1994 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 35th Parliament
HANSARD

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

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, JULY 7, 1994

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 17, Number 12

[ Page 12901 ]

The House met at 2:08 p.m.

H. Lali: Visiting us in the gallery today is a friend of mine, Kamal Singh, who is a constituent of the hon. member for Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows. With her is her friend, Rosa Van der Zwan. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. A. Petter: During the course of this session the House has had within it not only one representative from Saanich South but also 14 additional representatives from the constituency of Saanich South. I'm referring, of course, to the legislative Pages who have been serving us very ably throughout the session. They are from Reynolds Secondary School in my constituency: Celine Anderson, Andrew Renton, Layle Larusson, Carly Russell, Sarah Board, Melanie Maxwell, Freddy Shave, Luke Miller, Lizete Teixeira, Michael Keep, Nisha Moodley, Monica Walczak, Ryan Reda and Nathan Wells. In the hope, and perhaps the expectation, that this may be the last opportunity, I know the House will want to join with me in expressing our appreciation to the Pages for the excellent work they have done throughout this session.

Hon. R. Blencoe: Today we have some very special guests, elected colleagues from Portugal. Dr. Mota Amaral, president of the regional government of the Azores, Portugal, is visiting Portuguese communities of Azorean origin in Manitoba, Alberta and British Columbia. He is accompanied by members of the Legislative Assembly of the Azores and by Mr. Miguel de Calheiros Velozo, the consul of Portugal in Vancouver. Would the House please make these people welcome.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Joining us in the gallery today are a number of representatives from Airspace. Many members may know that Airspace is a non-smokers' rights society. Later in this session they will be witnessing the tabling of a petition by the member for Vancouver-Little Mountain calling for the increased restriction of smoking in public places. Would the House please join me in welcoming Deborah Wotherspoon, Korky Day, Errol Povah, Dr. Peter Coy, Pam Brambell and Dianne Stephenson.

E. Conroy: In the gallery, coming from the constituency of Rossland-Trail, it gives me great pleasure to introduce my daughter Jennifer Jones and my niece Jana Tedesco, and let everyone in Victoria know that they have certainly made a contribution to the local economy this week at my expense. Would the House please make them welcome.

D. Mitchell: I don't know how many independent riding associations there are in British Columbia, but in the riding of West Vancouver-Garibaldi we have a very strong independent constituency association, and I am pleased to say that my president, Caroline Meredith, is in the gallery today. Would members please welcome her.

J. Beattie: There's a great old song that says that in Chicago they do things they don't do on Broadway. I'm not quite sure what those things are, but there are a couple of people in the gallery today who might be able to help us. We have two visitors from Chicago who are with AT&T Global Information Solutions. Eileen Dougherty is the director of Health Care Industry Consulting, and Mary-Jo Peters is the senior consultant for Health Care Industry Consulting. They are accompanied by Brad Zubyk, who is well known to many of us here. I would ask the House to make them welcome.

T. Perry: Seeing no one else rising, and as this may be the last formal opportunity of the year to do this, I would like to make the traditional introduction of all those visitors to this wonderful city who are in the gallery today who have not yet been introduced. Would members please join me in making them welcome.

Introduction of Bills

PROTECTION OF BRITISH COLUMBIA HERITAGE ARTIFACTS ACT

K. Jones presented a bill intituled Protection of British Columbia Heritage Artifacts Act.

K. Jones: This bill is intended to rectify a situation which occurred as a result of the closing of the British Columbia Transportation Museum in Cloverdale and the resulting disposal of artifacts and automobiles without an opportunity for the donors to have the first choice to take back the items they had gifted to the province. Some were given without any benefit to themselves under the assumption that they would be permanently held as a piece of tangible history available to the future generations of British Columbia. This bill provides the means to accommodate the fair and proper disposal of heritage objects.

[2:15]

I would like to acknowledge the assistance and guidance provided by our research department in 1993 when this member's bill first appeared on the order paper. Their input was invaluable.

Bill M218 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

B.C. TRANSIT CORPORATE SECRETARY

D. Symons: My question is to the minister responsible for B.C. Transit. The official opposition has learned that soon after Lecia Stewart, a longtime friend of the NDP, was appointed to her position as secretary at B.C. Transit, she received an additional favour. She attended a course at Harvard University, courtesy of B.C. Transit, resulting in a cost to the taxpayer of thousands of dollars. How can the minister justify this taxpayer-funded gift to yet another party hack?

Hon. G. Clark: It's a different party, first of all. But let me deal with the question.

Interjection.

Hon. G. Clark: No, seriously.

First, when the government took office there was a corporate secretary's position. The individual in that position was making in excess of $100,000. That's when the Leader of the Opposition was on the board of directors of B.C. Transit. The corporate secretary reported to the chair of the board. That individual moved to another

[ Page 12902 ]

position, and Lecia Stewart became the corporate secretary. The board had a bit of a problem, because the wages were reduced from what existed under the previous administration, and the position was filled by a woman. That caused some consternation, so there was some adjustment. Nevertheless, the position of corporate secretary that Lecia Stewart held made less money than in the previous administration. After she was hired.... I believe she was working with the previous administration in the Ministry of Native Affairs. She has now moved to be general manager for the new commuter rail opportunities -- this exciting opportunity to provide commuter rail all the way to Mission from downtown Vancouver.

The Speaker: Does the member have a further question?

D. Symons: I'm wondering if the minister is talking the clock out. Nevertheless, B.C. Transit...

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members.

D. Symons: ...was apparently letting taxpayer dollars flow freely on behalf of this special NDP insider. Will the minister confirm today that on top of her salary and taxpayer-funded education...

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please, hon. members. Please proceed, hon. member.

D. Symons: ...the taxpayer also paid family travel expenses and day care? Will he inform the House of the total cost of this, yet another, special favour?

Hon. G. Clark: I resent the questions. The individual in question, Lecia Stewart, is paid less than the previous corporate secretary of the board, as I understand it. Secondly, her pay is now consistent with all the other executive compensation. She's doing a superb job initiating a significant improvement in public transportation from downtown Vancouver all the way to Mission.

CUTS TO ADDICTIONS PROGRAMS IN B.C. PRISONS

L. Reid: The Minister of Health has cut funding to all but two alcohol and drug treatment rehab programs in British Columbia's prisons. According to the Elizabeth Fry Society, the value of these programs is undeniable. While this government is giving million-dollar pensions to NDP hacks, how can this minister justify cutting successful programs that reduce crime in our communities?

Hon. P. Ramsey: This program, like others, is obviously very valuable. The members opposite have increasingly called for restraint and the wise management of tax dollars. I regret that this was one of the programs that had to be reduced.

The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.

L. Reid: Indeed we have called for a wise sense of priorities, and it's definitely lacking in this government.

The Young Offenders Act stresses the need for increased drug and alcohol programs that are rehabilitative in nature. These are the very programs that this Minister of Health has eliminated. Did the minister look at the human costs to community safety and to victims in this province, or did he simply decide to make the cut?

Hon. P. Ramsey: It's good to see that even on what is potentially the last day of this legislative session and the last question period, the Liberal opposition still can't decide whether it wants to spend, spend, spend or cut, cut, cut.

CALL FOR PROVINCIAL REFERENDUM ON GAMBLING

J. Weisgerber: My question is to the Attorney General. The referendum on gambling held on the Kahnawake reserve this week should send a message to this government. Will the minister commit today that there will be no major change in gambling in this province without a provincewide referendum, similar to the opportunity the Mohawks gave their people?

Hon. R. Blencoe: The member is aware that there is an ongoing exhaustive review of all gaming and gambling policy in the province, and all options are open in terms of public consultation. That issue has not been resolved, and that is an option, hon. member.

The Speaker: The member has a further question?

J. Weisgerber: There are at least six major Las Vegas-style casino gambling proposals on the table in British Columbia. I believe those proponents wouldn't be going ahead unless they believed that this government planned to change policy. Will the minister commit to a provincewide referendum on gambling before there's any change in policy in the province?

Hon. R. Blencoe: The proponents and the ideas and suggestions for casinos are there, and people are discussing them. They're doing it totally on their own. My advice to those who are suggesting ideas for casinos is that they should recognize that Las Vegas-style casinos are against the law in British Columbia.

PUBLIC SERVICE APPEAL BOARD CHAIR

F. Gingell: Once again the NDP is finding solutions to fit their friends. The Joy Leach whitewash by Treasury Board is the lowest form of justification of any NDP decision. The Minister of Finance based her decision on a briefing note which itself states that other cost factors, such as the anticipated number of appeals and hearings, are as yet undefined. This note deals solely with the relocation issue. My question is to any minister on Treasury Board. Why did Treasury Board allow the Minister of Finance to make this decision based solely on a very small portion of the necessary information?

Hon. G. Clark: I will take the question on notice for the Minister of Finance.

[ Page 12903 ]

The Speaker: The question is taken on notice. The hon. member has another question?

F. Gingell: Perhaps the minister will add this to it, then. Clearly the minister was unable to say no to her friend. The briefing note bases what little analysis it does on the maximum relocation costs. The minister knows that this is false and a biased....

The Speaker: Order, hon. member.

F. Gingell: Why did the minister, when it first came to light, not tell Ms. Leach up front that if she wanted the job, she had to move to Victoria at her own cost?

CLEARCUT LOGGING PRACTICES IN B.C.

W. Hurd: I have a question for the Minister of Forests. Yesterday in a Vancouver courtroom New Democratic MP Svend Robinson pleaded guilty to criminal contempt in connection with an illegal blockade at Clayoquot Sound. Mr. Robinson called clearcut logging a betrayal of future generations in the province of British Columbia. In light of the fact that the Premier is visiting California to convince California to continue buying newsprint made from clearcut logs, will this minister stand today and condemn the statements of Svend Robinson and reaffirm clearcut logging in the province of British Columbia?

Hon. A. Petter: Well, I suppose it's appropriate in the final question period of the session that the official opposition would once again demonstrate its misunderstanding of the sub judice rule, as it has throughout this session. Sentencing in that case is still pending.

However, it's even more outrageous that this member would stand up and ask a question about forest practices two days after that member and his caucus voted against enforcement measures in the Forest Practices Code that will ensure the best forest practices in this province. That is truly outrageous.

The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.

W. Hurd: Mr. Speaker, a member of the New Democratic Party has called clearcut logging a betrayal of future generations in British Columbia. This minister's Premier is visiting California to belie that statement. Will the minister stand in the assembly today as Minister of Forests and tell the people of the province and the people of California that clearcut logging is a responsible logging and silvicultural method in the province of British Columbia?

Hon. A. Petter: It's rather sad that after debating forestry throughout this session, this is the only issue on which this member seems to have a position. This is the member who voted against the forest renewal plan and against enforcement measures in the Forest Practices Code. This is the member and the party that voted against a secure forest base for forest workers through a forest land reserve. I lament the fact that this is the only question he can come up with in the dying days of the session.

FAMILY MAINTENANCE DEFAULTERS

R. Neufeld: I have a question for the Attorney General. The minister is quoted as saying that they are considering a policy that would confiscate driving privileges from deadbeat dads. Has the minister taken into account how those deadbeat dads are going to get back and forth to work if their driving privileges are removed?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: This minister has never made such a statement. In fact, this House earlier this session considered amendments to the Family Maintenance Enforcement Act which did not include any reference to those kinds of changes. If those kinds of changes were to be contemplated they would have been in that bill, and they weren't.

STUDENT LOAN DEFAULTERS

R. Neufeld: It is my understanding that the Minister of Women's Equality, who is not in the House today, has had representations made to both ministers on this issue. We pointed out several months ago that the total value of defaulted student loans soared by 174 percent since this government was elected. If the government is considering taking driving privileges away from deadbeat dads, would they be in favour of taking driving privileges away from students who are behind on their student loans?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I am not the minister of advanced education, so I can't answer that part of the question. I want to make it very clear to the members of the House, so there can be no misunderstanding of this issue, that there has been no suggestion by this government that we are going to tie driver's licence privileges to family maintenance enforcement payments. There is no connection whatsoever, and we are not doing it. The fact that some lobbyists or interest groups may have made that presentation to ministers doesn't mean we agree with it.

KILLING OF ELK IN CHILLIWACK RIVER VALLEY

R. Chisholm: My question is to the Minister of Environment. On December 8, 1993, it was reported in the paper that four female elk in a protected herd were shot and killed in the Chilliwack River valley. In response to recent inquiries about this incident, concerned citizens were informed that an investigation is underway. Could the minister explain why this investigation is still ongoing after six months, and why no action has been taken against the individuals responsible?

Hon. M. Sihota: The matter the hon. member refers to is under investigation. There is a process which I'm sure the hon. member would benefit from being informed of, and I will inform him of that process. First of all, the process involves an analysis by conservation officers, collection of the evidence and then forwarding the material to the Attorney General's office for assessment. That process normally takes somewhere in the neighbourhood of six to nine months. That is why, I would suspect, no charges have yet been laid in this case.

The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.

R. Chisholm: It has been six months and, as we stated, the investigation into this matter has not been completed.

[ Page 12904 ]

The minister's refusal to demand a prompt investigation into this incident is causing much consternation and tension in the Chilliwack area. Could the minister explain what this ministry is held up on with this investigation that has warranted such an unnecessary time lag?

[2:30]

Hon. M. Sihota: I think you would agree, hon. member, assuming there's a desire on your part to ensure that the anxiety in the community is attended to, that conservation officers and others should be given the opportunity to collect, collate and develop the evidence that they need in order to have a successful prosecution. Second, they should follow through with the Attorney General's ministry to determine whether or not the evidence is sufficient for the laying of a charge. Those are necessary ingredients before a charge is laid and that's why there's been a delay in this case.

The Speaker: The bell terminates question period.

M. de Jong: Hon. Speaker, I rise today on a point of order.

The Speaker: Please proceed, hon. member.

M. de Jong: I believe a matter has arisen which this House is obligated to act upon. I refer the House to standing order 90, where it states: "If it shall appear that any person has been elected and returned a member of this House...by bribery, or any other corrupt practices, this House will proceed with the utmost severity against all such persons...."

My submission has two components. First, as a result of the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society scandal, there is an appearance that some members of the House may have been elected with the assistance of unlawfully or fraudulently withheld funds. I want to add at the outset that I'm not at this time dealing with matters with....

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please. Please proceed, hon. member.

M. de Jong: I'm not speaking of matters that are presently before the courts. Standing order 90 sets out the obligations this House has to examine the conduct of members where there is an appearance of corrupt practices. That question is not before the courts. There is a prima facie case, in my submission, for this House to consider, which rests on the following facts.

I will refer to a letter written by a former Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Stupich, in which he states: "In summary, all of the organizations listed above -- that is, the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society, the Harewood Social Centre and the B.C. Tomorrow Committee -- exist to further the political interests of the New Democratic Party." Second, I would refer to the financial statements of the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society for the years 1989, '90 and '91, wherein it's revealed that political contributions of thousands of dollars were made. Third, I would refer to comments of the member for Nanaimo that were reported in the June 10, 1994, edition of the Vancouver Sun. The member is quoted as saying: "Years and years ago, everyone who was a New Democrat in Nanaimo had some connection with the Commonwealth Society. Their purpose in existing was to help the party...in that sense, yes, I may have benefited. No question." I will table the letter, the financial statements and the newspaper article with the House upon my conclusion shortly.

The second and final submission I would make on the point is that this appearance of impropriety in the election of members compels this House -- and I again quote from the standing order -- to "proceed with the utmost severity." It is our belief, and my belief, that those words are not to be taken lightly and that they compel -- and I make that submission respectfully -- this House to deal with the matter in a timely and public fashion, prior to this House adjourning.

In conclusion, if the House and the Chair find that action by this House is called for pursuant to standing order 90, I would be prepared to move the following motion: that pursuant to standing order 90, the question of the conduct of NDP members who may have benefited from fraudulently obtained moneys such that their election to this House may have been the result of "corrupt practices" be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform and Ethical Conduct, and that such committee be required to hold public hearings on this matter and that they be provided the right to subpoena witnesses. That is my respectful submission.

Hon. G. Clark: It is perhaps fitting, hon. Speaker, as we near the end of the legislative session, that we see a pattern having developed over this session in which all members of the opposition other than those in the Liberal Party have asked substantive questions on matters of public policy; whereas Liberal Party members, right to the end, have chosen to wallow, it seems to me, in the gutter and degenerate the level of debate to a level which we have never seen before.

This is not a point of order. This is an attempt at political grandstanding at the end of the session, and it is a desperate attempt by the Liberal Party to rescue what really has been a failed session for them.

D. Mitchell: Hon. Speaker, speaking briefly to the point of order raised by the member for Matsqui, when the Chair rules on whether or not there is a point of order here -- and I don't know if there is or not -- there's only one way, in my mind, for the Chair to determine whether there is a valid point of order. A special prosecutor looking into the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society affair wrote a report. That report has never been made public, and officially, the details of that report are not public knowledge. The Attorney General may have a submission to make on this, as well. The only way to know whether or not there is a violation of standing order 90, as the member for Matsqui has submitted, is to know if the special prosecutor, Mr. Ace Henderson, indicated in his report whether or not any sitting member of this assembly has benefited from the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society activities. If in fact there is such an indication in Mr. Ace Henderson's report, then I think it will be possible to judge whether or not the member has a valid point of order. The only way to determine this is to seek a commitment from the Attorney General, or from the Assistant Deputy Attorney General, that Mr. Ace Henderson's report will be made public in a timely fashion, so that kind of determination can be made. Until

[ Page 12905 ]

that report is made public, I would submit that there is no way of ruling on this point of order.

G. Wilson: The point of order raised by the member for Matsqui is one of the most severe in nature, because it goes to the very heart of corruption. It suggests that in fact there are sitting members of this House who should be removed from office as a result of that corruption. Because this is such a grave accusation and charge, and implies that material in Mr. Henderson's report that has not been made public may impact on the ability of a member to serve, I believe that the member who has raised this matter should, outside this House, name those members who he believes are in violation.

The Speaker: Thank you, hon. members, for your submissions, and the hon. member for raising the matter. I will take the matter under consideration and bring back a ruling as soon as possible.

Presenting Petitions

J. Tyabji: I rise to seek leave to table a petition.

The Speaker: The nature of the petition, hon. member?

J. Tyabji: This is a petition bearing approximately 1,500 signatures from the communities of Winfield and Kelowna with respect to chiropractors' fees. It has to do with an increase in cost. I'll read the prayer of the petition:

"To the hon. the Legislative Assembly of the province of British Columbia in the Legislature assembled: the petition of the undersigned chiropractic patients of Dr. R.A. Kobayashi of the Okanagan Valley states that the actions of the NDP government in reducing the amount paid for chiropractic treatments by $2.50 is unfair to patients and not cost-effective. Your petitioners respectfully request that the hon. House retract this decision and adopt the recommendations of the British Columbia Chiropractic Association to pay the full cost of chiropractic visits and x-rays, as you do for medical patients, and to provide unlimited visits for chiropractic care, as you do for medical patients."

The petition is dated April 19, 1994.

T. Perry: I rise to present a petition from members and supporters of the Airspace Non-smokers' Rights Society. Earlier this afternoon the Minister of Health was courteous enough to introduce members of the society who are in the gallery. Though I can't espy them, I think they're up there somewhere. They are there, and I hope they can hear.

The petition reads:

"We, the undersigned citizens of British Columbia, petition the government of British Columbia to legislate a smoking ban in all public places, workplaces and all places that are open to the public for business, including restaurants, bars, shopping malls, bingo halls, etc."

Interjection.

T. Perry: I don't know whether, in deference to the member for Burnaby North, it includes taxicabs or not.

It is signed by 4,400 citizens from various parts of the province. Many people did a great deal of work to collect those signatures, and I would like to ask permission of members to table the petition.

The Speaker: It's not required, hon member.

Hon. A. Petter tabled the annual report of the Ministry of Forests for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1993.

Hon. C. Gabelmann tabled the 1992-93 annual report of the Motor Carrier Commission.

Presenting Reports

F. Gingell: I have the honour to present the first report of the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts for the third session, and I move that the report be taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

F. Gingell: I ask leave of the House to suspend the rules to permit moving a motion to adopt the report.

Leave granted.

F. Gingell: It is a pleasure to table this report. I'd like to point out to members that one of the issues that was dealt with by the Public Accounts Committee this year was the tardiness with which ministries and other agencies tabled their reports. This report, hon. members, brings us up to 9 o'clock last Tuesday morning, so it is most timely.

Mr. Speaker, the committee met 12 times this year, and I would like to publicly acknowledge the commitment of the members of this committee on both sides of the House and thank them, particularly the member for New Westminster, the Deputy Chair, for her support.

The work of the Public Accounts Committee is important, as the Ministers of Municipal Affairs and Employment and Investment have stated in the past. The work of the committee is a critical ingredient in the accountability process, which we all support.

The committee has not been able to finalize its work. There is still one more report by the auditor general that the committee has not been able to deal with. I am sure that it comes as a great deal of surprise to all members that I have written to the Premier asking that all members of this House support a motion to allow the committee to sit out of session so that at least the auditor general's reports can be dealt with and we don't go into next year with a backlog of work.

[2:45]

I ask for the support of all members of this House, and I anticipate that the Government House Leader will move that motion very shortly. With that, I thank you for your time and indulgence.

Motion approved.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G. Clark: Report on Bill 40, hon. Speaker.

FOREST PRACTICES CODE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA ACT

Bill 40 read a third time and passed on the following division:

[ Page 12906 ]

Hon. G. Clark: I wonder why it took so long to pass if everybody was in favour of it.

I call committee on Bill 56, hon. Speaker.

FOREST LAND RESERVE ACT
(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 56; D. Lovick in the chair.

On section 2.

W. Hurd: I would like a brief clarification with respect to section 2, which "binds the government." Does this section mean that the government will be responsible for approaching the Forest Land Commission if it chooses to develop or redesignate Crown land within a forest management unit?

Hon. A. Petter: This section means that the act in its entirety applies to the Crown, and when we get to the particular sections, the member will discover that with respect to Crown lands in the forest land reserve, the presumption is that the commission would first pass judgment on the exclusion before it is referred to cabinet for decision. But we will deal with that, I'm sure, when we get to that section. This simply overcomes the presumption in the Interpretation Act, and reverses it in favour of a presumption that the Crown is indeed subject to the act.

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

W. Hurd: Section 3, which deals with the establishment of the commission, makes reference to the commission being established as a corporation consisting of members appointed under section 5, and says that the commission is an agent of the Crown. To my knowledge, this is clearly a different type of commission than the Agricultural Land Commission, based on the fact that it appears to have corporate status. I wonder if the minister could clarify whether we are dealing with a corporation such as a Crown corporation, or whether it is a commission or agency of government.

Hon. A. Petter: I hope the member's research capacity is more consistent for the rest of the debate. Let me read him section 2(1) of the Agricultural Land Commission Act: "The Provincial Agricultural Land Commission is continued as a corporation consisting of not less than five members...."

W. Hurd: I'm trying to anticipate how the commission will work in terms of its capacity. When we're dealing with a Crown corporation like Forest Renewal B.C. and a commission such as the Forest Land Commission, and now the Agricultural Land Commission, I'm assuming that it's a different type of reporting structure to the Legislative Assembly. Or are we involved in exactly the same type of process here, in the minister's judgment? As the minister knows, Crown corporations have an appointed board of directors and a chairman. Clearly, the Forest Land Commission and the Agricultural Land Commission members are known as commissioners. There appears to be a different definition to the word "corporation," and I am seeking clarification from the minister on that point.

Hon. A. Petter: The corporate status that's envisaged here is simply to make clear the legal entity, the legal identity, of the commission. It is not presupposed that the commission will act as a commercial Crown corporation might act. It's just that in order to give the commission legal status, it is necessary that it be established as a corporation, as is commonly done with other such commissions, like the Agricultural Land Commission.

Section 3 approved.

On section 4.

W. Hurd: I think this is another important defining section. It deals with the object of the commission, which is to "minimize the impact of urban development and rural area settlement on forest reserve land and to work to this end with local governments, first nations and other communities of interests." I wonder if the minister feels that that definition, which is somewhat narrow in scope, will deal with cases of smaller land holders in the province who will find themselves governed by the terms and conditions of this act when it is passed into law. I'm thinking specifically of more rural areas that are a considerable distance away from urban centres. This particular section seems to apply explicitly to the challenges being faced on Vancouver Island, not to some of the challenges that might be evident in the interior of the province, where the activities on the land base would not necessarily be the kind attached to a tree farm licence, for example. In reviewing some of the parcels in the province that represent managed forest lands, the minister will know that a considerable number of them range in size from 50 hectares and up. I wonder if he's satisfied that this particular section, as a defining section for the objects of the commission, would take into account those small holdings of land that will be governed by the full force of this act.

[3:00]

[ Page 12907 ]

Hon. A. Petter: Yes, I am. Remembering that there's a range of economic activities that can take place on reserve land and allowable uses that can be approved by the commission, this speaks to what I think has been an overriding concern that has brought about the depletion, or threatened depletion, of the forest land base in parts of the province -- that is, both urban development and rural area settlement. If those kinds of pressures do not exist, then the other pressures can be accommodated within the reserve designation.

W. Hurd: Under section 4, when we talk about the interest groups with which the board will be expected to liaise, reference is made to local governments, other communities of interest and also first nations. Could the minister clarify whether those would be government-to-government negotiations, such as might exist with respect to the Treaty Commission? Or would they just be a consultative mechanism whereby the Crown advises first nations that a parcel of land has moved into the status of a managed forest and is now subject to the full terms and conditions of the commission's jurisdiction?

Hon. A. Petter: Remembering that an important component of the land reserve is Crown land and recognizing that over that Crown land -- at least components of it -- first nations have asserted certain rights, flowing from that the courts have recognized an obligation for consultation with first nations by government. It's only appropriate that there be a mechanism for first nations to be consulted where they may have particular direct interest in the land. This just recognizes that as local governments are consulted, so too should first nations within those areas, and potentially other communities of interest that have a stake in the decision-making, thereby assisting the commission in rendering its decisions.

W. Hurd: As the minister knows, however, something like 130 percent of the land base in British Columbia is under some form of active claim. Clearly, if the decision is made to put land into a forest land reserve -- particularly around urban areas -- if it's Crown land, there is a potential to diminish its value for purposes of commercial and residential development. I think the question is pertinent, because if at some future point the government were to award compensation in the form of access to or title over Crown land, then the consultation the minister talks about would be more than might be required with any other type of local government or other concern. I assume that we might deal with some section in the act which talks about it being without prejudice to the notion of title or claim under the Treaty Commission Act. I'm just trying to clarify it. For example, under section 4, one of the objectives of the commission is obviously to minimize the effect of urban development and rural settlements. In doing so, it would be ruling on whether land should come out of the forest land reserve, whether taxes should be paid or whether to turn it down. I wonder if the minister could just be a little more specific on what types of consultations will be undertaken with respect to the Crown land component of the forest land reserve.

Hon. A. Petter: We can discuss this in some greater detail when we get to the question of the designation and exclusion of Crown land. But I do want to distinguish for the member between two situations. With respect to first nations rights, which he referred to, I think the kind of consultation he's talking about would have to take place in the context of treaty negotiations. This act is referring to talking to groups that have an interest in land use decisions, outside the context of treaty negotiations. Within the context of treaty negotiations, there may well be discussions about all sorts of issues around valuation, land, etc. What we're simply talking about here is the fact that in making decisions, the commission will want to take account of the views of those in the area who have some interest and some information to offer, and that includes local governments, first nations and other communities of interest. This is not a vehicle for first nations to express their treaty aspirations; there are other vehicles for that.

W. Hurd: I realize that we may want to address this at a future time in this bill. But before leaving this section, I would just point out that when we were dealing with the Commission on Resources and Environment, there was a clear implication that none of the recommendations or decisions that cabinet might make with respect to CORE would in any way prejudice the rights and titles of aboriginal people in the province. Since we spent considerable time this morning in the definitions section of the bill addressing the issue of valuation of land within the reserve, clearly there's potential here for the interpretation that without a similar designation for first nations rights in this particular act, there could be the potential to diminish the Crown land that might be awarded to first nations by way of compensation for unextinguished title. I just point that out, and maybe we can deal with it further on in the bill.

Section 4 approved.

On section 5.

W. Hurd: On the appointment of no fewer than three individuals as members of the commission, is there any particular reason why the government has decided on that particular number? Or are we anticipating here a larger contingent on the commission? Having reviewed the bill, I haven't been able to determine what the optimum number of commissioners would be. Could the minister clarify for the committee how many individuals he envisages will be serving on the Forest Land Commission? Given the fact that there are so many different classifications of forest land in the province and different bioclimatic regions, it seems like an onerous task for three individuals.

Hon. A. Petter: This reserve is going to grow as the land use planning process is completed. Initially, the land base for the reserve we envisage consists of the private managed forest land, 96 percent of which is located in two geographic regions of the province -- over 73 percent on Vancouver Island and over 23 percent in the Kootenays -- plus the Crown land on Vancouver Island. Initially I would envisage about three members on the commission, but as we add further lands, particularly Crown lands, we may want a commission that will have a broader membership that is familiar with conditions on Crown land elsewhere in the province. So I think three is an appropriate number as a starting point. Beyond that, we may wish to expand the commission to make sure the commission has the expertise to deal with what will be an

[ Page 12908 ]

expanding reserve as land use planning processes are completed.

Section 5 approved.

On section 6.

W. Hurd: I just have one brief request on section 6 -- and 7 and 8, for that matter. A comparison is being drawn between this commission and the Agricultural Land Commission. With respect to the staff, operations and financial and corporate matters of the commission, I just wonder whether it would be appropriate to ask one question with respect to all three -- namely, do any of these requirements vary in any degree from the Agricultural Land Commission model on which the Forest Land Commission has been based?

Hon. A. Petter: In essence, they are the same. The only substantive difference is apparently in section 8, where we've moved to 30-day reporting, which is now the standard time period contained in legislation. I think that's a slightly longer period than the Agricultural Land Commission. In all essential elements, it tracks the Agricultural Land Commission. Indeed, as the member is aware, the administration for this commission is the same as for the Agricultural Land Commission.

Sections 6 to 8 inclusive approved.

On section 9.

W. Hurd: I just have a brief question for clarification with respect to section 9. This gets us into the definition of the forest land reserve. Obviously we're dealing with the opportunity of a private land holder who has not had his land designated -- in other words, it's not attached to an existing forest management unit -- to make an application to add the land to the reserve. Is this an issue that we could more appropriately deal with in a future section?

Hon. A. Petter: This section foreshadows the fact that a component of the reserve can be private land that is added by an individual's application to the commission. That would probably be more appropriately discussed under section 11, which deals with that procedure.

Section 9 approved.

On section 10.

W. Hurd: Just a brief clarification with respect to 10(2)(b), which refers to: "...the owner of the land applied before October 31, 1993 to have the land classified under the Assessment Act as managed forest land...." Can the minister indicate the relevance that particular date might have to the owner of land who is making application? Why should that date exist in this particular section?

Hon. A. Petter: It refers to a statutory date in the Assessment Act for applications for inclusion in the following year.

W. Hurd: Section 10(3) indicates that "private land is not designated under subsection (1)(b) as forest reserve land if...." -- and then it lists the conditions. It seems to imply a responsibility on the part of a private land owner that if he doesn't take specific action, his land may be designated. Is that the intent? Is the minister satisfied that as soon as this bill passes into law, the owners of every portion of private land so designated will be knowledgable and aware that their land has now been redesignated, and that there will be no need for them to take any action to have it not designated?

[3:15]

Hon. A. Petter: What we're seeking to do here is take account of those owners who took action subsequent to the 1993 year to have their land removed from the existing classification. The 1993 year is used because it is the last authoritative roll, if I can use the term, in that it is not subject to ongoing appeals and changes, as the current 1994 roll would be. We want to take account of those who, subsequent to the 1993 year, took some affirmative action to notify the Assessment Authority that they no longer wished to have their land classed as managed. If they have done that, their land is not included within the reserve. This is to make sure we do not prejudice those who took action in respect of the Assessment Authority prior to the introduction of this legislation to make sure their land was not within the classification of private managed forest land, and it therefore will not be included in the reserve.

W. Hurd: This may be another question that can be dealt with later, and I seek the minister's clarification in that regard. There have been concerns expressed on Vancouver Island that the Assessment Authority itself is often the triggering mechanism for taking forest land out of production. I assume it is an initiative of local government that causes that to happen.

We're communicating here through a series of nods and shakes, hon. Chair.

I wonder if section 10 in any way limits the Assessment Authority in undertaking that, and if that problem has existed in the past. Could the minister explain that? I'm referring to the Assessment Authority taking the initiative of reclassifying forest land and forcing the owner to redesignate it, simply because the taxes can no longer be sustained. Does section 10 now prevent the Assessment Authority from taking that kind of action?

Hon. A. Petter: This section sort of addresses it, and it's dealt with elsewhere. For the sake of clarity, we might as well deal with it now, because I think it's an important point. It's one of the real benefits of this legislation.

Right now, once a land owner has had land designated as private managed forest land, then that designation is maintained and cannot be altered by the Assessment Authority, except under two conditions. One is if the owner ceases to maintain the management plan for the land, and the other is if there is a change of ownership. In either of those two cases, the designation automatically becomes unmanaged forest land.

At the point that it's unmanaged, the Assessment Authority will come in and re-evaluate it and determine whether its highest and best use remains forestry. In that case, it would stay as unmanaged forest land, and the owner could then apply to have it redesignated as managed. Alternatively, and this is the problem the member is alluding to, the Assessment Authority can come in and say it believes the land has a higher and better use. Notwithstanding the owner's intention to continue it in forest production -- and that's perhaps the new owner, who has taken over from the former owner --

[ Page 12909 ]

our view is that its highest and best use is for some other purpose.

It has been very frustrating for companies that have acquired land within the reserve to find that, despite their intentions to continue to manage it, the Assessment Authority -- doing the job we've asked it to do, I might add -- says that the land can no longer stay in the managed forest classification because it has a higher and better use.

The effect of this act will be to remedy that. The effect will be that, once you are in the forest land reserve, you're maintained within the reserve. If you cease to manage the land, it will come under the classification of unmanaged, but it will not be subject to the Assessment Authority converting it into some other, higher-and-better-use classification.

This means that when there are transfers of ownership, for example, the new owners can be assured they will continue to enjoy the same tax benefits as the previous owners, which is an assurance that cannot be had now. One has to foreshadow what the Assessment Authority might do. This will thereby increase stability for those who acquire land within this reserve with the intention of managing it for forestry purposes, and provide a measure of stability they do not now have.

W. Hurd: Where the managed forest land has fallen behind on its management and working plan and has become an unmanaged stand, and has possibly even changed ownership, can the minister advise the committee who makes the determination that the stand is not current with its plan? Is that a function of the Ministry of Forests? Or does the Assessment Authority have any jurisdiction in making that determination? Do the two agencies confer? As the minister knows, the Assessment Authority is an independent creation, and it is deemed necessary that it be so in order to reach a fair evaluation for tax purposes.

Hon. A. Petter: That is currently done by the Assessment Authority, and they have foresters on staff to do that. That will continue to be done by the Assessment Authority through its staff.

Section 10 approved.

On section 11.

W. Hurd: This is the best section to raise the point that I made earlier about the designation by request of the owner. I wonder if the minister is anticipating that large land owners would seek to advantage themselves with this section. I'm really struggling with the notion that someone who has a small plot of private land -- and this wouldn't be the case on Vancouver Island as much as it would be in the interior -- would seek in any way to advantage themselves with respect to section 11, because they would then be governed by the full terms and conditions of the forest land reserve. In my view, that would severely limit their options for the future. So I wonder if the minister could give the committee examples of incentives for small land owners -- particularly those in the interior who, say, own unimproved land in a remote setting -- to advantage themselves with respect to section 11.

Hon. A. Petter: I'd be happy to provide an example from my own constituency. In the Highlands area of my constituency there are small owners of forest land. I think this section will largely be of benefit to small owners, because most of the unmanaged forest land in the province is held by smaller owners -- the larger owners already have the managed-category designation. They have been trying to get themselves included within the managed forest land category, but have been frustrated for the reason we discussed earlier -- namely, the Assessment Authority does not agree that the highest and best use of the land is forestry, even though the owners wish to use it for that purpose. From a purely economic point of view, even though the land is good growing land and has forestry potential, the Assessment Authority, under its independent mandate, has determined that forestry is not currently the highest and best use.

This section will enable owners of those small portions of land to apply through the commission to have their land included within the reserve. In exchange for that inclusion, those owners will get the tax benefits of managed forest land if the commission agrees that the land is suitable for forestry use.

W. Hurd: I can understand the minister's example in an urban setting, where property taxes are punitive or at least onerous, based on current assessments. I am thinking of more of a rural taxation model where the land already used for forest practices, which is subject now to the Forest Practices Code, might be land on which ranching is part of the activity and there's a limited amount of harvesting going on. When the taxation issue is really not a relevant factor, I just don't see what inducement, if any, there would be for someone to come forward and achieve this designation. Or is this particular bill not intended to address private forest land on which taxes are simply not a huge issue?

Hon. A. Petter: First, with respect to grazing, that land would be classified as farmland, not forest land for most purposes. It's true that taxation-wise there may be not much incentive in areas where there's not much difference, although there is the opportunity to benefit from the tax reduction from unmanaged to managed forest land, which provides some inducement. There certainly would not be as strong an inducement in far-flung rural areas as there would be in areas closer to settlement land or which have recreation potential.

R. Neufeld: I also have some difficulty with what the official opposition critic was talking about with regard to some of the small landholdings. I don't have any problem with the larger landholdings. There are 4,200 folios taken into account on private managed forest land in British Columbia. I didn't add up the amount of acres or hectares, but some folios are as small as seven acres. Can the minister assure me that all of these people -- disregarding the larger companies like MacMillan Bloedel -- with the smaller holdings, including people with seven acres in Vernon or Kelowna, have voluntarily requested to have their land put in managed forest land. Can he assure me that we will not hear from any one of these people because of what is transpiring here today with the removal of.... I call it an assault on private property rights. The minister and I differ there, and I have to get that on the record. I have difficulty believing that someone with

[ Page 12910 ]

14 acres would designate it as forest land for only forest purposes. It is just beyond me.

Hon. A. Petter: This probably isn't the section in which to discuss this, but it is an important issue. With the Chair's indulgence I will do so, because this section deals with those who wish to add into the reserve, not those who are already there.

Interjection.

Hon. A. Petter: Yes. But let me answer the question. The number of folios is one thing. The number we are talking about is 121 owners of all the private managed forest land in the province. I can give the member an absolute assurance that every single one of those owners made application to the Assessment Authority to have that land designated as private managed forest land, and made the commitments that were appropriate to that designation. I can tell the member that there are many others who would like to have done so but couldn't because they couldn't get into the unmanaged category to make the application, because of the tax benefits.

I don't want to pretend to the member that means they will all necessarily be happy with the creation of a reserve, which imposes some additional restrictions that I believe are consistent with the commitments they made. But they may disagree with that. I can give him an absolute assurance that each and every one of those owners made application and indicated their intention to manage that land as managed forest land.

W. Hurd: To follow up the point made by the member for Peace River North, the issue is whether those owners will now be made aware -- or have been made aware -- that while they may have applied with respect to managed forest land under the previous rules, they will now have to go before a commission to apply to have the land taken out, and may in fact have to pay back taxes. It seems to me that there is a risk here that a lot of small land owners who have holdings as small as seven hectares will wake up tomorrow -- or perhaps two or even ten years from now -- and still be unaware that a significant change has occurred with respect to their fee simple land. I think that was also part of the assurance that was being sought here.

Hon. A. Petter: I can assure the member that all 121 owners will be informed of the status and of its implications. I am sure that those who made the commitment in good faith to manage it for forestry in the long term will not be the slightest bit perturbed. But there may be some who disagree with my assessment.

H. De Jong: I have a question on this. I don't deny that the minister is speaking the truth in terms of these people being aware of the fact that they have applied for this special classification. But suppose there is a 40-acre parcel within a regional district that the regional district, through its community plan, has seen fit to designate into five- or ten-acre minimum lot sizes. Can the minister explain whether the five- or ten-acre designation would continue? Would the individual be able to subdivide on that basis, considering, of course, that the land use was relatively maintained?

Hon. A. Petter: We're straying from this section -- and there is a section that deals with subdivision -- but the short answer, to clear these up now, is that if it's in an official community plan designation, but not an actual subdivision that currently exists, then the owner would not be permitted to subdivide without first seeking the approval of the commission.

Section 11 approved.

On section 12.

W. Hurd: Section 12 implies that over the course of time the cabinet may designate forest land to be part of this forest land reserve. I wonder whether there's any requirement for public input or involvement with respect to this type of initiative from cabinet. Would it be a normal order-in-council, or some other measure, by the Crown?

[3:30]

I have a series of additional questions, but they might better pertain to section 13. One question I asked the minister earlier was whether the Crown land designated as part of the forest land reserve would in fact be subject to a full review by the commission, which could then theoretically turn down a cabinet order to designate land or to take land out. I'm just wondering, and this may not be the appropriate section, whether the Crown, if it makes application to remove land or add it, is subject to a full review by the commission and the decision by the commission.

Hon. A. Petter: We should leave the question of removal until we get to that section. This section deals with addition and enables the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, through cabinet order, to designate land or add Crown land to the reserve. There is also a power that enables the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to refer that proposal to the commission for its comments, where that's appropriate.

We've certainly made it clear that our policy will be to make those designations following land use planning processes in which the public is fully involved. This includes the kind of planning processes that have occurred on Vancouver Island, culminating in the Vancouver Island land use decision, or the LRMP processes that are taking place in communities and areas like Kamloops, where again the public is fully involved. What this enables us to do, and what we intend to do, is use this as an instrument to secure the forest land base on Crown land that is identified as a result of those planning processes, so that the designation can be given the same kind of legislative footing through cabinet order that parkland, for example, now enjoys. On Vancouver Island we will be proceeding to designate that component of the land base that will be available for commercial forestry, which is 81 percent of the land base and which will then, under the Forest Practices Code, be further designated for particular commercial forestry uses.

The intention is to designate, following land use planning processes, in order to give the same kind of legislative status to the commercial forest base that is enjoyed by agricultural land or parkland.

W. Hurd: The member for Abbotsford has raised a sound point with respect to how local communities or governments may be affected by such designation. Clearly, if the Crown were to designate an area adjacent to

[ Page 12911 ]

an urban centre as forest land reserve, it would in essence be introducing a much lower rate of taxation for that land, one would assume.

Hon. A. Petter: It's Crown land.

W. Hurd: Oh, it's Crown land. That's correct.

I'm wondering whether this designation would be subject to any form of local hearing or planning initiative by the municipality. Or would the Crown basically make a decision to designate the land based on its forestry values? The implication is that once placed in the reserve, there would be virtually no chance that the Crown would seek to redesignate the land at a future date.

Hon. A. Petter: Again, the situation may be a little different when we get to the exclusion side. But on the inclusion side, I would point out that the land to be included is land that is already within the provincial forest, under the Forest Act. It is Crown land. Certainly municipalities and local governments are important voices involved in all the land use planning processes that are taking place and that will lead to this designation, be it through the regional planning process that has been established by CORE or the LRMP process that is ongoing in a number of areas of the province.

[J. Pullinger in the chair.]

R. Neufeld: Just a little further along, on municipalities and regional districts, I am trying to picture in my mind the constituency I represent, specifically Fort Nelson. It's a little different situation than what you might find in Fort St. John or some place on the Island. All the land is Crown land; there is very little privately held land around Fort Nelson. In fact, the forest land encompasses that community very closely. The community has had difficulty expanding, trying to get land away from Lands for rural-residential use -- and that's presently, before this bill comes into effect. We know that the object of the commission is to minimize the impact of urban development. When I relate my memory back to what takes place in the Agricultural Land Commission and the difficulties there, I can see that this may make it a little more difficult for communities to expand. Specifically, that is one.

Maybe the minister could help me with another thing that happens in that constituency. There are people who are still farming or who want to start farming in that part of British Columbia, and they've always had difficulty with the forest designation. It encompasses a huge area, but that doesn't mean the whole area is best used for forest purposes. There are lots of areas around Fort Nelson that are better used for agricultural than for forest purposes.

What is going to happen there, Mr. Minister? I think that is going to be a real difficulty for those people who still want to try to clear land and farm. That may not be common in the lower mainland around Vancouver or on Vancouver Island, but there are a few hardy souls in the north who still want to clear land and farm. It's on land owned by the Crown and designated for forests. I think this bill may make it a little more difficult.

Hon. A. Petter: There are three components to the member's question that I want to answer.

First, just to be clear, we are aware of no private land whatsoever in the member's region that would come in here as private managed forest land -- just to set that concern aside, if there was one.

On the question of Crown land, our policy will be to only include Crown land within the reserve once there has been a local or regional planning process in which the views of the municipalities and others have been heard. If there is a need to provide for land for urban expansion, that presumably would form part of the proposed plan, and the designations would take account of that.

