1995 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 35th Parliament
HANSARD

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

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, MAY 9, 1995

Morning Sitting

Volume 19, Number 19

[ Page 14063 ]

The House met at 10:03 a.m.

Prayers.

Hon. E. Cull: In the public gallery this morning is a grade 5 class from Monterey Elementary School in my riding, accompanied by their teacher Ms. Woodley. We just had a very interesting discussion; I received some good advice on government spending and on laws that we should pass in this session of the Legislature. I'd like to ask the House to make them all very welcome.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G. Clark: I call second reading of Bill 3, the Grains and Oilseeds Revenue Protection Plan Trust Fund Act. In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply for the purpose of the Ministry of Housing, Recreation and Consumer Services estimates.

GRAINS AND OILSEEDS REVENUE PROTECTION PLAN TRUST FUND ACT
(second reading)

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'm pleased to place before this House a bill which will establish a trust fund for the revenue protection plan for grains and oilseeds. This revenue protection plan is a program which pays indemnities to producers of grains and oilseeds when their crop revenue falls below a calculated target revenue or support level. These indemnities are paid out of a special account funded through contributions from the provincial government, the federal government and producers of grains and oilseeds.

The bill changes the way in which the provincial government accounts for the program funds, by shifting them from a special account in the consolidated revenue fund into a trust fund. We are responding to two recommendations by two independent auditors, Price Waterhouse and Peat Marwick Thorne. This accounting change is recommended as a better way to account for funds than the existing farm income assurance fund special account. This new method of accounting will be much easier for British Columbians to understand. This is about good administration, good government. We're listening to and acting on the recommendation of knowledgable experts to more clearly state how program funds are accounted for.

I move second reading of Bill 3.

M. de Jong: I'm pleased to rise in second reading debate on this bill and to advise the minister that consistent with what he has said, the B.C. Federation of Agriculture has expressed its support for what is tantamount to an accounting change, insofar as the administration of these planned funds is concerned. The plan itself assists to provide some certainty to producers in a field that for various reasons can be uncertain, stemming from anything from market conditions to climatic conditions.

The recommendations that the minister has alluded to in terms of providing for more clear accounting are issues that the B.C. federation has expressed its support for, and I suspect that all British Columbians have long awaited this and continue to look for their government in British Columbia to adopt accounting principles that will provide a more accurate and effective means of gauging the performance and effectiveness of various government programs, this crop revenue insurance fund being one of them.

I note also that the legislation is tabled in response to the agreement that was reached vis-a-vis the federal plan and the federal program. To that end, subject to some questions that may arise at committee stage, we are pleased to lend our support to the bill.

R. Neufeld: Just briefly, I think that we as the Reform caucus can basically support the thrust of Bill 3, because there is really no actual change in what already takes place, other than for a little bit of accounting. It will be interesting to see how this government handles its accounting. In so many other ways it's interesting to watch how they do it, so it will be interesting to see how they do it here.

Talking about the grains and oil seeds, part of agriculture in the constituency that I represent.... The area represented by the member for Peace River South, of course, has the largest grain farms in British Columbia. Some of the basic problems facing those people will be with the removal of the western grain stabilization subsidy, because of the distance to port that people are now going to have to ship their grain. So it's going to have a dramatic effect on agriculture in my constituency and in Peace River South, and we would hope that this government would look favourably at some changes. I'm sure they are getting representation from the National Farmers' Union and the other organizations in Peace River North and Peace River South about things that this government could possibly do to alleviate some of the problems that farmers in the north are going to experience with the removal of the WGSS. Hon. Speaker, I think we will look forward to committee stage, when we can get into the sections a little further. Other than that, we basically approve of and will go along with the bill.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I thank members opposite for their support of the bill, and we'll get into any details of concerns they have in committee stage. With that, I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 3, Grains and Oilseeds Revenue Protection Plan Trust Fund Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. G. Clark: I call second reading of Bill 4.

GRAZING ENHANCEMENT SPECIAL ACCOUNT ACT
(second reading)

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'm pleased to introduce another bill here today for second reading. This bill establishes the grazing enhancement special account. This funding initiative of the government will enable the implementation of projects to maintain and enhance range resources in British Columbia. This initiative supports the idea that good planning and eco-

[ Page 14064 ]

nomic development go hand in hand. It's consistent with this government's commitment to regional land use planning objectives in consultation with local stakeholders. It is consistent with this government's support of regional economic development. This initiative serves the interests of all British Columbians, since it recognizes the important contribution the ranching industry makes to communities throughout the province. By enhancing our range resources, we will continue to maintain and create regional economic benefits through greater resource productivity.

The Premier has announced a commitment of $12.5 million for the Cariboo-Chilcotin region over five years, as well as $750,000 per year for the East and West Kootenay regions. The government has committed $2.4 million for this fiscal year to this initiative.

The initiative ensures that land use planning reflects the needs of local areas and local citizens. The regional land use planning processes will give public and industry groups the opportunity to identify the need for grazing enhancement initiatives for their areas. This has already happened in the Cariboo-Chilcotin and Kootenay regions. Where the need for grazing enhancement initiatives has been identified, local involvement and expertise will be made available to government through broad-based regional advisory committees consisting of locally respected individuals. By appointing locally knowledgable and respected people, we will achieve a fair balance between various areas and sectors in the region. Local people representing interests in the areas, such as ranching, the environment, first nations, scientific recreation and timber will be part of these committees.

These people will help government by identifying the priorities for funding projects, reviewing funding proposals and recommending projects which best serve the objectives of regional land use planning. They will report to a fund management committee comprised of three government representatives, one each from the Ministry of Forests, the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

For the Kootenays, a similar committee structure model will provide a fair balance between various community sectors. By including a wide range of local interests and expertise, we are hoping that the decision-making process for implementing the grazing enhancement fund will be accountable and that the communities receive good value for money for the range enhancement initiatives.

In conclusion, I'd like to say that British Columbia is a leader in developing land use plans which meet the present and future needs of its citizens. This grazing enhancement special account will be an integral component of creating new and rewarding opportunities for communities which depend on the range resource for continued economic viability. Ultimately, this initiative is designed to allow local people to develop custom-made solutions for their own local needs. I'm confident that all members of this House will support the bill that I'm proposing here.

Hon. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill 4.

W. Hurd: I am pleased to rise today and support the principle of Bill 4, which is to set up a special account for fees and licences -- one would assume in British Columbia -- with respect to the grazing industry. I must say, though, that the minister's second reading comments certainly went far beyond the scope and intent of Bill 4, which really is an accounting change.

[10:15]

I think his comments about the state of the grazing industry in British Columbia certainly deserve some response from this side of the House. The minister has talked about the need for local input into grazing management decisions, but as he well knows, having attended meetings of the Cattlemen's Association and other groups, there is a real desire out there by the industry to pursue meaningful tenure reform in the province which allows for an even greater control over grazing land in the province.

There is a requirement under the Range Act, which falls under the Ministry of Forests, for a development plan to be put forward. One hopes that funds may be available from this special account to assist individual land holders and those who hold grazing leases with the Crown to access some of these funds for planning purposes. That's clearly the desire that was expressed by the Cattlemen's Association and other groups in the province.

I should also say with respect to Bill 4 that it's important for the people of the province and for the people in that industry to finally be aware of what's coming out and what's going back in. One of the real concerns with the existing Range Act is that fees for licences are collected, and there's no way to trace how much is actually plowed back into the resource -- the range -- by the Crown commensurate with what is being paid out by the industry. From that standpoint Bill 4 represents a positive initiative, because perhaps for the first time, people who do have ranches and grazing tenures in the province will be able to measure results, as opposed to simply seeing an escalation of fees.

I do hope that we can get into a debate in this province about the whole nature of grazing tenures, the need for greater security, and the need to be assured that the various protected-areas designations will be available for people with Crown grazing leases, which is another area of considerable concern.

In general, the opposition can support the intent of Bill 4, which is the establishment of a grazing enhancement special account. We believe that there's far more that can be done in the way of tenure reform and reforming the planning processes for ranges in the province. We look forward to future bills from this or another government that recognize the real desire on the part of tenure holders to take a greater role in the management of the resource, and to have greater support from government when it comes to establishing a long-term, sustainable plan for range lands.

M. de Jong: I echo the words of my colleague insofar as support for the bill in principle is concerned. I hope also.... I should say that I'm proceeding on the basis that the presence of my 200 grazing sheep on Matsqui Prairie don't place me in a conflict and that I can participate in this debate with the minister.

Interjection.

M. de Jong: Two hundred, I say to the House Leader.

In any event, I want to say that this is a very positive step insofar as it establishes a separate fund that will allow the 

[ Page 14065 ]

ranchers to see what's going in, what's coming out or what's being spent in their particular industry -- their sector of the economy. What I don't intend to get into, though, is the manner in which the funds.... The minister has highlighted that he anticipates an allocation of $2.4 million, and I rise only to indicate to the minister that during the course of estimates debates we will be interested to know what grazing enhancement programs he anticipates those funds being spent on. This is an accounting bill, and we are pleased to lend our support to it. We will, however, be interested to know the manner in which those funds are going to be expended and the nature of the programming that the ranching sector can look forward to. So those are my comments at second reading.

R. Neufeld: The Reform caucus can support Bill 4 in principle -- all seven sections, I guess. It's one of the shorter bills presented in this House. Again, we have some special accounts being put in place. If there's anything that we're inquisitive about, it's the special accounts and how they came about. It's interesting to read the explanatory notes, saying: "Funding is provided to the special account based on the amount allocated for this special account within one or more votes under a Supply Act." So it gets a little interesting, where all the money comes from, or how it is allocated or how it's going to be spent. I think that's part of what we're going to be interested in.

As for the grazing enhancement special account, it probably does meet some objectives of the B.C. Cattlemen's Association in trying to find out just how much they pay and how much goes back into grazing enhancement. If there's anything that I've heard from cattlemen, it's the authority that the Ministry of Forests has in the Range Act and their application of rules. In many cases, people who are not knowledgable about grazing or animals are coming out and telling the rancher or the farmer when they can put the cattle on the range and when they can't, when they have to take them off, the height of the grass, the greenness of it and all those types of things. A person -- man or woman -- who's been a cattleperson for most of their life finds that a little bit unacceptable.

I know that in my constituency there are a lot of Crown land grazing permits, and those people who utilize those grazing permits certainly don't overuse it, because they know they have to feed their cattle more than one year. But if we're going to really do anything, if the Minister of Agriculture wants to do anything about those kinds of things, we would really like to see him maybe bring something in where the Ministry of Agriculture looks after those types of arrangements rather than the Ministry of Forests. It is an issue in my constituency; I don't know about other constituencies.

The other part that's interesting is that this government presented a bill of seven sections. Section 5 states: "This Act, except section 6, is repealed on March 31, 2000." It's interesting. I mean, here we have a government that can't seem to get any legislation put together for this session. They do finally come up with one that's seven sections and two pages long, and they're going to repeal it in the year 2000. We wonder just exactly what this government is up to. It will be interesting to get into committee stage to read further or to dialogue further with the minister to find out just exactly where we're going.

In principle, we can support the bill. We would rather see a little bit more meat in the bill than what's there, obviously, but we're willing to support the principle and look forward to the debate in third reading.

L. Fox: I'm pleased to stand in this place and speak to the principles of Bill 4, the Grazing Enhancement Special Account Act. This bill, like Bill 7, the Columbia Basin Trust Act, is specific to specific regions of the province, which is somewhat concerning, to me as it was in Bill 7, in that there is every bit as much of a need to enhance grazing opportunities in other regions of the province. As the minister is aware, my own region, particularly the Nechako Valley, has a thriving cattle industry that is very heavily dependent on grazing leases. While I recognize that the Cariboo certainly has a larger share of the market and the economy, there are other areas of the province that share it equally, including the Kamloops region.

I spoke in favour of Bill 7, as I will speak in favour of Bill 4, but it concerns me when we have a government bringing legislation that is taking stopgap measures in specific regions of the province and not addressing the issue generically in the best interests of all the province. When we look at the Cariboo particularly and at the concerns there, and the minister -- is well aware of them -- many of the cattle ranchers are very much concerned about how much of that grazing territory is going to be negotiated away during the native land claims negotiations.

That issue is a very large concern in more regions than just the Cariboo. I'm not sure whether it makes a lot of economic sense to enhance grazing opportunities when we're not sure what land base will be left to deal with for grazing once negotiations are concluded. It seems to me that there should be some protection within this act of that land base for future grazing use before we make the investment to enhance the grazing opportunities.

I have one other observation, and that is that the minister shouldn't take too much comfort in what the official opposition is saying today, because I note that they spoke against Bill 7 all the way through it. Even before the official request for a standing vote was made, they said nay, but once the standing vote was called they all stood up in favour. I'm not sure if the minister can take any comfort over the contribution made by the two official opposition members with respect to this bill. Only time will tell, and perhaps we'll see that later today.

G. Wilson: I stand to speak in opposition to Bill 4. We're opposed to Bill 4 in principle, because the Alliance does not believe that the way we should be financing or enhancing finances in British Columbia is through the establishment of special accounts that are dedicated to any one particular sector. We oppose it on several grounds in principle.

It's our belief that what we should be looking at, rather than the establishment of special accounts with a repeal date, as is set out in this particular act -- to be repealed on March 31, 2000.... We should be putting in place a consistent set of programs with respect to integrated land use management and planning, and that should be financed through the creation of an integrated ministry that would provide for funds to go into that long-term land use operation. In a manner consistent with the way this government is now attempting to fractionalize, this special account provides for the application of general revenue funds into particular kinds of activities in British Columbia. We believe that that's a regressive measure and not the way we should be moving at all. From our point of view, we need to have a land use secretariat that integrates land use management and land use planning.

The second reason that we would stand opposed to this is that this special fund is not.... There is nothing in here that 

[ Page 14066 ]

mentions how the provision of these resources is going to be consistent with regional land use planning objectives. Throughout this entire document they talk about regional land use planning objectives. We've seen through the CORE process how divisive that can be if in fact there is not some kind of agreement on the ground as to how that's going to work. Two weekends ago I met with ranchers in the Okanagan and central Cariboo areas who are extremely concerned that the regional land use objectives are now being directly affected by subagreements and parallel agreements with peoples of first nations. In fact, in some, the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, who do not even participate in the treaty negotiation process, and indeed boycott it, have managed to get agreement from this government that they are not going to be permitted access to grazing lands until technical agreements have been made where aboriginal people are given the right to do environmental assessment and environmental analysis on rangelands -- prohibiting the regional districts, who are the duly elected and duly representative members of that region, from sitting on those technical committees.

[10:30]

So we have some serious concerns about the manner in which the government is implementing this particular fund. I don't believe that it is the correct and appropriate way to proceed -- through the establishment of special accounts -- until such time as the government is absolutely clear as to how this so-called regional land use planning objective is going to be measured. If this government refuses to allow elected members of the regional district to sit on technical committees with respect to the environmental protection of rangelands that are now being negotiated -- as we speak here today, they are being negotiated in the Okanagan on parallel agreements -- then it seems to me that this fund could very much be diverted into the delivery of service to people other than the ranchers it purports to serve. That is not clarified in this bill, it has not been clarified by this government, and it provides far too great an opportunity for this government to dedicate funds and to direct those dedicated funds into land use planning without the provision of a long-range, integrated land use strategy that is determined at the community level.

So we speak opposed to Bill 4 in principle. Members of the Alliance will be voting against it in principle, and in committee stage we will seek to try to bring out further where our objectives are. I realize that both the official opposition Liberals and the official opposition third party, Reform, have spoken in favour of this special account implementation, but it is our stated view that it is wrong in principle. It's the wrong way for us to be proceeding with respect to the provision of funds for the enhancement of land use development, and it would run headlong into what we would like to see with respect to the integration of ministries and the delivery of services through long-range, integrated land use planning.

Last, until this government tells us why local government is not allowed to sit on technical committees, especially with respect to the Penticton area, where there are currently environmental plans being put in place for some form of assessment on rangelands, and also with respect to forestry implications on those rangelands, it seems to me that this provides the opportunity for government to bypass local government and local input, notwithstanding the fact that it says that it should be consistent with regional land use planning objectives.

For those reasons, which I believe to be sound reasons, members of the Alliance will vote against Bill 4.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'd like to clarify a couple of misconceptions. This fund does not receive the fees and licences for a range. It is a special account, an appropriation in this case under my ministry's estimates. The fees and licences received by the Ministry of Forests still go into general revenue; this is an appropriation. So it's not set up to manage the grazing fees per se. That's a larger issue.

This is really a fund created through the best principles of integrated resource management, I have to say, where you do have the people who are involved sitting on a committee advising what the development of the program will be -- the actual projects in the program. We have not sought to give a blueprint to the people in the local areas. This will come out of the land use plans. There has been a lot of clarification in and around the Cariboo, where this idea first came up; there's no question. The ranchers have asked for it to be provincewide. We are saying that where there is a land use plan in place that requires the expenditure of these funds, these funds can be expended to assist the grazing enhancement in that area.

It is clear that, at the ranchers' behest, it is not only to be spent on grass for cattle; it is there to be spent on improving the range, the whole range of plants that are available....

Interjection.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The whole range, yes. There's no other word, I don't think, that I can substitute.

So it's really there to meet a number of objectives. The cattlemen agree to that, because they've always accepted, under the Range Act, that the Ministry of Forests is there to protect range for all its uses: wildlife and other critters and domestic animals as well. There's a widespread acceptance of the principles of the fund.

I have to say that at no time has it ever been recommended in the Cariboo land use planning, either from the coalition that represented local government.... At no time did they ever ask to sit on this particular committee. Were it to come up and be proposed by the people in the region where there was a committee set up under a regional land use plan to administer such a fund, I certainly would be open to a region just sitting on that. But this has not happened in the Cariboo, and I'm not aware of it having happened in the Kootenays. The next place that's up to speed is the LRMP in Kamloops, where they have, I think, a consensus agreement, and they have some principles, some objectives, some very clear integrated resource management principles that can be enhanced through the expenditure of these funds.

The only other comment I'd like to make is that where people raised the issue of aboriginal claims on some of these range lands, I think we take the attitude that we do towards the stewarding of the forest resource: we have an obligation as the Crown managers of that land to make sure that we're not depleting the resource, that we're keeping it in a good state for all the people of British Columbia. That's our purpose. With respect to where the improvements go, if there is a range use plan in an area, then the funds can be expended; if they can help through seeding, fencing, water hole development, planting of shrubs or whatever, then it can be there.

We don't know whether we've got enough money in this fund or not. We think there's plenty. We have $2.4 million this 

[ Page 14067 ]

year, but we expect that in further years there will be a need for more. The ranchers are very certain that they don't want to be committed to having to spend two and a half million in the Cariboo this year. I can report that yesterday, the committee that has been established there met. It was a very positive meeting, and these people are ready to get on with the detailed program design with a view to receiving suggestions for actual projects.

I'd like the House to just dwell for a minute on the kinds of people who have been nominated to the committee. For example, in the Cariboo it's under the chair, at the Premier's request, of Grant Huffman, who is very active. He's been the chair of the land use committee of the B.C. Cattlemen's Association. He operates a cow-calf operation in Riske Creek; he's very experienced in wildlife-cattle interactions. He is the chair of the B.C. Cattlemen's Association land stewardship committee, and he's going to chair this. He and I have talked about who should be on the committee. Ken Cameron from the Quesnel area, another cattleman and past president of the Canadian Cattlemen's Association, was anxious to serve on this after his term with the Canadian cattlemen because he thinks it's a positive direction to go in. Russ Ross is a cow-calf operator in the Bridge Lake area and a member of the south Cariboo cattlemen's association. Mary Thomson from the Big Creek area is very experienced, again, in wildlife guiding operations, interactions with cattle and land use plans in the south Chilcotin and the prospect of grazing in protected areas. Art Lacourciere is recommended by the timber industry and is from the timber supply planning group -- very experienced. He's a professional forester with Weldwood. He's responsible for silviculture and has a lot of experience in designing grazing-silviculture interaction systems. Mike McDonough, former president of the Guide-Outfitters' Association of British Columbia, has a good, solid background on livestock and wild game interaction. Dr. Mike Pitt, who comes highly recommended by the ranching, environmental and academic communities, is an expert and professor of range ecology and management at the University of British Columbia. He's a member of the society of range management. He has authored a major report on endangered species and the management of grasslands in the interior. We also have Kristy Palmantier, who was nominated by the Williams Lake band. She is experienced in cow-calf operations. We also have George Atamanenko. He's a retired land use consultant, has a small hobby farm himself and is recommended by the conservation coalition in the Cariboo.

All of these people bring to it a breadth of knowledge. They're willing to work with the three ministries that will give technical support to recommending the development and actual approval of projects in the area.

With that, I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 4, Grazing Enhancement Special Account Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. G. Clark: I call second reading of Bill 13, the Mineral Tenure Amendment Act, 1995.

MINERAL TENURE AMENDMENT ACT, 1995
(second reading)

Hon. A. Edwards: I move that this bill be now read a second time.

This bill amends the 1988 Mineral Tenure Act in three main areas. It clarifies the ownership of industrial minerals, which is a change that has been sought fairly broadly. It integrates the mineral tenure system with land use planning objectives. And it improves the ministry's dispute resolution and enforcement capabilities.

For industrial minerals, the bill clarifies the definition of mineral in the act by including dimension stone, such as facing and ornamental stone, and by excluding construction uses of rock, such as roadbuilding. These changes eliminate the existing situation where rock producers must hold dual tenures in order to do business. They have to have one tenure from my ministry and a second tenure from the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks under the land act. This, we hope, will result in a stimulated industrial mineral sector with greater security of tenure. The amendments will also provide an improved process for resolving disputes between landowners and mineral tenure holders in the development and use of rock and stone.

The bill will provide more tools to government to manage tenure issues that arise as a result of land use planning activities and will mean greater flexibility to enable my ministry to assist in the effective management of the Forest Practices Code. Amendments proposed in this bill will modernize the mineral tenure system. For example, a map selection basis for tenure acquisition will be introduced. That means you can actually stake your claim by map instead of having to be there and putting a post in the ground. Other new requirements, such as a knowledge test for free miners, are aimed at ensuring that free miners are aware of the environmental requirements and continue to be responsible in the manner in which they conduct their activities on Crown and on private land.

This bill improves the dispute resolution process under the act and adds tools for conflict resolution. As well, the bill increases the regulatory authority needed to ensure that mineral tenures are acquired for legitimate mineral exploration purposes. The bill also contains improved provisions to deal with conflicts between holders of mineral rights and holders of surface rights.

In summary, the amendments will modernize the mineral tenure system by clarifying and streamlining tenure for industrial minerals, by aligning the mineral tenure system more closely with provincial land use initiatives and by increasing enforcement capabilities under the act.

D. Jarvis: First of all, I'd like to thank the minister and her staff for the briefing I had on Bill 13 last week.

At the outset, we do not find this bill too contentious, although we always have suspicions when it comes to this government seeking more power in the industry for the minister. Will they be a little more reasonable than they have sometimes been in the past? We'll see more about this when we get into committee stage.

Interjection.

D. Jarvis: As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, the industry is having difficult times....

The Speaker: Order, hon. member. The hon. member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast rises on a point of order.

G. Wilson: Hon. Speaker, it's just a matter of a technicality; I don't believe the minister moved second reading.

[ Page 14068 ]

Interjection.

G. Wilson: I beg your pardon.

The Speaker: The minister indicates that she did.

The member proceeds.

D. Jarvis: As I was saying before, it's well known that the industry is having difficult times. There are always concerns when a government either fails to stimulate the mining economy or enacts legislation that will deter investment in mining and exploration.

I worry sometimes. I hope I'm not seeing ominous things, but when the bill starts to indicate improved enforcement by the minister without any specifics.... Certain sections in the bill.... For example, it says to test for free miner certificates, and that a claim may be restricted when in the opinion of the minister it establishes reserves which impose special rules. I wonder -- and we'll find out in committee -- exactly what the minister actually means in these instances.

[D. Lovick in the chair.]

As I said before, these have been difficult economic times for the mining industry, and it's at these times that there are cutbacks. The cutbacks are usually in exploration programs; and are usually among the first things to be done by the majors. So when we have more restrictions and enforcement by the minister when it comes to exploration, it doesn't bode well.

In any event, we will discuss it further when we get into committee stage.

R. Neufeld: Just briefly to Bill 13.... This is a bill that is designed to change different acts. In fact, I think almost every section either repeals or changes an act. It's hard to discuss anything about the philosophy of this bill, so it's hard to say whether you support it or you don't support it. I would rather get into committee stage and deal with it section by section -- all 48 of them. Some give the minister more powers, and some take some powers away from the ministry.

There are some larger issues in the mining industry that we really should be looking at, and that's land use and where miners can operate. I guess this will play a part in that.

[10:45]

We just went through a couple of bills dealing with grazing and agriculture. There is some concern with the control or the power that the aboriginal community has over giving any kind of approvals to mining or agriculture. Probably the greatest fear in the mining industry -- in fact, in any industry in British Columbia, regardless of what it is -- is land use. I think everyone is sitting on the edge of their chair and wondering just what this government is going to come through with next when it comes to land use: who they're going to give land to and who they're going to take it away from, who they're going to pay and who they're not going to pay. That was evident just recently with the mining that had to do with Windy Craggy and Royal Oak, the government not being able to reach some kind of a settlement that would be out of court -- and probably a lot better for all concerned, both the province and the mining industry.

That said, I'm not saying that what was proposed would be something which would be acceptable to either party, or the Reform caucus. But, the bill amends.... The minister talked quite a bit about dispute resolutions. Not just in the mining industry do we have problems with disputes. We have them within the oil and gas industry. I think the minister is well aware, or should be, of some of the problems that we're experiencing in the north with the gas and oil industry -- with dispute resolution, with land use and those types of things, with not knowing where you can drill, when you can drill or how you can drill.

I look forward to going through Bill 13 section by section and, at that time, we will voice our opinion section by section, as we agree or disagree.

D. Mitchell: I would just like to offer a few words on Bill 13 as well. The minister, in her second reading comments, indicated that the bill is essentially going to be a modest bill that addresses a few of the issues. I understand some consultation has taken place with the mining industry in British Columbia, and I think that's a good thing. I would note, however, that the numerous changes introduced under the Mineral Tenure Amendment Act, 1995 -- Bill 13 -- were only introduced in the Legislature one week ago today. It has only been one week since the bill was tabled in the Legislature. There hasn't been a lot of time for those who work in the mining industry in British Columbia to study this bill specifically, and to understand exactly how it is going to impact on mineral exploration and development and the security of land tenure, which is a crucial issue that this bill does try to address. It's not modest by any means.

I would like to ask the minister, before we push this bill forward to committee stage, where we will go through it clause by clause, section by section, that we give it a little more time, that we don't rush this too quickly, and that we give the mining industry and those stakeholders in the mining industry who have not yet had a chance to study this bill a chance to see it and comment on it. Let the bill see the light of day a bit before we push it forward. I wouldn't want to see a bill like this rammed through the House too quickly. I know that the government's legislative program is light during this session, but it would be nice to get a commitment from the minister when she closes debate on second reading that we won't proceed with this bill immediately, that we will give it at least another week or so before we take it to committee stage.

The minister says that the bill deals mainly with some definitional issues and some jurisdictional matters for tenuring industrial minerals. It gives the ministry some flexibility in addressing these issues. I think that's good, and I think the industry thinks that's good as well. But I think we need to understand a little more from this minister, either when she closes debate in second reading or, more specifically, in committee stage, what the emerging land use issues are that she refers to which her ministry requires these powers for.

She referred, in her first reading comments as well, to the emerging land use issues that her ministry requires greater flexibility and more capability to deal with. I can only assume that these would include native land claims negotiations that are currently undergoing the process under the B.C. Treaty Commission. If that's the case, I think it's important for the minister to specifically address how the powers conferred on her ministry by Bill 13 -- which she's bringing to the House today -- are going to help her ministry in the B.C. Treaty 

[ Page 14069 ]

Commission process, in particular. We need to understand these changes a little more in that context.

We also need to get the minister and the government on the record a little more in terms of how these amendments are going to help the security issue for exploration and development of mining claims in the province of British Columbia. If we don't have some security, if the mining industry doesn't have some security, if they don't know the rules or what the government is going to do from one moment to the next in terms of mining claims in the province -- some very significant ones just during the term of this government -- then the industry doesn't really have much to offer. It doesn't have much incentive to invest, to explore and to play the role that historically mining has played in the province.

We would never have had a gold rush that helped define the province of British Columbia from the colonial stage to the stage when we became a province. We would never have had a gold rush in the province if those who were seeking the wealth of that mineral didn't have some certainty that when they staked a claim, they would have some realistic opportunity of benefiting and of developing the wealth of that claim.

The minister talks about tenuring industrial minerals and about the emerging land use issues, but we need to know how each of the amendments in Bill 13 is going to impact on the industry, and on the need for security and the ability of the mining industry to dream the dream of development and the greatness it once had in British Columbia. It's in such a sad state today, when so little exploration is taking place.

I can only assume that land use issues and what the minister refers to as the emerging land use issues in our province play a great role in that. The mining industry looks at this bill not as a modest effort, I think, but as a crucial piece of legislation that perhaps may be able to address some of these emerging land use issues the minister refers to. That's what makes exploration take place; that's what makes development in the mining industry occur; that's what creates jobs and wealth in the province. The industry needs to know the rules and have some assurance that when a claim is made, there will be a realistic chance of developing that claim.

When we get to committee stage, undoubtedly we are going to expect this minister to tell us specifically what those emerging land use issues are and how this bill is going to assist the mining industry to recover its former greatness.

G. Wilson: One of the benefits of second reading is that we can speak in principle about these bills and about whether or not we agree or disagree in principle. Regrettably, having heard from the official opposition and the Reform Party, I couldn't tell you if they are in favour of it or opposed to it, yet again. Let me perhaps put on the record that the Alliance Party is opposed to Bill 13 in principle, and for a series of reasons.

Interjections.

G. Wilson: Perhaps, as we hear some applause from the Liberal opposition, they'll now know how to proceed on this bill, having been given some leadership on it -- and having already said that they have no problem with it.

We have some serious problems with it, because we do not believe, in principle, that we should be transferring powers -- enormous powers -- from the duly elected office of the minister to an appointed civil servant under the Public Service Act. We have seen in this government a trend toward the provision of tremendous powers to civil servants, who are effectively given, in this case, almost subjudicial powers with respect to the dispute resolution mechanisms outlined herein. I'm speaking specifically about the gold commissioner. We do not believe, in principle, that the government should be providing and shifting those powers. So on that point alone, I think, we have some serious problems. We'll be talking in detail in committee stage about the powers that have been granted to this appointed civil servant.

The second point we have some serious concerns about is with respect to section 4, where we notice how quickly and how easily -- and also how much this was absent in the minister's remarks -- this bill removes Canadian citizenship requirements for the application for a free miner certificate, in order for us to quickly comply with the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA. Of course, I understand why the Liberal opposition would have no problem with that, because despite the election promises by the now Prime Minister that we were going to renegotiate sections on Canadian ownership and the need to keep a 51 percent share, as soon as he took elected office, of course, he tossed that one out the window and we signed NAFTA fully, without any kind of renegotiation whatsoever.

We have some difficulty with providing acquiescence in a statute such as this, so quickly and so quietly, to the NAFTA agreement with respect to the provision of a 51 percent share for Canadian citizens. I believe that notwithstanding that free trade is a fact of life in North America, the party opposite which now sits as government has told its members and supporters that it is rigidly and solidly opposed to those provisions in NAFTA that would provide opportunity for North American control through offshore investment and purchasing of the Canadian mineral industry.

This is going to provide just that kind of opportunity, and instead of the powers falling to the minister for regulation, those powers now will fall to an appointed civil servant, with respect to the provisions of the chief gold commissioner at least, in the terms of this bill. We have some serious difficulty with those provisions, and we think this needs to be explored and looked at in some substantial detail.

We also have serious concerns with the whole question of tenure. The member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi correctly pointed out that this is an issue that needs to be discussed in much more detail with this government. We need to recognize and understand how we are going to accommodate what will be competing tenure applications, particularly in light of agreements now coming forward such as what we have just heard with the Nisga'a, where the subsurface as well as the surface minerals will fall into the jurisdiction of the Nisga'a people.

We're keen to know the extent to which an act such as this is going to provide regulatory powers and authority vested in this government with respect to the disposition of those minerals in agreements that may be made with offshore interests that may come in and run directly in competition with those interests that are currently mining in British Columbia on non-aboriginal lands. This is a huge issue, because we have seen that mining has not exactly been one of the principal areas of concern of this government over the last 

[ Page 14070 ]

few years, and we have heard many stories of miners having to relocate south of the border because of regulation from this government. Whether those stories are true, I'll leave to others to decide when they review the facts for themselves.

My concern, and it's an important one, is that we need to have a specific policy statement from this government on the question of land tenure in the province. We need to know where they stand with respect to tenure and on the ability of British Columbians to be first investors with first opportunity and rights to the minerals existing within their own province. We need to know whether those tenure arrangements are going to be subjugated to an agreement through the Treaty Commission process and first nations negotiations. We need to know whether that will be exacerbated by the kind of material we're seeing here, particularly in the section of the Mineral Tenure Act amendments in this particular bill, which now is essentially going to fall into place with the broader NAFTA agreements that will allow offshore investments to take place whether there is Canadian ownership or not.

We have some very serious concerns with this bill. Unlike my colleagues in both the Liberal and Reform opposition, who seem to have just glossed over this bill thinking that there's not much to it, we believe there's an enormous amount to it. We would support the comments of the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi, who says: "Let's not rush this thing through." Let's take a bit of time with this. We've had only a week to take a look at it. Let's allow the people who have a vested interest in mining in the province to do a thorough review and analysis of what this means. Let's take this into a broader context of where we're going in terms of the overall resource economy of the province, and let's take a look at what we're dealing with here. Let's not be so fast to harmonize and blend with a North American Free Trade Agreement that may work directly counter to the productive enterprises of those people who already have investments in British Columbia. Let's start to protect British Columbians first. Let's first look after the interests of the people who elected us, before we're so fast to hand off our resource base.

[11:00]

In terms of second reading, I will say again in closing the reasons why we're opposed to this in principle. We believe that what the government is essentially trying to do in this bill is to obfuscate its responsibility. It provides much of the responsibility that it has and shunts it off to expanded powers for appointed civil servants. We oppose that in principle, because we believe that's the wrong way for government to go.

We also believe there must be a greater degree of accountability with respect to the provisions this government has in terms of its regulation, particularly in light of the dispute resolution mechanism as amended in this particular act. We also believe that there has to be a much clearer statement coming forward from this government with respect to the whole matter of tenure, because that will be the key to whether we have a successful mining industry.

On those grounds, the Alliance members take serious objection to what is in Bill 13. We hope this government will take some time to allow all affected parties to have a chance to read this particular bill, study it in detail and look at the implications of what is documented in it, before they try to steamroller it through committee stage and move it to third reading.

W. Hurd: Hon. Speaker, I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

W. Hurd: I'm pleased to introduce in the galleries today 75 grade 5 students from Ray Shepherd Elementary School in my riding, accompanied by their teacher Ms. Haskett and parents and chaperons. If the House would make them welcome today, that would be appreciated.

J. Tyabji: I rise to speak against this bill, to echo the comments of the Alliance leader and also to express some regret that the other opposition parties have not taken the time to research this bill enough to have a position on it. I note that the Liberals and Reform both said that they would refer most of their debate comments to committee stage, but in principle there's a lot to be said about this bill.

First of all, I find it shocking that we can have the extension of the North American Free Trade Agreement in an amendment to this bill. We see it coming in a very small way in this bill but having such large implications with respect to the definition of a free miner. The fact that now a free miner does not have to be a Canadian citizen, as defined earlier in the bill, and that this has been done to comply with NAFTA.... It is only the Alliance members who even make comment on it. Even the minister didn't feel that this is something that she would raise in her opening remarks. Obviously we will look at that further in committee stage, but that becomes a key part of this bill -- a key part, a flavour of this bill and one component of it that I think we have to raise in second reading as one of the points of opposition.

The other thing which we stand strongly opposed to in principle is the entire direction of this government, which is consistent with the Liberal opposition and the Reform Party, who used to be with the Social Credit government. All three of those perspectives were to take the accountability of the process of government, to take the election decisions and the fact that there is a government and that there is accountability in our elected officials, and move that to a civil servant. We saw that in the Social Credit government; we see that in the NDP government; we see that in the policies coming out of the Liberal Party. Of course, the world-view of some of the members of the Reform Party is clearly consistent with that.

But what is the long-term effect of that? We see in this bill, for example, sections whereby the process for someone to lodge a complaint are taken away from the office of the minister and put into the office of the chief gold commissioner. We see that the courts are not the first avenue of appeal, that even the arbitration process that used to be the avenue of appeal through the petroleum act is now subject to the first right of appeal, that being the office of the gold commissioner.

In section 29 of this bill, we can see that if somebody has a complaint about valid title -- if somebody is coming forward to try to say: "The title we have had, or the rights that we have had to mine a certain area of land...." If they have a complaint, what is their first right of...the avenue that they have to pursue? Well, now it's been amended so that the gold commissioner has full power over this section. The gold commissioner must take that complaint into account; but beyond that, that's all the gold commissioner has to do.

We've seen again and again people come forward, whether it's through the Water Act -- the existing Water Act 

[ Page 14071 ]

-- whether it's through some of the Land Act provisions that are in place, whether it's through the Motor Vehicle Act, saying: "Civil servants have too much power and no accountability." Here again we see that accountability being removed from the process and the only avenue of redress that somebody has if they have a problem with title is a civil servant. The minister has removed herself from having any part of this process other than the first part of the process, and that is the appointment of the gold commissioner. How much confidence is there right now that this appointment would be made based on the person with the best qualifications for the job? How do we know that this appointment wouldn't be made even if this government is going to say that it would do it based on the person's qualifications? We have no idea what the appointments will be in the future -- whether those appointments will be non-partisan or whether or not they will be patronage appointments.

If we go to another point that the Alliance has against this appointment, and that is the parallel process of the treaty negotiations that are going on, then we can see that we have need to worry that the gold commissioner may be somebody with a political agenda put in place to make sure the complaints that come forward do not go any further than that office. The parallel process is something that we have a lot of concerns about when we look at the amendments that are made in this act with respect to title and with respect to who has the first right of recourse or the first power over the land. We note that there's an amendment from the previous bill.

In the previous bill, if somebody had been accorded rights to mine, those rights would be taken to be the first rights on that land. Now we see an important amendment that is taking away from that, in that if there is deemed to be a valid title that precedes those rights, that valid title will have precedence. That's an important amendment in this bill, and the reason that it's important is that right now in the treaty negotiation process there may be determinations that a valid title exists on that land. We have only to look to the Alliance leader's comments in debate on the Nisga'a settlement and the fact that today there is being given title to the resources above the ground, below the ground and dating back ad infinitum with respect to inherent title.

If someone is a free miner -- notwithstanding their citizenship may not be Canadian, but let's assume it's a British Columbian who's trying to provide wealth to the province -- trying to bring jobs into the province and trying to contribute to the economy, and that British Columbian is now sitting with a licence to mine and the treaty negotiation process has negotiated away the title to that land for resource exploitation to whichever band has jurisdiction in that area, that miner's rights are gone over that land. If the miner would like to make an appeal or complaint about that land, do they go to the court? Can they go to the minister? Does the minister have jurisdiction? The minister has removed her jurisdiction over this. The only avenue they will have will be to the gold commissioner's office. That's a private process, not a public process, and it's only after the gold commissioner has made a ruling -- and there's no time limit on that ruling, I might add.... There's no provision for it being 30 days, 60 days or even six months. It's an open-ended process, so there's no mandate given to the gold commissioner for any form of accountability.

Once that decision has been made -- and it could be two or three years later -- the miner would then have the ability to go to court. That's shocking, and it's more shocking that the Alliance Party has been the only party to register objections to this in this House. It just shows how incompetent some of the other members have been at looking after the rights of the people of British Columbia when it comes to due process and adequate justice in terms of fulfilling their interest in the economy.

When we look to this bill we see that there are a series of amendments. Although they may be housekeeping amendments and it may be that the mining industry has wanted some of those housekeeping amendments, the actual implications of this bill can only be seen in light of some of the other processes of government that are going on, and we can see that it will not bode well for the mining industry. At this time, probably more so than at any other, the mining industry is looking for some reassurance that there is going to be a commitment, that there is going to be tenure and that there is going to be some long-term viability. Because of some of the other parallel processes, we know that that is not the case, and we now know that if they have a problem with that, there's not going to be any accountability. And that is something that we cannot support in principle. We can no longer support the giving over to civil servants the power of the court, which is what is happening again and again in pieces of legislation coming from this government. They are continuing the tradition that the people of British Columbia did not want and did not support in the last general election.

So I look forward to committee stage of this bill, where we can canvass some of these most problematic sections in detail. With respect to those housekeeping measures that improve the state of mining in B.C., I would say that those are only short-term solutions. In the long term, it's the parallel processes that will decide how this bill is implemented.

Hon. A. Edwards: We are looking forward to a very lively committee stage on this bill. We run a ministry where we attempt to keep things going as quietly and as efficiently as possible. Every now and then the critics' attention is brought to our ministry, and all of a sudden they come in with great warnings that great horrible things are going to happen with this ministry, because they haven't really been paying attention to what's going on regularly. I hope that we'll be able to have a very good discussion in committee stage and be able to explain some of the changes.

I would like to respond, though, to some of the concern that seems to have been expressed that this has come in as something brand-new. We have been consulting about amendments to the Mineral Tenure Act for about three years. We've talked regularly with the mining industry, with the people who work in the industry and with the people who have an interest in what the industry does. These amendments, as I have said, do constitute modest amendments in the scheme of things, but they are amendments that we believe the industry understands we have to make. We believe they are amendments that will make things work better and that will have the support of everyone in the sector.

I refer back to the fact that we try to run a quiet and efficient ministry so that dispute resolution, I believe.... We have had very few situations where these things arise. There was a question asking what we need dispute resolution for. We need it because a lot of our work deals with this. We want to make it more efficient; we want to make it as fair as it can possibly be, and to be seen to be as fair as can possibly be. That is what we are attempting to do with this bill.

[ Page 14072 ]

There was a reference to obfuscating our responsibility. I assure you that we are not attempting to obfuscate our responsibility. We are very clearly attempting to take our responsibility, make it very clear as to what it is and make very clear to the people we work with what we are doing. We believe this bill increases the ministry's accountability and that it will make it much more efficient, so we can get to what one member called the dream and so we can continue to dream the dream of the great place the mining industry has in the economy of British Columbia. The mining industry certainly does have a great place; it's on the upswing in its cycle. I do look forward to this debate.

Hon. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill 13.

[11:15]

Motion approved on the following division:

Bill 13, Mineral Tenure Amendment Act, 1995, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. G. Clark: Committee on Bill 11, hon. Speaker.

GROWTH STRATEGIES STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1995

The House in committee on Bill 11; D. Lovick in the chair.

The Chair: Before proceeding, I note that section 7 of the bill is an extremely long one, and I would therefore propose that we deal with this bill in the normal way, but that when we get to section 7 we break it into very separate and individual sections, and deal with it that way. If that's agreeable, we can proceed.

D. Mitchell: I have a further point of clarification that might be useful for you. I note that Bill 11 also has a preamble, and I'm assuming that we'll deal with the preamble last. Is that correct?

The Chair: Yes, that is indeed the practice. May I offer a cautionary note, however, that we will not use the preamble as a replacement or as another kick at having a second reading debate. I just offer that caution ere we begin.

D. Mitchell: Hon. Chair, I know we've had some experience with another bill during this session, and that the Chair was concerned about that. The preamble to this bill, though -- and I think it's important to clarify this before we proceed in this committee -- does make some fairly large, grandiose statements about the purpose of this bill. We could agree as a committee, I suppose, to deal with it first and dispose of it. If we do leave it until the end, though, depending on how the debate goes in committee and how questions are answered, there may be a need to address some of the larger concerns the preamble deals with at the conclusion of debate in committee. Does the Chair have any preference as to how we should proceed?

The Chair: I thank the member for that cautionary note. Of course, the Chair will make the appropriate judgment at the appropriate time, but I do appreciate the point being made.

On section 1.

D. Mitchell: On section 1 of the bill, some amendments are made to the Municipal Act by adding some definitions with respect to regional growth strategies. I know that we will discuss this in more detail when we get to section 7, but for section 1, can the minister tell us why these particular amendments to the Municipal Act are necessary? Why are these definitions required under the Municipal Act? Are they required specifically to amend the Municipal Act to deal with the concept of regional growth strategies? Could these not be incorporated into the other amendments to definitions under section 7, which we're going to be dealing with later?

Hon. D. Marzari: The definitions that you find here are a consolidation of definitions that are found in the act. It consolidates them, basically, and puts them in one place. The only new definition is the regional growth strategy definition, which is necessary for the purposes of the act. What you're seeing here is a consolidation of the definitions found in other areas of the act that are brought together here for this particular component: the growth strategies amendment to the act.

C. Tanner: Just in relation to what the previous member was saying, there's also a preamble in section 942.11. We're going to have to talk about whether or not we should keep that until we get to the end of the bill, as well.

On section 1, the only difference that I can see in these three definitions of "board," "director," and "electoral area" is in relation to a regional district. I don't really see the necessity for this definition in this section when it's already almost identical to section 776 of the Municipal Act.

Hon. D. Marzari: As I said before, these definitions are referenced in other parts of the act itself. Because this growth strategies amendment is incorporated into the Municipal Act, I think it's important that we consolidate the definitions and put them in here.

G. Wilson: Just a quick point of clarification with respect to: "Regional growth strategy means a regional growth strategy under part 28.1." What does that refer to?

[ Page 14073 ]

Hon. D. Marzari: That is section 7, basically.

G. Wilson: That's section 7 of this act. Is that in reference to this act or the Municipal Act?

Hon. D. Marzari: It's section 7 of this act and part 28.1 of the Municipal Act, which is where you'll find it when the Municipal Act is revised.

C. Tanner: Part 28.1 refers to a repealed part of the Municipal Act, and that's what this is replacing.

I take it we've finished with section 1, then. Have we?

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

C. Tanner: I'm not sure why we need section 2 when the letters patent referred in the Municipal Act are needed. I take it that they were in the Municipal Act in the first place. Why are we repealing them now?

Hon. D. Marzari: Section 2 basically amends a piece of the Municipal Act. In the consolidation of the definitions for section 1, we can then delete them in the rest of the act in section 2.

[11:30]

C. Tanner: I appreciate that, minister. But the fact of the matter is, if we needed the letters patent in section 766(1), why are we taking them out? As I understand it, in this act you're taking them out in your amendment. Why do we need them in the Municipal Act in the first place if we're taking them out now? Aren't we losing something? Because later on we refer to letters patent, and I don't see it in the act if you take it out.

Hon. D. Marzari: The definition of letters patent, which is the subject of discussion here, is basically mentioned in the act in two other places. Therefore, not incorporating it into this section -- section 2 of this act -- means that it's still within the body of the Municipal Act for other purposes; therefore we left it there.

C. Tanner: The minister appreciates that I'm not wholly in favour of this bill. I am concerned that they've taken the letters patent out, and they're going to lose something in this section of the new part 28 of the old bill.

Hon. D. Marzari: "Letters patent" is mentioned in section 766(1). It is also mentioned in another part of the Municipal Act, so it is not lost to humankind as a concept or a definition. We simply didn't incorporate it into the definitions section of this act.

Sections 2 and 3 approved.

On section 4.

G. Wilson: I have a question about the voting. Section 781 is amended by repealing subsection (1)(b), substituting "voting in accordance with subsections (2) to (16)." What is the reason for repealing that section and providing this reference on voting structure?

Hon. D. Marzari: This repealing of subsection (1)(b) and substituting "voting in accordance with subsections (2) to (16)" basically makes way for the unweighted vote to occur at the regional district level when the time comes to vote on the growth management strategy. It's a technical apparatus that basically guarantees that all members around a regional district table will be equal partners when it comes time to actually vote on a growth management scheme.

G. Wilson: I would guess that this is going to be the subject of some considerable discussion, as voting at board tables is always something that is rather jealously guarded, especially by those municipal directors who are representing large populations and where there may be directors who are representing relatively small populations. I note that in the provision of the voting, in accordance with subsections under the existing Municipal Act, section 781, it really does suggest that the majority may well be influenced substantially by the minority, with respect to growth strategies. I would guess that this may impact on location of industrial activities within particular regions. It may impact very substantially, with respect to the redistribution of municipal boundaries, through what are often very contentious issues -- which are matters of amalgamation or the creation of new areas.

I wonder if the minister might want to clarify her thinking on this particular issue. It would seem to me that the weighted vote is something -- especially when it comes to growth strategy -- that we need to be extremely careful of in light of the need to expand the industrial base into the regions rather than have it concentrated in the municipalities.

Hon. D. Marzari: Under the existing legislation, regional districts, generally speaking -- well, not generally speaking, in fact -- go to a weighted vote only on budgetary matters. In fact, all regional districts are, as they sit around the table, basically equal partners for all matters that are not related to budget -- except for the GVRD, where what you say is quite true, Mr. Member. In the GVRD, all matters are taken to a weighted vote, because there is a tremendous disparity between the populations, for example, in Vancouver and Anmore -- a small community in the eyes of the GVRD. Obviously, a number of small communities could, without paying an equivalent dollar for services, outweigh the larger municipality seated around the table -- which was found to be more than inconvenient back in the early seventies, as I remember it. Only at the GVRD is a weighted vote carried forward for all matters, or for most matters. All other regional districts, where the populations are somewhat more proportionate, have found it convenient to adopt a budgetary weighted vote. But on all other items they maintain one region, one vote; one municipality, one vote; one electoral area, one vote.

This does not change that. This section, in fact, underwrites that so that for the purposes of the managed-growth legislation, in which we have concentrated on bringing everyone to the table to make decisions about regions -- the environment and costs of growth -- each member of that region, each director at that table, will have one vote. Also, this section ensures under subsection (c), which adds a new subsection (16), that where a regional growth strategy is being prepared for an area which is not exactly the entire regional district -- that is, a subarea which is undergoing stress and high growth -- only the regional directors which represent the municipality or the electoral area in that particular subsection 

[ Page 14074 ]

of the region will be brought to the table or will represent the municipality. They will be the ones who are entitled to vote on the regional growth strategy or the subregional growth strategy.

So it's important to use this section to separate out those who will be participating in the given service -- that is, the development of the plan -- and those who won't necessarily have to be engaged inside that plan or for the financing of that plan. This section helps us do that. So it creates equal partners and it helps determine who is going to be at the table when it comes time to confirm a plan.

C. Tanner: I appreciated the minister's explanation of this particular section, and I appreciate the fact that there will be occasions when you're not going to go to the whole regional district when you've got a growth strategy plan. But there is no minimum. Is there any way that the minister has in mind, since she has, arbitrarily, control over this whole growth strategy plan anyway.... Is there any minimum that she would require before that basis would take place -- where the vote would take place? Is there any minimum part of the region that she would allow to go ahead?

Hon. D. Marzari: That question can best be answered by referring to section 942.13, which states: "Unless authorized under subsection (2) or required under section 942.14, a regional growth strategy must apply to all the regional district for which it is adopted." Then subsection (2) breaks it down into applying regional growth strategy to subregions.

Is there a minimum? I hadn't even thought in terms of a minimum. My concern is that we get as many people around these regional growth tables as we possibly can, so that in fact you have all electoral areas and all municipalities affected in a growth area sitting at the table determining, deciding and planning for the various elements and major issues that affect them. It doesn't serve our purpose or anyone's purpose to have two, three or four people seated at a table making decisions about air quality or water quality for a large region. That certainly is not the intention here. We're not talking about minimums. In fact, if anything, under this legislation, we should be looking at pulling together for decision-making every municipality and every electoral area in the given region that is being discussed.

Where you have a subregion which is obviously remote -- well, you wouldn't call a region remote if it's undergoing growth pressures, but if that were ever to be the case -- you might have a smaller number of people coming together around the table. But I don't think this act can or should draw ceilings or floors around how many people should be seated at the table for the development of a growth management plan.

C. Tanner: I appreciate that the minister and her support staff were looking for the larger picture, but I found a contradiction -- well, what I thought was a contradiction -- between this section and the section she referred to. This one specifically mentions "those who represent a municipality or electoral district, all or part of which..." -- in which case your draftspeople must have foreseen some occasion when you were going to say more than the total region.

While I appreciate the section the minister just referred to, the fact of the matter is that this section appears to condone a smaller area. The question I put to the minister is whether that is in fact the case. What assurance can she give the House and this committee that it is not the case, but that she's going for the larger area every time?

Hon. D. Marzari: There is at least one region in this province right now that is undergoing massive population growth. It is a region that had been designated back in the late sixties when regional district boundaries were developed, which in effect has massive growth in one subcomponent of it, but in the rest of the region, it largely remains status quo. That region, of course, is Comox-Strathcona. We must obviously have the whole board at the table for the discussion around growth management. At that table, we would have to talk to the total board about the possibility of working on a growth management plan with a subregion around Courtenay-Comox up to Campbell River, for example. Gold River and Zeballos might obviously not be interested in working on, participating in or helping to finance that growth management plan. What we're looking at here is the possibility of working with a subregion in a larger regional district that might want to pull together a plan for itself.

C. Tanner: I apologize to the committee for working so hard on this particular section, but I believe it poses a problem for the minister in the future. What she should be doing in the Comox regional district she just mentioned, to make it more utilitarian, is subdividing that region and making a second region out of it. Wouldn't that be more advantageous to obtaining what I think the minister wants to do in this bill?

Hon. D. Marzari: The whole region has had a history and a tradition, and it has been together for some years now. It obviously has developed debt, and it obviously has developed service contracts and agreements that would be very complicated to pull apart, and to divide the region.... The more important answer to the question, obviously, is that the region itself has not asked to be divided or rent asunder. I certainly wouldn't want to interfere with boundaries unless there was a general agreement that those boundaries were unrealistic and didn't serve the purposes of the region. The easiest thing to do here is to work with the entire region around growth management. The region itself will undoubtedly ask to have part of the region become part of a growth management strategy and leave the rest of the region out of the financing and overall planning for it. But ultimately the whole region will have to approve the strategy after the planning goes on.

C. Tanner: The minister well knows that there are two or three regions in the province which appear to have to struggle harder than some of the others, and that particular region happens to be one of them. From my knowledge, there's a continual debate going on between the rural and urban directors of the regional district. It seems to me that the simple answer being recognized in this section is that the minister well knows that, and she's allowing for that disagreement that is continuously there in some of the regional districts in the province, in which there are large rural areas and district representatives who are in constant conflict, from what I hear, with the urban ones. The Comox-Strathcona Regional District is a case in point, and surely the situation would be easily resolved if the minister, in conjunction with that regional district and those directors, could find some way of dividing it.

[ Page 14075 ]

[11:45]

Hon. D. Marzari: The basic purpose of this act is to conduct planning around those areas that are undergoing stress through massive growth right now. That is the basic purpose of this act, rather than looking into the sometimes fragile relationships that regional districts have with each other and within their own constructs. The planning here, I think, is workable. The clauses we've used to describe how planning should be done, and the flexibility that's built into this act and into this clause, have found consent, basically, around the province from regional districts and municipalities. This is workable; it brings on stream a planning function which ultimately could lead to requests down the road for boundary changes.

But that's not, certainly, the primary function of this bill; the primary function here is simply to get planning processes underway in communities where there is massive growth, population growth, traffic gridlock, air pollution or water quality deterioration. That is the main function here.

I agree with the member that there are areas.... The boundaries of regional districts are not perfect; they were set, I gather, in a hurry some decades ago and have never been considered to be perfect boundaries for regional planning purposes. Nonetheless, within the confines of the planning function to deal with growth issues, which this bill starts to outline, the local governments themselves are reasonably happy with the adaptability and flexibility these words and these clauses give us.

C. Tanner: I have two questions for the minister. First, has the minister had requests of her office from this regional district to make some division between the rural and urban area? Second, has the minister had requests from the Islands Trust to be taken out of their various regional districts and be made a regional district of their own? This section allows for a separation within a regional district, in my view.

Hon. D. Marzari: I can say that formally no such requests have been received by my office, and my staff assures me that formally these requests have not arrived. In fact, I gather there was a separation in the Fort Nelson-Liard and Peace River districts some years ago. There was a division up there some years ago, but that was a result of two parties agreeing that they were going to split up, and therefore split up their asset base, their debt and all those other financial arrangements that marriage creates. But there have been no requests formally enunciated from Comox-Strathcona -- or from the Islands Trust, for that matter. In fact, I would suggest that if we look back further into the legislation and review the Islands Trust amendments, you'll see a new, compatible and rather flexible arrangement that the Islands Trust will now have with their adjacent regional districts for servicing and planning. For the first time, we'll be able to marry and meld the function of service provision and planning, and that will be legitimized here in this legislation. The Islands Trust has been fully involved and consulted with on this new clause, which we'll come to awhile later.

Comox-Strathcona is coming to grips with its growth through a series of meetings that it has been having with ministry officials and with other ministries. I must say that people in the Comox-Strathcona subregion of Courtenay-Comox and Cumberland are not unhappy with the planning processes that are now underway, which work toward what will end up looking like a subregional growth management strategy.

G. Wilson: I just have three technical questions with respect to this. The first is under section 4(c), subsection (16)(c): "implementation agreements under section 942.3...." As I understand it, this is with respect to the voting procedure. This is one of those areas where all members have to be given equal votes. I raise section 942.3, because that section includes, later on in the bill.... I'll just read from 942.3(3): "In addition to agreements with the Provincial government and its agencies, agreements under subsection (1) may be made with the federal government and its agencies, other local governments...first nations, school districts," and so on.

It's with respect to the first nations agreements that I'm particularly concerned. There are a number of areas.... I'm thinking of Kelowna, Westbank and obviously Sechelt, with the Sechelt Indian government district. There are a whole series of areas where there is a rather urgent need right now for some integrated land use planning to be put in place. I'm curious to know, with respect to the growth management strategies that are now going to be required of regional districts and municipalities, if those strategies are going to be required also of those first nations groups that would have to be affected by whatever decisions are taken. If so, how is that implemented here? If not, with respect to the voting procedures under section 4 at the board level, what protection is there to prohibit one particular region from adopting or taking a growth management policy that is going to encourage densities of development, greater use of water, greater use of sewers, and expanded highways, all of which is then going to be a burden on the neighbouring communities?

Hon. D. Marzari: This provision in the new subsection (16) basically allows the whole board to vote on certain issues, obviously. The whole board should be involved in the initiation of the regional growth strategy. So you have some separation of powers there. It's very important that the whole regional board be engaged in the initial decision and start to deal with the boundaries of any subarea that might break off or decide that it wants its own plan. When implementation agreements are taken on that are going to have to be paid for by the whole region, it's very important that the whole board engage in that discussion and in that vote. So this provides for that.

As for the first nations consultation, there is no way that this legislation begins to challenge or work against the constitutional requirement that we have to not interfere with land use decisions or servicing decisions that are engaged in by first nations. It's quite apparent that what we have to do in this legislation is enable and facilitate local governments and first nations to come together, where necessary -- where they don't do it already -- to make agreements and to develop implementation agreements around services, or whatever, that will enable both to create a better quality of life in the region. So the language that this bill would use around first nations would be: notify, consult, work with, invite, sit at the table with, make agreements with or facilitate agreements with, rather than impose provincial goals, standards or policy statements.

[ Page 14076 ]

G. Wilson: I think that this issue is of critical importance to some communities -- and I'm thinking of Kelowna, for one, in terms of the Westbank development. I mean, the proposal there is for enormous densities.

As I understand this, the way it reads -- and maybe the minister can correct me if this is not correct -- essentially, once the area or the boundaries are drawn in which this growth management strategy is going to be determined, those boundaries may very well include first nations. As a result, the activity that goes on within the first nations territory is going to dramatically impact on what the growth management strategy is going to be. For example, if -- as in the case of Westbank -- they're promoting massive, high-density developments that require water, sewers, roads and all those kinds of things, they have to be supplied from the region as a whole. Yet nothing in here brings them forward to be bound into this growth management strategy.

We were hoping this would not be included. What we were hoping for, and I guess what I'm cautious about, is whether under this voting procedure -- in an electoral area, for example, that has a designated or specified area for, say, water or sewer, or where there's a specified water district -- if arrangements can be cut or made with first nations people, it impacts on the region as a whole but isn't voted on by the whole. That's what I'm asking.

Hon. D. Marzari: I understand the member's question. Obviously the whole region would have to vote on implementation agreements. That's what this section basically states. It outlines those four areas where the whole region will absolutely have to sit down and vote to initiate and to finally ratify a growth management strategy where there is another region involved -- for example, around first nations and around boundaries, if the boundaries are to be drawn. A subregional strategy boundary could cover a first nation, but it couldn't bind a first nation in an agreement.

In other words, a subregion is a subregion for planning purposes, not for financing, borrowing, implementation or contractual purposes. So the subregion ultimately ends up going back to the whole regional district with the plan, the contract or the implementation agreement with the provincial or federal government or with a first nation. That's simply the way it should play itself out here.

G. Wilson: Noting the hour, I move we rise, report some progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

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

Committee of Supply A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. D. Marzari moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:58 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

The House in Committee of Supply A; G. Brewin in the chair.

The committee met at 10:09 a.m.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HOUSING, RECREATION AND CONSUMER SERVICES
(continued)

On vote 44: minister's office, $360,624 (continued).

V. Anderson: I would like to say to the minister that I appreciated her comments. Although I wasn't here for her opening statement, I read it in Hansard.

I also appreciated getting a copy of her business plan for 1995-96. It's like all business plans: they look exciting, interesting and positive, and the results of it are yet to be seen. But I congratulate her on the presentation of the business plan.

Since we are in estimates and although it seems to be a strange thing in this House to actually look at the financial figures, I would like to start today by looking at them. I come out of a background in community organizations, and when we looked at the budget each year, we asked what the budget meant and received an explanation of the figures that were before us. I would like to start there today.

One thing of interest -- if I understand this properly -- is that the number for administration costs has gone down, in which case we commend the ministry. In the area of salaries and administrative costs, there is a decrease, but if my figures are correct, there is an increase of some 55 staff people. I wonder if there might be some explanation as to why there is a decrease in administration and salary costs, yet an increase in the number of employees.

Hon. J. Smallwood: First, I want to take exception to the member's comment. While accepting his compliments with regard to the business plan, I think there is a fairly significant record of successes in the past year, which is an indication that not only have we come a long way as a new ministry in developing the business plan, but we have things to show for it.

Second, with regard to the question of the overall administrative costs and the increase in FTEs, let me bring to the member's attention and recollection that in the past year a significant enhancement was brought about by legislative change: access issues within the residential tenancy branch, the opening of new offices and the acquiring of new assets -- furniture, etc. Those costs are not in this year's budget. They were covered by last year's, and that's the difference, in rough terms, as to why the overall administrative costs are down and the FTEs are up.

V. Anderson: Could you give some indication where the FTEs are spread out? Are they spread out in different parts of the ministry? I understand there are 260, basically. How are 

[ Page 14077 ]

they divided in the different programs? This would give some kind of indication of where the emphasis of the ministry is in programming.

Hon. J. Smallwood: The member is well aware that the ministry's FTEs -- and we gave the actual numbers in the introduction to the estimates -- are broken down into two categories: FTEs that are in government and FTEs that are in B.C. Housing. B.C. Housing FTEs are not counted in the government's total. Let me run through the total for the ministry for '95-96. I'll hit the highlights, and I'll also round them off -- I myself can't figure out where 0.82 is. So there's administration and support services, approximately 54; housing and coordination of cooperatives, 25; recreation, eight; and consumer services, 168. As I'm sure the member is aware, consumer services includes the RTB.

V. Anderson: Yes, I know these point people. In education, they are hiring 0.4 of a teacher and 0.3 of a teacher and 0.8 of a teacher. It always confuses me how you can hire a point of a person. I realize those are time allocations rather than person allocations in that regard.

[10:15]

One of the areas I want to inquire about is that if you look under STOB 25, there's $821,000 for information systems. Then you move over to STOB 68, which is also information in a different category -- it's hard to tell what the difference is -- and there's $292,000 there, so there's over $1 million in information systems listed in those two areas. I'm wondering if we could have a breakdown as to what the areas are, why there's $821,000 in one and over $1 million in those two STOBs, 25 and 68.

Hon. J. Smallwood: While staff are looking for the proper response to your question, let me provide some information on commitments I made to previous members. So let me add that to the record.

First of all, there was a question regarding Homes B.C. in Chilliwack. We've looked at the proposal call for 1994-95, and there were no submissions received. That's for the member for Chilliwack.

Second, on questions regarding polls, there were three polls done. The first one was on regulations and law governing rent increases, done by Angus Reid, $7,000; secondary suites were studied by Marktrend, $6,000; and the innovative home-ownership program was studied by Clayton Research Associates, which was $20,998. There were no polls done by other agencies for this ministry. For the record, the secondary suites poll, while initiated in April 1994, was not completed until May 1994.

With regard to the member's question, STOB 25 is telephones, faxes and BCSC charges, and STOB 68 is development of systems programming and hardware.

V. Anderson: Moving from administration support services to allowing the housing coordination and cooperatives, particularly picking up STOB 80 and STOB 82, 80 is for grants and 82 is for contributions. Could we deal first with 80 and get a breakdown -- not in every detail but across the board -- on the almost $21 million in grants, the kinds of grants and the organizations that have received these grants -- or are expected to receive them in the coming year?

Hon. J. Smallwood: Those are SAFER grants.

V. Anderson: You're saying that the $20 million is for SAFER grants. Can you give us a little more detail as to how many SAFER grants have gone out? Is there an average amount for these SAFER grants, and what is the total of the SAFER grants? I understand these rent grants are going directly to senior citizens as individuals.

Hon. J. Smallwood: The total number of grants between March 1994 and March 1995 was 12,469; the previous year the total was 11,824. You can see that there has been an increase. The majority of the grants goes to singles: 11,249 in March 1995; couples, 853; and sharers, 367. The average total is $140.23 on a monthly basis.

V. Anderson: It indicates a number of things. One is the financial situation that people find themselves in. It also indicates the number of singles in that adult grouping and their particular needs. The minister has indicated that it has grown by about 600 or 700 from one year to the next. I gather the assumption is that it will also grow in this coming year. That's a process that will continue to grow over a number of years as our population gets older, particularly as finances within the community seem to be tightening up. Would the minister have any comment on what she sees as a projection for that particular group and their needs? While she's talking about the SAFER grants, perhaps she'd like to talk about the provision of housing for seniors in need.

Hon. J. Smallwood: The SAFER program is a statutory program. We provide support for each and every senior who makes an application. While we all understand there is a significant housing need for seniors, in particular for older women, there is also a recognition.... I think we should see it as a bit of a success story. In the last number of years, different levels of government and the community have come together to recognize the need and the poverty level of the senior population, and they have put in place a number of programs that help mitigate the stress on seniors living in poverty.

Having said that, in developing housing policy, particularly the supply side, and in recognition of the loss of our two-thirds federal funding partner, our ministry has very consciously prioritized families with children. It's simply a matter of recognizing that the need is much greater there. This is not to suggest for a moment that there are not issues remaining for seniors, but seniors' issues with regard to housing have traditionally held a priority position. Therefore as a group, seniors are in a slightly better situation than families. Last year, with the non-profit housing program, we supplied 196 units for seniors housing, which represents approximately 21 percent of all allocations.

V. Anderson: To follow up on seniors' housing for a few minutes, I realize that the minister is taking into account the needs of children and families with children, and that she appreciates the significance of that. One of the realities that I'm aware of in other parts of the country has to do with small 

[ Page 14078 ]

complexes for seniors, where they live in a kind of condominium in small towns throughout the province. Seniors don't have to move away from their home community, but are able to live in their own community.

What is being done within your housing thrust to enable seniors, particularly in small communities where there may not be highrises.... In many small communities, there won't be any highrises, which is where we think many seniors go in the urban areas. But what about provisions for seniors' housing in smaller communities?

Hon. J. Smallwood: Let me provide some additional information. First, besides the supply side and the priorities that we have made, and at the same time continuing to support seniors housing....

I think we need to put very clearly on the record that seniors, unlike other groups within society, have a commitment on the supply side to reducing their cost of housing, as well as the SAFER program. The SAFER program supports about 27,000 units of seniors' housing in the province. These are subsidies provided to the marketplace for seniors living in private housing.

Going back to the issue of demographics, about 73 percent of seniors own their own homes. It's an indication, again, of decisions that were made collectively as a society and reflected in government's decisions over the last number of years. Those decisions put seniors in a far better position than the one they found themselves in in the past.

On the issue of small communities, I'll give you some examples of the developments that I referenced through Homes B.C.: in Nanaimo, 25 units -- the Woodgrove Senior Citizens' Housing Society; in Princeton, 18 units -- Princeton and District Community Services; and in Enderby, ten units -- the Armstrong, Enderby and Spallumcheen Community Health Society. I think it's particularly important to note that the developments for seniors have been outside the lower mainland. While we have supported some mixed housing in the more densely populated area, we have tried, to the best of our ability, where there is demonstrated need in some of these communities, to provide support to allow seniors to stay in their home communities. That support has been extended to them.

V. Anderson: I appreciate the response. I understand from the illustrations you've given that most of the provision -- still talking about seniors at this point -- has been in cooperation with non-profit agencies and local communities, whereby you have been assisting an organization with capital funding or with operating maintenance of facilities that they've undertaken responsibility for. They have ownership, and the government is simply assisting and cooperating with them to a certain degree in developing their programs. Is that a correct assumption?

Hon. J. Smallwood: The Homes B.C. program.... I'm a little perplexed by the member's comment. The province doesn't deal with housing. All of our Homes B.C. developments are in partnership with and in support of non-profit and community organizations.

V. Anderson: Part of the reason for asking some of these questions is to clarify it for many people in the community who may not read all the government literature that periodically comes across their desks.

Hon. J. Smallwood: But they read Hansard.

V. Anderson: You might be surprised how many read Hansard or refer to it when they want an answer to their question.

I will move over to STOB 82, contributions, which is three times as large -- $61 million -- and ask for an explanation of how this $61 million is broken down in categories and in the nature of the grants.

[10:30]

Hon. J. Smallwood: This is the grant that flows to B.C. Housing and is broken down as: provincial programs, $14 million; property acquisition, $5 million; federal-provincial program commitments, $39.96 million.

V. Anderson: I wonder if I might ask the minister to repeat those. I wasn't able to copy them down quite as fast as she presented them. I indicated earlier that this would be the kind of thing we would be asking, but we hoped that we would have had those ahead of time. It would have saved us a little time. Perhaps the minister wouldn't mind repeating, because I couldn't copy them down as she read them.

Hon. J. Smallwood: The provincial programs, $14 million; property acquisition, $5 million; federal-provincial program commitments, $39.96 million.

V. Anderson: Perhaps the minister would be kind enough to elaborate on each of those. When you say, provincial programs, $14 million, what is being covered by provincial programs? Who is it going to and who is expending that money? The minister has indicated that they were not in the building program. What is the asset under the $5 million? What's the nature of the federal-provincial $39 million? Could she elaborate on each of those?

Hon. J. Smallwood: Let me start with the last. The federal-provincial programs are the ongoing costs for administration and subsidies for the existing 26,000 federal-provincial units. Property acquisition is pretty straightforward. The way that the housing programs work -- the Homes B.C. developments -- has been that, to the best of our ability, we have tried to front-end some of the costs, whether they are property acquisition or other costs, in order to reduce the ongoing subsidy. The provincial program is the Homes B.C. program since the loss of the federal housing contribution.

V. Anderson: First, while we're discussing the federal-provincial, then, is that a program which will stay the same in perpetuity? What is the arrangement on those 26,000 units? Is there a time factor in that particular program? Does it decrease or increase at a certain rate? Is the federal part of that still ongoing, and if so, to what extent? At what point will that run out? Dealing with that program first, what is the nature of that federal-provincial program? Is there ongoing discussion now with the federal government for future possibilities of cooperation in housing?

[ Page 14079 ]

Hon. J. Smallwood: The federal-provincial programs are contractual arrangements between the federal and provincial governments for existing developments. The mortgages on those properties for those developments range from 35 to 50 years. So there's significant life, and they vary. So those agreements are sealed; those commitments will continue.

As for the question with regard to ongoing discussions for future involvement in housing, let me again state how very disappointed our government is with what I believe is a reneging by the federal Liberals with regard to their commitment to social housing. As the member is well aware, as of January 1994 there was no new social housing development anywhere in Canada. While we continue our leadership and are providing real hope to communities in this province, the federal government continues the strategy and direction that was set out by the previous Tory government. I think that's regrettable.

I would say that it is indeed worse than their lack of commitment to social housing. In my initial meeting with the minister of housing, I indicated to him that if he could not acquire commitments for social housing in his budget, he might consider using the people's assets in a more creative way -- an example being veterans' housing or other housing developments on CMHC land. Using that land to partner with the community, he could write down the cost of housing, given the example of our housing strategy in this province in using the assets and strengths of stakeholders to continue to be a player in providing that support. Not only did the federal ministry not choose to do that sort of asset inventory and use our common assets to show some federal leadership, they have instead divested themselves of land and housing. The CMHC is taking on the role of a wrecking crew rather than providing the support that people need at a time when it is increasingly difficult to support a family.

V. Anderson: I appreciate the minister's comments. I gather from her that there has been only one meeting between the minister and others, and I was curious to know if there are regular ongoing meetings. Have there been meetings where the ministers of housing from the provinces got together to try to develop common policies for lobbying the federal government from the joint provincial positions?

Hon. J. Smallwood: I believe I've met with the minister on at least two occasions; another meeting is set up for July. Keeping in mind that the federal-provincial CMHC partnership was to oversee the development of non-profit housing, I think many of us have been a little puzzled at what will be on our agenda, come the July meeting, since the federal government has completely reneged on its responsibility.

I have corresponded with the minister on several different occasions with regard to specific issues. I have continued to lobby the federal government to see the wisdom of investing in this sector not only to provide housing for those most in need, but to recognize that the development of housing is a significant economic lever for many communities by investing in communities and in decent, well-paying jobs.

I've pointed out to the minister and to the federal government that in the past, federal governments with a commitment to job creation have used CMHC and the development of housing as a very positive, broad contribution to both the economic and the social well-being in Canada.

V. Anderson: I appreciate your response. I presume the minister will be taking certain things to this meeting in July and not just waiting to see what the federal government is putting forward.

There are other parts to that question. Is any discussion going on among provincial ministers on some common issues? Do the provincial ministers have common issues they might be taking collectively to the federal government? Is there division among the provinces and no agreement on what they might be taking up with regard to housing concerns?

Hon. J. Smallwood: Again, let me state that in providing leadership in this province, we've demonstrated the positive nature of a government's involvement. The way we approached the development of a housing strategy here in British Columbia was to identify the strengths and contributions of each of the partners, in communities at the local government level and at the provincial level. I will continue to take that model to Ottawa in order to demonstrate that even when a government is facing tight financial constraints, there is an ability to make legislative changes, as we have demonstrated, and provide a write-down, as well as the use of common assets.

I want to emphasize that when people talk about the taxpayer, often the other side of the equation isn't stressed enough. The taxpayer owns assets, and they are our common assets. When you talk about government waste, I would argue that the use of those common assets for society's common good is the waste. As we have seen in this province, when an asset is disposed of at fire sales for private gain, that is a waste of a common asset. Those who are least likely to participate in that fire sale will pay the highest cost. So we will go to Ottawa and we will emphasize, once again, that Ottawa holds our common assets.

[10:45]

As for the example of the veterans' lands, the sale of lands in New Westminster, a number of key parcels of land could be used and held as a common asset. They would continue to be owned by the Crown, but would be used to underwrite the cost of housing, making it more affordable and subsidizing those least able to participate in the marketplace.

V. Anderson: I appreciate the comments. I think it makes very good sense to reserve some of our common lands, as you indicate, so that we might use them collectively for the well-being of others.

The other part of that question, though, which you still haven't commented on, is: is there discussion between the various ministers of housing across the country about common approaches to the government? Or are the provincial ministers unwilling or unable to talk with each other about approaching the federal government?

Hon. J. Smallwood: The provincial ministers have had the opportunity to discuss the issues. I want to stress that we find ourselves in a very difficult position here in this province. We have the hottest housing market and the highest housing costs, and those are not reflected across Canada. So province to province, different ministers face different realities.

[ Page 14080 ]

Let me give the member an example to make the point. During the last federal-provincial meeting, the federal government was trying to encourage provinces to raise the floor for rent subsidy from 25 percent of the total income to 30 percent. In this province that decision was made back in 1986, and for our subsidized housing we subsidize over 30 percent of the total income. So their initiative was not relevant to our marketplace. To put a fine point on it, in the prairie provinces -- Saskatchewan in particular -- they were on the opposite side of the continuum. I don't believe they had the 25 percent, because if people had to pay 25 percent of their income for housing, they would not live in government-subsidized housing. The majority of the housing available to them is at far less than 25 percent of their income. While there are some common issues -- there is both an agreement that there needs to be a national housing strategy which reflects the federal-provincial partnership and an understanding that there is a role for government -- there is also an acknowledgment that that strategy must be flexible and recognize the diverse nature of our country.

V. Anderson: Thank you to the minister for those comments.

I would like to take a few moments on the $5 million for property acquisition, which is probably not that much when you look at acquiring property. Could you give a little more information as to how that is used and how many pieces of property that would work out to? Could you give some idea of the nature of it, not only for what has been accomplished but for other people who might be wondering how they can take advantage of this particular part of the budget?

Hon. J. Smallwood: Let's go back to the program and talk a little about the flexibility there. While we've encouraged the partnering of community groups with the province and municipalities to underwrite the costs, we have invited that partnership by recognizing a number of different ways that a community group or municipality can contribute. There are municipalities that underwrite the cost of land and make land available to non-profit organizations for housing. As the member is well aware, there are churches that provide land at reduced price or for $1. There are a number of examples there.

Depending on a case-specific example where there is a need to acquire land and then hold it under PRHC or underwrite the cost of that land to bring it in line with MUPs, the province will do that. So there is not an example that I can point to, but there is that flexibility in the program in working with community groups to meet housing affordability.

V. Anderson: Perhaps it's an opportunity now to ask, when we're talking about land-specific.... I know the minister has worked to try and encourage municipalities to be more involved in partnering. I was able to attend a conference in this regard with municipalities. Could you report on what kind of response you're getting from municipalities? Are more of them not only willing to provide land but also willing to provide the rezoning that might be necessary in order that land could be more available for the kind of housing that you have a concern for in the province?

Hon. J. Smallwood: I think it's fair to say that over the last year, what we're experiencing in this province is a quiet revolution. What we have seen at the municipal level is a rather significant change. From personal experience, let me describe the debate in communities. Some ten years ago I first became involved -- oh my goodness, it's quite a bit longer than that -- with the development of local area planning committees in my community. At that point in time, the debate at the municipal level was primarily around development, roads and sewers. There was a very strong insistence from local councils that there was no role for politics at the municipal level and that so-called social planning did not have a place.

The quiet revolution I talk about is the change with regard to that debate: the recognition at the municipal level and throughout communities -- and it changes from community to community -- that we're not planning simply for houses, roads and sewers, but we're planning for people, neighbourhoods and homes for families. That is a very, very significant change, and some councils are embracing that change and showing real progress. The council that comes to mind is the Burnaby council, just as one example of the leadership provided. There are very creative things happening around the province. Other councils are resisting the debate and resisting any change from a pro-developer position.

Having said that, with regard to legislative changes -- the facilitating of lease land at the municipal level and some of the other significant changes in the development of community plans and in bonus density -- the takeup is reflected by the eagerness of a number of different communities to embrace this new challenge. It's a little early to tell. Much of the work that the ministry has been doing in the past year has involved developing model bylaws and facilitating the work at the municipal level by providing some support -- not direction, but support -- for those councils that are eager to support real community development at the local level.

V. Anderson: I would commend the minister for the work she's done in this regard. I know it's been well received. Last week in Vernon I was interested to sit in at the municipal meeting of Oyama where they were discussing social planning, and to hear the discussion and see, as she's indicated, a new attempt to look at what this means. Initially, I think there was a fear that everything was going to be downsized without any resources or planning to be able to do that, but people are picking up the responsibility and working well in that regard. I would like to commend the minister for her help, and I know that she's been well received in those areas.

I'd like to move on to the provincial programs -- the $14 million, which is, of course, the larger sum -- and have the minister explain the main assets or the main parts of that $14 million program so that we might understand it in its smaller pieces, just as in its wholeness.

Hon. J. Smallwood: The breakdown for the $14 million is: B.C. rental supply and matching startup represents the majority at $10.846 million; directly managed is $2.968 million; non-profit program, special needs, homeless initiative.... The difficulty is matching apples and oranges. I want to make certain that we're giving you the right numbers here.

[11:00]

Let me do the directly managed B.C. rental supply: community housing initiatives, $166,000; living program, Ministry of Health, $438,000 -- for a total of $14 million.

[ Page 14081 ]

The difficulty I'm having is that some of these programs are programs of other ministries, so the money simply flows through our budget.

V. Anderson: So the largest is the residential supply and setup of $10.846 million. Could you explain a little bit about the nature of that part of the program?

Hon. J. Smallwood: This was the previous government's program. It provided ongoing subsidies to the private rental market. The best example -- the highest-profile example -- was the VLC. The largest part of that program was to underwrite the mortgage interest rates.

V. Anderson: You mentioned that this was a carryover from the previous government. Has it changed since you've taken it over? Is it the same process as it was before? Are there no changes, differences or significant new directions that are becoming part of it?

Hon. J. Smallwood: The program is no longer active. These are ongoing legal and contractual commitments made by previous governments.

V. Anderson: So I understand that that's like the federal commitment. They were already there, so you're continuing them. I gather that will be over a period of time, as well, until those contracts run out. Would your ministry consider reinstituting or continuing that kind of program? What do you feel it should be to do the same thing that that program was trying to do? In other words, what's the evaluation of it and where does it go from here?

Hon. J. Smallwood: This particular program was not effective in presenting affordable housing. The decision was made to discontinue that particular program; instead, we have embarked on a strategy of developing a housing policy. It is reflected in a number of different initiatives over the past year, including Homes B.C.

V. Anderson: I'll bow to the member of the third party, if he'd like to get in for a few minutes, and then we'll continue.

L. Hanson: I have a few questions. They're not on this subject, but on the subject of residential tenancy. When we were discussing the bill last year, I think the minister mentioned that she was considering an appeal process, other than judicial review, for the arbitrators' decisions. Has there been any progress or have you given that any further consideration?

Hon. J. Smallwood: The appeal of arbitrators' decisions is expected to be up and running by September 1. But as the member is well aware, the changes in Bill 50 helped set up that process by providing a requirement for written decisions, which will aid both parties in understanding the basis of the decision and will provide support to the ministry in policy development. It will also, perhaps, provide the argument for the appeal by demonstrating any errors in the decision that would be based in legislative or regulatory direction.

L. Hanson: Maybe it's because the program is a little new and hasn't settled in yet, but my experience has been that there is some difficulty getting written reasons for the decision. There is no trouble getting a written decision, but the reasoning behind it has appeared to be a little difficult.... In some cases where judicial review is sought, it's almost impossible to go in that direction without not only the decision in writing, but the reasons behind the decision in writing. Has that been a difficulty or is my experience unique?

Hon. J. Smallwood: The proclamation of a number of the sections of Bill 50 is only a matter of months old, the requirement for written reasons is dated June 1. So while individuals can request and always have been able to request a written decision, every decision will have to be presented in that way as of June 1.

We have been in a process of conducting workshops with arbitrators, helping support them in developing that skill or defining expectations for them with regard to what their written decisions must look like. It is a little early yet to be able to actually see progress with the June 1 date. I gather there are still some ongoing training and skills meetings to be held with the arbitrators between now and then.

L. Hanson: Regarding the process the minister mentioned that she hoped she would have up and running this fall, has she some indication of what format that might be in? What can be expected? Can those people who may have some argument with a decision being made right now take that to the appeal process, or will it become effectively staledated so you can't go through that process?

Hon. J. Smallwood: The work that is underway right now is under the leadership of Lynn Joli. She is in the process of getting the system up and running. It's a little early to talk about what it's going to look like, but there will be a chair and two panel members. It is our intent with this process, as well as every other process in the development of these changes, that the decisions are expedited. The review process for arbitrators' decisions is simply another step to provide support for landlords and tenants over and above the courts. They will still have the court avenue open to them, but this review process will help expedite the decision-making and be far less expensive to either of the bodies in resolving their issues.

L. Hanson: I have one final question. I don't think any of us want to complicate the process any more than we have to. As much as I love lawyers, I don't think we want a courtroom-style process where we have lawyers and all of those other things. By the same token, I think it is probably appropriate to make it as simple as possible, and I hope the appeal system will do that. But what I'm hearing from you is that people who are appealing the decision of an arbitrator are really effectively denied that because of the necessity of lawyers and so on to ask for a judicial review. I think it is very important that the appeal process be put in place as quickly as possible, even though it may not replace the final review through the judicial process. Quite frankly -- of course, there are always two sides to any story -- some of the decisions people tell me about, if they're factual, are almost bizarre. I think there has to be a process in place as quickly as possible to give some comfort to those people that someone has looked at the decision and said it was fair and reasonable.

[ Page 14082 ]

The only other question I have for the minister is: do you have an ongoing monitoring process for the arbitrators' performance?

Hon. J. Smallwood: I want to emphasize that arbitrators are independent, as the member knows. Neither the ministry nor government interferes with the decisions arbitrators make. As the member is aware, in the process of looking at this system and developing stronger lines of accountability, changes to Bill 50 require written decisions and reasons for the first time.

These will provide an assessment and a broader understanding for government and policy-makers as to consistency, and will measure more directly the adherence to rules and procedures. The development currently underway with regard to support for arbitrators in providing the written decisions as of June 1, also reflects issues of commonality with regard to rules and procedures.

We're doing a fair amount on that front. We believe that for every one of those concerns a member may hear, we need to recognize that we often hear only when there are problems. Very seldom does the majority, 99 percent, of good cases or good stories that are dealt with in support of taxpayers -- and I'm sure the member would agree, having been responsible for a ministry -- make the front pages of the papers. The few that go sideways or are unresolved get the profile.

It's important to recognize there are approximately 19,000 arbitrations a year in this province. The majority of the cases we hear about are resolved and supported.

L. Hanson: I said that was the final question, but I have a question -- or a comment.

I heard the minister say the review process of performance won't start until you have the opportunity to look at the written decisions. By the same token, I guess confidence in the process is what I see as a concern. I certainly wouldn't disagree with the minister; 19,000 a month would certainly be a growth industry, but 19,000 a year is understandable. The perception of people who don't like a decision and come to us as MLAs to complain is understandable.

[11:15]

We all know that if you don't like the answer you get, maybe you can go through another process. To this point, without an appeal process and probably without the written reviews being done with the reasons behind them, the process is being questioned in some peoples' minds. Quite honestly, it's not a one-sided concern. I have -- well, maybe not quite as many -- people who are the tenants concerned about the process, as well as landlords. I hear the bell, so I won't even ask for an answer to that; it's just a comment.

The committee recessed from 11:15 a.m. to 11:25 a.m.

[G. Brewin in the chair.]

W. Hurd: I just want to ask the minister a brief series of questions about rental housing in the province. I wonder if the minister could tell us, to the best of her knowledge, how many rental units were constructed by the private sector in the last fiscal year? How much of an increase can we expect in the next fiscal year in the province?

Hon. J. Smallwood: While we're looking for the actual numbers, perhaps I can short-circuit, or presume to know where the member is going with his question.

An Hon. Member: I'm glad somebody does.

Hon. J. Smallwood: Perhaps I'm giving the member too much credit.

Interjection.

The Chair: Order, please.

Hon. J. Smallwood: Let me talk about the marketplace generally and some of the work that has been done over the last little while in looking at the trends in the marketplace with regard to private sector rental development. In particular, our focus and my concern was with regard to some of the things that we were hearing from the rental market with regard to the impact of the changes in Bill 50.

The work that we commissioned actually looked at the development over a number of decades in the province, starting back with the increase in rental stock. During the time of the rentalsman's office in this province, interestingly enough, we saw the greatest increases and the largest development during that time period. It was shortly after the abolition of the rentalsman's office that the federal government closed some loopholes in personal income tax that actually discouraged development of rental stock. Those loopholes provided opportunities -- in particular, for lawyers and doctors and suchlike -- to invest in rental stock and then write off the cost of that rental stock against profitable businesses. When those personal income tax loopholes were closed, we saw a significant decrease and a pulling out of investment in rental stock. At the same time the federal government, seeing this happen, encouraged a number of projects through the MURB initiatives. The analysis since that time of investment in rental stock, I think is best.... The investment is best impacted by the rising cost of land and the rising interest rates.

What we have seen with the CMHC statistics over the last four years has been fairly constant. We have seen roughly 2,000 rental units completed. In 1990, rental over completed dwellings was about 7 percent; in 1991, 10 percent, in 1992; 7 percent; and 6 percent in 1993 and 1994 respectively.

W. Hurd: Given the fact that the minister has acknowledged that the growth of new rental housing stock in the private sector has been stagnant, particularly in high-growth areas like the lower mainland, and recognizing the integral role that private sector rental housing could play in providing housing for people who can't come up with the astronomical down payments that are required in the Greater Vancouver region, can the minister take a moment to explain what exactly we can anticipate in this set of estimates with respect to stimulating that sector of the housing market? Can she offer the committee any specifics that would invite any confidence that the minister is working with the Rental Housing Council of B.C. and other organizations to improve the climate for private sector rental housing developments in order to at least give us the assurance that there is going to be an increase in the number of those units during the coming fiscal year?

[11:30]

[ Page 14083 ]

Hon. J. Smallwood: I think I can complete or flesh out the picture a little more for the member. When you look at the increase in the rental supply, I think it is fair to say that the new developments don't tell the full picture.

What we have seen in the last number of years is that the increase in rental supply in the province has been made up by the condominium market and secondary suites. To make the point on either end of that continuum, first of all, it's well acknowledged that the condominium market is significantly overdeveloped. A number of the condominiums that provide for the increase in the rental stock, because of the cost of land and development, are renting below market, so our legislative changes have reflected that and are sensitive to that market reality. On the other end of the continuum, a significant amount of the supply is provided by secondary suites -- not by large developers or large rental supply owners but instead by single families or individuals providing a suite in their home. The work the ministry has been engaged in in the last year, which is part of next year's work plan, is to work with municipalities, homeowners, the real estate industry and renters in trying to provide support and stability for that secondary suite market.

W. Hurd: I'm not hearing, in the minister's answer, a lot of support for the idea of new rental housing being constructed in the province. That is troubling, because new buildings clearly provide a long-term solution, in terms of how the buildings are capitalized and the fact that they offer new housing stock as opposed to housing stock that currently exists. I know the Rental Housing Council of B.C. is concerned about the impact of Bill 50 and the fact that there were commitments which appeared to be made by the ministry with respect to the matter of mortgage interests and rental properties. They were under the impression these would be addressed by the ministry, but they are not satisfied they have been.

I just wonder whether the minister, in working with municipalities, has given any consideration to talking with the Minister of Municipal Affairs about the land assessment for rental buildings. Given the costs of land that the minister alluded to, does there need to be consideration given to amending the land Assessment Act in order to promote at least some tax relief from the high cost of land.

I would certainly welcome concrete proposals from the minister with respect to exactly what the ministry intends to do in order to promote, with groups like the Rental Housing Council of B.C., a strategy to build more rental units, particularly in greater Vancouver, where, as the minister has alluded, there are thousands of new condominium projects going up every year. They are all, of course, sold as self-owned condominiums. Many of those condos are not selling at the moment, and I'm sure that some developers might be willing to give active consideration to converting them to rental buildings, but there is absolutely no incentive at the present time to do so.

My first question is whether the minister is going to actively work with the Minister of Municipal Affairs to take a look at the Assessment Act with respect to rental properties. My second question is whether she is going to take a second look at Bill 50 with respect to the matter of mortgage interest on rental properties. With the high cost of land and construction, this is a huge disincentive for private developers to get into rental housing -- especially when there is nothing in the system of allowable rents to reflect the cost of interest rates, which the minister knows have gone up in recent months, and the cost of land, which has escalated as well.

Hon. J. Smallwood: First, with regard to the experience of government in helping to stimulate or support the development in rental supply, a particularly interesting case study was the previous government's initiative, called the rental supply program. Developers on that front were provided with free land, and they had their interest rates written down. Looking at that example, those developments did not provide for significantly reduced rental costs. The average rent in those developments was still running at $900 plus.

I always find this debate very interesting, because those free-enterprisers who make their money and benefit from a free market are often the first to line up for free land and subsidies in writing down interest rates. I'm really perplexed, then, once those taxpayers' benefits are provided to those entrepreneurs, that somehow they have not been able to bring their business acumen to task and deliver the goods.

The involvement in our ministry with the private sector and the development industry is ongoing. We have supported them with the Canadian Home Builders' Association in bringing issues around DCCs, development cost charges, to the attention of a number of municipalities. We encouraged municipalities to connect development cost charges to the size of the development -- as opposed to the way it is being done now -- in an attempt to reduce the cost for low and affordable housing. We also encouraged municipalities to take another look at the issue of gold-plating standards in the building code. These are other issues that increase the cost for affordable housing.

With respect to the member's comment with regard to Bill 50, there are two aspects I want to bring to the member's attention. First of all, the formula reflects market conditions, including interest rates. We have worked with landlords and tenants in developing a formula that is truly reflective of what is going on in the marketplace. It's through the interest in stabilizing and supporting that particular market sector that true business costs are able to be reflected and flow. Secondly, in the rent protection aspect, rent protection is tied to tenancy and not to the unit. This again provides for an additional opportunity for the landlord to change the rent to meet the marketplace when the unit becomes available to them.

Finally, I simply want to make the comment that while the member purports to talk for and on behalf of the Rental Housing Council of B.C., I want to bring to the member's attention that the Rental Housing Council of B.C. represents both the property owners and property managers. They are not the developers and have at no time that I'm aware of brought the issue of increasing the supply on the development side to our attention. That particular perspective is brought to our attention by the actual builders and developers, and we're working very actively with them on their issues.

W. Hurd: I appreciate the minister's clarification of the role of the Rental Housing Council of B.C., because I'm certain the minister is aware of a letter that was sent to her ministry on February 17, 1995, which paints a rather bleak picture of the level of consultation that might have occurred between the ministry and that sector of the rental housing market. I'm sure the minister has had an opportunity to review the letter. Clearly it indicates: "...no intention of considerations of any 

[ Page 14084 ]

proposals made to your department by the rental industry. It seems that your legislation was solely guided by Quebec-style legislation and input you may have received from the tenants' rights coalition."

I know the minister has had a chance to review the letter and the implications therein. I wonder if she can explain to the committee -- having had a chance to review the concerns of the Rental Housing Council of B.C. and the manner in which the ministry consulted with that body -- whether there have been any steps taken between February and now to try and improve the situation. These British Columbians feels that they were not adequately consulted before Bill 50 was introduced. They're predicting that it will have a dramatic and negative impact on the construction of new rental housing in the province.

I think it's important to revisit my original question. Where are we heading with private sector rental accommodation in British Columbia? How many more units do we expect in the coming year? Are we going to be up, down or even? Clearly the prediction of the Rental Housing Council of B.C. is that we're going to be down. I wonder, first of all, whether the minister has had an opportunity to reflect on the housing council letter of February 17 and whether their predictions of a reduction in the number of units for the coming fiscal year are going to be borne out. Where are we headed in terms of the number of new units? What specific measures would the ministry be undertaking to meet with the Rental Housing Council of B.C. to address the concerns identified in their February 17 letter to the ministry?

Hon. J. Smallwood: I think it's most regrettable that in circulating their letter they did not also circulate the response. As the member can see by the copies that were sent to most media outlets in the province, the letter is a reflection of a campaign that they have themselves kicked off. I disagreed with the points that were made in the letter, and that is clearly articulated in my response. They have, perhaps, been more actively involved than some other organizations, and they continue to be involved. As an example, this particular organization has been invited to the extent of sitting on a panel to help hire arbitrators. They have been invited to not only participate in the development of the legislation but to actually help implement a number of aspects of the legislation.

The letter they have circulated is not accurate in its description of the formula and the issue of interest rates. I wrote to them and made it clear that we would continue to try to work with them in a positive and constructive fashion. Regrettably, with some of their actions, we're not seeing the same commitment from them in trying to resolve some of those issues.

I hope to be able to continue with the member this afternoon on a number of questions which he asked this morning. The changes brought about to the residential tenancy branch and Bill 50 have been very well-received. I have some information for the member that I will be pleased to put on the record in the afternoon.

Because of the time, I would move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:45 a.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1995: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada