | ||
|
Marzari |
Charbonneau |
O'Neill |
|
Perry |
Dosanjh |
Hammell |
|
Lortie |
Giesbrecht |
Miller |
|
Harcourt |
Gabelmann |
Ramsey |
|
Barlee |
Blencoe |
Janssen |
|
Randall |
Farnworth |
Doyle |
|
Lord |
Streifel |
Simpson |
|
Sawicki |
Jackson |
Kasper |
|
Copping |
Schreck |
Lali |
| Hartley | ||
Section 16, section 4.2 approved.
On section 16, section 5.
[ Page 11656 ]
Hon. B. Barlee: I move the amendment to section 16, section 5, standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]
[9:00]
Amendment approved.
On section 16, section 5 as amended.
G. Wilson: Now that we have amended this.... Let me ask a simpler question so I can just read this again. The minister is authorized in writing to empower somebody -- and "minister" includes a person authorized in writing by the minister for the purposes of this section. I wonder if the minister might tell us whether or not that would include somebody who was not a direct employee of the minister or an employee of the government. Could it include a community association? That's really my question?
Hon. B. Barlee: This means the minister or the minister's designate only.
G. Wilson: I know that. But does it mean that the minister could designate a community association, or are we talking about an individual who would be an employee of the Crown?
Hon. B. Barlee: The minister or his Crown-designate employee.
Section 16, section 5 as amended approved.
On section 16, section 6.
The Chair: We have amendments to section 6 under the minister's name.
C. Tanner: Point of order. I'm sure, Mr. Chairman, it's only because of the time on the clock -- and I hope I'm not the only one who is confused -- but I don't see any amendments to section 6, unless I'm looking in the wrong spot.
The Chair: I thank the member for drawing that to my attention. We're in the process of searching. My notes tell me I have two amendments, but we are searching. Minister, have we found our way yet? I want you to know that that's an existential question.
A. Warnke: I could be wrong, but it seems to me that I have located it -- if there is some confusion. That would be near the top of page 3, where after parentheses (c), it says: "...in the proposed section 6 by adding the following subsections...."
The Chair: Is the member referring to Orders of the Day?
A. Warnke: That's correct.
The Chair: Thank you, member. I will search that out and advise the minister thereof.
None of us is raising a point of order; we're simply trying to clarify, but I appreciate that.
G. Wilson: For clarification, my understanding is that there is no amendment to section 6, save and except the way it was amended under section 5, because section 5(1) makes reference to subsection (6) and also makes reference to section 7(4). What I understand is that there has been an addition to section 5 -- that's the way I read it, and that's the way I voted on it -- that would introduce (c) under subsection (2). That would then alter the existing section 5 by adding the proposed section 6 amendment under section 5. I think that's the way it's read.
The Chair: I'm not sure that's correct, and I see another member disagrees. I'm going to suggest that with the members' permission, we ask the minister and his staff to perhaps take a look at this for just a moment, and then we will get some answer in terms of precisely what is on the floor before us. Could I just ask for an informal recess of the House for a moment or two until we find out?
Interjection.
The Chair: Let's say five minutes, if that's agreeable.
The House recessed at 9:05 p.m.
The House resumed at 9:07 p.m.
The Chair: I would ask members to please take their seats. I think we have now got over that particular hurdle. I think we all know the direction we are now moving in.
On section 16, section 6 (continued).
Hon. B. Barlee: I move the amendment to section 16 of the bill -- section 6 (3.1) and (3.2) of the Heritage Conservation Act. [See appendix.]
On the amendment.
A. Warnke: Just for clarification purposes, since it is an extra amendment, perhaps the minister could outline very briefly the purpose of the amendment.
Hon. B. Barlee: This change adds some new parts to section 6. It states that after providing opportunities to first nations to consult with the province regarding permits for archaeological aboriginal and other aboriginal sites, the minister has the ability or the authority to define or otherwise clarify the physical bounds of protected sites, or to exempt a site or object from protection if it is determined that the site or object does not have significant heritage value to make its protection an appropriate action of the province -- which we explained before.
Amendment approved.
On section 16, section 6 as amended.
G. Wilson: I must confess, hon. Chair, that I really did read this all as a component part of section 5. I'm not sure that it changes things that substantively. It would seem that the minister has the authority to designate. Then it talks about the question of protection, and it gives rights and again authority to the minister on protection.
I'm not quite sure I understand the need for this amendment that we've just put in if it's read in combination with section 6(2). I don't understand why you need that language in addition to what you've already got, unless what this is intending is that there be special powers or special means of designation provided under particular conditions.
[ Page 11657 ]
If so, I wonder what they are. I just don't understand why you need it.
Hon. B. Barlee: If, for instance, a first nations band claims 640 acres -- I'll use the old acres, one square mile -- the minister has the power or authority to say: "No, it isn't one square mile; it's three acres." That's the best example I can give.
C. Tanner: I think we have an illustration here of legislative overkill. I've been trying to follow what the section that we've just amended means. It says:
"(3.2) Subsection (3.1) does not apply to a site or object protected under subsection (2)(h). , and (d) in the proposed section 7(5) by adding '(2.1), (2.2),' after 'section 5(2),'."
I wonder whether the minister would....
The Chair: I think we have perhaps two amendments mixed up, hon. member.
I'm not going to ask "Shall the section pass?" until that member's questions have been answered. I want you to know we show commendable restraint here in the chair this evening.
C. Tanner: I would caution all members to draw a line under the first line of section (3.2), because where it says "and" and then "(d) in the proposed section" has nothing at all to do with it. It's a case of utter confusion in the House tonight, which is confused anyway by this minister's ineptitude in not being able to write the legislation correctly in the first place. I think at the very least that somebody owes us an apology for printing this mess so that we don't understand it.
The Chair: I'm almost tempted to say that silence means consent, but I shan't do that. Instead, I will ask the question: shall section 6 as amended pass?
[9:15]
Section 16, section 6 as amended approved on the following division:
|
YEAS -- 28 | ||
|
Charbonneau |
O'Neill |
Perry |
|
Dosanjh |
Hammell |
Lortie |
|
Giesbrecht |
Miller |
Harcourt |
|
Gabelmann |
Ramsey |
Barlee |
|
Blencoe |
Janssen |
Evans |
|
Randall |
Farnworth |
Conroy |
|
Doyle |
Lord |
Streifel |
|
Sawicki |
Jackson |
Kasper |
|
Copping |
Schreck |
Lali |
| Hartley | ||
|
NAYS -- 10 | ||
|
Tyabji |
Wilson |
Hanson |
|
Dalton |
Tanner |
Jarvis |
|
Warnke |
K. Jones |
Fox |
| Neufeld | ||
[A. Warnke in the chair.]
On section 16, section 7.
Hon. B. Barlee: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]
Amendment approved.
Section 16, section 7 as amended approved.
On section 16, section 7.1.
G. Wilson: Whenever entry authority for heritage inspection is granted, obviously we have to be very clear as to what is intended. Section 7.1(4) says that a warrant may be issued, a warrant authorizing a person to enter land or a building to conduct a heritage inspection, and it gives us some concern. It says that a justice may issue a warrant authorizing a person to enter and inspect. We have to presumably determine who that person is and what the evidentiary trail is leading up to the application of the warrant in the first place. So our first concern is that the justice is going to provide warrants for people to enter private property, and it talks only of reasonable grounds.
The second problem I have with section 7.1 is that it says a person conducting a heritage inspection must make a reasonable attempt to notify the owner or occupier of the land and present proof. Nowhere here does it suggest that the first step is to seek and get written permission. It would seem to me that if there's going to be that provision -- notwithstanding 7.1(3), which says: "...nothing in this section or in an order made under section 7(4) authorizes entry into a building without the permission of the owner or occupier" -- this entire section of the bill is written to override that provision. It would seem to me that there would have to be a paramount requirement -- which is spelled out in section 7.1(3) -- rather than have the onus or provision provided to some inspector on the basis of a judicial warrant.
Hon. B. Barlee: Under section 7.1(3), that is business as usual.
Subsection (4) is exceptional circumstances. It says:
"A justice may" -- "may" is the operative word -- "issue a warrant authorizing a person to enter land or a building to conduct a heritage inspection or heritage investigation ordered under section 7(4) if the justice is satisfied that (a) there are reasonable grounds to believe that entry is required to achieve the purposes of the order, and (b) there are reasonable grounds to believe that (i) an emergency exists, (ii) the person conducting the heritage inspection or heritage investigation has been unable to notify the owner or occupier after making a reasonable attempt to do so" -- again it says he "may" -- "(iii) the admission has been refused or refusal is anticipated, or (iv) the notification may defeat the object of the entry."
But again it goes back to subsection (4) on that: "A justice may issue a warrant...." It's not "will," but "may."
G. Wilson: Okay. But it does say under subsection (4)(b)(iii) that a private property owner could refuse entry and that a warrant could then be granted after refusal of entry for access.
I guess the next question would be: if a justice is going to have to make a decision on this and if we're to put our faith in the justice to do something that is not going to infringe on the liberties of a private property owner, what would the minister consider to be a reasonable attempt with respect to contacting a property owner, and what would be considered reasonable grounds if, having made a successful contact, the property owner then refuses entry?
[ Page 11658 ]
Hon. B. Barlee: That's a hypothetical question. I fall back on the key word there, which is "may." That's up to the good judgment of the justice.
G. Wilson: Let's assume that you've got the good judgment of the justice there -- and that's a pretty wide assumption in this day and age. Assuming that's true, section 7.1(5) then says that once this warrant is issued, the warrant "continues in force until the purpose for which the entry is required has been satisfied." On the basis of that, I would interpret that there can be more than one entry into this property. There can be ongoing inspections or a reinspection. How many times can a person go back before they feel satisfied that they've done the inspection?
Hon. B. Barlee: I think that's clarified under section 7.1(6):
"If a heritage inspection or heritage investigation conducted under the authority of a warrant under subsection (4) requires entry into a building, the person conducting the heritage inspection or heritage investigation must be accompanied by a peace officer."
I do not think the peace officer would stay in there for days on end. I think that's more or less self-explanatory.
Section 16, sections 7.1 and 7.2 approved.
Section 17, section 8.1 approved.
On section 17, section 8.2.
G. Wilson: I just have a very simple question, and again it has to do with this notion of a reasonable attempt. I know that that's not inconsistent with current legislation. Especially with respect to aboriginal artifacts that were secured many years ago, and so on, there can be a real problem in terms of finding ownership, where there's disputed ownership, and where there may almost be an archeological value with respect to artifacts currently there. Under section 8.2(1)(a), I wonder if the minister might want to tell us why the 25-year and 10-year part would be relevant, especially in light of the fact that there could be a dispute over artifacts; in fact, they may well be a subject of some kind of claim action.
Hon. B. Barlee: Concerning the 25 years, it was a judgment based upon experience.
[9:30]
Section 17, section 8.2 approved.
On section 17, section 8.3.
C. Tanner: Just a small point, one I've heard offered before. I'm referring particularly to 8.3(1)(d): ".subject to a trust or agreement under which property was obtained, dispose of the property and execute instruments required to effect the disposal." That gives the minister the power to dispose of property. What happens in the case -- and I think there have been cases -- where, because it's been in the possession of the Crown for some time, we don't know what the articles of agreement were in the first place?
Hon. B. Barlee: Would the member please rephrase that question.
C. Tanner: Simply put, what happens if the minister, acting in his capacity to dispose of assets, doesn't know what the trust agreements were? For example, if it's been in the possession of the Crown for some years, it could very well not be apparent. How would the minister act then?
Hon. B. Barlee: We'd fall back on the explanation in 8.2: it enables the Supreme Court to vest ownership in the institution if the owner cannot be identified or found, or if ownership is unclear.
Section 17, sections 8.3 and 8.4 approved.
Section 18, section 9 approved.
On section 18, section 9.1.
G. Wilson: I really don't understand this -- similarly with the amendment, which I found tended to be redundant. I've tried to raise this in two other areas and it's been suggested I talk about it here.
I don't understand why there is section 9.1: "The Lieutenant Governor in Council may, by order, designate a heritage site on Crown land as a Provincial heritage property...." Why is there this provision of powers when the minister already has granted those powers under previous sections? It doesn't seem to make a lot of sense.
Here's the concern. We unsuccessfully attempted to have an adequate and proper notification process done under previous sections. In those amendments we tried to move -- to suggest -- that there not be parallel processes by which this designation could occur. It seems this is indeed a parallel process, where the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council -- almost with the stroke of a pen -- can by regulation provide provisions of the Park Act through a provincial heritage designation. And that can or does imply that those provincial heritage properties and sites will include all the artifacts associated with the land in question.
Yet nothing in here provides any reference to local government, local landholders or owners. Nothing in here talks about licence holders, which was exactly the point of the discussion we had before. So I'm concerned that through the Park Act this allows an opportunity for the government to move.... It directly relates to the point raised by the member for Peace River North on the question of petroleum supply under an area that might be designated as a park through the Park Act, which will then have heritage status under a separate designation. Nothing in here says that any compensation is payable to licence holders, and that causes me a lot of concern.
Hon. B. Barlee: There's a difference between a heritage site and a heritage property. For instance, section 9.1, which I mentioned some time back, enables greater flexibility in the administration of heritage properties. Heritage properties would be Fort Steele, Barkerville, Hat Creek Ranch, and the list goes on. Cabinet has the power to establish historic sites operated under the HCA, which have status and operating provisions comparable with class A parks established under the Park Act. The section further clarifies that regulations governing these historic sites shall be established under the HCA rather than the Park Act. It should be noted that due to a revision to the definition of provincial heritage sites -- so there is a revision -- these properties are protected under this act as if they were designated under section 4. Does that clarify it?
G. Wilson: That really does clarify it, and it heightens my concern. That's exactly why we were asking for licence
[ Page 11659 ]
holders to have protection and compensation paid if those people who have licence over Crown landholdings find that through designation of that property they are no longer able to exercise the rights they would normally be able to exercise under their licence. The minister has just confirmed that if there's a movement through a Park Act designation and that park is then given provincial heritage property designation under subsection (3), it's deemed to have been issued under this section by the minister. That provides even more concern with respect to licence holders in terms of the need for them to be notified and compensated.
Hon. B. Barlee: The three places I mentioned were originally administrated under Parks. They have been transferred to our ministry. I think that's relatively clear.
G. Wilson: I appreciate that. Let me come back to subsection (1), because maybe I have misread what the minister is saying. Originally I indicated that there was some concern with respect to three separate designations: one was heritage sites, one was heritage property, and the other included heritage objects. Let's not deal with the objects for the moment, and concentrate on the subject, if we can.
Interjection.
G. Wilson: Yes, but it's not bad for 20 minutes. It's not bad for 9:40 at night, let's face it.
The point is that if a site is designated and park status is given.... I'm not talking about the Barkervilles and what have you, because those are longstanding, and we understand that there is an opportunity to transfer them into the ministry. I'm talking about land under Crown land jurisdiction where there is opportunity for licence holders to engage in mineral extraction, petrochemical exploration or timber extraction, where this minister will then find through a class A park designation that those licences will be exempted and a heritage designation will be applied. Nothing here allows them an opportunity for compensation or even notification. In the interest of good government, surely the minister has to agree that you should provide some kind of compensation for lost income or potential lost income.
Hon. B. Barlee: When I referred to Hat Creek Ranch, Barkerville and Fort Steele, they were under Parks originally; this has simply been a transfer from one ministry to another. I did mention -- and this is probably the key phrase -- that due to a revision to the definition of provincial heritage site, these properties are protected under this act as if they were designated under section 4.
G. Wilson: Then maybe where we have a difference of opinion is.... Is the minister telling us that everything under section 9.1 only applies to those sites that are already designated under the Park Act; that this does not provide the minister or the Minister of Parks an opportunity for designation of a class A park that is not already classified, so that it could then be moved under this act and all of the powers of the minister for expropriation and use of that facility? Does section 9.1 only apply to existing parks, or can it also apply to the creation of new parks?
Hon. B. Barlee: Yes, it could apply to the creation of new parks. We could acquire new parks.
G. Wilson: I'm kind of tempted to draft and move an amendment, but I don't know that it would do any good at this time.
Can the minister not recognize the concern that third-party stakeholders have with this proposition? Nowhere in the act does it suggest that there is any kind of provision for them to be informed. Neither does it say that they have any input into the decision. Thirdly, it doesn't say that they have any right to compensation if they lose their investment as a result of the change in classification. Surely to goodness the minister would recognize, in the interest of getting everybody promoting heritage protection in the province, that it makes sense to give licence holders on Crown land an opportunity to have compensation if they lose their investment. Surely to goodness the minister can see that.
Hon. B. Barlee: In six years of consultation, we've never had that question.
C. Tanner: Could the minister tell us whether, if section 9.1 stands as he explains it -- in which case you could establish a new park -- the other compensation that's been attributable in this act up to now applies?
Hon. B. Barlee: Could the member be a little more precise?
C. Tanner: Section 9.1 gives the minister all sorts of powers under the Park Act, and he first explained that those powers are because of the transfer of three properties. Then he went on to say that he can establish parks under this section. If he can establish parks, are the compensatory clauses of the bill up to now applicable to this section?
Hon. B. Barlee: I think there was some confusion. They were originally parks; they are now provincial heritage properties. Fort Steele and Barkerville were originally heritage parks. They are now provincial heritage properties. There's the difference in the definition.
C. Tanner: I think we all understood that. What I'm asking the minister.... I heard the minister say he can establish new properties under this section. I'm asking whether, if that is the case, the compensatory sections of this act that we've had up to now apply in that case too.
[9:45]
Hon. B. Barlee: Subsection (1) says: "The Lieutenant Governor in Council may, by order, designate a heritage site on Crown land as a Provincial heritage property and the Provincial heritage property includes the collection of accessioned artifacts associated with that heritage site." No government would step outside those boundaries.
C. Tanner: One assumes that's the case, hon. minister. But if that is the case, why do you need such sweeping powers under subsection (2)?
Hon. B. Barlee: Subsection (2)(a) says -- and I think it clarifies this: "...the minister as though he or she were the minister under the Park Act...." And then subsection (2)(b) says: "...any branch or agency assigned by the minister to administer a Provincial heritage property as though it were the Parks Branch under the Park Act...." That again applies to those old properties that were originally under the Park Act, which would be Fort Steele, Barkerville and so on.
[ Page 11660 ]
C. Tanner: The minister is making the confusion here, not us. He keeps talking about the ability to look after those three specific properties, and I think we all understand that. But he did say five minutes ago that he has an ability to create more property. That's what's concerning us. I haven't yet heard him say that he hasn't got the ability to do that. Did we all hear him incorrectly? Does it only concern those three properties, or other properties as well?
Hon. B. Barlee: This provision is not meant to circumvent other provisions made under this act. I think that's what the member is probably concerned about.
Section 18, section 9.1 approved.
Section 19 approved.
The Chair: Section 9 was stood down the other day.
On section 9.
G. Wilson: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.
[SECTION 9, subsection 1(1),
"cultural heritage resource" means an object, a site, or a location of a traditional societal practice that is of historical, cultural, or archaeological significance to the province, community, or an aboriginal people and has sufficient historical or physical evidence to enable it to be identified, substantiated, measured, and judged for authenticity.]
On the amendment.
Hon. B. Barlee: I considered the concerns in the amendment by the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast, and I hope that this rather lengthy explanation will clarify it. I should remind hon. members of our previous discussion regarding definitions under the Forest Act and several other statutes pertaining to cultural heritage resources. I'll provide some additional comments on this.
The term "cultural heritage resource" is used only in the Forest Act, the Forest Practices Code, the Mineral Tenure Act, the Coal Act and the Mines Act, to enable and facilitate the consideration -- the operative word there is "consideration" -- of cultural heritage values within the land use planning and resource management activities pursued under these statutes. That term is broad enough to ensure appropriate consideration of all heritage values of historical, cultural, or archaeological significance to a community, to the province, or to the first nations. However the requirement for significance carries with it the need for the resources to have some degree of importance, rather than simply a minimal amount of heritage value. And that's the key. As such, the term "cultural heritage resource" is narrower and more focused than the defined term "heritage site" within the Heritage Conservation Act.
The application of the term "cultural heritage resource" does not create or imply any legal protection. Furthermore, it is always used in association with other broad categories of resource values, such as fisheries resources, environmental resources and forestry resources, all of which are currently undefined within these statutes. Consideration of a broad range of heritage resource values, including the location of societal practices of cultural significance to aboriginal peoples, within the context of the Forest Act and other resource legislation assist the province in meeting its obligations pursuant to the Delgamuukw 2 judicial decision.
To significantly limit the definition of cultural heritage resource within the Forest Act, or similarly define heritage site within the Heritage Conservation Act, would seriously subvert the goal of improving provincial heritage legislation -- a goal which I think every party in this House basically supports, despite the concerns that have been mentioned tonight. The definition proposed by the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast would add several factors that would be reviewable by the courts. Sites or objects that do not meet these requirements could not be considered in managing lands under the applicable statutes. The evidentiary tests embedded in the proposed amendment would place most aboriginal heritage resources, including archaeological sites, beyond consideration as cultural heritage resources.
It would similarly exclude sites that have had a long community tradition of association with an historical individual or event where the documentary record is limited or may be non-existent. Should such places highly valued by communities or first nations -- either of the two -- be beyond the scope or definition of our collective heritage? I don't think they should be. It may be worthwhile to first look beyond our own borders for examples that illustrate the problems inherent in the proposed amendments. Should the sites associated with the legends of King Arthur, Romulus and Remus, El Cid, and Roland -- the list goes on and on.... They are considered heritage sites in England, Italy, Spain and France, where those five individuals come from. And are not the places associated with the prophet Mohammed, Buddha or Jesus an integral aspect of the cultural heritage of several countries, in spite of, in some cases, very limited documentation? So many of those sites that we've mentioned have limited documentation. Stonehenge has virtually no documentation, but it is very....
Interjection.
Hon. B. Barlee: It has no documentation. Archaeologically, Stonehenge has very little documentation. It's there as a visible object, but the old story about the Druids at Stonehenge does not apply. There's no documentation behind that at all.
Interjection.
Hon. B. Barlee: I think if you read the latest work done in England -- which was given a lengthy interpretation several weeks ago on PBS; I see the member watched it as well -- you'll find that it completely disregards that original statement about the Druids and all the rest of it, which simply does not apply at all.
Easter Island would be another example. Again, there's almost no documentation. Despite the work Thor Heyerdahl did on Easter Island, there's virtually no documentation.
Interjection.
Hon. B. Barlee: There's only visible evidence.
Interjection.
Hon. B. Barlee: Well, again you're bringing up visible evidence of sound, precisely what the first nations would say.
So I think our definition of heritage must go beyond what is narrowly provable based on a list of evidentiary tests, if we are to enable places that are valued by all our residents to at least be considered in our land use planning and
[ Page 11661 ]
decision-making processes. If members agree with my observations of the cultural decision-making process, I think we must ensure that our definition of cultural heritage resource or heritage site is broad enough to incorporate due consideration of the full range of aboriginal and community-valued heritage resources within our land use planning and resource management processes. I think in 1994 -- in light of recent court rulings and in full recognition of the contribution of all cultures to our heritage legacy in British Columbia -- our statutory definitions of cultural heritage resources and heritage sites must be inclusive rather than exclusive.
Should we legally protect all cultural heritage resources? Obviously not; we couldn't protect them all. We cannot impose a regime -- a permanent protection and regulation -- over the entire legacy of heritage resources. Of course we can't. Any jurisdiction attempting to do that would be doomed to failure, as well as to significant public outcries, and we know that. So we can't do that.
Some resources need only commemoration as an appropriate act of conservation. Others require the provision of good technical advice to a well-motivated owner. Some require promotion and the establishment of a positive environment for investment. Many need only be recorded in some way to ensure that that information is not lost to future generations; that seems logical to me.
When legal protection is necessary or desirable, given the heritage value of a particular resource, Bill 21 provides the province with several legal tools to implement protection.
1. Automatic protection is accorded to several categories of heritage resources under section 6(2) of the Heritage Conservation Act. For all such sites, physical evidence is mandatory.
2. A provincial heritage designation under section 4 of the Heritage Conservation Act enables sites to be selectively protected by orders-in-council.
3. Provincial heritage properties may be established under section 9.1 of the Heritage Conservation Act to enable conservation and public presentation of Crown-owned sites.
4. Agreements with first nations may be implemented through order-in-council under section 3.1 of the Heritage Conservation Act.
These agreements may include a schedule of sites that will be accorded legal protection. The operative words here are that these mechanisms of long-term protection will be applied in a prudent manner -- I say that again and emphasize it: will be applied in a prudent manner -- when such protection is warranted to ensure the conservation of such a resource.
It is worth noting in passing that previous governments have demonstrated considerable restraint in the use of the power of provincial heritage designation. I mentioned before that since 1925, which is 69 years ago, the power has been used 74 times. That's about once a year. That isn't overreaching. I think it's reasonable. The reason it isn't overreaching is that the government doesn't want to take the chance of overreaching. I think all of us understand that, and no government has done that.
Beyond this, we have at present a total of 29 sites protected and managed as provincial heritage properties. Bill 21 ensures that where discretionary legal protection is enacted, there are effective processes to ensure fairness to property owners and other stakeholders affected by that regulation. As the minister responsible for heritage, I can say that as necessary we will bring in regulations and introduce administrative policies to ensure fairness and evenhandedness in heritage designation-making. That is within the power of the minister to do, and he must ensure that it is fair. That's why it has been used so sparingly over the last 69 years.
[10:00]
If as a province we do not create a legal framework that provides a variety of ways to protect our heritage, these resources will eventually be destroyed. You can see it in the Yukon. I certainly know the member, and he knows exactly what I'm thinking: two magnificent sternwheelers were burned because there was no protection. We know who did it, but there was no protection. There are concerns; it is not perfect. No act of 107 pages is perfect. I'm quite aware of that, and I think all members are aware of that. There are big areas, but the purpose of this act is to protect our heritage values and sites.
However, I digress. If powers of protection are not balanced by procedural and substantive fairness, we will not achieve effective long-term conservation and stewardship of our heritage resources. Essentially, the issue in this bill is balance; that's what it is. I think Bill 21, by and large, will effectively achieve that balance. As such, I thank the hon. member for his proposed amendment, but I cannot support it. I trust that my comments today will have effectively communicated my views on this subject and anticipate that it will be at least relatively satisfying, because this act is far-reaching. I think this act is better than the 1977 act, and it will protect our heritage resources. There are questions that will have to be resolved and regulations that will have to be introduced, but I think, by and large, that it's a pretty evenly balanced act. It's a long act.
G. Wilson: First of all, I would like to sincerely thank the minister and the minister's staff for taking this amendment seriously and giving it the thorough review that they have, and to thank the minister's staff for providing my staff with copies of their thoughtful response. I think we have to recognize that as passionate as this minister is about this bill -- and for good reason, because I think we are attempting to do something worthwhile for the province in this bill.... The difficulty we have is that the amendment seeks to clarify this question of a cultural heritage resource, and it's important to do so. The minister indicated in his response to this amendment that the only acts that are covered are the Coal Act, the Forest Act, the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act, and other acts. I think the Coal Act and the Forest Act are primary. The fact that the minister didn't mention, and which needs to be considered when voting either for or against this amendment, is that section 15, section 3.3, of this bill says: "If, with respect to any matter affecting the conservation of a heritage site or heritage object referred to in section 6(2)" -- which is the question of heritage protection -- "there is a conflict between this Act and any other Act, this Act prevails." That's what it says. We have to recognize that.
The other thing we have to recognize is that section 9 of the Forest Act is then carried forward into sections 10, 11 and 12. That ties together fisheries and wildlife by striking them out of the following sections of the appropriate acts and changes it by substituting "fisheries, wildlife and cultural heritage." That's a problem, because that moves well beyond the intent of this act, in our opinion. Similarly, under section 28 there's again an amendment of fisheries and wildlife and an introduction of cultural heritage, as under section 92(1)(b)(i). That expands this definition into other legislation and recognizes that this legislation is paramount.
What we have to recognize here, notwithstanding the commentary.... I don't know if the minister has read Keller's The Bible as History about the archaeological record.
[ Page 11662 ]
We could go into a long and historical debate on that question -- certainly about historical evidence of the prophet Mohammed. I'm ready to get into that debate if he is.
But if we don't want to get into that here, we do have to recognize that the amendment is very simple. All the amendment says is that we are going to require that there be sufficient historical or physical evidence to enable this cultural heritage resource to be identified, substantiated, measured and judged for authenticity. That's a pretty straightforward amendment, particularly in light of the fact that it significantly affects other acts with respect to resource use. Given that we have tried very hard to get third-party interests protected, to get compensation protected, to put in some kind of public review process, and that the minister has turned us down at every one of those turns, surely he can recognize that by putting in this amendment.... It's a simple amendment and, I would have thought, a friendly one. What it says is that there's going to have to be some tangible measurement of this cultural heritage resource for its designation. I would strongly urge all members of the House to support this amendment, because I think it improves the act -- it doesn't degrade it.
Hon. B. Barlee: I think that's been adequately covered in the hours of debate we've had.
C. Tanner: I too would congratulate the minister and thank him for his lengthy explanation as to why we need this definition and don't need the amendment.
He mentioned most of the countries of Europe, but he forgot Ireland. I wonder why, because we have fairies in Ireland which no one has accounted for in the minister's explanation. I personally have friends who live in Ireland who would be offended by the fact that you left them out.
All that apart, the minister, in the second-to-last page of the statement he read, mentioned section 9.1 -- at the bottom of the page near the end -- and it seemed to me that it contradicted what we'd been saying before. I'd hate to think that was true. Could the minister just correct me if I am wrong in what he said?
Hon. B. Barlee: That section I mentioned, which was 9.1, says this -- I think I'll reread it, and that will clarify it for the member: "Provincial heritage properties may be established under section 9.1 of the Heritage Conservation Act to enable conservation and public presentation of Crown-owned sites." Not private sites, okay?
C. Tanner: After the explanation we've had from the minister, if he wanted to put the question now, I think we'd probably agree with the defeat of this amendment.
Amendment negatived on the following division:
|
YEAS -- 2 | ||
|
Tyabji |
|
Wilson |
|
NAYS -- 36 | ||
|
Charbonneau |
O'Neill |
Perry |
|
Dosanjh |
Hammell |
Lortie |
|
Giesbrecht |
Miller |
Harcourt |
|
Gabelmann |
Ramsey |
Barlee |
|
Blencoe |
Janssen |
Evans |
|
Randall |
Farnworth |
Conroy |
|
Doyle |
Lord |
Streifel |
|
Simpson |
Jackson |
Kasper |
|
Copping |
Schreck |
Lali |
|
Hartley |
Neufeld |
Fox |
|
Warnke |
Anderson |
Jarvis |
|
Tanner |
Dalton |
Hanson |
Sections 9 to 12 inclusive approved.
Hon. B. Barlee: Due to the lateness of the hour -- I play tennis in the morning -- I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
[10:15]
The House resumed; D. Lovick in the chair.
The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Committee of Supply A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I was hoping to be able to advise members about tomorrow's business, but we may have to do that in the more informal hallway. With that, I would move the House do now adjourn.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 10:17 p.m.
The House in Committee of Supply A; G. Brewin in the chair.
The committee met at 2:57 p.m.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF GOVERNMENT SERVICES AND
MINISTRY RESPONSIBLE FOR SPORTS AND COMMONWEALTH GAMES
(continued)
On vote 39: minister's office, $350,717 (continued).
C. Tanner: As I understand it, the total amount of money the provincial government has provided to the Commonwealth Games is $50 million. Is that correct?
Hon. R. Blencoe: I'll have my staff confirm exactly, but my recollection is $44.6 million in cash and roughly $6.5 million of in-kind services.
C. Tanner: That's $51 million, a million more than the amount initially agreed to. Wasn't it $50 million from the province, $100 million from the federal government and then some amount from the municipalities involved? Would it be correct to say that you're a million over already?
Hon. R. Blencoe: No, it would not be correct. When I first took over, which was under the last estimates -- I will clarify it for you, but I'm having to remind myself of the issue -- there were a number of issues left to be resolved. When I took over the portfolio, one of them, specifically, was host
[ Page 11663 ]
broadcast. That was not part of the original budget submitted. I don't remember the exact figure, but it was about $6 million to $7 million extra that was not budgeted for. The province, in agreement with the federal government and the Games Society, had to go back last year and add some additional funds. We have categorically said that that's it. That's our total contribution. The society has stuck to that, and we have said that there are no more funds.
[3:00]
C. Tanner: Can the minister tell us whether both the federal government and the municipalities gave an equal amount in proportion to what the provincial government gave when the provincial government raised the ante?
Hon. R. Blencoe: Recalling again, the federal government gave $12 million, the provincial gave $7 million and the municipalities gave zero.
C. Tanner: One can't help driving up and down the highways, as I do every day, without noticing that what's happening at the McKenzie cutoff and back into the peninsula is a vast improvement on the highway, not only on the surface and on the highway itself but also on the dressing and the landscaping that's taken place. I for one am not knocking it -- I find it very beautiful -- but I can't help but think that this was necessitated by the flood of tourists coming to the Commonwealth Games, as much as anything else.
It's also been announced that some members of the public service are going to be working at half pay as volunteers. In the minister's talk to us in the last two or three sittings, he mentioned that people from the purchasing department -- I think -- were helping the Commonwealth Games people fulfil that function of purchasing. Also, I think some members of his department, and some other members of government departments, are working on behalf of the Commonwealth Games. Is that the type of thing that's in-kind, or is that over and above everything else the province is doing?
Hon. R. Blencoe: I guess there's been a convivial arrangement between the society and the government, in terms of seconding key personnel -- for instance, it is my understanding that in the Purchasing Commission, one person has been seconded to watch the finances carefully and to protect our interests. The Ministry of Finance, whom you can ask when the estimates come up, has a number of people.... I know of one person from the Ministry of Finance who routinely watches, reports to his minister, to government and to my ministry, in terms of financial arrangements and how the society is doing.
My deputy minister is pointing out that we have some protocol people as well, because as you can imagine, the Commonwealth Games are generating great interest, in terms of leaders and royal visits. Consequently, they need our expertise in terms of protocol, so there have been one or two people on an ongoing basis checking in and out in terms of advice and help on protocol. Some of those seconded to give support have been part and parcel of all our in-kind. Some, quite frankly, have not. Some have been due to Mr. Heller or the society basically asking if we could provide short-term help in some critical areas, particularly the financial area. The issues that have been quite rightly raised in the public forum have been on financial matters, and the province has been diligent and has done reviews. We have people in there from the Finance ministry -- and today my own ministry. We have staff who are constantly monitoring the arrangements and reporting back.
Quite frankly, the reports thus far -- Peat Marwick will, I hope, be confirming this in the next few days -- are that the society is in generally good health. They're on time and their fundraising has gone well. We fully anticipate a very successful Games. There is no question, though, that when you put on a major undertaking like this, there are going to be issues raised, and sometimes mistakes are made. But on the whole, I think we've quite clearly established the checks and balances. The society knows we are carefully watching them. I've already reported that, and I think I've clearly reported to the critic that we expect a full accounting at the end of the day. There is full accounting now in terms of monitoring and procedures. I've clearly said that we fully expect the society's report will meet and go beyond the kinds of criteria in the Financial Administration Act, which applies to public bodies like schools and hospitals. The citizens are insisting quite rightly that there be full accountability, and I've given them assurances that there will be. When you're putting on something of this magnitude, we have insisted on and put in ongoing checks and balances through accountants and auditors, Ministry of Finance people, Purchasing Commission people and people on the board from our own ministry. We try to cover the bases as best we can; thus far, I think we have been successful.
You also pointed to terms of the leave policy rather than the volunteer policy. Let me comment about that, because I think there is a lot of misunderstanding and, quite frankly, misrepresentation of the issue. We've insisted that if staff wish to volunteer on their holiday time -- for instance, if they're going to volunteer one or two days for the society, they must do it during their holidays -- we will lend the society those two extra days. It's like a leave, an absence from the workplace to work for the Games. But I want to make it quite clear: there is no extra pay. Those people must also get the permission of their supervisor and ensure that the work they're leaving gets done, either beforehand or afterwards -- there is no backfill; the work has to be done.
It's very similar to what we do with the United Way or any other organization that asks for public servants who are in key areas to volunteer their time. In this community, government is a major employer; we have a lot of expertise and we're always being asked to lend it. But we're saying -- and I think the public should understand this -- that the public servant must volunteer in their vacation time. If they volunteer two or three days, up to a maximum of eight days, we will allow them to take that many extra days off work. It's like a leave of absence with no extra pay. It's our contribution to the success of these Games. There's no double pay or any of the other things that are being stated. I think there has been a lot of misrepresentation on this issue that has been very unfair to public servants.
The bottom line on the Commonwealth Games is that we will have a real chore on our hands in a matter of a few weeks. We will have the world watching us. South Africa will be here; there are all sorts of expectations about other people coming, which will raise other issues. We have a major security issue. This will be the second-largest sporting event in the world, next to the Olympic Games, and it has to be a success. It's here in British Columbia; it's here in Victoria and in Canada, and the expectation is that these will be the best Games ever.
We as a province and as a ministry here in Victoria have the ability to make that happen. If this fails, the failure will be on all of us, so we want to ensure that it's a great success, and every indication is that it will be -- on time and on
[ Page 11664 ]
budget. But we want to make sure that it works well, and that's the reason that we've done some of the things we've done.
Without question, there's been substantial investment by the province and the federal government, but all the indicators are that in terms of legacy and opportunities in the future, in terms of tourism, of being the focus of the cameras of the world, there are remarkable opportunities for us, and we're making the best of those opportunities.
C. Tanner: In previous readings of these estimates, the minister has intimated that members of this House who are trying to ascertain how much money has been allocated are for some reason or other not as enthusiastic or as gushy as the minister is concerning the Games. Quite frankly, I think he's a little too effusive, and as far as my own feeling on the Games is concerned, it really isn't pertinent to the question. It is my responsibility as a member of the opposition to find out whether the public funds have been spent appropriately.
As I understand it, we've already upped the ante from $50 million to $57 million. My questions are: what is included in the $57 million? What are other ministries spending on things that aren't obvious? When does the cost accrue to the public, and is that what the taxpayers have agreed to? I'm not so sure they have. If I understood the minister, he said $44.6 million in cash, another $6 million in kind and another $6 million for advertising, which makes $57 million by my calculations.
Hon. R. Blencoe: I don't think the member is making an accusation, but let me just correct the record. Currently the plan is for the federal government to contribute $62 million in cash, the provincial government $43.6 million and municipal governments $2.7 million. To our provincial cash contribution of $43.6 million, you have to add our in-kind contribution -- hospitals, police and all those things -- which we have costed out at $6.5 million.
C. Tanner: That's not exactly what you said before, but that's fine. I assume that we both could have made a mistake. But didn't I understand the minister to say that there was a further $7 million on top of that?
Hon. R. Blencoe: No, it's included in that.
When I took over the portfolio, hon. member, the original plan was that the federal government contribution would be $50 million, the provincial government contribution would be $36.6 million and the municipal government share would be $2.7 million. To reiterate, there was a major oversight in the plans by the society and by past governments, but I don't want to get into that. We did our due diligence. The auditors went in and looked at the request by the society for an additional $7 million in cash from the province. We spent a number of months looking at the rationale of this requirement in last year's estimates. The feds came in with an extra $12 million; the total went up to $62 million. The province came in with an extra $7 million, which put up our contribution from $36.6 million to $43.6 million.
C. Tanner: Madam Chair, instead of looking at me now, you should have been looking at the minister, because he wasn't sure. He turned around to check his figures again. Is the figure that we're finally ending up with committed by the province in kind and in cash at $50.1 million?
Hon. R. Blencoe: Correct.
C. Tanner: Let's for the sake of argument say $50 million, because I'm obviously having trouble saying those figures. Does that $50 million include every single thing we see happening from all the other departments around the province and around Victoria? People on loan, people doing work, audits, things on the highway are all included in the $50.1 million. Is that correct?
Hon. R. Blencoe: It doesn't include the highway; if it did, that would be great. There are some secondments that it doesn't include. When we deem it appropriate for due diligence or monitoring, we put in staff from Finance, purchasing, legal staff, or my own ministry staff from the sports branch. We haven't costed all those out; we could, but they're part of our due diligence. Along with the federal government, we are the major partner in this endeavour.
C. Tanner: Could the minister tell us whether it includes any extra security?
Hon. R. Blencoe: We could go back to Hansard, but I recall that I went through in detail the in-kind services and what those covered. The critic will probably remember that. I talked about the policing, the security, the hospital and all those things. We've covered that extensively already.
[3:15]
C. Tanner: In that case, I'm going to ask the minister to give these estimates the commitment that when the figures come out at the end of the day in the next budget, it will be $50.1 million in cash and in kind committed by the province, and nothing from any other part of the provincial government.
Hon. R. Blencoe: That's what my budget shows, that's what the estimates show and that's what the commitment is. The Games Society knows that; they've been told to live with that. There is to be no deficit. We fully expect that to be the budget, and those are the moneys they've got. There are no extra dollars.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us whether the $1 million national media purchase agreed to in the licensing agreement between the provincial government and the Commonwealth Games Society is included in the budget that he's just stated will not be more than $51.4 million?
Hon. R. Blencoe: It's not $1 million; we've cut it back to half a million dollars. It's part of our budget; it's part of the figures I've indicated to you. It is a very aggressive promotion around the Games in British Columbia as a destination for tourism. We fully expect to get our half-million dollars worth of advertising on CBC, the host broadcaster.
I should also tell you that one of the things we're also being very aggressive on is actually getting millions and millions of dollars worth of free advertising. If I recall my discussions with Australian broadcasters, they're planning on about 17 hours of broadcast a day. There is no way sports and all those things are going on for 17 hours; they've got to find things to fill in. My colleague the Minister of Tourism has all these wonderful films on Super, Natural British Columbia. We have sent them all to the national broadcasters in Australia and everybody else, and they are lapping it up -- they love it. They are going to be running a lot of those little clips you see on the Knowledge Network. The various other things you see that are promoting British Columbia will be going around the world, courtesy of all the major
[ Page 11665 ]
broadcasters. We will be getting million of dollars worth of advertising. Our half-million basically kicks that into shape. We fully expect -- and you can ask the Minister of Tourism, because he'll have the details -- that in the coming year or the next five years, there will be substantial growth in tourism because of the exposure we're going to have in the next few months.
C. Tanner: I was about to leave, and I suddenly thought of one other question I want to ask the minister. I heard members in my caucus complaining that they had to buy tickets. I immediately wrote a letter to the chairman of the society congratulating him on the fact that there are no free tickets. Would the minister give this assurance today that there will be no free tickets for anybody in these Games?
Hon. R. Blencoe: It was not the policy of the Games Society. The Games Society has its own policy regarding their clientele. In terms of the government, government MLAs and cabinet members, the policy is that unless they are on official business for the Games, there will be no free tickets. They have to buy their own; that is the policy. I have colleagues here who have already bought. Obviously, there will be exceptions for protocol reasons. If we have heads of state, Her Majesty....
Interjection.
Hon. R. Blencoe: Well, there is goodwill to be achieved here in terms of our visitors. There are minimal free tickets.
K. Jones: There's a price on goodwill.
Hon. R. Blencoe: Yes, there's a price, hon. member; there's no question about that.
Members from both sides of the House -- I think even the acting leader of the Liberal Party; I forget which riding he's from -- have bought tickets and plan to be there, like everybody else.
K. Jones: So has the leader.
Hon. R. Blencoe: I have no idea what your leader is doing. You can check on him.
C. Tanner: I have one last question for the minister. Would he define "official business" for me, please?
Hon. R. Blencoe: Being a spectator, hon. member, is not official business. If, for instance, I have to be there....
C. Tanner: Do you get a free ticket?
Hon. R. Blencoe: I don't get free tickets. If I have to be there for special hosting.... Say, for the opening ceremonies I have to be there on official business, then obviously I am there. If I want to go to a venue or my children want to go to a venue, we pay.
C. Tanner: I suppose on that basis I could be invited on official business. Would the minister give the assurance that neither I nor any other MLA, except himself in his ministerial capacity, will get an invitation on official business?
Hon. R. Blencoe: Hon. member, I know what you're trying to say, and I agree with your general thrust, but we are in the process of dealing with protocol regarding Her Majesty and other heads of state. I don't think you want to say to your leader that there may be some....
C. Tanner: I do.
Hon. R. Blencoe: Well, there are certain times when there will be protocol, but I assure you that the policy is that unless it is for specific protocol reasons, you pay your way.
K. Jones: I think that last statement made it very clear that that could include the Premier and everybody else in the cabinet and all other government officials who would be there visiting the Games.
Hon. R. Blencoe: The Premier will be there officially.
K. Jones: That's just for the opening, I presume. There is no reason for him to be there officially for the rest of it, is there?
F. Jackson: Well, you just killed your invitation; that's for sure.
K. Jones: As the member stated, I just killed my invitation. Perhaps the member thought that I was going to get some special privileges. I must accept, like everybody else, the responsibility of paying my way too.
Going back to the discussion about the situation of people who were being paid to volunteer, I have some comments here that I'd just like to bring into the discussion so the minister is fully aware of this concern that's out there. I'd like to quote Dr. Porritt from Sidney, who has written a letter to you, hon. minister, in which he has stated that he wishes to protest, as an unwarranted gift, that some civil servants would be volunteering their time but would be given time off with pay for a portion of that. He says:
"The vast majority of volunteers do not expect and will not receive any remuneration. Furthermore there are a number of volunteers who will not be used, as there is a surplus. I have been involved in amateur sport as an organizer, participant, coach and official in national and international events including six Olympic Games since 1958. I was also chairperson of the field hockey organizing committee for the 1967 Pan American Games in Winnipeg and never expected to be reimbursed. In my profession if one does not work, one does not earn, but I felt it a privilege to be involved in sporting activities. In my opinion, the 100 or so civil servants should also consider serving as volunteers in the Commonwealth Games to be a privilege for which they, as volunteers, should not receive any pay. I trust that you will reconsider your decision announced in the Legislature last week."
That was back in May.
Hon. minister, I'd also like to bring to your attention the statement of a lady from Saltspring, who contacted one of our constituency offices and said that her son and daughter had each contributed over 80 hours of work, giving up weekends, etc., and they are broke. I guess, needless to say, they're now pretty resentful. Could the minister address these concerns? There are many others like it.
Hon. R. Blencoe: Hon. member, if you had been listening earlier, I told you about ten or 15 minutes ago that it's not a paid leave or a paid volunteer. It's like leave for the United Way. It's a secondment in a way. If a public servant wishes to work for a maximum of eight days on their vacation....
Let me give you an example. If a public servant wants to work for eight days on the Commonwealth Games, on their holiday -- no pay -- we will match that eight days of leave
[ Page 11666 ]
from their position in the government. It's like a secondment or a leave to work for the United Way. That person, though, has to first get permission from where they're working. There is no infill. The work has to be done, so when they come back, they've got to do double-duty or whatever to make sure it's done. There's no extra pay, hon. member. We're saying that there may be public servants who have experiences or duties that would....
By the way, hon. member, you should know that we do not choose who goes. There was some question that we were bumping out other volunteers. The society chooses the volunteers; we don't do that. But if a public servant gives up their holiday time with their family to work on the Games for the good of the community and our province, we will say: "Okay, you can leave your job with no extra pay. You still have to do the job when you come back and before you go. No one will fill in for you. The work has to be done, so you have to catch up one way or the other. There's no extra pay. Like the United Way, you can go off and do your bit for your province and your country to make sure this is the most successful Games ever in the history of the Commonwealth Games."
I know there has been a lot of stuff said. Quite frankly, it really annoys me in terms of the attitude towards public servants by your party, and particulary by the independent member from.... I don't know where he's from; I can't think of his riding. It's very unfair, and I really want to correct the record. Public servants give up their holidays to do this.
K. Jones: There are lots of other people who are giving up their holidays. There are people all over this province who are giving up their holidays to volunteer to make these Games a success, including a lot of civil servants, but only a select few are able to have paid time off. The others are all taking time off, some without pay, and volunteering, and they have done so in the past, as these people have indicated in these letters. I'm going to be available at that time. My employer says I can make up the time later on. Maybe I can be paid for half the time I spend on the Commonwealth Games under this procedure, up to a maximum of eight days. Could the minister tell us what really justifies this type of procedure for an exclusive group when it isn't available to anybody else?
Hon. R. Blencoe: I have explained it extensively more than once. It is indeed available in the private sector, and various corporations have the same kinds of policies. I've explained it. It's very similar to what happens under the United Way and charities in terms of government being available. I don't think I need to say any more about it.
K. Jones: Actually, the minister has described it, but he has never explained it. I will continue on to another area, since that's probably the extent of the information we'll get on that issue.
Could the minister please tell us the society's current travel costs for senior administrative officers?
[3:30]
Hon. R. Blencoe: I obviously don't have full details of the society's various travel requirements. The society has that information. Interestingly enough, I do indeed have the expense summary of Mr. George Heller as of March 31, 1994. His total costs for transportation expenses were $7,475.87. As you can imagine, he is having to fly around the Commonwealth and make all sorts of contacts. I think that's a reasonable transportation cost in expenses.
K. Jones: Could the minister give us details of how much money was spent on out-of-province travel and how much on out-of-country travel?
Hon. R. Blencoe: I don't have that information. At the end of the Games, that information will, like the public accounts, be printed for the Legislature under the Financial Information Act. We've already promised that this information will be made available to the public, and I've given that assurance.
K. Jones: I'm afraid that the minister doesn't understand the public accounts process, because those details would not be in the public accounts or in the Society Act's report. We would ask the minister to report back to us next week the amount of the senior officers' out-of-province and out-of-country travel expenses.
Hon. R. Blencoe: I think you can discuss that issue -- and I believe you have -- with Mr. Heller of the society, but I want to assure the hon. member that the information that you're requesting will be available. There will be full accounting according to the Financial Information Act, and beyond that. There will be a detailed breakdown of salaries, expenses and travel. I've already given you one example which I happen to have here. An accountable board is monitoring this. It is a very reputable society that is doing a good job, but I recognize that these issues will come to the front. Their expenses and travel are part of their budget. They are monitored by their own people on the board, who are fully accountable.
K. Jones: From the minister's response, I believe he has abrogated his responsibilities to the people of British Columbia by saying that the board of the Commonwealth Games Society is the only one that is going to keep track of the expenditure of almost $50 million of taxpayers' money and another $62 million of federal money, that he doesn't have to worry about it and that he's not keeping track of how the expenditures are going. Is that what the minister just said? It certainly sounded that way.
Hon. R. Blencoe: We monitor them virtually daily, and certainly on a monthly basis. As I've already said, we've budgeted $50.1 million. That's it, folks. No more money. That's what you live with. There's a sense out there that somehow there's a never-ending amount of money coming from the province or the feds. Not true. We said what the amount would be two years ago, so you live with it.
Hopefully we will move to some other stuff, because we've covered this extensively, but I just want to go over what financial statistical information will be available at the end of the Games. That's above and beyond Peat Marwick's review, which is ongoing, and they are the auditors.
L. Fox: That's a familiar name.
Hon. R. Blencoe: Yes, certainly the society was set up under your government -- except you've now left that party; it's difficult to keep track of you all.
This summary of revenues and expenditures shows the strategic plan for May 1992, including approved changes, final budget, final actuals and variances. Revenues would include federal, provincial and municipal governments, and marketing revenues from ticketing and corporate sponsors and interests. Expenditures would be grouped by divisional responsibility -- i.e., society management, bid preparation, legacy,
[ Page 11667 ]
finance, administration, human resources, partner relations, facilities management, facilities, operations, sports, Commonwealth Games Federation, broadcasting, ceremonies, culture, communications and technology. All these are broken down into detailed reporting.
There is a detailed analysis of facilities expenditures, similar to schedule B of the existing financial statements, but with more explanation and descriptive analysis of the legacy. There's an analysis of the B.C., Canadian and foreign content of major contracts -- I know that's an issue to the member. I've already said we're at 96 percent, which is not bad. Then there are details of asset disposals with supporting rationale. There will be a grid of numbers of employees receiving over $50,000 per annum, and the names of contractors receiving over $10,000. Games final surplus amount will contain an analysis of taxes paid and collected -- GST, PST, payroll duties, and a myriad of other information on taxes or duties paid. Volunteer statistics cover how many volunteered, how many participated and the estimated hours donated. Ticketing statistics cover how many are available and analyzed by venue and price, how many were sold, given away and unused. Also covered are costs of the various arts, cultural and pageantry elements of the Games in full informative detail, as well as the Games legacy in estimated economic benefits.
Give your assurances to the people of the province that the federal government is doing its due diligence and we're doing ours on a daily basis. We will duly report, as we do in government according to the Financial Information Act. We're going beyond that with this: there will be full monthly accounting. Of course, Peat Marwick is there as well.
K. Jones: In that list that you just read off, were there travel expenses? I didn't hear.
Hon. R. Blencoe: Information on travel expenses will be available. Whatever your heart desires, it will be available.
L. Fox: As interesting as this debate is, I want to clarify a couple of things in my own mind. First, can the minister tell me whether the Commonwealth Games Society has a travel policy? Has the ministry had some input and approval on that policy? Is it similar to what we as government have to comply with?
Hon. R. Blencoe: I'm told that there is a policy. The Commonwealth Games Society has a huge binder with a multitude of.... I can make it available to the member.
L. Fox: I don't want it. I'm just asking a very simple question.
Hon. R. Blencoe: There is a policy approved, carried out and monitored by the board.
L. Fox: The purpose for asking the question was to alleviate the official opposition member's concerns that in fact there is a policy that everybody has to adhere to. They file their expense claims according to it, and that whole process becomes accountable to your ministry. That was the purpose of asking that question.
Second, would there be allowances for local travel for volunteers? I understand there would be some expense afforded to employees in the day-to-day delivery of their jobs. Are there any travel expenses incurred by those volunteers?
Hon. R. Blencoe: I have to be very careful here. I think there are times, if the volunteers are carrying out some duty approved by the management of some form, that there would be some claim. My understanding is that if there is some travel involved -- the Commonwealth Games Society has sponsors -- there is an arrangement for those volunteers to get a discount on travel and those sorts of things.
I would have to get specific about what there is for volunteers. It's come to my attention that that has been raised; I think they try and cover it as best they can.
L. Fox: Perhaps a further clarification is needed. I've read recently where young folk travel to Victoria to volunteer for the Games. Is travel paid for rural volunteers who come for a pre-Games process, or are these young folk volunteering their time as well as paying for their travel?
Hon. R. Blencoe: I can't tell you. I could tell you, though, in terms of one of the things on record, that there were 600 paid staff at the Olympic Games in Lillehammer. The Commonwealth Games have 180 to put on the next-biggest set of games. So there is a substantial difference. I know the Olympics are a little bigger, but I think these games, in terms of the numbers of staff and so on, have done a good job. Sorry, hon. member, I'll try to see if I can find that out; I don't have the answer for you now.
L. Fox: I'm not sure it's that significant. I was trying to understand what kind of opportunities there were for volunteers in the rural parts of the province to take part in this great undertaking and super initiative, because every time we volunteer and become part of a structure such as this, there is a learning process, and we can, throughout other regions of the province, gain some strengths and knowledge through participating in that process. So I wonder whether or not there is an opportunity for us to learn, not only in the Victoria region but in other regions of the province, and to gain from this undertaking.
[3:45]
I guess the specific question.... Unfortunately, I came in when you were partway through the policy discussion around government employees volunteering and opting into the volunteer pool, and I'm not sure I understand the policy. Could the minister tell me what level of public employee could volunteer, within the policy he reiterated earlier, to take time off from their holidays and receive, somewhere down the road, as I understand it, credit for time off? Could the minister tell me what level of public employee you have to be in order to qualify for that?
Hon. R. Blencoe: Secondment, or the policy on leave with no extra pay, is within the Games period. I don't know where you came in, but if you give four days of your own holiday, gratis, for instance, we will allow you to leave your place of work to work for the Games for four more days. But there will be no infill, the work still has to be done when you come back, or when you leave. There is no replacement. The selection of public employees is up to the Games, in terms of what they require; we don't know. They now have in excess of 10,000 and require about 13,000 volunteers. They decide where their needs are. One of the reasons we do it, quite frankly, is because we have public servants who are required for the Games because of their expertise.
L. Fox: As I understand it, the program is open to all government employees, and who shall be chosen is up to the Games, which I recognize would have to be the case.
[ Page 11668 ]
I want to congratulate the minister for that initiative. I think it's a good one, contrary to what the official opposition critic was saying, because there is a tremendous pool of talent and expertise within the government employee network -- at all levels -- and I think the Games would benefit. In the end, the province will benefit the most from the talent made available to the Games, because the better job we do holding these Games, the better image we'll create around the world. I think that's a very important initiative. From the government employees that I've had the privilege to meet, I know they're very dedicated and committed and will contribute in a very meaningful way to the Games.
Hon. R. Blencoe: I'm really pleased to hear you say that, and if that word doesn't get out, I'll be sure that your words are transmitted. There have been a lot of accusations -- I think quite unfairly -- in this community and elsewhere. Too often, quite frankly, public servants become easy targets, for whatever reason. I think your words should be noted. I really appreciate them, and I'm sure public servants do. Thank you.
K. Jones: I would state right now that we in the official opposition have at no time questioned the talents or the integrity of the members of the civil service. Theopportunities that were put forward here were appropriate. If they were not, it's that a certain group of people were being singled out-- that's what the concern is. The people out there who have volunteered their own time are concerned that they're putting all their spare time into that job while somebody else is being paid for the privilege. It's not a question of civil servants being wronged or condemned for what they're doing; it's the fact that special privileges are being given to a certain few that all the rest are having to pay for.
I think I'll leave that. I would like to go on to another area of the Commonwealth Games, and it's with regard to the bid proposal process. I have a bid proposal from the Times-Colonist of Friday, May 20. It calls for proposals from qualified vendors to provide food services for VIP lounges at ten locations throughout greater Victoria during the Games period, August 18-28. This would interest catering companies. The capability to provide reception-style food for a maximum of 2,500 people each day during that period is specified. Companies must also have delivery and setup capabilities.
First of all, hon. minister, I'm surprised that we're asking for finger food or lounge food for 2,500 VIP people each and every day of the Commonwealth Games. Could the minister explain that?
Hon. R. Blencoe: I assume this is a society ad.
K. Jones: It is a society ad.
Hon. R. Blencoe: I haven't seen it, and I don't know the total requirements. It may well be -- I will check -- that the corporate sector is having hospitality tents in various places for VIP hospitality.
L. Fox: VIP tents.
Hon. R. Blencoe: I suspect the corporate sector believes they will have VIPs that they will wish to talk to. My understanding is that a decision was made that the society would advertise for a caterer on their behalf, and I understand there's going to be one caterer for all the corporate sector. That may apply in this circumstance -- I'm not quite sure. I'll have to take a look at it or ask the society for details, and you could also do the same yourself, obviously.
K. Jones: That was an interesting explanation, that the Commonwealth Games is providing tendering for the private sector, where the private sector is looking after all their other accommodations. Private sector tents are being tendered completely independent of the Commonwealth Games, and other features certainly are not being tendered through the Commonwealth Games Society.
Hon. R. Blencoe: I'd have to get all the details, but from my understanding part of the reason is that these locations are on the grounds or at the venues in secure locations. I think that's part of it as well. Again, this is a huge policy. We'll try to find the reasons for these things and get the information for you.
K. Jones: There's another interesting feature of this that says the lowest or any proposal will not necessarily be accepted. Late proposals will not be accepted. There's only one problem with that ad: it doesn't state when tenders should be received by. There's no date for anybody to know whether they're late or not. Is this how they control who gets a tender, by determining in secret the date that the tender is supposed to be received by? There's no reference in this to any date that the tenders have to be in by.
L. Fox: Isn't there a contact number to get information?
K. Jones: No, there isn't even a contact telephone number. It says that the proposals shall be delivered to the Commonwealth Games Society.
Hon. R. Blencoe: The society does its business, and they run their ads. Hon. member, you may want to take it up with them. I'll take a look at the ad, and if some mistakes were made, we'll make reference to the society to look at it.
K. Jones: There are two other items I'd like to have the minister address, and they're with regard to the fact that we're having police games at the present time in Victoria involving how to deal with terrorism and all that. Could the minister tell us if that is being paid for by provincial government funding?
Hon. R. Blencoe: I refer to Hansard on the first day we did estimates; I talked about that issue. It's $2.5 million. Hansard has it.
K. Jones: I realize that you mentioned in Hansard that there was funding for the actual security at the time of the Games, but we're talking about this prior training. My question to you today is whether this additional training is included in that money.
Hon. R. Blencoe: I've said consistently that our total contribution is the amount of money I indicated. It is $50.1 million, of which $6.5 million is in kind. It is for pre-games, during games or after games -- whatever they want to do. That's the budget. If they want to do pre-work or pre-testing, the money is there. There is no more money; it's allocated. They use it -- particularly for security forces -- as they see fit. There's approximately $2.5 million for policing services.
[ Page 11669 ]
The Attorney General has allocated that for in-kind services. I've already mentioned that.
K. Jones: It's interesting to note. I feel it's perfectly appropriate for the forces to be doing exercises like these, but this exercise included 400 people, including RCMP in Vancouver and Ottawa. I was just trying to find out whether that exercise, which obviously cost a lot of money, took people away from other jobs. There must have been a cost involvement to provide support or backup people for those who were on the exercise. I can only assume that those costs were within the money that was available and that there will be no other costs for this at the present time.
Hon. R. Blencoe: Most of the work on terrorism and high security is done by the federal government. They're very good at it. The RCMP and the special squads continue to do their work. You and I will probably not know how they do it, and that's the way it is. The federal government is alive and well. They have their special squads, the money is allocated and we are contributing $2.5 million to the policing services. I think every citizen hopes our work is successful. We have excellent security staff, and no one begrudges in any way the dollars that are put toward these activities.
L. Fox: I assume that this exercise is driven by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and not by the Commonwealth Games Society, and it would therefore be subject to the normal sharing of costs between federal and provincial governments. Is the $2.5 million the minister mentioned earlier a contribution?
Hon. R. Blencoe: Yes.
L. Fox: I wasn't sure when you mentioned it if it was a contribution to this training exercise or a contribution toward policing for the total Games.
Hon. R. Blencoe: That's our contribution. You're quite right that the policing costs are significant. I don't have a total budget for policing; the federal government has it. Our contribution is $2.5 million for various policing services, which, were determined in the negotiations by the Attorney General, and there was some provincial responsibility.
L. Fox: For the whole Games or for this exercise?
Hon. R. Blencoe: For the whole Games.
L. Fox: You gave the impression it was for the exercise.
Hon. R. Blencoe: I'm sorry. It's for the entire Games. That's our contribution.
K. Jones: I want to go back to the item concerning volunteers and the costs of their travel. That was a very valid question brought by the member for Prince George-Omineca, because that's about the only way the volunteers from the interior parts of our province would be able to afford to get here. I would like to point out that all the volunteers participating here have already had to pay a $25 cost, I think it is, and put out a day of their time for training purposes. They are actually being billed for the cost of taking training under this program. It's interesting that the volunteers are certainly making a lot of contributions in this process.
[4:00]
I'd like to ask the minister when the last payment will be made under the provincial funding commitment to the Commonwealth Games?
Hon. R. Blencoe: It has been made. It was made on March 31, 1994.
K. Jones: That means that there are absolutely no further commitments of funds to the Commonwealth Games? The minister says that yes, this is absolutely correct. That's wonderful -- "on time, on budget," as the minister would probably say.
There has been considerable expression of the fact that the Heal's Range complex is going to be destroyed after the Games. That's the facility at Heal's Range, which is a wonderful rifle and pistol range that has cost a fair amount of money. Could the minister tell us how much money was spent on the total improvements at Heal's Range?
Hon. R. Blencoe: We're getting that; the staff will find the amount. Heal's Range is one of the minor controversies in the region, because of its neighbours. It is built in a pleasant semi-rural area, and there is hope that much or some of the facility will remain, but there are discussions going on about how much should remain, because a lot of the residents in the area don't particularly.... Heal's Range has been there a long time, but what's happening is that the area is growing, more people are living there and they wish to see the activity end. There is a regional debate going on about whether the facility should stay, with no resolution to date. I find myself in the middle of the discussion. So far there is no firing -- not in the middle of the actual Heal's Range. We are trying to find a solution, because it's a $1.4 million project and a considerable asset. We're still trying to find ways for someone to take it over and to enable it to stay there, given the residents' concerns about such a facility. The discussions are ongoing.
K. Jones: The minister didn't answer the question I asked, which was: how much will the Heal's Range improvements cost?
Hon. R. Blencoe: It's $1.4 million.
K. Jones: So $1.4 million to date? Is there a projection of how complete that is?
Hon. R. Blencoe: Before I give you that information, I should also let you know that there is an indoor range, which I forgot about, that is not problematic. That will be able to remain. We have to find someone to run it, but that's another issue.
The $1.4 million is approximately 95 percent of the total budget. That's $1.4 million to March 31, and I'm told it's roughly 95 percent complete.
K. Jones: Is that on budget or not?
Hon. R. Blencoe: On budget.
K. Jones: The minister indicated that the area was semi-rural. It is certainly quite a rural area; it's an area that's had military range munitions and rifle and pistol firing for probably longer than the minister is old enough to remember. Anybody living or building in that area has been fully aware of that whenever they purchased or worked in that area. I find it very hard to understand why people are
[ Page 11670 ]
now saying -- when there's such an expenditure being put into this facility, and when a lot of people enjoy the sport of target-shooting, which is a safe sport and one that's in facilities that couldn't be much safer -- that it should be destroyed.
The only result I can see is that the same people who might have used that facility might go off into somebody's back yard or some back bush area, thinking it's safe, and maybe find that there are people living behind that bush area who end up being the targets of misplaced bullets. That would be a serious problem. The minister had better not be caught in the crossfire. Perhaps he could come out clearly in support of maintaining that location. It provides a safe place for people to utilize weapons. Much as we'd like to reduce the number of weapons, it's better that they're handled safely when they're in the hands of the people.
L. Fox: I recognize that this is an issue between the Commonwealth Games Society and the municipal authority that deals with that particular site, but there are a couple of issues. Was the ministry aware of the community's concerns with respect to that particular facility prior to dedicating it and spending the money to upgrade it, or was this something that, as usually happens in my experience...? The status quo is fine and goes along unnoticed, but the minute there's a new initiative for something, all of a sudden it becomes a point of focus. Perhaps the minister would be able to answer that before I go on.
Hon. R. Blencoe: The decision was made prior to my tenure as minister. The new range is actually on federal land as part of.... The Heal's Range is on a substantial chunk of federal land. The conclusion I draw is that obviously it was already used for shooting. The federal government had this land available.
My understanding is that there was considerable consultation with people in the area. But there's no question that the decision to go ahead, which was the Games Society's decision, has always been mired in some controversy. I guess it will continue to be. The residents of the area feel their lifestyle is being affected and really want Heal's Range to go as well. In time, I suspect that issue will be resolved, but the society made the decision to proceed on that site.
L. Fox: Well, it is a bit unfortunate that this controversy has arisen, because one of the legacies we gain from these kinds of initiatives are the facilities we build. It would be unfortunate if in this particular instance we lose that opportunity. However, I recognize once again that it is a land use issue, and those issues will be settled within the respective jurisdictions.
There is a point that this has twigged in terms of that competition. The minister may or may not be aware that gun regulation in Canada has limited the size of magazines, and many of the competitive rifles and guns used in other jurisdictions and other countries are illegal in Canada. The Attorney General has the opportunity, in British Columbia competitions, to override that federal law. Is the minister aware of what has happened with respect to this competition, and whether we're able to allow those other jurisdictions to bring into Canada firearms which would be deemed illegal under our laws?
Hon. R. Blencoe: Hon. member, the issue hasn't been raised with me. I haven't heard from any of the provincial or national sport organizations around shooting in terms of this being an issue, so I presume it has been taken care of by regulation due to its competitive nature. But the staff will check with the Attorney General to see if it has been an issue or if we have made sure that those areas are covered as people come into the country.
L. Fox: I'd look forward to the minister letting me know about that issue. I have many competitive shooters in my constituency who are having great difficulties complying with the Canadian firearms laws and still shooting on a worldwide competitive basis. This may be a precedent for what happens in the future in competitive shooting in British Columbia. I would be interested in finding out how we're dealing with that issue.
K. Jones: I think we've just about exhausted the Commonwealth Games issues.
Hon. R. Blencoe: I certainly think so.
K. Jones: I'm sure the minister has also.
I think we'll move on now to the communications branch. I have a quick question with regard to that. Could the minister tell us how much money is being spent in the communications branch and how many employees there are?
Hon. R. Blencoe: Are you referring to my communications branch and my ministry?
K. Jones: Yes.
Hon. R. Blencoe: We're spending $666,000.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us how many people are employed in your communications branch?
Hon. R. Blencoe: There are seven FTEs.
K. Jones: Could the minister describe what functions these seven people gaining $666,000 are performing for the ministry and what are the main emphases of their work?
Hon. R. Blencoe: I'm sorry, hon. member. I'll have to get some more information for you.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us what the functions of these seven persons are and what the major focus of their work is?
Hon. R. Blencoe: Actually, at the moment we're at six FTEs, as far as I can tell. We have an executive level 1, who is the director of communications; we have one support member who fills the usual support services; we have one manager who manages a number of components of communications issues; and we have three information officers. I believe we are funded for one more manager, but the position is currently not filled.
[4:15]
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us what the major functions of these people are? What is their role within the ministry and what areas do they spend the majority of their time in? Which part of your operation are they spending the majority of their time in?
Hon. R. Blencoe: The job is to communicate efficiently on behalf of the government, the ministry, and policies and directions from the minister responsible. They're there to
[ Page 11671 ]
make announcements, to deal with media inquiries and to develop communication strategies around new proposals and new policies. They're there to communicate effectively what this ministry is doing and to communicate changes that we may be making in certain areas.
K. Jones: I ask for the third time: what specific areas are these people spending the majority of their time in?
Hon. R. Blencoe: Lately, hon. member, they're trying to respond to questions from the opposition and get back to them with information, which takes a considerable amount of time. They deal with ongoing gaming issues that arise. They deal with -- as you know, I have some responsibilities in the Victoria accord -- transportation demand management, major protocol issues and Commonwealth Games issues. We're preparing for communication issues around many people being here for the Games. There are a number of communication issues around sport, in terms of all the provincial sport organizations we support. I've said that in the next few weeks I'll be making some announcements about how we deliver sport and prepare communications in the province; they're working on that.
There are substantial communication issues with purchasing and procurement -- for example, Buy Smart or Government House. Sometimes the media will get something wrong -- heaven forbid that would ever happen. I mention Government House because I remember a story that appeared in one newspaper, where somehow the figures about how much it would cost were reversed -- $2.1 million instead of $1.2 million. It was a slight mistake, but we had to go back and correct it. This happens all the time. I've mentioned some of the substantial issues we're dealing with.
K. Jones: The minister mentioned that these people in his ministry were looking after the Victoria accord. I don't see a part of the minister's responsibilities that includes the Victoria accord. I understand it's under the jurisdiction of the B.C. Buildings Corporation, which, I believe, is no longer under the minister's jurisdiction.
With regard to freedom of information, I understand the minister has a separate entity that looks after freedom-of-information questions. They are the ones I get correspondence from. I haven't received any correspondence from the communications branch with regard to freedom-of-information requests, so I don't know what role they're playing in that area. Maybe they're involved in the month or so delay in getting a response from the ministry in the area of freedom of information, which then got split over to two other ministries that have taken more than a month beyond that to give an answer.
L. Fox: Hire more people.
Hon. R. Blencoe: No, we're trying to go the other way.
In terms of the accord, you're right. In terms of the dollars for the Victoria accord and line-by-line responsibility, this rests with my good colleague the Minister of Employment and Investment, who is responsible for BCBC.
As you know, the Victoria accord was a particularly unique partnership -- accord -- with local government here. Responsibility for shepherding, directing and developing policy with the city has been done by me and by the staff in my office, because it was thought that someone on the ground here locally could best do the work.
As local government is the closest to the people, it was felt that it would be more appropriate that there be a minister here in Victoria, who knew Victoria and what we had to do, and who could drive the policy and make recommendations to BCBC. I am handling the BCBC component for the Victoria accord, and I meet with them regularly. I meet with the various private sector people who are involved and who may have some concerns.
Quite frankly, it has been a great success. As you know, the legislative precinct completion, which we have been waiting for since Rattenbury did this fine building, went through city council unanimously, I believe, last week. For the first time in the history of this province, we have a long-range plan to complete the precinct, which I think is quite a remarkable achievement. It's a wonderful plan the community has endorsed, and we are going to finish this area, which we feel strongly attached to and which is owned by all people in the province.
In terms of my role and that of my communications people, we work with BCBC, sharing any communication requirements and making sure the people of this region understand what we're doing with the Victoria accord.
K. Jones: Is it possible that the minister's role in the Victoria accord is really due to the fact that his riding is involved in this, and that it's really just a means of using the minister's funded staff to do what would normally be the minister's responsibility if he was in an independent ministry? Would the minister also tell us whether he's taken over responsibility for the Provincial Capital Commission? Is it not their role to look after the area of development of the precinct centre?
Hon. R. Blencoe: The Provincial Capital Commission is still working with the Victoria accord on St. Ann's. The reason why we created the accord, and the various projects that are under the accord, is that we wanted one-stop shopping in terms of responsibility so that people would not have to go to a multitude of agencies. It's been very successful for that. There's also a very important component in here, which is a direct responsibility of my ministry. Hopefully, you've had the information on the transportation demand management strategy for the province and for the legislative precinct in the capital region, which I announced recently. That's a direct responsibility which I have staffed, and we've covered that, hon. member.
On the fact that it's in my riding, the capital region covers many ridings; it's a key part of this province. I have made no bones about the fact that I'm deeply interested in my community, as is my colleague who is chairing today. This process has been beyond reproach in terms of public process: 600 hours of meetings and review committees to take a look at the various components of this project. Quite frankly, I think it will be written up very soon as a model with all the planning, the public processes and the handbooks. All sorts of people have already shown interest in how it has been done and how we have managed to put through some very difficult issues before the public and through the process. I think we've done a good job. People may not agree with everything, but it has all been up front; nothing has been hidden.
K. Jones: Perhaps the minister could answer this: is the minister getting any spin off benefits from the fact that this communications branch is promoting activities of the government within his riding that would appear to be of benefit exclusively to the minister, and not to other members of the Legislature? Is this using staff to promote his next election campaign?
[ Page 11672 ]
Hon. R. Blencoe: Hon. member, a minister has responsibility for many areas, and I have numerous ones. The Victoria accord is one area that I've been given responsibility for to drive locally, to administer and to make sure the public understands. Whether I get benefit from that is up to the citizens who will vote one way or the other in the next election. I've been totally upfront, as we all have, in terms of what's going on here. You could say that anything we do is benefiting us as elected officials. As elected officials, we do things which we think are correct. Obviously explaining them is part of the turf and hopefully will benefit us electorally, in that people will make the right decision. In the end, it all comes down to the determining factor: the citizen and the ballot box. Like you, I will have to be accountable to the citizens who voted for me and all the other capital region MLAs, and I'm sure that one of the areas they'll look at is the Victoria accord.
L. Fox: I couldn't resist jumping in with respect to the Victoria accord, although I didn't really expect to debate the issue in these estimates.
Hon. R. Blencoe: Communications.
L. Fox: In terms of communication, let's make sure that the record is straight here, because this has been an ongoing process for almost ten years between BCBC and the city of Victoria. I'm sure, hon. Chair, that as a former mayor, you, along with your planning staff, will verify that it isn't something that has happened over the course of the last two and a half years. I had an opportunity to play a very small part in that myself as a board member of BCBC. I had the privilege of being part of that process for four years. So I know this isn't something new. It has developed out of a good working relationship between BCBC and the city of Victoria. It recognizes the needs of all concerned and with the protection of heritage sites, values that are really held close to the hearts of the Victoria people. Given that you're the liaison between BCBC and the Victoria people, how are you communicating? What are you going to do with the cars that park on Y lot while it's under construction? I looked around that lot the other day, and I thought to myself.... I didn't count the spots; perhaps I'll leave that to the opposition member to do. It looks to me like there are 400 or 500 cars parked in Y lot. Until the parking is resolved, there's going to be a problem. How are you addressing that problem in your communications?
Hon. R. Blencoe: I could go on for some time about Y lot, but I won't. We are in the process of refining that project. Tomorrow I will be in front of city council to give some of the changes that we're suggesting for Y lot. There will be considerable parking spots underneath the building that's to be constructed there -- around 300 to 400, but I can't remember in detail.
There's no question that the accord has allowed us to, once and for all, start getting transportation demand management alternative ways to work. We are putting a strategy in place for Victoria. We've set targets, new transit requirements, car-pooling requirements and van-pooling requirements. Very soon I will be announcing, along with the minister responsible for transit, a payroll deduction program for employees. We don't currently have that. We will announce preferential ways for parking and rates for those who car-pool and van-pool.
We're looking at starting a bicycle community very soon. We've got the weather for it. We can bicycle year round here. One of the problems we have is that it's not very safe sometimes to leave your bicycle; we don't have the right facilities. They get stolen; I can assure you that my son's bicycle got stolen last week, so you know it happens. I know from surveys and reports that a lot more people would ride their bicycles to work if they could have proper storage and areas where they could shower after they've ridden to work. I suspect we will achieve huge reductions over single-occupancy vehicles with our bicycle policies.
[4:30]
One of the key factors is a matching program. I am really looking forward to implementing this, because we don't have a matching program in our buildings. You may live in Cadboro Bay or wherever and drive to work, but there are probably 20 or 30 other people who live in the same vicinity. If we could organize matching programs for car-pooling and van-pooling, we'd probably save 20 or 30 vehicles from that one area every morning, so we're going to be do that.
[L. Fox in the chair.]
Now I'm answering through you, from the former Chair to the current Chair, as I answer your questions. That has never happened to me before. How am I doing at adjusting?
Let me conclude by saying that we already have the example of the Davis building. Was it completed a year and a half or two years ago? In that building 68 percent of the employees are already using alternative transportation methods to get to work. It's a great success. We're going to apply many of the things they've done there to the other buildings we're going to be doing.
These are estimates and targets for the Victoria core -- the legislative precinct. Currently 43 percent drive single-occupancy vehicles. Our target is to get that down to 22 percent. Transit use is currently 19 percent; our target is to get 35 percent of people. These are conservative because, as I said, the Davis building is showing that it can be done. Car pools are currently at 20 percent; we want to get it to 23 percent. Walking and biking are at 18 percent; we've already set a target of 20 percent. I suspect that the greatest growth will be in biking. I could be wrong, but if we provide good storage and clean up facilities and because of this wonderful weather we have in Victoria, I think everybody will want to bike to work.
In the Y lot -- the question you raised -- single-occupancy vehicles are currently 28 percent; our target is 16 percent. Transit is currently 32 percent in the Y lot; we want to get it to 40 percent. Car-pooling is at 19 percent; we want to get it to 21 percent. Biking or walking is at 21; we want to get it to 23 percent. We've set those targets, and we expect them to be kept.
The key for the accord is in phasing development so that the next phase cannot proceed unless we meet our targets. It's in the agreement with the city of Victoria. Never before has there been an agreement with a local government. Not only are we saying that we'll keep our promises -- and sometimes things will happen or are adjusted -- we're actually putting in writing that we will have to obtain our targets.
K. Jones: I'm just doing this in order to keep this going, otherwise you might not be able to reply to yourself.
I think this gives us a good lead-in into the next area, and that's transportation management. Certainly the minister is very proud of his transportation demand management policy. In developing this transportation management policy and in calculating the figures and determining where the need areas are, did he determine them on the basis of a major
[ Page 11673 ]
downsizing of the government's current work population in downtown Victoria?
Hon. R. Blencoe: My colleague in the chair may very well have been on BCBC when the Victoria strategic plan was done. The Victoria strategic plan is based on about 95 percent of the requirements for existing needs. In the CRD, the Victoria area, we utilize about 180 to 190 locations for public service. Most of the buildings we occupy are leased. The issue is that we have the tightest commercial market in North America and that we are in spaces that are, quite frankly, inefficient. They are costing us a lot of money, and the leases are extremely high. The Victoria strategic plan may make a decision, which I think both governments have put together. Basically it is to rationalize our locations and save millions of dollars. It is not -- I keep saying this -- for expansion. There is some room for natural growth, but most of it is to rationalize existing needs and buildings.
[G. Brewin in the chair.]
We conservatively estimate that we will save in excess of $30 million in rent alone in the ten-year build-out of the Victoria accord. That's just in the ten-year build-out. After that we estimate -- using 1993-94 rents, which are about $16 a square foot or somewhere around there -- that the build-out will save us between $8 million and $10 million in rent alone. The savings on maintenance, janitorial.... When we build, we build to our needs. The member will know -- he probably did a lot of this work and study when he was with BCBC -- that when you build for yourself you know what your needs are. When you go to the private sector, sometimes you have to take what's available and it just doesn't fit. Most of our space will still be private sector, but this gives us an opportunity to build to some of our own requirements. I guess it also gives us an opportunity to bring a little moderation into the market rates, which I think will benefit the private sector. The private sector has also been hit by a tight market -- the tightest in the country. In the last four years lease prices in greater Victoria have gone up 20 percent to 25 percent, whereas in Vancouver they've gone down about the same amount because of free enterprise. Right? There's a little competition; you've got some building there, and here we haven't had it. So we're going to have a little greater window in the market.
The bottom line is that we think this is good business; it rationalizes our needs. We are having to plan in terms of transportation management, but the accord has made us drive that agenda, quite frankly. That should have been done a long time ago, and now it's making us do the work. When I see what Jack Davis has done already, I think it's quite remarkable. So we will proceed. Its a ten-year program, maybe longer.
K. Jones: Perhaps the minister got a little sidetracked from my question. The question was: what was the...? Sorry, I just had a blank there. I'll go on to another one and come back to it.
Hon. R. Blencoe: I think you were asking if there was going to be an increase in the public service in the area. Was that your question?
K. Jones: Yes, thanks for reminding me. What I had in mind concerned the downsizing of government operations -- the number of persons required to work in this area. Was that taken into consideration in the development of these plans? It would appear that there is a projection of an increase in the number of persons who would be working in this area.
Hon. R. Blencoe: We have about 12,000 public servants in the Capital Regional District. We have about 5,000 on the move every morning in single-occupancy vehicles, and our objective is to get that down 30 percent to 40 percent in the next two or three years. We do not anticipate growth in that number; what we are doing is reallocating them in terms of geography -- where we're going to build. One of the major factors for building where we're building is that we have about $50 million in assets in terms of black-topped parking lots, which get about a 1 percent return right now. BCBC requires about 11 percent return, I think, hon. member, if you remember. That's the mandate they set. For instance, the Y lot generates about $90,000 a year now, and that piece of property, currently zoned, is worth about $10 million to $15 million. We have huge assets that are going nowhere; we want a good investment for the citizens, and a better return for the taxpayers. We feel that utilizing those vacant lots.... If we were to go out and buy here, which has been suggested by some in the private sector, we'd have to put in an extra $30 million to $40 million just for the land component.
So the economics are there; the chamber now fully understands that. I've met with the chamber, the UDI and other people, and that's why I think the vote at council was unanimous. They recognized that there are some economies of scale, some savings to be made and some benefits to the private sector by our participating a little more in the market.
We are reallocating some public servants a little farther into the legislative precinct, but transportation demand management will reduce the numbers travelling by automobiles by 30 percent to 40 percent.
K. Jones: Perhaps the minister will be able to increase savings in terms of transportation, but I'm sure that the other costs of government are going to increase. You're talking about major capital expenditures with no reduction planned in the size of Government Services, even though the Korbin commission has indicated that Government Services is probably one of the largest, per capita, in the country. Perhaps you need to look at downsizing the operation so we wouldn't need all this office space in this area. We could still work on a transportation management plan with fewer bodies and moving vehicles involved in it. We could perhaps find ways of opening up the marketplace for private development if we didn't have such a grandiose plan for the Victoria core area. Taking such a long time has in itself been a detriment to anyone thinking of investing in Victoria, because they know there will be surplus space available in government buildings, and that means the space at other sites will be in competition with them as well. It would seem very unlikely that anybody would want to put private money into this area on a large scale.
This government precinct development under the Victoria accord appears to be a wonderful thing for the city because there are more taxes, but it certainly comes at a very high cost to the taxpayers of the whole of British Columbia. It doesn't recognize the demand of people throughout British Columbia for downsizing the government and the cost to them in tax money. You've often said that you're planning on making the government operate more efficiently, leaner and meaner, but you don't practise it. You want to run an efficient operation, but the development
[ Page 11674 ]
proposals you're working on are either maintaining what's existing or increasing the number of people in this area.
Hon. R. Blencoe: I think we could beat this one to death. BCBC is a highly regarded Crown corporation. It's market-driven, and it has good staff. Its president, Mr. Truss, is a hard-nosed business type, and those who know him will know that.
The strategic plan for Victoria was well thought out. It was looked at in terms of marginal growth in public service. It was also looked at in terms of the possibility of forever continuing to rent nearly all our space. It's just like owning a home in that somewhere along the line, you may want to own a little more rather than just rent a little bit, so it gives us a greater perspective in terms of the market. We own the asset rather than renting it all the time.
[4:45]
We also recognize that there's a balance between the private sector and the public sector, and all my meetings in the past few months have been on the issue of trying to achieve that balance. We continue to do that, but there's a difference of opinion in the feedback I've had. The private sector people say that there are a few little nuances we still disagree on, but I think we have generally worked out some of the concerns. For this community and for me, I suppose, it's quite true; I have said that this is a reaffirmation. Victoria is the capital, and although there will obviously continue to be some services that can go out to the regions -- and that is still ongoing -- there was a requirement start to taking a real look at the space requirements in Victoria, which are very expensive. Many of them just don't fit the need. They are inadequate, costly or poorly devised for productivity and efficiency. A lot of work has gone into this, and I don't think there's much more I can say on that issue, except maybe about the Queen's Printer.
L. Fox: I want to follow up on a question I asked earlier, when the minister supplied a long answer, and I wasn't in a position at that point to be able to stand and reply. The minister went into a lengthy explanation of the new transportation initiatives. They are fine, good, supportive and all those great things, but he failed to contain within that policy statement how in the interim they envision handling things the minute the development starts on the Y lot. All these great initiatives are not going to be in place, and there won't be time for the public and the workers to respond in any major way unless this development is going to be delayed a lot further down the road than I envision it to be. How are we going to deal with the interim parking problem during the construction period?
Hon. R. Blencoe: The Q lot is actually the one that's going to move ahead. There's no question that we are in the process now. Rather than going through the various procedures we're going to put in place, I can send it to you. We have a BCGEU labour committee working on these issues. They know that the parking is going to go. It's not a matter of if; it's when. We have to put various things in place: expanded car-pooling and van-pooling, bicycle compounds, better facilities for cleanup, an education program for van-pooling, designated spaces for cars and vans, and rates for those. An annual bus pass purchase program has to be in place. There's a joint union-management TDM committee, which is implementing all this.
One of the major factors, which is a discussion point, is that the rates for parking are $15 month, and market is about $90 to $100. Our rates are way below, and a major factor in determining demand is rates -- our rates, plural. When we go to market -- again, not if but when -- and we've had discussions with the joint union-management committee, we know that will affect demand quite dramatically. People will then turn.... When the Jack Davis Building was built, there wasn't cheap parking. If you want to drive, you're going to have to pay full market. We reached 68 percent pretty quickly there. There will be a full parking enforcement program in place.
What else? There will be new, expanded transit to the area. There will be a new -- right over here, hon. member -- subterminal for transit layover. There will be increased transit. Currently it's about every 15 to 20 minutes. We expect, in peak periods, to go to every-8-to-ten-minute bus service in the legislative precinct. The employees can buy their transit pass, and there will be some savings there. We're looking at some rates there that might be attractive; that's under discussion. We think we will very quickly affect the travel habits of a lot of people. I drive here, but I've already given instruction to my staff to take a look at my schedule, and I've been using the bus again. Quite frankly, I'm kind of enjoying it. I'm getting some constituency work done. We all have some responsibilities to take a look. It's just habit. I go out to the garage, get in the car and.... Well, I've got to break that habit. I used to take the bus all the time, and then I just got into the habit of the automobile again. I think we're saying it to all our....
Interjection.
Hon. R. Blencoe: I didn't have a car. I didn't have any money.
L. Fox: We all have to work.
Hon. R. Blencoe: That's right.
We all have to look at our habits, and that's one of the reasons why it may be slower than we want, in terms of implementation of the policy. But we have to have everybody on board and looking for alternatives. If the member is interested, I will send you the document on this. It shows the targets, the plans and the program that will be in place before we move ahead.
L. Fox: I would appreciate receiving a copy of that, and then I'll peruse it and perhaps make comments later. I don't envision these estimates going on for a long time. I was a bit concerned when the opposition critic said that next week we're going to do something. Obviously I have a lot of work to do, so I want to get to the nub of it.
I just want to ask for one point of clarification, and I hadn't intended to ask it here. But seeing that the minister wandered into that area.... I was going to save it for the Minister of Employment and Investment because he has, as I understand it, BCBC. You wandered into the area of the mix between private investment space and the public sector space. I know from my experience in the four years I sat on the board of BCBC, that's one thing the board was always very sensitive about. Given they were the major renter -- well over 50 percent -- of commercial space in Victoria by some level of government, they were very sensitive about their impact not only in terms of space but on the market through their actions and whether or not they drove the space up or down and messed with the market value.
The minister said he spent the last several meetings talking about these percentages. Are those percentages today, in terms of the availability of private and public space,
[ Page 11675 ]
similar to what they were in 1990, or has there been a shift in any particular direction?
Hon. R. Blencoe: You'd have to ask the minister responsible for the specifics. But if I recall correctly from our discussions, I think the split currently in greater Victoria is about 60 percent private and 40 percent owned. I know, for instance, that in the last five years BCBC has built and owned only about 8 percent of its own needs. So there's been a continuing habit of leasing from the private sector. I think it may very well be in Victoria that we get closer to 50-50 by the time we're finished, which I think is a trade-off that everyone can live with it.
The Chair: I believe that was a division bell, so we will take a brief recess for the vote and then return.
The committee recessed at 4:55 p.m.
The committee resumed at 5:04 p.m.
[G. Brewin in the chair.]
K. Jones: We'll move over to the Queen's Printer area now.
H. Giesbrecht: That's a familiar subject.
K. Jones: Yes, we do a constant monitoring of all our ministry responsibilities, and the Queen's Printer happens to be one of them. I also cover the Purchasing Commission, including their operations out in the Royal Oak area, and Commonwealth Games sites. They're all part of my responsibilities, hon. member, and I am proud that I have that opportunity to make sure that the ministries under my responsibility are properly monitored and that I keep good liaison with the various people in those areas.
With regard to forms, hon. minister, I was wondering if you could tell us to what extent ministries are still designing their own forms.
Hon. R. Blencoe: The larger ministries still do a fair amount of their own design work, but we do it for the smaller ones. We continue to work on that issue, give our advice and let them know what we have available for them.
K. Jones: What has the minister done to facilitate this change?
Hon. R. Blencoe: I don't go around personally from minister to minister, although they all know that one of my responsibilities is the Queen's Printer. The line staff or the staff who are working within ministries know the type of work the Queen's Printer does. We encourage them to utilize our services whenever we can, but I don't have the exact figures in terms of standardization or anything like that. I know that it's improving, and there may very well be some room for further improvement in these kinds of issues.
K. Jones: The minister says that the process is improving, but I'm not quite sure how I measure the process. Surely the minister must have some measurement to know whether it's improving or not. What method do you have for determining whether there is any improvement?
Hon. R. Blencoe: We do the printing. I don't know why the member has a concern about a ministry that knows its requirements giving us a markup or a design when we put it together. I just don't know where the member is going with this line of questioning.
K. Jones: The question is quite straightforward, hon. minister. We're just ascertaining what standardization of forms the ministry is working on.
Hon. R. Blencoe: That's a little different from design. The design work can be done by the ministry, but in terms of standardization of forms, I don't carry them around with me -- I'm trying to work on other issues. But many forms in government, quite rightly, are universal across government. Indeed, I am told there is an interministry committee that works on these kinds of issues to make sure that we are standardizing.
I'm told that many -- like financial forms and travel vouchers -- are standard forms. They're for all ministries with specific numbers, and they must use the forms that are laid out according to policy and procedures. That's standard procedure.
K. Jones: The minister just stated that most of the larger ministries did most of their own form design. I understand -- maybe I could be corrected -- that the government communications office is under the minister's responsibility.
Hon. R. Blencoe: Yes, the GCO is my responsibility.
K. Jones: It's my understanding that some time prior to the spring of '93, the government communications office or the ministry noted that there was substantial cost-saving in the standardization of forms and the elimination of designs by various ministries. In fact, the government communications office is now looking at eliminating forms designed within ministries as this is both counterproductive and not cost-effective.
That is a note in my own files -- for the benefit of Hansard, in case they try to find where that was quoted from.
That was a result of our meetings with the Queen's Printer office and staff. The Queen's printer himself was relating to us the fact that there was substantial savings and that there was a program in place by the government communications office to eliminate forms designed within other ministries.
What has transpired since that time? So far I have gotten from you that you have done nothing to implement that. In fact, you weren't even aware of it.
Hon. R. Blencoe: Yes, I have to admit that since I took over this portfolio, I haven't had a string of meetings over forms. I have given instructions to staff, though. The number one cardinal rule in all government -- and particularly in Government Services -- is to save money where you can and introduce efficiencies. We have staff that have been around much longer than I have and know how to go about it.
Mr. Vern Burkhardt is here, who is responsible for the Queen's Printer and knows the instructions and the considerable changes that have been made over the years.
Hon. member, I will take your remarks and will see what is happening with forms and standardization. It is ongoing. I don't think there is any deep plot not to standardize forms, but I will take it under advisement.
K. Jones: I thought the minister would have taken the guidance of the Speaker of the House, who announced last week that there was, by decision of LAMC, a standardization
[ Page 11676 ]
of the forms and of Orders of the Day. By doing so, there were thousands and thousands of dollars in savings.
[5:15]
I would say that's a very small-scale operation compared to what the minister has under his responsibility -- forms control and standardization. The opportunity for great savings really presents itself. The minister, who has such a great desire to reduce costs in his operation, should really be aware of those going on, be monitoring and hopefully expediting them. Taxpayers' dollars are being spent, and if those can be saved, then we should be doing it. Changing from a 14-inch sheet to an 11-inch sheet is a substantial saving in both the cost of the paper and the cost of additional equipment to process and handle that paper. Perhaps the minister has some further information to enlighten us with regard to what is being done within this financial year to greatly reduce the cost of the paper process in the government.
Hon. R. Blencoe: I take your suggestions very seriously, but I would like to point out that the Queen's Printer is a traditional section in this ministry. They take their job very seriously. These are dedicated people with a trade, who feel very strongly, and they know that they are also in the business of trying to find ways to save money for government. Indeed, the Speaker made the announcement, but the suggestions of how to do it and the carrying out of those came from the Queen's Printer -- my ministry, hon. member.
K. Jones: But you didn't know about it.
Hon. R. Blencoe: Sure we knew about it, but we do many things all the time. If you want me to be standing here giving you a litany of the wonderful things we've done, I could be doing that. It's normal procedure, normal practice, to be looking to ways to save resources, and the Queen's Printer is doing it. Indeed, if you take a look at the general management operating policy, GMOP -- I must admit I don't look at it every day -- on page 3.5.10-1, you will find:
"1. Ministries shall establish and implement a forms management policy and program.
"2. Before a form is produced, procedures for its use must be analyzed and approved. Ministries shall also ensure that the following requirements are satisfied before production and use of a form is approved."
There is a long list of requirements, which I won't go into.
Let's look at forms management:
"The objectives of forms management policy are to: encourage ministries to develop, operate and maintain forms management programs; encourage the effective use of forms as a way of managing information; and control the proliferation of government forms by eliminating those which are inefficient, ineffective or redundant."
Whereas I do not know GMOP word for word, I do know that it is here you will find many of the things you're asking about, which are carried out on a daily basis. As to the Queen's Printer, they know their work, and their future is very much wrapped up in finding ways to resolve problems and find new efficiencies, which they've just done for the Speaker.
L. Fox: I have a very brief question on this issue. I would assume that the Queen's Printer is subject to audit by the auditor general. In that audit, are there any efficiency comparisons done between the operation of the Queen's Printer and the private sector? And if so, what recommendations are made by the auditor general with respect to the Queen's Printer and its efficiencies?
Hon. R. Blencoe: I've just been given the dates, but I recall a former government, in '87-88, where this was an issue. I think the Queen's Printer was on the list, actually, for consideration of privatization. I was in opposition in those days, and I remember the issue quite well. There was work done and comparisons made under the former government, and the decision was that they are very efficient and very effective. They use the private sector as well. There's a partnership there. Jobs go out, and there is considerable work in the private sector; contracts are given. When the work was done and the comparisons were made, the former government decided to keep the Queen's Printer, for very good reasons I think. I recall that one of the major reasons why it was kept -- and staff can correct me -- was that there are some confidentiality issues which are very critical to government.
L. Fox: Is the operation of the Queen's Printer subject to the auditor general's audit?
Hon. R. Blencoe: Yes.
L. Fox: I don't recollect anything in the auditor general's report which would point out that we have anything less than a satisfactory operation with respect to the Queen's Printer.
Hon. R. Blencoe: It is subject to the auditor general. As far as I know there is nothing problematic; it runs well.
K. Jones: I was glad to have the opportunity to introduce the minister to the inside of the operating manual. Once again, I hope he'll take it back home with him for bedtime reading and become very well versed with all those procedures with which he is supposed to be guiding his ministry.
Hon. R. Blencoe: I've got highly paid staff; it's up to them.
K. Jones: The minister is supposed to know the policies. The highly paid staff -- which are not necessarily all highly paid -- are there to provide advice on how to implement the policies, not necessarily to memorize the policies for the minister.
I'll move back to the Queen's Printer. I'd like to inquire about the security processes involved in the Queen's Printer. I understand that there is a very secure process during the time the budget is being brought down. Could the minister tell us what procedures are in place to provide security?
Hon. R. Blencoe: You're quite correct. There are certain times when the security at the Queen's Printer is intense. I don't want to go into details. There are people on security who I think the hon. member has had some experience with. The building has security aspects on which I'm not going to go into detail; that's why it's secure. It's well monitored. During key periods of time, if there are any activities that look doubtful, I can assure you that I hear about them and report them. The Queen's Printer and staff take confidentiality very seriously, particularly at budget time. As a matter of fact, I think they are fastidious and take great pride in protecting the budget and security. They have years
[ Page 11677 ]
of experience in ensuring that confidential documents are secure.
K. Jones: I recognize that it is important to have security in the area of the Queen's Printer. There is certainly a need at all times to protect the very important documents produced there. Could the minister tell us what process he has in place to evaluate whether he has good security on that site?
Hon. R. Blencoe: It is the best in the business. The RCMP and local police forces work with us, giving us advice and taking a look at what we do, and we get good grades. Speaking of grades, we do such things as printing grade 12 examinations and scholarship exams. We protect those, too, to make sure no one gets them in advance. We work with the local police departments and the RCMP in particular. They look at what we do, and we do the job.
K. Jones: The minister is going to give us assurances that security is absolutely ironclad with regard to the Queen's Printer. Is that correct?
Hon. R. Blencoe: The staff, the security people, the government and the people who work there take their jobs very seriously, and I hope you're not doubting their abilities or their efforts, but it's honestly impossible to guarantee it 100 percent. They take preventive courses and do their best. In the history of the Queen's Printer, I understand that security has held up, and they have a good track record.
K. Jones: Does any of that security infringe on public properties in the vicinity of the Queen's Printer? What authority do the security people have to determine public access in the vicinity of the Queen's Printer?
Hon. R. Blencoe: If somebody is in the vicinity or close by and security staff are suspicious, they will ask questions. I think it's one thing at 5 or 6 or 9 o'clock in the evening, or even midnight, but if there are activities or people there at 2 or 3 o'clock in the morning, it may raise some questions. I fully endorse the security staff asking questions and making a report to me or the government and the ministry. Many reports come forward at those times. They take their job very seriously.
K. Jones: You were talking about them taking their responsibilities very seriously. What I asked about was with regard to public property or public access areas and what authority these people might have to ask any questions of people who are perhaps walking down a sidewalk or lane with public access and public right-of-way. Under what circumstances and under what authority do those people have any ability to interrogate or even request any information of those persons, no matter what time of day or night? We don't have a police state in this country. People are free to walk through the public areas of this province without any challenge. That is our freedom at whatever time of day or night, whatever the weather or whatever. What authority gives those people these special powers that you're talking about?
Hon. R. Blencoe: I don't want to get into what is acceptable behaviour or patrolling or whatever an individual is doing at a certain time. The staff patrol. They walk the perimeter. They take very seriously any risk to the budget, and the implications of leaks are dramatic to all sorts of people and the economy, etc. Anyone looking suspicious in the area may get asked: "Why are you here? What are you doing?" Anyone who exposes himself to that.... I'm not going to go into any further answers on that. I'll leave it there.
K. Jones: The minister does have a responsibility to answer this and to take this very seriously. I see him laughing and joking. He seems to think it's sort of a frivolous question. It's a matter of basic freedoms in our country, hon. minister. It's the right of a person to walk on the street without being harassed or questioned as to who they are, what they are or what they're about. It's a fundamental freedom of this country, hon. minister, and I think you should not take this frivolously. I think you have to realize....
The Chair: Excuse me, hon. member. Through the Chair, if you please. You know the rules.
K. Jones: Thank you, hon. Chair. I was getting personal; I apologize. I was thinking of the minister as the authority responsible for this.
Hon. minister, I ask you point blank: what authority do these people who are providing security around the Queen's Printer have to do anything in relation to anyone who comes on the public property or the public laneways, which can be used by anyone at any time? Under what authority?
Hon. R. Blencoe: Hon. member, they are charged with patrolling and checking the security of the area. And if someone is seen when most people are at home in their beds preparing for the next day or whatever -- sleeping -- at 2 or 3 o'clock in the morning, you might think some questions would be asked. You're not the first person who has been asked why, at a certain critical time -- the night before the budget. I understand the press have been asked and photographers have been asked. They take their job seriously, hon. member. Why you were there, I have no idea. It was the evening before the budget -- a very sensitive night. Quite frankly, I'm glad they asked you.
[5:30]
K. Jones: The question is not my activities or my being there or anything else. The question is: under what authority are these people, who are under the direction of the Queen's Printer, operating outside the building of the Queen's Printer? There is no jurisdiction. The minister has not been able to give us any explanation as to what basis these people are operating on. They have no police authority to be asking questions. They have no authority to patrol public property. There is no warning that they are operating in a closed part of the street, and I believe they are operating at the present time without any legal authority. I think the minister has to take responsibility for people who are doing police work without the authority of a police person.
Hon. R. Blencoe: I'm going to resist getting into this any further, except to say that when a person is on government property, and the precinct is government property -- and the area you refer to is government property in a very sensitive area -- there are security personnel in place who are working for the government of this province and are protecting the interests of the people on a very sensitive night.
There is no intent to harass or to hold, but questions will be asked to protect the interests of British Colombians. I suggest that anyone who is seen in the vicinity of government property, or the Queen's Printer, on budget
[ Page 11678 ]
night, at 2 or 3 o'clock in the morning, may be asked questions. They will not be held or harassed, just asked questions to ensure that the public interest is protected. I think British Columbians would like that to happen, and it does happen.
J. Doyle: I would like to ask the minister if those who feel they've been harassed by the staff of the Queen's Printer have the right to challenge, through whatever means necessary, the same as any other citizen of B.C.
Hon. R. Blencoe: Members can make any suggestions they wish or make a report or a complaint any way they wish. The staff at that time were doing what they thought was their job, and what they were asked to do, and that's been happening since 1859.
L. Fox: Have I missed something here? I understand that the member for Surrey-Cloverdale had a moment in his life when he was embarrassed. I can reflect back in my life on moments when I've been embarrassed -- perhaps not in that way. The member for Surrey-Cloverdale suggested -- and in fact gave the impression -- that ordinary citizens were being harassed by security as they were wandering near the Queen's Printer. Have there been any complaints by citizens of Victoria, other than perhaps this member, about harassment by the security people around the Queen's Printer?
Hon. R. Blencoe: There has never been a complaint.
L. Fox: That helps me because I thought I'd missed an issue here, given the concerns expressed by the member for Surrey-Cloverdale.
Can the minister tell us what percentage of business is contracted out by the Queen's Printer and what percentage is done in-house?
Hon. R. Blencoe: The figure for business that goes outside the Queen's Printer is 73 percent.
The Chair: Shall vote 39 pass?
K. Jones: Certainly not.
The Chair: The hon. member for Surrey-Cloverdale has the floor. In view of the time, we may wish to....
K. Jones: Before we do that, I'd ask the Chair to ask one of the hon. members to withdraw the derogatory statement he just made.
L. Fox: Are you talking to me?
K. Jones: Yes.
L. Fox: What did I say that was derogatory?
K. Jones: Maybe you should think about it. On the question of security in the Queen's Printer, I'd like to ask the minister about documents within the Queen's Printer's operations security department. Could the minister tell us how leaks of documents could be justified at the same time as the protection of the budget was going on?
Hon. R. Blencoe: Could you clarify, hon. member? I'm not sure what you're getting at.
K. Jones: I'm sure the Queen's Printer is quite capable of explaining it to you. He's fully aware of the fact that documents were leaked from his office or his security staff when there was supposed to be a major security shutdown.
The Chair: Hon. member, that's quite a statement. That's a very serious charge you're laying there....
K. Jones: You're darned right it is.
The Chair: Well, it seems to me that if you have a serious charge, there are other places than this to be laying one. You've had information about this, then, for some time.
K. Jones: This is the appropriate place.
Hon. R. Blencoe: I know nothing of a leak that the member refers to.
On that note, I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 5:40 p.m.
The committee met at 6:51 p.m.
[H. Giesbrecht in the chair.]
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF GOVERNMENT SERVICES AND
MINISTRY RESPONSIBLE FOR SPORTS AND COMMONWEALTH GAMES
(continued)
On vote 39: minister's office, $350,717 (continued).
K. Jones: To the minister once again, the question we asked previously at the closing: what provisions is the minister making to correct the problem of leakage in security at the Queen's Printer?
Hon. R. Blencoe: I'm not aware of any "leakage" at the Queen's Printer.
K. Jones: Could the minister explain, then, how a security document from the Queen's Printer got into the hands of the media? A document that supposedly was within a secure building, containing secure information, was able to get out to the media. Was it leaked purposely for some reason?
Hon. R. Blencoe: When you're in government or in opposition, there are things that surprise all of us in terms of what becomes public information in various ways. It can be frustrating, but it goes with the job, I guess. It's life in politics. If you are indicating your concerns to us -- and you have already, extensively -- we'll note them and feed back to the appropriate people to be more diligent in the future.
K. Jones: I just want to ask the minister, since the information was made available to the Queen's Printer the day of the event, what action has been taken to improve security. This was supposed to be a secure area that had information that was, as the minister already indicated, of great importance to the province of British Columbia. What action would have been taken if information from the budget
[ Page 11679 ]
had been leaked in the same manner? What is there to suppose that it couldn't have happened?
Hon. R. Blencoe: They've never had a security breach at the Queen's Printer. They have a solid track record, and they take their security and prevention programs seriously. After each budget there is a debriefing of staff. The issues the member raises will be part and parcel of that debriefing, although it is probable that they have been raised already. I'm sure the staff will take note of the comments made by the member.
K. Jones: I thank the hon. minister very much and take him on his word that there will be action on this issue.
Postal distribution has now been brought back into government operations. Could the minister tell us whether its operating costs are lower now and what advantages were gained by bringing it back?
Hon. R. Blencoe: The member is obviously referring to the privatization of the pickup and delivery of mail, which was done only in Victoria and greater Vancouver. The net savings are $159,616.
K. Jones: The net savings are based on what period of time?
Hon. R. Blencoe: For the 1994-95 fiscal year.
K. Jones: That's a projection, I presume; the fiscal year has barely started. Could the minister tell us the actual savings for the 1993-94 fiscal year?
Hon. R. Blencoe: Fastrac and Interurban Delivery courier contract costs were $1,719,135. Costs arising from government employee services, salaries and benefits were $1,089,388. Vehicle operating costs were $85,528. Vehicle acquisition costs were $384,000. The total cost was $1,559,519. The projected net savings in terms of what we've costed out thus far is $159,616. Obviously you're right; we haven't had the full year yet. But each month is one-twelfth of the projected $159,616.
K. Jones: That's an interesting statement of fact. I just asked the question of how much you saved on an actual basis from one period to the next.
Hon. R. Blencoe: This deprivatization pickup started in July of last year. Therefore we have had a number of months of costs, and these are projections into the future. These are the numbers based on our experience thus far.
K. Jones: Based on that, are you're saying there is no saving? I haven't heard any saving in those figures so far.
Hon. R. Blencoe: Since we took it in, we've had experience since July. For the entire fiscal year ahead, we're projecting $159,000 conservatively. It may very well be more, but that's based on our experience thus far.
[7:00]
K. Jones: Thank you, hon. minister. The process of estimates is taking quite a long time to get through, because the minister isn't really paying attention to the questions we ask and is giving us a lot of extraneous information. I think it would have been really helpful to expedite things if we got that last answer at the very beginning.
Could the minister tell us how many FTEs are in postal distribution now?
Hon. R. Blencoe: We have 121 FTEs.
K. Jones: Could you tell us how many you had previously, and how many were contractors?
Hon. R. Blencoe: In 1993-94 we had 101, and we are now at 121.
K. Jones: Does the figure 101 include contractors? Could the minister tell us how many contractors there were?
Hon. R. Blencoe: The figure 101 refers to government FTEs. Contractors aren't included in that number.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us how many persons were employed by contractors under the previous arrangement?
Hon. R. Blencoe: Is the member referring to the number of contract employees in the postal division? We had 101 FTEs in 1993-94, but after deprivatization we had 121 FTEs.
K. Jones: Going back to the first question, hon. minister, how many persons were employed as contractors before the whole process was placed under government auspices again?
Hon. R. Blencoe: Twenty, hon. member. We had 101, and we moved to 121. The difference is 20.
K. Jones: Does that mean the government employed each and every one of those contract employees previously?
Hon. R. Blencoe: We will have to get the exact numbers for you, but we brought back three in Vancouver, who were contractors, and approximately eight in Victoria, which makes approximately 11 staff.
K. Jones: So the number of employees who were brought from the contracting operation was 11, added to the 101 in postal services from last year, for a total of 112, and now you're sitting at 121. Is that a cost-saving? Can you tell us why there's such a difference?
Hon. R. Blencoe: There were 11 former private contractors who came into government. The other ten that are here were posted and advertised, and were hired through the regular channels.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us exactly how many persons were working for the contractor previously?
Hon. R. Blencoe: There were 20, plus management. We didn't bring management; we just brought workers.
K. Jones: So there were 20 people, plus the managers. When we're looking at these FTEs, are we talking about managers also? Oh, we're not talking about managers when we talk about these 121. Okay. So we have 20, of which nine didn't come back to government. Nine of them went off into business separately. Is that correct?
Hon. R. Blencoe: Correct.
[ Page 11680 ]
K. Jones: So the minister is claiming that exactly the same number was required, whether it was in government or out of government. Are the same services being provided?
Hon. R. Blencoe: Yes. Indeed, volume on the lower mainland has increased, and we're going beyond what was done before.
K. Jones: With regard to distribution services, could the minister explain to us the billing arrangement for charging services? On what basis are the costs determined for billing? I understand that they bill by the letter or by the parcel. Certainly that's the way it comes to our constituency office. We get billed for each letter we send through the mail. Could the minister tell us on what basis that price is determined?
Hon. R. Blencoe: Without going into the multitude of variables in rates for size and weight of mail, it's basically to cover our costs.
I should tell you.... Well, I won't. I'll get the information from the staff before I tell you something.
Hon. member, I just want to put on the record -- you may not be aware -- that Treasury Board staff did a review of the postal distribution branch, and their studies found that they saved taxpayers approximately $21 million per year. A base budget review was done, and it was found to be a very efficient organization. We get good value for money from that organization.
K. Jones: I'm very pleased we're getting good value for money from the postal service. I hope that will continue, and I hope we'll also continue to keep it operating at as minimal cost as possible. The postal service is costing the taxpayers $22 million this current year. Most of this is in operating costs. Could the minister tell us why the operating costs are so high? Do they include union-rated wages and benefits?
Hon. R. Blencoe: Here are some of the cost breakdowns. We pay Canada Post $16.6 million for postage alone. Bulk parcel contracts cost nearly $500,000. House mail costs about $122,000. Mail preparation, which contract staff do by hand, costs $279,000. Employee relocation costs $1.8 million. The payment to Canada Post is obviously the major factor in our budget.
K. Jones: Did the minister say $1.8 million for employee relocation? Could the minister tell us why so many employees are moving around? It seems like a huge budget for relocating people.
Hon. R. Blencoe: Often people wonder where things are done in government; often they're done in this ministry. The relocation costs to which I refer are governmentwide, not just ministrywide. We coordinate the relocation of government employees. This is often done as part of their contracts or the collective agreement.
K. Jones: Does this mean that when a CEO or deputy minister gets moved from Victoria to Vancouver the cost of relocation comes out of this budget?
Hon. R. Blencoe: Deputy ministers, yes; CEOs of Crowns, no.
K. Jones: Could the minister give us a breakdown of the expenses over $5,000 for the transfer of a single employee?
Hon. R. Blencoe: I'll get back to the hon. member with that. I don't have it here.
K. Jones: We'll move on to the gaming branch and the Gaming Commission. Could the minister outline the current Gaming Commission policy?
[7:15]
Hon. R. Blencoe: We've spent considerable time on gaming -- I think two Fridays and in here. The Gaming Commission was set up by the former government to basically issue licences, review applications, etc. The public gaming branch does a lot of the work in terms of reference checks and reviews, but the commission makes the decision of who gets what. It's an independent commission, and it does not take direction from the minister or from anybody in government. I work with the commission. The government appoints the commissioners, but it is an independent commission. Indeed, I certainly am fastidious in terms of ensuring that independence is adhered to.
They obviously deal with policy to do with bingos and casinos. They hear appeals by people who feel they have been aggrieved by the process or the system. They set gaming policy in terms of where they have a mandate to set policy in. They set the terms and conditions of licence. They protect the integrity of gaming in British Columbia. They were established in 1987, and generally, unless I stand corrected, they have done a good job.
I know that there was great apprehension in 1987 about a Gaming Commission and moving ahead to have these kinds of.... We have probably developed the model in terms of charity gaming, and I think there's general comfort with the citizens in terms of the type of gaming we have. Of course, expansion is another issue, and we continue to look at all those. But the commission is there to deal objectively with the policy and licensing, and to hear appeals and at times make recommendations to government if it sees fit.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us what the latest Gaming Commission annual report is?
Hon. R. Blencoe: Currently the Gaming Commission does not do an annual report, and, of course, that's one of the issues under review in terms of the gaming policy review I'm undertaking at the present time.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us on what basis the Gaming Commission does not have an annual report?
Hon. R. Blencoe: It's not required under statute.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us under what statute the Gaming Commission operates?
Hon. R. Blencoe: It's established pursuant to the Criminal Code by order-in-council.
K. Jones: In other words, there is no act, no legislation and no regulation. Is that the basis on which the commission operates?
Hon. R. Blencoe: Yes, it has been that way since 1987, but that's one of the reasons the gaming project that I'm responsible for is being conducted. That's one of the areas being reviewed, and there will be changes in that area.
K. Jones: Your government has been in power for over two and a half years now. Can you explain why this
[ Page 11681 ]
commission, which you previously felt should have been under a proper act and under regulation, has been allowed to continue to operate without having a proper act and regulation to provide protection of the public and to make the information and activities of the Gaming Commission public?
Hon. R. Blencoe: They do have authority under the Criminal Code by order-in-council and a cabinet order. I hope you're not impugning the integrity or the nature or the legitimacy of the Gaming Commission under Mr. Macintosh, former chair of the B.C. Police Commission. It has done well. There has never been a major issue. They have administered well. I believe Mr. Macintosh is highly regarded in a tough industry. As far as I know there's never been any challenge to his commission's ability to make decisions, directions, reviews or to carry out their mandate. We are in the process of taking a look at improvements, though. I make no bones about it; this is a tough issue. We are looking at a multitude of things; we have been since we got here. There is a lot to deal with. In the very near future, though -- and hopefully for next year -- there will be substantial changes in many areas, including the legislative authority and regulatory framework. I've made no secret of that.
K. Jones: Is lack of legislation the reason that investigations into the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society's bingo operations and associated societies did not result in police action?
Hon. R. Blencoe: I can't comment on that; it's currently before the courts.
K. Jones: The issue is not a question of what's before the courts. I asked whether legislation would have allowed the police to do their investigation. This has nothing to do with what the courts are dealing with.
Hon. R. Blencoe: First, I want to introduce the director of the B.C. Gaming Commission, Steve Letts. The investigation was under the Criminal Code.
K. Jones: Thank you for the introduction to Steve Letts. It has been a pleasure to have dealt with him in the past; I find him to be a very able person in our civil service. He works well with all the people he has to deal with. It's probably frustrating for him not to have proper legislation to deal with, because that doesn't make his job easy. It means he has to make a lot of decisions that probably lack good policy direction, but he does the very best he can under those circumstances. As a result, many people say that the charitable gaming policy we have presently is one of the leading ones in North America. However, there is a problem where there are criminal or fraudulent elements, and things that are improper. There isn't the legislation to allow proper enforcement in that area.
Hon. R. Blencoe: I'm going to be extremely cautious about reflecting on a case that is before the courts. I want to make it clear that if the member is reflecting on the capabilities or the policy that has been developed by the Gaming Commission, I would take exception to that. When you're looking at close to 5,000 charities achieving $104 million in revenue per year from gaming opportunities, you can recognize the intricacies, diplomacy and skills you have to have to manage that kind of operation. Those charities feel very independent about how they work. The relationship between government and us is always one that has to be convivial and diplomatic. I think the commission and Mr. Macintosh have done a good job.
I go back to the fact that this government, unlike past governments, is not running from the issues before us. We have taken on all the issues there are in terms of gaming policy, regulation, expansion, aboriginal gaming, destination resorts and for-profit casinos. We are looking at a myriad of things suggested for expansion. We're not running away; we're taking it on. We're not giving it to somebody else. We are looking at it and doing our work. I have not hidden that.
What I have said is cautious and is based on study and information from other jurisdictions. When we come to some conclusions, we'll give the citizens the comfort that we have done our homework and have based our decisions on good information and consultation with key people, key organizations and stakeholders. If there are to be any significant expansions, then there will be significant consultation with the general public on their feelings toward those issues.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us the gross revenue of the gaming branch's operations?
Hon. R. Blencoe: I'm sorry, hon. member, but I've reported $104 million, and it's actually $116.7 million now in revenues generated for charities out of gaming proceeds. The licence fees, from which the province benefits, are $11.6 million.
K. Jones: The minister perhaps wasn't quite clear on what I was asking. I was asking for the gross gaming revenue of the branch.
Hon. R. Blencoe: In the figures I'm familiar with, we have a gaming industry in British Columbia, rightly or wrongly, of $1.4 billion. That's all in; that's everything. We have gross charitable gaming proceeds of $580 million, of which charities receive $116.7. There are licence fees of $11.6 million. I presume the rest are winnings, of course, and various other things.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us why there would be a $78 million increase in the gross revenues between November '93 and the present time, or whenever that figure was set?
Hon. R. Blencoe: I'm not sure. I don't think it's that much. I can't predict, hon. member. I can only say that there are more people gambling, as casinos and various opportunities are given to the people of the province. I couldn't really say why, but there's no question that it is growing. It is $1.4 billion and growing.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us what additional facilities have been established between November '93 and the present time, or whatever the date was of that $580 million gross?
Hon. R. Blencoe: The gross revenue at March 31, 1994, was $580 million, covering '93-94 in terms of licences, and in '92-93 it was $502 million. The biggest increase was in casino gross revenue, which went from $238 million to $296 million. The casino area seems to be where the greatest growth is. We had no additional locations. As a matter of fact, the number of non-profit casinos currently is 18, and has been for six years.
[ Page 11682 ]
K. Jones: Can the minister tell us what factor has increased casino operations so rapidly? Is it a change in society, or is it marketing or promotion that is causing so many of our citizens to start gambling? Or is it high rollers or drug dealers who are laundering their money through the charitable gaming process? Which is it?
[7:30]
Hon. R. Blencoe: I would only be giving my subjective view, and I don't think that's particularly useful. One of the reasons we're doing the gaming project -- and I have staff looking at many of these issues -- is to try to determine exactly what are some of the things that are happening. There have been some studies done. The Lottery Corporation has done some work in that area, and we're using some of their information. We want to ascertain why there is substantial growth. One reason with the casinos could be that the maximum stakes have been increased -- that happened in 1993 -- and there may be more attraction there. But generally gaming and gaming activities seem to be more attractive to British Columbians.
K. Jones: What process does the minister have in place to determine whether illegally obtained money is being laundered through the charitable gaming system? What process is there to verify whether or not that is happening?
Hon. R. Blencoe: I don't know if you've taken the opportunity to go to the commission or particularly to the branch, but we have just as substantial monitoring and review of information as anywhere in Canada, I think, in terms of charitable gaming. We're always looking, obviously, to see where we can improve.
K. Jones: A while ago in the Nanaimo area, I was talking to some people who said it was a kind of standing joke in the community that immediately after a major drug bust, there was hardly anybody in the town's casino. Has that been investigated?
Hon. R. Blencoe: Not by us, hon. member. You may want to ask the RCMP. I couldn't give you any information on that.
K. Jones: I don't think it's the responsibility of the RCMP to monitor the gaming branch's operations; I think it's your responsibility. I think that giving a rather flippant response to that question, which was made very seriously and with good reason.... There is a potential for considerable illegal operations in the processes administered by the gaming branch, and I'd like to know what procedures you have in place that would control that.
Hon. R. Blencoe: I think you should be very careful in making your equation here. You're saying gamblers equal drug users. I think you have to be very careful. I don't know what empirical evidence you have to show that correlation, but you may be drawing hasty conclusions, and you may wish to think about that.
K. Jones: I take it the minister is saying that he doesn't have an answer to that question. I'll leave it for time to determine whether he can take that type of approach to the public law enforcement process and the protection of taxpayers and the question of whether the taxpayers are using ill-gotten money for funding their operations in British Columbia. Perhaps that's endemic from some other operations that are related to this government in the Nanaimo area. It seems to be a spinoff that isn't taken too seriously.
I think there are many questions with regard to the policies of the Gaming Commission. Could the minister tell us whether he subscribes to the present philosophy and social considerations of the Gaming Commission?
Hon. R. Blencoe: The Gaming Commission is an independent body. Its mandate is clearly laid out as to jurisdiction, and unless there is evidence otherwise, I think they do their job well. There are often complaints about the decisions they make, but that's the nature of their business, unfortunately.
Sometimes there are organizations who don't feel they're getting enough, or they can't get enough licences, and so on. That's the nature....
Obviously all charities are looking forward to doing more great work and for more revenues. I presume they would all like to have more access to gaming. The Gaming Commission -- from my discussions with Mr. Macintosh and the commission -- take their job very seriously. They try to balance all the very difficult competing interests. There is room for improvement. I think last time the hon. member made some suggestions, which I appreciate and have taken back to our review. But on the whole, given that there have been some experiences in other jurisdictions south of the line, I think we do very well here.
I go back again to what we're doing, in terms of our project and our review. We're being cautious because there are those kinds of apprehensions. There are examples in other jurisdictions of things we don't want in British Columbia. Quite frankly, I am also apprehensive about some of the things that are done elsewhere, in terms of gaming and gambling. I think I reflect the general feeling of British Columbians in that they want us to be cautious and to do a good job and to think carefully on, for instance, the potential for expansion. If there is to be expansion, what it should be, how much -- or should there be any at all? We're monitoring this.
These days the majority of letters, phone calls and packages to my office are on these issues. I talk back and forth to a lot of people. We're sounding it out, and we will continue to do so.
K. Jones: I'm going to read you a statement and ask if you concur with this finding: "Research has shown that the availability of legal gaming creates new gamblers."
Hon. R. Blencoe: We have all sorts of subjective impressions of what gaming and gambling does. Is there, for instance, an addiction problem? Are there problem gamblers? What kind of gaming is more problematic than others? We all have opinions on gaming, one way or another. Our approach, in terms of the project and all of us is to try and put those aside -- I certainly had to put aside a lot of my own personal views -- and to basically say that we have to make decisions based on analysis, empirical evidence and studies. Let's get the facts. Is there a problem in British Columbia? Are there problem gamblers? Is it growing? Are some forms of gaming more addictive than others? What are the social consequences? What are the policing consequences? And what are the positives? We have to balance those. There are positives; there's no question of it. Are you going to tell the charities that $116 million isn't positive? That's a positive result. Some might question how you got that $116 million. I try to put that aside. So we're looking into very sensitive and intelligent analysis and
[ Page 11683 ]
studies to try to balance those interests and to see what we come up with at the end of the day.
The consensus of those I have talked to in British Columbia is that the major area gaining attention is the proposal planned for the waterfront. That's gaining notoriety. It's driving the agenda for public discussion, but a multitude of other issues are going to be looked at as well. Again, I try to balance them and at the end of the day, if -- if -- we make any significant changes, then we will put forth those ideas and see what people suggest.
L. Fox: It was a very interesting discussion around gaming. The statement made by the Liberal critic is one that I think we can all probably subscribe to. I certainly can, but I guess it's not unlike the situation: if we didn't have alcohol, we wouldn't have alcoholics; and if we didn't have cigarettes, we wouldn't have smokers. I suspect it's a decision that we must all make individually. It's interesting to hear of the rising revenue from casinos.
I have one follow-up question to pose to the minister: is that a regional increase or a general increase throughout the province? Do you have any demographics on that?
Hon. R. Blencoe: Most of the increases are in the GVRD. We have nine casinos in the GVRD, and that's where the major increase is coming from.
L. Fox: I suspected that, quite frankly, looking at the growth in that region and perhaps even the cultures that have come in and their beliefs about gambling. In terms of the social issues that flow in with the gambling initiatives, I personally have very little difficulty with the casino aspect, because we generally have to go into a licensed premise and make the decision to gamble.
Frankly, I think there are more social decisions and consequences to bingos, Lotto 6/49, and all those lotto tickets that are out there. I see many lineups of individuals, especially when there's that big flash up there that it's $12 million or whatever. Personally, I don't buy them. I figure I'm ahead in money over the last 20 years since their advent. I've probably saved a considerable amount of money, but there are a lot of social aspects that go along with that kind of thing.
[7:45]
That brings me to a question I want to ask. In my constituency there's been a real thrust with respect to new native bingos on native bands. We now have a situations where virtually every native band throughout my constituency has a car bingo. They bring in thousands and thousands of dollars in one bingo, and a lot of individuals travel miles in order to go to these things. Obviously they're competing with the local Legions and Elks Clubs for the same dollar, and their bingos are suffering with respect to dollars coming in. I don't want to get into the native issue; I understand the complexities. But what kind of dialogue is presently taking place between the commission and the native bands?
Hon. R. Blencoe: Obviously there are aspirations in the native community, and we could spend the rest of the night talking about those issues. Under the policy review, we are currently having discussions with first nations in terms of their aspirations and where they may fit into the equation. I don't remember the exact figures, but I recall that there's a considerable gap between the number of aboriginal people participating in bingo and the percentage of revenue they acquire. It's a substantial gap; the amount is very low in terms of what they derive. We do indicate to the aboriginal community that there are opportunities for them and that they can be licensed, and we encourage that. I was going to refer to the Kamloops case, but I can't talk about it -- it's still in court. As you know, we encourage licensed bingos; if they're not licensed, the RCMP steps in.
The Chair: This would appear to be a good time to recess. There's a vote in the House.
The committee recessed at 7:47 p.m.
The committee resumed at 7:56 p.m.
[H. Giesbrecht in the chair.]
L. Fox: Just prior to the break, we were talking about bingos and gambling on reserves. The common complaint I have heard is that they go beyond the legal limit in terms of offering prizes or dollars per game, which takes away the ability of societies in neighbouring communities to compete for the same dollar. The minister has already quoted the number of dollars received by societies through gaming as $116 million. There are a number of local charities that have suffered over the course of the last couple of years within my constituency because of these new initiatives on the reserves. Perhaps the minister can give me a little more insight into how the Gaming Commission is attempting to address those issues. I know they're getting letters about them on a regular basis.
Hon. R. Blencoe: There are reports of occasions where they go beyond the accepted bounds or the rules, and we do our utmost to encourage those who wish to conduct gaming to do it in a licensed fashion. One of the things we have discovered -- and I have to be careful here -- is that sometimes when improperly licensed games are about to take place, the notoriety can create revenue problems. There have been examples where properly licensed games have done extremely well, and people have been happy.
The gaming review project in my ministry is having those kinds of discussions with the first nations to try to see how we can work together. The reason we're having discussions with them is because the first nations want to know where they fit into gaming in British Columbia. We want to move toward with policies which they can endorse and take back to their principals so that we can avoid these kinds of conflicts in the future about licensed versus unlicensed.
[8:00]
As you know, we have said quite clearly that there will be one single jurisdiction for gaming in British Columbia. There will be no dual responsibility; it will be under the province and under the Criminal Code. We are exploring ways we can deal with these kinds of ongoing issues that create community unrest and comments, and all the various other things that come along sometimes when the perception is that people don't seem to do things right.
When we have finished our discussions and have some policy recommendations on first nations gaming, and when the summit feels they can endorse them and they know where their place is, that will alleviate and remove these kinds of issues that constantly arise in some communities where there are unlicensed activities or activities perceived to be illegal. They will know where they fit within the law and the licensing approval process.
L. Fox: I think it should be made very clear -- because perhaps I failed to do that earlier -- that I recognize that there are some real benefits to native bands having bingos. I
[ Page 11684 ]
think the question is that everybody should have to -- certainly in my constituency, at least, they believe that -- play by the same rules. The minister talked about ongoing discussion with native bands. Could he tell me who at the Gaming Commission is leading those discussions?
Hon. R. Blencoe: The policy project staff within my ministry are having discussions with the First Nations Gaming Committee, which was approved by the summit.
L. Fox: Is there a time frame attached to those discussions, or is this an ongoing process?
Hon. R. Blencoe: We're looking to conclude all our reviews and discussions with first nations, all stakeholders and the public by the fall, for some indication of where the province is going in this multitude of areas.
L. Fox: That's good news. I hope that time frame is realistic and can be met. Now, and perhaps until those arrangements are made, what happens when the Gaming Commission receives a complaint about another society with respect to what is perceived to be an illegal activity on a reserve? How is that handled?
Hon. R. Blencoe: There is success in that area, although there are always ongoing discussions. When a situation is reported, staff will meet with the first nation and indicate what the rules and licensing procedures are. Where there are some problems, they will try to indicate to them what other opportunities there are such as licences they could apply for that might meet their aspirations. We try to do that fairly regularly.
Frankly, I'm having to learn a lot about this area fast. I don't have a lot of experience in first nations issues. It's quite an education about the desires of first nations. As you know, they are rightly pressing for greater economic development opportunities. They see gaming, like other activities, as a means to achieve greater economic opportunities for their members. So at the moment we're listening to them, consulting with them, and discussing possible options.
The trick -- I make no bones about it -- is balancing the interests of first nations and the existing organizations that derive $116 million from charitable gaming. I think we're doing fairly well. There is always potential, obviously, for misunderstanding, but we're at the table; we're discussing. The major factor for most citizens is one provincial jurisdiction; we've made it quite clear. There will be a component where the first nations will fit within that jurisdiction, and that's what some of the discussions are about.
L. Fox: Perhaps just a bit of a follow-up. There is a considerable amount of advertising done for most of these bingos. A car bingo or a cash bingo on a particular reserve is well known in the community. We have an employee of the gaming branch in Prince George. Does the branch regularly go to these advertised events to watch the proceedings and make sure that they comply with the laws of the Gaming Commission, or at least make notes? I understand the difficulty in enforcement, but you could at least make notes on where they may not be complying with the legal requirements of bingo.
Hon. R. Blencoe: We do some of the things you're suggesting in terms of being on the spot, but staffing being the way it is these days, we rely on reports or complaints when we get them. We contact whomever is being complained about and ascertain the facts. I assume that in Prince George that is often done by phone because of time constraints. We explain to the people what the rules are and where they may be getting themselves into trouble, and we try to work it out. That's when we might step in and offer some suggestions: "You want to have a certain kind of bingo, and it's not raising enough money? Well, you could do it this way." We could offer suggestions within the allowable licensing requirements, and I think that's generally how we do it. If we had more staff, I presume we could do a lot more, but we do reasonably well. These are some of the areas of discussion we're having with first nations.
L. Fox: Two quick follow-up questions, and then I'll let others get in on this discussion. First, how many of those car bingos that are happening, particularly in the rural regions of the province, are licensed versus not licensed? Do you have any stats on that?
The other question is: are those bingos subject to the same kind of auditing procedure that the ordinary society bingos are subject to?
[U. Dosanjh in the chair.]
Hon. R. Blencoe: Those with a licence are required to report detailed financial information on the event, proceeds raised and prizes given out. But I'm told -- and I don't know the total number of those car bingos -- that there's a good chance that the majority are illegal.
J. Weisgerber: First of all, I want to say that I'm pleased to hear that the province is maintaining the position that the Gaming Commission and the regulation of gambling is going to be provincewide, and is going to apply across all jurisdictions. I think that's an important principle for the province to stand behind. Having said that, I'm curious to know the working relationship that might exist between the Gaming Commission and the aboriginal gaming commission. I think there's a danger that when the aboriginal gaming commission was formed, it was perceived as being parallel to the provincial Gaming Commission. Obviously the two ideas are incompatible. Perhaps the minister could tell me the working relationship between the Gaming Commission and the aboriginal gaming group -- gaming commission or whatever.
Hon. R. Blencoe: I appreciate the member's participation, because I know he was the minister for some time and was considered to have done a good job in that portfolio, so I know he has some experience. If I heard you correctly -- and let me just make sure -- I want to correct something. There isn't currently an aboriginal gaming commission. At the moment there is only the B.C. Gaming Commission. That's the only body set up by the government you were involved with. There is a First Nations Gaming Committee that has been appointed by the summit, headed by Sharon Bowcott. It is endorsed by the summit to enter into discussions with the province, and those discussions, dealing with many of the issues being raised today, are represented by the gaming project currently in my ministry.
In discussions with first nations, nation-to-nation, there is a sense of respecting the discussions by not sharing the full details of where we're at. What I can say is that part of the discussion revolves around where and how within that jurisdictional framework this first nations participation is going to be reflected. We are having discussions on that.
[ Page 11685 ]
That's as far as it has gone. I really don't want to say any more except that. To back up again to a single jurisdiction, we have a first nations aspiration of wanting a greater sense of economic opportunity from gaming. How is that to be reflected in our regulatory bodies? That's what we have to decide, and we will have those discussions. The models we may decide upon in the fall will be there and will not be hidden. I'm sure there will be comments made when we try to resolve this issue, which has been there for some time.
J. Weisgerber: As the minister knows, there has been a longstanding difference of opinion on whether provincial jurisdiction over gaming actually extends to reserve lands being held by the federal Crown. I'm not sure from the minister's comments whether this committee has acknowledged the jurisdiction of the province. That would be certainly an interesting first step forward if that were the case.
[8:15]
The minister also suggests that the committee is a committee of the First Nations Summit. My recollection is that this would indicate that they are then the representative of about two-thirds of the bands and tribal councils in the province. I'm wondering what kind of mechanism there is to deal with those bands and tribal councils represented by the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs or not aligned with either of those two major political groups.
Hon. R. Blencoe: I'll deal with the last question first. We are having discussions with those groups as well, and trying as much as possible to get the views of a cross-section of the first nations in this province.
On your question about jurisdiction, what we've made quite clear to the first nations is that the number one criterion for us in discussion at the table is that it is provincial jurisdiction. All I can say is that the discussions are still going on. We're still there, and we're making progress.
J. Weisgerber: I expect that the minister fully recognizes that this is probably one of the most critical areas around the issue of self-government. I believe that as talks progress toward self-government, the question of jurisdiction with regard to gaming and taxation.... Now I'm going off the subject a bit, but I believe jurisdiction on taxation in areas like alcohol, tobacco and gasoline will all be core issues of that debate.
I think gaming, particularly given the situation in British Columbia, will probably be one of the biggest and most significant issues in self-government discussions. There are 1,700 reserves; almost without exception, every centre of population in the province has a reserve in close proximity. If the province were to abandon jurisdiction on gaming in those areas, I think we could see a significantly changed gaming picture in British Columbia. Indeed, it could be quite a remarkable change, in terms of the situation anywhere in North America.
I'm encouraged to hear the province is maintaining this position of provincial jurisdiction. I gather from the minister's statement -- as tactful as it was -- that at least the province is still holding the position that the provincial jurisdiction exists on reserves. I take it also that the minister has been unsuccessful in getting a very broad acceptance with first nations, the summit and with the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs.
Hon. R. Blencoe: I know the member's experience in this area, and quite frankly I appreciate the sensitivity of his comments this evening. He knows probably more than I do, because he was minister of a very difficult area. It's an area that I'm learning very quickly how to handle; I'm proceeding cautiously.
You're right, the position we have taken is on the table. We've steadfastly stuck to it. The discussions are proceeding cordially and are very fruitful. Without predicting the future, I think there is a desire by first nations to find a resolution for some of the issues that are out there. I think first nations want some consensus and some acceptance, as well as a part in the role. Again, the trick in these kinds of issues is to achieve a balance, and we continue to work on that. I don't know if I can go much further; you probably know more than I do in terms of how delicate these kinds of discussions can be.
J. Weisgerber: Before we move off the topic, I'm still a little uncertain about the relationship with the First Nations Gaming Committee, and groups other than the summit. Is there another parallel process? Is there another committee, or does the committee speak for more than members of the summit? Or is there some other process?
Hon. R. Blencoe: We're having discussions with the key representatives of the First Nations Gaming Committee, which is the official committee of the summit; I think it's recognized as the aboriginal component. But we also recognize there are others, like the chiefs, the Metis and the off-reserve groups, and we are having discussions with them and opening the door to get their views on these issues. The First Nations Gaming Committee knows we are having those kinds of discussions as well.
J. Weisgerber: While I'm delighted to hear the province is maintaining the position that there's going to be provincewide jurisdiction of gaming, which I think is important, and I accept the minister's commitment, is it also fair to say that the province is taking the position that one agency should be responsible for all types of gaming? For instance, will the Gaming Commission continue to have major casinos under its jurisdiction? Is it fair to say that gaming in its broadest forms, except for horse racing, will continue to fall under the Gaming Commission and that no other agencies will impose themselves on the process?
D. Schreck: It's a matter for future policy.
Hon. R. Blencoe: To some degree it is, but I think it's also a useful discussion, because I know that people really want to get a sense of the situation.
It's not a matter of a multitude of separate agencies or commissions. I think we should put it in the context of an integrated regulatory framework. I already commented on what could be referred to as the first nations position or desire, and how that will be reflected in the regulatory framework. We're looking at how we can do that. There could very well be an integrated system, but we are in the early stages of examining these issues. We continue to have those discussions.
J. Weisgerber: Not ever wanting to stray into future policy....
Hon. R. Blencoe: I haven't used that on you yet.
J. Weisgerber: No.
I am looking at an area outside of aboriginal gaming. The minister has been quite clear that one jurisdiction exists in
[ Page 11686 ]
that respect. I've always understood that gaming in British Columbia -- again, with the possible exception of horse racing -- fell under the jurisdiction of the Gaming Commission. Is it the position of the government that all forms of gaming will be regulated by the Gaming Commission?
Hon. R. Blencoe: When I announced the policy review group in my ministry -- a policy review initiated under a mandate from cabinet -- I made it quite clear that one of its tasks was to try to come up with what could be called one-stop shopping. We have a multitude of regulatory bodies right now: the B.C. Gaming Commission, the Lottery Corporation, the B.C. Racing Commission and the public gaming branch. If we had our druthers, we would move toward a single commission or organization. These are just thoughts. It would be much easier if we had a single system that everyone understood and had ready access to.
As you've alluded, the Racing Commission may be specialized. Again, no decisions have been made. I really think we're starting to get into future policy, which was announced, but I just want to give you a sense that we are trying to come to terms with the regulatory frameworks that exist and make it a more integrated system.
J. Weisgerber: I'd like to finish by saying I believe that the B.C. Gaming Commission served the province very well in a whole range of areas. I would encourage the minister and the government to continue to use it as the focal group and primary regulatory body for gaming in the province. Let me encourage the minister not to be tempted in some future endeavour to spin off things like casino gambling to some other group.
K. Jones: I wholeheartedly support the suggestion just made by the hon. member for Peace River South. I think he speaks in that regard for, as many of us do, the great interests of the people of British Columbia, and we hope that message will be clear to the minister.
It's good to hear that the minister is trying to bring in the recommendation we put forward at last year's estimates that there should be one body -- which is a policy recommendation of the Liberal Party -- governing all aspects of gaming. It's sort of like putting a fist into a bucket of water: if you push it in one place, it's going to come out another place. There's no way of separating the sources of funds or the people affected, so they all have to be taken under one body that has the authority and control to make those decisions.
Certainly I would be very concerned if the governing body were to continue under the same mandate as far as the current legislation is concerned. If there is to be a gaming policy, which must first be determined by the people of British Columbia, we need exceptionally powerful regulations and an act which has teeth. You cannot have the present regulations or the present lack of an act and be able to deal with the complexities that are already facing us and aren't being addressed, particularly considering the fact that we have substantial coin machine operations in British Columbia that are not under anybody's control. There is no enforcement of these practices because there is no legislation to enforce.
Hon. minister, I'd like to read you another line that seems rather apropos: "A government that wishes merely to legalize existing illegal wagering must recognize the clear danger that legalization may lead to unexpected increases in the size of the gaming clientele." Does the minister agree with that statement?
Hon. R. Blencoe: Hon. member, maybe you could give me a sense of your direction with that statement. It's an interesting statement, but I'm not sure where you're going with it.
[8:30]
K. Jones: The minister seems to think that persons have to be going someplace with a statement that they give. I asked the minister if he was in line with that statement. Does he agree with it?
Hon. R. Blencoe: Hon. member, that's really not the issue. What we're doing with the project is taking a systematic look at gaming and objectively analyzing what the issues are. I've already spent some time dealing with the fact that we all have our personal views or sense of the issue. I don't think it serves the interest of what we're trying to accomplish, which is to come up with changes that are based in fact, analysis and public input.
K. Jones: So the minister is saying that he doesn't really feel that's a legitimate statement to make. Is that what you're saying?
Hon. R. Blencoe: Hon. member, I'm not saying one way or the other. I'm saying that we continue to look at the information. We're looking at the opinions of many people involved in gaming: those who regulate, those who police and those who play. And that's how we're carrying out our work.
K. Jones: The minister would not like not to give his own views, but I think it's important that the public know his views on issues before us. This is a fairly important statement; it tells the minister's direction with regard to his guidance of this committee. I think it would be appropriate if the minister would tell us whether he does or does not acknowledge that statement.
Hon. R. Blencoe: I acknowledge the huge challenge that's before me, which we indicated clearly that we are taking on. It's not for me to give my personal opinions one way or another. We will take a look, consult and talk to the people who know the business. We will consider the pros and cons of the views British Columbians express about gaming. We'll come up with some recommendations for cabinet, government and the people of the province of British Columbia. They will be based on a sound review of research, study, thought and consultation by people who have been given the challenge within this project review group. These are good people; they know the business. They have a wealth of backgrounds and will be advising government after listening to input of the public and various people. They will be advising government so we can develop future policy.
K. Jones: I'd like to read another statement to see if the minister will accept it as part of his philosophy.
D. Schreck: Hon. Chair, the standing orders are clear on what's in order in the debate. A member could stand here for a long time reading sentence after sentence from sources irrelevant to the debate, and asking for opinions and reaction. I would suggest that style of debate is not relevant and is not in order under our standing orders.
[ Page 11687 ]
The Chair: Thank you, hon. member. I hope the member for Surrey-Cloverdale takes that into account. I think that's correct.
K. Jones: Thank you, hon. Chair. I'll read the statement and ask the minister if he concurs with it:
"There is no reliable way to calculate the effect on the work ethic of legalizing or decriminalizing gaming which was once prohibited. If, through legal gaming, citizens are allowed or encouraged to make a profit or gain through chance and skill rather than through work, the government may be undermining a basic social tenet of our culture."
Hon. R. Blencoe: I say maybe or maybe not.
K. Jones: Thank you, minister, for that clear definition of where you're coming from, and the member for North Vancouver -- someplace up there -- Lonsdale. Perhaps we should look at where those statements come from. For the member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale and any others who question the basis and relevance of it, this statement is taken from the Gaming Commission publication of January 1988, in chapter 2, "Philosophy and Social Considerations of Gaming." I believe this is the basis that the Gaming Commission is operating on.
An Hon. Member: Shall the vote pass?
Some Hon. Members: Aye.
K. Jones: Get lost.
Could the minister give us his comments now, knowing the source of those statements?
The Chair: Before I recognize the minister, hon. member, you must keep in mind that we're not here to enter into a philosophical dialogue. We're here to consider the estimates of the minister. If we continue on the road that you are travelling, we may get nowhere other than wasting time. Therefore I suggest that you ask a specific question directed at the present policy -- that's current policy -- within the ministry, or anything to do with the budgetary estimates that are before you, and do so instantly. Otherwise I'll call for the vote.
K. Jones: Hon. Chair, my questions are direct, on the subject and relevant to the budget. The budget is based on a philosophy, and the expenditures that are used in this budget have to bear on a philosophy or a policy. We're trying to find out what the basis of that policy is.
The Chair: Hon. member, what's your question?
K. Jones: I am in the process of getting to that, hon. Chair. I will give it to you as soon as I have it.
With regard to a previously announced gaming branch investigation into NCHS, could the minister tell us whether the gaming branch will be proceeding with that investigation, since the legal processes have basically been finalized with minor amendments to be continued?
The Chair: Hon. minister, do you wish to respond? I was going to disallow the question.
Hon. R. Blencoe: I just want to let the member know I can't answer those questions.
The Chair: The matter is sub judice and is, in fact, before the criminal courts. Therefore I think it's highly improper for a member to ask that question at this time.
K. Jones: The question I am asking is with regard to a gaming branch investigation that has nothing to do with the current issue before the courts. It has to do with an investigation that was stopped at the time an RCMP investigation began. We'd like to know whether the investigation will have access to the information of the RCMP and the special prosecutor.
Hon. R. Blencoe: My understanding, again, is that this general issue is before the courts. However, this particular investigation is on hold, pending the court decision.
K. Jones: Hon. minister, you can't hide behind something that's not before the courts by claiming all the time that it's before the courts. This issue I'm asking you about has nothing to do with the court case whatsoever. Could you please tell us whether the investigation will be reinstated? Will it have access to the information available in the investigations done by the RCMP and by the special prosecutor?
The Chair: Hon. member, you have already received an answer from the minister, and that's the best I understand you're going to get. Proceed.
K. Jones: With regard to the position of director of the gaming branch, could the minister tell us why that has taken so long to be brought forward as a job posting?
Hon. R. Blencoe: I inherited this portfolio in September, and the job has been posted. Hopefully, in the very near future, the director will no longer be just an acting one.
K. Jones: Just to clarify for the minister, the posting description was developed in November 1993 under your ministry, and it has taken until April 22 for it to be published. Is there a problem, in that you had to wait that long before getting a posting out?
Hon. R. Blencoe: I will try to ascertain the details. I can assure you there's a reasonable answer to that, and I'll try to get it for you.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us when he might get that answer to us?
Hon. R. Blencoe: Shortly.
K. Jones: Answers like that are what cause these estimates to take so long. Could you tell us the reason for publishing a position you have already filled?
Hon. R. Blencoe: It is filled on an acting basis. I've also been told that "shortly" is now; there was a hiring freeze, which made complications. The government imposed a hiring freeze. The acting director is right here.
K. Jones: I think we have canvassed that area fairly well, since the minister is unprepared to answer questions about more relevant items, particularly in the area of Nanaimo Commonwealth Holdings, which he seems not to want to talk about.
[ Page 11688 ]
Hon. R. Blencoe: I can't.
K. Jones: Oh yes, you can. There are a lot of areas that are not under court action, and most of the court action has been completed by the plea of guilty on the part of those NDP organizations, or organizations that gave money to the NDP.
The Chair: Hon. member, would you sit down for a moment. I am somewhat troubled. The matter does not end once a person pleads guilty. The matter ends when the sentencing takes place and the appeal period expires. I think it is therefore highly inappropriate to be continually asking questions on that subject. Do you have any other questions?
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us the role and purpose of the cabinet planning secretariat?
[8:45]
Hon. R. Blencoe: We have now shifted to cabinet planning. I'd like to introduce Rob Egan, who is the assistant deputy minister responsible for the cabinet planning secretariat.
Let me go through some background to the cabinet planning secretariat. The information I have here might be useful to the hon. member. I won't go through all the details but will just give you a sense of its key program objectives. It is obviously heavily involved in policy and planning. It coordinates government strategic planning and assists ministries in development of major policy. It coordinates and supports cross-ministry strategic initiatives. I have to say that one of the challenges in the feedback I constantly get from the public, and from groups and institutions dealing with government, is that they really want cross-ministry coordination. We are certainly involved in that, as well as with deputy minister liaison on policy and strategic planning. A critical component, of course, is dealing with cabinet operations. The secretariat provides both policy and operational support to cabinet and cabinet committees, and it monitors and assists with ongoing policy and legislative proposals coming to cabinet and its committees. There is a quality assurance component. It ensures that submissions received by cabinet are appropriate, of high quality and clearly researched, and that interministry consultation has occurred.
Another key is the legislative operation that coordinates the government's legislative program. It provides support to cabinet with respect to individual legislative proposals in the legislative agenda. The main organizations it works for, or has contact with, are the Premier, cabinet, cabinet committees, planning board, working groups of the planning board and the deputy minister. It works closely with the deputy minister to the Premier, the ministries and the agencies. It works very closely with Treasury Board staff, and senior planning and policy managers in various ministries. I think that gives you enough background.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us how many persons are employed in that department?
Hon. R. Blencoe: Thirty-three FTEs.
K. Jones: Could the minister substantiate why there would be so many people in an area that's supposedly just a coordinating group?
Hon. R. Blencoe: In terms of government planning, policy development and strategic priorities, it's a very key group that coordinates and works with the various ministries. It's heavily involved in the forest sector and the policy development of skills for the twenty-first century. It is involved with land use planning and the issues that arise in those particular areas. It continues to be heavily involved in policy advice and interministry work on public education and the work that was done to review the Year 2000. It has been very much involved in the New Directions program. It does significant work to ensure the work of cabinet operations is well done and that the information we get is accurate, and it liaises with the ministries in terms of preparing in time for our work.
The substantial legislative agenda has been part of the cabinet secretariat's work in terms of ensuring it's done and it's clear, and that the legislative agenda and the legislation we develop is accurate and fulfils the mandates and priorities we wish to carry out.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us the relationship between the Crown corporations secretariat and this secretariat, and between Treasury Board staff and this secretariat?
Hon. R. Blencoe: Treasury Board staff work for the Ministry of Finance. Their major job is analysis of the financial arrangements of the province. They do reviews and prepare the budget and budget recommendations for government. That's their major mandate.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us what the relationship is between that body and the cabinet planning secretariat?
Hon. R. Blencoe: There's a normal working relationship. Obviously the areas that I related, in terms of the cabinet planning secretariat, have their own financial considerations, and they work with Treasury Board staff on issues of mutual concern in areas they are working on.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us what the relationship is between the cabinet planning secretariat and the Crown corporations secretariat?
Hon. R. Blencoe: The ministry responsible for the Crown corporations secretariat is the Ministry of Employment and Investment. It's a working relationship. They're working on Crown policy and future direction; there are coordinating efforts and consultation.
K. Jones: Which is the senior of the three groups we've just mentioned?
Hon. R. Blencoe: They're equally important, and they do equally excellent work for cabinet and the people of the province of British Columbia.
K. Jones: We must have absolute chaos then, and I guess that's why it comes out in government operations or policy development. You can't have three different entities operating equally and expect to get any direction. They're all going to have their own direction, and there seems to be no coordination, no bringing them together.
One of these bodies, I presume, would have a leadership role in bringing things together. Is that the cabinet planning secretariat or Treasury Board staff, or is it the Crown corporations secretariat? Does it have more power, and does it report separately, without influence from the cabinet planning secretariat?
[ Page 11689 ]
Hon. R. Blencoe: They all have their roles and responsibilities. For your own edification, hon. member, there is a coordinating committee connecting all three groups, which is responsible for ensuring that, in terms of their daily work and connection and communication, there is a coordinating factor.
K. Jones: What is that coordinating group called?
Hon. R. Blencoe: The cabinet committee coordinating group.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us the makeup of that group?
Hon. R. Blencoe: It's made up of representatives of the various agencies.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us what agencies are represented?
Hon. R. Blencoe: The three secretariats you've been asking questions about.
K. Jones: I think we should probably proceed to public issues and consultation. It seems like this issue has been explored as far as the minister is prepared to talk about it.
It looks like we're taking another trip.
The committee recessed at 8:55 p.m.
The committee resumed at 9:04 p.m.
[U. Dosanjh in the chair.]
K. Jones: With regard to the public issues and consultation branch of the ministry, can the minister tell us what suborganizations are under that title?
Hon. R. Blencoe: I'm not quite sure what the member is getting at, but let me try to answer that we have one director for each component: one for public issues and one for consultation.
K. Jones: Are opinion research and consultation included under that consultation area?
Hon. R. Blencoe: One director's title is opinion research and consultation.
K. Jones: That person is Ian Reid, is it not, hon. minister?
Hon. R. Blencoe: Correct.
K. Jones: Hon. minister, that person has been identified as a political appointment within your ministry. Could you tell us why he was chosen for that job, since it would appear to be a non-political position? Or is it really intended to be a political position?
Hon. R. Blencoe: Mr. Reid is an order-in-council appointment.
K. Jones: Would the minister mind answering the question we just asked? Could he tell us why Mr. Reid has been appointed to this position?
Hon. R. Blencoe: He's good, hon. member.
K. Jones: If he's good, why wasn't there a posted competition for this position?
Hon. R. Blencoe: It's an OIC appointment. He serves at the pleasure of cabinet. He has cabinet trust and therefore cabinet confidence. That's why he's an OIC appointment, hon. member.
K. Jones: Could the minister describe the function of this particular section of this branch?
Hon. R. Blencoe: He's responsible for coordinating all opinion, public research and consultation. Indeed, hon. member, you should know that we have cut our costs substantially by this coordination, and Mr. Reid is doing a very good job.
K. Jones: Could the minister describe opinion research and consultation as polling? Is there some aspect to this job that entails something other than polling?
Hon. R. Blencoe: Hon. member, one the major prerequisites of government today is significant and quality consultation, and Mr. Reid is responsible for ensuring that that does indeed happen: that there's quality, that it's done well and that the coordination is properly conducted.
K. Jones: The budget allocates $1.2 million to polling. Is that correct?
Hon. R. Blencoe: No.
K. Jones: Could the minister describe how much is allocated to polling and how much is allocated to other areas, and could he describe those other areas?
Hon. R. Blencoe: The office, hon. member, coordinates opinion polling throughout government. Within this ministry there's approximately $50,000 for polling.
K. Jones: So there's $50,000 for polling in your ministry, and the rest of the $1.2 million is used for consultation or to coordinate somebody else's paid-for polls. Is that correct?
Hon. R. Blencoe: We have reduced the annual cost of ministry polling by $500,000 since 1990-91, the last full year of the previous administration, basically because of the effect of Mr. Reid's coordination. You should also know that the public issues and consultation branch has seen a budget reduction of nearly $50,000 this year.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us how much money allocated to polling is coordinated by the ministry in this area?
Hon. R. Blencoe: You would have to determine that through all the other ministry estimates in terms of the dollars they allocate for polling or surveying.
K. Jones: You have ministry staff who are responsible to coordinate polling, to let the contracts, etc., and to analyze the results. Could you tell us how much contract work is being done by your ministry on behalf of other ministries?
[ Page 11690 ]
Hon. R. Blencoe: Over the last year of the government's operation there's been about a 40 percent reduction. Also, the major job of Mr. Reid is to ensure that there is no overlap or duplication in terms of what the ministry has done, and we are achieving considerable savings. You've got to remember that much of the work that often goes under the guise of polling is technical information surveys. For instance, the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources does all sorts of surveys and technical reports. It gathers information or expertise from the public. That is also reported under the general term of polling. All sorts of information gathering is going on across government. The basic objective in our work is that we try to ascertain public opinion on important issues of the day to help us in our policy development.
K. Jones: Could the minister give us a listing of all polls undertaken by the ministry from August 30, 1993, to the present?
Hon. R. Blencoe: The Ministry of Government Services has conducted no polls in that term.
K. Jones: Could the minister give us a detailing of all polls for that period which were undertaken by this branch of his ministry or any other branch of his ministry?
Hon. R. Blencoe: You should be aware that all polls that have been conducted since November 1991, which I believe total 22, are now available in the public archives for you to take a look at. You should also know that we are working on a polling registry for the very near future.
K. Jones: Can the minister confirm exactly how current that registry is at the present time? What's the last date by which poll information details could be obtained?
Hon. R. Blencoe: It has all the polls that have been conducted and that are releasable under FOI.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us the most current date of any of those polls?
[9:15]
Hon. R. Blencoe: I don't want to give you a specific time or date. We'll get that information. You could take a look yourself.
K. Jones: Could the minister confirm that a total of $5,346,819 was spent between November 5, 1991, and August 30, 1993, on polls for ministries and Crown corporations by this government?
Hon. R. Blencoe: The information that I think you're referring to is from a report by the MLA for.... I forget which riding he's from. Much of the material was information that I've already referenced -- that is, technical surveys, analyses and reviews by ministries such as Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. It included oral histories of aboriginal bands. The material represented a wide spectrum of information gathering.
The committee recessed at 9:17 p.m.
The committee resumed at 9:24 p.m.
[U. Dosanjh in the chair.]
K. Jones: With regard to the public opinion researching in the public issues and consultation branch, could the minister tell us how many polls have been tendered?
Hon. R. Blencoe: Since November 1991, when we took over, all polls have been under a proposal call and therefore tendered.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us if any polls have been commissioned for under $50,000 and therefore been untendered?
Hon. R. Blencoe: Yes, there are some that are under $50,000.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us how many are under $50,000?
Hon. R. Blencoe: I don't have the number here, but I'll get it to you.
K. Jones: Could the minister also supply us with the companies that received the tenders, and also the purpose of the polls?
Hon. R. Blencoe: Yes, we assist in the proposal call process, but the ministries complete the process. You would have to go to the ministries themselves for that detail.
K. Jones: Would there not be documentation of all polls that are being let by this branch within his ministry?
Hon. R. Blencoe: We don't let the polls. I told you that the ministries do that. We give advice and coordinate, so there's no duplication or overlap. We help develop requirements. We help them with their proposal call, but that's as far as it's goes in terms of this ministry and Mr. Reid's work.
K. Jones: Does the minister have records of the various polls that are being administered under his responsibility in this particular branch, including all those from other branches or Crown corporations monitored through his ministry?
Hon. R. Blencoe: All contracting documents are kept within the ministries. We have copies of the resulting polls or surveys that are conducted.
K. Jones: I would like clarification. If a person wanted to look at any of those polls, they would be able to obtain the names of them from your ministry by submitting a request either directly to you or through freedom-of-information access.
Hon. R. Blencoe: There are 22 in the provincial archives. They can provide you with the list and the reference.
K. Jones: I'm trying to clarify the process for obtaining records that are not currently in the provincial archives. Could you clarify that? You are the coordinator of polls. Does your ministry hold documentation to track the various polls? I think there would be some need to track those, would there not?
[9:30]
Hon. R. Blencoe: Hon. member, we don't have the contracting documents. We do have what we coordinate -- the questionnaires and the results. Part of the job is to give
[ Page 11691 ]
advice on what kind of information they want to attain. Some of the information they want has already been attained, and there's no requirement. If you want full details of documents other than the 22 polls that are currently in the archives, which you can get upon request, you have to go to the various ministries.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us what the NDP government's policy is on spending money on public opinion polls?
Hon. R. Blencoe: I've already answered that, I think. Polls are part of the job of government today. People want to know that their opinions are considered and that their ideas are taken into account when government is making policy, particularly in important areas of policy development. There is a sense among citizens that they are not part of the process, that their ideas don't count for much and that their opinions don't count. One of the things you can do with surveys is ask what people think about particular issues, and then they feel counted in. I know the opposition likes to make a negative point about polling, but it is a major way for people to have their views counted, to be part of the decision-making and to be taken into account when decisions are made. It's a very important fact which is often forgotten in this debate.
The Chair: Hon. members, the clock reads 9:30 p.m., so the Chair shall entertain a motion to rise and report progress.
D. Schreck: Hon. Chair, I'm prepared to wait five or ten minutes to move the motion if the opposition critic believes we can conclude these estimates. In fact, I'm even prepared to go in and beg the House to sit five or ten minutes longer if we believe we can conclude these estimates this evening. However, if considerably more time is going to be necessary, the conventional adjournment time will apply, and I would move that motion now. If the opposition critic could give some indication of his direction, I could arrange to accommodate the House and this committee.
The Chair: Hon. member, if you would take a seat, I understand the other House is still sitting and will continue to sit past 10 o'clock. If that is the case, then we will continue to sit. Perhaps we should continue. I'll let the member proceed with the questions, and someone can determine whether the other House will continue to sit.
D. Schreck: Ken, do you think there's a chance of wrapping it up tonight?
K. Jones: It depends on how long it takes to get answers.
Could the minister tell us how many FTEs are in this particular branch?
Hon. R. Blencoe: Thirteen.
K. Jones: Could the minister give us a copy of the policy for determining how much money should be spent on a public poll that the ministry is using? What policies are being used to direct this particular branch? Do you have a written policy?
Hon. R. Blencoe: There is no written policy. As I said before, we have people who are expert in the field, and we've reduced the budget in this area by 40 percent.
K. Jones: The minister keeps saying that he has reduced the budget by 40 percent, but 40 percent of what? Where does he get his figures that say he has reduced the budget? The budget was spread out throughout ministries. How much money was spent throughout the ministries he's talking about? How many dollars is 40 percent?
Hon. R. Blencoe: The previous administration spent $1.6 million per year on polling under Eli Sopow, and they repeatedly denied doing so. We have cut that cost by 44 percent, and I already said it that was about $500,000.
K. Jones: Does the minister mean that $1.6 million is for all aspects of public issues and consultation or just for the polling section alone?
Hon. R. Blencoe: That was the cross-ministry polling cost.
K. Jones: So that's now down by 40 percent.
Hon. R. Blencoe: Forty-four.
K. Jones: Oh, 44. I might as well give you the advantage of that extra 4 percent; it's very important.
I'd like to ask further questions in the area of the government communications office. Could the minister tell us how many FTEs there were in the government communications office last year, in 1990 and today?
Hon. R. Blencoe: I am now joined by Mr. Evan Lloyd, an associate deputy minister for government communications.
There are 31 FTEs in this department, an increase of three over last year's FTE count. The budget, however, has been reduced by $75,000. We are now at $6,563,000 for this communications office.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us what the size of the government communications office was in 1990?
Hon. R. Blencoe: We'd like to hazard a guess, but we don't want to risk it. We'll go back and get those numbers for you.
K. Jones: Do the 31 members on staff include persons who are in the regional offices as regional public information officers?
Hon. R. Blencoe: Yes. We have 25 in Victoria, one in Nanaimo, one in New Westminster, one in Cranbrook, one in Kamloops, one in Prince George and one in Smithers.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us if any of those regional officers are members of the NDP?
The Chair: Member, before the minister leaps to the....
Hon. R. Blencoe: I have no idea.
The Chair: Let me set this straight. When you're asking whether bureaucrats working in various offices are affiliated with any political party, that's a fundamental question of personal liberty. I don't think a minister ought to know or keep a record of that information. Therefore I would ask that you proceed with the next question.
[ Page 11692 ]
K. Jones: Since these seem to be appointed rather than tendered positions, there seems to be some question as to how the jobs were determined. That's the reason the question was asked, hon. Chair. Could the minister relate to that?
Hon. R. Blencoe: Yes, all jobs were posted, advertised and competed for.
K. Jones: With regard to the Peat Marwick report on this section, could the minister tell us what revisions have been made to meet the recommendations of that report?
Hon. R. Blencoe: We are unaware of any information or comment about this section.
K. Jones: Is the minister saying he is unaware that a Peat Marwick report was done on the government communications office in December '92?
Hon. R. Blencoe: Yes, a separate review was done. It was ordered by this government and its communications office, and it was done by Peat Marwick. You are correct.
K. Jones: I don't know if it's fair to ask the minister if he has implemented any of the recommendations of the report, since he wasn't even aware that it existed. Perhaps the head of the department would be able to advise him as to how the recommendations of the Peat Marwick report have been implemented.
Hon. R. Blencoe: The reference I thought the member made was to the Peat Marwick review that was done when we first came into government. There was no reference in that, but there was indeed a separate review ordered by the government to be done by Peat Marwick. The major issue looked at in their review was advertising. They looked at value for money and the whole issue of the agency-of-record process. My understanding is that most of the recommendations were introduced and either have been done or are being worked on.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us exactly which recommendations have been implemented and which ones have not?
Hon. R. Blencoe: The current billing system was basically supported, and it said we should continue with that. There were some recommendations, and we'll go back and look at all of them, but the major one was in the area of the threshold for tender. It was at $50,000, and it was recommended to be moved to $100,000.
L. Fox: I want to ask a couple of questions about the regional communication officers. As I recall, it seems to me that this was an initiative in the north. The first time I saw one of those people in place was about a year ago. Prior to last year, did the government have regional communications officers, or was that a new initiative in 1993?
[9:45]
Hon. R. Blencoe: I'm told that there was some capacity for regional coordination within the Ministry of Environment. Prior to that, there was no government communications office for regional coordination. The program of six regional directors came into place and was finally concluded in November 1993. I outlined where they are. Did you miss that?
L. Fox: I'm interested in the process of how these people function in their day-to-day work. I wouldn't think they would report directly to your ministry, but how do they function? Are they coordinated by Mr. Orr, out of the Premier's office? How does the government gain the benefit of the data these individuals collect?
Hon. R. Blencoe: They don't report to Mr. Orr; they report to a director within GCO.
K. Jones: There is one further question. Could the minister give me some idea as to the kinds of functions these people do in their day-to-day jobs? We have government communications, but it seems strange that I haven't seen a lot of press releases, public appearances or anything by these people. Are they indeed receivers of data as well as communicators? Do they meet with organizations? What is their job description?
Hon. R. Blencoe: One complaint I've heard over the years is that the government's media or communications perspective has often been a Victoria or a lower mainland perspective, and that the government really doesn't have a regional sense of the issues and communications needs of those communities in terms of planning or management issues or program delivery. With these offices, these directors can now understand regional perspectives in terms of our programs and requirements. When we are communicating, perhaps we can communicate a little better in terms of regional knowledge. Rather than thinking that we in Victoria know what's best, we can get a perspective on the issues in terms that they think are important.
L. Fox: I'm not too clear on what that means. It seems to me that getting feedback shouldn't be a real problem, particularly for a government that has 51 seats which cover virtually every geographical area of the province. You have 51 elected representatives to do that, and I'm sure they do it well. But I have to ask, since it appears to me that most of the individuals that were hired in the regions are media people: is it the media that they're communicating with, or is it, in fact, the people or special interest groups? I've been looking for that individual in the north -- I know him well; he's a very good man, and I have a lot of respect for him -- to try to identify what his job is. He's obviously getting paid, and I'm unable to find out what his job is, so I'm trying to through this process. If there is some enlightenment available -- even if it's not now but through correspondence -- I'd be very appreciative to receive it.
Hon. R. Blencoe: Yes, they do work with the local media, and the local media are the disseminators of government information and of perspectives on what government is doing. The citizens want to know what we are doing and how we're doing it -- rightly or wrongly -- so they can make their analysis based on information. So these regional government officers, by being in direct link to Victoria, can share information and direction. The media is constantly asking for direction in key areas, and the relationships are established so that information can be shared effectively and efficiently.
They also work on particular ministry projects. The Ministry of Environment may be doing something in the interior that is a significant issue in that region, and those people who are assigned to those regions can feed back the issues, and the perspectives that are required in terms of understanding what some of those particular issues are and
[ Page 11693 ]
some of the projects they're conducting. They are really, in a way, sharing information in a decentralized way from Victoria and Vancouver so that there's a greater understanding of what government does.
For instance, there was a time when I visited Kamloops and did a tour of businesses there that were interested in getting work with government. The communications officers were able to work with the local people and understand what was required and give information, and it worked really well. Generally, though, I think it's just getting out of Victoria and bringing back this way, in terms of feedback, what the regions are thinking about on issues, so we can take it into account when we're doing policy development or communications development.
L. Fox: I think I understand a little more. Given the fact that the areas where these people are placed appear to be media centres, obviously they work with local media to organize interviews and so on when the ministers are in those communities. I can see that as one of the functions and probably one of the more important functions in terms of government. Because it is a relatively new initiative, what kind of evaluation process is built into this to evaluate whether or not this whole process is being cost-efficient? Or is it just basically a political decision by the government of the day that this is necessary to deliver the message of the government?
Hon. R. Blencoe: Because it's really only been up and running since November '93, obviously they're in an evaluation process. That's currently underway, and we will see how it goes. It came as a result of ministry requests for greater presence in the regions, greater help with regional issues and a centralized approach to issues that are communication in nature. So far the feedback is that people really respond well to having that communication capacity in the regions and government and, through that, straight to the government communications office in Victoria. It gives us a greater perspective and more in-depth knowledge of the requirements, the aspirations, the concerns, the voices and the issues of people in the regions.
K. Jones: I'd like to go over the recommendations of the Peat Marwick report with regard to this area and ask the minister which items he has facilitated. Could the minister tell us whether the GCO now requires approval for all advertising contracts by all ministries and Crowns?
Hon. R. Blencoe: Each ministry, in consultation with its minister, ascertains and puts out in its estimates its own communications budget, which is there for each critic to comment upon. But some of the work of the government communications office is to look at an overall plan -- and there is one -- and make comments. Mr. Lloyd and his staff do that on a regular basis so there is an overall consistency in terms of government communications.
K. Jones: To expedite the process, would the minister be willing to report on the status of each of the 15 recommendations of the Peat Marwick report by next week, so we wouldn't have to have him go through the rest of these in detail?
Hon. R. Blencoe: Yes, I will do that.
K. Jones: That concludes the government communications office.
Hon. R. Blencoe: Do you want to carry on for another five minutes?
K. Jones: You want us to start into the...? Okay. The Premier's Advisory Council for Persons with Disabilities -- we could probably get that out of the way.
Hon. R. Blencoe: Go ahead.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us why the position of executive director has not been filled?
Hon. R. Blencoe: As you know, there has been a substantial review of that program. It's been changed, and it has been moved. It is now within the Ministry of Skills, Training and Labour. We fully expect, however, now that it's there.... But you should ask the new minister responsible in his estimates when that position will be filled. The short answer is that we wanted to get the organization done before we went ahead to fill it.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us why the particular agency is in your ministry and not where the responsibility appears to be -- that is, Skills and Training?
Hon. R. Blencoe: The direction has been set that there is a transition period, and an office for disability issues will be created. The ministerial responsibility for disability issues has moved to a new ministry, and there will be a regional resource group of community-based people with disabilities advising the minister, and an interministry committee on disability issues. But in the interim the budget is still here, but I presume that in a very short time it will move over to the ministry.
[10:00]
It was in this ministry because I presume it was thought to be a government service. Now there has been a decision -- and I think it's a wise one -- that we would put it in a ministry that's related to jobs, apprenticeships and employment opportunities. It would be a very proactive office that would work on issues facing the disabled. It has been well endorsed by the disabled community.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us what the budget for that is? It seems to be buried under the community programs and services section.
Hon. R. Blencoe: It's $415,236.
K. Jones: Would the minister tell us how much staff is assigned to that?
Hon. R. Blencoe: There are four positions allocated to this advisory council. Currently there is only one on staff in this transition period.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us how this committee is actually being used to serve the disabled community?
Hon. R. Blencoe: I'm not sure. Do you want to know about the way it was set up or the way it's going to be set up? I can give you some indication of the new way, but it would be better to cover that with the new minister when his estimates come up.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us exactly when this transition is occurring, since there's almost half a million dollars in your budget?
[ Page 11694 ]
Hon. R. Blencoe: Yes, the transition is ongoing now. It involves not only government and my ministry but also the disabled community. We fully expect the transition to be complete by the fall; we hope by September.
K. Jones: If the transition is going to occur, what is the total budget that they're going to be dealing with?
Hon. R. Blencoe: The current budget in the estimates is $415,000, and that is the budget allocated for this year. If they want more money, there is a process; they'd have to go to Treasury Board to get it. At the moment their budget is $415,000.
K. Jones: If the budget is $415,000, why is it sitting in your ministry and not in the other ministry?
Hon. R. Blencoe: It's in transition.
K. Jones: Why wouldn't it be proportioned between the two ministries if you're planning to have it transferred?
Hon. R. Blencoe: The existing council was intricately involved in this. They requested a slow transition from the current council to the new system in the new ministry and the office for disability that's going to be created. The budget is currently in this ministry operating the council, but slowly it will shift over, and the new components of the direction will go over to the Ministry of Skills, Training and Labour.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us if this transfer to Skills, Training and Labour will lower the profile of this ministry? I understand the committee was called a premier's advisory council to give it the high profile that was intended by the previous government. In explanations by your predecessor in previous estimates, the reason it is even in your ministry is to give it a high profile as an adjunct to the Premier's office. Therefore it sounds like the disabled are losing their status within this government, and that they're being treated merely as workers in the Skills, Training and Labour area. They do not have the special recognition they deserve.
Hon. R. Blencoe: There's been about a year of consultation with the disabled community. It has been intricately involved in the transition to this new system. Quite frankly, hon. member, there is an opportunity here for the disabled to be right inside government and to affect the daily operations and policies of ministries. The council has had some success, but to some degree it's been on the outside knocking to get inside. Now it's going to be in here, along with the regional resource group and the interministry committee on disability issues. They are going to be working within government to make changes in all areas that affect the disabled. There's consensus in the disabled community that this is the way to go. Otherwise, we wouldn't have gone this way.
K. Jones: It sounds very good that they should be getting involved. I wonder how involved they will really be. Are they just an advisory body, a working body that is just looking after disabled persons or a body that has a role across the ministry?
Hon. R. Blencoe: The new office of disability issues will be the flagship of an integrated strategy to coordinate public policy on disabilities right across government. Government will know they're there. There will be an active, high-profile office working right in that new ministry, but also with all ministries on issues that pertain to the disabled. At the same time we'll have the internal office. We'll also have the regional resource group of community-based people driving the agenda that they want the office to drive. They'll be giving advice. We'll also have an interministry committee that will advise the office on how to get its agenda implemented as quickly as possible. The message I got was that many of the things they want to do are in the areas of training, jobs and opportunities. They feel that some agendas are not moving fast enough and they're on board to do this. We are optimistic it will be successful.
K. Jones: I think that has properly canvassed that particular section. All we have left are agencies, boards and commissions, freedom of information and privacy, government air services and B.C. Systems Corporation.
D. Schreck: Do you want to do one more now, Ken? They are making some progress on heritage in the other House.
The Chair: Let's finish it all tonight.
K. Jones: Well, I don't know whether we'll finish it all tonight, the way we're going.
Do you have representation from agencies, boards and commissions here, hon. minister?
Hon. R. Blencoe: Can we do FOI? Chris Norman is here.
L. Fox: I told the member for Peace River South that we would likely be dealing with the FOI issue tomorrow, and he wanted to take part in that.
The Chair: Perhaps I will entertain a motion to rise and report progress. Is that the intent?
L. Fox: I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 10:09 p.m.
APPENDIX
[Section 16,
(a) in the proposed section 5(1) of the Heritage Conservation Act, by deleting "and in section 7(4)," and substituting "and in sections 6(3.1) and 7(4),",
(b) in the proposed section 5 by adding the following subsections:
(2.1) Upon receipt of an application for a permit that would, in the opinion of the minister, affect a site or object referred to in subsection (2.2), the minister must provide an opportunity for consultation by informing the appropriate first nation.
(2.2) Subsection (2.1) applies in respect of the following:
(a) a heritage site or heritage object that is included in a schedule under section 3.1(4)(a) or (b);
(b) a heritage site or heritage object for which the first nation has requested an opportunity for consultation under this section;
(c) a site of aboriginal origin protected under section 6(2)(b), (c), (d) or (f);
(d) other circumstances the minister considers advisable. ,
(c) in the proposed section 6 by adding the following subsections:
(3.1) The minister may, after providing an opportunity for consultation with the first nation whose heritage site or object would be affected,
(a) define the extent of a site protected under subsection (2), or
(b) exempt a site or object from subsection (2) on any terms and conditions the minister considers appropriate if the minister considers that the site or object lacks sufficient heritage value to justify its conservation.
(3.2) Subsection (3.1) does not apply to a site or object protected under subsection (2)(h). , and
(d) in the proposed section 7(5) by adding "(2.1), (2.2)," after "section 5(2),".]
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]