There are two other points to be made. Once a forest land reserve on Crown land is created following such a planning process in any region of the province, including the region the member represents, there is a process for exclusion, which we will get to. One of the indicators for exclusion has to do with the need for urban expansion or community expansion, and an evaluation of highest and best use.

Beyond that, as we'll see when we get to the definition of forest land reserve, there is the opportunity for other activities -- like grazing, for example -- to take place within the forest land base. There's no reason to remove land from the forest land base to provide for grazing. Through regulation, one could provide for other forms of agricultural activity as well within the forest land reserve base. While forestry is certainly the primary economic activity within the forest land base, other resource base activities, including grazing and potentially other agricultural uses, could be accommodated within that base.

H. De Jong: The minister made a slight reference to park reserves. As I understand it, the 23 new parks that have been established or are intended to be established here on Vancouver Island are not going to be within the forest reserve, but in a park reserve. Given the situation, though -- and I experienced it when I was in municipal office from time to time with a rather densely treed park -- there needs to be some trimming within the parks. Some trees need to be cut from time to time because of age, dead treetops and so on to protect the safety of the individuals who may be using the parks, and to let some sunlight into some areas. Would it not make a lot more sense to allow for some selective tree-cutting, if I may call it that, or logging to be done within the parks, which would only enhance the parks, and keep those areas within the forest reserve? It would allow for a far broader use of the parks. It was mentioned earlier during the debate that some of the wetlands may be included in the forest reserve. Why are the wetlands in the forest reserve? Why not the other parks as well? I think it would lend to a much clearer understanding that, yes, when a tree becomes too old -- like any other crop, it outgrows itself -- it has to be either thinned out or cut down in a reasonable way, and trees will be replanted. After all, new growth has to occur from time to time.

Hon. A. Petter: The intention of the reserve is to designate the land base that is available for commercial forestry. That does not mean that there might not be some removal of trees within parks for reasons of safety or biological reasons that are allowed within the Park Act. But that is not a land base that is available for commercial forestry. It's a land base from which trees that have some commercial value -- or not -- may be removed, but for different reasons. For that reason, it is appropriate in our

[ Page 12912 ]

view to not dilute the concept of the forest land reserve to include incidental cutting of trees in areas outside of the reserve that can and may go on in accordance with the requirements of the Park Act, but rather to designate that component of the land base that is secured for commercial forestry and other renewable resource activities and natural resource activities on that land base. That's what's intended here.

Section 12 approved.

On section 13.

W. Hurd: I think this is an important section as well, because it designates the permitted uses of Crown licence land within the forest land reserve. I want to specifically address my questions to 13(2). First of all, can the minister advise how the designation of "forest or wilderness oriented recreation, scenery and wilderness purposes" under subsection (c) would...? Would that apply to the entire managed forest unit if there is an attachment of private and Crown land? I'm thinking specifically of some tree farm licences, for example. Is this a master designation that applies to all land, public and private, within the reserve, or is this section specifically aimed at establishing standards for the Crown land portion of a managed forest unit?

Hon. A. Petter: Subsection (2) deals with land other than Crown land or Crown licence land, which would be private land within tree farm licences. It's subsection (1) that deals with Crown land and Crown licence land. As the member will note, it simply says that it "must not be used except as permitted by or under the Forest Act." There's no change there. The reserve permits uses that are consistent with the Forest Act.

W. Hurd: This might not be the appropriate section to raise this under, but I'm trying to determine whether the commission has a role in determining whether the Crown is living up to its obligations under the Forest Act to use forest reserve land for its designated purpose. It appears that nothing has changed with respect to Crown land in the reserve. It was always subject to the terms and conditions of the Forest Act. What has changed here by the fact that we've drawn an additional circle around it for purposes of the forest land reserve? What change in use or in security exists for the Crown land component of the forest land reserve?

Hon. A. Petter: There's no change in terms of the use; the change is in terms of the designation and the fact that the land cannot be removed from the forest land base as represented by the forest land reserve except through a new, extraordinary process. In terms of the uses of that land within the reserve, that will be governed by the Forest Act and the tenures and licences created under it and by the Forest Practices Code. This does not alter that. What this does is provide a vehicle for designating Crown land as reserve land, by making it more secure and more difficult to exclude land from that base, by protecting that land base from encroachment and by providing a degree of stability around it.

[3:45]

On the Crown land side of the equation, the use of that Crown forest land is governed by other acts, such as the Forest Act and the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia when that becomes law.

W. Hurd: Just so I have this clear, for all Crown land and Crown licence land that falls under the jurisdiction of the Forest Act, an application must be made to the commission in order to redesignate it. Is that correct?

Hon. A. Petter: No, the act establishes a procedure whereby cabinet can designate the current Crown forest land to be part of the forest land reserve. I've indicated that our intention as a government is to make that designation, following the completion of land use planning processes.

Once that designation is made by cabinet, then it can only be reversed by cabinet and, as we will see when we get to the appropriate sections, in most cases only following the advice of the commission. That means the political impetus to maintain that land as forest land is much greater, and the land base is secured and identified in a very different way than it has been in the past -- a way that is really analogous to the identification of parkland under the Park Act.

W. Hurd: If and when this bill becomes law and the Crown were to decide that an existing section of land in this reserve that is subject to the Forest Act should be used for another purpose -- whether it be back-country recreation, a tenure or licence arrangement or some such measure -- it would not have to reference that through the commission in any way.

Hon. A. Petter: Provided that it was a purpose that was consistent with uses that are permitted under the Forest Act. If it was a purpose that was not consistent with uses under the Forest Act, then the Crown would presumably have to seek to have that excluded through some of the extraordinary mechanisms we will get to later in the afternoon.

Section 13 approved.

On section 14.

G. Wilson: I have questions on section 14 and section 15 with respect to non-conformance and specific permitted uses. Section 14(1) specifically, starting at "subject to the regulations, on application," talks about the necessary reference to local government and authorization, if it's affecting the OCP or some other kind of local bylaw on zoning. It suggests under 14(1) that there may in fact be authorization of activities other than those included in 13(2)(a) through (f); 14(2) says this can be done by application to local government. I wonder if the minister can tell us what other uses he's referring to. I'm specifically wanting to know, first, whether those uses could be ones that would create an alienation -- i.e., an erosion -- of that land base. Second, what if the owner is the local government? Does it permit the local government, strictly through OCP changes or amendments, to move an alteration to lands that ordinarily would be in the reserve, and which would then erode the base by permitted uses through this exclusion?

Hon. A. Petter: On your second question, if there were municipally owned land that formed part of the reserve, and if that land were to be excluded from the reserve or some other use was required, then the approval of the commission would have to be sought by local

[ Page 12913 ]

government. Local government would, of course, have an opportunity to provide its advice as part of that.

On the first question the member raised, what's envisaged is that there may be other uses permitted on the land base that do not compromise the continuance of the total land base as forest land, and it therefore makes sense to allow those within the reserve without requiring exclusion.

One can imagine different examples. If there is to be a mine on private land, it may be that some mining operation associated with the mine would be such a permitted use. If there were a need to provide for some basic processing facility associated with the resource extraction, that might be a permitted use. One can imagine a number of different examples. It will be up to the commission to determine what those uses might be, as they come forward. The commission will have to take account of the basic purposes, which are to maintain a forest land reserve, and determine whether the recommended use can be accommodated within the reserve without compromising its overall purpose and without necessitating exclusion from it.

There's one other little point I want to add, in case members are wondering. Where a use is permitted on the forest land reserve that is other than a forestry use, the assessment value of that component of the land base corresponds with that use. The land would be assessed according to its use, not as forest land, if it were not a forestry use.

G. Wilson: It's interesting that the minister should use the example of a mine. What I was actually thinking of was gravel extraction. I'm thinking of a couple of sites I know where local government has an interest in zoning, and where gravel extraction is now becoming a more significant land use than it has been in the past, yet it is within a reserve that has been already cut. It is under silviculture now and, in years to come, there's presumably likely to be a harvestable forest again.

Yet if priority is given to the extraction of gravel in some of those areas, the roads that are going in and the claiming of that gravel is going to have a detrimental effect on the long-term value of the land as forest land. In one instance, it's private property, but it's large amounts of private property held by a corporation, which may in fact move fairly quickly to attempt to get an exemption by virtue of the fact that that operation is underway. The second is land that is zoned and permitted through a regional district, which is now looking to put in place, through the development of an OCP, a change in land use status that would, I think, eliminate the opportunity for long-term forest management in that area.

Hon. A. Petter: First of all, when we get to section 15, we'll find that nonconforming uses are already grand-parented, so that should not be a concern in the case that's raised. Second, there may be some uses that will occur so regularly that by regulation under section 13(2)(f), they will be anticipated by regulation, and gravel may be one of those. Third, yes, the commission will have the power to grant specific nonconforming uses on presumably small components of the land base and to attach conditions. So if reclamation were required, for example, that could be attached as a condition to ensure that the future use of that land is consistent with the overall purpose of the reserve, once, in the member's example, gravel had been removed from the area.

G. Wilson: Just a last question on this. In the event that there is a conflicting point of view -- let me put it that way -- between local government and the commission with respect to the provision of local land use bylaws, who has supremacy in that question? I've looked through this act to see, and it would seem that the commission does. But I'd like the minister to tell us that is so just for the record.

Hon. A. Petter: For the record, unless it's a permitted use under section 13, and that could be accomplished through regulation under 13(2)(f) as well.... If it's not that and it's something, say, the local government wanted to see happen on the land base and had zoned accordingly, and the commission felt that it was not consistent, then the commission would ultimately have the authority to decide.

I want to give the member the answer for the record. What we envisage is a more cooperative relationship than is suggested by that answer, particularly on this issue, because we believe very strongly that local governments should be partners in this exercise. I hope the commission and local government could work it out.

H. De Jong: The minister mentioned the other day that the two commissions would be in the same building, in Burnaby, I presume, and I suppose that makes sense to some degree. But if a person owned 100 acres or whatever, which was initially in the forest reserve, and he had cleared the land and applied to have it in the agricultural reserve instead, could the commission deal with an issue like that -- to move it from one reserve to another? Can the minister see that there may be a lot of tugging of one commission over the other, while it may be in the best interests of the individual to apply for agriculture rather than forestry status?

Hon. A. Petter: The member's example intrigues me, because, in fact, I think the more likely example would go the other way -- those in the agricultural land reserve wanting to come into the forest land reserve. But it could happen in the way the member envisages. You could apply to have land excluded from the forest land reserve and included in the agricultural land reserve. I suppose having the same offices in Burnaby would mean you could include both applications in a single envelope.

H. De Jong: Just on the lighter side, then, would the minister perhaps see a problem having both commissions in the same building?

Hon. A. Petter: No, it makes good sense. It's administratively more efficient. While they are different and the commissions will be different, there are sufficient similarities in the procedures that it makes sense to use the same staff and to build on the resources already there.

Section 14 approved.

On section 15.

G. Wilson: The minister has actually partly answered my question on section 15. But I just want to, because there is a specific issue I know I'm going to have to answer when I go back to my riding.... If there is a gravel operation and there's a non-conformance in place, section 15(2) suggests, as is normal language with a

[ Page 12914 ]

non-conformance, that it has to be maintained at a scale consistent with and no greater than the degree of operation at the time referred to in that subsection. The problem with a gravel operation -- the very nature of it, at least in terms of area -- is that if it's under licence, you're going to have a continued expansion of it. Does scale refer to the volume being extracted at any given time? Or does it talk about the land area under extraction? How do we define that? It could be a real problem if it means you can't complete the extraction as per your licence.

[4:00]

Hon. A. Petter: It's a good question. It's one of those questions the commission will have to deal with. I could offer you my sense of it, but I think at the end of the day it will be a question the commission has to deal with. If it's a highly contentious question, I suppose, ultimately the courts could determine it. One can't foreshadow every situation.

R. Neufeld: Just to continue on with what the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast talked about, I had the same issue in mind about gravel. I'm trying to grapple with something else that could come forward under this. If we go down to subsection (4)(b), it's grandfathered, and I appreciate that; but subsection (4)(b) states that "the non-conforming use is discontinued for a continuous period of 6 months." A lot of uses, I guess, may be discontinued for six months, one being gravel where I come from -- guaranteed. Often it's very seasonal. Or it may be left for a number of years before you come back to it. Some issues in that might be nitpicking a bit. But it's an issue that will come forward later on, and I think we should be dealing with it now.

Hon. A. Petter: I'm informed by staff that to their knowledge there are virtually no nonconforming uses on private managed forest land that they are aware of.

Interjection.

Hon. A. Petter: However, the member says he knows of at least one. It's always the exception that proves the rule, too. The six-month provision and the provision the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast referred to about scale and extent are language found in the Municipal Act. If we had time, I suppose there's probably some judicial interpretation on that language that might assist as well. In both cases it's language borrowed from the Municipal Act. It's consistent with the basic regime used by municipalities, and will be familiar to municipalities for that reason.

R. Neufeld: In that case, then, obviously you've just used the six-month period from the Municipal Act also. Would it maybe be advisable to lengthen that time? If there are not a lot of nonconforming uses now, as the minister said -- other than the two the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast mentions that he knows of -- and if it's not going to make that much difference, maybe that time should be lengthened to a year or something to that effect.

Hon. A. Petter: Well, I guess I can argue it both ways. If it's insignificant, you can make it longer. If it's insignificant, you can maintain it where it is. I think six months is appropriate. It's a time period that is used in a standard way in the Municipal Act, and the fact that there has been a prior nonconforming use will make it much easier for a person who wishes to come back and continue that nonconforming use beyond six months, albeit requiring the approval of the commission.

W. Hurd: I'm just curious, with respect to section 15(1), why it would be the decision of the government, first of all, to provide an exception as of the introduction of this bill in the Legislative Assembly, and why the government would choose to have a nonconforming-use designation continue for an indefinite period. Why wouldn't it just provide for the commission to recognize that the use was different from that of forest land and simply redesignate it for other uses? I don't quite understand why the feeling here is that there needs to be a nonconforming use continued for an indefinite period. Is that because there is always the opportunity for the land to be returned to forest production in the future? Is that the aim of the exercise?

Hon. A. Petter: The reference to the date is to clearly take away an incentive from those who may be aware of this legislation to rush out and suddenly have a proliferation of nonconforming uses on their land, which would then compromise the reserve.

The answer to the second part of that question is: remember, this is land that the owners themselves have designated as suitable for long-term forest management and have committed themselves to that form of management on. Presumably, if there are nonconforming uses, they see them as being of only temporary duration, or they would have sought to exclude that component of the land base from the private managed forest land. In short, therefore, yes, to protect the long-term integrity of the reserve, the owner is free to seek to have it excluded on a permanent basis. But given that the land is currently zoned by the owner's own initiative as forest land, the assumption is that the non-conforming use is of a temporary nature.

Section 15 approved.

On section 16.

W. Hurd: I'm curious with respect to section 16, which places a restriction on subdividing private forest land, because clearly this doesn't apply to Crown land. Would this subdivision be applied for under the auspices of a local or regional government? Is this strictly a section related to an application by a land owner to appear before a municipal government? What other type of subdivision might there be with respect to section 16?

Hon. A. Petter: What's referred to here is the subdivision process that currently exists within each area. In the case of organized areas, it would be municipalities, and in unorganized areas, it would be the Ministry of Transportation and Highways. It's the regular subdivision process that currently occurs throughout the province.

H. De Jong: Suppose someone has a home that is not a permitted use under the forest reserve or a machine shop on his private land, and it's all within the reserve. Would he be allowed to subdivide that portion of the property in order to avoid being nonconforming to the reserve policies?

[ Page 12915 ]

Hon. A. Petter: Again, given the character of most private managed forest land, we don't envisage this as being a major concern. Certainly the home can be maintained as a nonconforming use. It might be a tax advantage to do so, I suppose. Failing that, someone could come forward and seek to have it subdivided, with the commission's approval. If it became a major concern -- and certainly we as a government wouldn't want to put hoops in the way of people who obviously have a use that's not consistent with the continuation of a forest use -- we could, through regulation, provide for subdivision under those circumstances.

H. De Jong: That answer isn't all that comforting, because the minister doesn't seem to be so sure that that may be of concern to a person. When a person has a building that becomes nonconforming.... The Municipal Act states that it can't be rebuilt after a fire. If a building is not used for a particular period of time -- for instance, the machine shop may not be used for four or five months -- it would be in jeopardy. It would seem to me that in order to avoid problems for people who may be affected that way, it should be very clear that when it's put into that reserve, they will be given the opportunity to subdivide portions that may be nonconforming.

Hon. A. Petter: I want to discourage the member from extrapolating from the agricultural land experience, because there is a major difference here. The land being designated private managed forest land should not include any, let alone many, examples of the kind the member has given. Land that's used residentially should be zoned residential, or land used for machine shops should be zoned in an appropriate way, and that would not normally form part of the private managed forest land classification. We're only talking about 121 owners here, remember; it's not a huge area. Most of those owners are corporate. But if some anomaly arises and it turns out that there is a residence or machine shop on this land base, I'm sure that the commission would not want to see that continue to be in the forest land reserve; it wouldn't make sense. We could also deal with it through regulation.

I did suggest earlier -- and I just want to correct this -- that there might be some tax advantage to staying in the reserve. That's not the case. I was incorrect to suggest that, and I want to withdraw that suggestion.

Section 16 approved.

On section 17.

W. Hurd: I just have a brief clarification with respect to section 17, which contains a restriction on the local government authority. I can certainly understand that the adoption of a bylaw or the issuance of a permit would be areas of concern. I wonder if there's any reference made to an official community plan. My first question would be: is it anticipated that an official community plan designation would in any way be restricted here?

My second question would relate to other ministries of the provincial government. The member for Peace River North raised the issue of Crown land that entirely surrounds the town of Fort Nelson. Were the Ministry of Highways to designate an area for a long-term highway expansion, for example, and then have to exercise some sort of need to have the land excluded, would that have to go through the rather lengthy processes anticipated under section 17? And then, as we move on to sections 18 and 19, does the restriction on government also include the province, and does it also include an official community plan designation by a local government?

Hon. A. Petter: This is basically the current law in terms of the ability of local government to determine the use of private managed forest land. It does not have any of the further consequences for the Ministry of Highways that the member seems to be suggesting. Right now, there are restrictions on the ability of local government to regulate private managed forest land, and this basically grandparents those restrictions.

W. Hurd: A community plan designation, which I recognize has no legal standing under the Municipal Act, may act as a disincentive for a private land holder to include his land in the reserve. Alternatively, it might act as a disincentive for a major investment in forest management on that particular parcel that may be designated for another use under the official community plan.

Hon. A. Petter: No, it doesn't preclude a municipality having an official community plan.... If the member is looking for the current provision in the Municipal Act, it's section 943(2), which is repealed through the consequential amendments of this act. That is where this section derives from.

D. Jarvis: How would this apply to a watershed area, for example? Would the municipality be able to stop all logging in a watershed area or commence logging in a watershed area if they were doing selective logging?

[4:15]

Hon. A. Petter: Let me give you the situation right now, as I understand it, and then the situation following this. If it was privately managed forest land in a community watershed -- which occurs on Vancouver Island. I'm not sure if it occurs in the member's constituency -- right now the municipal government would not be able to regulate logging activity on that land. That will continue to be the case. What has changed is that through the provisions of the Forest Practices Code we will be able to ensure that the logging that takes place on private land within watersheds is conducted in accordance with the requirements of the code. That's one of the real benefits that the code affords us.

Section 17 approved.

On section 18.

W. Hurd: This question could actually be referenced in both sections 18 and 19. With respect to section 18, I wonder if the commission submitting an application to local government for its consideration -- and approval, I would assume.... Clearly, that represents a different process than the agricultural land reserve. Is that a correct assessment? Is there a role for local governments under section 18 -- and section 19, for that matter -- that requires the local government to sign off on an exclusion from the forest land reserve?

Hon. A. Petter: My understanding of the Agricultural Land Commission and the way it operates in practice is that it tends to involve local governments in decisions. But the member is absolutely correct: this legislation

[ Page 12916 ]

envisages a formal role for local government that goes beyond that involved in the agricultural land reserve. One of the reasons for that is that the agricultural land reserve deals with a fairly small component of the land base; it is based largely on soil capability. Here we're dealing with a potentially larger component of the land base, and one in which there are a number of variables -- urban growth and uses that need to be weighed.... Therefore there is a larger role for policy here, and local government is probably in the best position to provide some of that policy, particularly on its needs for urban expansion, as referenced by the member for Fort Nelson. So yes, there's a larger, more formalized role recognized here for local government.

W. Hurd: Sections 18 and 19 get us into a bit of philosophy on the removal of land. It's my impression that in the agricultural land reserve there's an important social value in retaining land for food production that outweighs many other considerations for development. In the case of forest land, the opportunity exists through enhanced growth and yield to make up for area-based removals around urban areas. Would the minister anticipate it to be somewhat easier to remove land from the forest land reserve adjacent to communities where the developer was clearly willing to pay the six years in back taxes? The local government might be exerting considerable pressure on the Crown because of a need to expand its tax base to build a community recreational facility or due to some other limitation on its boundaries. I wouldn't anticipate that the same sort of urgent social need exists with respect to the forest land reserve as would be the case with the agricultural land reserve. Therefore I can't conceive of too many situations where the local government would actually decline to see the land taken out of the reserve, perhaps sold and then redeveloped for a use that would result in a considerable enhancement of the tax base in that municipality.

Hon. A. Petter: I was ready to be very agreeable until the member's last comment. Many local governments have been very concerned about the depletion of forest land. They felt they did not have adequate powers as municipal governments to deal with that, and for that reason the Association of Vancouver Island Municipalities, as I referenced in second reading, has gone on record as asking for this kind of reserve, because they wish to have a mechanism that can better secure the forest land base on which many of those communities depend for their long-term economic survival. I disagree with the member's last comment that local governments will not be resistant to exclusions. I think they will be resistant where those exclusions compromise their economic future.

But the member is correct in saying that soil capability will not be as great a determinant here, or not be the same determinant as in agricultural land. There is greater room here for recognition of the needs of municipalities to facilitate necessary growth. Where the municipality indicates that land is needed for necessary growth and the land has been designated such and is logical for such, there is a greater opportunity for exclusion, in my view, than would be the case in agricultural land. In the case of agricultural land, the capability of the soil is the predominant determinant, whereas here it is one of a number of determinants.

W. Hurd: As we proceed through the chronology of land removal or withdrawal from the reserve, I would assume that the owner would obviously make application to the commission and the commission would make a ruling, such as is the case with the agricultural land reserve. Is there any mechanism for the commission to determine the wishes or aspirations of the local government before it decides to make a ruling? Having received the blessing of the commission, the owner of the land may then find himself running up against local government in a re-enactment of some of the rezoning and subdivision battles that occur. I wonder whether the commission has to be sort of legally blind in terms of what the local government may wish. Or would it simply decide that it would exempt the land and let the local government decide whether it was going to approve of it or not?

Hon. A. Petter: The Chair will forgive me if I feel like I'm in one of those old Bob and Ray routines where I thought I answered the question, only to have the question asked again. There is a very formal role here for local government, and when we get to section 20 we will see that local government is required to consider applications that are made, review those applications, and then provide its advice to the commission. The commission is then required to consider that advice. Far from being blind to local government, what is envisaged here -- as I said earlier -- is a partnership with local government in which certain aspects of the decision are informed by the input of local governments and certain aspects by the input of the commission. Taking those two inputs -- if I can use that unfortunate expression -- the commission then makes a determination.

W. Hurd: With respect to section 18(4), which is the point we are referencing here, just so I have it straight, would the commission then consider the application and refer it to the local government before it made a decision? Is that the chronology here? Would it wait for written input from the local government and then make its announcement? There is no need, then, for the applicant to liaise in any way with the local government or undertake any sort of activity on behalf of his application at the local level before it's received by the commission, because that type of thing will all be done in a package arrangement with the Forest Land Commission.

Hon. A. Petter: The procedure is that the applicant will apply to the commission, and the commission then has the obligation to engage local government. They would forward the application to local government, and it would come back to the commission with their advice. The only thing I would add is that that does not mean the applicant would not want to deal with local government. Presumably the applicant would want to go before local government and make the case based on the criteria the local government is charged with considering under section 20.

Sections 18 to 20 inclusive approved.

On section 21.

W. Hurd: This is potentially a very contentious part of the bill: the recapture of a tax benefit that has been deemed to be forgone by the Crown over a period of.... I

[ Page 12917 ]

believe we talked about the period of six years in second reading, and I'm looking for some indication here. Regardless of that, there is a provision here for the Crown to recapture an unclaimed tax benefit. I wonder if the minister could just briefly expand on what kind of consideration is going to be made here. Is there going to be a surrogate tax notice prepared for the previous six years assuming a value of the land? What would that be based on? I'm trying to determine how the Crown will valuate this clawback provision. Assuming, for example, that someone applies in 1995 to remove the land from the reserve and is successful, and that means that the Crown would be recapturing an enhanced value of the land from 1989 to '95 or so, how will the Crown make the determination about how much is to be recaptured? What kind of assessment will they use on the land to make that determination?

Hon. A. Petter: We're foreshadowing other sections, but maybe it's useful to deal with it all at once at this stage. This builds on the notion I explained earlier. I do want to explain this again, because there is the danger of it being misunderstood. This is a very different circumstance from when a zoning designation is imposed on a land owner. In this case, we're dealing with an assessment category that the land owner seeks and achieves in exchange for a long-term commitment for the management and regeneration of that land. In the event that the owner does not carry through on that commitment, the policy reflected in the act is that there should be some repayment of the benefit that was received, because the purpose for which the benefit was received has not been fulfilled.

That recapture takes place at the time at which the land is removed from the reserve. An assessment is done, the difference between that assessed value and the forest land value is determined, and then a rate of tax is applied to capture the applicable tax on that difference for a period of six years. One could argue that it should be a much longer period than six years, but one can't be sure how values may have fluctuated. The six years is a proxy, and I'd say it's a fairly conservative proxy. By that I mean that it's one that gives the benefit to the land owner for the tax benefit the land owner received in exchange for a commitment that is not now being fulfilled.

R. Neufeld: Actually, further on, section 24 deals with a formula. But section 21 deals with the recapture charge. If someone is successful.... I assume from what the minister told me, with only 121 land owners.... But some people with property as small as seven hectares are not going to be very happy with what's taking place. I'm not going to say that there will be a lot of them, but some of them are not. But if a person is fortunate enough to get it out of the reserve, as I read this, he only has 30 days to pay the recapture tax difference. Section 21(2) says: "If the recapture charge is not paid within 30 days after the commission gives the applicant notice that it has approved removal of the land, the recapture charge payable is increased by interest at a rate prescribed by regulation." Okay, then they can go to 90 days. They're charged interest for 60 days, I would assume. It reverts back if that person is not able to pay that amount of money. I'm not sure whether that's going to be a significant amount or not, because it's hard to tell unless you were to take a test case and you went and found out. But it may be onerous on someone....

Interjection.

R. Neufeld: The minister says no, but I'll just get that clarification. It may be onerous on some smaller property owner if he or she had to pay that amount.

The other question I have is about subsection (4)(b). Subsection (4) says: "A recapture charge is not required to be paid in the following circumstances...(b) the removal is for circumstances prescribed by regulation as circumstances in which a recapture charge is not required to be paid...." Can the minister elaborate on that a bit and tell me what he envisions, or what the drafters envisioned, as properties where the recapture tax would not have to paid?

[4:30]

Hon. A. Petter: With respect to the last question, I think that here we're looking at something that would be a demonstrable public good -- the creation of a sewage treatment plan -- which the community needed, and it would be unfair to request a recapture charge under those circumstances.

In respect to the first question, the only way in which the charge would be of tremendous significance would be if the value of the land in its non-forest use was much greater than its value as forest land, in which case there should be no difficulty in the land owner paying the charge. Once it's removed, its value in terms of its ability to raise funds for any number of purposes will be far in excess of what it was previously. So we're talking about six years of tax rate -- not six years of total value -- on the difference in value, which is not going to be a large amount, frankly, unless the difference in land value is gargantuan. In that case there's plenty of security there for the land owner to pay the tax and realize a very great profit, as well.

R. Neufeld: The minister agrees with me that it could happen. Just because you change the value of a person's property -- and I think we had those arguments a number of years ago about assessment and people living in homes where the value is going up tremendously, specifically in Vancouver, and they cannot afford to pay the taxes -- and the value of their land increases horrendously doesn't mean that they specifically have the hard, cold cash to pay the difference. That's what's inherently wrong with what you're thinking, and that's probably where we disagree.

Hon. A. Petter: Again, I just want to say that this is a different situation than the one described by the member. I don't disagree with the one described by the member. This is not a case of a value going up while the property owner does nothing. The tax benefit is gained because the land owner makes a commitment. The recapture charge is imposed because the land owner takes some affirmative action to change the use of the land and by doing so gains a value. It isn't just that the land's value has suddenly grown due to natural forces; it's because the land owner has taken some affirmative action -- presumably because they have some very specific plans to realize that increased value -- and in doing so is abrogating the commitment made earlier to utilize that land for forestry purposes. It's a very different situation than the one the member describes. Indeed, it's very different from a situation where the value of the land goes up with a change of use, but there has been no prior commitment by the owner.

[ Page 12918 ]

Here the fact that the owner's commitment is not going to be fulfilled provides the policy basis for the tax recapture, not simply the change in use. If it were simply a change in use from unmanaged forest land to some other category, which occurs now and will continue to occur, there is no tax recapture. It's only because the owner made a commitment and said: "I intend to manage this for long-term forest use; I would like a tax benefit because of that." The public, through government, said: "Yes, that's fine." Now the owner comes back and says: "Oops, I changed my mind. I'm going to do something else." The government is saying: "That's fine, you can do something else if the commission agrees. But given that we gave you this benefit because of your commitment, it's only fair that you return at least a portion of it."

R. Neufeld: I guess we could argue this all day. You're assuming that the person who's taking this out of the reserve has some other use for it immediately. That may not be case. Some of those small property owners, with five or seven hectares, may want to have it out just for themselves. That's exactly what I'm saying. It's not to subdivide and sell it. Who the heck are you going to sell seven acres to, anyhow? That's not possible. But this person, because of the rules and regulations that now apply on a five- or seven- or even 30-hectare parcel, may not want to continue with those original intentions.

So they remove it from the forest land reserve. Now, all of a sudden, government says: "Hey, it's increased in value that much." And probably it has; I'm not going to dispute that. But unless that person has an alternative use -- where they're going to sell it or start a commercial business -- they have no revenue to pay the recapture. That's what I'm saying -- and that could happen. If any person with seven hectares wants to take it out of the reserve, I don't think they're immediately going to sell it. As the member next to me noted, they may have a house on it; I don't know. But they may not want to do that, and that's the difference.

Section 21 approved on division.

Section 22 approved.

On section 23.

W. Hurd: I briefly want to review this valuation process with the minister. I suppose the question could be just as appropriately asked on section 24, but I want to determine in my own mind exactly what kind of work the Assessment Authority is going to be doing to identify the recapture charge. I assume they are going to look at the evaluation as at six years previous....

Interjection.

W. Hurd: They're not. Okay, that helps. How are they going to determine, for purposes of that recapture charge, how much the land would have gone up in value had it not been in the forest land reserve? How do they make that determination? Perhaps, with the minister's direction, I could ask whether or not we need to pass section 23 and discuss this under section 24.

I think this is clearly an important principle, though I may not be grasping exactly how the formula works. Clearly the Assessment Authority will be going back six years for purposes of identifying a recapture charge. I would assume that they will be determining that the land will occupy a higher value, once it comes out of the reserve, than it did six years ago. Can the Assessment Authority make that kind of determination? Does it have to do a surrogate tax form? Does it have to make one tax notice on the assumption that the land was out of the reserve and then compare it with the tax notice while the land was in the reserve? Is that how they will have to perform that function?

Hon. A. Petter: The recapture charge is one that operates as a proxy. What one might do if one wanted to fully recapture the tax benefit is go back a half-century and try to calculate what the tax benefit has been since then. That would require one to make a determination as to what the highest and best use of that land has been for each of the last 50 years, and that is unrealistic and would be administratively cumbersome.

Rather than doing that, what has been established here is a tax recapture provision that is a proxy to some extent, but a reasonable one. It will certainly not recapture the full tax benefit, but it does at least require some repayment. It does it by saying that the Assessment Authority will do the job it would be doing anyway, which is to go out and reassess the land based on its highest and best use, without being constrained by its designation as forest land. It would then calculate, at the time of the exclusion, the difference between that value and the forest land value, which is what it would do in any event, and then apply to that the tax difference times the past six years. In that way, it would recapture a portion of the tax benefit -- in many cases, a small portion -- in recognition that the land owner who received the benefit is not living up to the commitment made in exchange for that benefit.

W. Hurd: Is there not a risk? If the land is in an urban setting adjacent to a fast-growing municipality where land values are soaring, is there not the potential for the Assessment Authority to come up with a huge additional valuation on the property when it comes out of the reserve?

For the sake of argument, suppose there's a new college or a series of subdivisions around the land, and the assessor makes the determination that had the land not been in a forest reserve six years ago, it might have had subdivision potential, and then reassesses the land based on that use. That would seem to imply a potentially huge increase in assessment when the land comes out of the reserve. I'm asking whether the assessment would soar in a scenario like that, which really describes some of the fast-growing Island communities.

I understand what the minister is saying. If it's surrounded by houses, lots and subdivisions, the land owner will obviously be realizing a huge profit. By the same token, as the member for Peace River North pointed out, the owner would then be forced to develop the land. There would be literally no option for him but to pursue development, because he would have the huge recapture charge and an ongoing tax bill in addition to that, which would make retaining the land as a green space totally prohibitive. Is that a realistic assessment of what would occur over a six-year period?

Hon. A. Petter: The situation the member is describing is the norm. If it were not for this private managed forest land category, the Assessment Authority in the normal

[ Page 12919 ]

course of events, as we've discussed earlier, would be assessing the value of the land to its highest and best use not constrained by forestry use. That very often does impel land owners to seek uses providing a rate of return that allows them to pay the tax. That's the essence of the assessment system.

What has happened here, though, because we have the special category of private managed forest land, is that owners can insulate themselves from that effect, provided they're prepared to make a commitment. The commitment is that they have a long-term intention with respect to the future of the land to maintain it for forestry use. If they made that commitment with respect to land that would have a much higher value if it were put to another use, and then they change their minds and thereby shelter themselves from the tax that their neighbours pay -- because of a commitment they are now making clear they're not prepared to live up to -- then it's only right that they don't continue to enjoy that sheltering. It would be a most inequitable situation for them to get a tax benefit by making a commitment they haven't kept, which their next-door neighbour didn't get because they didn't go through the exercise of making a commitment. This ensures that some of that tax benefit will be returned. It will not return the full tax benefit -- it may be that land value went up 20 or 30 years ago, and all this will recapture is the past six years -- but it provides for some equity.

Let me personalize this a little bit. If the member were a property owner paying a high tax rate and living next to another property owner who was paying a low tax rate, because they had said, "I'm going to manage this for long-term forest purposes," but then turned around a few years later and said, "No longer," I think you as a land owner would be rightly upset that your next-door neighbour got a tax benefit by making a commitment that they didn't live up to. You'd want some equity. Thanks to this legislation, you're entitled to that equity. By virtue of this legislation, that contiguous taxpayer will be paying at least some proportion of the taxes that you had to pay all along.

W. Hurd: What we've seen here is the elimination of the owner's option to do that. If the land is in a managed forest reserve, and this would affect a small land owner, he's automatically captured when this bill goes through the House. He doesn't have the option to redesignate or rezone the land, or to do anything else. It's locked in, and this recapture charge applies. It's been said by many members -- and I'm not convinced that small land owners, who put their land into a forest reserve because of the tax implications.... Obviously, that is a tremendous inducement. It's like running a small hobby farm in an urban area. If you grow $2,500 worth of produce each year, you take advantage of a lower rate of taxation. I understand that is an inducement. If the trees on the land are ready to be harvested, the owner has invested some money in that. After they are harvested he may decide: "Well, having harvested the trees and invested the money, I now want to see urban growth and designate the land for other use." The fact is that he's captured by this legislation and would be eligible for huge clawback provisions. He would then basically have to sell the land; he would have no choice. What is he going to do -- plant another crop of trees on the land and seek to...?

Interjection.

W. Hurd: He says "Forest companies." Large land holders like MacMillan Bloedel and Fletcher Challenge, where the land is attached to a forest management unit, are in the business of harvesting timber and developing pulp products and are in a position to pay that. But there are many small land owners who are going to be shocked by this legislation, because they will see their options reduced.

[4:45]

The minister has said "It's buyer beware. They came forward and put their land into this reserve because they wanted to scam the Crown in some way or take advantage of low tax rates, and if they want to get it out, they have to repay." I can understand that in the case of large corporate land holders -- and we talked about this in second reading -- where they have made a long-term commitment. Their private land is part of a working forest zone; it's a key part of a sustained yield unit. But I remain skeptical that the private land holders in the province are aware of the implications of this bill and of the fact that they may be subject to an onerous clawback when the Assessment Authority moves in and decides: "Had they not achieved this designation over the previous six years, there could have been houses sitting on it, and its best and highest use over that period may have been houses. Therefore we're basically going to drive them off the land by forcing them to sell and redevelop it."

Hon. A. Petter: Every one of the 121 land owners who own this land made a commitment to submit a management plan for long-term forestry. The essence of that plan is to regenerate trees for future production. Contrary to the member's assertion, I don't assume that any of those land owners did that to scam anyone; I assume they did it in good faith. That was their intention, and that continues to be their intention. For that reason, I feel very comfortable that this bill respects that intention and gives effect to it.

H. De Jong: This is an interesting debate this afternoon. I just want to remind the minister -- because he's talking about highest and best use -- that it is a dangerous term. Back in 1972-75 when the NDP was in government, they created the ALR. I was serving on a local council as an alderman at that time. The mayor of the town at the time said all the farmers should be compensated for their land being put in the ALR, against the highest and best use. The question was: what is the highest and best use? I consistently argued with him that it should not be compensated on the highest and best use; in fact, there should be no compensation.

Now the minister says we will recover a tax against the highest and best use. That assessed value difference for the past six years, in order to go into that highest and best use, is what it will be taxed on. Is it going to be put against the designated use or the application he applies for? That would make sense. But when the minister says against the highest and best use, it could be against a highrise, high-density development or whatever is the highest land use in that particular area.

I would like to have some more comfort expressed by the minister that it is not the intent to do it against the potential highest and best use but rather against the designated use either that the person is applying for or that has already been designated under a community plan.

[ Page 12920 ]

Hon. A. Petter: I can't give the member that comfort, because the assessment will be done in the way any other assessment is done on land in this province that falls outside of the agricultural land reserve or the forest land reserve. It will be assessed for the land value, as the Assessment Authority does, subject to appeal.

The only other thing I mention is the distinguishing feature -- I want to come back to this -- between what we're doing here on our recapture and the situation the member talks about. The benefit here was derived because of a voluntary action by the land owner, who chose to go beyond the normal benefits conferred on those who hold forest land in the unmanaged category by undertaking some further commitments. That's a distinguishing feature here that we cannot lose sight of.

Sections 23 and 24 approved.

On section 25.

W. Hurd: This is a very important section of the bill and certainly one of the areas I had serious concern about during second reading. I just need to clarify a couple of things with respect to the removal of Crown land from the forest land reserve. Section 25 seems to imply that the commission's approval is not necessarily required for land to be removed from the reserve by cabinet. Is that a correct reading of this section?

As I look through it, I see that the removal must be referred to the commission for its comments, and I see that the commission must provide the minister with comments and recommendations, which I assume the minister then takes back to cabinet. But I don't see any portion of this section that allows the commission to say: "No, as an independent body and despite the wishes of cabinet, we do not believe this land should be excluded." Is that what we're dealing with in section 25?

Hon. A. Petter: This has to be evaluated against the current situation and also against the fact that potentially we're dealing here with a very large component of the province's land base that is Crown land -- unlike the agricultural land reserve, which in large part deals with private land. Given that it is a large component of the land base, at the end of the day it is felt that government must maintain political accountability.

The situation right now is that land can be excluded from the provincial forest by the minister alone. That, it is felt, does not provide the measure of security that communities are looking for in order to have some assurance that Crown land designated as forest land is in fact available for long-term forestry. There needs to be a stronger political commitment and imprimatur than that. So we are saying two things here: first of all, that exclusions can take place only by cabinet order -- a more difficult process. Not only must it come from the minister, it has to go through cabinet in a formal order in the same way that parkland would be deleted from parks. In addition, the commission's advice will normally be sought on the deletion process. At the end of the day, though, the member is correct in that if government decides that land is required for the construction of a highway, for example, or some necessary piece of infrastructure on Crown land, the provincial government, through cabinet, retains that jurisdiction.

[D. Lovick in the chair.]

But we are significantly changing the procedure through which land is deleted, once designated as forest land within the forest land reserve, to make it much more difficult to delete it and to bring it into a similar kind of process as parkland -- indeed, going beyond that insofar as it presumes the involvement of the commission under normal circumstances. Political accountability in cabinet is maintained with respect to Crown land, but there has been a significant shift that I think speaks to a very different status and greater protection for forest land in the reserve that is Crown land.

W. Hurd: I think this is an important point, because the only way that cabinet might involve the commission in an order to remove land from the reserve is if it were deemed to be in the public interest. But that obviously is a matter of wide interpretation by cabinet, which may put the narrowest of political considerations on the public interest or the widest interpretation on that.

Despite the minister's assertions, I don't see any accountability here at all. I see the possibility of the Crown -- with respect to a managed forest unit like the ones we see on Vancouver Island, where you have a component of private land and public land -- deciding on the basis of public interest that the Crown portion of that management unit should be redesignated for other purposes in the public interest. In the meantime, the effect of that may be to compromise the area-based forest management unit and cause the harvesting plans not to be current and cause there to be an overcutting of the forest management unit because of the land withdrawals. I don't see any accountability at all. Would cabinet be mandated to take into account the effect of the land withdrawal on the forest management unit? This touches on the very basis on which I think the opposition has disagreed with respect to forest management issues in this session of parliament. If you don't know what the area base for a forest management unit is going to be, how can you adequately plan for long-term sustainability and a sustainable harvest? I see the ability of the Crown to do an end run on the Forest Land Commission; they may or may not involve the commission and invite its recommendations and suggestions. But to my knowledge, there is little real teeth in this to force cabinet to consider issues like sustainable forest management units when it makes a determination to remove land from the forest land reserve.

Hon. A. Petter: First of all, the section does not simply allow cabinet to seek the advice of the commission; it requires cabinet to seek the advice of the commission. The minister must refer the proposed removal to the commission, subject to some exceptions. So if the commission's advice were not sought, cabinet would have to act by order in an extraordinary way that would necessarily raise questions and require cabinet to account for its actions.

Secondarily, once cabinet does act, it has to do so through a cabinet order. Right now, exclusions can and are regularly made by ministerial order without the same kind of accountability that comes through a formal cabinet order. Once this legislation is passed, that will not be possible. Cabinet will have to justify its decisions in accordance with sound public policy and with the objectives of this act, and that provides a very different environment. It means that land once included in the forest land reserve will not readily be subject to exclusion,

[ Page 12921 ]

except under circumstances in which politicians -- particularly cabinet -- can justify those exclusions in a way that the public deems satisfactory. That's what political accountability is all about, hon. member.

W. Hurd: If I'm looking at section 25(2) correctly, it says: "Before an order is made under subsection (1)," -- which refers to the removal of Crown land from reserve -- "unless the removal is for a purpose prescribed by regulation or the Lieutenant Governor in Council considers this to be in the public interest...." Then and only then....

Interjection.

W. Hurd: The minister says not then. Clearly section 25(2) allows the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council -- i.e., cabinet -- if it considers the matter to be of public interest.... The Crown, in my interpretation of this, is not necessarily obliged to refer the matter to the commission for its comments. It clearly says that before an order is made to remove land, unless the removal is for a purpose prescribed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council or, I assume, is in the public interest, then and only then will the minister refer it to....

Interjection.

W. Hurd: Well, the minister says no, but I don't see.... I'll read it out again, hon. Chair, because while he has a better legal mind than I do, I think that some of the drafting in these bills invites close scrutiny.

The Chair: For posterity's sake, this will be a verbatim reading.

W. Hurd: "Before an order is made under subsection (1), unless the removal is for a purpose prescribed by regulation or the Lieutenant Governor in Council considers this to be in the public interest, the minister must refer the proposed removal to the commission for its comments." The only reference is to subsection (1), which says that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may, by order, remove Crown land from the reserve, provided it considers it to be in the public interest. That's clearly the implication, and the minister says no. I'll settle for his assurance that cabinet must refer the matter to the commission for its comments.

That's certainly not my reading of section 25(2). It seems to imply that cabinet can decide that a removal is in the public interest and therefore is exempt from reference to the commission.

Hon. A. Petter: Yes, that's correct.

W. Hurd: Well, hallelujah, hon. Chair, because that's the point I was making. Cabinet can decide that any exclusion is in the public interest. How do you define that? Cabinet may decide that the highest and best use is as a highway or whatever, and can decide on the basis of that definition of public interest that the commission's mandate does not apply. Again, I ask the minister: where is the security for the working forest in the province of British Columbia?

[5:00]

Hon. A. Petter: Last time. The member was suggesting -- and this is where I felt he was wrong -- that the only circumstance in which cabinet has to refer the matter to the commission is if it deemed it to be in the public interest. If he checks back with Hansard, he'll find, I think, that that's what he seemed to be suggesting.

What the section says is that before an order is made under subsection (1), the minister must refer the proposed removal to the commission for its comments. That's the norm. There is extraordinary power that cabinet can exercise where the removal is for a purpose prescribed by regulation or when the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council considers this to be in the public interest. In those circumstances, provided cabinet can justify it publicly on one of those two bases, yes, cabinet can act without the commission. But that is the exception rather than the rule, and it will be scrutinized as an exceptional use rather than the rule.

Overall, this is the same kind of protection that we have in terms of other Crown land use, in which cabinet can, through order, include and exclude land. Therefore it brings forest land into the same kind of security that is enjoyed by parkland and other land. Right now, forest land can be removed from the forest land base of this province simply by ministerial order, which does not receive the same scrutiny and is not subject to the same presumption that takes place here. Here, cabinet must act. Cabinet acts under a presumption that it will go to the commission, and if it choose not to, it must justify why it does not do so. That is a much higher threshold and measure of accountability than currently exists.

W. Hurd: I guess the difficulty we're having here is that clearly there's a difference in definition between what one would call the forest land reserve and the working forest in the province. When people in forest-dependent communities talk about the working forest, they talk about the portion of the land base that is available for timber harvesting. Timber harvesting, which sustains a $13 billion industry and the jobs of 200,000 or so people, is the best and highest use of the land. With respect to section 25, I'll accept the assessment of the minister that it will be somewhat more difficult for cabinet to exclude land in the forest land reserve, but it certainly won't be more difficult for cabinet to exclude land within the reserve and simply take it out of forest harvesting -- we talked about that in second reading -- because of the wide interpretation of Crown forest land reserve and the wide variety of activities that are undertaken on that land.

My last comment with respect to section 25 is that as the minister goes around the province and sells this concept, as I'm sure he will -- and he may even do it in the context of an election -- I hope he will clarify the difference between what the public refers to as the working forest and what appears to be the case with this forest land reserve. In fact, there's no such designation of a land base in the province where timber harvesting is the highest and best use -- not yet, anyway. It's still one of the prescribed activities on Crown land, even within the forest preserve, and it can still be designated by the Crown for other uses that may be more advantageous.

What we're dealing with here is confusion over terminology. The term "working forest" remains as elusive a definition as ever. Again, in terms of harvesting activities and jobs that depend on those harvesting activities, I'm not convinced that we're any more secure now than we were prior to the introduction of the legislation.

[ Page 12922 ]

Sections 25 to 30 inclusive approved.

On section 31.

W. Hurd: I have just a brief question with respect to access to forest management plans. I assume that this imposes the same obligations on the private land holder who possesses a forest management plan for private land as on the Crown, which would be in receipt of it. I'm thinking of lands that are in the small business program, where the Crown does have total planning and forest management responsibilities. I am seeking assurance under section 31 that the commission does have the ability to.... I guess this refers to the assessment commissioner. A member of the commission would be required to acquire plans for the purpose of making a determination. Is there a requirement under this section -- or any other, for that matter -- that the commission would have equal access to forest management plans from the Crown as well as from private licensees, or would all that information be accessed through the Ministry of Forests?

Hon. A. Petter: It's only private land owners who provide their forest management plans to the Assessment Authority. This section places an obligation on the Assessment Authority to provide copies of those plans to the commission when the commission requires them, and it places an obligation on the commission to ensure that the confidentiality of those plans is maintained.

Sections 31 to 33 inclusive approved.

On section 34.

W. Hurd: I have a question with respect to section 34. I assume that it basically applies to a decision in which a private land holder ignores the order of the commission, and the commission then has to make application to the courts for enforcement of its order with respect to private land. Is that what's anticipated here?

Hon. A. Petter: Yes, in situations such as when an owner has established a use that's not permissible, and the commission seeks to act. There's a similar provision in the Agricultural Land Commission legislation.

Sections 34 and 35 approved.

On section 36.

W. Hurd: Whenever I see the words "no compensation" in a government bill, I feel it's incumbent on me to request clarification. Mention is made of the Expropriation Act with respect to this clause. Is this a provision that mirrors the one we've debated in the Forest Act, or is it something new that has been added with respect to this bill?

Hon. A. Petter: Almost word for word, the same provision is in the Agricultural Land Commission Act.

Sections 36 and 37 approved.

On section 38.

R. Neufeld: I have just a quick question on section 38. As I understand it, this deals with someone who has owned the land for longer than six years, and a different type of recapture on taxation is going to take place. Can the minister tell me the reasoning for this? It seems that if the person owns the property today and tries to take it out six years from now, the recapture charge goes a lot further back or something. Maybe the minister could explain that.

Hon. A. Petter: It's the opposite, in fact; it's to provide relief. If you as a land owner pupchased the land only two years ago, on the understanding that it might be removed from the category, it wouldn't be fair to impose a recapture charge on you for the full six years. Therefore it would be imposed for only two of the six years.

Once this legislation is in place and six years have elapsed, everyone will be on the same footing. But given that we're going from a situation in which an owner may have acquired the land two years ago and the value that was acquired presupposed that it could be removed from the category, we want to make sure that the full six-year recapture is not visited upon that land owner. This provides relief to that land owner.

Section 38 approved.

On section 39.

R. Neufeld: In this section, cabinet has the ability to remove specified land from the reserve. Maybe the minister could explain what that means. Would the recapture tax be applicable in this instance? If not, why?

Hon. A. Petter: I will try to explain it in general terms. We're dealing with a 1993 assessment roll, which is the last roll that is sort of comprehensive. In earlier provisions, there is an attempt to take account of changes that have occurred since the 1993 roll by making sure owners who applied since 1993 to have their land taken out are out, and owners who applied to come in are in. In the transition between the 1993 and 1994 rolls, there may have been an application or two that went astray, as it were. We just want to make sure that cabinet has the power to deal with any anomalies, so that between the 1993 and 1994 rolls we establish the reserve in a way that is fair, that respects owners who sought to have their land excluded and that doesn't visit upon them recapture charges that weren't intended. It's just a fine-tuning device because we're sort of caught between these two rolls, as it were.

Sections 39 to 44 inclusive approved.

On section 45.

W. Hurd: I have a brief series of questions with respect to the valuation of forest land. Earlier in the debate we spoke of the need for the assessor to classify forest land on the assessment roll as either managed or unmanaged, subject to the relevance or accuracy of the forest management plan that is in effect. I want to secure the understanding that for purposes of the evaluation, the management plan is signed off by a registered professional forester with the Assessment Authority. How is it determined that the management plan is current? Is there an audit or an inspection for purposes of making that determination?

[ Page 12923 ]

Hon. A. Petter: It's signed off by an RPF within the Assessment Authority, and there are inspections from time to time.

W. Hurd: Moving on to subsection (9), reference is made to the commissioner -- and I assume that refers to the forest land reserve commissioner -- prescribing schedules for timber values based on certain factors. Could the minister clarify what purpose the commissioner would need to make those kinds of evaluations? I am curious, because that seems like a rather large burden for the commission on private land and would require the addition of more full-time-equivalents -- something the government is always loath to admit they need.

Hon. A. Petter: I think I can allay the member's concerns. This section is an amendment to the Assessment Act. As such, the reference to the commissioner is informed by that act, and it's the commissioner under the Assessment Act. In fact, this provision is virtually, if not entirely, the same as the provision that currently exists.

[5:15]

Sections 45 and 46 approved.

On section 47.

W. Hurd: Since the management and working plans for these private managed forest lands are signed off by a registered professional forester, I would assume that in compliance with the new Forest Practices Code under section 47, the same type of rule would now apply to those private managed forest lands. Is there a need for the same planning process that will now exist with respect to other types of forest licences in the province to apply in this case? Will the private land holders now be required to resubmit most of their plans to assess or measure compliance with the code?

Hon. A. Petter: They are two different processes. In conjunction with the Forest Practices Code, this makes it clear that the code can be applied to forest land reserve land. As the member is aware, we are going to have the consultation process to determine how that happens and to what extent the code will apply. The code will determine the nature of the forestry activity that goes on in the land -- if forestry activity does go on in the land. But that doesn't mean that it will go on in the land, and the Assessment Authority wants to determine whether there is a management plan.

If you are operating on the land under the Forest Practices Code, then there should be very little difficulty in satisfying the management plan requirement. But if you are on a part of the land -- if you're a small land holder -- you may be excluded from the Forest Practices Code or subject to different rules. That's going to be the product of the consultation process. The basic point is that one is a determination from the Assessment Authority's point of view and one is from the point of view of the Forest Practices Code. They may complement each other, but they're not the same thing.

W. Hurd: Then, with respect to the unmanaged forest land designation, I suppose there is now an additional obligation with respect to the Forest Practices Code, because no working and management plans are currently in place. Will there be any requirement on the part of those people who own what would be designated as unmanaged private land to in any way enact a plan for the region? Can it remain with this designation for an indefinite period of time? I guess I'm asking whether the code imposes any additional burdens on the owners of private land who don't have a current management plan in place for that land.

Hon. A. Petter: First, those who are currently in an unmanaged category will not be subject either to this act or to the Forest Practices Code. Those who are within the reserve and are therefore on currently managed forest land, but don't maintain their management status, may revert to unmanaged forest land within the reserve. And there, notionally, the code will apply, and its application will be determined by the consultation process. The implication of them not filing a management plan is that they would be taxed at the unmanaged-status rate, which is currently twice the rate for managed status. So they needn't file the plan for assessment purposes, but they lose the tax benefit. For the Forest Practices Code, that's going to be a function of the consultation process.

Sections 47 to 55 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. A. Petter: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; D. Lovick in the chair.

Bill 56, Forest Land Reserve Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. G. Clark: I call second reading of Bill 55.

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT (No. 3), 1994

Hon. C. Gabelmann: As I mentioned the other day, the Miscellaneous Statues Amendment Act (No. 3), 1994, contains amendments to nine statutes, and I'll briefly identify them in advance of committee stage so members can have a chance to hear why we've made them.

The public trustee has long expressed concern that infant suitors' funds held in court -- about two-thirds of infants' funds -- are not receiving the same advantages as those held in trust by the public trustee. In 1991 a committee consisting of staff from the office of the public trustee, court services and support services of the Ministry of Attorney General recommended this transfer.

Amendments to the Estate Administration Act, the Infants Act, the Insurance Act and the Trustee Act will transfer infant suitors' funds from the courts to the office of the public trustee. The amendments provide that all future moneys formerly payable into court on behalf of a minor will now be paid to the public trustee in trust, and that the court will cease to hold money on behalf of minors.

These changes will benefit infants in a number of ways. Infants will earn a better return on their money's interest and will receive a full slate of trustee services from the office of the public trustee, including money management counselling where appropriate. The office of the public trustee will keep in contact with infants so that their funds

[ Page 12924 ]

will not be forfeited and tax returns will be filed yearly so that infants do not face a tax burden when moneys are finally paid out. Having all the administrative processes in one office will improve the efficiency and economy of managing infant suitors' funds.

The purpose of the amendment to the Industrial Development Incentive Act is to increase the funding capital of the industrial development fund by $54 million to a total of $300 million. The $54 million increase of the industrial development fund proposed in Bill 55 is in addition to the $11 million increase approved by the Legislature as part of Bill 48. The additional funds are required to accommodate the adjustment process in communities on Vancouver Island and in other areas of the province which will be impacted by CORE. The funds will be used in part to assist forestry and non-forestry firms to undertake new investment projects. This increase will also permit the government to make strategic investments in larger sector-targeted, non-subsidized, private sector projects as part of the proactive economic development strategy promoted by the B.C. Investment Office.

Amendments to the Legal Services Society Act will help make the society more accountable in its expenditures and delivery of legal aid services. The structure of the society's board will be changed to provide a stronger representation of community interests, and accountability will be enhanced in several ways. The legislation will limit the society's expenditures in a year to the available revenues in that year. The society may exceed these limits only with the approval of the Attorney General and the Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations. The society must also provide any information required respecting its operations. Finally, the composition of the society's board will be changed to allow for two members to be selected by the Native Community Law Offices Association, two members to be selected by the Association of Community Law Offices and one member to be jointly selected by those four members. This will help provide much stronger community representation on the board.

Amendments to the Securities Act will correct a deficiency brought to light by the Court of Appeal decision in the Doman Industries matter. Amendments to sections 154.3 and 154.4 of the act ensure that the sections have the effect that was originally intended when they were proclaimed in 1992, which is that the provisions will apply to hearings of the B.C. Securities Commission and not just to investigations. The effect of these amendments is that in the context of both a hearing and an investigation, the Securities Commission may apply to the Supreme Court of British Columbia for assistance in obtaining evidence from persons outside British Columbia. A court outside this province can request assistance from the Supreme Court of British Columbia to obtain evidence from a person in British Columbia.

Tax revenue losses from the illegal sale of untaxed tobacco during the 1993-94 fiscal year are estimated at over $90 million. This revenue loss arises primarily from tobacco smuggling activities, but also from the sale of exempt tobacco to those not legally entitled to exemption. This bill proposes amendments to the Tobacco Tax Act to strengthen the incentives for compliance with the act and regulations, and to strengthen the province's control over sales of exempt tobacco.

The amendments address this issue in two ways. First, the bill proposes increased fines and penalties for contravention of the act, thereby providing greater incentive for complying with the act. Second, the bill strengthens the legislative basis for establishing limits on the amount of exempt tobacco that can be purchased and sold by a tobacco retailer and on the amount of tobacco that can be purchased by a consumer at one sale. These amendments control abuse of the exemption by limiting the quantity of exempt tobacco available in the province.

I don't know if there are any further comments in second reading, but in the event that there are not, I will move second reading.

Deputy Speaker: As members know, our practice in the House with miscellaneous statutes is to allow considerable latitude in committee. This is a bill technically without principle, so second reading comments should be very brief.

J. Dalton: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I enjoyed your remark about a bill without principle because that's probably the very thing I'm going to deliver to the Attorney General in my comments.

I suppose the government would describe this as a housekeeping bill. Other than one thing that certainly concerns me, perhaps it is. But there's a very significant amendment to the Legal Services Society Act in this bill, and the opposition has major concerns about the implications built into this.

First, let me state that I understand that the Law Society has very serious reservations about these amendments. The benchers are meeting tomorrow on this subject, so we will have to stay tuned to see what they have to say about it. I certainly want this House to know that these proposed amendments in sections 7 and 8 of this miscellaneous bill -- unprincipled bill, as the Speaker referred to it -- have to be challenged in this regard.

Secondly, putting aside the apparent concerns of the Law Society, which will become more evidenced tomorrow, the legal aid lawyers, as I'm sure the Attorney General is aware, have also expressed major concerns about this bill. I have in my hand a letter of today's date. I'll read some of this letter into the record, but the last line is the most significant: "Bill 55 must be withdrawn." The legal aid lawyers aren't saying that the entire bill must be withdrawn. I'm sure our Finance critic won't be overly concerned about the amendments to the Securities Act. I don't think the legal aid lawyers are saying that we should dump that. What they are saying, of course, is that the amendments to the Legal Services Society Act should not be permitted to go through. The official opposition is rising to speak strongly against these amendments.

Let me share with this House and the government members who care to listen -- obviously there are none -- some of the remarks of the legal aid lawyers. These are not just today's remarks. As the Attorney General and other government members know, these remarks have been building up over many months. We've raised these concerns in estimates and in questions to the Attorney General. We've never received satisfactory answers, and I'm sure we're not going to get any this evening either. What do we hear from the legal aid lawyers? We hear the following, and I won't read the entire letter, just the salient parts: "The bill proposes a statutory takeover of the Legal Services Society by the Association of Community Law Offices and the Native Community Law Offices Association." I endorse those remarks, because that's the whole philosophy behind this. I commented at length during estimates on Tim Agg's report. I commented at the

[ Page 12925 ]

same time that Tim Agg was in a conflict of interest, having authored the report and subsequently being appointed as a director of the Legal Services Society.

We know that this a public defenders' system. The Attorney General will never admit that, but it's the truth. It isn't going to work. It's going to be both an economic and a legal disaster. The Attorney General knows that legal aid lawyers have withdrawn services this month; they're not taking any new clients for July. Many lawyers I have spoken to have said that they should have gone further and withdrawn all support. They may take that step.

[5:30]

What else do the legal aid lawyers have to advise us? Another quote from the letter: "They do not exist in every region of the province" -- referring to the offices, and the community law offices in particular -- "and can make no valid claim to being truly representative of 'community' concerns." The letter goes on to comment on the capping of expenditures in this bill: "The Legal Services Society is captive to many government policies which increase demands on the justice system." By the way, I believe that every member of this assembly has been given a copy of this letter, so they can scout it out of their releases and other correspondence. I know they will read it with some interest.

I'll just read one other reference from the letter: "Preliminary results of the pilot programs" -- again, as an editorial aside, we've commented in this House that those programs should have been allowed to run their course; that's why they were pilot programs -- "established last year demonstrate conclusively that staff delivery of legal aid will cost more money without improving service." The Attorney General has told us consistently that service will improve and that they're going to address the cost. I have no confidence that the service will be improved; it certainly isn't improving now. Certainly the cost factor is one we all have to address. This system is not going to do it. This part of the bill is not housekeeping; it is probably the beginning of the end of legal aid as we know it, unless somebody wakes up and does something about it.

I have one further comment, and then I'll allow others to jump in. I have to question the makeup of the new Legal Services Society board -- and legal aid lawyers have commented on that in their letter. How can the Attorney General justify changing the current makeup of seven from the Law Society and seven appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to one in which you're going to have a complete imbalance? There will be five from the Law Society, five appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council and five in this amendment, allowing the Association of Community Law Offices and the Native Community Law Offices Association to have two directors each. Collectively, those four directors are going to appoint one other to be jointly represented. That's one of the major concerns the legal aid lawyers have. This is a controlled takeover; this is a bid.... If I can be so bold, I suggest that people in the Westminster community office, among others, are probably motivating all of this.

This is a misguided policy, and it won't work. I am standing on my feet right now to tell this government it won't work, and I encourage the Attorney General, if nothing else, to come to his senses and take these two sections out of this housekeeping bill. Maybe then they will get a bit of cooperation from the opposition to deal with the other things in the bill.

J. Weisgerber: I don't want to engage in a long debate. I am a bit disappointed that the Attorney General had to leave, but I find that miscellaneous statutes amendment acts are always those in which one doesn't want to find -- but fears one will find -- a couple of sections that have a dramatic impact on legislation and which appear to have been brought in either in a way that disguises them or at the very last minute.

With regard to section 7 of this bill, dealing with the Legal Services Society Act, I am greatly concerned that this amendment has been brought in at the last minute, in the midst of a major dispute over the delivery of legal aid services during a time when legal aid lawyers have withdrawn and have refused to take new cases. There is obviously a power struggle going on between the legal aid lawyers and the Legal Services Society. I don't think it is appropriate, in the last couple of days of a session, for the government to bring in a bill that is that confrontational.

This amendment dramatically changes the balance of power on the board. We have seen a board run and managed by seven directors appointed by the Legal Services Society and seven directors appointed by the legal community at large. This amendment removes two appointees of the Legal Services Society, reduces the representation from the legal community at large by two members and brings in five new members. The effect of that is to put on the board ten of 15 members very directly involved with the government. I don't for a moment fault those members of the Legal Services Society who feel their control has been effectively eroded by this amendment.

That's a fair decision for government to make, and it's certainly within the powers of the Attorney General to decide that he is going to fundamentally change the structure of the board that manages legal services in this province. But I don't think it's appropriate for a third miscellaneous statutes amendment act. The fact that it has come in in Bill 55, out of a total of 57 pieces of legislation, doesn't suggest for a moment that this had been anticipated and planned as part of the government's legislative program when we came to this House. Had that been the case, I expect that we would have seen these amendments in the first of three miscellaneous statutes amendment acts. But we haven't. We've seen it introduced in a bill tabled in this House only yesterday.

It suggests a quick fix, whereby the government wrests control of the board away from one that was equally representative of both sides of the issue. It tilts the scale not a little but quite dramatically in favour of the government, the Attorney General and those people who are beholden to the Attorney General. I have the very strong feeling that this one section of this miscellaneous statutes amendment act is going to grind the process down considerably. An easy way to move this miscellaneous statutes amendment act through the process would be for the Attorney General to decide to stand down section 7 -- one section in a miscellaneous statutes amendment act -- which would make considerable difference to the speed and progress with which we are able to proceed.

Failing that, we're quite happy to engage in a debate around the rationale, and we look forward to doing that in committee stage of the bill. Again, I recognize that it's a miscellaneous statutes amendment act, which we don't normally have a second reading debate on. It's only for the purpose of raising this concern with the Attorney General that I rise and speak in second reading.

[ Page 12926 ]

F. Gingell: I want to use this opportunity of second reading debate, in case committee stage moves along quickly, to ask that the minister in committee stage has available the amounts of the various loans that are presently outstanding under the Industrial Development Incentive Act, the cap for which is being changed. I have been given some information on this matter, which I asked for during the estimates debate. The information was not satisfactory, and I haven't yet received updates on it. So it would be helpful if that information is available.

I understand and look forward to the issues that we'll discuss during committee debate on the tobacco tax and dealing with changes to the Securities Act. But I would like to take this opportunity to read into the record the opening sentence of a letter from the Association of Legal-aid Lawyers of British Columbia. My friend who represents West Vancouver-Capilano read in the last line. I'd like to point out to the House that the first line reads: "I am writing to express the outrage of our association over Bill 55."

C. Serwa: It's a pleasure to rise and speak on one aspect of Bill 55. I might just say a few things before I get into the philosophy and principles. I'm mindful that on the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month, a war ended. Section 7 of this particular miscellaneous statutes amendment act that the Attorney General has brought in seems, in fact, to be starting a war. There's a great deal of concern there. You know, another great mind and wit, Yogi Berra, once said: "It's deja vu all over again." That's what this particular section is: shades of 1972-75, when in fact the same initiative was brought in. There's a great deal of concern on my part.

One of the hon. members quoted from a letter received from the Association of Legal-aid Lawyers of British Columbia. I feel very concerned about this radical departure brought in at the very end of this session under this miscellaneous statutes amendment bill and about the potential that it would be missed by legislators, who are all probably looking forward to the end of a long and tedious session and that it may go somewhat unnoticed. But it hasn't gone unnoticed. Significant changes will happen.

[5:45]

My colleague for Peace River South made a recommendation to the hon. Attorney General. I second that recommendation, because I am concerned about this particular section to the point that, although the aspiration is to be able to move to Committee of the Whole and perhaps third reading in one session, I will have to deny that opportunity. To ensure that the public at large and individuals throughout British Columbia have the opportunity to follow the logic and rationale in this particular letter, it's my intention to read the letter to the Legislature to establish it on the formal record. It in fact illustrates and illuminates the issue from a technical perspective. If you'll bear with me, that's what I fully intend to do.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: It's 90 percent wrong. Be careful.

C. Serwa: The Attorney General indicates to me that it is 90 percent wrong. I can understand that there are different perspectives. Nevertheless, the author of the letter is David Griffiths, executive coordinator for the Association of Legal-aid Lawyers of British Columbia. He says:

"I am writing to express the outrage of our association over Bill 55. The bill proposes a statutory takeover of the Legal Services Society by the Association of Community Law Offices and the Native Community Law Offices Association. These organizations represent a portion of the present offices responsible for delivering legal aid. They do not exist in every region of the province and can make no valid claim to being truly representative of 'community' concerns. These organizations represent special interests in the legal aid community with a stake in increasing their own influence.

"Bill 55 constitutes the destruction of the partnership between government and the legal profession in the area of legal aid. The government and the Law Society are bound to represent the public interest. Diluting their primary role in legal aid necessarily implies that the government does not have confidence in the profession or in the government's own ability to select appropriate appointees for the board. Instead, the government proposes to entrench the equal authority of two organizations which will regularly be in a hopeless conflict of interest. The budgets for and powers exercised by community and native community law offices are determined by the Legal Services Society board.

"The provisions of Bill 55 dealing with the capping of expenditures dispel any pretence that the Legal Services Society operates independently of government. Government attempts to push legal aid expenditures back to 1991-92 levels despite approximately 25 percent greater volumes are already creating unbearable strains for the legal aid system. The Legal Services Society is captive to many government policies which increases demands on the justice system. The act will now require direct ministerial approval of Legal Services Society policies to deal with these demands.

"The capping provisions of the legislation are patently unworkable. They interfere with the ability of the Legal Services Society and the practising bar to reach workable solutions which spread funding adjustments beyond the end of the fiscal year. As long as the work remains to be done in the interest of the poor of this province, the proposed capping provision merely magnifies the financial control which government exercises over the nominally independent society.

"The aim of legislating fiscal control for the Legal Services Society flies in the face of the practical consequences of restructuring the board. The community and native community law offices have been primary promoters of staff delivery of legal aid in this province. Prelimary results of the pilot programs established last year demonstrate conclusively that staff delivery of legal aid will cost more money without improving service. These results have been wilfully ignored by those who continue to promote this program. The Attorney General has been unable to provide any substantive evidence for his view that staff delivery will save money.

"The inevitable expansion of the role of community and native community law offices under Bill 55 will only serve to add another layer of administration to the system, without providing a single additional service to legal aid clients. This wasteful draw on limited resources can only disadvantage the poor of this province, who will be further excluded under more restrictive eligibility criteria. The proposal to redefine the Legal Services Society has not been shown to have any public support beyond those few organizations which will directly benefit. The Attorney General has not delivered in any meaningful way the promised consultation with the profession or the public."

"Bill 55 must be withdrawn" is the last statement. I believe that section 7 of Bill 55 would suffice. The bill is just another attempt by the NDP government of the day to hide changes in the Legal Services Society Act. The community law office was set up by the Barrett government of the early 1970s in an aborted attempt to turn legal aid from private lawyers into another government service. Several community law offices

[ Page 12927 ]

remained after the Barrett government's defeat. In 1979 they were merged with the regular legal aid offices and became entirely funded by the Legal Aid Society. They were simply local offices for delivering legal aid. These community law offices have a strong connection to the NDP. Former NDP Health minister Dennis Cocke is the figure behind this power grab by the community law offices. He is currently associated with the Westminster community law office.

In 1992, Timothy Agg did a report on legal aid in the province. Agg recommended that legal aid become more of a government-run operation, increasing government bureaucracy, employing government lawyers and, of course, BCGEU staff expansion. Basically, he was advocating the ending of private lawyers' providing legal aid services. He claimed it would save the government money. It should be noted that Timothy Agg is also associated with the Westminster community law office. Obviously, while we may consider self-interest or conflict of interest valid, there is considerable concern, and that certainly has to be part of the assessment by the Ministry of Attorney General.

The Canadian Bar Association and legal aid lawyers of British Columbia and other lawyer organizations opposed the move. They challenged the Legal Services Society to conduct an experiment on the cost and effectiveness of Agg's proposals. Twelve positions were set up last year, but the society was reluctant to release the results of the experiment. Finally, in May of this year, a report was released, which showed conclusively that the experiment was a failure.

To end the private contracting of lawyers for legal aid services will require start-up costs of over $9.7 million. The number of union government employees would increase, and the annual costs of legal aid would increase by millions. Frankly, our party's concern is that the government of the day is just trying to help out buddies again. Community law offices are run by friends and supporters of government. This bill allows them to help their friends and increase the bureaucracy and union positions in the province as well as have a greater influence within the legal system.

I've outlined the Social Credit concerns with the expansion of bureaucracy -- more government rather than less government. At the end of this, it appears that the move sponsored by the Attorney General will not provide expanded legal aid services to those who require them. The move will impact very heavily as an additional burden on the taxpaying public in the province, who are already very heavily burdened. As we all know, the day that we ended working for the government elapsed only a few days ago. That was the last day in Canada, and it happened here in British Columbia.

So the concern is that it's simply an opportunity to help friends and insiders of the current government. It will not deliver expanded legal aid services to those who require them, but it will expand bureaucracy. The bureaucracy will stay in place whether they are busy or not. In the present arrangement, with the contracting of services, they are paid on the basis of work done. Unless the Attorney General is willing to stand down this section, it appears that he has brought a hornets' nest into the Legislature at the end of this session. We in the Social Credit caucus strongly oppose the proposed move by government.

M. de Jong: Since the beginning of this session, the Attorney General has answered questions and engaged in debate regarding the Legal Services Society. We have dealt with it in estimates, and we have dealt with it on occasion in question period. Time and time again the response from the Attorney General is that this is a separate society administering its own affairs.

Well, I didn't buy that during the time we were debating the issue. If there was any reason to doubt the validity of what the Attorney General was offering as a defence for what the government was proceeding to do, that doubt is realized in the guise of Bill 55 and the sections dealing with the Legal Services Society.

We'll discuss the specific issues in the specific sections in committee. With an issue that is so contentious and has been the subject of some debate in this House, but tremendous levels of debate outside this House among the people most directly involved -- the lawyers, the clients, the members of the Legal Services Society -- where so much debate has been focused during the past five or six months, to introduce as part of a miscellaneous statutes bill, at this stage of the legislative calendar, provisions that would radically alter the makeup of the Legal Services Society directorate itself, I find reprehensible, quite frankly.

The Attorney General has said time and time again that government's involvement in the administration of the Legal Services Society is limited and that it is a self-administering organization. But the provisions of this bill, if passed, would grant the Attorney General jurisdiction to appoint the single largest block of directors on that board.

The Attorney General is shaking his head. In fact, the new legislative framework would provide the Attorney General with authority over six of 15 directors -- the single biggest block.

The Attorney General is still shaking his head. Maybe he hasn't.... I recognize that the bill has been tabled at a late date. I presume he's read it. He says five, but with an override for a sixth. If there isn't a sixth person appointed, the Attorney General appoints that sixth person. Well, we will debate that at committee stage. The traditional partnership that has existed between the legal profession and government in administering to the needs of legal aid clients is being brought to a dramatic end by the introduction of this bill now, literally at the eleventh hour.

It goes further, because members on this side of the House have dealt, in a philosophical way, with the sections dealing with the directorship, but the act also places certain legislative constraints on the ability of the society to expend money. All along, the argument that we on this side of the House have been making is that it is a fallacy for the Attorney General to leave the impression that his ministry is not involved in administering this society, because in the final analysis the Attorney General controls the purse strings. This society does nothing without the approval of the Attorney General's ministry, because the Attorney General's ministry funds this society. The bulk of its financial needs is met by the ministry.

If there's any doubt about that, this bill eliminates it, because it says the society will only expend moneys in accordance with approval received from the Attorney General. So who's running the society? Who is setting policy? Who is dictating the society's direction, and who is dictating the manner in which the needs of legal aid clients in British Columbia are going to be met? It's the

[ Page 12928 ]

Attorney General's ministry. He is writing the cheques, appointing the directors and determining how that service is going to be provided.

Interjection.

M. de Jong: Well, there was a partnership between the legal profession and government, aimed at providing a necessary service to the people of British Columbia who are ill-equipped to afford legal costs in matters relating to criminal charges, domestic disputes and other, property-law-related matters. That partnership is on the verge of disintegrating. Indeed, the Attorney General may have opened up more of a hornets' nest than he cares to know about. While his ministry is the largest funding source for the Legal Services Society, it is not the sole funding source. Moneys do make their way to the Legal Services Society from the private bar, and from the Law Foundation; there are other sources of funding.

I can tell the Attorney General that in the day since this bill has been tabled, the contact I have had with the private bar tells me that the overwhelming feeling among those who are making those contributions -- and they may pale by comparison to what the Attorney General's ministry makes -- is that if the Attorney General's ministry wants to run it, then let them run it. They won't take their five seats. Let the ministry run it and pay for it. The minister can run it the way he wants, but they're going to have no part of it. What a sad day it is when that partnership among private members of the bar, legal aid lawyers and community law offices, which has lasted many years, is disintegrating because of actions taken at the eleventh hour by the Ministry of Attorney General.

[6:00]

As I asked yesterday, on a completely unrelated bill concerning the timing of legislation and the fact that options were available to the Ministry of Attorney General vis-a-vis the timing of legislation and bringing it before the House, what is the excuse for a bill containing provisions of this magnitude landing on our desks at this point in the legislative calendar? In the absence of information to the contrary from the Attorney General, one is compelled to conclude that there was some other motive at work here. As the previous member said, there was some desire to slide this through at the eleventh hour. It hasn't worked, and as a result of what the government has done in terms of the timing of this legislation, I'm afraid that the atmosphere which might otherwise have prevailed during discussion on the sections -- and perhaps even legitimate justification from the Attorney General -- has been poisoned. A suspicion has been cast across the opposition benches about the motive for bringing in this legislation at this time.

What kind of relationship and atmosphere is the government attempting to foster with the Association of Legal-aid Lawyers of British Columbia? The Attorney General said the other day that there are more than 2,500 lawyers offering legal aid services in the province, and only 500 of them belong to that association.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Three thousand.

M. de Jong: Well, now he says it's 3,000, and only 500 of them belong to the association. I can tell the Attorney General that that figure may have been correct two or three months ago, but it's rising. It's rising rapidly because lawyers who are providing legal aid services in the province are suspicious. They're suspicious as all hell about the intentions of this government. And if they weren't suspicious before, they're particularly suspicious when this kind of action is undertaken by the government: here on the eve of purporting to adjourn the House, to table legislation that deals in such a dramatic and significant way with the body that administers the delivery of legal aid services in British Columbia; to do that at this time without any notice, apparently without any consultation. I understand that the benchers of the Law Society have scheduled a meeting for tomorrow to discuss the matter.

The Attorney General may dismiss as insignificant the rumours that are now being heard about the private bar pulling out. I don't think it's insignificant, and the Attorney General won't think it's insignificant when the courts in this province grind to a halt, as they did three years ago during the last withdrawal of service. I don't believe he was the Attorney General when that took place. But I can tell you that all hell is going to break loose when judges discover that they can't administer justice in their courts because accused persons are coming before them without counsel and the Charter of Rights says they're entitled to counsel. Judges will say: "Where are the lawyers that are going to represent these people?" And the accused will say: "I can't get a lawyer" -- because the entire legal aid system in the province has broken down.

I tell you, Mr. Speaker, the blame for that lies squarely at the feet of this government and of the Attorney General's ministry. I see disbelief written on the face of the Attorney General -- utter disbelief. Well, he's going to be utterly shocked when his phone starts ringing from the judicial branch and the questions start rolling in: "Where the hell are the lawyers who are supposed to be representing the clients who are brought...."

D. Streifel: Order, order.

Deputy Speaker: The member for Mission-Kent on....

D. Streifel: On a point of order, hon. Speaker. I would ask that the Speaker draw the attention of the member for Matsqui to parliamentary language, please. Thank you.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, member. Point made.

Member for Matsqui, please continue.

M. de Jong: I'm pleased to see the member for Mission-Kent is in the chamber for this debate. He probably doesn't know a great deal about the delivery of legal aid services in the province. I expect the closest he ever got to a legal aid office in British Columbia was when he went there to apply for service. I hope he did that a few years ago and doesn't have to do it a few years hence, because the service won't be there for him if this government intends to proceed down the path it apparently has chosen.

A process was put in place. I don't quarrel -- I never have -- with the right of the Attorney General to make policy decisions regarding those entities that fall within his jurisdiction. That is an entirely legitimate exercise of the Attorney General's jurisdiction. I might disagree, and we will debate those issues. That's part of the process, and one is prepared to abide, live and die by that process.

But when it appears that the process is being circumvented or otherwise perverted -- as seems to be the case here, given the timing and manner in which this legislation is being brought before the House -- one is

[ Page 12929 ]

compelled to stand up and say enough is enough. It matters not that I say enough is enough. The people this Attorney General has to depend upon for the delivery of legal aid services to people across the province, the private bar, are saying enough is enough. When they say enough is enough, that has ramifications for all the people of British Columbia.

When the courts grind to a halt and when accused persons can't have a trial because they can't find a lawyer, because no one is available to represent them, that means those people are walking the streets. They are innocent until proven guilty by all accounts, but the stats confirm some of them are guilty. Justice delayed is justice denied. When justice is delayed and denied, it doesn't have implications just for the individuals themselves. It has implications for other members of society. At a time when we are so concerned about law and order and security in our neighbourhoods for our families, that is something I find reprehensible indeed.

I presume the Attorney General stands by his statements that the Legal Services Society is a completely independent branch that he has no direct involvement with. Yet in his second breath, at the eleventh hour, he tables legislation here that provides him with a mechanism for being the entity that controls the single largest block of directors on that board, that gives him direct authority to control the manner of expenditures. Not only is he controlling the purse strings in terms of the input of funds, but now he's controlling the output. And I'm sure he still would have us believe that this organization operates independently of government.

That's just not the case. No one is buying it. I suspect the vast majority of British Columbians aren't even aware of it. But they will be when they learn that accused persons aren't having their day in court, that husbands and wives who have found their relationship has come apart and who need redress to the courts can't find a lawyer, and that child custody cases are going undealt with. Is anything more tragic than the knowledge that as a result of a breakdown in the legal aid system in the province, men and women fighting for custody of their children -- and all it implies for the family and children themselves -- are unable to resolve those issues, because both are appearing before a judge and saying: "We can't proceed because we can't get a lawyer"? It all emanates from this legislation and the previous actions of the Attorney General's branch.

The ministry has embarked upon a program that it says will save money. It won't. We said that at the outset. There is an interim report now, which I'm sure the Attorney General reviewed, that confirms it's not going to save money. The Attorney General shakes his head. It's clear that the caseload projections that this project was founded upon are not accurate, and they are not realistic.

Interjection.

M. de Jong: The Attorney General says I'm wrong. He will look at the numbers and he will know that the number of cases that have been dealt with by the pilot projects.... He'll know that the expectations of what a matrimonial team could handle during the course of a year were set too high. They have not been met, they will not be met, yet the Attorney General insists on proceeding with this project on a provincewide basis. He is going to have no one to blame but himself when the final price tag comes in at five, ten or 20 times more than he is telling us it's going to come in at. It will be his fault. In the meantime, the grief that will be felt by families and accused persons will mount, and it can all be laid at the feet of this government and this Attorney General.

It's a shame that an issue so important has to be debated in an atmosphere that has been poisoned by inconsideration on the part of the government. That inconsideration stems from nothing more than the timing and the manner in which these amendments have been introduced.

So much of what this government has said during the course of debate over the past few months, over the whole gamut of legislation, has rested on two words: trust us. "If our new legislation is going to provide for an appeal to cabinet or for a cabinet override, that's okay; trust us." When legislation such as this, dealing with a subject that is contentious, has been contentious and is destined to remain contentious, is tabled at the eleventh hour in this manner, in a miscellaneous statutes bill like this, the question that begs asking is: why should we trust the government? Quite frankly, sadly, at this stage of the legislative calendar, I am not inclined to.

R. Chisholm: I rise today, and I will start it with a quote from the Premier. The Premier said: "When the cabinet was sworn in last November, I reminded its members that they must begin by restoring the confidence of the people of British Columbia in their government. There will be new initiatives during this session to ensure that government is open and honest." This is definitely not a good start. I had to quote this last night, and I have to quote it again today. Here we are in the final throes of this session of the Legislature, and we have a bill tabled that is this contentious. I'm not a lawyer and I don't profess to be a lawyer, but I do understand when the bureaucracy is increasing. I understand when the costs are going to increase. I understand when legal aid lawyers and the representatives of their associations write us letters which are this contentious, when they can say it's adding another layer of administration to the system without providing a single additional service to legal aid clients. And this is all done in the final couple of days of this session.

[6:15]

I understand what legal aid means to this province, and I understand what happens when they withdraw their services and the courts start to back up. You don't have to be a lawyer to understand that. That just means that our justice system is about to collapse. If legal aid and the lawyers there are this upset and they do withdraw more services, guess what? That's our legal system, which is going to be off the track. It's already off the track to a great degree. We don't need additional problems like this. This will just ensure that the justice system will shut down, and we cannot afford that at this point.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. member, could I interrupt you and ask your permission to make an announcement that I neglected to make a few minutes ago? I apologize to the member for doing this, but I want to remind members that there is a reception occurring in the Ned DeBeck Lounge for our former comptroller, Mr. Ian Fraser, who has announced his intention to retire. I thought that members who are not required to be in the Legislature might like to pop by the Ned DeBeck Lounge and pay their respects.

Again, member, thank you kindly for your indulgence. I'm sorry I had to interrupt you.

[ Page 12930 ]

R. Chisholm: Now back to this bill that was tabled in the final days. Again I emphasize that when an executive of an association that has always had equal partnership with government can state in a letter, "I am writing to express the outrage of our association over Bill 55," obviously there are problems. And to table this bill at the end of the session ensures that they're going to try to slip it by. Well, it's not going to slip by. We are going to challenge it, and I'm quite sure by the tone of this letter that the legal society is going to challenge this bill too.

Look at the Legal Services Society board, which was seven and seven -- seven people from the government and seven from the legal society. We've now increased that to five, five and five -- five from the government, five from the society and five from community law offices. As I said, this is going to cost a lot more money. Every indication that you look at with this bill denotes a disaster in the making.

Look at other sections of this bill, where it talks about whether they're allowed to incur debt. This society has always been allowed to incur debt -- with the AG's approval, I might add. It also states that they must provide the Attorney General with the information. Well, they always have, and in fact the auditor general has always audited their books. So there's nothing new in some of these sections. It's already in the process.

And I wonder just who is running legal aid. Is it the society? Every indication I see from this bill, the letters coming across my desk and what I hear from the government says no, the government is running it, not the legal aid society. And they're not doing a very good job of it at this point in time, I might add.

We'll be discussing this further in committee stage, but I certainly hope that the Attorney General is looking very closely at this. He has enough problems with the legal system and the prison systems and all the rest of it right now. He really doesn't need to take on another onerous task of trying to solve the legal aid situation, when the rest of his ministry is falling down around his ears. Maybe he should withdraw this bill and take care of these other problems first, and then he can talk to the legal aid society and maybe arrive at a consensus. Maybe they can get back to an equal partnership, and maybe this problem can be solved before the courts finally bog down and cease to exist.

We don't need this in this society. We don't need to create problems. Maybe it's time to start consulting with the legal aid society; after all, in this letter they state categorically that they were not consulted with. I've heard this with a dozen bills. This is this open, honest government. But this individual says they were not consulted with.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: What were they doing in my office, then?

R. Chisholm: The Attorney General asks what they were doing in his office. I'm not too sure, but I believe the executive coordinator for the society wouldn't put pen to paper if they had been consulted on this whole thing. Obviously they haven't, or there wouldn't be this problem.

Anyway, the Attorney General's got bigger problems than this. Maybe he should start looking at them, take this off the table for a while and talk to the association. Then he can handle the problems he's already got instead of upsetting the rest of the legal system.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Given that the debate has been out of order now for however long we've been here on this bill -- an hour -- I think I'll continue to be out of order for another five minutes, if I may.

The bill does three things. It provides a cap on expenditure by the Legal Services Society, unless they have permission from the Minister of Finance and the Attorney General to overrun their budget. It's the same kind of cap provision that is in the School Act. In fact, the legislation has borrowed from the School Act. I don't think that's contentious. If it is, it's only because Liberals are big spenders and don't mind people overrunning their budgets.

Interjection.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: That's been the pattern of Liberals in this country. Look at the record of the Liberal government in Ottawa that got us into the huge, horrific debt problem in this country. It's understandable that they wouldn't want a cap.

Second, the bill requires that the Legal Services Society provide information to the Attorney General upon request -- not about files, but about operational matters. It's a straightforward thing to have in a piece of legislation. It's something we need. The member for Chilliwack may say it's a pattern, but the member doesn't know the history.

The third and final thing the bill does with this minor amendment is create a new partnership. We have traditionally had -- and I say traditionally; it's been 15 years -- since 1979 a partnership between the Law Society of B.C. and the government. It has been a fifty-fifty partnership in governance. This amendment reduces government's role in the governance to a third, and involves a new partner -- the communities -- in the provision of legal aid in British Columbia.

Apart from the budget skyrocketing in recent years, the big recent change in legal aid has been the emergence of community organizations all over the province that are involved in delivering legal aid in various ways in their community, and that want to be involved in delivering legal aid. That has been the most significant development, I think, in the last few years. I've met with many of these community groups around the province that are putting a human face, a community face, on the delivery of legal aid. Some communities -- like mine, for example -- have a legal aid branch office. There's no community involvement -- and I'm talking now about Campbell River -- in the provision of legal aid, yet you can go to a community like Quesnel, where the community is very much involved in the provision of legal aid. That is a very important principle.

I don't believe that the government and the Law Society, which is based in Vancouver, should be making all the decisions for delivery of legal aid in Quesnel, in Pouce Coupe and in Campbell River. I think that the community should play a far bigger role, and that communities should play a role in respect of finding new and cheaper ways of doing these things.

Many people walk into a lawyer's office or a legal aid office and are referred into the confrontational judicial system, when all they need is some counselling or paralegal advice, which is being offered in many of these community offices and doesn't cost nearly as much as it costs in the system. We're not talking just about saving money here. I am talking about saving money in the legal aid budget, but I'm not talking simply about savings in

[ Page 12931 ]

legal aid; I'm also talking about savings in the entire court system, and I'm going to talk about that in a few minutes. We have some massive costs throughout the system, beyond legal aid, that are a direct result of the current system.

I want to give a bit of information about the fiscal side of this question before I talk about some other issues. Between 1990 and 1993 -- the fiscal years of 1989-90 to 1992-93 in that three-year period -- there was an increase in caseloads of 40 percent. That's a pretty big increase in three years. The increase in cost of legal aid to the province was 214 percent in three years. That's what I was faced with when I was appointed responsible for legal aid matters late in 1991.

I could talk for hours on this issue, because there's a lot of need for a lot more information. But when we look at the court backlog -- and there is a significant court backlog in this province -- we see that legal aid cases have more appearances than non-legal aid cases. There are 5.05 appearances per case for legal aid and 3.35 for non-legal aid. There are all kinds of reasons, and I'm not going to slander legal aid tariff lawyers in this speech by suggesting why that kind of thing happens, but the fact is that it does happen. There are significant delays in the system and significant repeat court visits. That costs taxpayers an immense amount of money, and they can't afford it any longer. I hope members of the opposition understand that.

When I took this office in 1991, I was presented with a report that was done following a study in Burnaby some years ago. It recommended that I come into the Legislature and develop a public defender system that would be a variation on Saskatchewan's. Saskatchewan has 95 percent staff and about 5 percent tariff lawyers. They recommended that we go to a simple public defender system because of the cost pressures.

Interjection.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: This report was done in the ministry following a pilot project in Burnaby in the 1980s. The recommendation was to go to a public defender system because it was cheaper and more efficient and all of the other arguments. It's the kind of system that many American states have. I consulted with lawyers. I thought about it, and I wasn't persuaded that the report should be implemented.

I commissioned Tim Agg to do a report. That was commissioned early in 1992, and he produced a report in September of '92 -- almost two years ago. In that report Mr. Agg said: "Don't go to a public defender model. There are all kinds of problems with it. It won't work in a province like British Columbia, where there are many communities that could not sustain full-time staff lawyers and need to have tariff lawyers available. With the kinds of cases that occur in an urban area like Vancouver, with the kind of heavy-duty crime that we see there and the need for specialized legal counsel, you can't go to a public defender."

In the report he presented he said: "Go to a model that's roughly fifty-fifty between tariff and staff. Don't abandon the Legal Services Society, don't take it in-house, don't create a public defender system, but do involve the community, because that's where savings can take place." Savings had been demonstrated in what had been the most successful community legal aid office to that date: the New Westminster legal aid office. That's where all kinds of services that would otherwise have been provided by tariff lawyers and would have ended up in the court system were being provided by paralegals: people who didn't have an interest in taking it to court but were interested in it resolving issues outside of the confrontational legal system. "That system could be improved and built upon," said Mr. Agg.

During the course of this, discussions continued with various benchers. Several master-treasurers had been in office in those three years.

The Legal Services Society board is appointed such that seven are appointed by cabinet on my recommendation, and seven are appointed by the Law Society, which makes a 14-member board. At its February 18 meeting this year, the Legal Services Society board of directors passed the following motion by a 12-to-nothing vote -- unanimous support for this vote.

An Hon. Member: What about the other two?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: One director was away, I assume, and one was in the chair.

The motion was that LSS adopt the mixed model as the model for reform, that the society move for implementation of the model in the '94-95 fiscal year, and that the society obtain and have ongoing consultation with all interest groups as to the implementation of the model. It was unanimous. I don't know how many of the 12 were lawyers, but it would be about half, because about half of the board are lawyers. Some of my appointees to the board are lawyers, and I think two of the Law Society's appointees are non-lawyers. It's a fifty-fifty balance in every respect. This motion to implement the report -- not done by the Attorney General, not done by Tim Agg, but done by the Legal Services Society staff -- was passed unanimously, including the votes of people who are benchers -- in lay terms, members of the executive of the Law Society of British Columbia. People who now talk about being concerned about it fail to recognize that that history exists.

[6:30]

Because of the concern that I had -- and I hope all British Columbians have -- about the way legal services are delivered to native people in our province, I commissioned a review of legal services to aboriginal people. It was done by a lawyer, one of the member for Matsqui's colleagues, to look at legal aid services in British Columbia. Marion Buller was the lawyer involved. I'm going to take just three short extracts from her report, which was delivered to me earlier this year, in May. One quote says:

"Legal services for aboriginal people has become synonymous with big bureaucracy and big business. The emphasis now focuses on the needs of the justice system and some of its high-priced players rather than the needs of the people it was designed to serve. Many aboriginal people complain LSS is missing the boat, arguing persuasively that the holistic, community-based approach, in stark contrast to LSS's emphasis on court proceedings, is the only viable way to deliver legal services in aboriginal communities."

On another page, some of her recommendations are:

"That LSS develop a realistic staffing needs assessment that includes intake. service delivery and tariff administration. That when the cost of referrals to the private bar exceeds the cost of an additional staff lawyer, LSS carry out a staffing assessment. That LSS expand the tariff to include mediation as an available service, and that the society assist in the training and support of non-lawyer mediators."

[ Page 12932 ]

Then one final quote from her report; this is another recommendation:

"That the LSS hire staff lawyers trained to work with aboriginal clients and conversant in native law issues. These staff lawyers will replace duty and circuit counsel in locations where there is a high proportion of aboriginal clients. They will also replace referrals to the private bar in family law cases and criminal cases involving aboriginal rights arguments."

This is the report from a lawyer in British Columbia who was asked by me to review legal services to aboriginal people in this province.

There's a lot more I can say. I haven't mentioned another study that was done nationally and released in October 1993, entitled The National Review of Legal Aid. It concluded that a mixed model with a strong staff component is the delivery system most likely to meet the twin criteria of cost-effectiveness and high quality.

I haven't taken advantage of this debate that's been going on in the community in the last number of months to draw attention to billings by private tariff lawyers. I'm not going to name names because, unlike the member for Matsqui, I'm not going to trash people in this House if they aren't here to defend themselves. The top 50 billers....

Interjections.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The member for North Vancouver-Seymour is unable to hear me, because it's difficult to hear when you're talking.

The top 50 billers working on legal aid cases averaged $223,661. The highest biller.... And this isn't all they do; this part of what they do. These aren't staff lawyers getting paid; this is part of what they do in their legal practice. The top lawyer was $416,312. One legal aid lawyer in British Columbia in one year, not necessarily working full-time on legal aid cases, bills $416,000 plus. The lowest....

C. Tanner: That doesn't say much for your department.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: What's that got to do with my department?

C. Tanner: Don't you pay the bills?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: No, I don't pay them. I don't know how we can have an intelligent debate in this Legislature....

Interjections.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Oh, I'm quite relaxed. But I'm astonished. It's utter disbelief. I can't believe that the member for Saanich North and the Islands could make the kinds of comments he's making. Payments to lawyers under legal aid are made by the Legal Services Society, a completely independent agency of the Crown, over which the Attorney General, the Minister of Finance and the entire government have no control, except once in a while we can bring in legislation to try and fix some matter. But members don't want to fix the problems.

Interjections.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I don't think members heard me, because they were talking too much. The top 50 billers -- $223,000 a year. One of them billed $416,000, and the lowest in the top 50 billed $170,000. And people say we should let the current system continue? You have to be kidding.

Members have only had 22 months to get ready for this.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members! I recognize that it is late in the session, and a certain amount of frivolity is bound to creep in. However, throughout the eight different speeches made in second reading debate by members on that side of the House, there was no heckling.

C. Tanner: There was nobody in the House.

Deputy Speaker: Oh yes, there were people in the House. It seems to me....

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members, there were many people in the House at that time. The point I am making is that some elementary courtesy ought to be shown so we can at least hear the points being made by members. Please, friends, let us behave a little more civilly one to another.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Members have had 22 months to anticipate these changes. There could have been, and perhaps there should have been, several dozen other changes coming out of the Agg report, which members have had in their offices now since September 1992. That report very clearly spelled out the directions in which Mr. Agg wanted to go. If members felt that the Legal Services Society wasn't going to go in that direction, or that the government wasn't going to support that direction, then they would have been notified of that fact in February of this year when the LSS board voted unanimously to proceed in generally the same direction as was posed by Mr. Agg.

One of the central recommendations in Mr. Agg's report was that there be community involvement in governance. That is all we are doing in this bill. We are reducing the government's role from one-half to one-third of the governing body and involving the community for the first time, with another third. The member for Matsqui made the argument that somehow the AG gets to appoint six. That's only in the unusual circumstance that would possibly develop if the two members appointed by the native community law offices and the community law offices couldn't agree on the fifth appointee. Even if the AG gets a sixth, it would be incumbent on the AG of the day to remember what constituency was being reflected by that appointment and to make the appointment accordingly. Therefore, clearly it's a five-five-five governance model.

All this heat and noise is over changing the governance from seven-seven to five-five-five and involving the community. I can't believe it. Whether this bill passes, fails or blows up in a puff of smoke, the Legal Services Society is proceeding with the reforms. The debate the members were having wasn't about this bill; it was about the unanimous decision of the Legal Services Society to move to a mixed model.

The member shakes his head, but the five-five-five doesn't make a difference as to whether or not....

[ Page 12933 ]

Interjection.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The member wasn't here -- or he didn't listen. I'm going to read it again. "Unanimously, 12 to nothing, the LSS adopt the mixed model as the model for reform" -- the mixed model as the model for reform....

Interjection.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Let me read it, and if the member finds the word pilot in here, I'll eat this.

"...and that the society move for implementation of the model in the '94-95 fiscal year, and that the society obtain and have ongoing consultation with all interested groups as to the implementation of the model."

M. de Jong: The model said "pilot projects."

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I've read it twice now, and I still didn't run into the word "pilot."

Everybody knew what they were voting on. Here's the report. It's a report to adopt a mixed model. I don't know what more to say. We're going to have more discussion on this in committee stage, where it properly belongs, but I want to say that we had to do something. We basically had two choices....

Oh, I'm going to say something else, too, before I get back to that. There's been a suggestion that the Association of Legal-aid Lawyers haven't had an opportunity to be involved in the consultation. The Association of Legal-aid Lawyers met with me in my office -- and I met with some of their representatives on other occasions in the last couple of years -- earlier this year. I don't have the date, but it was in April. Mr. Griffiths, who wrote the letter that was referred to tonight, was there, and he was acting as their spokesperson. There were six or seven or eight of them.

In the course of that meeting, they said that they could deliver legal aid under the current structure for the same costs as we were incurring now. I said: "You haven't been able to prove that for two years." They said: "We can prove it to you." And we agreed that they would have two weeks -- and they agreed to the two weeks -- to come back with a report which demonstrated how they could in fact deliver legal aid for the costs that we were incurring.

At the end of the two-week period, we got a page-and-a-half letter from the president, saying that they had been unable to do it; he'd had the flu. No one else in this 500-member organization had been asked to do the work. They couldn't do it. I said to myself: "Well, I'm going to delay the introduction of this legislation until late in the session, because there may still be an opportunity. I'll wait to see what they produce."

That was in April; it's now July. I have heard nothing from them in respect of their commitment to me to tell me how they could in fact have legal aid delivered in this province under the current tariff-based model and not have costs rise as they are. They couldn't do it.

F. Gingell: Maybe it's been lost in the mail.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: It's not been lost in the mail. You would all have a copy of the proposal if there indeed was one.

The bottom line -- and I'll close with this -- is that we had huge cost overruns. We had legal aid inadequately delivered in many communities, especially native communities, around the province. We had too little community involvement in the delivery of legal aid, so we had to find solutions to it. The first solution recommended to me was to bring in a public defender. I said: "No, we're not going to a public defender system in British Columbia."

The report recommended a mixed model. There will continue to be choice of counsel, as there is now. But if you're arrested for a small offence in Prince Rupert, you can't choose to have the best criminal lawyer in Vancouver go up there to represent you. You don't technically have choice of counsel now, in any event, but there's a fair amount of choice of counsel. There will continue to be the same amount of choice of counsel.

Fifty percent of the work will be done by private sector tariff lawyers. That will enable all the tough cases -- all the choice-of-counsel issues -- to be accommodated. And at the same time, we'll be able to get a handle on these costs, which, as I indicated earlier, have risen by 214 percent over a three-year period and were continuing to escalate. It's an unconscionable situation. If I had failed to act in any way, I would have failed in my duty to the taxpayers of this province, and I wasn't going to fail in that duty.

[6:45]

Members may choose to keep the old system in place and have these continuing skyrocketing costs. I'm not prepared to live with that. Members may also not want to involve aboriginal communities and other local communities in the governance of legal aid. That's a choice they may make because they believe this traditional model of a partnership between the big government and the big law society is the way it should be. That's not my view. I think we should be broadening it and getting into the community, and that's what we're doing. It's one-third, one-third and one-third. I can't believe that members wouldn't unanimously support this amendment, because it's good public policy. I now move second reading of the bill.

Motion approved on the following division:

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Bill 55, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 3), 1994, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration later today.

[ Page 12934 ]

G. Farrell-Collins: On a point of order, I didn't hear the motion the Attorney General moved before it was voted upon. It sounded a little different to me than the traditional one, and if we could just revisit it, I'd be glad. I couldn't hear what the motion was.

The Speaker: If there is a difficulty, it's certainly okay for the minister to move the motion again, but I thought it was in order.

G. Farrell-Collins: If I heard correctly, and I'm not sure.... The traditional motion is that it be for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today. I'm not sure, but I thought I heard the minister say later today, in which case unanimous consent is required. I'm just trying to find out exactly what the motion was. I don't think everybody in the House heard that motion, and perhaps heard a motion different than....

Interjection.

C. Serwa: On the same point of order, hon. Speaker. The situation is this: if leave is denied, then later on the Committee of the Whole cannot be set up. All we have to hear is one "nay," and it will have to be at the next sitting.

T. Perry: It's usually impossible to hear this far down in the chamber with the braying over there, but it was transparently obvious what we were voting on, and we voted in favour of it.

Hon. G. Clark: I could be of assistance, hon. Speaker; I've been consulting with my colleagues. The intention was that we anticipated the House would be sitting later, and we would try to get back to this. So that's why, as you know, we've been varying these motions. But if the members would like the normal motion -- the next sitting after today -- that's fine. We can proceed that way. There's no intention at any time.... It's an intention to be flexible, to allow for varying motions at varying times, given that we're sitting much beyond the normal sitting hours under the standing orders.

The Speaker: Thank you, hon. minister. Is it the wish of the House, in light of the submissions, to proceed or not? Are there members who wish to have the question placed again?

Is leave granted for proceeding with the motion as put?

Leave granted.

The Speaker: Then it is acceptable to proceed. Before recognizing the Government House Leader, I would like to respond to a matter.

Earlier today, the hon. member for Matsqui rose on a point of order predicated on standing order 90, which reads as follows:

"If it shall appear that any person has been elected and returned a member of this House, or endeavoured so to be, by bribery, or any other corrupt practices, this House will proceed with the utmost severity against all such persons as shall have been wilfully concerned in such bribery or other corrupt practice."

The hon. member tabled correspondence, financial statements and newspaper articles, and in conclusion stated that if the point of order raised was sustained, he would move a motion seeking a referral to the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform and Ethical Conduct.

The Chair then heard submissions by the House Leader, the hon. member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi and the hon. member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast. The hon. member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi submitted, in effect, that there was no substantive information or finding before the House upon which the Chair could rule as to whether or not standing order 90 ought to be invoked as suggested by the hon. member for Matsqui.

[7:00]

A careful reading of standing order 90, which requires the House to proceed with "utmost severity" against members and others guilty of grave offences, suggests to the Chair that the House must first satisfy itself, by procedures otherwise available to it, that corrupt practices have been conclusively proven. The Chair is of the opinion that the words "if it shall appear" contained in standing order 90 must imply and require much more than appearances or perceptions, and must be read to mean "if it shall be proven" to the House itself that corrupt practices have occurred. The House must then proceed with severity against the offending persons under standing order 90.

Accordingly, the Chair must conclude that standing order 90 in and of itself does not confer upon the hon. member for Matsqui the opportunity to move, if otherwise in order, a motion of referral to the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills.

Hon. G. Clark: First of all, I neglected to advise members that the Special Committee to Appoint a Child, Youth and Family Advocate is sitting at 7 p.m. in the Douglas Fir Room for a brief organizational meeting.

Hon. Speaker, I call committee on Bill 36.

RECALL AND INITIATIVE ACT

The House in committee on Bill 36; D. Lovick in the chair.

The Chair: I call the committee to order. We are on Bill 36, the Recall and Initiative Act. I note in looking at the order paper and from remarks made to me by the table that there are a large number of amendments proposed to this particular legislation.

I want to suggest a procedure that we have used hitherto in this chamber that I think works reasonably well -- namely, the individual who proposes the amendment should do so, other people who want to speak in support of the amendment should do so, and then we will entertain the rebuttal from the other side. In most cases, at least, we will then call the question rather than get into protracted debate on amendment after amendment after amendment. It's a procedure we used on a couple of other pieces of legislation that also had significant numbers of amendments attached. It seems to work well, and I hope all members will agree.

I certainly want to emphasize, however, that I will not be mindlessly rigorous. Obviously, if there is a particular amendment that clearly captures the imagination and interest and indignation of members, we will not allow people to have only one comment on the particular amendment. But the general rule, as I say, will be that the proposer of the amendment will speak, other members who want to speak in support of the amendment will have an opportunity, then we will go to the other side for the response and the rebuttal, and then we will have the question.

[ Page 12935 ]

If that is acceptable, I will proceed on that assumption. Having said so, I understand we have an amendment to section 1, from the Leader of the Official Opposition.

J. Weisgerber: On a point of order -- following the advice from the Chair, which I think is sound -- it has also been the practice of this House to call those amendments that are on the order paper first, and follow them with amendments that members may have proposed at a later date.

The Chair: I am advised that that is indeed the traditional practice. If so, I'm reminded of the fact that in parliamentary tradition, practice is the first foundation on which the system operates. Therefore I must defer to that suggestion and call the amendments in that order; I don't think we have any choice. I call the amendment of the member for Peace River South.

J. Weisgerber: I'd like to move the amendment to section 1 standing in my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 1, by deleting the words "refreshment, entertainment, office, placement, employment and any other benefit of any kind" from the definition of "inducement".]

The effect is to significantly reduce the description or the explanation or the definition of the word "inducement." Indeed, the definition we have now for inducement is far too broad. The suggestion that it would later be seen to be an inappropriate inducement to give refreshment or entertainment or office to someone involved in gathering a petition, whether it be for recall or initiative, simply goes too far. The amendment I am moving would be to delete the words "refreshment, entertainment, office, placement, employment and any other benefit" from the description of inducement. That leaves inducement to be defined as including "money, gifts and valuable consideration."

On the amendment.

D. Mitchell: Speaking to the amendment very briefly, the definition of an inducement is important. We can deal with it later on in the bill when it comes up with respect to the particular fines or penalties that can be levied as a result of inducement. Maybe when the Attorney General addresses this particular amendment, he can tell us what was contemplated when this definition was inserted into this bill. As the House Leader for the Reform Party has indicated, this is such a broad definition. My interpretation would be that the word "refreshment" in this definition would suggest that later on we can see that an individual may be subject not only to a very hefty cash fine, but perhaps even be imprisoned for purchasing a cup of coffee for a canvasser for a recall petition or an initiative. That could not have been contemplated.

When the Attorney General addresses this -- and hopefully accepts the amendment -- he will see the wisdom in limiting this definition so that the very serious offences and appropriate penalties under this act for inducement should be upheld but shouldn't be so broadly defined that we are using a sledgehammer where it's really not required. The terms "refreshment," "entertainment" and "office" could be very broadly defined. If we left in the definition of inducement in the section simply as including money, gifts or valuable consideration, that would be sufficient to address the penalty and fine sections, which we will deal with subsequent to this definition.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: First of all, this is precisely the same definition that was used last year in the local elections reform bill that the House passed. That doesn't necessarily make it right, but we are following the pattern that the House has determined. Second, this kind of provision has existed in statutes in this province for a long time. I am looking at the Provincial Elections Act from 1960. It may have been consolidated in 1960; it may have predated 1960 by who knows how many years. It says things like: "...any expenses incurred for any meat, drink or provision to or for any person in order to be elected...." So this kind of provision has existed; historically we have had these kinds of definitions. We haven't included meat in this definition; that probably relates to a more rural time in our history.

I heard members talking -- if not today, then other days -- about a cup of coffee. There has to be an understanding that a gift or a refreshment or any of these items is given in exchange for something; it's not just giving somebody a cup of coffee if there is no understanding about an obligation that flows from it. So that kind of argument is really quite ridiculous. If I understand the amendment from the member, he would leave in "money, gift and valuable consideration," but he would take out "entertainment, employment and any other benefit." You can imagine that it's not just money that can change hands. Other things have a value, too, and we need to include them. I can assure members that there is no problem with the cup of coffee that members were talking about.

[7:15]

Consistent with the decision made by the House last year, we will reject the amendment in order to keep the statutes comparable.

The Chair: Hon. members, while we're waiting for the Clerks to prepare the division lists, I want to give notice that because I anticipate a number of divisions on this particular bill and the amendments thereto, the elapsed time between the ringing of the bells and the closing of the doors will be three minutes, and it will be rigorously enforced.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

[ Page 12936 ]

G. Campbell: As in the previous discussion under the definition section, I want to deal with the definition of inducement. I understand the response from the Attorney General with regard to how much the definition of inducement was restricted by the last amendment, and I would like to offer the following amendment for consideration: "inducement" includes money, gift, valuable consideration, placement, employment or any other benefit of value.

As I'm sure members will know, the definition of inducement comes up in a number of places in the bill, and regardless of the assurances of the Attorney General, it seems to me that the bill will be there for interpretation from the courts. The fact of the matter is that the way the definition reads, it's still possible to assume under a number of sections that if someone received coffee, doughnuts or anything else, it's refreshment, and that if there's band playing at a rally, that could be considered entertainment. I believe that we would be better off and the legislation would be more workable, if we provide for a definition that deletes entertainment and refreshment. That would be my amendment, and I would so move, hon. Chair.

On the amendment.

J. Weisgerber: I rise to support the amendment. Indeed, it seems to be identical to the one that was just defeated inasmuch as the words "valuable consideration" would have covered those other things left in by this amendment. I understand English to be a very subtle and tricky language at times, and perhaps difficult to follow, so I will have another go this time around. I'd be happy to see the words "refreshment and entertainment" taken out, if that's more suitable to those on this side of the House.

G. Farrell-Collins: I think the amendment is trying for something between what the government has done, which is pretty draconian, and something completely wide-open, which is what we saw with the previous amendment. I would differ with the Leader of the Third Party. While I respect the intent of his amendment, I think what his amendment would have done by deleting items such as office and office space, placement -- which is jobs -- employment and any other kinds of benefits would mean that a special interest group could actually provide office space and could provide full-time paid people to go out and organize on behalf of a referendum or an initiative. That is exactly the type of thing we're trying to get away from -- the domination of special interests in this process.

What we've tried to do with this amendment is stop those types of things, but not be so draconian as to say they can't provide refreshment when volunteers come in from a hard night's work -- give them a cup of coffee and maybe a piece of pizza -- so they go home with a full stomach instead of starving all day and all night long. Or, as the leader said, you may have a band or something to get people up and more interested and enthusiastic. You can keep those 200 volunteers that the member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale and the member for Vancouver-Kensington talked about. If you're going to keep them out there for 60 nights in a row signing up people, you have to give them some sort of sustenance to do the job which they're volunteering thousands of dollars' worth of their time to do.

I think what we tried to do is strike a balance by keeping the special interest groups out of the field with their big money, but allowing motivated individuals and citizens in the constituency to do their job with fluid and with food. I don't think it's too draconian; I think it's a reasonable amendment. In fact, I hope the government will support it. I think it's a good amendment.

D. Mitchell: Like the previous amendment moved by the House Leader for the Reform Party, this seeks to limit the definition of the term "inducement." The Attorney General, in his initial remarks on the previous amendment, rejected the notion that we should be altering the definition. His only defence was that this is the same definition used in the Local Elections Reform Act passed by this House last year. He also admitted that that doesn't make it right.

Given the comments made in favour of both the amendments that have been proposed to this definition in this section, would the Attorney General not agree that a limitation on the very broad definition of inducement that's offered in the draft of this bill could be so restrictive that it really takes away from the intent of the legislation in the first place? Would he agree to consider this amendment? I'd certainly speak in favour of it. I think it would be a reasonable start to this bill, given that we're on section 1. We're on the definition section, and this is the first amendment. It might be a gesture of goodwill on the Attorney's part to accept this amendment so we can move on.

J. Dalton: You know, hon. Chair, there's both danger and irony built into the Bill 36 definition that we are now arguing about on the amendment. Definitions are intended to guide the people who are trying to live within the law -- and, of course, the courts, if something ultimately gets before the courts. That's the purpose of a definition section.

The definition of inducement in this bill is obviously going to cause more problems than it's designed to cure or prevent. Quite frankly, I remember the words of the Attorney General in answer to: "What's the meaning of this?" He'd say: "Let the courts decide." I'm a bit horrified at times to hear the chief law enforcement officer inviting courts to rule on things. Why shouldn't this Legislature, through proper legislation, design wording and interpretations that will prevent the courts from having to rule? There's the danger.

The irony is that I think it will invite the very thing the interpretation is trying to prevent. I'm suggesting that if we do not put through this amendment presented by the Leader of the Official Opposition we're going to create more problems than the interpretation section will deny. For example, does "refreshment" mean that when somebody knocks on your door and you offer a glass of water or a Coke, that would be prevented or denied? That would be a stupid interpretation, but it is invited by this. So striking that word, among others, from this definition will be of assistance.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: For there to be an offence, there needs to be criminal intent. Offering someone a glass of water when they knock on your door is not likely to be accompanied by criminal intent. The arguments the members make are not wrong from a commonsense perspective. I don't have any particular problem with the latter amendment, as compared to the former, other than this: when and if a matter were to go to court on whether or not something that was offered and accepted was an

[ Page 12937 ]

inducement, the courts are going to look at the language and are going to compare it to other statutes. The statute that it will be compared with is the local elections statute, which I referred to earlier. The court will no doubt say: "In this bill the Legislature did not include the word 'refreshment.' It did earlier, but it didn't now. Therefore, it must mean that a continuing supply of free restaurant meals for the rest of your life is not meant to be...."

An Hon. Member: That's ridiculous.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Well, it sounds ridiculous, but members will remember how many times in this Legislature, over the years, they have voted for amendments to bills because the earlier drafting had been thrown out by the courts, or had been interpreted in a way that was not meant by the Legislature. That is because the courts are very specific and do that kind of thing with regularity.

[7:30]

If the question at hand was to go back and change the local elections act and do them both this way, then, quite frankly, I would have no problem with that. But that's not where we are at the present time. It's because of that reason -- not because the members are wrong -- and because the courts could fully be expected to interpret a motive on the part of the Legislature, which would be a fair assumption and one that would lead us to problems later on and require us to go back and amend the statute another day.

Let me say one more thing. I'm quite prepared to accept amendments tonight if they meet the principles and the philosophy that we are embarking on with this bill and make it clearer or help accommodate concerns, as long as they don't run the risk of getting us into legal problems with the drafting. So I just want to say to members that I'm not going to be bullheaded about amendments. If there are amendments that we feel we can accept, I am quite open to that. Hopefully there will be some.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

D. Mitchell: I have a quick question on section 1, but just before I raise that, I'd like to raise a point of order. The Chair has suggested a method of going through the amendments in order to expedite the committee this evening and deal with all of them. I note that the House Leader for the Reform Party has followed the practices of this assembly by giving proper notice on the order paper of the amendments that he intends to propose. If other members wish to propose amendments during committee, particularly if they have a significant number, it might be both advisable and a courtesy to the committee to provide copies for members. That might expedite things. It's just a suggestion, hon. Chair.

The question I have deals with the definition of "proponent" in the singular. It refers to "the voter" who applied for the petition. It implies a single voter is a proponent. I'm wondering if there is a reason for that in law. Are we purposefully disallowing joint proponents? Could two voters be a proponent? Could a group of individuals be a proponent, or is the intention of this to prohibit groups or organizations from coming forward? Is there any prohibition on more than one voter being a proponent of either a recall or an initiative petition?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I don't have the reference right at hand, but I think the report from the legislative committee recommended that it come from a single voter. That's for technical and legal purposes. One eligible voter has to initiate the process. That doesn't mean that the proponent can't have a group of people around him or her, all called proponents. For legal purposes it's one individual.

Section 1 approved on division.

On section 2.

G. Campbell: I have a question for the Attorney General. I'm assuming that the purpose of section 2 is to ensure, in referenda particularly, that no issues that are ultra vires to the province come to the fore. Is that correct?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Yes.

G. Campbell: In looking at this, I think it's important that we maintain a sense of independence in terms of how the legislation is operated. There's no guarantee, I would suggest, that the electoral officer would necessarily be in a position where either he or she could determine whether an issue was ultra vires to the province. The legislation referred to earlier, the 1919 direct legislation act, suggests that you could refer these matters to the court should the electoral officer say that they were ultra vires.

We will get the amendments that our party is considering putting before the House. We will get copies of those for all members of the House.

I would like to propose the following amendment to section 2, "Subject matter of legislative proposals," to add the following:

[SECTION 2

If the chief electoral officer is of the opinion that a legislative proposal or some provision therein in may be ultra vires of the Legislature, he or she shall so inform the Attorney General and the Speaker, and shall instruct the Attorney General to seek to procure the opinion of the Court of Appeal as to whether the legislative proposal is within the legislative powers of the Legislature or not.]

The purpose of the amendment is simply to ensure that someone, in going through this procedure, can't say that there was a political decision made by someone who may or may not be in a position to determine whether something was ultra vires. I submit that amendment for consideration.

[ Page 12938 ]

On the amendment.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The bill, as drafted, accomplishes the same goal that the member seeks to achieve. I don't disagree with the objective here. The way it works is that the chief electoral officer would make an informed decision, because if there was some doubt, he would seek legal advice. It would more likely be external of government in order to ensure that kind of separation. That would be my view at this point.

[7:45]

In the event that the proponent disagreed with the decision or there was a suggestion that there was political interference, or whatever, in a decision, the Judicial Review Procedure Act is available. Any decision of the chief electoral officer is subject to the Judicial Review Procedure Act, so an application can be made by the proponent to go to court and say that the chief electoral officer has made a wrong decision and to ask the court to correct the decision. That's available now, and that's the way this would work. We think that's a cleaner way of making sure that no proponent is denied proper access to this system. For that reason, I would reject the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

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

[SECTION 3, by inserting a new subsection (6) to read:

(6) If a dispute arises over compliance with any of the criteria listed in subsections (2) to (5), it shall be decided in the following manner:

(a) if the dispute arises over an issue under subsections (2) or (3), the Chief Electoral Officer may decide it on his own authority;

(b) if a dispute arises over an issue under subsection (4), the Chief Electoral Officer must submit the question to a select standing committee of the legislative assembly for a ruling; and

 (c) if a dispute arises over an issue under subsection (5), the Chief Electoral Officer must allow the proponent to decide whether, in his opinion, the legislative proposal is the same or substantially similar to the initiative proposal in question.]

This amendment would have the effect of adding a subsection (6), which would provide a dispute resolution mechanism for considerations covered in the first five subsections of section 3. It suggests that on reasonably routine matters, there would be appeal only to the chief electoral officer and that his decision on subsections (2) and (3) would be binding. Subsection (4) requires that the proposed bill be drafted in a way that's clear and unambiguous in nature; that seems to me to be a matter that is a bit more contentious or open to debate. This amendment would propose a reference by the chief electoral officer to a select standing committee of the Legislature to examine it, if the proponent is unable or unwilling or can't come to an agreement with the chief electoral officer on the wording. The fundamental intent is that someone who wishes to put forward a piece of draft legislation not be stymied and frustrated in their attempts to do that. Subsection (c) of the proposed amendment would see a dispute arising around whether or not another petition, or proposed petition, was similar in nature turn back to the proponent: let the proponent examine other petitions that are being circulated or discussed, and let the proponent decide, in the case of that one dispute, whether they wish to proceed because they believe their initiative to be substantially different. With that, I would move this amendment to section 3.

On the amendment.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The process that the member proposes actually would inject politics into the decision in a way that the bill as we propose it doesn't do. The politics, of course, is in the majority vote of a legislative committee, which means that the government of the day could make some decisions that might have a political taint to them. The proposal we are making is that the chief electoral officer would make the decision, and you can bet that any chief electoral officer is going to bend over backwards to make sure that he or she is not seen to be making tainted or political decisions; but in the event there's disagreement about the decision, there is recourse to the judicial review.

The difference between us and the Reform Party on this is that we say the courts should make the decision as to whether the CEO is correct or not, and the Reform Party is saying that a political committee of this House should make the decision. So I opt for the courts.

J. Weisgerber: Just for the Attorney General's clarification, the first subsection of the amendment would define clearly that disputes under sections 2 and 3 would be under the purview of the chief electoral officer. Subsection (c) suggests that a dispute there would be resolved by the proponent. Indeed it is only in the area of a question around drafting that it would go to a select standing committee of the Legislature. I am not naive enough to think that that's going to change the Attorney General's decision to reject the amendment.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I agree with the member that he is not naive.

D. Mitchell: I'd like some clarification on section 3, and the amendment to section 3 at the same time. This section is giving some extraordinary new powers to the chief electoral officer of our province. Up until now, the CEO has not had within his or her office the expertise necessary to make these kinds of judgments or decisions. So we're adding a significant new power.

My understanding of the amendment moved by the member for Peace River South, the House Leader for the Reform Party, is that it confirms what section 3 has said. In subsections (2) and (3), it gives the chief electoral officer the ability to judge on his or her own authority. When it comes to subsection (4), the chief electoral officer must submit the question to a select standing committee of this House.

But most importantly, in subsection (5), we're allowing the chief electoral officer to decide on a very important issue -- and I could talk to this after the amendment's dealt with or deal with it now, whatever the Chair wishes -- which seems, in my opinion, to risk some abuse here. If a government wished to block an initiative that came forward, even after the initiative was launched or a petition was circulating, a government could bring in a legislative proposal; and if that legislative proposal were similar or even on the same subject matter as an initiative

[ Page 12939 ]

being circulated, it could block that initiative from coming forward. There could be potential abuse on the part of any government, today's government or future governments.

So I think the amendment moved by the House Leader for the Reform Party addresses that. It possibly would curtail the abuse but still recognize the new, enhanced powers of the chief electoral officer. On that basis, I think I would like to support the amendment. I'm not really sure whether the Attorney General is correct when he suggests that one method is more democratic than the other. He's simply trying to make this thing work.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The member's suggesting that the government of the day could subvert the intention of the petitioner by bringing in similar legislation. But in fact, subsection (5) reads: "...a legislative proposal that is...the subject of any other initiative petition...." It doesn't include a government bill, so that issue is caught there. In drafting section 3, we have followed the recommendations of the parliamentary committee, as reflected in recommendation 28. In our view, it works the way it's drafted.

Amendment negatived on division.

J. Dalton: We have an amendment to propose dealing with section 3(4), and I will submit it in a moment. Our concern is one of jurisdiction: that a bill may be presented through initiative and survive all of the hoops, challenges and hurdles that it has to overcome -- which is unlikely in the bill's current form.... The public may be well intended and climb through all these hurdles and present something that may be beyond the jurisdiction of this Legislature.

Our proposal -- and I will read it into the record -- would be to delete the latter part of subsection (4), "in a clear and unambiguous manner," and replace it with "in such a way as to be capable of being implemented," which would address the question of jurisdiction.

On the amendment.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: In considering this amendment, I need to ask the member a question. Is the intent here to suggest that the CEO would reject an initiative that in the opinion of the CEO did not have the capability of being implemented? That's the intent, as I read it. In that event, if a bill were drafted that would perhaps cost the treasury $100 million, let's say, the CEO would look at that bill and say that that's not possible to be implemented because the government doesn't have the money. So he rejects it. What the member has proposed is more limiting and gives power that I don't think the member really would want to give to the CEO, because there could be all kinds of.... I can't imagine them all off the top of my head, but I can imagine there may be a number of situations where the CEO would quite legitimately say that the government is incapable of adopting that for a variety of reasons, whether they're financial or others that may occur to people. Therefore the member is actually tightening and restricting the provisions here, and I'm surprised.

J. Dalton: I'll just make a brief response to that. It is not our intention to restrict the access of the public through this bill, if it is passed -- hopefully with some of these amendments we are proposing. It's more our concern that any legislation that the public, though well-intentioned, may be proposing to put forward, may not in fact.... The Attorney General cited one example, which is a financial one, and of course those things can be headed off. It is our desire in the opposition -- as we have commented in second reading -- to make this bill workable in the best form possible. It is our concern that the phrase we would like deleted and replaced is not necessarily going to make it more workable. It may not really suit the purpose and the intent of the bill itself. So I hope that may be of assistance to the Attorney General.

We don't expect that many of our amendments are going to see the light of day. But we present them with the best of intentions, and we will continue to do so.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I appreciate the effort the opposition is making, but this amendment is going to have to suffer in darkness.

Amendment negatived on division.

Section 3 approved on division.

On section 4.

J. Dalton: We again have an amendment to put forward, this one dealing with section 4(2). As we indicated in second reading, this is a very straightforward amendment dealing with the timing within which the signatures must be obtained on a petition. We are suggesting the deletion of "90 days" in subsection (2) and its replacement with "one year." I so move.

On the amendment.

J. Weisgerber: I certainly support the extension of time to a year. In the first private member's bill I tabled, there simply wasn't a time limit, so I'm happy to see the time extended to a year. The point is that three months, or 90 days, is not an adequate or workable time. I think the Attorney General already knows that one of the severest criticisms of the legislation, aside from the thresholds themselves -- not by the members of this Legislature, but by interested groups around the province, who are very much interested in direct democracy -- is the very constrained time limits compared with other jurisdictions all of us are familiar with.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: That would be all the other jurisdictions the member is familiar with in the American system, but that's correct. What the government chose to do here, however, was to be more liberal than the committee. The committee recommended unanimously that there be a time limit of 60 to 90 days, and we took the maximum number of days the committee recommended. We saw no reason to take a position different from the one the committee had taken following its extensive travels around British Columbia. This is there because this is what the committee recommends.

R. Chisholm: I would like to speak to this amendment. As I said in second reading, there are 23 other jurisdictions that have an average of 416 days to make this work. I believe that 90 days is far too short. There's no way that this is possible within 90 days. I would ask the Attorney General to reconsider, in light of all these other jurisdictions and their average of 416 days. They have a possibility of it working, but not with 90 days.

[ Page 12940 ]

Amendment negatived.

[8:00]

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

[SECTION 4, by deleting the words "90 days" and inserting the words "180 days" therefor.]

The amendment I have proposed under section 4 is similar, but it sets out the time frame as 180 days, or six months. These three positions demonstrate just how arbitrary any of the numbers are. The minister says the committee recommended 60 days, and they chose 90 days. Many jurisdictions allow a year or 18 months. Some say that there is no time limit, but most jurisdictions allow a far greater period of time than 90 days. I genuinely believe that 180 days, six short months, to get 10 percent in 75 constituencies, as is proposed currently.... Where are you going to expect to get 10 percent of the eligible votes within three months? That's 10 percent of the eligible voters in every one of those constituencies, a whole series of constituencies such as Bulkley Valley-Stikine, Peace River South, Peace River North, North Coast, North Island, Yale-Lillooet and Kootenay. There were going to be no overlaps. You'd have to go back and make sure your canvassers hadn't hit the same people two or three different times. If indeed the purpose and the intent of this legislation is to provide workable, meaningful initiative legislation, I can't imagine that the government would be unwilling to allow a time frame of six months for the collection of signatures. It's fundamental, and it will be one of those points that will be rightfully criticized, if these amendments are not accepted. Six months is a reasonable time -- many would argue that it's too short a period of time -- that at least provides some hope and anticipation that in every one of those 75 constituencies, including those rural and remote constituencies that our own standing orders recognize as remote and difficult to service.... I don't believe by any stretch of the imagination that 180 days is too long. Indeed, it seems to be a reasonable and rational compromise, and I really hope that the government sees fit to accept this amendment.

On the amendment.

R. Neufeld: I'm standing in favour of the amendment to change the time frame from the suggested 90 days to six months. I don't think it's unreasonable, and it has been said.... I think all of us know that anyone who has followed any of the news releases, or anyone in organizations that are very interested in initiative and recall, is very critical of the thresholds and the time frame to get the signatures.

Getting 200,000 signatures in British Columbia in 90 days is almost impossible. I think I brought forward in second reading the fact that in my constituency alone -- and mine is the second largest in square miles; Bulkley Valley-Stikine is the largest -- if people were to get the signatures, they would have to drive 500 miles one way on one highway. Then on top of that, there's about 1,200 miles of other highway that they would have to drive to get to all the areas of my constituency. And just as a little kick to the Minister of Employment and Investment, almost all of that is gravel. Anyhow, it is very difficult. I can just imagine the time it would take. People in my constituency and in many constituencies in rural B.C. -- and the Kootenays is another one -- just don't go down to the mall and collect up a whole bunch of signatures, because in most cases there's no mall.

The Attorney General made the comment that we were only working on numbers from the United States, and he's correct to a point. The only comparison I have here deals with Switzerland, which requires only 2.2 percent of the registered voters, and they allow you a total of 18 months. British Columbia wants 10 percent, and they want you to do it in three months. That's the difference. We're not asking for 18 months. In fact, a year was turned down fairly quickly. We're saying it should be six months. I think six months would be fair. It would show that the government is really thinking about trying to make this piece of legislation work, and it would only make good common sense. So I support the amendment put forward by our leader.

[G. Brewin in the chair.]

J. Dalton: It's nice to see you in the chair, hon. Chair. I'm sure you're going to enjoy the evening's entertainment as much as we are.

I would like to speak in favour of this amendment. We failed on the first one asking for one year, and in the spirit of compromise -- and that's what this House is all about, of course -- I would suggest the provision of 180 days. The previous speaker certainly demonstrated that in his riding.... Of course, it's true in all rural ridings -- and urban ridings as well -- that there has to be a realistic time frame. I recall the member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale last night in second reading suggesting that you can get this great army of 200 out there knocking on doors and wandering around lower Lonsdale to get all these signatures. Quite frankly, that isn't realistic, and it certainly is not realistic in Peace River North. Therefore we endorse the 180 days.

D. Mitchell: This is one of the more important issues that we will deal with in the bill tonight; it's the length of time that a petition can circulate to get an initiative approved so that it can be put to the people. The hon. Attorney General very easily rejected the Liberal amendment that suggested the time frame for gathering signatures should be one year to gather 10 percent of the signatures of the eligible voters in the province in all 75 constituencies. Maybe a year is too long, although the experience in other jurisdictions, whether it be in Switzerland or in American states, suggests that a much longer time for the circulation of petitions for a much lower percentage of eligible voters is often not successful. But who knows? Maybe one year is too long. Maybe that's the problem.

The amendment proposed by the Reform Party House Leader which says six months -- which is only doubling the amount in the bill -- might make this initiative process work. The hon. Attorney General must be concerned about bringing forward a piece of legislation that has to work. His reference to the committee's report as justification for bringing this forward rings rather hollow, because the committee report -- as was evidenced by much of the debate in second reading last evening -- is not regarded by many members in this House as a legitimate basis for bringing forward workable reforms. If it is planned to use that in committee as justification for what's in the bill, that's not justification. That might be an excuse, but it's not a reason for what is contained in the

[ Page 12941 ]

bill. When we talk about the period of time that an initiative petition should be circulated, this is very crucial.

Perhaps other jurisdictions aren't important to the Attorney General. Maybe we don't need other reference points. Let's talk about a model in British Columbia that can work. The House Leader for the Reform Party has suggested 180 days to gather the signatures of up to 200,000 British Columbians. I can tell the hon. Attorney General that just a couple of weeks ago I tabled in the Legislature a petition signed by 80,000 British Columbians urging the Premier to bring forward recall legislation that works. That petition, signed by 80,000 British Columbians, was collected over one year, and it wasn't easy. The people who gathered the signatures on that petition worked very hard, and it took them over one year to gather over 80,000 signatures. That's a very significant petition and it's provincewide, but it took them well over a year to gather those signatures, and they had a small army of people out there. That's one British Columbia reference point that I would draw to the Attorney General's attention.

As a gesture of goodwill towards making these reforms work, I would ask the Attorney General to consider this amendment. The Attorney General said earlier that he is not going to reject all amendments out of hand. Here is a reasonable one. It's a moderate, middle ground between the position of the parliamentary committee and the previous amendment that was rejected. Why not accept this one?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: First of all, I want to address the "difficulty" in getting 10 percent of the signatures in 90 days, and the member for Peace River South made reference to my riding, among others. If I wanted to get 2,300 signatures in my riding, which is what I would require to have a petition initiated, I would only have to get 24 signatures a day for 90 days. I could do that in my riding working a three- or four-hour day by myself. I don't need any help to get 2,300 signatures on an issue. Let's say it's an issue in favour of the logging industry, so a particular legislative initiative is desired. That is no problem at all. Give me a couple of people with me and I'll get the signatures in ten days. In Bulkley Valley-Stikine, only 1,500 signatures are needed.

R. Neufeld: But you've got to travel a long way to get them.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I tell you that 90 days is not going to be a difficulty at all. But that's not the main reason I'm rejecting the 180-day proposal. The member for Peace River South, I think it was, was correct when he said that any number is arbitrary.

[8:15]

On behalf of the government, I am accepting the recommendation of a parliamentary committee that was submitted unanimously, and therefore I reject the amendment.

Amendment negatived on division.

Section 4 approved on the following division:

On section 5.

D. Mitchell: I have a quick question on this. I'm not sure if I should wait for the minister's officials to come in, but I'll ask the question while we're waiting. Section 5 describes who may sign an initiative petition. It says that a voter who is registered to vote can sign an initiative petition. In light of the changes that we just made to the voters list in British Columbia and of the decision we made to cancel the 1994 enumeration..... We're moving towards a permanent voters list, or a continuous voters list, but we're not there yet. So when we say that a person who is registered to vote can sign an initiative petition, how are we going to define that, given the fact that we don't yet have a permanent voters list? Can the minister inform the committee? I think it's a crucial point.

Hon. G. Clark: We do have a permanent voters list. If, however, the member's saying that during the transition until there's another enumeration it's not as up to date as it should be, I'll grant the member that. It may be a problem, but we're hoping to remedy that as soon as we can. Nevertheless, anybody can update the existing voters list, which is a permanent list, at any time and get on the list. People do that regularly. It's updated; it's just that there isn't a full enumeration. So there is a permanent voters list. That's what would apply in all cases. We hope the regular updating will take place, as we said earlier, which will be the subject of further conversation.

Section 5 approved.

On section 6.

J. Weisgerber: I move the amendment to section 6(1) standing in my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 6 (1), by deleting the words "has been a resident in British Columbia for at least 6 months" and inserting the words "is a resident of British Columbia" therefor.]

The effect is to change the wording under section 6(1)(a) to describe those people who may canvass. It now reads a voter who has been resident in British Columbia for six months. The effect of the amendment to section 6(1) would be to change it to a resident of British Columbia.

The logic behind that is that we don't believe it is necessary for someone to be on the voters list in order to petition an initiative process. Given the safeguards that

[ Page 12942 ]

are built into this act around "inducements" and the like, someone who comes to British Columbia and takes up residence, whether or not they are a citizen or are entitled to vote, would seem to me to be very genuinely motivated, even without so much as a cup of coffee or an office to work out of. We're not going to have people coming in here with some kind of ulterior motive, but only people who are residents of British Columbia who want to participate in the process and get out and work on a campaign for an initiative. When we get into an election campaign we don't say to people who want to put up signs for me, the NDP or anyone else that they have to be a resident in British Columbia for six months before they can participate in our democratic election processes. Why would we want to deny someone access to participate in going out and seeking signatures by taking a petition around in order to assist a process and a project that they very much believe in?

So the first amendment that we have under that section would be to change the wording in section 6(1). I would also like to move an amendment that is not on the order paper, which I've filed with the Clerk. It would eliminate completely section 6(1)(b), which says that the voter is in fact on the voters list. The effect of those two amendments is to say that if you're a resident of British Columbia and you want to volunteer your time to seek signatures on a petition, you should be entitled to do so and shouldn't be constrained because of your length of residency or your registration or lack of registration on the voters list.

On the amendment.

Hon. G. Clark: I would hope the member would agree that his amendments are quite inappropriate. I'll try to explain why I say that so categorically.

This section says that someone has to be a resident in British Columbia for six months before they become a canvasser in an initiative campaign. What we're seeking to avoid here is professional organizers from California or some other province moving into the province -- maybe half a dozen of them....

Interjection.

Hon. G. Clark: The member for Alberni asks: "Greenpeace?" Perhaps.

We don't want professional organizers from an interest group moving into the province, taking up residency in a hotel, claiming they're a resident and then organizing a campaign of initiative. We're saying that we really want, if you will, bona fide residents of the province. That's why a six-month-residency rule is reasonable. We're making sure that people aren't flying into the province and pretending to be residents. They have to be resident here for six months prior to taking up the canvass. I think that's quite reasonable, and that's why we have to vote against this amendment.

J. Weisgerber: I would refer the minister to section 6(3), which says that a person must not directly or indirectly pay, give, lend or procure any inducement to a person to canvass for signatures. So I don't think -- if the spirit of subsection (3) is lived up to -- you're going to have people, even Greenpeace, coming in and living in a hotel for six months in order to have a professional campaign.

I would thank the minister for making my argument, because I believe that the bill, with those sections, provides a pretty clear protection against professionals coming in and taking over. Indeed, the people who are punished are new residents to British Columbia, perhaps to Canada, who genuinely want to get involved in the process of direct democracy and want to get out....

Interjection.

J. Weisgerber: Someone says: let them register. Well, they can't register, because the bill is written in a way that says they must be a resident in this province for six months and be on the voters list. It's unfortunate that you haven't read the legislation, hon. member. It's those innocent, well-intentioned people who I believe will be captured by this and shouldn't be, and it's in that spirit that those amendments are put forward.

Hon. G. Clark: Well, with the greatest respect, I would be more inclined to be sympathetic to the member if I didn't see that he had another amendment coming shortly, eliminating "pay, give, lend" or otherwise.... Unless that's....

Interjections.

Hon. G. Clark: They're getting testy, hon. Chair.

In any event, I grant that there is further protection from professionalism in the act, and I concede that. But it seems to me that, nevertheless, the residency requirement gives that extra protection. There may be individuals who would be prepared to move here on their own time. Individuals dedicated to a particular cause may move and not be paid, but still move in. I think it's just a further safeguard. I don't think it's an onerous one.

D. Mitchell: I think one of the things that we're suffering from in the committee tonight is that we've had a new minister come in, and he's missed some of the previous debate. On section 1, we had a very good debate on the definition that's offered in this bill for the term "inducement." In fact, there were some amendments offered to that very broad-ranging definition in this bill, and the Attorney General rejected, out of hand, both amendments that were offered. The definition of inducement, which is explicitly referred to in this section, is so broad as to cover just about anything, including canvassers not being able to receive any refreshments -- a glass of water at the door, a cup of coffee or a doughnut. Because the definition of inducement is so broad and because the hon. Attorney General refused to accept what I think were some quite reasonable amendments, I think the minister should keep that in mind when considering the amendment now offered by the House Leader of the Reform Party, which is really not doing anything along the lines of what the minister suggests.

[8:30]

The definition of inducement is there; it's in the bill. What this amendment is doing is simply saying that someone who is a legitimate resident in the province of British Columbia -- even if they're not officially on the voters list yet, which takes six months -- should not be precluded from participating in an act of democracy in their new province. After all, if they've made a commitment to come and reside in this province, why should we prohibit them from an opportunity to participate in democracy by actually canvassing for a

[ Page 12943 ]

signature? That's all it's doing, and it's recognizing that new British Columbians from wherever they come -- outside our province or outside our country -- should have an opportunity to participate. There's no way under this bill. There's a straitjacket on them receiving any inducement whatsoever, and the definition of inducement is so broad and comprehensive that it's ridiculous in its coverage. For that reason and because the minister missed that debate, I would ask him to reconsider this amendment. I think it's quite reasonable, given the debate that preceded him coming into the chamber to take over and pinch-hit for the hon. Attorney General.

R. Neufeld: I just want to reinforce what the previous two speakers have talked about. What you're also really doing is eliminating those students who may be out of province for studies and come back again but are not resident for six months. That may not be common on the lower mainland and in Vancouver, but it's common where I come from. They go to Grande Prairie, Calgary or Edmonton for their university training. You're eliminating those types of people, and some of those people are very active in politics. I think the minister knows that. To say that you could have an organization such as Greenpeace move in all of a sudden, take residence and live in downtown Vancouver or all over the province -- I guess they're going to live in every hotel in the province -- is a rather ridiculous rebuttal. You're looking at a bogeyman around every corner in this legislation; you're afraid. You are totally eliminating a good part of the population that may move out of the province to work for a while and come back again. They have been longtime residents. To put the six months in there is too stringent in the same way that section 4 was too stringent.

The minister should look favourably at a small, friendly amendment that allows all residents of British Columbia, whether they're young or older, whether they move around.... How about the people on construction jobs? All kinds of people move in and out of the province, and I don't think it will make one whit of difference.

D. Schreck: One of the points that has to be kept in mind in this debate is that we're dealing with legislation that is the result of a process of a year and a half of public hearings. Both the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi and I were honoured to be part of that process. The committee heard extensive warnings about what has developed in California, where there is a virtual industry to put initiative petitions forward. Signatures to meet the requirements can virtually be purchased. Whether that's done by hiring professional organizers, or whether that's done by people who are committed to a particular movement, like Greenpeace of Germany, the point is that it is interference in the type of grass-roots democracy that is the intention of this legislation.

The mover of the amendment is certainly well-motivated and trying to make the best possible access to this legislation, but I caution that member that as a result of the experience in California, which we were warned very severely to avoid, this type of safeguard is in our legislation to disallow outsiders from interfering in the rights of our citizens.

J. Weisgerber: I'm not sure whether the government is just being so cautious and paranoid about this whole process that they're seeking to cover every possible angle, or, as has been suggested by many people who are critical of this bill, it is not one big obstacle but a series of obstacles. I'm reminded of the thought of death by a thousand cuts. The legislation simply puts so many obstacles, so many hurdles, so many thresholds in the way that it just frustrates the system. I'm not sure which of those this is, but as you read through this legislation section by section, you see something in almost every line that is going to make it just a little more difficult for people to go out and get initiative petitions signed, qualified and voted on. In every aspect there is no generosity toward that intent which voters a million strong voted for in 1991. I'm disappointed that the government won't look at least at these kinds of amendments, which don't threaten them in any way at all.

C. Serwa: It's really interesting to go through this particular process section by section and genuinely look at whether the government is willing to make things work here. Clearly, in this particular section 6 we find a very interesting type of situation where we have all sorts of reasons to exclude individuals from participating in the process of collecting signatures.

Clearly the government of the day has ensured that any initiative that New Democrats would put forward, utilizing this process to appear to go through their grass roots, is not even considered for any type of exclusion. In election campaigns -- and I will make an analogy to election campaigns -- we have a great many public sector servants who participate in door-to-door canvassing and volunteering their time, and who actively work at the same time, drawing wages from the public sector, from the taxpayer of British Columbia. Many employees are paid by the unions to work....

Interjection.

C. Serwa: Yes, it is allowed, because it's circumnavigated. They are not specifically paid for this purpose but for other purposes. It may be teaching school, working in the legislative buildings or whatever. But there is not one iota of consideration....

I brought my specific concern to the committee when the recommendations were brought forward. I said: "Okay, fair enough. If you have a paranoia, let's look at the global type of situation. Let's try to be reasonable, balanced and fair from every perspective." But it is not reasonable, balanced or fair. Here there's an absolute paranoia for some sort of intrusion from outside.

Again I point to the results of the Charlottetown accord. Numerous concerns.... This specific concern comes in with this specific section, where the government is in absolute fear of some outside source or organization coming in and perverting the system. But the reality is that with all the power of all the governments of Canada -- all the provinces and territories -- large businesses and banks all focused on the yes vote in the Charlottetown accord, with a determined, well-organized, well-orchestrated and managed campaign, they failed.

I'm saying the paranoia is for naught. What we have to do here is have the absolute faith, trust and confidence in the wisdom of the electorate. What we are not doing here is allowing the electorate the opportunity to make up their mind and have the opportunity. It's not a level playing field.

I support the amendments completely and absolutely. I'm confident the government would have to support the

[ Page 12944 ]

amendments if they were objectively concerned with making this particular piece of legislation work.

Amendment negatived on division.

J. Weisgerber: I'd like to move the second amendment to section 6 standing in my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 6 (3), by deleting the words "pay, give, lend or" and inserting the words "give or" therefor.]

The effect of this amendment is to clarify a little the wording in subsection (3). It says in the bill: "A person must not, directly or indirectly, pay, give, lend or procure any inducement for a person who canvasses for signatures on an initiative petition." The intent is quite clear. But it seems a bit of overkill -- we're talking about directly, indirectly, pay, give, lend.... In the interest of simplicity, I put in an amendment to simply eliminate the words "pay" and "lend" and have the section read: "A person must not directly or indirectly give or procure any inducement...." It seems to me that this would be adequate to cover the intent.

I must confess that I'm not particularly.... If there was one amendment I was willing to see fail, it would probably be this one. I say that in fear that the government may actually accept it and then say: "Well, we didn't turn down all your amendments."

Hon. G. Clark: First of all, legislative counsel advises that this language is consistent with other acts, particularly the Local Elections Reform Act passed in the House in 1993. So this isn't something unique; it was lifted, if you will, for the sake of consistency.

Secondly, I'd just advise members that if you look at the definition of inducement, "'inducement' includes money, gift, valuable consideration, refreshment...." Those are essentially the nouns, and the verbs are "pay, give, lend or procure." That seems to me to be a fuller explanation. The member is saying that it's not a huge amendment, but it seems to me that as it stands, it's preferable, given that it's consistent with other legislation and is a broader verb to apply to the inducement, which is defined earlier.

Amendment negatived.

Section 6 approved on division.

On section 7.

C. Serwa: I move the amendment to section 7 standing in my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 7, in subsection (1) by deletion of the words "90 days", and by substitution of the words "6 months".]

I propose this because of precedents in other jurisdictions. I have some information from the FAIR group, which gives the relationship between the percentage of signatures required, the threshold levels and the time allowed. In Switzerland they require 2.2 percent of the registered voters, and they have a total of 18 months to collect those signatures. In California it's 2.9 percent, and they have five months to collect those signatures. There is a proposal by the National Citizens' Coalition for 3 percent and four months. In the state of Oregon it is 4.5 percent, and they allow 48 months; Washington State, 6.7 percent and eight months; Illinois, 10 percent and 24 months; and Wyoming, 10.8 percent and 18 months. In British Columbia the proposal is a threshold of 10 percent, required in a much shorter period of time.

The amendment is meant to give a genuine opportunity to members of the public at large to effectively put forward a proposal. In saying this, I have to convey to all members in this Legislature that all British Columbians don't live in densely populated urban areas. In second reading discussion, I heard about the ease of walking from block to block to collect all the signatures or about simply go into the shopping centre. Some constituencies are almost a quarter of the area of the province. Certainly Peace River North and the northern constituencies cover many miles. As a matter of fact, from the south end to the north end of the constituency is often further than from the south end to Vancouver. There's a real concern here with the time limit. I don't believe we lose anything at all in the program by expanding the time limit and giving citizens a reasonable, realistic and fair opportunity to collect the required number of signatures.

[8:45]

Hon. G. Clark: I won't belabour the point. The Attorney General dealt with this question extensively, and we've canvassed it in the House. I appreciate the spirit in which the member has moved it, but we've had a process and we've reviewed this question. Ten percent is simply not that onerous in my view, in terms of collection from constituencies. In my constituency, to collect some 4,000 signatures in 90 days does not seem unreasonable, nor does 1,500 in some of the northern constituencies. We've had a committee report that recommends it, therefore we obviously have to oppose this amendment.

Amendment negatived on division.

J. Dalton: I actually have two amendments. I'll present them in order so that we don't confuse the voting. On section 7(1)(a), we are proposing -- of course we've done this to be consistent with earlier proposed amendments -- to delete the reference to "90 days" and substitute "one year," and I so move.

Amendment negatived.

J. Dalton: I have another amendment to section 7(1)(b). The problem with the current wording of sub (b) is that each electoral district in British Columbia -- that's 75 -- must have 10 percent or more of the signatures collected. We've already argued at some length, both in second reading and in committee, about the time factor, which is far too restrictive. Our major concern with this aspect of the bill is that the requirement to collect this number of signatures in a short time frame of 90 days, in each of the 75 districts, is not realistic. So the amendment that I am putting forward would read as follows in sub (b): "The petition must be signed by at least 5% of the total number of voters registered to vote in British Columbia, including at least 5% of the voters from at least 50% of the electoral districts in British Columbia." I so move.

On the amendment.

Hon. G. Clark: Our view really is that this would bias the results or the initiatives in favour of the lower mainland. We want to make sure that there's regional consistency around the province and that it's not limited to 50 percent of the electoral districts in British Columbia, which would likely end up being.... We want to make sure that if there's an initiative, it has broad canvassing throughout every region of the province.

[ Page 12945 ]

Amendment negatived on division.

J. Weisgerber: I won't move the amendment to section 7(1)(a) which is standing in my name. It was consequential to one that was defeated earlier. But what I do want to do is move an amendment to section 7(1)(b). I'll read the wording into the record:

[SECTION 7 (1), in paragraph (b), by deleting the words "10% of the total number of voters for each electoral district in British Columbia" and inserting the words "6% of the total number of voters in British Columbia in the case of an legislative proposal, and 3% of the total number of voters in British Columbia in the case of a repeal of an Act or sections of an Act" therefor.]

Madam Chair, you will note that the effect of that amendment is to do two things: first of all, substantially lower the threshold; and second, remove the requirement that the petition, in its first process, be signed in equal amounts in any of the constituencies. It removes any regional reference. It says that if the petitioners go out and get 3 percent of the registered voters in the province -- wherever they may live -- in order to change or eliminate existing legislation, or get 6 percent of the eligible voters to sign a petition for new legislation, that would succeed.

I want first to recognize the comments by the minister who's looking after the bill, who said in response to the other amendment that he, the government and the parliamentary committee wanted to make sure there was broad support around the province, not only in the lower mainland.

You will see later on in the legislation that one area we do support is the vote on a referendum flowing from a petition, which would have to be approved by a majority in two-thirds of the constituencies around the province. I believe that approval at the referendum stage is in itself sufficient to ensure that there is broad support across the province. I think it's unreasonable to say that when an initiative is proposed and again when it is in the ratification or approval stage, it has to have a two-thirds majority of the vote. And equal sign-up across the province simply makes the argument that I think is central to this legislation: it's a hundred little cuts or a thousand little cuts that seek to make this legislation unworkable. It's not any one section. You can argue -- particularly in the area of recall, but also in the area of initiatives -- that any one of these sections provides some significant thresholds. But it is the cumulative effect of all these sections that makes it almost impossible to achieve a successful initiative in the province.

Hon. G. Clark: I'm glad the member supports the two-thirds-of-constituencies voting proposal, so I appreciate that it's not a simple matter of the member not supporting regional representation. I grant the member that.

But it seems to me that there are a couple of issues here. The first is that it will cost $15 million to hold an initiative vote; that's the estimate we received from the chief electoral officer. So it's not inconsequential. Second, we believe that if it's 3 percent, then it will be largely the lower mainland.... That's where the action will be. The lower mainland will be able to trigger a $15 million initiative vote around the province. Notwithstanding the fact that the member is supporting the later section, which gives some regional consideration to whether it passes it or not, we think it's important that there be some regional consideration in the initiative process itself before it triggers a $15 million vote. So I guess that's where we disagree.

I say this with the greatest respect, because I know the member has at least recognized the principle of regional equity. When it comes to the results of the vote, we believe that there also needs to be some regional threshold of political interest -- and it's very modest in my view: 10 percent in each constituency -- prior to achieving the triggering of a $15 million initiative campaign.

C. Serwa: I certainly rise in support of this well-reasoned amendment. I think the purpose of initiative is to strive to make it work and to give people an opportunity to become empowered. When we're looking at threshold percentages and at the province as a whole, this figure is not unreasonable. It is an entry into the initiative process.

I've listened to what the minister says. Success in this vote doesn't trigger a vote; the vote is set by a time allocation, which is much too long. I presume that if there were a series of initiatives, a number of them would be covered. So what the minister is implying -- every time an initiative is successful, we're looking at a $15 million vote -- is not the case. It wouldn't occur that often in any event, and subsequent amendments will try to tighten up that time frame.

When we're looking at empowering the individual citizen, can you imagine a non-profit group or a private citizen contacting 75 constituencies in the province and signing up 10 percent of the individuals in those constituencies? What type of task is that? Is it possible? I think not. I doubt that there's a single person in this room who believes it is possible. As my colleague for Peace River South indicated -- and every time we bring up an amendment confirms this -- the situation is that the government has looked to the committee to design a bill that will not work. In spite of the second reading debate, the government seems to be set in their position that they will continue to make it not work.

There is no great logic or rationale to the recommendations that were brought in. Those recommendations could have been brought in completely independent of the public hearing process that committee went through. There is virtually no relationship to the recommendations that have been put forward. It's an illusionary approach to try to convince myself, who was a member on that committee, or any member of the public that there is some substantial relationship.

What we're looking here is the potential for an entry type of situation. We're looking....

Interjection.

C. Serwa: The hon. member can have the opportunity to speak on this section, and I'd certainly appreciate it. There are different perspectives, and different perspectives are healthy.

What we're looking for is an entry process that will enable individuals in British Columbia to realistic strive for success in proposing an initiative. This particular case, because of the number of constituencies, the percentages and the time limit, denies that opportunity. Let's get real, folks. Are we for recall and initiative, or are we for a smokescreen?

It's decision time here. I voted against this proposal, although I devotedly believe in recall and initiative as a method not only of empowering the public, but also of ensuring that elected members are more respectful of their primary obligation, which is to represent the citizens who

[ Page 12946 ]

elected them and not primarily their parties. Recall and initiative are merely tools to encourage elected members to accept that type of responsibility, because that responsibility has been deferred time and time again -- not simply in the government of the day or the government of yesterday, but time and again by politicians in all jurisdictions.

I support this well-reasoned amendment, and I encourage the government to accept it in order to enhance the entry level so that people can be empowered. This section is far too conservative and restrictive, and it only confirms my assumption that this whole act is designed not to work.

B. Jones: I'm moved to comment on the previous speaker because my friend for Okanagan West -- who did attend some hearings, although he quit the committee -- must have heard at every one of those committee meetings the fear in the interior regions about the tyranny of the majority. I'm very surprised, as a member from a semi-urban riding, that he doesn't have that concern, and he represents a party that has a very strong rural tradition in this province. He is siding with an amendment to this section that absolutely spells out tyranny of the majority. In Burnaby, you could get enough signatures to trigger an initiative vote, as the minister points out, at the cost of $15 million. At every hearing, we were told to put in safeguards to prevent that, and I am very surprised that the member opposite, who I think supports the concerns of rural British Columbians, would support an amendment that would prevent that safeguard from being in place.

[M. Lord in the chair.]

C. Serwa: I've heard a great deal about the tyranny of the majority, as a matter of fact. Rather than tyranny, I think that's what democracy is all about: being ruled by the majority with provision for the minority. What the hon. member for Burnaby North referred to -- and I respect the gentleman -- was not the total picture.

[9:00]

We're talking here about the entry level. We recognize and agree that there has to be substantial support for the initiative to go through the voting process, and that's a given. What we do not agree with is the requirement to encourage the incentive for initiative. We do not agree that it has to have that wide a base of support at that stage, and that is the difference. We agree that it has to be carried by widespread provincial support at voting time, but not to initiate the initiative, and that is the subtle difference in the position.

I confirm that I will ardently support the amendment to this section.

Amendment negatived on division.

J. Weisgerber: Further to the discussion on the amendments, the minister raised the notion that he thought that approval in two-thirds of the constituencies was the appropriate way to ensure that there was wide regional support. I thought it more appropriate to ask him under this section why the government chose every constituency on the initial initiative petition and then decided that approval by two-thirds of the constituencies on the referendum vote that might follow was adequate. It seems to me that the government would have decided either that two-thirds of the constituencies represent a good regional cross-section or that you need to have a threshold reached in every constituency.

The point I'm trying to make is that I believe his argument fails the test of wanting to be representative of regions of the province by its insistence that every constituency approve an initiative by the threshold amount. I would have been much more receptive to this had the figure been two-thirds, consistent with what it is in the referendum approval process.

Hon. G. Clark: That's, of course, the reason that there are so many amendments. It's because there are some judgments here, and the judgments are quite legitimately debated. The difference is important. We are saying that two-thirds of a constituency is adequate to pass an initiative, but in each of those two-thirds, they need 50 percent support. To be consistent, we could have said two-thirds and then had a higher threshold, and instead we decided to have all constituencies at 10 percent, which we think is a very low threshold, and that's the difference. We're suggesting two-thirds at 50 percent is adequate regional representation, but to initiate the vote and trigger the $15 million cost of that vote, we are saying we'll have a very low threshold but in every constituency.

Sections 7 and 8 approved on division.

Sections 9 and 10 approved.

On section 11.

J. Weisgerber: I'd like to move the amendment to section 11(2)(a) standing in my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 11 (2) (a), by deleting the words "the next session of the Legislative Assembly" and inserting the words "the earliest practicable opportunity" therefor.]

The reason for the amendment is to ensure that there be an opportunity during a legislative session, and should it be practical for an initiative to come forward to the Legislature, that it come forward in that session and not be restricted by the wording in this section to the next session of the Legislature. This year the House sat on March 14. If in April or perhaps even May an initiative process were completed to the point that it was appropriate to bring forward legislation, I believe that in the spirit of workable, meaningful initiative legislation, it would happen. That's the effect of this amendment.

On the amendment.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: This is recommendation No. 36, which we took from the committee and included in the bill based on their recommendation. Essentially, it means that the agenda of a particular legislative session wouldn't be necessarily affected by some outside activities in midstream; it would be in the next session.

Interjection.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I don't think this is a particularly earth-shattering issue, frankly. But once again, cabinet took its direction from the committee, so we reject the amendment.

D. Mitchell: The effect of this amendment would possibly be to speed up a process that looks very long and ponderous. It looks like in this bill we're preventing an initiative from really coming forward in any expeditious

[ Page 12947 ]

manner. By giving the legislative committee a chance to report it at the first practicable opportunity, we're really saying in a House that has no fixed parliamentary calendar, where we don't know when a session of the Legislature is going to take place.... We know that by the Constitution Act of British Columbia we are required to have one session per year, but that's all. We don't know when the House will sit. This simply allows that standing committee to report more effectively. The Attorney General says it's not a big deal; maybe this is one amendment he should consider if it's not a big deal.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Far be it from me to stand up here and make a decision to overturn a parliamentary committee's unanimous recommendation.

C. Serwa: I certainly enjoyed the Attorney General's comments about that. The reality is that the recommendations were not written by the committee; they were not written by a subgroup of the committee. The recommendations were written by the Chair of the committee with an assistant, under direction. They bore no relationship....

If we're genuinely interested in pursuing this exercise so that there is a reasonable opportunity, we won't use the fertile imagination that was utilized in the recommendations. Those recommendations were designed to produce a bill that would not and could not work. In this debate in the Legislature, as we go through this section by section, we have to use some real old-fashioned common sense and a commitment to democracy and to empowering the voter. If the Attorney General is willing to use common sense here, and not the fragile and fragmented recommendations....

Interjection.

C. Serwa: They were not. The Attorney General can research all the input documents. Those recommendations often had no bearing on the information the committee received. So I continue to have difficulty with resorting to some sort of support from the standing legislative committee that produced the recommendations. The government members on that committee supported the recommendations. As the Attorney General recognizes, that is adequate for the report to flow from the committee, and standing legislative reports have to be unanimous. But they weren't signed by members of the committee, and that's the reality. If common sense is utilized as well as a commitment to democracy and to the people out there who have asked for this opportunity, then we'll get somewhere. By the refusal to accept any well-reasoned, well-presented amendments that are meant to enable this legislation to fulfil its objects.... The amendments must be accepted.

J. Weisgerber: I take considerable offence at the position taken by the Attorney General. The Attorney General suggests that he's not going to consider any amendment to this legislation, because it was brought in on the recommendations of a select standing committee. That says that this Legislature empowers select standing committees to write legislation that isn't subject to review by this House. That's a pretty fundamental position that I strongly disagree with. I like to see issues referred to select standing committees, but I wouldn't like it -- and I take offence to the notion -- if once you refer an issue to a select standing committee, the recommendations of that committee somehow override this Legislature. This is the chamber; this is the forum in which legislation and amendments to it must be considered. Otherwise, it is totally irrelevant for those members of the Legislature who are not members of the committee. It ignores the wisdom, knowledge and insight into legislation that would come from other members of this chamber. It says that somehow those members who sat on the committee are given an enormous amount of wisdom which other members don't have. I take an enormous amount of offence at the position.

I thought we were here debating legislation and putting forward amendments in good spirit -- which we believe, with our experience, will improve the legislation -- and I am unhappy with the response of the Attorney General.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: On behalf of the government, I am going to accept this amendment. Some effective and appropriate arguments have been made. I have had a discussion with a couple of my colleagues, including two who were on the committee, and they make it clear that there was no intent in the recommendation that I quoted to impede the early passage of the legislation.

The member has caught most of what he needs to catch to make sure that we amend the bill properly, but has not caught section 12. So we are going to have to work on some changes in section 12 as well in order to....

Interjection.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The member has two, when I think three amendments are needed in section 12. We'll do that and accept the principle. What we are essentially agreeing to -- and we will fix it as we go -- is that the bill will go to the House at the earliest opportunity.

G. Campbell: I think the Attorney General's decision in that regard is correct, if for no other reason than the way the legislation is currently written, it could be a full year -- given a certain situation -- before an initiative is brought before the House. The key to this is to provide for full accessibility to those opportunities when they are successful. So the acceptance of the amendment and the amendments which may flow from that is welcome.

Amendment approved.

Section 11 as amended approved.

[9:15]

On section 12.

J. Weisgerber: I would move the amendment to section 12, which is similar to the one accepted on section 11. This applies to sections 12(a) and 12(b)(2).

[SECTION 12, by deleting the words "the next or current session of the Legislative Assembly" wherever it appears, and inserting the words "the earliest practicable opportunity" therefor.]

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Hon. members, you'll have to bear with us as we do this, because we want to make sure we get this right. We'll just take a minute or two to sort this through properly.

I think it's fairly straightforward. The member for Peace River South has introduced two amendments, and I think we'll let those come in a moment. But prior to that, I need to move an amendment to the introductory part of 

[ Page 12948 ]

section 12. In the second line where it says "at the next session," the amendment would be "at the earliest practicable opportunity." So the new words would be "earliest practicable opportunity" instead of "next session" in the second line of section 12. After doing that, we can move to the two amendments the member made.

Interjection.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'll read the first line, as amended: "If the select standing committee tables a report recommending that the draft Bill be introduced at the earliest practicable opportunity...." Yes, we have to change it here too; see, these things are not always easy. Okay, we might have it now: "If the select standing committee tables a reporting recommending that the draft bill be introduced at the earliest practicable opportunity into the Legislative Assembly, the government must...." I think "introduced...into" is okay; we all know what it means. The chief of legislative council isn't responsible for this, so....

An Hon. Member: How about: "...the draft bill be introduced to the Legislative Assembly at the next practicable opportunity"?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I don't think you introduce it to the Legislative Assembly; you introduce it into. I'd like to stick with what we drafted. So that's the first amendment in section 12.

The Chair: Okay. We'll stand down the amendment moved by the member for Peace River South. We will now vote on the amendment put forward by the Attorney General.

Amendment approved.

J. Weisgerber: I now move the amendment to section 12 standing in my name on the order paper.

The Chair: Member, did you wish to move both or...?

J. Weisgerber: The amendment covers the wording in both section 12(a) and section 12(b)(2).

Amendment approved.

Section 12 as amended approved.

Section 13 approved.

On section 14.

G. Campbell: Section 14 really deals with the commencement under the bill. A number of other amendments have been put forward to the House with regard to this. It seems to me that it is in all of our interests to encourage this to happen as quickly as possible -- as soon as is practicable has been suggested earlier. I would like to suggest to the House that we may want to move with the kind of timing used in the earlier legislation of 1919.

I'm going to move an amendment to section 14, as follows: "If required, initiative votes shall be called by the government for a date not earlier than three months and not later than ten months after the select standing committee refers the initiative petition and draft bill to the chief electoral officer, pursuant to section 13, above." The rationale behind this is that I think there are times when it's important for us to act expeditiously. Again, I think the principles behind this bill are those of providing the citizens with full access and full accountability of their public institutions and indeed of some of their public policy. I believe the amendment allows us ample time to put a properly constituted referendum before the public. I urge the government and the House to consider the adoption of this amendment, so that once again we can reiterate our concern for providing full access to initiative opportunities for the citizens of British Columbia.

On the amendment.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The reason that a single date was chosen is to enable everyone to understand when the period is and know what they can shoot for. That's not the main reason, though. The significant issue is cost. At $15 million every time, if the amendment were adopted -- I haven't worked out the arithmetic -- there would be the possibility of at least several provincewide initiative votes during the course of a parliament. Fifteen million dollars is a lot of money to spend on that. It was our view that once during a parliament -- or once every three years, actually -- is sufficient. So for that reason we would reject the amendment.

D. Mitchell: I guess what the amendment is trying to do is make the initiative process more accessible than what the bill is offering. The bill is really saying that there's unlikely to be an initiative during the life of this parliament -- extremely unlikely -- since the first opportunity is virtually upon expiration of the term of this government. Not only that, it really could serve to frustrate the will of the people to bring forward initiatives. It's seeking to bring forward the opportunity for initiative on a more regular basis.

I think the Leader of the Official Opposition, who brings forward this amendment, might want to consult with the members of his party who served on the committee that drafted the legislation, which the hon. Attorney General wants to rely on in defence of this legislation. They never brought up this kind of suggestion in the committee. I think the idea has some merit, and I think the Leader of the Official Opposition has brought forward an idea here that might be brought forward in a more workable format, dealing with the cost-effectiveness that the Attorney General has suggested.

I think the Leader of the Official Opposition might want to consider consulting with the members of the committee. They aren't present this evening in this committee. I probably shouldn't refer to that, hon. Chair. They never brought up that suggestion. It may have some merit. But the input of the members of the Liberal caucus into the committee's report probably should be debated in the context of the committee this evening.

Amendment negatived.

J. Weisgerber: I'd like to move the amendment to section 14 standing in my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 14, by deleting the words "on September 28, 1996 and on the last Saturday of September every third year after that date" and inserting the words "on the second anniversary of the previous provincial election, or on the day of the next provincial election, whichever is first" therefor.]

[ Page 12949 ]

Let me say before moving the amendment that I voted for the amendment put forward by the official opposition. However, I believe that this a more practical process, which I believe meets some of the concerns raised by the Attorney General.

The effect of that would be to hold an initiative vote or a referendum vote on election day if there was one ready to go prior to the election, and have one fixed date for initiative votes two years after a general election. It would, in essence, make initiative votes available to British Columbians every two years rather than every three years. The fact that one of the votes would be held in concert with a general election would keep costs very close to those indicated by the Attorney General for his every-three-year vote. Indeed, you get an opportunity for initiative votes every two years and keep costs relatively similar to those outlined in the bill we have in front of us, and I think this is critical.

[9:30]

I really believe that if initiatives are going to be seen as an option for British Columbians, and if British Columbians are going to see this legislation as something which in any way sets out to address the vision that they voted for in 1991, you can't say they have to go through this enormous process that we've talked about: get a petition signed by 10 percent of the eligible voters in each and every constituency in the province, and then go through a process and have to wait for as much as two years and nine months for an opportunity to put that to a vote. As I said earlier in this debate, it's not one threshold or two or three big thresholds but every section and subsection of this legislation that makes it increasingly difficult and discouraging for people to put an initiative forward.

This seems to me like a modest improvement but one that I think would be meaningful.

G. Farrell-Collins: I'd like to bring another reason for support of this amendment to the attention of the Attorney General, and that's his own comments a few minutes ago on the last section, when he talked about cost. With the way the section is worded now, theoretically.... In fact, we've had general elections approximately every third year in B.C. historically, although sometimes it's a little longer. You could have the instance where you're spending $15 million on September 28 or 29, or whatever that last Saturday in September happens to be, and have a general election called two or three weeks later. So you're spending $15 million dollars and another $15 million a few weeks later.

The recommendation that's been proposed would allow you to have the two-year initiative. It's very rare that you have a general election called within two years. The next one would coincide with the general election date, whether that be another year or two, or if you go the full extension of the mandate, it could be three years. At least you're saving that money. You're less likely to end up spending $15 million on an initiative vote and a few weeks later -- or before -- having a general election that is going to cost you another $15 million or more. I think the amendment makes it accessible but also would tend to reduce the costs from time to time.

C. Serwa: I too rise in support of the amendment. I placed two amendments on the order paper under my name, but I deferred to the member for Peace River South because I believe his amendment is more ably put and achieves what I would like to see achieved.

It's apparent that the time frame is better than the three-year period. It's reasonable and realistic. The amendment is affordable, and it creates a greater window of opportunity for initiatives to be put forward to the government. I would heartily encourage the Attorney General to seriously consider that amendment as a friendly amendment meant to enhance the entry opportunity for initiative into the performance and meant to be cost-effective as well.

D. Mitchell: An outstanding presentation on initiative was made to the Parliamentary Reform Committee by a group called the Canadian Taxpayers' Federation. It was simply the most comprehensive and outstanding presentation that was made -- in my opinion, anyway.

An Hon. Member: Especially since you hosted a conference, hon. member.

D. Mitchell: Not everyone... If I have a conflict of interest, I should declare it. I actually did speak at a conference they hosted recently.

When they made a presentation to the Parliamentary Reform Committee on initiative, they addressed this specific concern. I think the Attorney General might want to consider this. In terms of the recommendation to have an initiative vote only every three years, it's really not going to do the job. It's not going to address what people thought they were voting for when more than 80 percent voted in favour of initiative at the time of the last provincial election. If the Attorney General is sincere -- and he has accepted one amendment already.... This amendment proposed by the member for Peace River South deals with his concerns about cost-effectiveness in a very practical way. We are only talking about allowing a referenda initiative every two years. It's not opening up the floodgates; it's making something practical and workable. So I would urge the hon. Attorney General to consider this amendment very seriously.

B. Jones: I want to comment on one aspect of the amendment that the committee was very clear on. I appreciate the allure of cost savings with respect to this aspect, and it is alluring. But one of the things that happened at those hearings was a concern that there was no public debate on the October 17, 1991, plebiscite on initiative and recall. As a candidate myself for 28 days, I must have spent about a total of five minutes on that issue. That issue got buried as part of that public election. The provincial general election of October 17, 1991, did not deal in a serious way with this very important issue. I think we have agreed, as a Legislature, that this is a very important reform to our parliamentary system.

The committee decided very clearly and recommended very clearly that it not be held at the same time as a general election. There was suspicion, and it came out in the hearings, that the previous administration put these two items on the ballot for particular partisan purposes. The committee said very clearly: "We don't want that, and we appreciate the allure of cost savings." The members who were there heard that -- and I appreciate the allure of cost savings -- and very clearly the committee recommended against it. Those members had an opportunity at the last meeting of the committee to raise these points. These points were not raised at that time. The committee made an important point, and I think that at least that part of that amendment is inappropriate.

[ Page 12950 ]

J. Weisgerber: I reject the notion that people in 1991 didn't know what they were voting for and didn't pay attention. Those of us who were actively involved in the Charlottetown referendum heard time and time again that people there didn't know what they were voting for; they didn't understand the Charlottetown accord. Whenever people don't like the result of a referendum they say it's because the people didn't understand it or didn't pay enough attention to it. Exactly the same arguments were used on the Charlottetown accord by those people who dismissed it as by those people who don't like the notion of referendum and didn't like the ideas of recall and initiative. I reject that argument completely. I believe British Columbians understood full well what they were voting for and simply decided that they would support it.

This argument about cost savings.... This government rises any time they want to make the argument of cost savings and rush to the defence of and the importance of saving money. It's important, but what we're talking about here is not only whether or not we're going to save $15 million. The more important aspect of this amendment is that it gives those people interested in promoting initiatives every two years a guarantee that their questions are going to have the opportunity to be put to voters. I just don't accept the argument by the member of that committee.

G. Campbell: I am speaking in favour of this amendment as well, and I want to take a moment to address the comments of the member for Burnaby North. It seems incredible to me that politicians consistently say how stupid the public is. The member for Burnaby North may not have heard anything with regard to....

B. Jones: On a point of order, the Leader of the Official Opposition is putting words in this member's mouth. I said very clearly that the public did not debate that issue during the election. I did not say they were stupid.

The Chair: I think it would be helpful for all committee members if we could return this debate to the amendment and get away from the more general second reading type of debate that has gone on in this House during the last five minutes.

G. Campbell: I'm glad to do that.

I think it's important to respond when a member of the committee that was supposedly the drafter of the bill that the Attorney General has presented, gives as the rationale behind the argument against the amendment that there wasn't enough debate. I was not running for office at the time, but I had lots of debate and heard lots of debate from other people. I heard people taking sides on referenda and recall, and I heard them say they wanted to have access to this.

One of the problems we're having with the bill and the lack of amendment to it is that hurdle after hurdle is consistently being prepared for the public, so that they don't in fact get what they wanted. If anyone was listening or paying attention, it seems to me that it was the members of the committee. Yet they did not hear the public say they understood what recall and referenda were about, or that they wanted to have access to the process. The public wanted to be able to put their ideas and recommendations into the process. The issue before us in the amendment is whether we can do this in a way that provides people with regular access.

The amendment, which is suggesting two years after a provincial election and during a provincial election, seems to me to come partway between the earlier amendment, which was defeated by the government, and the rationale given by the Attorney General for not accepting it. It certainly balances off some of the cost concerns the Attorney General has. Although I don't accept them, I understand what his arguments are.

It seems to me that this is an amendment that can be supported by the committee and the House, because it provides people with the kind of access they need and with the kind of cost-effective access the Attorney General may be concerned about. It ensures that they can participate in this process, and it gives us the opportunity to learn from the public -- believe it or not -- and to use public input to help shape and form legislation that may come before this House.

D. Schreck: The benefit the committee members had -- and I certainly say it of myself -- is that we learned more in the year and a half on this committee about initiative and recall than I have on many subject matters in a very long time. It was a very worthwhile exercise for us, and I definitely changed my own position as a result of the exercise we went through.

On the question of access and when the dates should be, the evidence given to the committee with respect to California, where they have the referendum votes at the same time as the general election, is that a larger number of people vote for their respective state legislators than they do on any of the referendum questions, despite the fact that they happen concurrently.

Furthermore, on the referendum questions in California, the voters are literally presented with a book of issues to go through. The deeper one goes in that book, the lesser the voter participation on that respective question. The experience in California, where they do it all concurrently, is that people vote for their elected representative in the highest proportion, with fewer people voting for the referendum questions, and they vote decreasingly on referendum questions, depending on how deep a question is located in the referendum book.

[9:45]

The committee very seriously considered this question, and it decided we should not fall into the kind of trap where the issue of the election of the day becomes confused with the issue of the referendum of the day. We learned from the experience in Charlottetown that on a major issue before the Canadian public, they will turn out with the same enthusiasm and the same high level of voter participation that they do with a general election to elect thee or me. Hence the committee came to a very informed decision on the recommendation that is before us. That is the reason why the amendment should be rejected.

C. Serwa: As we go on tonight, I'd like to say that the House is perhaps functioning as I always had hoped it would function. There is a great deal of merit in the words being said and a great variety and diversity of perspective. Hopefully, we're working together to develop a piece of legislation that we all have a sense of ownership in. I listened to the last member, but I don't recall any particular conversation where this was considered in great detail, and I was on the committee. There was no subcommittee, so maybe the government members on that committee considered it.

[ Page 12951 ]

I reinforce support for the amendment that was put forward. I do that because there is no question in anyone's mind here in this Legislature that politicians are in the midst of a credibility crisis. The only commodity we have to work with is the faith, trust and confidence of our constituents. In that, we have been found wanting; not uniquely wanting, because it's fairly widespread. Nevertheless, our responsibility to the citizens of this province is to try to mitigate that; otherwise, we will lose the most precious thing we have -- our Westminster parliamentary system, which is perhaps the best of all forms of democracy.

When we're talking about access, it seems fair and reasonable that a vote on an initiative can take place two years after the anniversary date of an election and at the time of the next election. I've listened to what the member for Burnaby North said with respect to the vote. I'll beg for a little bit of latitude to say this: the public voted for that with an idea of a value system in mind. We have to have an initiative to start somewhere, and we can't put the cart before the horse. That was the incentive for the current government to transmit the obligation to a standing legislative committee to develop the flesh, so to speak, on the bones of the proposal. This has been done, legislation has been prepared, and we are debating that at this very time.

The whole transmission of effort has been very good and very positive. This evening, as we progress, I hope the Attorney General, who is the fairest and the most honourable of ministers on the government side, will continue to use common sense and reason and will support amendments if he feels they are fair, reasoned and balanced and, in effect, will create an enhanced opportunity. So thank you very much and, just to confirm once again, I support the amendment and sincerely hope the Attorney General considers supporting the amendment.

G. Campbell: The previous member has pointed out one of the disadvantages of not having referenda votes at the time of a general election. All experience in British Columbia, whether it's at the local or provincial level, will tell you that referenda votes do not get the same kind of public turnout as they do during a general election. I think people would accept that. When you set it up this way, with the criteria that are established for the determination of a successful vote, you are really militating against the possibility of a successful vote, if you accept the historical numbers that a referendum outside of a general election doesn't have the same turnout.

If you look at section 15, which we'll get to later, we are talking about 50 percent of the total number of voters in British Columbia. It seems to me that one of the keys to the legislation is to provide individual citizens with the opportunity to have access to the public policy-making mechanisms in the province. I believe the amendment not only responds to the concerns people may have about the turnout, but responds to the opportunity to have referenda take place on a timely basis. Again, I would recommend the amendment to the Attorney General for his full consideration and support.

R. Neufeld: I want to stand and put on the record my support for the amendment, which would have it set at two years and at a general election. I think the Leader of the Opposition brings forward a very salient point. I think the first thing all politicians who have ever been in municipal politics think about if they are going to have a referendum is turnout, and along with that is cost. Those are the two main drivers for why almost all referenda carried on within a municipality, although they are driven by the council, are done at election time. You get the greatest amount of people out, and you save some money.

I agree with the government on this point. We should be saving, and I think the government has made it very clear to us in the past four months that they don't want to spend any more money than they absolutely have to -- depending on where it's at. To be serious, dollars are scarce. The minister talked about $15 million, so I think we should keep that in mind. If you want to have a good turnout and be cost-effective, obviously election time is the best time to do it.

As for the arbitrary date of September 28, or the last Saturday of September every third year, it's interesting to see a date like that. I don't know what was said to the members through the committee by the general public, but I would support the motion as put forward by the leader of the Reform Party.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: One thing that all government members are in accord with on this particular issue is the fact that these initiative votes should not take place concurrently with a general election. We feel that strongly. I have listened to the debate, but I have to be honest with members of the House and say that we came into this debate with that as a very strong view. Nothing I have heard has persuaded me to change my mind. Two members of the committee have spoken, with the same result.

The Leader of the Opposition said that referendum turnouts, as everybody knows, are lower than general election turnouts. I don't remember the numbers for the Charlottetown vote, but they were pretty high. I suspect they were higher than many general elections. Generally, it is 75 percent federally, and I think that was about 80 percent, but I am doing it from memory. There was a more significant turnout there than for general elections. If initiatives have the broad appeal that they should have to be successful, then there will be a large turnout whenever the vote is held.

If the debate around an important public policy issue occurs at the same time as an election campaign, that debate is going to be obscured. It's not that people are stupid; it's just that people are going to be focusing on a variety of other issues. In the next election we will be focusing on what a wonderful government we were, and we won't be talking very much about the content of a particular initiative. We'll be talking about a marvellous record that should be endorsed. We are not going to have time to get into the issues that may be contained in the initiative. It might be that the opposition members will want to spend all their time talking about the initiative in the campaign and not pay any attention to our record, because they won't want to talk about it. But I suspect they will want to talk about our record. That will mean that the initiative proposal does not get the kind of time and attention it merits if it's going to become public policy in this province.

For that reason we strongly hold the view that there should not be a combined election and initiative vote on the same day, and we reject the amendment.

J. Weisgerber: The member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale suggested that in his experience or in his

[ Page 12952 ]

knowledge of elections in the United States, voters were more inclined to vote for representatives than they were for referendum questions when they were put together on the ballot. He might have had a look at the 1991 results in British Columbia, because 1,493,200 voters turned out to vote for their choice of elected representative, while 1,482,908 voted on the referendum. There were actually 0.06 percent of the voters who decided they would not vote on the referendum but voted on their choice for MLA. I only raise it to suggest that perhaps the member really didn't know what he was talking about on that issue and, indeed, didn't know what he was talking about in relation to election dates and dates to put referendums forward.

F. Gingell: I served on the Delta School Board from the mid-1960s to the mid-1970s, when we had to go to referenda for every single capital expenditure. We were elected in those years for two-year terms, and we would have a capital referendum every single election. I'm not sure of that, but that's what my memory tells me. We were the fastest-growing school district in the province and had to build all these new schools. The fact that there was both a municipal and a school board election going on at the same time, I can assure members of this House, gave the referendum the forum and the opportunity for the issues to be properly canvassed, which I know they would not have had had the referendum for capital borrowings gone on in isolation from the school board and municipal elections.

The fact that the other elections were going on in no way pulled attention away from those other issues. People were concerned about whom they were voting for for council; they were concerned about whom they were voting for for the school board; and they were concerned about the commitments they were making to repay through future taxes the funds we needed to spend to build schools. If there are any other members who were school trustees in those days, they will agree that the fact that all the elections were held at the same time brought more focus onto the referenda issues than would have otherwise happened.

I really think this amendment has a great deal of merit. It unquestionably will save money; of that there is no doubt. I urge all members of the House to support it.

Amendment negatived on division.

Section 14 approved.

On section 15.

C. Serwa: I would like to move the amendments standing in my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 15, subsection (1), by inserting, in paragraph (a), after the words "British Columbia" the following phrase: "who cast valid ballots in the initiative vote," .]

[SECTION 15, subsection (1), by deleting that portion of paragraph (b) which follows the first appearance of the word "in", and by substituting the following: "the province cast valid ballots in the initiative vote.]

The purpose and rationale behind these, hon. Chair, is to ensure that the opportunity for passage of that initiative vote is fair and reasonable. The way it is worded at the present time, all of the voters who do not vote are deemed to have voted no. It would be a departure from anything that we do. It appears to me that what we have to have is a simple majority of voters who voted supporting the initiative in order to enable the initiative to be successful. I believe it's reasonable and fair, and it's comparable to what we do in all other election processes. I respectfully move these particular amendments.

[10:00]

On the amendments.

J. Weisgerber: I couldn't agree more strongly with the member for Okanagan West. Indeed, the whole fundamental premise of a referendum vote or any vote in this country, whether it be an election, a referendum vote, a recall vote or any other vote, certainly has to be that a majority of the people who have enough of an interest in the issue to make the effort to come out and vote -- 50 percent plus one of the people who show up, the majority of people who vote -- have to carry the day. Surely to goodness, that is the most fundamental principle of our democracy.

Could we have it, indeed, that we would elect people...? Perhaps any more than just those people who showed up to vote shouldn't count as voting for or against an incumbent MLA. Maybe we can structure it in such a way that more than 50 percent of voters have to come out and vote against an incumbent. People would be outraged, and rightfully so. I believe that in any election a simple majority wins.

The most fundamental flaw in this entire package of legislation is the notion that 50 percent of the eligible voters have to turn out and vote in favour. The single most fundamental flaw in this legislation is in this section. It is absolutely undemocratic. It flies in the face of everything we stand for. I can't imagine where in the world the committee, when they were travelling, had people come out and make this recommendation. I can't imagine which jurisdiction they used as a model. If there is one section of this legislation that clearly points out a piece of legislation designed not to work, it's this one.

Under this legislation, if a referendum in respect to an initiative were held as the government proposes -- as is now likely to be the law, seeing that we've moved past the last section -- and only 49 percent of the eligible voters showed up to vote on a referendum and every single one of them voted in favour, the question would fail. Can you imagine? It's not an unlikely situation in a one-referendum, one-question vote. If 49 percent of the people came out and every one of them voted for the initiative, the initiative would fail because it didn't meet the test. If 60 percent of the voters came out and 11 percent voted against it, it would still fail.

This legislation is designed not to work. The one section in the bill which demonstrates the absolute lack of genuine commitment of the committee and of the government is this one section.

[G. Brewin in the chair.]

I'm encouraged that the minister took an amendment on sections 11 and 12. I expect and hope he will on section 16, because it's essentially the same question. If the government wanted to demonstrate good faith, if the government wanted to demonstrate that it really believed in initiative, it would simply accept the amendments put forward by the member for Okanagan West. This is the one issue that would convince many British Columbians that the government is serious about initiatives. Despite its stubbornness on other issues, if it would accept the simple democratic principle that 50 percent plus one of

[ Page 12953 ]

the people who show up to vote carry the day, then indeed we would be making some progress now.

It's incredible. I can't find it in my heart to believe that anyone would put forward a bill where not 50 percent of the voters carry the day but 50 percent of eligible voters have to vote in favour. It is absolutely incredible. It flies in the face of everything any of us in the House stand for, and I'll tell you that it flies in the face of the government's apparent concession to bringing forward initiative legislation. Without a change to this section, this whole piece of legislation is simply a very bad and cruel joke that I believe will haunt the government. I will make it one of my undertakings to make sure it haunts this government. I believe this is the biggest single, fundamental flaw in this legislation. There is no rationale, no argument for it.

Perhaps those members of the committee who like to jump up from time to time and tell us about their experiences will leap to their feet now and tell us in which community they first heard this idea that 50 percent of the eligible voters having to come out. Perhaps they would tell us the one individual who came forward and told them that this would be a good idea. I don't believe any legitimate presenter to that committee would have had the audacity to make the suggestion. I just can't overemphasize how strongly I feel about this. It's absolutely outrageous.

Having said that, I hope the minister will accept these amendments. It's essential.

G. Campbell: We'll have to put the previous member down as undecided on this issue.

The key to these amendments is that each of the three parties that submitted amendments on this section of the act submitted exactly the same amendment. They are submitting exactly the same amendment because the amendment is correct. It simply makes sense. There is no jurisdiction that I can think of where you need 50 percent plus one of all of the people on the voters list, which is what I'm assuming is meant by subsection (2) -- unless the Attorney General comes back and tells us that section 15(2) really means the number of people voting on that day, which I don't believe it does.

I'm sure the Attorney General is aware of situations where we have people on the voters list who, unfortunately, are now deceased. I know we have modern techniques that allow us to keep the voters list relatively up to date, but there are examples across the country of numbers of people who are still registered to vote but who have unfortunately passed away. We are saying that they have a vote in a referendum about the future of the province of British Columbia. That is just plainly and simply wrong.

If you want to establish the fact that this is really about how you protect the fortress of government, how you create moat after moat and hurdle after hurdle, this is the giant wall that closes government from the rest of the public. It seems to me that there is only way to clarify this and rectify it, and that is to accept the amendments put forward by the member for Okanagan West.

We can't go through a charade like this. This fact of the matter is that when you look at what we are trying to accomplish -- what the government says they are trying to accomplish -- there is only one way to deal with this, and that is to deal with it as we have traditionally. We have all been elected, and none of us have ever been required to get 50 percent plus one. The fact of the matter is that for people to know that the government believes this is a legitimate issue, a legitimate way that we can provide public access to policy creation in government and re-establish the connection between government and the people of British Columbia, we must simply accept this amendment. I want to reiterate that, because I believe it's absolutely essential. It's a cornerstone of this legislation if we are going to build a solid foundation for not just accessibility but also accountability in government in British Columbia.

G. Farrell-Collins: I'll be brief, because I know other members want to get in. As one reads through this piece of legislation and goes through all the sections, one finds that every single time there was a question or doubt as to where the threshold should be or whether there was a risk of a power or a clause being abused, the committee -- the government -- took the side of the government. They took the side of the politicians; they never once in this bill took the side of the public and the risk that the public might just make a mistake sometime. They've gone out of their way, in little increments, each and every time a decision was required to find out where we fit and which way we're going to protect -- are we going to err on the side of caution, or are we going to err on the side of risk...? In each instance, we've erred on the side of caution. You've got a whole bunch of thresholds and hurdles that, one by one, don't seem that onerous. But if you put them all together, it's impossible to get over; it's an obstacle course that nobody could ever navigate.

This clause, however, is the most glaring one; it's the biggest obstacle, I think, in the whole bill. It is virtually impossible to ever achieve a vote in favour of an initiative using this calculation. I think the Attorney General should make an amendment to this section like those put forward by all three parties on the opposition benches, who drafted virtually identical amendments to this section. This is one opportunity the Attorney General has to balance that somewhat, to at least take away the biggest obstacle the public faces in trying to address an initiative and to allow them some access and, after they've navigated the obstacle course of all the little ones, to get by this huge one. I think it's something to be considered. I know other members want to speak to it, also.

R. Neufeld: I rise to support the amendments put forward by the member for Okanagan West. It's obvious that in everything we do in our democratic society, we use 50 percent -- the simple majority. The only places that we probably don't are in some areas and regional districts with weighted voting, but that doesn't have anything to do with this. We don't run the Legislature any other way but by a simple majority. That's how we run the committees that the minister talks about, where unanimous consent comes out -- even though they are weighted in favour of government. It's carried out by a simple majority. I just can't for the life of me.... In fact, in second reading I talked about how this is an unworkable bill, and this is one part of it that really bothers me. I can't imagine why we would try to make it so difficult.

First, we try 90 days to get the signature and 10 percent out of every constituency across the province. Then on top of it, if you went out and explained to the voters that when they came to the committee, what they were really telling the committee was that they wanted it to fail.... That's not what people said. They came out to tell the committee that they wanted something that would work -- something that would work in their favour so that they

[ Page 12954 ]

could bring things forward on their own initiative that could pass. And I am sure that if you talk to most people -- all people, in fact.... I think the member for Peace River South is entirely correct. I'd like to find that one person in the province. The Attorney General puts up his hand. I guess that doesn't surprise me, because I know that the Attorney General doesn't approve of recall and initiative and will vote against it. It absolutely amazes me that they have two members in this House.

[10:15]

Again, if you go out of this House and talk to the average voter on the street -- and that's who we should be representing -- they will say it should be just a simple majority. But a few in here think they know better than the people out there, and they think that this is what the people really want. I just can't buy that. People want to go out and vote for the initiative. If 51 percent of the people vote for it, it should pass. I think you'd have a terrible time trying to convince them that it failed. In fact, I would hate to be the government that had put forward an initiative that passed by 51 percent, or by 60 or 75 percent, and had to tell the people that it failed. That would be the most ridiculous thing I could imagine. They would certainly shoot you on the platform, and rightly so. It's just beyond me that anyone would even put that into legislation. In fact, when I first read it, I thought it was a drafting error. I thought somebody had made a reasonable mistake -- that it was a slip and that, by golly, they wrote something in there that they really didn't mean. But lo and behold, they're serious about this, and that amazes me.

There is just no way. This is one part that makes Bill 36, the Recall and Initiative Act, totally unworkable and a farce. It's a slap in the face for people who want initiative in a real way. To be perfectly serious, people in the province do want initiative in a real way, and this is certainly not the way to give it to them.

I stand in favour of the motion put forward by the member for Okanagan West, along with the leader of the Reform Party. There's also the official opposition's amendment -- they're all the same. Obviously there's a message that should be getting through to the government.

F. Gingell: One of the things that has surprised me in this House is that although we live in this small world and we think the world is watching, it usually isn't -- at least, I hope it isn't on occasions. Everybody manoeuvres in a manner in which they think they can use what is said or in which they can use the position taken by political parties to help them in the next election. When dealing with the tremendous amount of forestry legislation that we've dealt with this session, the Minister of Forests threatened us by saying that they would go out and tell the voters about our position, or would give their interpretation of our position.

I would argue somewhat with the Leader of the Third Party's mathematics. I think the number he was looking for is.... If 80 percent of 60 percent voted for something, it would still fail. Eleven percent of 60 percent wouldn't quite do it.

An Hon. Member: A typical accountant.

F. Gingell: But don't you realize that you will wear this -- seriously? Don't you realize that when the people realize that if 60 percent of them turned out, 80 percent of them voted in favour of something and it failed, you are going to look absolutely undemocratic? It is against the rules of natural justice.

I can understand how you might be concerned about some issue that has a more narrow appeal and gets 50 percent of a relatively small number of people -- perhaps the 10 percent that voted for the initiative. If you had agreed to the amendment to section 14, that would have ensured that on at least every other occasion, the initiative would be voted on at the time of a provincial election, which would have guaranteed you the normal more-than-70-percent turnout. That would have seemed more democratic, as it would to agree to the amendment to 15. The two go hand in hand.

The Chair: Hon. member, this is on the amendment to section 15.

F. Gingell: Yes, we're talking about the amendment to section 15.

The Chair: You have been straying off to other amendments and other areas.

F. Gingell: The members should think about the problem they will have as a government going for re-election, standing on the hustings, defending their record. This is going to be a killer for you. We now have a wonderful club to beat you over the head with, and believe me, we are ready to pick up the club.

Interjections.

The Chair: I am prepared to recognize a new argument and a new voice. I do believe we have heard yours. Have you not spoken on this amendment already?

Interjection.

The Chair: I thought there was an agreement among us on how we would proceed on these -- that the introducer would only speak once, and then it would move around. My suggestion is that we hear from the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi.

D. Mitchell: On a point of order...

The Chair: It's not a point of order.

D. Mitchell: ...I don't think the standing orders of the committee have any limitation on the number of times members can speak. I would gladly defer to the member for Peace River South.

The Chair: I understood we had an understanding that we would do things a little differently to help facilitate all of this. But I bow to the wishes of the group, and we will hear from the member for Peace River South.

J. Weisgerber: When I think of the hours we have spent on other pieces of legislation and I look at the progress we're making on this piece of legislation, I would encourage members not to get too upset about two or three comments on the most important section of one of the most important bills in the House. If folks can settle down for a minute and listen, the point I want to make is that in 1916 there was a referendum held on women's suffrage. At that time there were 179,000 eligible voters.

[ Page 12955 ]

Some Hon. Members: All male.

J. Weisgerber: Out of 179,000 eligible voters, 47,000 voted in favour, and that was enough to carry the day. Had women's suffrage been put to referendum under the process proposed under this legislation, it would have failed. I can't think of a better demonstration of a piece of legislation that was designed not to work. Surely to goodness the minister will accept these amendments and we can move forward.

D. Mitchell: I would like to comment briefly on these amendments put forward by the member for Okanagan West. The member who put them forward, as well as myself, served on the committee. We heard representation from a range of people who suggested all kinds of different percentages for the approval of an initiative. I don't recall a single presentation of the particular form that ended up in the bill. So if the Attorney General wants to refer to the committee and its report, the report doesn't reflect the representation made by any group. Even though we had a lot of different ideas presented to the group, this wasn't among them.

The other issue is that in the other justification he has used so far in the committee for sections of the bill, the hon. Attorney General hasn't referred to other statutes.... I can't think of another statute on the law books of British Columbia that refers to 50 percent of eligible voters. It's not a democratic principle that is enshrined in law anywhere else, in terms of other decisions made in local government.

If the Attorney General, like other members of the House, prides himself on being a democrat, there is a democratic principle here -- 50 percent plus one is an accepted principle; in most jurisdictions, 50 percent plus one is reasonable. The Attorney General hasn't put forward any justification. He's listened, though, to some fairly interesting representation. I'm interested in the points of view being expressed here this evening. Members of the committee have spoken as well, and we've had members from the official opposition. I wish that the members from the official opposition who spoke tonight had been on the committee, because they made some pretty good points tonight in this Committee of the Whole.

An Hon. Member: Some of them were on the committee.

D. Mitchell: I made a mistake; some of them were on the committee.

Interjection.

D. Mitchell: And then I left. The member for Delta South points out something I should apologize for, perhaps.

But sincerely, when the Attorney General addresses comments that have been made up to this point in the committee, he must either provide some justification for this formula -- which has no basis in law, precedent or presentations made to the committee -- or accept the amendment made by the member for Okanagan West, which surely is reasonable and would enshrine, if accepted, a democratic principle that's virtually universal -- 50 percent plus one.

J. Dalton: To speak in favour of these amendments.... Of course, the other amendments that are either on the order paper or that we may put forward really do the same thing. I cannot see the rationale for the government talking so proudly about this so-called grass-roots democracy movement in the news release on this bill, when this totally defies that. If an initiative has climbed over the initial hurdles -- which we've tried to impress upon this government are very onerous -- and it's got to the stage of a provincewide vote, and if there isn't enough interest in the subject of the initiative, I would be very hard-pressed to believe you could not get enough voters to turn out to demonstrate the will of the people.

What section 15(1)(b) is doing without the amendment is saying to the voters that while we really don't care about how many of you made the effort to come out and vote, we're going to predicate the result on how many of you happen to be on the voters list. I would like to think that the voters of this province have enough initiative, to put it in another sense, to (1) learn the issues and (2) come out and vote. I would submit that only those who make that effort, become conversant with the issue and cast their ballot should be counted. To predicate the result on the number of registered voters in this province is not warranted. Therefore this amendment should be endorsed.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I think the question that needs to be answered is: where does it come from? It comes from a philosophy that underlies the legislation. Members who were here during the closing of second reading will remember, hopefully, the comments I made at the time, which had to do with the very unique marriage of American-style democracy to British-parliamentary-style democracy. I argued that on both recall and initiative there has to be an overwhelming sense that something has to be done about an MLA or about a particular legislative initiative for it to be successful. Otherwise, the appropriate place for those decisions is here in this representative Legislature. That's the nature of responsible government.

[10:30]

We are moving away from responsible government, and when we do so we need to move carefully. The whole principle of this kind of legislation is that when government is obviously trampling on the overwhelming sensitivity or the overwhelming view of people in a particular riding or people across the province, when it comes to legislation, the people should have some rights. What we're saying in this particular section -- and I think throughout the bill -- is that if there is an overwhelming view that the government should do something, then the people will turn out massively and vote overwhelmingly in favour of that particular position, and therefore there will be 50 percent. Let's say an initiative gets through the process, and 20 or 30 percent of the public turns out. That would enable 10 or 15 percent of British Columbians to have the power to initiate legislation. That's not an overwhelming public sentiment that is required to give power to the people to overturn the views of their elected representatives.

We still live in a parliamentary system, and what recall and initiative legislation is about isn't a second easy way for legislation to be introduced and for people to have their careers determined. It is to make sure that there is recourse when the public is having their views trampled on by a government in an overwhelming way. That's what initiative is about. It's the same principle if a government

[ Page 12956 ]

is either failing to legislate or is legislating in a way that 70 or 80 percent of British Columbians can't stomach. Then there should be and will be an opportunity for initiative, and the government will have to deal with it, because the initiative will be successful. There's just no question about it. But if it's a marginal issue on which the province is split fifty-fifty, then in this kind of balance situation there should not be the right of the public to overrule their elected representatives.

This legislation is designed to enable the public to overcome a government that is not sensitive to its needs, when there is an overwhelming issue. That's what it's for. It is not for a marginal issue -- not when there's a 50-50 or a 60-40 issue. That's not what the legislation is for. That's where we differ, in particular, with the Reform Party. The Reform Party, to give them their due, have made their position clear. They are very much in favour of giving the public, through these processes, an equal say in the legislative process to the one that members of this Legislature have. We don't accept that. This is a fail-safe mechanism for the public when the government isn't listening. We're saying through this process that if the public wants to have a new law brought in or a current law rescinded, then half of them have to care enough about doing it to vote that way. It's not 60 percent, two-thirds or 75 percent. It's only half the people who have to live with the consequences of the decision. That's what we say. So half the voters in the province have to say: "Yes, we want the Legislature to do something that the government won't do."

Now we come to the argument of the member for Delta South. This is a curious one, because he should be voting with us, since he wants us to be hoist on this petard. Nonetheless, he argues that this will be a killer for us. Any government that flies in the face of a clearly demonstrated view, even though it may not have the support of 50 percent of the public, is going to have to think once, twice or three times -- probably only once -- about whether or not it is going to bring the legislation in itself, if it has the overwhelming turnout the member talks about. But if only 20 percent of the public vote, 10 percent plus one vote in favour of something, 80 percent of the public don't care and 10 percent are opposed, then there is not going to be an overwhelming feeling that the government has to do something in order to save its neck in the next election campaign. It may choose not to respond to it. It can, by bringing in its own bill, but it can choose not to.

What we are talking about here is the fundamental issue of this bill for us -- for me. I speak for myself in particular. We are moving away from a tried-and-true system that works well around the world and in every jurisdiction in the Commonwealth. We are moving away from it to give power to the people -- to re-evoke Jerry Rubin -- but we're doing it in a way that doesn't give power to the people when the people's view is 50-50 or 60-40 on a particular issue. We are doing it when the people's view is overwhelming. The people will be able to access this when the view is overwhelming. There are issues in this province -- I'm not going to cite them, but we all know what they are -- where these kinds of majorities can be achieved.

That is the difference of opinion; we are not going to accept the amendment. Most of the opposition members have spoken. I understand that it's a unanimous view among them. It's a unanimous view on our side that the legislation should stand as introduced.

C. Serwa: That was a very interesting, stirring and passionate discourse by the hon. Attorney General. But if the hon. Attorney General believed what he said, that government would not exist today. The government that he is concerned about as being responsible and representing British Columbia voters was elected with approximately 38.5 percent of the vote, 2 percent less than they received in the 1986 general election. If the Attorney General was consistent in his belief in democracy, he would appreciate that fact; it is a concrete fact. A minority of the voters that were able to vote in the last provincial election elected a strong government. That's a fact -- of the people who voted, 38.5 percent voted for this government. If you look at the eligible voters in the province, that percentage falls dramatically. Something like 26 percent of the people eligible to vote in British Columbia elected the government we have today. The hon. Attorney General has no difficulty with that, but he is able to pull out some other sort of principle. That's okay, but it's not okay on the initiative. I respect the hon. Attorney General and his commitment to democracy, but there is duplicity in the position he has stated here in the Legislature; it's a double standard.

Let's look at what happens in this Legislature. Do we require 50 percent of the members of this Legislature to pass a bill or a vote? No, we don't. We simply require a majority of the individuals present. The minister spoke about responsible government. That's certainly an issue, and governments are responsible, but I believe that issue is settled by the electors at the time of the election, and that is not questioned. The responsible-government aspect is sometimes carried too far and denies the opportunity for free votes in the Legislature. The operation of the House would be vastly enhanced if government was big enough to say that we would enable free votes like the Mother of Parliaments does, with three levels of Whips in Great Britain.

Time after time in elections in British Columbia, municipalities elect individuals with a very small voter turnout. School boards elect members -- in one case in my constituency, with 11 percent of the voters turning out for that election. The Attorney General has no difficulty with that, but all of sudden we have this challenge to government. I would suggest that if you looked at the mechanics and you got away from the fear of the unknown.... The small community of Rossland has an administrator who came from Switzerland, and that community is run on the initiative basis. They're not afraid of it. There isn't a deep-seated cynicism. There isn't a crisis in credibility in that community. That's what we're striving to do here.

The public is not going to interfere with the responsibility of the government. The public has many other things to do, such as earning a living, doing their work and doing what they have to do to make their presence known in the world. They don't have the time or the opportunity to be involved in political activities or governmental affairs on a day-to-day basis. An initiative is not going to enhance that particular opportunity, because it's not even wanted. But they may wish to put forward propositions that they feel very concerned about and that have widespread support.

With this legislation, we have to get 10 percent of the voters in each constituency in British Columbia just to initiate this initiative, to put it on the initiative vote. Then we have to get strong support from those who voted to pass it and to bring it forward to government. What's wrong with that? Don't we have enough faith and

[ Page 12957 ]

confidence in the wisdom of the voter out there? Do we have, once we're elected, some ability to don a mantle of wisdom that gives us some superior ability as elitists to govern the people? Aren't the people capable of coming up with ideas and initiatives from the grass roots? Aren't they able -- and in a democracy shouldn't they be able -- to demonstrate their will? They have no unusual ability or power, no entrenched resource to people, no access to large funds -- only the germ of an idea and the will to strive to promote that idea. And here we're denying it, because we feel it's competing with and mitigating responsible government. I don't believe so. It will encourage representative government; that is the important ingredient. Responsible government is not the critical issue. The issue at heart here is that the government be representative of the people -- that the public interest and public will be served.

We cannot have double standards here, where a government is elected by some 27 or 28 percent of the people who were able to vote in the last provincial election -- and only achieved 38.5 percent success, in terms of those who voted in support of the government -- yet denies the opportunity for those same individual citizens of this province to bring forward a successful initiative. I find it very wrong.

I sincerely ask the minister to seriously reconsider his statements in view of what I've said, because I feel very devoutly in this issue that it has to be 50 percent plus one -- more than 50 percent of those who voted. If apathy is allowed to carry the day, then in the next vote that apathy will be reduced. That's the spirit we have in any election, be it provincial or municipal, or for a school board, for example. Apathy costs, and if I had my druthers we would fine people who failed to vote. I would like to see a high voter turnout in every situation, but at the moment this is an impossible situation. This denies the opportunity for this bill to function. This ensures that it cannot function. If the government is so confident that the right thing to do is bring forward a hypocritical bill that will not function because it's designed not to function....

This demand is unparalleled in Canada. It does not Americanize or do anything other than enable the individual to have a reasonable chance of putting forward an initiative. If we believe in democracy -- and so we should; every individual in this Legislature must believe in democracy -- we will facilitate a democratic happening.

[10:45]

I sincerely ask that the Attorney General reconsider his position on this. I think that he would have widespread support from members of his caucus and the government side of the House. It is only reasonable and fair for a party that stands on democratic principles. You talk one thing and do another in this case, which is the foundation of everything we stand for and believe in. That's the essence of the question, and that's the one that the hon. Attorney General and the government will be answering tonight. And they will reap the dividends or the consequences of the response.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I accept the sincerity of the member's comments, and I know everybody on that side of the House shares his view. It's simply a difference of opinion about the extent to which the initiative opportunity should exist. I have outlined our view, and the other view has been outlined well. The consequences will fall on our shoulders, and we're quite happy to have that happen.

Amendments negatived on the following division:

G. Campbell: I would like to submit an amendment to subsection 15(1)(b).

[SECTION 15 to read as follows: Determination of successful initiative vote 15. (1) The chief electoral officer must declare an initiative vote to be successful if... (b) more than 50% of the voters who voted in the initiative in each of at least 2/3 of the electoral districts in British Columbia vote in favour of the initiative;]

Section 15(1) has certainly placed an onerous and probably impossible hurdle in front of the people of British Columbia in terms of a successful initiative vote. When you put subsection 15(1)(b) on top of that, I think you simply add to the burden that has been placed upon the people to get access to this process. This is not a process.... I was a little surprised to hear the Attorney General earlier look upon this process as a threat, and as a way that the public will overrule what is happening in government. He said particularly that it doesn't give power to the people. I think it's a shame that we're not willing to say to the people of British Columbia that we want them to think of how their government can serve them better and what policies we may be able to pursue that will improve their lot and the services that we've got.

My amendment to section 15(1)(b) simply recommends that more than 50 percent of the voters who voted in the initiative in each of at least two-thirds of the electoral districts in British Columbia vote in favour of the initiative. Again, we are back to the issue of whether we are counting the number of voters on the list or the number that actually participate. We have fully canvassed this principle in an earlier clause. It is one that I would urge the Attorney General to consider, and I am pleased to put forward this amendment.

On the amendment.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: As the member said, we have canvassed the issue. The principle is the same, and the positions are the same.

Amendment negatived on division.

[ Page 12958 ]

R. Neufeld: I just want to speak briefly on section 15 again and bring members' attention to the vote that just transpired on the amendments put forward by the member for Okanagan West. Twenty-six government members voted against his amendments. Using the government's figure of 50 percent of the total number, it just barely passed. That's how undemocratic this section is. In fact, you're just lucky the pizza wagon didn't show up, or you wouldn't have had that many, and it would have failed under the system proposed in section 15. It just absolutely amazes me that this government, which says it believes in democracy, would put forward something that's as unworkable as this. But just how ridiculous this really is, is a good point for the Attorney General to take into account. I just wanted to bring that point forward.

Section 15 approved on the following division:

On section 16.

J. Weisgerber: I would first like to move an amendment standing in my name on the order paper, which would be consistent with the amendments accepted by the Attorney General in sections 11 and 12.

[SECTION 16, by deleting the words "the next or current session of the Legislative Assembly" wherever it appears, and inserting the words "the earliest practicable opportunity" therefor.]

[11:00]

On the amendment.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The first of the two amendments is consistent with the one we accepted earlier, and we would accept this now.

Amendment approved.

On section 16 as amended.

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

[SECTION 16, by adding the number "(1)" before the words "If the Chief Electoral Officer declares" and adding two new subsections to read: (2) Any bill introduced to the legislature as a result of this section must be given priority over all other government bills, except for supply bills. (3) All votes on the Bill in its entirety shall be treated as votes of confidence in the government.]

This amendment creates three major subsections under section 16. The amended section would now be section 16(1), and two other subsections would be added.

Here we're talking about an initiative that has successfully passed all of the hurdles we have been talking about for the last four hours....

L. Fox: As unlikely as that is.

J. Weisgerber: As unlikely as that is, as my friend says. We're talking about an initiative that started out by getting the signature of 10 percent of the voters in 90 days, in each and every constituency in the province; then went back for a process of review and ensuring that the legislation was within the jurisdiction of the province and appropriately drafted; and then went back to referendum and was approved not by 50 percent of the people who came out to vote but by 50 percent plus one of the people who were eligible to vote. As the member for Delta South said, 80 percent of the 60 percent of the voters who came out voted for this initiative. Indeed, what is being proposed here is that having gone through all of those hurdles, when the legislation finally gets to this Legislature, it must move ahead of all other government bills, with the exception of supply, and it must be passed in its entirety.

In contrast to that, the section we have now says that having gone through all of those hurdles that we talked about, the only obligation under this legislation is to introduce the bill to the House -- not to take it to second reading, not to put it through committee, not to pass it. Obviously, if we ever saw an initiative in British Columbia pass all of those hurdles, it would at least ensure that the legislation was going to be passed -- or the government would fail as a result of it.

Given the tone and the mood of the Attorney General and of the members of the government -- the NDP members who sat on the committee that drafted this piece of legislation -- I'm not anticipating that the government will accept this, because it would suggest that at the end of the trail, there is actually a possible resolution to an initiative.

As it is drafted, this legislation takes someone who is developing an initiative through an enormous and unbelievable maze, and then it drops them nowhere at the end of the route. This provides a logical resolution to an initiative. If we accepted the arguments of the government about all of the hurdles that it should be put through -- if we accepted that 10 percent of the voters in every constituency should vote, and that indeed it should be 50 percent of the eligible voters in two-thirds of the constituencies -- this amendment says something is going to happen at the end of that process.

So I am asking the government to approve this. I'm putting it forward because I believe it is a reasonable conclusion to a process, but I don't have a lot of hope. I have seen enough and listened to enough of the debate now to know that government has absolutely no real commitment to initiative. I expect we will simply see one more demonstration of that with the response of the Attorney General, but I sure am happy to listen.

On the amendment.

[ Page 12959 ]

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The member is correct.

R. Neufeld: It's another part of democracy you don't believe in.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: No, the issue here is that the member is attempting.... I don't think he has quite enough amendments to make it secure, and I'll get to that in a second. But the member is suggesting that if that process is complete, there is a paramountcy of the people that supersedes the paramountcy of the Legislature. If the member wanted to tie this up tight, he should have had another section which prevented the government from introducing a bill a week later which undid or amended the bill that had just been passed as a result of the initiative. In any event, there are all kinds of ways for the government to get around this if it wanted to.

[D. Lovick in the chair.]

The reality is that this initiative process enables a group -- or an individual who has a concept or a perspective that is supported by the overwhelming majority of the people but not the government -- to get it forward and into this place. If the government rejects it or doesn't carry it through, the government pays a political price. Conceivably, if it's an overwhelming public view, the political price will be fatal. That's the reality. The check on the government is the political price it will pay if it chooses to reject or not completely follow through with an initiative that has overwhelming public support. It seems clear to me that any government in its right mind is going to make sure that it finds a way of meeting that overwhelming public demand if it gets so far as to have a bill introduced into this House. Our view is that the public cannot supersede parliament's sovereignty in this matter. In the final analysis, the political will is what will determine what the public policy is.

C. Serwa: I am certainly speaking very strongly in support of the amendment. When I look at the expense of this whole exercise -- not only at the expense of keeping this Legislature going tonight but at the expense of staff who were hired to draft and produce this piece of legislation and the expense of that standing legislative committee travelling around the province -- the end product is a joke. It is a bad joke; it's laughable. We have this whole exercise, we're involved in a debate, and the minister -- and I suppose members of the government -- thinks it's rather a humorous thing: we're only doing what is necessary for the appearance of satisfying the public. This landmark piece of legislation is a sad, cruel joke on the voters in the province; that's all it is.

Why is it so laughable? Why would it be so humorous or foolish? Simply because any member in this Legislature can bring in a private bill and receive the same consideration. It takes no extended effort to get 10 percent of the voters in British Columbia to support and sign an initiative petition. You don't have to have the organization, expense, will or interest to go, once that comes forward, into a $15 million referendum -- a vote on the initiative. And after all of that, the government brings it into this Legislature with less than lip service -- with no more or less care or attention than any private member's bill brought in by a government member or by a member on the opposition side of government. How laughable! How are you going to try to convince the public that there is any seriousness in your commitment to democracy? You use the name New Democratic Party very proudly. You're not displaying the slightest shred....

The Chair: Hon. member, through the Chair. You know the rules, please -- not "you"; to the minister, through the Chair.

C. Serwa: Quite appropriate, and I am mindful of your considered caution.

The reality is that there is not the slightest element of democracy demonstrated and not the slightest wish to empower people. Rather, they're indulging in a charade. The travesty of this is the way the government is debasing this Legislature with the particular stand it is taking on this bill and the way it is denying the public their rights as citizens. It's easy to say the right words. "We care about the poor" -- but they don't do very much about them, because those people support them. "We care about the workers in the province" -- but that's only to get their votes and support. "We care about the wishes of the citizens" -- but they demonstrate that they're not mindful of public will or public interest. That's the end result of this charade.

I'm speaking in support of the amendment. But when I stood up in second reading and voted in opposition to this bill, I did so because to vote in support of it would have meant adding my support to the charade. When I look at this amendment and when I recognize what the hon. Attorney General is saying on behalf of the government.... When we care about democracy as we're supposed to, a fragile form of government that's so easily perverted and so easily mitigated and diminished.... There is no genuineness in the government's commitment unless it is willing to address the initiative issue as proposed in this amendment. It has nothing to do with responsible government; it has to do with representing people's wishes and expectations, and it has to do with the responsibility of government to represent constituents. The amendment empowers people and forces the government to be representative.

[11:15]

I cannot speak too strongly in support of the amendment. The travesty of this whole thing is that there is no intent to produce a bill that is the slightest bit workable. The public of British Columbia realize that and appreciate it more and more. I feel very sorry for the hon. Attorney General, who has to support this charade.

The Chair: Thank you, member. Before I recognize anybody else on the amendment, I want to make two points. Number one, I want to remind members that I believe we have an understanding regarding the procedure we will use for amendments. We will listen to the proposer of the amendment, we will hear anybody else who wishes to support the amendment, we will go the Attorney for rebuttal and then we will vote. Otherwise we will have endless debate on amendments, and as we know, there is a huge number of them. So I hope that's acceptable. We did agree on that.

Member, let me finish making my point first, and then I'll certainly entertain your question or concern. I said, however, that we will be guided by the spirit of fairness. Not for a moment will we impose that as a strict rule, because it clearly goes beyond the standing orders. Rather, it's a mechanism whereby we can speed up the process, which I think we are all committed to doing.

[ Page 12960 ]

The second point I want to make -- and I say this in dead seriousness -- is that roughly the last 45 minutes of debate I have listened to takes us very much into the realm of the principle. I want to remind members that the principle was canvassed thoroughly in second reading, and this House has assented to the principle of the bill. We are on amendments. An explanation of the amendment and a justification for the amendment is perfectly in order. But to take us back to the fundamental principles of the bill and to use the same arguments on every amendment -- which we seem to be doing -- is demonstrably not in order. I want to give that caution to all members. We are in committee stage now; we are no longer canvassing the principle of the bill.

I will listen to the member for Okanagan West, who perhaps has a point of order or a query.

C. Serwa: Thank you very much, hon. Chair. Just to respond to your words, first of all, I'm not aware of any agreement. No one has approached me and indicated that there was an agreement on this, and I would prefer to abide by the rules we normally work under regarding debate.

I'm mindful of your endeavour to restrict the debate to the specific amendments and sections. I will certainly try to do that to the best of my ability.

The Chair: Thank you, member. I appreciate that.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The argument that the member makes is similar to an argument a member -- I have forgotten which one -- made during second reading debate in respect of this being no different than a private member introducing a bill, and what happens to private members' bills. There is a big difference.

If, following a 90-day campaign, there is overwhelming public support for an initiative and it reaches this House and gets first reading, and the government fails to proceed to second reading, committee and assent, it then faces the wrath of the public for refusing to accept an overwhelming public position. That's the difference between a bill which might be introduced that way and one which might be introduced by a private member.

I just think of the Charlottetown referendum. Following that, if all the Premiers and the Prime Minister had said, "Well, that's nice -- that's what the public thinks, but we're going to proceed anyway," the wrath of the public would have been pretty wild. The leaders listened to the result and that was the end of it. The same result would happen here if there is that kind of overwhelming sentiment. I reject the view that this is a charade. I know the member feels strongly that it is, and I am not going to try and argue against him. I am simply going to say that this is not intended to be a charade. This is intended to be a careful incursion into a brand-new way of doing public business in the British parliamentary system. We are being cautious about how we do it; there is no question about that.

Amendment negatived.

Section 16 as amended approved on division.

On section 17.

G. Campbell: This is yet another attempt to open the system up and give people an opportunity to have enough time to succeed with an initiative with the kind of approval hurdles which have been put in place. I would like to move an amendment under section 17(5): "Despite any other provision of this Act, when an initiative petition is reissued under this section, the petition may be signed during a period consisting of one year in total" -- replacing the "90 days" which is in the act.

On the amendment.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: In effect, the member is trying to advance the same issue that was advanced earlier, and the House spoke at that time. I see no reason for the House to speak differently on this one.

Amendment negatived on division.

Section 17 approved.

On section 18.

G. Campbell: Section 18 goes back to an issue we dealt with before, but it is important the we give the opportunity, if the select standing committee has referred an initiative petition and a draft bill to the chief electoral officer under section 11, that the officer then be permitted to submit that simultaneously with the general election, if it is appropriate.

I am not going to recanvass the entire issue, but there is an opportunity here for us to give people the chance -- as part of a general election -- to debate, understand and fully canvass an issue that has been brought before them through this initiative activity, and I believe that we really should be giving people that opportunity. If you talk to the normal person on the street, they'd have a heck of a time understanding why we wouldn't give them that opportunity. It's some arcane rationale to protect whatever we can about government and make this as alien to people as we can. So I am going to submit an amendment, which I have called subsection 18(3): "If a general election is called after the select standing committee has referred the initiative petition and draft Bill to the chief electoral officer under section 11 (2) (b), the chief electoral officer shall hold the initiative vote simultaneously with the general election."

On the amendment.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: This too is recanvassing an issue that was decided earlier, and the same arguments apply.

Amendment negatived on division.

Section 18 approved.

On section 19.

G. Campbell: With this record of success, it's hard to continue standing, but I would like to suggest an amendment that 19.4 read: "No application for the issuance of a recall petition may be made during the 6 months following the last election of the member." Again, it seems to me that we're being unnecessarily protective of ourselves. I don't believe that citizens are going to abuse this tool we're putting at their disposal to make sure that members are held accountable to their constituents. I think it's reasonable to give people a six-month period or

[ Page 12961 ]

leeway. Who knows what they'll be doing in that period of time? There's every likelihood that the House wouldn't even be in session prior to six months after an election. However, I think to go beyond that is simply asking, again, how we can restrict this and how we can constrain the opportunity to make sure that there is accountability. I have every faith in the electorate that they will use this with great care. I don't believe that we should be fearful of the opportunity for recall, and therefore I put this amendment forward.

On the amendment.

J. Weisgerber: I support the amendment. I believe that it's totally unreasonable to expect that there should be no opportunity for 18 months to recall a member. Indeed, over time that has been half of the average term of a government in British Columbia.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Under W.A.C.

J. Weisgerber: British Columbia's history will show that the average time between elections is three to three and a half years. Take it back as far as you want, including the fateful decision made by your leader the last time you were in government. It is a pattern, and 18 months suggests to me that those members who, upon election, disappoint their constituents fundamentally -- those who immediately after the election prove that somehow they are something other than what they represented themselves to be to the electors, and indeed those people who demonstrate clearly that they're unfit for office.... And if we want to start naming names, perhaps we could do that as well, but indeed, let's leave this...

The Chair: Let's talk in hypotheses.

J. Weisgerber: ...at the level that it has so far maintained itself.

I think that 18 months is unreasonable. I think that historically, any serious examination would show that it was indeed in those first months after an election -- after their first election -- that an individual would be most likely to demonstrate their unsuitability, their total ineptness or, in fact, that they had betrayed voters in the way they presented themselves.

Not long ago we saw an examination of the credentials of one Member of Parliament elected in the last federal election. Very quickly after the election, voters were outraged when finding out that they had been deliberately misled in a very fundamental way in election material presented by the candidate. I can't imagine why you would want to wait 18 months in that example, except perhaps to allow people's tempers to cool off and to allow them to simply tire themselves out by chomping and complaining. I don't see any reason for it. The rationale might be that we're going to give that person a chance to prove themselves over 18 months. Is that the idea -- that no matter how badly the elected representative disappoints and betrays his electorate, we're going to give him some time?

I have another amendment on the order paper, but in the interest of time -- because I do want to see us move forward -- I am going to read into the record the amendment I would have introduced. It is very similar. Rather than six months, the amendment on the order paper in my name states: "...until after the commencement of the first sitting of the Legislature following the last election." I think history would show that that is very close to six months. I believe that both those amendments are very similar, and I could support one or the other.

Interjection.

J. Weisgerber: I am tempted to turn around and listen to the new voice that has come back from wherever and to perhaps suggest the fundamentals of sitting in your own place when feeling moved to heckle. But the hour is late, and I'm sure we won't hear much more from him.

[11:30]

I have a strong feeling that we should amend this section. It's not the most unacceptable section. It is one more hurdle -- one more cut of the knife -- and this bill is full of them. I support the amendment.

J. Dalton: I rise to speak in favour of this. This government is so proud of bringing this bill forward and talking about grass-roots, direct democracy and all the other things we have heard them talk about. Quite frankly, I don't see any problem with reducing the time frame for a recall petition to come forward. Six months should be plenty of time for voters to ascertain the worth, or lack of worth, of an elected representative. If this government is fearful of recall -- and we believe it is, and it should be -- then I guess they are going to go with the 18 months. In fact, they would probably like to scrap the entire thing altogether, but they won't do that.

We in the opposition strongly endorse the amendment to allow six months, and we encourage the government to allow this amendment.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: In quite a number of the amendments that have been brought forward tonight so far, there is plenty of room for argument. There is a difference of opinion about issues, and different conclusions could be reached easily enough by any of us on some of those issues.

On this one, I frankly do not agree. I think that anybody who is elected should have the opportunity to prove themselves in one session. Everyone elected in the last election would have had only a few days in the first session of the parliament before the six-month period would have been up. I think that if you go through the rigours of an election campaign -- and you need to be relatively well-known in your community and need to face 28 days of scrutiny -- that to not be given an opportunity to demonstrate whether you can do the job in a legislative session is just wrong. I really believe that. So that's why the 18 months has been picked.

That's my main argument, but another one is that this is not designed simply to give the losing candidate or candidates an opportunity to have another run at it, and that's the most likely effect of the six-month provision. The main argument I feel strongly about is that if you are elected to the Legislature, you should be given an opportunity to prove whether or not you can function appropriately in the Legislature before you have this kind of judgment facing you in your constituency. That's why the 18 months, so we reject the amendment.

C. Serwa: I support the amendment. In supporting it, though, I am mindful of the Attorney General's concerns about the time frame. However, I would reflect -- and I think the hon. Attorney General would recognize -- that the bulk of an elected member's work is constituency

[ Page 12962 ]

work. I reckon that about 20 percent of my work is involved with the Legislature. It's a relatively minor portion of the workload of a private member. The major and most important part of an elected member's work is to represent their constituents. That's first and foremost -- not necessarily how they perform in the Legislature. That's part of the job, and certainly a very high-profile and important part of the job. There is no question about that. But as far as constituents are concerned, the reality is how you represent your constituents, and that's not necessarily involving work in the Legislature.

When we look at a reasonable time frame, perhaps six months is too constrained. It depends when the election is held -- the last one was on October 17, and then entry into the Legislature wasn't until mid-March -- and there's certainly a valid concern there. But, mindful of the Attorney General's concern in supporting this type of amendment, it would not appear to be unreasonable that we perhaps look at a different time frame, rather than 18 months. When we understand that no applications for issuance of a recall petition may be made during 18 months following the last election, we have to recognize that you have to make the application. There are the mechanics of that and the mechanics of getting signatures on the petition. The end result of that time frame is that you are facing an imminent election. Government has six months in which to call a by-election, and if we add the sum total of all of those times, we are getting very close to the average time slot in which British Columbia has historically had elections.

Again, it points to another element in the drafting of this bill that makes it not worthwhile to go through the whole exercise. If the government is the slightest bit concerned about this section and about recall and empowering the public, they should seriously consider it. Perhaps the hon. Attorney General would consider making an amendment with respect to 12 months rather than 18 months.

The hon. Chair seems to be a little antsy, but I remind him that as a private member in this Legislature I have the right to discuss issues, and I can take up to 15 minutes in discussing those issues as long as -- in my mind and perhaps in yours, hon. Chair -- I am not repetitive and tedious. I am mindful of the lateness of the hour and the strained tempers and moods that are in this Legislature. Nevertheless, I reserve the right that I was elected to hold: to represent myself and my constituents in this Legislature.

The Chair: And I will defend the member's right to do just that. Let us make it very clear that that is not in question.

R. Neufeld: Because of the lateness of the hour I am going to be brief. We should all remember that it has been a long session, and this bill coming at the end -- which is a major bill for some of us -- is certainly going to take a little extra time. We beg the indulgence of the House to get across our point of view in a fair and equitable manner.

The Attorney General spoke about the 18 months and giving an elected person a chance to be able to show to the constituents who elected that person that they could do the job, or perform properly, taking into account that the Attorney General said that before you run in your constituency you are usually fairly well known beforehand in that there are 28 days during the period when you are really under scrutiny. When we say that about performance, we are forgetting the intelligence of the voters. When they elect someone, most people know they are not going to go to Victoria or Ottawa and perform 100 percent all of the time and really do a good job. Everybody has to learn, and we learn every day. It never quits. I learn every day in the House, and I hope I always learn every day, whatever I do. So I think the public has an appetite to allow people to get up to speed and to deal with things.

What comes to mind when I think about recall is that in a lot of cases it's not so much how that person performs in the House, but maybe something was wrong that didn't come to light before the person put their name forward to run for election or in that 28-day writ period. A good example is one that my colleague mentioned about the person in the last federal election. I am not going to mention any names or parties, but it was a big enough story. It doesn't matter whether it was one month after the election or 18 months, 10 months or two years; it was still there. The issue didn't change. It was wrong to start with, obviously. It was wrong the first day that person was elected and it was wrong within 18 months. So I don't think that the 18 months....

I support the Leader of the Opposition's amendment for six months. That gives people ample time. Again, we have to remember the intelligence of the voters. I don't think the electorate has any appetite for a case of recalling a person just because someone lost an election and it's sour grapes and they want to run against that person again. Again, we are not respecting the intelligence of the voters who voted for us in the first place, and that's what we're forgetting in a lot of sections of this bill that we have gone through. We have to remember the people out there who really do the voting -- the people who count. They are intelligent, most of them are well informed, and they know what's going on. I don't buy at all that you need 18 months to start performing. Six months is plenty of time to get yourself going and into the job. And if something is dramatically wrong, then there should be recall.

Amendment negatived on division.

On section 19.

H. De Jong: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 19, by adding the following subsection:

 (5) No application for the issuance of a recall petition shall be accepted where, in the opinion of the Ombudsman, upon a reference by the Member named, the substance of the statement required by this section is that the Member has implemented or assisted in implementing a policy or policies publicly advocated by the Member, or by his or her political party in the election or by-election in which the Member was most recently elected.]

The purpose of this amendment is that election time is still the most democratic part that citizens can play in the election -- but so are the politicians. I believe very strongly that when people run for office they espouse the policies and initiatives the party wants to bring to government. There are also values that certain candidates may hold which may be very much appreciated or not appreciated within a constituency, but if they are appreciated, candidates usually get that support. I believe very strongly that when those matters have been clearly stated by members, either on behalf of the party they are running for or because they are values and traditions they

[ Page 12963 ]

wish to hold to, if members are staying with those principles and initiatives, there should be no reason for recall of such members.

The Chair: I am going to allow the Attorney General to respond, member, but it appears that your amendment is beyond the scope of this section. However, I am not about to make that ruling, because I don't claim that great familiarity yet. I give you that caution.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: If I understand the member, he is simply saying that nobody can be recalled if he or she keeps his or her promises. It's going to be very difficult to determine whether or not a particular promise was kept or was kept 90 percent, or whatever. This issue is dealt with on pages 15 and 16 of the committee's reports, and I agree with the conclusions of the committee where they say: "We do not think it would be possible to delineate a set of proscribed grounds relating to a Member of the Legislative Assembly's behaviour...." Do you want me to read it all? To try to begin to give grounds, where you are saying to the public that it can't recall in certain circumstances, is to take away the right of the public to make that decision. Our view is that there should be no grounds, so that the public can make the decision, not someone even as exalted as the ombudsman.

With all due respect to the member, appreciating his sincerity on that issue and accepting that there is a good point behind what he says in terms of keeping promises, we are going to reject the amendment.

[11:45]

Amendment negatived.

Section 19 approved on division.

On section 20.

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

[SECTION 20, by deleting the number "60" and inserting the number "180" therefor.]

The amendment to section 20 increases the number of days for a recall activity from the 60 prescribed in the bill to 180 days, which is consistent with our position taken on initiative. It shows up a number of times throughout the legislation. We have talked at some length during initiative about the need for a greater length of time. I expect that it will be noted that the amendments have been put forward in other areas, and I don't want to belabour that point. But I do want to go on record very strongly as saying that 60 days -- obviously only two-thirds of the time that I disagreed with very vigorously with initiative -- is simply inadequate. Six months would be a reasonable length of time, and that's the reason for putting this amendment forward.

G. Campbell: I rise to support the amendment. We have to at least try to open up this legislation so that people feel there is a real opportunity. You can't say on the one hand that we are for recall and referenda, and then keep putting the nails around the coffin so that you can never use it. The 180-day period suggested by the member for Peace River South's amendment is reasonable. It's fair to the elected officials, who know that that is taking place and that they're not in jeopardy -- they don't feel under attack -- for a significant period of time, but it's also fair to the citizens or constituents who may feel that they have a legitimate reason to pursue a recall petition.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I would concede that picking a number is an arbitrary process and that there could be arguments to pick a different number, and the committee accepted that in its report. One of the arguments against going longer than 60 days is simply to provide some certainty in constituencies. If, for six months in the middle of the parliamentary term, a member's every waking hour is preoccupied with trying to make sure that not enough signatures are collected, the member may not be able to do his or her duties here in this House. The member will not be serving their constituents; they will be spending an entire six-month period trying to protect their position. That seems to us to be too long a period to have that kind of uncertainty, and 60 days is plenty of time. We had the debate earlier. I can tell members that....

I'll just do this. It's personal, it's anecdotal and it's supposition. I can tell members that if the government had chosen to implement Stephen Owen's CORE report on Vancouver Island as it was originally designed, under this bill I would have been recalled in a two-week period, and half the members of my constituency association would have voted with it, too. The line would have been: "We'll recall Colin. We'll vote for him again in the by-election, but we'll recall him just to send...."

Interjection.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: No, I'm talking about my constituency association members; I'm not talking about the public necessarily.

They would have said: "We'll sign this recall petition because we want to send the government a message about the decision they just made on this land use issue." I can tell you that two weeks would have been enough to secure enough signatures to get rid of me, if we had made that decision. So people's concern about this being too tight.... My concern would be that it's too loose, and 60 days is plenty of time. I can tell members that I could have gotten enough signatures to recall myself -- doing it all by myself -- if that kind of decision had been made, so members shouldn't be too certain that this kind of legislation won't work. It may work all too well for all too many members of this House.

The Chair: Before I pose the question, I want to advise the committee and apologize that I may have inadvertently confused members by not posing the questions consistently. Henceforth, therefore, I shall say, "Shall the amendment pass," or "Shall the section pass," and those who wish to support it shall say "Aye," and those who wish to vote otherwise shall say "Nay." I will do that consistently.

Amendment negatived on division.

Section 20 approved.

On section 21.

J. Weisgerber: I'd like to move the amendment to section 21 standing in my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 21, by deleting the words "on the date of the last election of the Member, was" and inserting the word "is" therefor.]

As we debate the rest of this bill, let me tell you that sections 21, 23 and 25 are the areas where we are going to try

[ Page 12964 ]

to demonstrate a fundamental difference in position between the government and ourselves. The effect of the amendment to section 21 is to make those people who are on the voters list at the time the recall initiative goes forward eligible to vote on a recall petition. I think that is a fundamental difference from the approach we have taken. The government seems to believe that recall is a reconsideration of the decision to elect a member by the people who elected that member. This means that if you move into a constituency eight months after an election and see that you are represented by an MLA who is demonstrably incapable, you are not eligible to vote on recall. However, if you have moved across the province from Dawson Creek to Vancouver, and you want to participate in recalling the member for Peace River South, if someone can find you, it is absolutely appropriate for them to have you sign the recall petition. That's the difference between the government's position and the position we are taking.

We are saying that the people who are living in the constituency and are represented by the member should be the ones who decide, at any given moment, whether or not that member should continue to represent them. It's a fundamental difference. I am not going to spend a lot of time talking about it, but I want you to understand clearly that that is a very substantial difference. I think it's an important distinction. We are talking about whether the thresholds, which we will talk about again in section 25, based on those people who are eligible to vote is another important consideration in the wording of this particular amendment. I would again encourage all members to look at the amendment and to support it.

R. Neufeld: I rise in support of the amendment. I am going to be brief, also. I spoke about it in second reading. I think this disenfranchises an awful lot of people, specifically in the community I come from where there are an awful lot of young people, and people are moving in and out. Using the 18-month system that we just passed, you could have a person who moves into the constituency not being able to vote, and you could have someone who becomes of voting age not being able to vote even though they were born and raised in that constituency and have a real stake in it.

I think the member for Peace River South said it very well when he said that anyone who can vote in that constituency should have the right to vote on recalling a member who represents the constituency. That is just another part of the way our democracy works. It certainly works that way if you were going to vote for someone new in a by-election. Everyone in the constituency who is eligible can vote in a by-election. So why not allow them to sign a recall petition? I can't quite understand that. I stand in support of the motion.

D. Mitchell: I'd like to pose a brief question to the Attorney General, because I know he is going to get up and speak to the amendment made by the House Leader for the Reform Party. I'm confused as to why this section was put in the bill. I served on the committee, and I never heard anyone make the representation that effectively.... The way I read this section of the bill, which the House Leader for the Reform Party is amending, it says that if you die after the election, you have automatically voted no on a recall vote; if you have moved, you have automatically voted no on a recall vote; but if you are alive and you happen to have moved into the riding since the last election, you can't vote. What principle of democratic representation have you ever heard of that states that if you are dead, you have a greater say in an election than if you actually live in the constituency? You've moved into a riding and have made the commitment to live there, but you are not given a chance to vote. When the Attorney General addresses the amendment -- which I hope he is going to support, because I certainly support it -- I hope he will tell us what theory of democratic representation he subscribes to that allows dead people to have more say than someone in a constituency who is breathing and living.

G. Wilson: They make better decisions.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The hon. member suggests he didn't hear anyone make representation that the reconsideration principle should be adopted. I wonder if the member could answer this question: did he attend every minute of every session of every meeting of the parliamentary committee as it travelled around the province?

The Chair: I'm not sure this is in order, but....

D. Mitchell: I gladly grant leave to the Attorney General so that he can ask me that question. I can tell you, hon. Chair that I have read the Hansard transcripts of every meeting of the parliamentary reform committee that took place, even though I declined the opportunity to waste more of the taxpayers' money by travelling with the committee for a period of time.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: It's fair to say that this issue can quite legitimately be seen in a variety of ways. Are we talking about the existing voters list from which we choose people who can sign, or are we adopting the reconsideration principle? It's a fair debate, and one that I know has occurred among committee members and MLAs over the last while. The committee recommended that it be a reconsideration principle, and the government agrees with that recommendation. The principle is that if a member is to be recalled, it is because people who voted for that member in the last election suddenly realize they made a terrible mistake, and they want to undo the mistake they made. That's what recall is about, and it's based on the principle that you opt for reconsideration, rather than allowing people who come into a constituency subsequent to the election who did not participate in it and didn't make the mistake -- if one was made -- of having an opportunity to influence the decision.

The member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi described this as a vote. This is not a vote; we are talking about a collection of signatures. Once the threshold is achieved and the vote is held, everybody who is eligible at that time is eligible to vote in the by-election that occurs. So we are going to reject....

Interjection.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I am assuming the member for Peace River North isn't expecting me to hear, because it's hard to hear when you talk at the same time. So I didn't hear him.

As is clear, we are going to reject this amendment as well.

[12:00]

Amendment negatived.

[ Page 12965 ]

Section 21 approved.

On section 22.

J. Weisgerber: The following amendments standing in my name on the order paper are identical to the ones I made with regard to initiative in the similar section. I simply want to put them on the record:

[SECTION 22 (1), by deleting the words "has been a resident in British Columbia for at least 6 months" and inserting the words "is a resident of British Columbia" therefor.]

[SECTION 22 (3), by deleting the words "pay, give, lend or" and inserting the words "give or" therefor.]

On the amendments.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The same arguments apply.

Amendments negatived.

Section 22 approved.

On section 23.

J. Weisgerber: I move the amendments dealing with time periods standing in my name on the order paper:

[SECTION 23 (a), by deleting the number "60" and inserting the number "180" therefor.]

[SECTION 23 (b), by deleting the number "40" and inserting the number "12" therefor.]

From the perspective of the Reform caucus, the important amendment is on section 23(b). We are proposing that the petition threshold be 12 percent rather than 40 percent of the eligible voters in order to force a recall. We are proposing, as will be demonstrated in sections 23 and 25 combined, a three-part process rather than a two-part process. I described that in some length during second reading.

For those who may be reading or are interested -- because I wouldn't expect a lot are watching -- we propose that there be a recall petition in which, if 12 percent of the eligible voters signed the petition, would force a vote as to whether or not the member should be recalled. And before jumping ahead to section 25, in this section I want to deal only with the 12 percent. So the position we're putting forward is that a petition with signatures from 12 percent of the eligible voters would be sufficient to start a recall process, as will be described in section 25 as amended. If any other members are so inclined, I'd be interested in listening. I suspect that perhaps this is one of the sections that contrasts our position as a Reform caucus to that of some of the other members.

The Chair: Member, do I understand that you are moving the second amendment in your name on the order paper -- the amendment to section 23(b)?

J. Weisgerber: Yes. The other one is a kind of perfunctory amendment that's been consistent throughout. You can move them together or individually.

The Chair: Thanks, member. I just wanted to make sure I had that correct. With your permission, and for clarity's sake, let's consider the two together, if we may.

On the amendments.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The member wants to insert another process that would require the equivalent of a by-election, although it would ask a question rather than have a vote. That's an expensive process. We've opted for a two-stage process with a rather low threshold -- only 40 percent. It's a difference in approach, and we've opted for the two-stage process.

Amendments negatived on the following division:

The Chair: Before I recognize the next amendment and the next speaker, I would give the committee notice that very shortly there will be a division on this one, too, so you may choose to stay.

G. Campbell: The issue that has been referred to in section 23(b) is indeed an important component of the recall legislation that's before us, and I would like to put before the committee an amendment to section 23 as follows: "(b) the petition must be signed by at least the same number of voters as the number of votes the Member received in the last election, plus one." I know we are attracted to the one-size-fits-all solutions -- the percentage responses -- that have been reflected in both the government's legislation and the previous amendment. It seems to me that this amendment reflects the variety of different constituencies with different configurations that we have in the province, and I think it simply responds to that variety and allows individual constituencies to force a recall petition in a way that is fair for everyone across the province.

On the amendment.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I don't want to be too harsh in this, but it seems to me that the member -- who got 70 percent or thereabouts in the by-election, I think -- is obviously afraid of the 40 percent rule and wants to make sure that he's protected from recall, so he wants to have a 70 percent threshold in his constituency.

Interjection.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: A little self-interest.

Interjection.

[ Page 12966 ]

Hon. C. Gabelmann: And I will again.

We're going to reject this amendment.

The Chair: We agreed, did we not, to waive the time?

Some Hon. Members: Aye.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

On section 23.

The Chair: With the indulgence of the member for Peace River North, I might just advise the committee that we expect another division very soon. Therefore I suggest that members might find it to their advantage to remain in the precincts.

[12:15]

J. Weisgerber: Before we move off section 23, which we are now talking about, regarding the 40 percent threshold level, it's worthwhile looking at the effect of that in relation to the number of votes by which a number of my colleagues were elected. My good friend from Abbotsford was elected with 6,647 votes in the last election. You may remember that there was a recount. In order to recall that member, it would require 10,252 signatures from people who are still living in the constituency and who were eligible to vote in that 1991 election. That's a considerable difference. Here's a member who was elected by 6,600 people who had to go out and mark a ballot. But in order to recall him, you would have to find 10,252 people who are eligible to vote. You have to track down almost 4,000 of them who didn't bother to come out and vote. The member for Bulkley Valley-Stikine was elected with 3,744 votes, but it would take 6,424 signatures on a petition in order to recall that member.

Interjections.

J. Weisgerber: I'll take requests after I.... [Laughter.] For those of you who want to go home early, we can look at them tomorrow, too.

We should have a look at some of the Peace River constituencies, just to see whether some might be tempted. First of all, the most difficult person in this whole Legislature to recall would be the member for Okanagan West. It would take 15,410 signatures in order to recall that member. The easiest....

Interjections.

The Chair: Member, you shouldn't tempt the House.

J. Weisgerber: Indeed. I thought if I read out the easiest member to recall, that would probably get some attention. It would be my good friend and colleague from Peace River North, for those who might be so inclined; 6,163 signatures are all that would be required. To recall the member for Peace River South, for any who might be thinking along those lines, it will take 7,296 signatures. Consider, members, that only 4,617 people voted for me in 1991. It's unfortunate that Reform wasn't on the ballot. I am sure the number would have been much larger, had that been the case.

The point is that there is a wide variation in the numbers required, and in many cases, almost twice as many signatures on a petition gathered within 60 days are required than those who voted for many of us in the House. It again demonstrates a process that is not workable. It also demonstrates the wide variations that would have resulted in the model put forward by the Leader of the Official Opposition.

There has to be a better way. Unfortunately, an amendment has been defeated which would have seen a better way. For those members who are on the edge of their seats, I will certainly be happy to share with you the magic number that will see you down that unhappy recall trail.

D. Streifel: Not in the interest of prolonging the debate, but certainly for the interest of the House tonight, I would like to share with the members some of the findings of our committee meetings -- in particular, the presentation our committee received in Cranbrook from the sitting Reform MP, who was at that time a presenter to our committee. It's in the Hansard record for anybody who wants to look it up.

This bill comes forward with a 40 percent signature level, which is 10 percent below what Reform MP Deb Grey has on her private member's bill in the Ottawa House. In fact, it's exactly half of what the Reform Party presented to us in Cranbrook for an appropriate sign-up petition level. Their presentation was that it should be extremely difficult to recall an MLA. In that light, the suggestion from that presenter was that the petition sign-up level should be between 75 and 80 percent of the eligible voters in order to discourage any frivolous attempts at recall. It is in the Hansard record. If the Reform members want to take solace in it, they can look it up and satisfy themselves. Consider that equation compared to the fairness that this government has brought forward in this bill.

Sections 23 and 24 approved on division.

On section 25.

J. Weisgerber: Too few votes in Peace River North needed to recall.... I think it's getting late.

I move the amendments to section 25 standing in my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 25, by deleting the words "the Member ceases to hold office and the seat of the Member becomes vacant" and inserting the words "the Chief Electoral Officer must hold a recall referendum in

[ Page 12967 ]

the Member's constituency as soon as practicable within 60 days" therefor.]

[SECTION 25, by deleting subsection (2) and inserting two new subsections therefor to read:

(2) The question submitted to voters on the recall referendum shall be:

 Do you want to recall your Member of the Legislative Assembly, (name of Member). 

(3) The Chief Electoral Officer must report the results of the recall vote to the Member and to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly as soon as possible after counting of the ballots is completed.]

The amendments that the Reform caucus proposes for section 25, along with the amendments in section 23, would implement the three-stage recall process. On the successful achievement of a 12 percent recall petition, the effect of the amendment on section 25 would cause the chief electoral officer to put a question to voters in the constituency. The question would simply be, "Do you want to recall your member of the Legislature?" name the member, and allow voters to vote yes or no. Should that pass by a simple majority of 50 percent plus one of the people who turn out to vote, it would then trigger a by-election in which the recalled member would not be eligible to seek re-election for the period of time until the next election.

In essence, that is the difference between the positions I believe other members have taken and the one we think is fair. It's democratic, and it provides a reasonable threshold to start a recall process. It then provides for voters to vote again in a proper election: do you want to recall your member, yes or no? It provides the Member of the Legislative Assembly and the proponent an opportunity to put forward written arguments as to why the recall should or should not succeed. And when it succeeds, it follows with the standard by-election that all of us are familiar with.

I believe it's the way to achieve workable recall. I am not expecting support from members of the Legislature -- on the government side, especially -- but when we call a division, I am certainly going to find out just where everybody stands on this amendment.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: We've had the debate. This is the three-stage versus two-stage process. We voted on that earlier, and we will vote on it again now.

The member made reference to the recalled member not being able to run in the by-election. That doesn't appear in the amendment that I can see. I want to comment on whether it is or isn't. It is very unlikely that the member would sustain a Charter challenge. The Charter of Rights would inevitably allow that member to run again, should he or she choose to raise a Charter question. I just say that for the record. With that, we may as well have a vote on this one too, and see how it goes.

J. Weisgerber: With a minor breach of our agreement, let me suggest that we pass this amendment, and then we'll put the Charter test and find out whether or not it would work.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

The Chair: We have another amendment to section 25. May I advise members that this one will require a division, and that will happen fairly quickly, I believe. So members may wish to stay here.

[12:30]

On section 25.

J. Dalton: We have a concern with section 25(1)(b), and we have an amendment, which I believe the Clerk has, to amend section 25 by the deletion of section 25(1)(b) in its entirety.

The problem is that the regulations, which of course will follow the passage of this bill, deal with the petitioners' compliance with the government's rules about financing and advertising. But we do not know what those regulations will be; they have not yet been made public. Quite frankly, we cannot support the section as it currently reads until we know the contents of those regulations. That is why I move this amendment to delete section 25(1)(b) in its entirety.

On the amendment.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: As I said earlier in another context, there have been a lot of legitimate differences of opinion in the debate tonight. But on this one, I am really shocked that the Liberals would argue that there should be no spending limits or spending disclosure in respect of recall. That is the effect of the amendment. If the Liberal Party wants to take that line to the public, they are welcome to it.

Interjection.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The member says that's not their intention, but that is the effect of the amendment.

J. Dalton: I think that does invite a response. Obviously, the Liberals are fully supportive of financial responsibility; that's what we are all about. Let me draw a parallel so that the Attorney General can understand where we're coming from. With the Forest Practices Code, the regulations and rules have been making the rounds for several weeks now, if not months. That bill just got through the House the other day -- in fact, maybe it was earlier this evening or yesterday; who knows what day it is anymore. I reiterate that we would like to know what the purpose and contents of the regulations will be. We're not saying that there is no fiscal responsibility over here. We want some accountability. How can we vote for something that is like a ghost, an unknown quantity?

[ Page 12968 ]

That's simply the purpose of suggesting that subsection (b) be deleted.

Amendment negatived on division.

Sections 25 to 28 inclusive approved.

On section 29.

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

[SECTION 29, by deleting subsection (3).] As I read it, if there is any kind of violation of funding regulations or requirements, subsection (3) makes the recall process invalid or invalidates the petition process....

Interjections.

J. Weisgerber: Hon. Chair, I know it's late, but....

The Chair: Pardon me, member. Could members please observe a little decorum so we can hear the comments from the member for Peace River South? Please continue, member.

J. Weisgerber: This subsection invalidates the whole process if there are any irregularities or mistakes in the financial administration around it. I think that is an unreasonable response.

I would refer the Attorney General in particular, but also all interested members, to section 29(2)(g), because it allows penalties to be established for exceeding any limit under the paragraph. If we are saying to people who have gone through this whole process that if a person spent $5, $10, $100 or $500 more than they were allowed, or if they made some technical error around the funding and financing, we are simply going to invalidate it because there was an error, technical or otherwise, then that is inappropriate. It goes overboard. If it weren't for subsection (g) in the previous subsection, I might have some sympathy. Rather than having moved an amendment to delete, I would have made a more appropriate amendment, but given the protections that are in (g), subsection (3) is simply going overboard and is a genuine disservice to the process.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The penalty section really is 29(2)(g). That is the authority for establishing penalties. There needs to be the possibility of the clout that is contained in subsection (3) against significant violations, because otherwise you run the potential risk of people using the penalties as a fee for the violation that they may decide to embark on.

Just so members know, there is no intent to use subsection 29(3) to deal with all the issues. If there are minor violations, then there will be penalties under subsection 29(2)(g), not under subsection 29(3). I appreciate the concern the member has that it is not spelled out at this point, but I reject his proposal.

Amendment negatived.

Section 29 approved on division.

On section 30.

J. Weisgerber: I'd like to move the amendment to section 30 standing in my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 30, by deleting subsection (2) and inserting a new subsection (2) therefor to read:

(2) Regulations made under subsection (1) may:

(a) establish requirements for reporting of the methodology of opinion surveys

(b) restrict the publishing and broadcast of opinion surveys not accompanied by an explanation of the methodology

(c) establish regulations requiring advertisers to offer equitable time and access to advertising but may in no way be used to restrict freedom of speech and expression.]

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Everything the member wants to accomplish, except for the last few words of his amendment -- and I'll come to that in a second -- can be accomplished in the wording of the proposed bill. The reference that it "may in no way be used to restrict freedom of speech and expression" is really not necessary, because under the Charter you can't restrict freedom of speech and expression, in any event. That's a redundant provision, and we have generally not put redundant provisions like that into our legislation. I know the member and his staff have done a lot of work, and they have found some big words to put into the amendment, but we are going to have to say no again.

J. Weisgerber: As we go through these amendments, it's interesting that they are either rejected because the minister disagrees with them or they are rejected because he says the legislation already accomplishes what it sets out to do. I disagree. If the minister reads the amendment he will find that there are significant differences. One deals with requiring the publisher of surveys to advertise the methodology used in the surveys; the other is to regulate the way in which it is done. I disagree. At this late hour I accept the minister's right to disagree, but I have to stand on the point that there is a difference, and that was the only reason we put an amendment forward, not simply for the purpose of having something to put forward in an amendment.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I should apologize to the member, because he is right and I am wrong. In fact, there are some things contained in this section that are not now covered by his provisions. I didn't express it very well, and I wasn't completely right in saying it. My point was that what he wanted to do could be done under what we have, but we obviously have more than the member wanted. So I apologize to him for this.

Amendment negatived on division.

J. Weisgerber: I would like to propose an amendment to section 30 by adding a new subsection (4). Perhaps I could provide a copy of that amendment to the Chair. I again apologize; because of the hour, I haven't had an opportunity to circulate it. But let me read it into the record.

Interjection.

J. Weisgerber: If the member for Burnaby North gets impatient with it, I can assure him that it could be much later in the session before he gets to go home.

The amendment would read:

[SECTION 30, to insert a new subsection (4) to read: "No advertising by the province of British Columbia shall be permitted in

[ Page 12969 ]

any form with respect to any recall petition, initiative petition or initiative vote that in the view of either the proponent or any member is unacceptable in content."]

The purpose of that is to keep government out of this process. During the Charlottetown accord, government shamefully spent massive amounts of public money to advertise the government's side of a referenda question and then limited those people who could advertise on behalf of the other parties. This amendment is the flip side. This amendment says that in a recall process there is no role for the province to play other than providing basic information that would be put out by the chief electoral officer, or material of an informational nature that would be agreed to by both parties. I think it's a sound amendment, and I hope the government would seriously consider accepting the same.

[12:45]

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The House Leader and I were just chatting about this. I haven't had an opportunity to canvass with cabinet or the caucus, but I would expect a fair amount of sympathy to the notion here. I am a little concerned that "the proponent or any member" can make this subjective judgment, and for that reason I am not going to accept the amendment. Given the fact that the section allows us to make regulations with respect to this issue, in section 30(2)(b)(ii) we will establish restrictions on "who may sponsor advertising and opinion surveys." The issue of the government advertising in a way that could affect the outcome of an initiative or recall petition is legitimate, I think, and we will address it in the regulations. I'd like to be able to say that we would accept the amendment, but it isn't cast in a way that we can accept. The principle, I think, is a sound one.

J. Weisgerber: I accept the undertaking of the minister. Just for the minister's information, in looking at it, I suspect that the final words "the proponent or the member" may well be more restrictive and certainly suitable or acceptable to us.

Amendment negatived on division.

On section 30.

G. Campbell: I think the regulations that have been put in place here are onerous, and they may well be unconstitutional in view of a number of court rulings that have been made with regard to this kind of regulation in the past. This gagging legislation is not going to work. For simplicity's sake, I am going to move that we amend section 30 by the deletion of subsection 30(2) in its entirety.

The Chair: Before I recognize the Attorney General, I want to look at that amendment, if I might. The amendment is indeed in order.

On the amendment.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: It may be in order, but it's not complete, because we would have a hole in this section; we'd have subsection (1), and we'd have subsection (3). It's bad drafting on the part of the official opposition. Someone should slap their wrists.

Clearly, any constitutional questions or Charter questions would be dealt with by having the regulations written in a way that ensures that there wouldn't be any problem at all. But taking this subsection out and not giving this legislation the clout that is required to make it work is bizarre. I had always thought the Liberals were progressive on these kinds of issues. Clearly, the new Liberal Party, which is no longer a Liberal Party, takes a view that is quite conservative. It's going to get very confusing in here with half a dozen parties and all the names inappropriately placed in terms of describing what we're actually seeing.

R. Neufeld: That's what I've always said about your party.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Right, you probably have.

In any event, we are not going to accept the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

On section 30.

D. Mitchell: Just one question before we leave part 4, dealing with the financing and advertising of recall. I don't want to ask a question that deals with future policy, but I do know that in the past the governing party has indicated that it is committed to bringing forward comprehensive legislation dealing with election financing, advertising and campaign regulations. The government has not done so yet. Yet in this legislation they bring forward some elements that may anticipate future legislation -- we don't know. Can the Attorney General commit to the committee this evening that if the government comes forward in the future with more comprehensive legislation governing all election campaigns, advertising and financing, it will not have an impact on this? Will this change? Is this simply temporarily in place until the government brings forward something more comprehensive that will also affect recall and initiative?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: That's really a very good question. I can't predict what bills are going to be introduced in future sessions. But clearly, if there's an election act in the next session -- and I hope there will be -- and it contains provisions in respect of financing, which I hope it will, then I hope we will make amendments to this bill to take these powers away from a regulatory power and put them into legislative authority. So the answer to the member's question is that this would more properly -- probably in the member's view and certainly in mine -- be done by legislation rather than by regulation. That will be accomplished by way of a new election act.

Sections 30 to 34 inclusive approved.

On section 35.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I move the amendment to section 35 standing in my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 35, in the proposed section 35 (1) by deleting "or 22 (2) or (3)" and substituting ", 22 (2) or (3), 33 or 34".]

Amendment approved.

Section 35 as amended approved.

On section 36.

[ Page 12970 ]

G. Campbell: I have a question for the Attorney General on section 36(1)(a), with regard to providing false or misleading information. Is this restricted strictly to the information requested under the act? I'm concerned about the interpretation of false or misleading information, if that comes back in terms of something someone said that they shouldn't have, and that is part of the recall or initiative petition. Is it just in terms of the specifics under the act, with regard to the regulations that were set out earlier within the act, that what you provide to the electoral officer is correct information?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The answer is yes.

D. Mitchell: Just one question. The penalties recommended under this section include significant fines and jail terms. Could the Attorney General indicate to the committee where these come from? Are there precedents in criminal law? Where did the exact fines and penalties come from? Are there precedents for these in election law regarding financing, in British Columbia or anywhere else in Canada?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: They too come out of the Municipal Act changes that were passed in this House last year. That's where the model comes from.

Sections 36 to 42 inclusive approved.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper, adding a new section 42.1.

[SECTION 42.1, by adding the following section: Transitional 42.1 During the 35th Parliament, the Select Standing Committee on Justice, Constitutional Affairs and Intergovernmental Relations is deemed to be the select standing committee referred to in this Act.]

Section 42.1 approved.

Sections 43 to 45 inclusive approved.

On section 46.

D. Mitchell: I have one question on section 46, "Commencement." When the Attorney General gave first reading to this bill he made comments in this House and outside of the House about when the bill actually would come into force. He made some comments about how it would be later this year, perhaps in December, before the regulations were drafted. Could he explain that process so that it's very clearly on the record when this bill will come into force?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Our intention is to hear submissions on the regulations from anyone who wants to communicate with us, preferably in writing, about how they would like to have the regulations constructed. We will work over the next four to six months to get those regulations complete, and it is my intention that they be taken to cabinet before the end of the year so that we can have it in place by the end of the year. That was what I said at second reading.

D. Mitchell: Is the Attorney General saying that no recall petition will be possible for commencement in the calendar year 1994?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: That's very likely the case. But very early in the 1995 calendar year we will be able to start something in West Vancouver-Garibaldi.

Section 46 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

[1:00]

Motion approved on the following division:

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Bill 36, Recall and Initiative Act, reported complete with amendments.

The Speaker: When shall the bill be read a third time?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: With leave of the House now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Bill 36, Recall and Initiative Act, read a third time and passed on the following division:

[ Page 12971 ]

Hon. G. Clark: I call committee on Bill 29.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ACT
(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 29; G. Brewin in the chair.

On section 54 (continued).

On the amendment (continued).

The Chair: If history is right, we are on section 54, and there was an amendment on the floor from the hon. member for Peace River North.

Amendment negatived.

M. de Jong: With respect to section 54, it does seem to import certain elements of rules of procedural fairness, natural justice or whatever you want to call it. In the earlier process when we discussed that, the minister indicated that he didn't think that was necessary. I am interested in knowing the rationale for introducing certain elements of those procedural guidelines at this stage when they weren't thought necessary earlier in the legislation -- particularly subsection (3) where guidelines about what sort of evidentiary rules would be in order.

Hon. M. Sihota: I think the difference lies in the fact that the other processes we referred to were more preliminary in nature. In this case, one would want, out of caution, to make it clear because of the more formal nature of the hearings under section 54.

M. de Jong: I have two questions. I'll ask them at the same time, and the minister can deal with them. Would there not be some wisdom, therefore, in simply including a section that said that the rules of procedural fairness will apply?

The second question relates to subsection (5), where the act contemplates the exclusion of certain personnel. I presume that does not include the proponent, and that the proponent would be entitled to remain at all times.

Hon. M. Sihota: The proponent would be there all the time. I suppose that out of an abundance of caution, one could make the changes in the other sections the hon. member referred to. But my sense of it is -- and I think the hon. member would agree with me on this -- that given the court's appetite to read in requirements of natural justice and procedural fairness, it is fairly implicit in those other sections that they have the appearance of some elements of natural justice.

I also think the hon. member is correct when he implicitly says that other sections will be measured against this section. Courts may inquire as to why this section amplifies a bit more than the other section. If we find that the court makes a determination that offends some of the principles of procedural fairness, we may want to reconsider those other sections. Given the inclination of the courts to read in procedural fairness, I don't think it is required in the other sections at this time.

Section 54 approved.

On section 55.

M. de Jong: The section contemplates passing on certain costs to the proponent. The question I have for the minister is: as the bill stands, at what point would the proponent be advised that he is going to be responsible for costs? At what point would he, she or the entity get some indication of what those costs would be?

Hon. M. Sihota: They would be aware as of this point when they see section 55, obviously; there will be some exposure to costs there. They would be aware of the quantum of costs when the regulations are through.

Section 55 approved.

On section 56.

G. Wilson: I have a very quick question with respect to the powers of inquiry that are proposed here. Is it intended that a commissioner may in fact use those powers provided under the Inquiry Act as a supplementary to hearings that may be provided in terms of public hearings? Is a supplementary process intended, or a parallel process?

Hon. M. Sihota: It's not supplemental; they are integral to the hearings themselves.

Sections 56 to 58 inclusive approved.

On section 59.

M. de Jong: I think my question will reveal my lack of knowledge of the process involved here, but with OIC appointments such as this, can the minister indicate if positions of this nature are held open to competitions or if it is strictly an appointment process?

Hon. M. Sihota: That can be done. I don't know whether it will be done in this case. I don't know if we have anyone in mind for the position, but these are determinations that government will make. We are not obliged to advertise. These positions, of course, are made by cabinet.

M. de Jong: Could the minister indicate what the reasoning would be for not holding the position open to some competition or some advertising of its availability?

Hon. M. Sihota: As I indicated, we haven't ruled that out as an option. But this is a very senior position, and governments are free to make determinations with regard to a position of the same quality as, let's say, a deputy minister or assistant deputy minister. It would seem to me that this position would fall into that category of positions.

[1:15]

Sections 59 and 60 approved.

[ Page 12972 ]

On section 61.

M. de Jong: Can the minister indicate how many offices are being contemplated at this stage?

Hon. M. Sihota: There will be a central office. In terms of being able to access the information registry, there are a number of ways in which that can be done without us having to establish satellite offices throughout the regions of the province. Of course, one of the ways in which that can be done is through the single window provided by the government agent's office, where people could access information.

M. de Jong: In budgeting and ascertaining the cost of implementing the scheme that is developed and laid out in this legislation, I presume that the ministry has turned its mind -- insofar as making the process accessible to as many people as possible -- to the question of where these regional satellite offices should be. With the greatest respect, I don't think it's an unfair question at this point to ask where you contemplate putting those regional satellite offices.

Hon. M. Sihota: The reason I hesitated is that I just wanted to double-check with staff.

It's not our intention to establish a series of regional offices throughout the province; it's our intention to have a central office. This provision gives us the flexibility to have some sort of regional offices. I don't think it's fair to assume that we will be establishing regional offices. Rather, I think it is fair to assume that we will using existing government infrastructure -- be it libraries or government agents -- to allow for access to this information.

M. de Jong: That's the impression one gets from subsection (2), and I'm pleased to hear that that is what the minister intends. I take it, therefore, that there would be a request to examine documentation, and it would be forwarded to a designated site in a town.

The other question I have regarding this section is: will the central registry operate in the same way as, for example, the land title office, whereby the filing of the document will be deemed to be notice to all parties concerned who may have standing? Will the deemed notice provision that exists under the Land Title Act also exist under this environmental assessment office?

Hon. M. Sihota: Yes, the filing of the document is the notice.

Section 61 approved.

On section 62.

Hon. M. Sihota: I move the amendment to section 62(2) standing in my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 62 (2), (a) in the proposed paragraph (n) by adding ", report" after "terms of reference", and (b) by adding the following paragraph: (y) any compliance agreement made under section 70.]

The purpose of the amendment is to ensure a complete and accurate list of all documents that will be filed in the project registry. Two additional documents have been added to the project registry list.

Amendment approved.

Section 62 as amended approved.

On section 63.

M. de Jong: What does section 63(2) mean?

Hon. M. Sihota: This allows us to take evidence in the form of videotapes or material that is spoken. As the hon. member knows, from the point of view of aboriginals, quite often oral histories are an important piece of evidence. This will make accommodation for that reality.

Section 63 approved.

On section 64.

W. Hurd: I would like a clarification with respect to section 64, which seems to imply that there is some discretionary ability on the part of the executive director to make information, analysis, plans and records available. Is the suggestion in section 64(a) that there lies with the executive director a discretionary ability to withhold some information from the proponent? Perhaps the minister could clarify the word "may" in section 64(a).

Hon. M. Sihota: This may allow the director to provide evidence or material from another hearing that may be useful with regard to a particular hearing. The requirement with regard to "may" obviously will be read in the context of full disclosure of relevant materials, which the courts read in as a component of the rules of natural justice.

Section 64 approved.

On section 65.

M. de Jong: With respect to the costs that would undoubtedly arise as a result of section 65, would the proponent be responsible for paying those costs?

Hon. M. Sihota: It's contemplated that the budget will be in the assessment office.

Section 65 approved.

On section 66.

M. de Jong: With respect to mediation, who would be responsible for paying the costs of a mediation service? The second question I have is: does the bill provide for the parties submitting to some form of arbitration?

Hon. M. Sihota: I was talking to staff, so I didn't hear your second question. I just got a clarification on that point.

The answer to your question is that we are not contemplating arbitration. With regard to the costs of mediation, in all likelihood they would be borne by government, but I would not want to rule out the possibility of the parties themselves looking at some provision for costs. At this point, the intention is for government to provide that assistance. As the hon. member knows, particularly with regard to these kinds of

[ Page 12973 ]

matters, it is useful to have mediation as a method to expedite a matter.

Section 66 approved.

The Chair: I will interrupt for just a moment, because I have to deliver a message on behalf of all of us to the viewers who may be watching us -- and no doubt thoroughly enjoying this discussion. There will be an interruption of the satellite service between 1:30 a.m. and 2:10 a.m. For service within the precincts, we ask viewers to set your dial to channel 59. Thank you for your indulgence.

On section 67.

G. Wilson: I am tempted to take a couple of minutes until everybody has switched to channel 59 before I ask this question.

I have a problem with section 67 -- although I'm not sure I have it anymore -- that I need to clarify with the minister with regard to proof of identity to a person present on the property. I understand the intent is that an inspector is going to inspect works and activity in connection with the reviewable project. Nevertheless, it would seem that when people are empowered to go onto private property to inspect projects, there should be some form of notification given to somebody who has authority on that project or property. I recognize that if you provide advance notice, you may not have an opportunity to inspect all the works in a form and manner that you may want to see them. In other words, somebody could fix it up so that it looks great when you are there, and then it might be quite different when you are gone. By the same token, if you are empowering somebody to enter private property for the purpose of inspection, surely there should be some notice provision given to somebody who has authority for the project or ownership of the land, rather than just any person present on the property. I wonder if the minister might comment about that.

Hon. G. Clark: I want to advise the House that the satellite transmission is not going to be available between 1:30 a.m. and 2:15 a.m., so unfortunately the Legislature won't be televised at that time. It's something to do with the O.J. Simpson thing and the Anik satellite being down. I just saw it on the screen, so I am advising members.

The Chair: We had a message which also advised, for the minister's information, that channel 59 will carry this.

Hon. M. Sihota: The only person I know who watches this stuff regularly is my mother, so she may well be watching it on channel 59. Hi, mom.

Interjections.

Hon. M. Sihota: She does. She doesn't exactly understand English, so I always wonder why she watches. At least she knows where her son is most of the time.

Interjections.

Hon. M. Sihota: I'm sorry if I woke you folks up over there.

The Chair: Order, please.

Hon. M. Sihota: In any event, there was a question in relation to notification. There are situations when an emergency arises -- a particular problem at a site. I don't think it would be in our interest to have someone spending hours preparing the appropriate documents for notification and serving them. But in the case of emergencies and other situations the hon. member referred to, it would be appropriate to enter without notification.

M. de Jong: I have a slightly different concern about this section. I am not quarrelling with the right of the inspector to enter onto the land to ensure that the provisions of an act are being complied with. However, this act provides jurisdiction to the ministry over an extended period of time after the commencement and, indeed, certain sections after the completion of a project. I am not so sure it's entirely proper to be granting inspectors or any organ of the state the right to enter property without having some reasonable and probable grounds to believe that there is non-compliance, especially after approval has been granted. The way the section is worded -- and maybe the minister would address this -- seems to suggest that the right to simply attend upon private property is ongoing and is never extinguished. At some point, I think the state has to abide by the standard requirements that there be some reason -- reasonable, probable grounds being the standard phrase. Otherwise, it's an ongoing right to simply enter upon property.

Hon. M. Sihota: There are two points. First, I think the limitation is found in the words "For any purpose related to the administration or enforcement of this Act." If someone enters for a purpose that is not consistent with the intentions of the legislation or for reasons that are not related to the enforcement or administration of this act, then it seems to me that they would have wrongly entered and would face the consequences of securing evidence that would be inadmissable in court.

[1:30]

Second, there is a value to having preventive examinations of property. Again, as long as it is consistent with the intention of the legislation, it would be okay.

Sections 67 to 70 inclusive approved.

On section 71.

G. Wilson: A legitimate concern has been put to me about the wording in sections 71 to 78 -- which in effect deal with suspension, cancellation and amendment of certificates, and with aspects of how that will work -- and about the proposition of a default situation and the opportunity for someone to advance an appeal.

I have looked through this act and read it backwards and forwards, and it seems that once the minister makes an order, that pretty much seems to be a final ruling. I wonder if the minister can tell us whether or not there is a mechanism to look back at how a cancellation could be appealed.

Hon. M. Sihota: Section 73, which we have not yet got to, requires that a hearing under section 71 be commenced as soon as practicable after the minister serves notice on the holder. That would put certain constraints on the minister. Second, if the minister acts in a way that is inappropriate or inconsistent with the provisions of the

[ Page 12974 ]

legislation, then there are always opportunities for judicial review of how the minister exercised his discretion.

G. Wilson: The problem with section 73.... I don't know if we want to jump ahead to it, but it might expedite the situation if....

The Chair: Hon. member, there are others who have questions as well.

G. Wilson: Okay, I'll wait.

R. Neufeld: Section 71(1) says: "For any of the reasons listed in subsection (2) the minister by order may (a) suspend in whole or in part the rights of the proponent under a project certificate or cancel a project approval certificate...." Then we go down to subsection (2)(c): "...the holder of the certificate has been convicted of an offence under this Act." I understand that. If someone is convicted under the act and then reapplies for another certificate for another job or something later on, will that in any way affect that person's ability to get another certificate?

Hon. M. Sihota: No.

Section 71 approved.

On section 72.

M. de Jong: With respect to 72(3), I note the presence of the 15-day limitation period there. The observation I wanted to make at some point during our debate on this bill is that there are few -- and I've said this before -- sections of the bill itself that contain specific time frames. The only sections that do are those that place the onus on the proponent or applicant. I pointed it out before, and I'll do it again for the record: I think there's an inherent unfairness in that. I think the minister has my point.

Section 72 approved.

On section 73.

G. Wilson: I come back to the comment that I made earlier in a question to the minister. It would seem with this 15-day period that there's an opportunity for the individual to be heard, essentially, by the minister. Given the fact that the minister may order a cancellation of the condition -- that's under the next section, which I can't get to -- I think the minister is saying that if after the 15-day period the minister hears from the individual and for whatever reason decides that the cancellation should stand, the only resource at that point is to litigate through the courts. Is that correct?

Hon. M. Sihota: Yes.

Section 73 approved.

Sections 74 and 75 approved.

On section 76.

W. Hurd: With respect to section 76(3), I wonder if the minister can clarify why that refers back only to subsection (2)(c). I'll read the passage, because I think it's important: "A person does not commit an offence under subsection (2) (c) if at the time of the statement the person did not know that the statement was false or misleading and, exercising due diligence, could not have known that the statement was false or misleading." What is the rationale for this applying to statements only? Could the same rationale not apply to the documentation referred to under section 5 of the act? I think there's a recognition in this section that there would be examples where, even after exercising due diligence, the petitioner or the person seeking the permit would, not of their own volition, commit an offence. So I wonder why the reference is only to statements and not to any other types of documentation that the applicant may provide. Clearly the potential for remediation under subsection (2)(c) and subsection (3) would apply to just about any information provided to the ministry.

Hon. M. Sihota: Well, it says "makes a statement in a record filed." That answers your question.

W. Hurd: Maybe I could ask this question more appropriately under the fines. The act is confusing in the sense that one has to go all the way back to section 5, basically, to look at the prohibition against proceeding without approval. Could the minister assure me that section 76(3) does apply to the prohibition under section 5? Again, where due diligence is exercised, it would apply back to the prohibition against proceeding without approval. I'm just trying to clarify that, because in this section we're moving back to section 76(2) and then all the way back to a prohibition against proceeding without approval in section 5.

Hon. M. Sihota: It would seem to me only logical that if one were to argue that they had engaged in due diligence -- some diligence, not even due diligence -- it would mean that they would have to do at least what's required in section 5. I think the hon. member is suggesting that someone may inadvertently or accidentally proceed with a project and, in making an honest but mistaken calculation, may have forgotten about section 5. If the argument is that you did not exercise due diligence, a limited degree of diligence would get you to section 5.

M. de Jong: My question relates to section 76(4), which I think it's fair to say imports a fairly broad concept of vicarious liability for those associated with the proponent, be it an individual or some manner of corporate entity. The minister won't be surprised to hear that that is the concept of responsibility and vicarious liability that members on this side of the House would seek to have imposed on certain societies that make their home in Nanaimo. I'm not necessarily disagreeing with the logic behind holding individuals within the proponent organizations responsible, but I wonder if the minister can offer an explanation and some assurance that that degree of vicarious liability will withstand a challenge or withstand the tests that have occurred in the past.

Hon. M. Sihota: I think it will. There's obviously an increased reach here, which perhaps wasn't traditional in earlier forms of legislation. Obviously if someone takes umbrage with it, they have the right to raise those constitutional issues. We're confident that this will stand the test. In addition to that, this is a section that the

[ Page 12975 ]

business community, which was obviously engaged in stakeholder discussions, was aware of, and there were no significant stakeholders' comments with regard to this section. So I think they accept the new standards.

I will resist the obvious political temptation with regard to concerns around Nanaimo, except to say that sometimes people's behaviour is judged by contemporary standards although it occurred at a time when standards and expectations were different.

Sections 76 and 77 approved.

On section 78.

R. Neufeld: Just a quick note on section 78. I assume that the stakeholders agreed with this. The minister is probably going to say that they did. I just want to get it on record that regardless of the severity of the offence, the first fine is $100,000, and it's $200,000 after that. That's also applicable to individuals. I wonder why we would do that. It's not common to fine -- as well as imprison -- individuals the same as you would a corporation. I just want to get it on the record that I don't quite agree with that.

Hon. M. Sihota: You're wrong in assuming that the stakeholders all agreed to it. The environmental stakeholders actually argued that the penalties in this section are below those set out in the Waste Management Act and other environmental statutes -- just to put it in some kind of perspective. That's where the stakeholder concern came from.

Section 78 approved.

On section 79.

M. de Jong: Where section 79 indicates that a conviction for an offence under this act doesn't relieve a person from other liability, is the act referring to criminal liability, civil liability or both, or liability pursuant to one of the enabling statutes referred to in this act? If that is the case, does the minister not have a concern about the standard double-jeopardy argument being raised?

[1:45]

Hon. M. Sihota: This section is intended -- and I say this consciously -- to deal with the need to prevent one from escaping other responsibilities under the conditions of the certificate. In other words, a person may be obliged to certain conditions under the certificates and orders that have been granted under this legislation. As I understand it, the intention of section 79 is not to relieve a person liability with regard to those orders or certificates made under this enactment. So I don't think the issue of double jeopardy arises. If one were to make that argument, obviously the court would take into account the framing of this legislation, some of the comments I just made and the general law as relates to double jeopardy.

Sections 79 to 81 inclusive approved.

On section 82.

M. de Jong: Let us assume that restitution were ordered following a conviction. Who is that restitution payable to? I recognize that each circumstance may be different, but is this restitution contemplated being paid to the Crown, or would it possibly be to a public entity or one of the environmental groups? I am trying to get a sense of which group the minister would contemplate this restitution being paid to.

Hon. M. Sihota: In all likelihood, the restitution would go to remedying the negative impact on the environment. It could go to a third party that was injured as a result of the actions of an individual in relation to the environment.

M. de Jong: Would it be incumbent on that third party to make application and to demonstrate the quantum of the damage sought?

Hon. M. Sihota: The normal rules of court would apply. If there was physical damage to the environment or to a heritage site, someone would have to state their case with regard to the quantum of damage. In that kind of situation the court would use its discretion.

Sections 82 to 89 inclusive approved.

On section 90.

R. Neufeld: Does the limitation or the extension set out in section 90 mean that the minister could also...? I am referring back to section 81 to do with fines or offences. Does this mean that this section applies to the limitation period for laying charges under section 81? After I got all that mumbled out, I guess that's what I mean.

Hon. M. Sihota: I understand your mumbling. This primarily applies to the extension of time under the regulations with regard to time frames to promote efficiency and timeliness, and to accommodate extraordinary circumstances that may arise.

Section 90 approved.

On section 91.

M. de Jong: I don't know if the minister has had an opportunity to review with his staff the concern that I discussed with them earlier this evening. The language causes me a fair amount of concern, in particular the words: "...the Lieutenant Governor in Council by order may vary...one or more provisions of this Act or the regulations...." It is an emergency provision, but those words -- and I don't know if they appear in other legislation; I haven't been able to find other legislation where they do -- suggest that cabinet can alter what this House has passed as law. Whether it is applicable here in this legislative framework.... One can contemplate an emergency arising where alterations are needed -- and there may have to be flexibility -- but the wording here suggests that cabinet will take steps to alter what this Legislature has passed into law. That's inappropriate, in my view.

Hon. M. Sihota: The intention of this section is not to provide for an amendment within the legislation so as to allow amendments to the legislation. It does, however, give discretion to government to vary the process. That discretion under this section would be exercised in situations such as economic emergencies.

The best real-life example that I can think of during my time as a member of government would be the Westar situation in the Kootenays, where a company was prepared to take over Westar -- I believe in that case it was Fording -- and run the operation there; there were 2,000 jobs held in the balance. If we did not have a provision similar to this, we would not have been able to apply those facts to this legislation and expedite the transfer of the mine from one operation to another and protect those jobs. I think that would frustrate the objectives of the job commissioner, let alone the public

[ Page 12976 ]

interest variables, which would open this legislation to ridicule if it were to prevent something as logical as the efficient transfer of assets, as was required in the Fording case. I remember very acutely the intensity at that time with regard to that situation, because I happened to have had the privilege of serving as Minister of Labour. We had a Labour Code before this House at the time, and there were clear and appropriate concerns with regard to the need to expedite that arrangement.

I can see that those kinds of situations may arise in the future. If government were to exercise these emergency powers in a way that amounted to an amendment to the act, and if it deemed something to be an emergency when it really wasn't, I think others would comment -- including people in this Legislature -- with regard to the government's wrongful exercise of that power.

M. de Jong: I'm not quarrelling with the fact that circumstances may arise where it is necessary to do just what the minister has described. In fact, the act elsewhere contemplates the extension of time lines. I reviewed federal legislation with the minister's staff, which takes an approach that in effect allows for opting out where certain projects are concerned. This section itself places an onus on the ministry to provide written reasoning. Reasons must be given, so there is a pretty heavy onus on the ministry to explain the action.

I just want to emphasize to the minister that my concern is with the manner in which the language is employed here. The way to do what the minister wants can be accomplished, but the language here suggests that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may somehow tamper with or alter the legislation itself. The language is incorrect. If the minister can point to other legislation where that language is employed, I'll be happy to look at it. I'm not quarrelling with what the minister wants to preserve as an option for the government; I'm saying that the language here is incorrect because it grants powers to the executive branch that it shouldn't have.

Hon. M. Sihota: The legislation allows the government to vary the provisions of this act, and I don't think that's an amendment of the act. It allows it to vary the processes to deal with the kinds of situations I dealt with. I draw the hon. member's attention to subsection (4), which obliges the government -- which is also unusual -- to identify the nature of the emergency and give reasons for the order.

M. de Jong: I've already acknowledged that the section places an onus on cabinet to set out reasons for what, in effect, is extraordinary action. But there's a significant difference between building into legislation the right to opt out of or suspend a process and granting the executive branch the right to vary the legislation itself. I've made my point. I've asked the minister if he could alert me to other legislation where this wording is employed. If he can do that, please do; if he can't, let me know. I don't want to belabour the point if the minister and I have a significantly different view. I feel sufficiently strongly about this that I'll ask for a division on this section. I think the minister is missing the point here; I think the wording is incorrect.

Hon. M. Sihota: First of all, I want you to understand that I realize that you feel strongly about this provision. I detect that not from what staff told me but, rather, from the nature of your comments.

Secondly, with regard to your point, there is no equivalent provision in the Mine Development Assessment Act or the Utilities Commission Act. Thirdly, there are, however, many blanket, wide-open provisions in other legislation that generally allow government to vary. Our thinking was that if we put in those traditional provisions, which are wide-open and not limited in any way whatsoever, we would be open to attack to put in an open-ended variation provision at the end of the legislation. Therefore we chose to narrow the exercise of that discretion and allow for some modification where we thought there were appropriate circumstances for that. It's not our conclusion that earlier provisions of the legislation allow us to attend to the kinds of scenarios I referred to.

If we had left the provision open, as in the broad variation terms which exist in many legislative enactments that have been before this House, we would have been open to ridicule from members opposite for, on the one hand, having argued for stringent environmental regulations and, in the end, having left a clause in that allowed us to vacate all the principles we had argued for in the previous 90 sections. Hence we made the decision to provide for this modification of what is generally a broad provision.

I think the hon. member should congratulate the government, quite frankly, for having come forward with this type of language in this section. It represents a discernible departure from the kind of language that has been employed in other statutes. Therefore, inasmuch as I understand and have some respect for what the hon. member is saying and understand his concern, if I happen to be in this chamber at the time I would be the first to argue against an imprudent use of this power. In addition to that, we have gone further by providing for section 91(4), which the hon. member acknowledges. But let us not overlook the importance of....

Interjection.

Hon. M. Sihota: The member for Okanagan, who knows me very well, I am sure is impressed that I am actually giving a rational speech instead of a political one. That happens sometimes at 2 o'clock in the morning. That will change, I can assure you. This is only a temporary aberration. I will be quite happy some other time to give you my standard speech on the rich and powerful, and who represents whom.

[2:00]

In any event, in this case we went further in this legislation to put in a provision which I think is unique. It places an onus on the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to define the nature of the emergency and then to give reasons for that order. Think about that for a moment. Under a general variation clause in this House, there would be a lot of rhetoric and a lot of fur flying with regard to the points I made and the ridicule that would come.

In this section we have placed a provision for explanation or accountability, which is absent in most other legislative enactments. It seems to me that by requiring the identification of the emergency and then the reasons for the order, we provide ample opportunity for members in this chamber to inquire of the government its reasons for the emergency. In other words, a government cannot willy-nilly vary the provisions. They are limited first by sections 91(1) to 91(3). To make it very clear to cabinet that it has some responsibilities, we then put in

[ Page 12977 ]

section 91(4). That is not seen in legislation regularly. My concern would be that future governments who are inclined to be less sensitive to environmental reasons would deem every situation to be an emergency. Therefore, by putting in this provision, we prevent abuse of the variation power.

Section 91 approved.

On section 92.

G. Wilson: What on earth does section 92(2)(l) mean? It says: "...providing that a provision of this Act, or of the regulations, does not apply to or in respect of reviewable projects and prescribing circumstances in which or conditions on which the provision is made inapplicable under this paragraph."

Hon. M. Sihota: The answer is: go to law school, and you'll figure it out. Is that good enough?

In the event of a project as opposed to an activity, this would allow us to prescribe conditions that would say that certain regulations with regard to an activity are not applicable.

Section 92 approved.

On section 93.

Hon. M. Sihota: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 93

(a) by adding the following subsection:

(3.1) An application or matter must be continued and disposed of under this Act as an application for a project approval certificate if

(a) immediately before this subsection comes into force, the application or matter pertains to a project that

(i) is a type of project for which one or more approvals under other enactments are required, and

(ii) is the subject of an existing proposal made by a person who does not have all of the required approvals under other enactments, and (b) on the date this section comes into force, the project is a reviewable project. ,

(b) by deleting the proposed subsection (4) (a) and (b) and substituting the following:

(a) specifying the step in the review process under this Act to which an application or matter described in subsection (3) or (3.1) must proceed, or

(b) varying the review process to the extent necessary to accommodate the review under this Act of that application or matter. , and

(c) by deleting the proposed subsection (6) and substituting the following:

(6) Records that before the coming into force of this section were filed or submitted

(a) under the Utilities Commission Act, the Mine Development Assessment Act or the major project review process, or

(b) in support of an application or matter referred to in subsection (3.1),

 may be accepted by the executive director in full or partial fulfillment of the requirements of this Act.]

The purpose of the amendment, as I'm sure all hon. members realize, is to ensure sufficient flexibility to accommodate projects currently undergoing review under an existing non-legislative review process, which will become reviewable projects when the legislation is brought into force. This provision will allow for projects to be slotted into the appropriate place in the environmental assessment process, so that work previously undertaken under the previous process will be attributed to the review under the act, resulting in a fair and more efficient transition of these types of projects. The addition of subsection (3)(1) for a project currently undergoing a review under a non-legislative review process is consistent with the provisions in subsection (3) for energy, mining and industrial projects.

I apologize to Hansard; I read that so fast. I have the note and could probably provide it to Hansard if required.

Amendment approved.

Section 93 as amended approved.

Sections 94 to 110 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. M. Sihota: I thank members for their indulgence. I wish to again thank Hansard for putting up with us, and the Sergeant-at-Arms' staff for being with us this evening. With that said, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; D. Lovick in the chair.

Bill 29, Environmental Assessment Act, reported complete with amendments.

Deputy Speaker: When shall the bill be read a third time?

Hon. M. Sihota: With leave of the House now, hon. Speaker.

Leave granted.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Bill 29, Environmental Assessment Act, read a third time and passed on the following division:

[ Page 12978 ]

Hon. G. Clark: It is with great trepidation that I ask leave to call committee on Bill 55.

Leave granted.

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT (No. 3), 1994

The House in committee on Bill 55; D. Lovick in the chair.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

On section 3.

F. Gingell: Section 3 pushes up the cap on the amount of money the government may use in the Industrial Development Incentive Act. It has gone up pretty dramatically. I would like to suggest that you've done two or three things. Fairly substantial numbers have been budgeted every year. In 1990-91 you budgeted $89 million and spent $34 million. In 1991-92 you budgeted $90 million, but spent only $47 million. In 1992-93 the government budgeted $58 million and spent only $14 million. In 1993-94 you budgeted for $40 million and spent only $5.7 million. We've already had in an earlier act this year an increase to the cap of $11 million. You now want to increase that by an additional $54 million. You've budgeted to spend $63 million. If you add all those things up, you now have a budget of $117 million that's not included in any vote, because it happens to be statutory expenditures. Could the minister please advise us what he plans on doing with 20 times the amount of money in this current year than was spent last year?

Hon. G. Clark: I didn't entirely follow that, so let me try to give a different interpretation for the member. First, there was about $246 million in the industrial incentive fund under the legislative cap. I want members to know that it is fully allocated, in the sense that money has been loaned or guaranteed under the Industrial Development Incentive Act -- most of which was done prior to us coming to office -- for Three Buoys Houseboat Builders Ltd., for Fibreco Pulp Co. to start a pulp mill in the north and for a variety of other things. Those are outstanding, and we are there. We have given out very few concessionary loans or commercial loans since we came to office. We did give a $25 million loan guarantee for Canadian Airlines. Pretty well all of that comes under this section, unless we make a commercial loan by Treasury Board or something -- with the endowment fund in the past or with some other transaction.

[2:15]

So we have a fully allocated cap. We've been most active, and continue to be active, with the job protection commissioner. The job protection commissioner, as you know, will go in at the request of the parties and help to save an industry if it's believed by a business case analysis that the industry will survive over time -- in other words it has a viability, but there's some temporary hurdle. Some concessions have to be made by labour, by the banks and by other parties -- B.C. Hydro, etc. All that's in the act. Often part of that is some financing. We have maxed out on the cap, and so to make any job protection commission loans, we need to increase it. The question then is how much. We need to increase it by $6 million for previously approved projects. We anticipate up to another $10 million coming up this year. For example, right now we are negotiating with the Prince Rupert Fishermen's Cooperative Association to try to save 500 person-jobs there; the member from Prince Rupert is not here. Right now the proposal is that we lend $5 million to J.S. McMillan to take over that plant. We don't have the ability to do that now. We need the cap raised to allow that.

In addition, we have some other transactions. On top of that -- and the main reason for this amendment -- the Premier announced that there would be an allocation from the industrial incentive fund of $12 million to deal with CORE adjustments on Vancouver Island, should we desire this tool to lever some private sector investment to deal with job displacement. Beyond that, hon. member -- because I haven't got up to the $50 million we are listing -- this is only a cap. This is not an appropriation, so we have no intention of moving up to the cap. It was legislatively moved to $300 million to give, for the next few years, the ability to the job protection commissioner or any extraordinary ability of government. That's the purpose of the amendment today.

F. Gingell: This year's budget documents showed that you intended to make disbursements of $63 million. My understanding from reading this is that to accomplish that $63 million, you had to increase the cap by $11 million, which is what you did. You brought it up to $246 million in an earlier act that we already passed this year. This is an additional amount of $54 million: $63 million and $54 million is $117 million.

Hon. G. Clark: I appreciate now what the member is saying. The member is absolutely correct that we needed to increase the cap to accommodate what's in the budget. This increase doesn't mean there is a corresponding increase to the budget documents that we will expense. It means that we would have the ability to increase that $63 million should the job protection commissioner advocate the saving of, in this case, Prince Rupert Co-op, which isn't in that number, or in the case of any CORE-related investments. We are not changing from the budget document at the moment, but we are increasing the cap, which would allow us to increase it, should we desire to.

F. Gingell: Up to $117 million.

Hon. G. Clark: From $63 million to $117 million; that's correct.

F. Gingell: Perhaps the minister could give me the commitment to send me a list of the accounts that make up the existing balances.

Hon. G. Clark: I have that for the member, but it's buried somewhere in my office. I will provide that forthwith.

Sections 3 to 6 inclusive approved.

On section 7.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I have a major amendment which is not on the order paper. In section 7, it is to delete the number "277" and replace it with the number "227."

Amendment approved.

[ Page 12979 ]

On section 7 as amended.

J. Dalton: We almost had a flutter over here, thinking maybe the AG came to his senses and was going to withdraw this section or do something meaningful.

Putting that aside, we are on the record through second reading, estimates and questions.... I could go on forever commenting on what's wrong with these amendments, but let me concentrate on two aspects. They both deal with correspondence to the Attorney General on this topic, either specifically or in general.

First -- and I believe I commented about this one day in question period -- as the Attorney General knows, he doesn't have a lot of allies out there regarding these changes to the Legal Services Society. I won't specifically read it into the record, but the AG knows that Harry Rankin, among others, went on record on April 28 as opposing these changes and called for the AG's resignation. In case the Chair starts to consider that I might be out of order, let me make reference to section 7 specifically, and to a letter dated February 15 of this year to the Attorney General from Robert Johnston, QC, who is the treasurer of the Law Society of B.C. I might add that it's our understanding that later today the benchers of the Law Society will be meeting on this very topic, because they have serious concerns.

Mr. Johnston wrote a very extensive letter to the Attorney General, outlining many of the things leading up to where we are right now. Specifically, on page 4 of his letter, he comments -- and this really gets to the heart of section 7 of Bill 55.... Of course, he didn't know at the time what might be coming down the pipeline, but his letter expresses the fears of what might be coming. He wrote: "To the extent that this position" -- the position, of course, being that of the Law Society as expressed by Mr. Johnston, the treasurer -- "deals with the powers to appoint to the Legal Services Society board of directors is also the position of the benchers and has been since the resolution of November, 1992...."

The next paragraph is of the most interest: "Insofar as the powers to appoint directors to the Legal Services Society board go, the Law Society does not and cannot agree with a proposal that would see any interest group -- and I include community law offices and native community law offices as interest groups -- in the appointment process." That is the very thing we argued yesterday -- I was going to say earlier today, but that would be wrong -- in second reading on this.

It is very clear that not only does the Law Society have major difficulties with the restructuring of the board, but also through the treasurer, they're on record as saying that the very thing the AG commented on earlier in second reading is not so. They're opposed to the two directors coming from the Native Community Law Offices' Association, and to the two directors from the Association of Community Law Offices. The Law Society hoped that it would be able to continue the good relations between itself and the government which they had at one time. Those relations have clearly broken down. The partnership has dissolved; the marriage is over. I hope this Attorney General will consider not just the remarks of the opposition but also, more importantly, the concerns of the profession -- the Law Society and, as we know, the legal aid lawyers. We're clearly going to be voting against this restructuring, and I would say that the section should be withdrawn entirely. Dump it.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm not going to recanvass second reading debate. It would be inappropriate and out of order. But I need to refer to one thing the member said when he quoted Mr. Johnston's letter. Mr. Johnston argued that groups that have an interest in legal aid should not participate on the board of directors. Last year the expenditure in legal aid was less than $100 million, but it was in the nineties. Of that, $71 million was paid to an interest group that appoints seven of the 14 members on the board of directors. I'm puzzled -- and I have been from the beginning -- as to why the lawyers would argue that a group that has an interest shouldn't be on the board, when they're also arguing that they should continue to have 50 percent of the appointees. That argument is incomprehensible to me. They argue that somehow they are not an interest group, but the community that is involved in boards of directors running community law offices is an interest group. I have spent two years trying to understand that argument. I continue to fail to understand it, and I am disappointed that the opposition would adopt it.

The Chair: I have given both sides considerable opportunity to discuss section 7. Insofar as it deals with changing the provisions on the appointment of directors, section 7 takes us to the principles. Insofar as we have had a protracted debate on the principles of this legislation, it seems to me we don't need to say much more on section 7. If there are technical questions, they are certainly in order.

J. Dalton: I appreciate your direction, and I understand. The main concern that I wish to express.... Perhaps we are getting away from the technicality in section 7 and more into the principle, but I submit that the principle and the technicality are intertwined. The Attorney General surely must realize that he is the chief law enforcement officer of this province. An ex officio bencher of the Law Society has to get along with that organization, and right now things are coming unglued. The comments made in this six-page letter from Mr. Johnston clearly demonstrate that, and that letter was written on February 15.

[2:30]

If the Attorney General thinks that putting this section through.... I strongly encourage him to withdraw this -- dump it. We are happy with the rest of the bill, other than section 8, with which we had some reservations. This is a no-win situation. The legal aid lawyers have withdrawn their services for this month, and the Law Society is up in arms, yet the Attorney General tells us that everything is fine and that it's an independent decision -- which it isn't. He has clearly orchestrated it through Tim Agg, Dennis Cocke and others -- if I am permitted to use names -- and that's the bottom line.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I won't say much, either. I have received a significant number of letters on both sides of this issue. On the side that maintains the status quo, I have received letters from dozens of lawyers, and no one else. On the side in favour of involving the community, I have received dozens -- perhaps close to a hundred -- of letters from a wide variety of people from dozens of different professions and backgrounds in many communities around British Columbia. Clearly this is one of those issues where one group in our society feels that the advantages and benefits they have had may not be quite as luxuriant as they have been in the past. No one likes change. Whenever change happens, the people who

[ Page 12980 ]

are affected by it generally complain. I don't blame them for that, but it doesn't mean that I am going to accept what they say.

M. de Jong: I presume there is a nexus between what the Attorney General purports to do by altering the makeup of the Legal Services Society board and his intention to proceed in the manner that he has indicated with the changes contemplated in the delivery of legal aid services in the province. There are a couple of things that need clarification, one emanating from what the Attorney General said during the course of second reading debate dealing specifically with this section. I think the Attorney General very purposely left the impression that organizations like the Association of Legal-aid Lawyers were not forthcoming with their own responses, alternatives and plans for how to address this.

The Attorney General referred to a meeting he had with the representatives of that organization. I think that meeting took place on March 30, because I met with the same group immediately after that. The Attorney General indicated that he heard nothing in the way of an alternative from that organization. The letter from the Attorney General, a copy of which was provided to me by the president of that organization, is dated May 5, 1994. It thanks Mr. Griffiths for his letter dated April 15, setting out the proposed options of the association. This comment is included: "I do not believe that your current plan encompasses the essential elements that I am seeking. I believe that the best plan for all British Columbians is the one currently proposed by the Legal Services Society."

The Attorney General expressed some surprise that the trial lawyers' association wouldn't proceed beyond that. The trial lawyers' association was told by the Attorney General on May 5 not to bother. They were told that the plan had been selected. By the way, the information I have is that that is not what representatives of the Association of Legal-aid Lawyers were told when they met with the minister. They left that meeting with the distinct impression that they were going to be provided with an opportunity and that the minister hadn't made up his mind. In fact, he had made up his mind.

The minister shouldn't be surprised that he didn't receive further correspondence or submissions after that, because he told that group on May 5, 1994, not to bother. He told them that he was going to proceed with the plan that was presented to him by Mr. Agg, and he told them not to bother making any further submissions. So when the Attorney General defends his realignment of the Legal Services Society on the basis that the lawyers most directly involved didn't care enough or weren't prepared to make submissions, that is just not true. The Attorney General said: "I'm proceeding with my plan" -- part of which is embodied in the section we are debating now -- "because no one else bothered to present any alternative." Why would they? The Attorney General said on May 5 not to bother because he had made up his mind. He made up his mind on the basis of some faulty information.

He talks about the drastic increase in costs to the legal aid system. Sure, there were increases in costs. I don't know how this proposal to change the makeup of the board is going to change that. Maybe the Attorney General can indicate to the committee how the issue of escalating costs is going to be addressed by changing the makeup of the board of the Legal Services Society. The Attorney General mentions all the sources of support for this. He is not getting support from the Elizabeth Fry Society or the John Howard Society for the radical change in the delivery of services.

Interjection.

M. de Jong: The Attorney General says that is not the case. That is probably not the case because the Attorney General is relying on representations made to him by like-minded individuals who sit in his office. But in the field, there is no support for these changes.

Let's deal with the section. How is the cost issue going to be addressed by the changes the Attorney General is proposing for the makeup of the board of directors?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: There is no cost at all involved in the appointment of these 15 directors.

The Chair: Before I recognize the member for Matsqui, I just want to caution members that as your servant in this chamber, I have very clear rules governing what we are allowed to do in committee. The line of questioning being pursued by the member for Matsqui has nothing whatsoever to do with section 7 of this bill and what the committee is charged with doing. I have to give the member that caution. Unless his questions suddenly take on a whole new dimension, they are going to be out of order.

M. de Jong: Hon. Chair, I asked the Attorney General how the amendment to the Legal Services Society Act, which would radically alter the makeup of that board, relates to his concerns regarding the cost of the delivery of legal aid services. If that's going to be ruled out of order, I would like to hear that. I can't think of a more pertinent question, and we haven't had an answer.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The changes in the structure have nothing whatsoever to do with cost. They have everything to do with the government's desire to have the partnership, which has heretofore been between lawyers and government, extended so that it is a partnership between lawyers, government and the community. That's all this section is about.

M. de Jong: Will the Attorney General indicate the extent of the consultation that took place with the former exclusive partner in this process before embarking upon these amendments?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Following the Tim Agg report in September 1992, there were quite a number of meetings. I can't tell the member the exact number, but there many phone calls and quite a number of meetings with the then treasurer Peter Leask, his successor Brian Wallace, Brian's successor Bob Johnston and other benchers during that two-year period, and with many others active in the legal community. How many discussions and meetings there were, I can't say, but it feels like there were literally many dozens of them.

M. de Jong: Is the Attorney General able to indicate to the committee the extent to which there was consent from the Law Society representatives or the representatives from the legal-aid trial lawyers' association to these proposed amendments?

[ Page 12981 ]

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I don't think I could state that there was consent; I wasn't seeking consent. I was involved in a consultation process that went on for almost two years. I think the latter organization the member is referring to is the Association of Legal-aid Lawyers, not the Trial Lawyers Association. Neither the benchers nor the association have given me consent to do this. Rather, it is a responsibility of the Legislature to make these determinations.

M. de Jong: This is the final point I'm going to make on this, because it was an issue raised by the Attorney General in the past in embarking upon this whole range of changes -- this one included -- that has arisen as a result of the Agg report and recommendations, and that is the unanimous vote that took place at the Legal Services Society earlier which the Attorney General refers to time and time again. The Attorney General knows that there was tremendous controversy surrounding that vote on the basis that many of the individuals who participated in that vote were under the impression that they were voting on the principle to explore this matter further and to embark on the implementation, at best, of several pilot projects. The minister has received that correspondence. He knows that was the case, and for him to suggest otherwise just isn't a valid comment on the process that was undertaken.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: If the member is going to be out of order, I will be too, for a moment. I will simply say that these are distinguished lawyers who are well educated, for the most part, with at least seven years of post-secondary education. Earlier in second reading I read the motion that was passed unanimously -- twice. If those individuals didn't know what they were voting on and later decided to renege on their decision, that's not on my shoulders. But it's true that several -- not all -- of the members of the board would have perhaps liked to cast their vote differently at the time, had they realized the reaction they were going to get from their colleagues. They didn't; they voted 12 to zero, and the society is continuing with its initiatives. That's out of my hands.

J. Dalton: I would like to make one further point. In response to one of my colleague's questions, the Attorney General talked about consultation, and of course, consultation has resulted in this amendment to section 7. Unfortunately, the consultation seems to have been very one-sided. If I may, I'll just make reference to one other point Bob Johnston made in his letter to the Attorney General. He commented on a telephone conversation of February 9 of this year, when they spoke about appointments to the board -- in particular, the appointment of Tim Agg. This section deals with other appointments that may be made to the board. Mr. Johnston said to the Attorney General that if the appointment was made, it would polarize the board of the Legal Services Society.

[2:45]

That's the point I made in estimates, if the Attorney General would recall. I said that it was clearly a conflict of interest and should not have been done. A further meeting was arranged for February 14, and when the treasurer arrived at that meeting, guess what? The Attorney General produced a news release saying that Mr. Agg had been appointed. That's the kind of consultation that has resulted in this amendment. Again, I'm on record as saying that this is not going to work and that this is not helpful to the entire process. The Attorney General has his game plan in mind, and that's fine. But I'm here to tell him that it's not going to work.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Prior to the appointment of Mr. Agg, I had a conversation on the telephone with Mr. Johnston -- which he will acknowledge if the member wants to check it out with him -- at which time I proposed two names. I'm choosing not to mention the name of the other individual, who in the final analysis was not appointed. In our discussion, Mr. Johnston and I talked about the two names, and he indicated no opposition. We then chose one of those names -- Mr. Agg.

C. Tanner: Besides these points of law that my fellow members are concerned about, there's also the way this whole thing came about this late in the day. In the literature that has been produced from various sources, the minister admits that he wrote a letter on May 5. He's had since May 5 to bring this legislation in, and he chose to bring it in with this bill, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 3), 1994. In our view, it's back-door legislation, and it's not the way we expect the Attorney General to introduce legislation. It's very pertinent to this discussion, Mr. Chairman, for the simple reason that we expect that if he's going to make a policy change of this magnitude, it should be brought in as a bill in its own right. On the last day of the sitting of the Legislature, there is a back-door amendment tucked away in Bill 55. We think the Attorney General can behave in a more forthright manner than that. That's one of our objections.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The bill was brought in following....

Interjections.

The Chair: Excuse me, members. Could we have some order, please. I know we're all looking forward to the end of these deliberations.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: There has been considerable consultation over the last few months. The final result of the consultation was three small amendments, which logically fit into a miscellaneous bill. They fit into the last miscellaneous bill because the consultation had not concluded in time for the earlier miscellaneous bill.

I have in my hand a bill of some 24 pages which, prior to the consultation, was the result of discussions that would have led to a separate bill, a Legal Services Society amendment act. We didn't bring in the 24 pages in this particular draft because extensive consultations reduced the extent of the amendments very dramatically, to a point where we had only three. Here they are, and they appropriately belong in this miscellaneous bill.

The Chair: I would remind members that this matter was canvassed at great length earlier today, in second reading debate. It is quite out of order. But, because we are all convivial and friendly, and it is late, the member for West Vancouver-Capilano.

J. Dalton: I wish to make just one other comment in response to the Attorney General's last remark. In the same letter from Bob Johnston, he points out that there is no need for legislation for the mixed model of service, because as we know, the Attorney General and the Legal Services Society can go ahead and do that without

[ Page 12982 ]

legislation. That's not going to help. I don't know how many times we can pound away on this theme, but if the Attorney General doesn't get the message, he can't say that he hasn't been warned. This isn't going to work. You haven't consulted, other than with a few of your friends in the community. By superficially sneaking around this stuff and bringing in a bill that has all sorts of other bits and pieces in it, you are not addressing the real problems. Perhaps when we get to the next section, we can deal with the meat and potatoes, and the money part of this. That is all I have to say.

Section 7 as amended approved on the following division:

On section 8.

J. Dalton: I think we have underscored the major points or arguments that we wish to have on record. I would ask the Attorney General -- in perhaps a more amiable tone -- how the amendment to section 10.1, in particular, is going to address the escalating budget problems of the Legal Services Society. As we know, for the last two or three years, the budget has gone over by 25 percent each year. If the Attorney General could assist the committee by explaining how this amendment will address this ever-burgeoning problem, it would be helpful.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: One of the difficulties we have had with the delivery of legal aid in the province -- and this was true for the previous government too, although they decided not to do anything about it -- is that up until last little while, there was no real effort to contain costs. There was no recognition that tax dollars were being expended. Every year Attorneys General had to come to this House and secure a special warrant to pay for overruns. The Ministry of Finance quite properly demanded that I put an end to these annual overruns. We have embarked on a number of initiatives to accomplish that. One of them is to do with the Legal Services Society the same as we do with school boards and other publicly funded agencies in British Columbia -- that is, put a budgetary cap on their expenditures. We have a very generous out in this, inasmuch as they can exceed their budgetary cap if they have the permission of the Minister of Finance and the Attorney General. In terms of the member's questions, they aren't really relevant to this section. This is simply a capping section.

[3:00]

Section 8 approved unanimously on a division.

Section 9 approved.

On section 10.

F. Gingell: I have looked through section 10 and gone back to the bill we passed in 1992. It would seem to indicate that under the then Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations, this government didn't do the job. Would the Attorney General explain to the committee what has happened that has caused you to make this series of amendments?

Hon. G. Clark: The initial wording in the Securities Act changes in 1992 allowed us to get information on an investigation. This allows that to be applied not just to an investigation, but to a hearing.

Sections 10 and 11 approved.

On section 12.

F. Gingell: We went through an exercise earlier this year, or maybe it was last year. I didn't have time to find the act that amends the Tobacco Tax Act, which you are now amending. But I would presume that this deals with the issues of....

The Chair: Excuse me, member. Could I ask the committee to be a little quieter, please, so we can hear the member for Delta South.

F. Gingell: When these limits were originally set up, the purpose was to cut down on the illegal sale of tobacco that had not been taxed. There is a fairly dramatic change in these limits now. Can the minister advise the committee if you anticipate this change will make a dramatic difference to the problems that you have been dealing with?

Hon. G. Clark: You might have to repeat the question. I am just refreshing my memory, because it's been a little while since I dealt with this issue. The member may recall that we have what is commonly referred to as a quota system for bands dealing with the sale of exempt tobacco on aboriginal reserves. That quota system has been in existence for some time, although it is not universally popular and is somewhat controversial. The Ministry of Finance believes very strongly that it's an essential element to control smuggling and the illegal sale of cigarettes. Certainly I agree with that, and the Ministry of Finance in this province has done better than any other province in trying to deal with what has become a horrendous problem in some jurisdictions in Canada. Unfortunately, the quota system has been established by administrative practice and history, and this bill allows the creation of a regulation to effectively legalize what has been done in British Columbia for some time. While it is a miscellaneous amendment, it does allow the legal foundation for what we have been doing in British Columbia for some time. Without that, the quota system would be in jeopardy, and that's a key element in the ability to control the sale of exempt tobacco to non-aboriginal people.

Sections 12 to 18 inclusive approved.

[ Page 12983 ]

On section 19.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I have another scintillating amendment to section 19. I move that we delete "sections 4 and 5" and substitute "sections 5 and 6."

Amendment approved.

Section 19 as amended approved.

On section 20.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: On section 20, I have another amendment. The numbers "15 and 16" should be changed to "16 and 17."

Amendment approved.

Section 20 as amended approved.

Section 21 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Bill 55, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 3), 1994, reported complete with amendments.

The Speaker: When shall the bill be read a third time?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: With leave of the House now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Bill 55, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 3), 1994, read a third time and passed.

Hon. G. Clark: It's been a slice, hon. Speaker. Due to the lateness of the hour, and the fact that the Lieutenant-Governor is in Vancouver, I move that the House at its rising stand adjourned until 11 a.m. today for the purpose of the Lieutenant-Governor's presence in the chamber.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 3:10 a.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1994: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada