1995 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 35th Parliament
HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.
(Hansard)
TUESDAY, JULY 11, 1995
Afternoon Sitting (Part 2)
Volume 21, Number 27
[ Page 16863 ]
The House resumed at 7:30 p.m.
[N. Lortie in the chair.]
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I call committee stage on Bill 28.
ELECTION ACT
(continued)
The House in committee on Bill 28; N. Lortie in the chair.
On section 235.
J. Dalton: The wording in this section caught my eye, because it provides that there can be penalties under this part, which is part 12, in addition to any other in any other part of the act in respect of the same matter. There's a concept in criminal law dealing with multiple convictions, and although the courts don't have to, they tend to shy away from penalizing twice for the same offence. Given that we're dealing with offences here and that section 235 refers to matters elsewhere in the bill which may also be offences, let me give an example and see whether this would violate the multiple convictions provision.
Section 234.2(1)(b) provides for a penalty of ten times the amount by which one exceeds advertising limits. That's a penalty; it's ten times the excess. Just as an example, section 237(3), which we're about to come to, provides that an unincorporated organization could be convicted and penalized $5,000. It would seem to me that that might be an example with multiple conviction potential. I'm wondering whether that sort of thing was considered when section 235 was drafted and whether section 235 might not be challenged in any court proceedings that could come up.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I hope the member recognizes that this is not criminal law we're writing here and that double jeopardy, which is what he's referring to, is not a factor.
Second, administrative penalties don't follow upon convictions, but are imposed by the CEO. The member shrugs, but the reality is that they are not convictions; they are penalties. Penalties don't follow convictions. There is obviously the opportunity for an activity to result in a conviction, but that's not double jeopardy.
Section 235 approved.
On section 236.
J. Dalton: Subsection (1) states that the approval of the CEO is needed in order to commence a prosecution. It strikes me that this is very unusual. Normally, of course, someone reports information to the police. They then should be able to investigate and report to Crown counsel as to whether charges would be recommended. Is this section saying what I believe it is saying, that a legislative officer would be in a charge approval position? That doesn't seem to me to be correct, so I need some clarification on that point.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: What we have done here again is to learn from others and to follow the law in many parts of the rest of Canada, where, on violations of this act, the charging or the prosecution cannot occur without the consent of the CEO. That's not uncommon in Canadian jurisdictions.
Section 236 approved.
On section 237.
A. Warnke: I just want to pursue one aspect of this. I know one legal argument that could be put forward, but perhaps that could be put forward by the Attorney General. I'm looking for a clarification, essentially, that when a prosecution for an offence, as it stipulates here, is brought against an unincorporated organization "in the name of the organization," then for the purposes.... It reads: "...for the purposes of the prosecution, the unincorporated organization is deemed to be a person." There's an argument I'm aware of, and I guess everyone is; but still, it needs to be mentioned that when there is an incorporated organization, it is to take up any fines, or whatever, when there is a charge and then a conviction brought against the corporation. On the other hand, I can think of other examples where corporations have violated the law, and the directors have been prosecuted and, in some cases, even brought to jail, and that sort of thing.
What I want to seek here is.... Let's say that there is a violation in election advertising, and then there is a charge and a conviction. According to this, the sponsors, supposedly under section 230, which we have passed.... It says that election advertising must identify sponsors. Yet according to section 237, sponsors need not be identified, and, in fact, if charges and convictions were to take place, it would be against the unincorporated organization, and nothing could be brought to bear on the sponsors or the individuals. One could, I suppose, if one wanted to be funny about it, say that a good example of this is the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society. On the other hand, if I really wanted to be funny, I'd say that NOW Communications should be renamed COW Communications, to get rid of the bull. But let's not digress.
I'm concerned that individuals do make decisions on behalf of the unincorporated organization and that the individuals, when they make a decision under this -- what I see as a provision -- can get off scot-free. I'm wondering if the Attorney General might want to comment on that.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I don't think the member has it quite right.
Interjection.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Aren't we all.
Let's take section 237(3), in which an unincorporated organization.... Let's say the unincorporated organization is a trade union. That organization is deemed to be a person, but the officers of that organization are still potentially gone after -- I'm looking for the right words -- through subsection (2).
A. Warnke: Just a quick point, and then I'm finished. I appreciate the response of the Attorney General, because it clarifies the position, and the example he has chosen is an excellent one. As the Attorney General is aware, with regard to the NCHS, here is an example of a body that was charged and indeed convicted, but did not involve individuals. I won-
[ Page 16864 ]
der if the Attorney General would care to comment on how that is different from, let's say, the example he used about trade unions.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: We're dealing here with two completely different issues. One is under criminal law, where in fact individuals could have been gone after if there had been substantial likelihood of conviction and public interest, which is the charge approval policy. But criminal law is completely different from provincial statute law, and to try to make a comparison just doesn't work. The member knows that.
J. Dalton: In the light of section 236, on which I asked about the need to get the approval of the CEO, do I take it that we're proceeding under subsection (2) of 237, and the CEO would have to authorize a prosecution against an officer, director, etc.? Would the same be true under subsection (3) -- that for any unincorporated organization such as a trade union, the CEO would also have to authorize such a prosecution?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The answer is yes.
Section 237 approved.
On section 238.
D. Mitchell: This part of the act dealing with offences is an important one. This section defines the defence of due diligence. It says that an individual or organization is not guilty of an offence under this act if you can exercise due diligence to prevent the commission of the offence. I wonder if the Attorney General can give an example of how to define due diligence in the context of this act. Could he give some examples of what a defence of due diligence under the Election Act would be?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I think the member knows the answer to this question and wants to be on the record. I'll give an example -- it's only an example, and it's rough -- about the financial agent who exercises due diligence to adhere to the limits. Say somebody underneath him or her goes off and spends some money in the campaign without the financial agent's knowledge. If the agent has done everything possible to prevent that kind of thing from happening and it's so demonstrated, that's a defence. In fact, it's more than a defence.
D. Mitchell: The reason I ask this question is not that I know the answer -- I'm not a lawyer -- but that I want to have this confirmed. Earlier on in the debate, we talked about some offences and penalties for candidates whose financial agents may not have done their jobs. Now, if the financial agent didn't do his or her job and ended up spending more money than was allowed under the limits set out in this act, the candidate, if elected, may have to end up forfeiting his or her seat. But could the defence of due diligence be used in this context? If a successful candidate did everything within his or her power to ensure that the act was not circumvented, would that be an acceptable defence under this act, so that the mistakes made by a financial agent wouldn't result in the repercussions that we discussed earlier, where an individual member of this assembly, or even a leader of a political party, might have to forfeit his or her seat because of the mistakes of others?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I think it would probably help the member to recognize -- and I think he does -- that this is not for administrative penalties. This is only for those offences that end up in court and are tried. In that event, there would be the defence of due diligence.
D. Mitchell: It could be used?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: It could be used, yes -- and it could be used by an individual or an organization; it's wide-open.
D. Mitchell: I appreciate the Attorney General's answer. Just for clarification, since it relates to an earlier portion of the debate that we had on this act: if a political party ends up spending more than is allowed to under this act and it is determined after the report of the chief electoral officer is submitted that that is the case, does that mean that that party may have to be deregistered, which is prescribed under this act? If this case goes to court and is appealed to the Supreme Court of British Columbia, and if the defence of due diligence is used.... If that political party could prove that it did everything possible to prevent itself from spending more than the limit but ended up going over anyway, would the political party be able to avoid the penalty prescribed under the act, which is deregistration?
[7:45]
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The member talks about deregistering; that, of course, would be an administrative consequence, not a consequence of an offence.
Interjection.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: It could be appealed to the courts. Due diligence doesn't apply on the appeal; it only applies on those offence questions. If it's an administrative penalty, then you have an appeal right, but due diligence doesn't apply then. A good-faith test applies, not a due diligence test. If this is a sticky point, we can go back and do it step by step, but I'm not sure it's that kind of issue.
G. Wilson: The reason we are pressing this point is that if a person or organization is charged with an offence under this act, it would seem that one of their primary defences is that they attempted due diligence in the commitment of their responsibilities and duties. If you can argue that you conducted yourself in a manner that demonstrated due diligence to a program of expenditure, a program of disclosure and a program of registration -- all the things which the act requires -- but that somebody under your charge committed expenses, failed to register, or whatever it is that they did, the fact is that, administratively, you still have an offence under this act, and you may well be charged as a result of the consequence of that act.
What we're asking is: how will the courts be able to determine due diligence? My guess is that there are only three people who are likely to be affected by this. A financial agent would be one person I could see who would be up in court defending himself or herself, the other would be the candidate, and my guess is that the third individual would be the constituency president and/or designate. Because if the organization of the constituency association.... Those are the
[ Page 16865 ]
three primary areas where you're likely to get into a problem, unless we're talking about an offence of the political party. What this clause says is that any individual or organization is not guilty of an offence under this act if you exercise and can prove due diligence. How do you do that? That could either be a necessary escape or one huge hole through which you could drive a massive truck to get yourself out of any potential problem by simply saying: "I did what I was supposed to do. It's not my fault."
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The term "due diligence" comes from a Supreme Court of Canada decision. It means, in effect, taking all reasonable care. An individual who has responsibility hires somebody to take some responsibility under their care. They give them clear instructions about what they're to do, and they supervise and monitor them and believe that that person has exercised that responsibility properly under the law. If it turns out later that, in fact, that person has been acting in a way that the person who has care of the issue -- the financial agent, probably -- hasn't known about, and this person has been deceiving the financial agent, there is a defence of due diligence on the part of the agent.
D. Mitchell: Just so I can understand this, I would like to use an example such as the recent Abbotsford by-election. The successful candidate, who's now the member for Abbotsford in this assembly, said, when he discovered how much money was spent on the campaign to get him elected to this House, that he was surprised, he was shocked, it was excessive. His constituency only spent $32,000, but the Vancouver machine imported hired helpers and they ended up spending four or five times that. Under this act, if that individual was able to say, "Hey, I didn't know the Vancouver political bosses were pouring money in; I did everything I could in my constituency, and I thought I won the election by knocking on doors and doing what candidates do; I didn't know that a massive machine was being hired I didn't know this was happening," would he be able to use the defence of due diligence to prevent any kind of prosecution under this act? If that's the case, if the member for Abbotsford could use such a defence to continue membership in this House after that by-election, that defence of due diligence makes this act and the requirements for spending limits useless.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The difficulty we're having on this section is that members are confusing and mixing up the administrative penalties administered by the CEO and the offence section. They are merging them and going back and forth. This section refers to a defence, that's all -- just a defence. It doesn't mean that it's going to succeed, but it is a defence if due diligence has been exercised in the offence section. This is not an administrative penalty which results in the member forfeiting his seat and then there's an appeal. That's another process altogether.
Section 238 approved.
On section 239.
D. Mitchell: I'd like to move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper for section 239, which deals with vote-buying.
[SECTION 239, by adding the following words:
(8) Subsections (1) to (7) apply also to the process involved and the individuals involved in a nomination process within a political party and to individuals seeking elected office as Independents during the time between public declaration for office and the date of the election writ.]
On the amendment
D. Mitchell: Section 239 relates to vote-buying, a very serious offence, I think anyone would agree. One of the main virtues of this act -- and there are some -- is that this Election Act seeks not only to regulate contests between parties during general election periods or by-elections but also, in some specific areas, to regulate contests within parties, such as leadership contests or nomination battles.
But when we get to some of the offence sections, it's not clear whether some of these offences -- particular in the next few sections -- only deal with general election contests between parties or whether they relate to intraparty contests as well. So the amendment I'm proposing to section 239 makes it clear that all of the subsections of this section apply also to the process and the individuals involved in a nomination process within a political party, and to individuals seeking elected office as independents, as well, during the time between the public declaration for office and the date of the election writ.
So what the amendment tries to ensure is that these offences under part 12 of the act and the crucial offence of vote-buying would relate to a contest within a party. Where an individual was seeking the leadership of a political party or a nomination within a political party, the offence of vote-buying should be just as serious and treated just as seriously -- perhaps more seriously, where it's a leadership contest for someone who would hope to become Premier of the province. If vote-buying could actually be proven under the terms of this act, it would be a very serious matter. Therefore I think it should apply to contests within parties as well.
It should also apply to independent candidates. For instance, if I seek a nomination to run as an independent at the time of the next election, the offence should apply to someone such as myself as well; I think it's only fair. The amendment simply seeks to make it comprehensive, so that these offences also apply to those crucial contests outside of the normal ambit of politics where parties are facing each other in combat during election periods or by-elections.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: We are not, in this bill, trying to regulate internal party affairs. We're talking about the exception of the leadership convention, because the leadership contest or convention can lead to someone becoming the Premier or the Leader of the Opposition. It's obviously a different situation. But for the most part -- almost exclusively -- we are saying that parties should regulate themselves internally. If there are Criminal Code issues that result from the way in which parties conduct themselves, that's another matter. But we are not trying to regulate them. It's an endless and, I think, inappropriate quest for us to try to regulate party activities. So we are not doing that. The member may disagree; that's fine.
Hon. Chair, I'd like to digress for a moment and ask leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
[ Page 16866 ]
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'd like to introduce Merle Jackson, who works for Elections B.C. and is here tonight in the gallery to keep an eye on all of you guys. Would the House make her welcome.
D. Mitchell: While we're on this amendment, I want to address this important issue. The Attorney General says he's not interested in heading down the road of regulating internal party affairs, but in fact that's what this bill does in some very crucial areas. When it comes to disclosure, a statute in the province of British Columbia is now saying, for the first time, that when it comes to, for example, leadership contests, the chief electoral officer -- a new independent officer of the Legislative Assembly -- is going to have a mandate to ensure that full disclosure takes place. Now, that's an important step. The question is: where do you stop?
I would agree with the Attorney General that there is a question of judgment. How far do you go to try to regulate the internal affairs of a party? But in British Columbia, as in most jurisdictions, political parties -- which can be defined as glorified special interest groups -- are important players in the political process. Serious political parties seek to form the government of the day. There are some contests that perhaps deserve to be monitored; some deserve to be regulated. When we talk about something as crucial as part 12 of this act, the "Offences" section, I would argue that it's not drawing a long bow to suggest that the offences that apply to something such as vote-buying should be monitored and should apply not only to parties who are competing with each other in the electoral contest but to internal battles.
My amendment does not deal with leadership contestants; I don't want the Attorney General to misrepresent this. Just so it's clear, what I'm saying in the amendment to section 239 is that this section should apply "to the process involved and the individuals involved in the nomination process within a political party and to individuals seeking elected office as independents," as well. That's all I am saying, so that if anything as serious as a charge of vote-buying should take place, the chief electoral officer should have the mandate under this act to examine such an offence, as serious as it is, especially within a political party seeking to form the government of the province.
[8:00]
That's a pretty serious charge, and I don't think it's moving too far in the area of regulation of political parties. Some might argue that we should go much further, but I resist that as well. Bill 28 takes a tentative first step in this direction when it comes to disclosure. I don't think it's drawing a long bow at all to suggest that there should be some serious charges for a serious act such as vote-buying. That's why I have moved the amendment.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I recommend that we vote against the amendment because this bill is making some tentative first steps, and that's probably all British Columbia can stomach at this point.
J. Dalton: I agree with the Attorney General. First, his comments that this section doesn't apply to the pre-writ period are quite clear. All the definitions of voting and elections apply only to the writ period, so I would think that this amendment is out of order, among other things. Second, I'm curious as to how a nomination for an independent could involve vote-buying. That seems very strange to me.
Amendment negatived.
J. Dalton: On vote-buying, I have in my hand section 151 of the Local Elections Reform Act of 1993. All members will remember this fondly.
An Hon. Member: Who passed that?
J. Dalton: I wonder who passed that. The wording of section 151 of the Local Elections Reform Act is the same wording we are dealing with under section 239 of the Election Act, verbatim. The Attorney General this morning didn't want to discuss my parallel to -- let's go on and look at them here -- sections 87 and 89 of the Local Elections Reform Act, which of course deal with restrictions on making campaign contributions and with valuation of campaign contributions and election expenses. I'm sure the Attorney General will remember these arguments. I am curious why the Attorney General was not prepared to use the same wording from a government bill of two years ago that was directly on point dealing with paid labour not being identified as a political contribution. How come we can use it for vote-buying here and not use it to deal with a very important issue: why a person on leave but still drawing salary is not a political contribution? What's different?
[A. Hagen in the chair.]
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Well, I guess the only comment I can make is that consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.
Section 239 approved.
On section 240.
D. Mitchell: I'd like to move the amendments standing on the order paper in my name.
[SECTION 240 (1) (c), be amended by deleting the "." after "(a) or (b)" and substituting ";" and by adding:
(d) to persuade or compel an individual to refrain from pursuing their democratic right to seek public office.
SECTION 240, by adding the following words:
(5) Subsections (1) to (4) apply also to the process involved and the individuals involved in a nomination process within a political party and to individuals seeking elected office as Independents during the time between public declaration for office and the date of the election writ.]
On the amendments.
D. Mitchell: This section deals with intimidation, which is a serious offence, I think any member of this committee would agree. On the previous section, the member for West Vancouver-Capilano wondered how the serious offence of vote-buying could apply to an independent. Well, when you take a look at the way these sections are drafted under offences, we can see that vote-buying or intimidation could happen as an offence against any individual who seeks a nomination to become a Member of the Legislative Assembly. In fact, we might deal with this in more detail under this
[ Page 16867 ]
intimidation section. The reason the intimidation offence should apply not only during an election campaign period to parties contesting elections but also to contests within a political party is because intimidation obviously can occur in that context, as well.
I can give only one example that comes to mind. It's the most glaring example and in my memory one of the most repugnant ones that has been brought to my attention. Apparently a party in this House, the Liberal Party of British Columbia, has instituted a practice whereby an individual who seeks a nomination for that party and is unsuccessful.... Prior to entering that contest, when the nomination papers are filed, the individual is requested to sign a waiver, a form stating that if they lose the nomination, they will not seek a nomination as an independent or as a candidate for any other political party in the upcoming election. That's a requirement before one can become a candidate for office in that political party. That's just one example that comes to mind; there could be others. But I think that's an example of intimidation that is taking place today in British Columbia. I'm not sure if it's legal. I'm not sure if a requirement to sign such a waiver would be constitutional; in fact, it may be a violation of Charter rights. Having said that, it's a practice that has been instituted by the current leader of the Liberal Party in our province.
I think that kind of intimidation and any other forms of intimidation that take place not only among parties but within parties should be prohibited in the province. That's why I moved the amendments standing in my name on the order paper to section 240 to prevent those kinds of abuses from taking place. I think it would be a relatively easy task for the chief electoral officer of our province to ensure that this kind of bullying and intimidation should be challenged and eliminated in the province. The CEO should be charged with the task of making sure that those kinds of internal party battles are clean so that we can restore integrity to the political process not only in the contest between parties but in contests within parties as well. That's why I've moved the amendment with respect to intimidation as an offence.
G. Farrell-Collins: I've been listening to this debate and occasionally participating in it, and I found it intriguing and interesting to note that the official opposition seems to have come under attack by the independents for bringing in this bill. For some reason we seem to be the target of the wrath and the dejected, disappointed nature of certain independent members in the House. I just want to clarify some of the interesting statements that have been put forward with regard to this, particularly by the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi. I suppose if I wanted I could ask him to withdraw his comments, but that would probably be a little too petty. Because I wouldn't want to fall into his nature, I will clarify for him the intent behind those provisions to which he alludes.
The member calls it intimidation; I call it commitment to a party. I call it commitment to work as a team, something the member wouldn't understand -- the whole concept of teamwork and staying with the party. It also has something to do with sore losers: people who can't accept the verdict of a party they join, the verdict of a party that has members who can vote their will in a secret ballot; people who can't accept the verdict of their peers but are worried that their own egos may be damaged; and that the knowledge, understanding and determination of the members of the party that that member chooses to join.... Somehow those people aren't as smart as they are, and they are far better than the party they have joined.
I think that provision is an attempt to get a commitment from somebody to carry the banner, and if they wish to carry the banner and ask for support from members of the party, that they in turn offer their support to the party should they fail to receive the unanimous consent of everyone. Nobody ever expects it to be legally enforceable. It's a request for a commitment, something that I know that member and a couple of other independents find hard to understand: that a party and the importance of the team would actually be more important than their own personal egos and their own personal worth.
I understand why the member has a problem with that and would want to move an amendment that would allow him to hop from party to party seeking a nomination, so that if he doesn't get one into one party and the people reject him, he can then find another party to run for, and if they reject him, then he can be an independent and his independent group can reject him, and then he can go and find another party to run for -- another independent group. So I understand why that member would have difficulty with it. I guess it's just an indication that he feels he is far more important than the party or the organization. I suppose that's why that member will never be a member of a governing party, because you have to get more than one person elected to govern in this province.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I feel like a teacher at a kindergarten recess. I'm just going to leave this and not support the amendment, because if parties want to behave in this fashion, they can do so. It's not going to have any effect -- witness the member for Chilliwack.
Amendments negatived on division.
D. Mitchell: This section deals with corrupt voting, which is a serious offence, as serious as vote-buying, as serious as intimidation, and as serious when it takes place within a party as when it takes place at the polls during a general election contest. Again, I move an amendment seeking to ensure that corrupt voting practices will not be allowed within a party when it comes to a nomination process, a leadership race, or even if it applies to someone who's not a member of a party -- an independent candidate. No corrupt voting should be allowed. I think it's crucial that the "Offences" section of this act should apply to internal party contests as well as to corrupt voting that takes place in a general election or in a by-election campaign.
The Chair: Hon. member, excuse me if I interrupt you for just a moment, but I think that you're now dealing with your amendment for section 241.
D. Mitchell: That's right.
The Chair: Let me just clarify, then, and again look at section 240. Shall section 240 pass?
Section 240 approved.
On section 241.
[ Page 16868 ]
The Chair: Hon. member, on section 241, your amendment.
D. Mitchell: I seek to move the amendment to section 241, standing in my name on the order paper, dealing with corrupt voting practices.
[SECTION 241, by adding the following words:
(3) Subsections (1) and (2) apply also to the process involved and the individuals involved in a nomination process within a political party and to individuals seeking elected office as Independents during the time between public declaration for office and the date of the election writ.]
On the amendment.
D. Mitchell: There could be many examples of what would constitute corrupt voting. I'm not sure -- the Attorney General may want to indicate whether we've ever had any charges in the province of British Columbia, in our jurisdiction, for this particular offence. But there are examples in other jurisdictions that I am aware of where corrupt voting may have taken place. The opportunity for corrupt voting could certainly take place within a political party, as well as outside a party. Members of the Liberal caucus will know that when we look back at the leadership race that elected their current leader, there were charges, and I don't think they were proven. There were charges and allegations, nevertheless, that I think should have been resolved. Should the chief electoral officer of the province be allowed to investigate those kinds of charges?
I'm not sure how you could do it. This might be difficult administratively, especially in our modern age when political parties conduct leadership votes by televote, for instance. Where technology is used, it might be difficult to confirm and validate whether corrupt voting has actually taken place. It might be very difficult to prove, or it might be impossible. The point I'm trying to make is that the opportunity for corrupt voting exists within political parties every bit as much as it does in the contest between parties during elections.
What I'm suggesting with this amendment to section 241 is that charges of a serious offence, such as corrupt voting -- where an individual votes in an election when not entitled to do so; when an individual contravenes any of the other principles in this bill; when an individual obtains a ballot in the name of another individual, whether the name is of a living or dead individual or a fictitious individual -- are sometimes made in heated nomination battles in parties where bloc voting takes place, where voting might take place by televote or using new technologies where it is charged that PIN numbers are used and numbers are phoned in from lawyers' offices by the hundreds, if not by the thousands. Whether that kind of corrupt voting practice could or has in fact taken place in British Columbia....
[8:15]
So this is a simple amendment. I know the hon. Attorney General is reluctant to get involved in the regulation of the internal affairs of political parties. I say that if a political party seeks to govern in the province, then they should be subject to the same kind of offences that face political parties who are fighting each other. They should be subject to the same kind of offences, whether it be a nomination battle within the party or the contest for a leadership within a party. Even outside parties altogether, if an independent is seeking a nomination to run for office, we should ensure that votes should be counted only when they are entitled to be counted under the terms of the Election Act. That is what this amendment tries to achieve. I think it is an important offence and it should apply in the context I've indicated.
G. Farrell-Collins: At the risk of becoming one of those participants at the kindergarten recess, I want to comment briefly that.... Having listened to this for some period of time over the last few days, I would ask the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi either to stop the innuendo, to put up or shut up, or to get off it and start talking about the Election Act. If he has claims to make, make them. Make them outside the House. Otherwise, leave it alone.
J. Tyabji: I find the attitude odd that is being taken to these amendments. I have been monitoring this debate for most of the afternoon, because I know we don't want to prolong anything. I have to tell the Attorney General that although I usually appreciate his responses, what brought me into the House was his response when the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove got up and continued to refer to us as independents when we are not and made the statements he made. The Attorney General stood up and said: "This is like a kindergarten." What I found interesting was that the amendments we are making go to the heart of what we were talking about when we talked about the construction of our democratic machinery.
The reason those amendments were brought up was because some members who happen to be sitting here, two of whom are in a new party and two of whom are independents, happen to have experienced problems with the democratic machinery as it was constructed before. Who better to offer some opinions than the people who would have some experience? I think the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi made a very good statement as to what the need was for that, both in this amendment and the previous one. It's unfortunate that the Liberals have a very thin skin and that they take it very personally. They stand up and make personal attacks. The member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove said to say it outside the House. I have. I've put it in a book, and I published it. Anybody can....
Interjection.
J. Tyabji: The member would have to read it.
Having said that, this amendment is important because what we're trying to do is construct a machine to protect the best interests of the people of British Columbia. Those interests sometimes go beyond what we would normally construct. Every step along the way, whether it's the four-week writ period, the stipulations about the social sciences statistics in that period, the voting process or intimidation, we've said to the Attorney General that we believe we can construct it a little better by enlarging the scope. That way we won't have the kinds of problems that we have experienced in British Columbia, which are not over yet. We will see them in litigative and inquiry processes for years over the fallout in the Liberal Party. That will happen, and that's another process. I don't really care about what the fallout is for that party, but I do care about the people of British Columbia being saved unharmed from those kinds of shenanigans, which is what they were. If we construct a process that leaves us open to abuse, abuse will occur. It has been open to abuse in the past.
[ Page 16869 ]
That's what this amendment is about. It's about making sure that we have a little protection for those people who walk in thinking that democracy is all about getting involved and having a very nice place to visit. There are ways of constructing things a little better. I know the Attorney General isn't going to pass it, but I hope it will be recognized that it was put forward in a constructive manner. Even if the Liberals don't recognize that, I would hope the Attorney General will.
G. Wilson: I supported all three of those amendments, and I support the amendment that is before us now under section 241. The only comment that needs to be made is that in seeking to make these amendments, what we're trying to do, in a legitimate way, is to seek to make the process that brings politicians into the business of politics more fair, more honest and more accountable. If, within the process of becoming a nominated candidate, leader or participant in a provincial election, there are opportunities for intimidation, corrupt voting and abuse, there is little to prevent corrupt individuals who seek power from being successful at the polls and bringing that very approach of corrupt regulation to government. As a result, the kind of people who are attracted to government and who are successful at forming government tend to be the very people that the people of British Columbia would prefer not to have governing them.
Unfortunately, if there's no process that analyzes or scrutinizes these corrupt processes, or that recognizes this corruption when it occurs and deals with it at that level, then you can expect to have consistent numbers in governments regardless of their political stripe. The individuals who will succeed will be the very individuals that the people of British Columbia would rather not have governing them. That's why good people won't get into politics. They see what goes on at that level firsthand, and they recognize that good people will not succeed when corruption is allowed to prevail.
D. Mitchell: I know that the Attorney General has indicated that he is not going to support the third and final amendment that I wish to propose to the "Offences" section. I will very briefly try one last argument with the Attorney General. I apologize to the members of the Liberal caucus -- and in particular to the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove, who takes offence at this -- but when I was referring to these kinds of offences, which I think are serious, I tried to use some examples. In the actual amendments on the order paper, I don't use any examples. I tried to present those examples as objectively as I could. When I tried to think of some examples, the only ones that were fresh in my mind were ones that have received some attention in the news media in British Columbia because of recent contests. I can't think of any that relate to any other parties represented in this House, whether it be the NDP, the Reform Party, the PDA or the Social Credit Party. These were the freshest and most current examples of these kinds of offences within a party....
Interjection.
D. Mitchell: Maybe they don't have losers; that could be.
The Chair: Order, hon. members. The member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi has the floor, and I hope he will conclude his arguments quickly.
D. Mitchell: The reason I'm proposing that the scope of part 12, and in particular the final amendment under section 241, "Corrupt Voting...." The reason I believe that it should apply is that there may be individuals within parties that are outside the purview of Members of the Legislative Assembly, outside of the political caucus, outside of the party caucus -- party organizers who.... We've talked a little bit about the differences under the Election Act, and we've talked about the need for due diligence, but there may be opportunities for individuals to commit offences well beyond the purview of any Members of the Legislative Assembly. There might be organizers that might be part of a party machine. Who knows? Those individuals under party machines may change from time to time.
The Chair: Hon. member, I'm going to call you to order. We've had considerable debate on this matter, and I really would encourage you to conclude your comments. I'm having a hard time considering that this amendment is in order, but I've allowed considerable latitude because we have been discussing this matter. I really would encourage you to conclude your comments as quickly as you can.
D. Mitchell: Hon. Chair, this amendment is the same as the one proposed for the two previous sections. Neither of those were ruled out of order. I'm sure this amendment is in order; it wouldn't be on the order paper otherwise.
I will conclude my comments by saying that I think these kinds of offences are serious. I think that if we're going to restore the integrity in the political process, we have to ensure that these kinds of offences can be administered under this act by the CEO -- not only for contests between parties but for contests within parties as well. It's that serious. When we pass a new Election Act.... We don't do that every day. You'll recognize that this is the first time in generations that a new Election Act has come before the House. It's no surprise that these issues should be.... In fact, I think there's an obligation to raise these kinds of issue on the rare occasion when an act like this comes before the assembly.
That's why I asked the hon. Attorney General to take a second look, to reconsider the notion that this is serious. I can just tell you that I have here in front of me proof -- I'm willing to table this in the assembly later, if necessary; I know I can't do it in committee -- from 14 different individuals who have written to me saying that there has been corruption in Liberal nomination processes in British Columbia. I would be willing to table this in the House as an example of what I'm trying to get at.
Amendment negatived on division.
Sections 241 to 245 inclusive approved.
On section 246.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I move the amendment to section 246 standing in my name on the order paper.
[SECTION 246, in the proposed section 246 (1) (a), by deleting the second "without authority".]
On the amendment.
D. Mitchell: I have just a brief question. Why are we deleting the two words "without authority" from section 246? I'm not sure I understand that.
[ Page 16870 ]
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Because at the top of page 174 in subsection (1)(a), the term "without authority" is used twice, when it only needs to be used once.
Amendment approved.
Section 246 as amended approved.
Section 247 approved.
On section 248.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.
[SECTION 248, in the proposed section 248 (1), by adding the following paragraphs:
(g) contravenes section 234.1 respecting an election advertising limit;
(h) contravenes section 234.4 respecting the requirement to be registered as a sponsor;
(i) fails to record information as required by section 234.6 (2).]
Amendment approved.
Sections 248 as amended approved.
Sections 249 to 255 inclusive approved.
G. Farrell-Collins: With all due respect, I know we're trying to move through this reasonably expeditiously, but it takes time even to turn the page and for members to know whether they have notes and wish to speak to that section. I would suggest that we move just half a pace slower than we just did.
The Chair: Thank you, hon. member. I shall try to make sure that all members have an opportunity to turn the pages. We shall now move to section 256, where the member for West Vancouver-Capilano has some comments.
On section 256.
J. Dalton: I have a question under subsection (2). Do I interpret this as meaning that if the election day is underway...? It is possible that the proceedings during voting day could be adjourned? If so, under what circumstances might that very unusual event happen? Could that happen in only one riding out of 75, for example?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: In very limited circumstances. If the health or safety of individuals is at risk, then yes, the proceedings can be adjourned during the course of the day.
J. Dalton: Does the Attorney General know of any examples in any Canadian or Commonwealth jurisdiction where such a thing has ever happened? Maybe in some Third World countries, but can the Attorney General suggest where, in one riding only out of 75 or 297 or whatever, an election has been postponed?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The most recent examples are flooding in Manitoba during their provincial election, in one polling station, and fires in northern Saskatchewan during the last election, in one polling division as well.
J. Dalton: That's fine. I'm glad we have recent events, but what did they do in that case? Did they extend the voting for the rest of...? The polls close at 8 o'clock under our act. Were the polls extended to 10 o'clock, or to 4 o'clock the next morning? How did they work that out?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: They weren't as farsighted as we are; they didn't have the provisions. They managed to do something, probably by some general consensus outside the law. We now have a law in place to allow us to do the appropriate thing.
Section 256 approved.
On section 257.
J. Dalton: This brings us back to one of my favourite expressions in this act, election proceedings, which, as we all know, are not defined. However, I think we can understand from looking at subsection (2), for example, in this section that, as the Attorney General and others, I believe, commented, the election proceeding would be the writ period to voting day. Or maybe it extends beyond voting day to judicial recounts -- I don't know.
[8:30]
First, let me ask this: could election proceedings precede the writ day? In other words, I'm thinking of a CEO setting up a local election office. Would that be caught by the election proceedings?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: It's writ to writ.
J. Dalton: I take that to mean that if anything happens prior to the writ, even though an election official may be working, he has no responsibility under this act, and he has no responsibility for anything that happens after the writ to writ period, but the election official better be very careful what he does writ to writ. Is that true?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I guess I'd be concerned that the member would only employ males.
Interjection.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: No. We intend to hire women to do some of this work, too. The member may not treat the issue seriously, but I do.
The fact is that....
Interjections.
The Chair: Order, members. Minister, please continue.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The fact is that we're talking here about keeping peace and order at election proceedings. That occurs from the issuance of the writ until the writ is returned, which, for practical purposes, is in fact the time from the issuance of the writ until the count and perhaps a subsequent recount.
Sections 257 to 259 inclusive approved.
[ Page 16871 ]
On section 260.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.
[SECTION 260, in the proposed section 260,
(a) in subsection (1) (a) by deleting "and leadership contestants" and substituting ", leadership contestants and registered sponsors", and
(b) in subsection (2) by deleting "or" at the end of paragraph (b), by adding ", or" at the end of paragraph (c) and by adding the following paragraph:
(d) an individual or organization that was required to file an election advertising disclosure report at any time during the past 5 years.]
On the amendment.
D. Mitchell: This section deals with investigations and audits by the chief electoral officer under the act. I know the Attorney General claims that he's hesitant to get involved in the internal affairs of parties, but if we take a look at what the chief electoral officer is allowed to do under this act in terms of investigations and audits, it relates to political parties, registered constituency associations, candidates and leadership contestants. With the amendment, we're now saying leadership contestants as well as registered sponsors. Clearly, we're getting involved in the internal affairs of a political party with this amendment. The Attorney General is much too modest when he says that this act doesn't deal with the internal affairs of parties. When we talk about the investigative and auditing powers of the CEO under the act, we're expanding these somewhat with this amendment. I have more to say about the section itself, but why are we adding registered sponsors in particular? Why is that particular amendment being made here?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I think the member knows that it's because we have a new way of dealing with third-party advertising.
D. Mitchell: I appreciate the answer. I'll wait until we pass the amendment before I ask my next question.
Amendment approved.
On section 260 as amended.
D. Mitchell: We're talking in this amended section about some fairly important powers of the CEO under the act. We talked before about how the CEO has some powers of his or her own to conduct investigations, inquiries and audits. These investigations or audits are not necessarily triggered by complaints. Under section 260 of the act, the chief electoral officer must conduct periodic investigations, but may conduct audits of the accounts of individuals and organizations and may conduct investigations of any matter that might constitute a contravention. In some categories he or she must conduct investigations, and in other categories he or she may conduct investigations. Why the double standard? Can the Attorney General explain why the CEO isn't required to do so in all cases? Why isn't discretion allowed in all cases? In some cases, he or she must; in others, he or she may. Why the difference?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The basic answer is that investigations are not on the same scale as audits. The investigation must be conducted in order for the CEO to determine whether there are concerns. If he or she determines that there are concerns, then he or she may conduct audits. Obviously an audit is a more expensive, exhaustive and significant process than an investigation.
D. Mitchell: I thank the Attorney General for that explanation. Under 260(1)(a), for instance, it states that the CEO "must conduct periodic investigations of the financial affairs of..." and then it lists a number of categories. As I pointed out earlier, we're not talking only about parties but also about leadership contestants, for instance. Can the Attorney General explain when the CEO must conduct a periodic investigation of a leadership contestant? In other words, if we say "periodic," does that mean that the CEO...? Doesn't "periodic" apply to leadership contestants? Am I reading too much into this? Would it be the case that the CEO must conduct investigations into the financial affairs of registered leadership contestants and that "periodic" would not apply here?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: There must be a periodic investigation. If leadership conventions take place every year, I suspect that everyone wouldn't necessarily be investigated. The period could be every year. If the leadership conventions are ten years apart, the CEO is going to conduct himself or herself accordingly and do periodic investigations.
D. Mitchell: Let me use an example. Recently in the province two different parties had leadership races. One was the Liberal Party of British Columbia, and the other was the Reform Party of British Columbia. If this bill was passed into an act, would both of those parties' leadership contestants be automatically audited by the chief electoral officer? Or could the chief electoral officer use his or her discretion to decide which of the two would be audited?
I'm wondering where discretion comes in with the use of the word "periodic." Does that mean some leadership contestants would be audited and some wouldn't? You know, leadership races don't happen very often in political parties; they happen once every so many years. It's only in unusual circumstances that they take place more frequently. Would the Attorney General offer any instructions to the new CEO under this act on how he or she should conduct himself or herself under this section?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: No, I won't issue any instructions, obviously. If that motion passes, the member is likely to be on the committee that determines who the CEO is, and I'm sure the member will make absolutely certain that the CEO has the kind of ability that will ensure the appropriate discretion is conducted.
G. Wilson: One of the effects of this section as amended now is that it limits the chief electoral officer's inspection of copies of records to only those who would have been obliged by this act to have actually made records. The way that it was originally drafted was that there may be an audit or an inspection of records of any individual who is or was a candidate, or any individual who is or was a leadership contestant at any time in the past five years. That's the way it was originally. The effect of the section as amended is that those individuals are only going to be subject to review if in fact they were required to file an election advertising disclosure report at any time in the past five years.
[ Page 16872 ]
Under this section as amended, will these records, however they are constituted, now be available upon request to the chief electoral officer at the discretion of the chief electoral officer after a nomination process or a candidate election or a leadership election? In other words, do these records have to be made available now? I'm not just talking about the aggregate figures that have to be filed with respect to the act but about the support documentation. As a result of this, all political parties are going to have to maintain those support documents and have them available upon request to the CEO. At any given time, the CEO may decide to request them within a five-year period. Is that right?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: When we did section 177(2)(c) and (d), we passed a provision that requires the records be kept for five years.
G. Wilson: I know, and at that time I was referred to talk about it in section 260, which is what I'm now doing. Would the Attorney General just answer my question?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I guess my problem is that I'm not quite sure what the member's question is. The people have to keep their records for five years, and they're available to be inspected. So what's the question?
G. Wilson: The question specifically is on the latitude that the chief electoral officer has with respect to access and review of documents. That's what I'm asking. I'm not just talking about aggregate figures or numbers that are filed. I'm talking about support documents. I'm talking about the opportunity for the chief electoral officer to be able to go in and access the files of a political party for a five-year period. My understanding is that this act now provides free access for the chief electoral officer to go in and inspect files of a political party within a five-year period for the purposes of determining matters related to election expenses, fundraising and other internal expenditures that the political party may have had around an election. Is that right?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The answer is yes. The CEO can go back and look at the records, not the aggregate, the summary or the ledger.
G. Wilson: Throughout this debate we've said that we're only concerned with the writ period and not with matters that people are engaged in before or after that period. What latitude, therefore, does the chief electoral officer have with respect to the demand for information from a political party? Do they have complete latitude? Can they basically go in and conduct a forensic audit for purposes that they deem necessary? Do they have that kind of freedom?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: If the CEO chooses, yes.
K. Jones: I'd like to ask the minister about the intention of section 260(2)(a),(b) and (c). In reference to "the past five years," is it intended to be the preceding five years? Or is it the past five years prior to the enactment of the legislation? Whether it's intended to be something other than what it says -- "the past five years" -- it actually means last year and the four years prior to that. If this act is intended to be utilized next year, it would not allow the proceedings to occur during this next year, when it will be a past first year.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm going to get the member to write my will so that it will be clear and focused.
The five years begins June 1, 1995. On June 1, 2000, the five years will apply. On June 1, 1998, it will be three years. So it goes back five years, but it doesn't go back prior to June 1, 1995.
[8:45]
K. Jones: I'd like to get further clarification from the minister. The past five years, as based on this legislation, starts with the enactment of this legislation. That's all you can refer to as the past five years, because there's nothing to bring it forward. If, at some point in the process, you want to say "the preceding five years" or something like that.... The past refers to from the present time of the legislation....
Hon. C. Gabelmann: If an organization registers, you can go back, as far as five years, to the registration date. Therefore, if you can't register before the enactment that's allowed for in this bill, the five years stops at that date. Whether that date is actually September, for some provisions, or June, for other purposes, the middle of 1995 is as far back as you can go.
I will just say to the member, kindly, that one cannot read one section of a bill without reading other sections along with it in order to get the full flavour. This is not vanilla ice cream; this is Neapolitan.
D. Mitchell: Maybe it's spumoni; I'm not sure.
I'm with the member for Surrey-Cloverdale on this one; I wish this were actually retroactive. Then he and I could both get to the heart of some recent events in B.C. politics, including how his leader was elected.
Having said that, this section gives quite significant powers to the chief electoral officer and also some responsibilities, which are probably going to cost some money. I wonder if it might be appropriate under this section now, rather than later on, to deal with this issue. The office of the chief electoral officer in British Columbia today costs taxpayers a certain amount of money. Under this act, with the expanded responsibilities and duties, including those of investigation and audits under this section, could the Attorney General tell us if he or his officials have done any estimates whatsoever on what the incremental cost to the taxpayers is going to be on an annualized basis for running the new independent office of the chief electoral officer? I imagine there would be an increase. I don't know how much that increase would be, but it would be interesting to know, and I'm sure the Attorney General's officials will have done some estimates as to what the cost would be.
The Chair: I would like to remind the members of relevance to the section that we are discussing.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: It will cost a little more than the elections branch costs now, but not a significant amount. It depends upon Treasury Board submissions and on what Treasury Board is finally going to approve. On the order of magnitude, did somebody not say the other day in the House, sitting in a seat generally in that direction, that the price of democracy was priceless? Oh, it was one seat over.
On the order of magnitude, I don't know. It's going to be marginal and not a significant increase.
[ Page 16873 ]
J. Weisgerber: I'd like to ask the Attorney General if there is a reference to penalties in this section. Have I missed it somewhere? I raise the issue because my limited experience over the years, particularly with constituency associations, is that you have a group of people who are all volunteers. My experience with political, community and other organizations is that from time to time, with no intent of doing anything wrong, records disappear. People move, or people take the records with them. Three or four years after an election, I have found myself going back and asking if we could get the poll results we did in 1986 or 1991, and everybody looks around at everybody else and finally decides that nobody knows where they are. I expect that this might not be an isolated incident. I'm concerned about how one goes about enforcing this. Are there penalties? What kinds of processes are there in place?
I don't have a big problem with the party office or with the registered headquarters of the party. I think it's reasonable to expect that they would look after records in a businesslike way. Unfortunately, the 75 constituencies with three or four parties in each are going to have a number of circumstances like the one I described.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Anybody who has had anything to do with a political party over the years has experienced that kind of situation where the records went home with the campaign treasurer and then you never, ever find them again. I know the experience. A candidate who couldn't file as a result of that kind of experience can seek relief from the court and explain to the court what has happened. If they can demonstrate to the court's satisfaction that this really has happened, then that obviates the need to file.
K. Jones: I want to look at a fundamental factor here. I don't want to give the impression that we're not interested in openness in the political process, but I think we need to look at the fundamentals. I think there was a case in the federal House where there was an investigation by the RCMP into the activities of a certain political party, possibly the NDP or perhaps the Reform Party, and there was considerable consternation over this. I'm wondering how this differs from this same ability to go in, to look into the political party operation and to literally intimidate the political process by putting it through the courts in an investigation process. The political process has been, nationally -- and I think, up until now, provincially -- independently free to operate under their own administration, under a process that generally allowed the organizations to be unintimidated by the governing process -- the governing party, for instance.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm not entirely sure where the member is going, but if there are allegations of criminal wrongdoing, and the police determine to investigate, they can do so without any regard to this act. The Criminal Code provisions are separate and distinct, and the police can do what they feel is appropriate in those circumstances. In this situation, the police don't have a role; the CEO acts as the policing agent.
K. Jones: I accept the Attorney General's statement on that, but does this prevent them from going on fishing expeditions?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The CEO has obligations that are specified in the legislation. The CEO has obligations to respond to requests to investigate. If it's a fishing expedition.... I don't see any provision in this legislation which would enable fishing expeditions. There must be periodic investigations by the CEO. I think that's clear. On the policing side, the police have enough to do in this country without spending time on fishing expeditions. They will respond if there are allegations that they think require a police investigation.
K. Jones: Then the minister is saying that a periodic investigation without any basis or reason is not classified as a fishing expedition.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: We've passed that section. Or are we still on it?
Interjection.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: "The chief electoral officer must conduct periodic investigations of the financial affairs of registered political parties," etc.
K. Jones: For what reason?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: To make sure they're complying with the law. If the member is operating a meat-packing plant, Agriculture Canada will do periodic inspections to make sure that the member is not selling foul and rotten meat. Is that a fishing expedition? No, it's probably not a fishing expedition -- it's appropriate.
Section 260 as amended approved.
Section 261 approved.
On section 262.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I move the amendment to section 262 standing in my name on the order paper.
[SECTION 262, in the proposed section 262 (1), by deleting "section 216 (1) (b) or 217 (1) (b)," and substituting "section 216 (1) (b), 217 (1) (b), 234.2 (1) (b) or 234.92,".]
On the amendment.
D. Mitchell: Can we get a confirmation from the Attorney General that this is a housekeeping amendment? That's the way I read it, but I just want to make sure I understand it properly.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: It's housekeeping inasmuch as it follows from the new way of dealing with third-party advertising.
Amendment approved.
Section 262 as amended approved.
On section 263.
G. Wilson: I just want to know how these injunctions are going to work, because what this says is that you can have an
[ Page 16874 ]
enforcement of this act through a court injunction. Interestingly, the language says "the court may grant an injunction restraining an individual or organization from contravening this Act if the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the individual or organization has contravened" -- and we can understand that -- "or is likely to contravene this Act." What on earth could be presented to a court that would persuade it that there is a likely contravention in the works? Surely you have to contravene the act and therefore an injunction can be put forward, or not.
An Hon. Member: It's like the Family Maintenance Enforcement Act.
G. Wilson: Yes, right.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: First of all, this anticipation language is a provision that the courts are used to dealing with. I guess an example could be a third party which is clearly and deliberately intending to spend more than $5,000. It would clearly be in contravention of the act. In other words, they are going to be promoting a particular party and so they are contracting for the videotaping and all the artwork and all the production work for a television commercial. In that case, an application could be made. The courts will decide whether it's appropriate to issue the injunction, but that's a theoretical kind of example.
G. Wilson: So it's possible that on application of the chief electoral officer, an injunction could be filed against an individual or organization which they deem is likely to contravene. So this injunction could be done in the middle of an election writ period. For example, all of a sudden there's a massive billboard campaign going on for a very narrow special interest group -- there are a few out there we know might do that. If that's deemed to be connected to a political party, or if it can be proven to be so by a judge in court, an injunction against that organization could be done and those billboards would have to come down. That's what the minister's saying.
But does that also apply, then, to an active political campaign? If there is an active political campaign running advertisements on television or doing other kinds of things -- hiring buses or flying airplanes or whatever -- can there be an injunction where the court can say to a political party in the middle of a writ period: "Cease and desist this activity because you're in contravention of the Election Act?"
Hon. C. Gabelmann: That's theoretically possible. In fact, it's more likely during the writ period than at any other time.
Section 263 approved.
On section 264.
D. Mitchell: This section deals with emergencies. It might be the equivalent of what I would consider a force majeure clause in a contract, where we're talking about natural disasters, I suppose. I'd like to ask the hon. Attorney General: how would we define an emergency? A mistake, as referred to in subsection (1), or an extraordinary circumstance? Are there any examples we can think of where an election may have been impacted because of some kind of a state of emergency or a mistake or an extraordinary circumstance significant enough to alter the timing or result of an election?
[9:00]
Hon. C. Gabelmann: An example might be that we get that major earthquake we're going to get one of these days, and Richmond disappears. The CEO would need some powers to be able to deal with that situation.
D. Mitchell: In the event of the natural kind of redistribution the Attorney General has just described, if there was that kind of an emergency, when I look at subsection (2), I see that the CEO may make orders extending a time period or establishing a new date. I just want to make sure I understand this. Does that mean that in an emergency or in the case of a serious mistake or extraordinary circumstance, the chief electoral officer would have the authority and the power to vary the actual date of an election, to change the writ that may have been issued by the Lieutenant-Governor? Would the CEO have the opportunity and the power and the authority unilaterally under this section to actually change the date of the election if necessary?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The answer is yes.
Section 264 approved.
On section 265.
G. Wilson: Just a quick question to the Attorney General about the test of these new election procedures in a by-election. Given that the mandate of the current government doesn't end until October 1996, and because of the absence of a member, there may be a possibility -- and this is pure conjecture at this point -- that within the six-month provision a by-election may occur prior to the next election.
The provisions of this say that the chief electoral officer may test these procedures out if it is agreed to by the leaders of the registered political parties entitled to be represented on the Election Advisory Committee. I wonder why it specifies the leaders of those parties and does not specify by unanimous consent of the representatives on the Election Advisory Committee. Given that this committee is to be structured as a creature of this House, I really question why the language would not be inclusive of the members of the committee.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I think members might agree that 265 is a pretty unusual section. It enables the CEO to, in effect, change the law in respect of procedures in the campaign, so it is very significant. Our feeling was that only those people who could conceivably become Premier should have this say. These are people who are elected by their parties through a process which is now governed by this legislation, as opposed to the advisory committee, which comprises vice-presidents or whomever of a political party. They are assigned to the advisory committee for more technical responsibilities as opposed to significant policy questions which ordinarily would be the function of this Legislature.
So it is a very significant departure, and one that I think has some promise. I'm quite keen about this section, but I also recognize that it is not something that I want to allow the --
[ Page 16875 ]
I'm trying to think of a polite word -- representatives of the political parties who would be assigned to sit on the advisory committee and who would probably be more technically proficient than politically responsible, if I can use that in the big sense of that word.... So if you are going to enact different procedures in a by-election, then one needs a very high level of acquiesence for that unanimity, and unanimity from the party leaders is probably as significant an agreement as can be achieved.
G. Wilson: I have several problems with this section -- enough that I really think this is not good legislation. I think that, first of all, to allow a member of this Legislature, an officer of this House, to have that kind of authority to amend legislation is wrong; in principle, I think it is wrong. Secondly, it is not up to the chief electoral officer, the Attorney General or any of the members of this Legislative Assembly to arbitrarily determine who may likely be Premier of the province. It is up to the electorate of the province of British Columbia. I think it is presumptuous in the extreme to suggest, just because somebody is a leader of a party that is represented in this House, that necessarily that person may, indeed, be....
Interjection.
G. Wilson: The member says the registered parties. My understanding is that if we go back to the debate on who is eligible for membership, if we go back to the debate about eligibility on that Election Advisory Committee.... We even divided on this matter, and the record is there for anyone to see.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Let me give the member an example. If this act had been in place in the last general election and the Green Party had run candidates in 50 percent of the ridings, and in 38 constituencies they hadn't elected anybody, the leader of the Green Party would be one of the people who would be consulted. This is not the registered parties in the House; this is the registered parties under this act. That includes any party that ran candidates in 50 percent of the ridings, even though they didn't have any electoral success.
D. Mitchell: I have a question on this, because I think the Attorney General is right that this is an interesting and kind of extraordinary section. Who's to judge right? At some point you have to make a judgment call as to who conceivably might be able to become Premier. If you look at B.C. history, and if we went back as far as the election in 1952, who could have speculated that somebody by the name of W.A.C. Bennett was about to become Premier? He wouldn't have been represented on this Election Advisory Committee, and yet every once in a while there's one of those revolutions in democracy that produces results that can't be anticipated.
I think the Attorney General is saying that the CEO may test new election procedures only in a by-election. Those new election procedures could conceivably affect the outcome of a by-election if they were significant enough, I suppose. What we're really saying here is that a by-election, unlike a general election, can be considered a kind of an electoral laboratory where new ideas or new procedures could be experimented with. They may have an effect on the outcome of a by-election, but that's what we're going to do. We're going to look at by-elections as potential test cases or models for change, and they might produce results that would be different than if the same rules were used as in the previous general election. Is that right?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: These are procedural issues on the way in which the election is conducted. It could be that technology will enable some additional procedure that isn't envisioned in the act. Upon the agreement of the leaders of all the registered parties -- not the parties in the House, but the registered parties in the province -- the CEO could try something new. It seems to me that if there's something new to try, it's better to try it in a by-election, if everybody agrees, than to try it in a general election where it could potentially create havoc and misunderstanding.
D. Mitchell: Just a brief question. The Attorney General is referring to the membership of the Election Advisory Committee, and I'm recalling a debate we had on division 2 of this bill regarding the establishment of the Election Advisory Committee. He's saying that this committee -- and we're going to deal with this in the next section of the bill as well -- will be made up of all registered parties, not parties in the House. That is not my recollection of the debate we had under section 14 of the bill, where we talked about who would serve on the Election Advisory Committee, and my sense was that it was not all registered parties. If we have the Green Party, the Communist Party and the PDA, how large is the committee going to be? My sense was that it was parties represented in the House, parties that had party status in the House. Am I incorrect on that?
The Chair: The minister is eager to answer.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: He sure is. There are three categories. There's the category that the House recognized -- and I'll ask the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast, too, because the way in which I answered that question may have led him off on the wrong track. I think there are probably three categories. There's the category of parties in the House. That's a House matter and has nothing to do with this act. There is a category of registered political parties, which can be a huge number of parties. Then there are registered political parties that run candidates in at least 50 percent of the ridings. Going back to section 14 and the representation on the Election Advisory Committee, each of the registered parties -- now, that's a long list -- that has elected members in the House gets two representatives on the committee. There is one for each party that ran candidates in at least half the constituencies, and that's it.
The leaders of those parties -- all the parties represented in the House and all the parties that ran candidates in at least half the constituencies -- are the ones who would be consulted on section 265.
Section 265 approved.
On section 266.
J. Weisgerber: I find the reference to plebiscites interesting. To the best of my knowledge, this is something on which we don't have any legislation in British Columbia. It almost appears to be a section that creates a new mechanism of a plebiscite in British Columbia. At the same time, we have a
[ Page 16876 ]
Referendum Act in this province, which has been in place since 1990, to which this legislation appears to make no reference. I find this confusing and interesting in the extreme, and I'd encourage the Attorney General to get a copy of the act, because I believe it is very relevant. I believe referenda should be overseen by the chief electoral officer in much the same say as is apparently anticipated in this new creature called a plebiscite.
I don't have any argument with plebiscites. I'm not nearly as keen about plebiscites as I am about referenda. I believe that if a government is going to ask people to express their opinions on an issue, it should be prepared to live with the answers it receives. Governments should be bound by the answers they get from voters. One gets the sense that the government and the drafters of this bill are not going to be particularly keen to use referenda. Rather, they have decided that they may from time to time use this new creature called a plebiscite.
I should perhaps deal with one issue at a time. Can the Attorney General advise the committee whether the omission of any reference to the Referendum Act is an oversight? Is it the case that the chief electoral officer will not be involved in conducting a referendum? Perhaps the Attorney General could clarify for us how these creatures -- plebiscites and referendums -- interact.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The first act that I went to get from the bookshelf was the Election Act -- the existing Election Act -- which, in section 196, provides power to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to conduct a plebiscite. My old-fashioned, English-language notion of the word plebiscite is that it's the taking of public opinion, as opposed to a referendum, which is covered by the Referendum Act and still exists and is acknowledged in this bill later on. There is an amendment to the Referendum Act later. The Referendum Act enables the Lieutenant-Governor to make regulations about referenda. Under the Referendum Act, the Lieutenant-Governor can also specify whether the Election Act should or might govern some parts of the referendum.
[9:15]
The bottom line here -- if I can summarize without having the benefit of advice -- is that in the Election Act we have, and we will continue to have, the ability to conduct a plebiscite. We will have a Referendum Act, which will enable a referendum to be conducted under the rules established in the 1990 act, which the member referred to. We will also have the Recall and Initiative Act, which envisions a different kind of public opinion sampling -- bottom-up directed as opposed to top-down directed. We have more than we have had historically, not less, as a result of the changes that we would be adopting here tonight.
J. Weisgerber: Just so I'm clear on this: the minister is saying that the Election Act in force up until this time had a provision dealing with plebiscites. This is nothing particularly new, and because the old Election Act didn't recognize the referendum process, the minister has decided not to make a specific reference to the way in which referendums are conducted under the Referendum Act. The only reference in this new act to the Referendum Act is to who may be eligible to vote in a referendum. It doesn't in any way deal with the manner in which referendums are conducted. Given the fact that we're expanding the focus of this act, it would have seemed to me appropriate to have included a section that would have brought referendums under the purview of the chief electoral officer under the Election Act, because my reading of the Referendum Act is that it is silent on the way referendums are conducted. The Election Act remains silent on the way referendums are conducted, and that would seem to leave a lack of definition for the way in which referendums are to be conducted in the future.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The member may have a point. Under the Referendum Act, the cabinet has the choice as to how to conduct the referendum and as to whether or not to use the Election Act as a governing body for it. If the member is making a suggestion that the various provisions in the Election Act, the Referendum Act and the Recall and Initiative Act should somehow be rationalized, there may be an argument there, but the effect here is not to make any change. There's no change to the way in which the three pieces of legislation worked before or after this act.
J. Weisgerber: I think the Attorney General gets the point. The point is we're reviewing, restructuring and rewriting the Election Act. We've seen fit to deal again under the Election Act with the process of plebiscite, which strikes me as being very similar in nature to the way a referendum is conducted, and I still fail to see why the drafters of this new Election Act simply ignored the Referendum Act. I guess I'm hoping that it's not simply a blind spot with the people who drafted the Election Act as it relates to referendums.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I didn't do this in my first response, because I didn't want to make this a political thing, but the Referendum Act of 1990 was introduced as a political bill of the day because the plebiscite provisions of the Election Act could have been used, but there was a bit of initiative going on in the province around recall, referendum and public democracy. I think the former government was looking for a variety of mechanisms it could find to help it get re-elected. The Referendum Act really was a result of that.
I don't want to make a political point, because I have no doubt that every government does that in one way or another toward the end of their term, although I can't think of an example in our case. But I know that happens.
I think the reality is that we do not have in this province a clear and focused referendum and plebiscite process. We have a concoction. Some are bottom-up-directed, through R and I, and others are cabinet-directed through the Referendum Act and/or the Election Act. This doesn't change anything.
J. Weisgerber: One last kick at it. It seems to me that we may not have a clear process for referendums, but I can tell you that most of us here have a lot more experience with referendums than we do with plebiscites. I don't remember when the last plebiscite was conducted, but we've seen fit to include a section in this act to deal with plebiscites. We know that we had a referendum in British Columbia in the last general election, and we've had a national referendum. Indeed, our experience with referendums is considerably greater in the modern context than with plebiscites, and I think it's an oversight. There should have been an inclusion or a cross-referencing of all these processes: plebiscite, referendum, recall and initiative. We've seen fit to tie three of them together under this act.
[ Page 16877 ]
Maybe the current administration looks at the Referendum Act as being politically motivated. I think it had considerable effect, and not only in the political sense, in British Columbia. I believe genuinely that the existence of the Referendum Act directly affected the decision to take the Charlottetown accord to referendum. So it's had a pretty significant role in the history of our country in modern times.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I can't resist it. The only problem with the Referendum Act is that it should have been called the Plebiscite Act, because that is in fact what it is.
J. Dalton: Looking at the reference to public concern in subsection (1), would I be correct in assuming that section 193 applies to this and therefore it's a public policy issue? Are we not caught by the spending concerns this statute otherwise refers to?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: There's no connection whatsoever.
D. Mitchell: Just briefly, I think the term "plebiscite" is kind of archaic in 1995, in an age where the buzzword is "direct democracy." Plebiscites were actually designed in an era before governments had an opportunity to sample public opinion through the modern techniques of public opinion surveys, which are also dealt with extensively in this act. So it's curious that we would want to institute a non-binding form of official public sampling, when the government spends so many millions of dollars on public opinion surveys. Any government knows public opinion, but a plebiscite on matters of public concern is a bit of an anomaly. It is curious that in this modern day and age, when we are simultaneously dealing with things like recall and initiative and binding referenda on governments at all levels, we should be going back to almost the nineteenth century, to the era of plebiscites, non-binding samplings of public opinion by government. It's curious in the extreme that the government would want to be putting this into the Election Act.
Section 266 approved.
On section 267.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.
[SECTION 267, in the proposed section 267, by adding the following paragraphs:
(m.1) prescribing information that must be included in
(i) an application under section 234.5, or
(ii) an election advertising disclosure report under section 234.9;
(m.2) prescribing classes of advertising for the purposes of section 234.91 (1) (a); .]
Amendment approved.
On section 267 as amended.
G. Wilson: I wonder if the Attorney General might tell us very briefly what the effect of that amendment is, because there is a cross-reference here that is a little confusing.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The member is asking me about the effect of the amendment on this section. The answer is that the chief electoral officer can make regulations in respect to third-party advertising, which is new.
D. Mitchell: The section as amended gives the CEO power to make regulations for a number of different purposes. One of them is for the procedures to be followed by the Election Advisory Committee. That's all subject, of course, to section 16(2)(e), which deals with the role of the committee. Section 16(2)(e) says that the CEO must consult with the committee "before making a regulation at any time other than during the election period for a general election." So it's a circuitous kind of amendment here. If the CEO has the ability to make regulations with respect to the procedures in the Election Advisory Committee, but if the CEO simultaneously has to consult with the Election Advisory Committee before making regulations, what are we really doing here, and what does this say about the autonomy and independence of the CEO?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I had three things coming at me, so I may not have got the message from the member clear. Back to section 16, it says that the CEO must consult with the committee before making regulations. That isn't necessarily about making those regulations; it is about procedures and processes -- whatever.
I just want to be sure, because there could be other sections that impact on that as well. Before I make the next definitive statement, I just want to check on one thing. If I were on the opposition benches, I'd be asking the same question, and I'm not sure I would have the answer yet.
The CEO, using both sections together, will consult with the committee about the procedures of the committee and about the regulations. The procedures may impact on how they determine what the regulations are. He or she is going to consult with the committee in respect of both.
D. Mitchell: One of the things I'm looking forward to eagerly -- as an observer, of course -- is watching the evolution of the new independent CEO and his or her relationship with this Election Advisory Committee. I don't want to belabour this point at all. It's interesting. I worry a little bit about the independence of the CEO in terms of the relationship with the Election Advisory Committee, but no doubt we'll have to ensure, as legislators, that we have the very best possible CEO. I won't belabour this point.
[9:30]
I would like to ask the Attorney General, on section 267 as well, about the CEO's ability to make regulations with respect to different classes of opinion surveys and advertising that might be excluded from the definitions under the act. What does that really mean? What are different classes of opinion surveys or advertising? What kinds of opinion surveys or what sorts of advertising would the CEO, by regulation, be able to exempt from this act? When I take a look at subsection (d) and the new subsection (m.2), stating that the CEO can make regulations prescribing classes of advertising.... Are there different kinds of advertising and different kinds of opinion surveys that don't qualify under the act? If so, could the Attorney General be specific about what those are?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Doing the two questions backwards, in the amendment, subsection (m.2), classes of advertising.... That is, in other words, print advertising on the one hand and electronic on the other, and perhaps radio and
[ Page 16878 ]
television broken down -- that kind of thing. On the other point, at the top of page 185, "prescribing classes of opinion surveys as excluded from the definition of 'opinion survey' " could be, for example.... The classic example is a hamburger poll, which wouldn't be an opinion survey, if the CEO determined and made a regulation to make that effective.
D. Mitchell: I thank the Attorney General for that. I think I understand this now.
Just one final question on subsection (d), where the CEO can make regulations prescribing classes of opinion surveys that could be excluded from the definition in this act. Earlier we talked about an amendment on public opinion surveys that the Attorney General brought forward, which indicated that if one of the media first publishes a public opinion survey.... That is the only requirement for living up to the complicated terms of this act in terms of the details that have to be listed. Could the CEO make regulations with respect to which media might be qualified as having been deemed to be the first publishers of a public opinion survey?
The reason I raise this is that, under the act, I think we're really giving a competitive advantage to the print news media, because they're probably the only ones who would be able to first publish a public opinion survey and list all the elements of methodology, timing, sponsorship, etc. It is unlikely that a short radio or television newscast will be able to be the first to publish or broadcast a public opinion survey. I'm wondering if the CEO would have the ability under this section to actually deal with that issue in a manageable way and not give such a competitive advantage to the print news media over all forms of electronic media for public opinion survey publication.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: No, the CEO could not use this section to do that. While we're on this point, let me say that we've actually timed what it would take for a radio or television newscast to include all the relevant information, and it is 30 seconds. The 30 seconds includes not just the data that is required but also the results that are being reported.
D. Mitchell: I'm impressed that the Attorney General has actually tested how long it would take to do this, but the truth is that in a radio broadcast or a newscast, 30 seconds is a fairly significant chunk, even with the fastest news reader. I suppose that during an election campaign a very aggressive television station, in the interest of scooping its competitors, might want to take 30 seconds to do so; nevertheless, it's unlikely that the electronic media would ever have a chance to be first. I think this legislation is going to give a competitive advantage to the print media.
Having said that, the Attorney General says that under this section the CEO would not have an ability to vary that. Could the CEO do it under any other authority in this act? Is there any discretion there?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: No.
Section 267 as amended approved.
The committee recessed from 9:35 p.m. to 9:38 p.m.
On section 268.
J. Dalton: Under 268, the acting CEO will function until the committee is struck to hire a permanent one. Is the effect of that plus 269 that the acting CEO will carry on and make preparations until the committee has actually hired the new CEO?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Yes.
Sections 268 to 270 inclusive approved.
On section 271.
G. Wilson: I just want to nail this down once and for all. I've gone back and read through Hansard, and there's just a little bit of ambiguity there. This section says: "For the purposes of determining the political parties that are entitled to be represented on the Election Advisory Committee, a political party that is authorized to issue tax receipts under the Income Tax Act at the time this section comes into force is deemed to be a registered political party as referred to in section 14." That makes it specific that every political party in the province of British Columbia which has rights under the Income Tax Act to issue a tax receipt is a bona fide political party in the province and has entitlement to sit on the Election Advisory Committee, correct?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Does the member understand this is a transition section? Going back to section 14, if the member were to read 14(1)(b) and take out the words "each registered" and replace them with "each income-tax-receipting political party" and in (c) where it says "registered political party" use "income tax receipting party," that's the basis of the composition of the advisory board.
G. Wilson: I think we're consistent on that, if I can flip through this huge act to get there. So with respect to the provisions, we talked in terms of consultation with the leaders; that has a caveat with respect to those represented within the Legislative Assembly. No, I guess I stand corrected; it doesn't. You were right -- 265. So that means that the leader of any registered political party that can effectively issue a tax receipt in the province of B.C. at the time that this act comes into force...
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Sits on the advisory board.
G. Wilson: ...sits on the advisory board, right. So we've got that nailed down.
The provision for the additional or extra seat -- I shouldn't say extra because it isn't extra.... But the one seat is the provision of candidates in 50 percent of.... That's a separate issue. I'm delighted because we still have representation here from Elections British Columbia, I think. I think that it's absolutely important that there be no ambiguity with respect to what constitutes a bona fide political party and what does not. Consistently we hear reference to three political parties in this province. The media consistently talk about that. In the process, to make this a fair process for the Green Party, for Social Credit, for the Progressive Democratic Alliance, Reform, Liberal, NDP, Libertarian and Communist parties, all of those parties that are eligible to give tax receipts
[ Page 16879 ]
are eligible to equally participate in the election in the province of British Columbia. That's the intent of this act in relation to that committee, and I think that's excellent. I'm glad it's on the record, and we'll make sure we hold you to it.
D. Mitchell: I'm just contemplating the size of this committee, at least on the transitional basis. I wonder if the Attorney General can tell us where the meetings are going to be held for the Election Advisory Committee, given the fact that it's going to be a rather large group on the basis of what has just been agreed to.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: We dealt with this briefly very early on in committee. I said at that time that, given today's circumstances, I thought the composition of the committee would be about 13, give or take one or two.
Section 271 approved.
On section 272.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.
[SECTION 272, in the proposed section 272 (2) (a), by deleting "the date on which this Act received First Reading in the Legislative Assembly;" and substituting "June 1, 1995;".]
Amendment approved.
On section 272 as amended.
D. Mitchell: This section deals with the registration of political parties and constituency associations. I have a question that is raised as a practical concern that parties and riding associations will have. Under the terms of this act, when can they register? I want to seek confirmation from the Attorney General here, but the way I read this is that under subsection (1), it says that "political parties and constituency associations...may apply to the chief electoral officer at any time after this section comes into force." My reading of the act says that that would be at the time of royal assent, and I would like to confirm this. Is that correct? Once this bill receives royal assent, will riding associations and political parties be able to commence contacting the CEO to register under this act, and perhaps, should they?
[9:45]
Hon. C. Gabelmann: It is 21 days after royal assent. You can pick that up in section 307.
Section 272 as amended approved.
On section 273.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.
[SECTION 273, in the proposed section 273,
(a) in subsection (1) by adding ", being June 1, 1995" after "the date on which this Act received First Reading in the Legislative Assembly", and
(b) by adding the following subsection:
(6) The recording and reporting requirements under Part 11 in relation to contributions to sponsors of election advertising, or under Parts 6 and 8 of the Recall and Initiative Act in relation to contributions to sponsors of initiative advertising or recall advertising, do not apply to contributions received before this section comes into force.]
Amendment approved.
On section 273 as amended.
G. Wilson: I want to ask a question about section (3) of this, where it talks about funds on deposit:
"For a political party or constituency association that applies for registration under this Act before January 1, 1996, the application for registration must include a solemn declaration of the financial agent for the organization as to the funds held on the date of introduction by or to the credit of the organization."
The date of introduction of this bill is what is being talked about. Existing political parties that have been existing as individual entities may merge and come together prior to or on January 1, 1996, in a merger of political parties. Assuming that there are funds on deposit in each of those parties, is there a declaration of financial disclosure by both those parties, or are they exempted from that because they are not new?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I think I have this. If neither of the merging parties registers after September 1, and they merge, then there's no reporting. If they register and later merge, then the registering for the pre-merger period is required. Then there is a new party, and it would depend on merger dates and whatever else, and on the date of registration of that party.
I just wonder, is it with these guys, or...?
G. Wilson: No, I was actually just anticipating the inevitable merger of the Liberal and Reform parties.
I was curious because from time to time you will see organizations that will merge together, and they will be carrying liabilities and credits into that merger. So there is actually a date between the date of registration, and the date of actual registration.... In that period, as I understand it, there is going to have to be a reporting period. Is that right?
Section 273 as amended approved.
Sections 274 to 277 inclusive approved.
On section 278.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: In today's Orders of the Day, on page 8, on section 278.... I would like to be clear that we all know what we are talking about, because there have been a number of proposals here. I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.
[SECTION 278, by deleting the proposed section 34 of the Constitution Act and substituting the following:
Member disqualified for acting in other elected office
34. (1) In this section "other elected office" in relation to a person means an elected office held by a person as
(a) a member of the House of Commons of Canada,
(b) a member of a municipal council,
(c) a member of a regional district board,
(d) a trustee under the School Act, or
(e) a local trustee under the Islands Trust Act.
[ Page 16880 ]
(2) If a person who is a member of the Legislative Assembly sits or votes in any other elected office, the person ceases to be a member of the Legislative Assembly and the seat of the member is vacant.
(3) A person who ceases to be a member of the Legislative Assembly under subsection (2) is, for as long as the person continues to hold the other elected office, disqualified from being nominated as a candidate for or being elected or holding office as a member of the Legislative Assembly.]
On the amendment.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: If I might just take a moment, what this does is.... I want to acknowledge, I think, the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi -- there's been so much going on -- for his proposal that this idea be accommodated. We have appropriated his idea and put it into our words in order to have consistency and the right kind of language to deal with the Constitution Act and whatever. But the effect of it is to ensure that people can't hold dual offices, whether in Ottawa or locally. If you are a local council member and you get elected to this body, and you continue to sit as a council member, you are no longer a member of this body if you don't quit your council seat.
D. Mitchell: I certainly plan to support the amendment. In fact, I will withdraw mine because I think this one is a little more specific in terms of its language. I think the amendment points out, or at the very least suggests, that to be a Member of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia is a full-time commitment, a full-time job -- and it should be. When the language was first put into the legislation suggesting that one could not be a member of this House and a member of the House of Commons in Ottawa at the same time, which was sometimes practised in the nineteenth century, there was recognition that you couldn't do both -- you couldn't serve both -- and that this was a full-time job. I think that today, to be a member of this assembly and to also be a member at a local government level -- either for a school district, a regional district, a municipal council or the Islands Trust, as specified in the act -- while there may not necessarily be a conflict, takes away from the notion that this is a full-time job in this assembly. On that basis alone I'd be inclined to support the amendment.
I'm not sure that all members of the assembly will support this. I'm not sure if any current members of this House are simultaneously, while serving this House, affected by this kind of an amendment or not, although I think that over the course of the last few years members who have served in this House have simultaneously been members at the municipal level of government. The effect of this amendment, if it is agreed to in committee, would be to prohibit that and to enshrine the notion that it is a full-time commitment, a full-time job to be a member of this House. I think I would support that.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I think it is important for me to get on the record that my motivation is different from that of the member. It is the motivation which flows from the conflict that could inevitably occur between having to represent one's constituents at a municipal level, school board level, Islands Trust level or regional district level, while at the same time trying to represent one's constituents here at the provincial Legislature when inevitably there are occasions when there is a conflict of interest -- and I use small "c" and small "i" when I say that; I'm not talking about the statute. There can be. That's not all the time. In fact, quite often there will be a consonance of interests. But there will be occasions when there is a difference of opinion, and it may relate to budget matters, where a member of this House is having to vote for a budget that provides funding to a municipality which is less than the municipality is expecting to get, and the councillor is voting one way at the council level and another way here. We're talking about a dissonance of interests and the potential that an individual cannot fairly represent both of those interests.
G. Wilson: There are occasions when I will rise to disagree with my friend and colleague from West Vancouver-Garibaldi, and this is one of them. I think I understand what the intent of this is. I certainly don't, for a moment, try to suggest that this is not a full-time job; it clearly is. I think we have to think very carefully about what this amendment is doing. This amendment is going to prohibit anybody who is currently sitting on council or on a school board -- who is finishing a term of office -- from running for and winning an election. The Attorney General is saying that that's not true. As I read this, it says that you cannot simultaneously hold those two positions. It means that if a person enters into a writ period, and there are four or six months left in their term as councillor or school board member, they can't win the election and fill out their term or their mandate within the other electoral jurisdiction. I think that's absolutely wrong.
I can certainly understand if there is an argument that there should not be any double-dipping -- that you shouldn't get remunerated twice. If that's what the provision of this act was to say -- that if you are an elected member and you win, you would have to agree to one or the other remuneration package.... Chances are, unless you're making more in city council, you'll select this one. But you can't get paid twice. I can understand that rationale.
As for the conflict question, I can see that the only time an elected member of a school board or a council is going to fly in the face of their constituents -- because the same constituents who elect them to council elect them to this chamber -- is if they're whipped around by party dogma that tells them that they have to go and vote a different way. That's where there will be a conflict. If, on the other hand, one is involved in a more progressive political party that doesn't have that kind of whip-and-dogma show, clearly you should be able to do both.
I think we have to be extremely careful of what we're doing. What we're about to do is eliminate a whole host of potential candidates from standing for elected office in the next provincial election. That's going to take any elected member to council, a school board, the Islands Trust and so on, and eliminate their opportunity for standing for office, winning and completing a term, which is only another year away if it's a spring election next year -- not even that.
L. Reid: I want to come back to the minister's earlier remarks when he was talking about the conflict that a member may experience if they are sitting in the House of Commons at the same time as being a member of this Legislature, as one example. I wonder -- and I question the minister -- why someone who sits on a parks board is not included in this list if, indeed, his intention was to be consistent.
G. Farrell-Collins: I suspected that the Attorney General was going to answer, but he wants to think about it for a
[ Page 16881 ]
minute. I think it's a good point that was raised by the member for Richmond East. Quite frankly, I think everybody who has spoken to this amendment has raised good, valid points. The member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi raised a good point about not representing two groups at the same time. The member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast raised some good issues, as has the member for Richmond East.
I can throw one other one in, if I can. It's that, while you may not want to have somebody representing two things or holding down two jobs -- the conflict the Attorney General mentioned -- and while these are laudable goals, one also has to look at the fiscal implications. If somebody were to run for a seat in this chamber, whether in a by-election or a general election, and that person was currently sitting on one of the various councils or boards that are listed here, and there was six months left in that person's mandate, he or she would have to resign his or her seat on the council, which would trigger a by-election. In many cases this is extremely expensive. If a councillor for the city of Vancouver had to resign his or her seat at the council table, it would trigger a by-election. I think that to run a by-election for a single council seat in the city of Vancouver would probably cost in the neighbourhood of $300,000.
I wonder if we're not cutting off our nose to spite our face, so to speak, by doing this. I don't know if we've thought this through far enough to see what the costs would be. In effect, you would cost the taxpayers a great deal of money to run this by-election for a single seat on a city council or you would preclude those members who sit on council from running as candidates. They would have to go their electorate and explain: "I'm going to run. I want to represent you at the provincial level, and I'm going to cost you $300,000 for a by-election." A lot of people would say: "I'm not electing you to go to Victoria and represent me, because it's going to cost us $300,000." It would preclude a lot of people from moving on in the political process and seeking an opening to serve their constituents at a different level.
[10:00]
I don't discount the good comments of the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi or those of the Attorney General, but I think that we should let the constituents decide. Let the electorate decide about all those conflicting determinations, which they have to take into consideration during an election campaign. That's where it should rest. I'm a little concerned about the amendment for that reason.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: In answer to the member for Richmond East, each municipality has a variety of committees that do various things. I suspect that some municipalities have people who do the functions of a parks board but aren't elected. The only city that I know has an elected parks board is Vancouver, but they all perform similar responsibilities, which are at a lower level than those of school trustees or municipal council members, who have a big budget, etc. That's the kind of distinction to be made there.
In respect of the various arguments, I guess we've essentially heard three. There's the one that says "if this and if that," and there are the two that take different positions. I think all the arguments are good. This wasn't in the original bill. It came into the bill as an amendment from me because an opposition member proposed it, and I have been trying to accept opposition members' amendments whenever I can. What I tried to think through was: do we concern ourselves about the costs of a by-election if someone abandons federal politics to sit in a provincial seat or vice versa? We don't; we say that you can't do both. Everyone agrees with that. It's in the Constitution Act of British Columbia: you can't sit in the House of Commons and the provincial Legislature.
Interjection.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: It's pretty hard to do physically. I think it's hard to be in the council meeting in Campbell River every Monday night, the subcommittee on whatever it is on Tuesday night, the other subcommittee for budget on Wednesday night and sit here in the House at the same time. It's very difficult for individuals to do both, just as it is to do both with Ottawa. While I don't have any hard feelings about this one way or the other, frankly, the view that appears to make the most sense is that if people want to serve in provincial politics, then they shouldn't be involved in municipal politics or vice versa. They have to make a choice. This is the same as they do now between federal and provincial.
J. Weisgerber: I have a question for the Attorney General. As I'm reading this, it seems to suggest that persons holding two offices only disqualify themselves when they vote in the other.... The amendment seems to suggest that one could be an elected representative at a municipal level or regional district or school board and also be a member of this assembly, as long as they didn't vote at both the regional district and the municipal level. My question is: if a member of a municipal council were elected with seven months left in the term and genuinely wanted to avoid a by-election, could that be achieved by not voting at those council meetings, but not physically resigning from the council?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Yes. In fact, for the last eight months, from January 1 of the election year, which in the Municipal Act is 1996, 1999, etc.... So any time from January 1, 1996, there's no need for a by-election. If the general election took place in October, let's say, of 1995, the person could neither sit nor vote, if they chose to, through till January 1 and could then resign, and no by-election would be required.
K. Jones: New councils and new elected positions are being established now by this government under the Health ministry -- the regional and local health councils. Why are they exempted from this? They are in the same category as any of these other school trustees or municipal council members, in that they are administering funds directly from the provincial government, and they are elected.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The health boards and health councils -- regional boards and community health councils -- do not have taxing authority. School boards don't necessarily have it, but they do have that option.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us what taxing authority has to do with this? This is not related to whether they are taxing; it's to whether they're an elected office.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: In this province when we think of a third level of government, we think of the people who are elected under the Vancouver Charter or under the Municipal Act, both as regional district and as municipal councillors, and
[ Page 16882 ]
we think of school trustees. Very few of us think of any other elected people, however they are elected, whether they are elected, as in the past, by a hospital society to govern a hospital board or whatever. We don't think of those as a third level of government; what we're talking about here is the third level of government.
G. Wilson: I want to make two points, and let's cut to the quick. First of all, does that mean, for example, that no member of the Sechelt Indian government district -- the Indian band -- could run for political office? They're a third order of government; they're a self-taxing authority. So are we going to exempt all Indian self-government officers from running for political office? That's a tricky one.
Interjection.
G. Wilson: Right. Or maybe they can, but nobody elected to a non-aboriginal government could run. So that's one point.
The second point is: if the government is intent on bringing this in, it strikes me that the time that this should kick in is after the next round of municipal elections. There's a whole host of elected municipal officers who may very well right now be in consideration of or in the process of seeking nomination, because they feel that their term is coming to a conclusion. There's an election next year; there will be very few months left in their mandate. Some of them may have served for two or three consecutive terms and feel that this is a chance to move on to another challenge in public service. These people didn't enter into this, thinking that they were going to have to immediately resign their seats. So it seems to me that there should be a period in which this should kick in, after the next round of municipal elections.
Lastly, I would be absolutely sympathetic to an amendment that would say that you can't receive remuneration for two offices. I would be 100 percent supportive of that. If you're elected by your constituents and you choose to serve in two areas, that's your choice, but I don't believe that the taxpayer should be paying you twice. I don't think double-dipping is on. There are three concerns. I think we have just not thought this through clearly.
K. Jones: I appreciate the opportunity to get to the root of this issue, and that's what we're attempting to do. With regard to the health councils, once again the minister indicated that there is some decision as to what would be included here on the basis of public perception. I'm wondering how many people perceive the Islands Trust trustees as elected officials or as being in a situation that would be in conflict with this. Only the people who happen to have some constituency interest with the Islands Trust.... Certainly the health councils, such as the South Fraser health council, which is going to be handling more budget than most of the municipalities in British Columbia, have to be recognized as major positions in their elected roles. It's definitely a position that's going to be in conflict with their role in this House.
Surely the minister has to take those as being in the same situation as other elected offices, as is detailed in section 278. You can't eliminate a major source of political clout or political activity such as the regional and local health councils. As the Minister of Health has already indicated, they are there to represent the people from a health standpoint. They are the people's representatives -- the local representation, the same as a school trustee is the local representation; the same as a municipal councillor is the local representative; and the same as a local trustee for the Islands Trust, which probably has hardly anything to administer in comparison and probably meets once a month to deliberate on a very, very small budget. Come on. Let's get these things into perspective.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Regional health board members and community health care council members are not elected, yet. If they become elected positions, that becomes another issue, but they are not a group of people who are elected. The member's argument, extended to its logical extent, is that local recreation commissions and a whole bunch of other appointed bodies should also be included in this, and that's ridiculous. If, at some point, there's universal suffrage for health care council members or regional health board members at the local level, the member's point would be well taken.
D. Mitchell: I have just a couple of quick points. A number of other issues have been raised that aren't incorporated into the hon. Attorney General's amendment. If we're going to go ahead with this, it may be useful to add a subsection (1)(f) and say, "or other elected positions in local government," and let the chief electoral officer deal with this as conditions arise over the course of time. We are giving powers to the CEO. Local governments can create new positions. I think the member for Surrey-Cloverdale actually raised a couple of valid points, although I disagree with him on the Islands Trust. On the Gulf Islands, those elected representatives are the only local government representatives they have.
Because the amendment cannot and does not contemplate all positions.... I think the member for Richmond East raised a valid point about the Vancouver Parks Board. I'm not sure I agree with the hon. Attorney General that that's a lower order of government. The Vancouver Parks Board is unique. Maybe there should be a sub-subsection (f) saying, "or other elected positions in local government," and allow the CEO to decide on that. We're giving the CEO discretion in other areas. I recommend that as a friendly amendment.
I also have a question for the Attorney General. If this amendment comes into force, when would it take effect? In other words, we're contemplating a provincial election sometime in the next 18 months in British Columbia, and there may be some persons in British Columbia holding local government positions today who may want to seek nominations. Would this amended section come into effect at the time an individual who holds a local government position receives a nomination for candidacy in the next provincial election? Would it be at the time that the writ is dropped or would it be at the time of the election itself? Would it be at the time the individual is nominated for provincial office?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: If it helps the member in his considerations over whether he wants to urge me to pursue this amendment, the answer to that question is that it would take effect following the swearing in of the elected MLA. So that's following the writ and the swearing in and combined with, as commented by the member for Peace River South, sitting or voting at the local level. Both of those have to kick in. To imagine the scenario for those who are worried about the next round of municipal elections, which are in November 1996; if the provincial election were this fall, and members were sworn in, say, in November, which is a reasonable prospect if
[ Page 16883 ]
there were an election this fall, they could not sit for the council meetings that remained in November and December. If they did, they would have to resign, and a local by-election would be called. If they didn't sit in those meetings, then no by-election would be necessary. That's if there is an election this fall. Who knows when the election is going to be? If the election is next spring, which is another possibility, then there would be no consequence of that kind that would tie in in terms of transition.
D. Mitchell: If we had fixed election dates, we'd probably be able to coordinate the timing of provincial elections with the timing of municipal elections, and we'd be able to avoid the whole problem. We don't, but I won't get into that.
[10:15]
I appreciate what the Attorney General is saying in terms of timing. It is conceivable that an elected representative at the local government level might actually be elected as a provincial candidate. If the timing of the provincial election is so close to the November 1996 municipal elections that there's only a few months, it may not necessitate a local by-election, and it may not necessitate a local government official having to step down. There might be a way to manage it in that scenario.
The Attorney General is interested in knowing if I continue to support this; I do. I believe there shouldn't be dual office-holding. I'm not sure that this is the only way to manage it. In fact, time permitting and consultation permitting, you probably could have accommodated a lot of the concerns raised by members and still have achieved the same objective of preventing dual office-holding. I certainly continue to support the amendment. I ask the Attorney General, though, if he would consider the amendment I referred to earlier, which would be to add a subsection (1)(f), which simply says that this would also deal with other elected positions in local government and allow the CEO to arbitrate those issues as they arise in the years ahead. We're only going to do this once, so we might as well do it right.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm not prepared to accept that amendment, but I agree with the member that we may as well do this right. I think that perhaps a subsequent parliament should be charged with addressing this issue. It's been an interesting issue. I genuinely wanted to accommodate what I thought were the wishes of the opposition, but with that I would withdraw the amendment.
G. Farrell-Collins: I just want to say that it often takes courage for government ministers to accept suggestions from the opposition in the form of amendments, but it takes double courage to then withdraw them when the debate indicates that there is probably some work that needs to be done. I congratulate the minister. I think the intent of the amendment is fine, but there's a lot of work to be done before we arrive at that stage. I thank the minister for that.
Section 278 approved.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.
[SECTION 278.1, by adding the following:
278.1 Section 42 (1) is amended by striking out "the ordinary polling day in" and substituting "general voting day for".]
D. Mitchell: I will wait until the amendment passes. I had a brief technical question on section 278. It's a complex section that goes on for a couple of pages, and I missed the opportunity. I hope the Attorney General will still allow me to ask it.
Section 278.1 approved.
D. Mitchell: Under section 278, sections 34 through 41 are repealed. Under the new section 36, we deal with the forfeiture of a member's seat. I think this is relevant to a number of issues that have been canvassed earlier, so I won't belabour it, but under section 36(a) it says that a person ceases to be a member of the assembly when "without the permission of the...Assembly, the member fails to attend the Legislative Assembly during a whole session." I don't want to make this too personal, but during this current session we have an individual who hasn't attended the whole session. If this section were to come into force, would it affect the member for Victoria-Hillside?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: This doesn't change the current provision. I'm not going to directly answer a question about a particular member of the House, but I will ask members to think about the possibility of a member being bedridden with a physical illness, which might mean that the member couldn't attend the entire session. Members would understand that such a member would have sick leave, and because sick leave is permission, he or she would not be affected by this.
D. Mitchell: Just for clarification, then, section 36(a) says that if a member fails to attend a whole session of the assembly without the permission of the assembly, the member's seat is declared vacant. A whole session would extend until prorogation, which in our practice doesn't take place until immediately prior to the start of the next session. Presumably, if somebody were bedridden, the permission of the Legislative Assembly would be granted, and I imagine that would be through a resolution of some kind. We've never had to experience that. In the event that an entire session is missed by a member of the assembly, and if permission hasn't been specifically granted through a resolution or some other form by the assembly, there would have to be a declaration of a vacancy of that seat, and a by-election would have to be called within six months. Is that right?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: If there wasn't permission, yes. But the member should understand that this is a provision of the Constitution Act, and it's unchanged.
The Chair: Members should note that we have passed section 278. To accommodate the member, we entertained some questions.
On section 279.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.
[SECTION 279.1, by adding the following:
Election Act
279.1 Section 67 (7) of the Election Act, as enacted by this Act, is repealed and the following substituted:
[ Page 16884 ]
(7) Section 54 of the Employment Standards Act applies to a leave under this section and the services of the employee are to be considered continuous for the purposes of sections 57 and 58 and Part 8 of that Act.]
Amendment approved.
Section 279 as amended approved.
Sections 280 to 283 inclusive approved.
On section 284.
J. Weisgerber: Subsection (2) lays out a schedule for income tax deductions. I've been sitting here with my pencil and paper, and I guess the night is late. Can the minister tell me whether or not this reflects the same schedule as currently exists?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: As Jack Webster would say, precisely.
Section 284 approved.
On section 285.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.
[SECTIONS 285.1 and 285.2, by adding the following:
Legislative Assembly Management Committee Act
285.1 Section 2 (2) of the Legislative Assembly Management Committee Act, S.B.C. 1992, c. 75, is amended by striking out "polling day" and substituting "general voting day".
285.2 Section 6 (1) is repealed and the following substituted:
(1) After general voting day for a general election, the person holding office of Speaker immediately before general voting day is deemed for the purposes of this Act to continue in office as Speaker until a Speaker designate is named.]
Amendment approved.
Section 285 as amended approved.
Section 286 approved.
On section 287.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.
[SECTION 287, in the proposed section 1 of the Recall and Initiative Act, by adding the following definitions:
"advertising limit" means a limit under section 92.1 (2) or 125.1 (2), as applicable;
"contribution", in relation to initiative advertising or recall advertising, means a contribution of money provided to a sponsor of such advertising, whether given before or after the individual or organization acts as a sponsor;
"registered sponsor" means a sponsor registered under Division 3 of Part 6 in relation to initiative advertising or under Division 3 of Part 8 in relation to recall advertising;
"value", in relation to initiative advertising or recall advertising, means
(a) the price paid for preparing and conducting the advertising, or
(b) the market value of preparing and conducting the advertising, if no price is paid or if the price paid is lower than the market value.]
Amendment approved.
On section 287 as amended.
[G. Brewin in the chair.]
J. Weisgerber: What we're moving into now, under section 287, is a whole area of the bill dealing with recall and initiative. One might be tempted to re-enter the whole debate over recall and initiative. I'm not tempted. However, I think it's important to make at least a statement with respect to this whole issue.
It appears that what the amendments to the Recall and Initiative Act do is make the process even more difficult whereby one would instigate a recall activity or participate in a citizens' initiative referendum. There was a lot of debate in this House when the initial act was brought in, and a lot of public comment made afterward. I think most British Columbians have recognized that the current Recall and Initiative Act is not workable and is not functional. Indeed, most people -- members of this House, political observers and people generally -- don't believe that we in British Columbia have workable recall and initiative legislation.
Having said that, and being faced with a series of amendments that make it even less functional, one, I think, recognizes the futility of arguing amendments to the act which may or may not make things move a bit more slowly or a bit more easily. The fact of the matter is that most people don't believe they're going to have any opportunity to use the act as it exists and believe that the amendments will only make it more difficult. Given the fact that you are faced with unworkable legislation in any event, there is not much sense in becoming incensed by the notion that we are going to add new difficulties, new hurdles to what are already almost totally insurmountable problems presented in the original act.
I want members and folks who have a great interest -- there's a wide interest around British Columbia in this question -- to understand that we are not going to pursue, line by line, the amendments to this act, simply because, at the start, we recognize it as futile, recognize the act as unworkable and acknowledge that, in fact, this detracts from what was a very bad piece of legislation, introduced originally for all the wrong motives. With that, I will -- unless totally provoked -- simply allow these sections to move forward.
G. Farrell-Collins: I'd suggest that that member talk to one of his colleagues, who was in a heated debate with the government Whip on the progress of legislation for the rest of the evening, before he commits to not being provoked. I do want to make similar comments on this bill. When the Recall and Initiative Act was brought into this House last year, it was debated extensively. The decision was made, from our side and certainly from the opposition, that the bill itself was a sham, that there was really no intent for it to ever be used and that the thresholds were set so high that it wouldn't be used. I see that the amendments contained in this bill do nothing to rectify that problem whatsoever.
We could go through clause by clause, section by section, and argue the same debate we had last year. Nothing has
[ Page 16885 ]
changed; the government still hasn't come to its senses in giving the public a meaningful and doable recall and initiative process in the province of British Columbia. I think that's unfortunate. The New Democrats supported both those issues in the referendum in 1991, and the implementation process took a long time. It was delayed, and the product that was delivered to the public was far short of their expectations, I would suggest. These sections, and the slight changes to them with regard to expenses, etc, do not in any way improve the legislation to the benefit of the public, but rather just put further hurdles in front of them.
J. Dalton: I certainly endorse the remarks of the two previous speakers. Let me give you an actual example. I had a constituent call the other day, who was quite indignant over one of the bills we were putting through this spring. He asked what he could do about initiative or referendum. I said that I would be happy to copy him the sections of the act that we passed almost a year ago to the day. I did that. I delivered the relevant sections of the Recall and Initiative Act to his doorstep, and I've never heard from him since. I told him on the phone: "I'll never hear from you, because this is unworkable. If it's workable, and you think it is, give me a call." Well, I haven't heard from him. We know it's not workable.
[10:30]
I may have some comments on section 302, which is quite extensive and which is coming up. But I certainly endorse the comments of the other speakers. There's nothing more to be said. Recall will never work, which is too bad. I'd like to recall the government, quite frankly.
Section 287 as amended approved.
Sections 288 to 299 inclusive approved.
On section 300.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I want to delete an "s" from section 300.
Amendment approved.
Section 300 as amended approved.
Section 301 approved.
On section 302.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I move the amendments standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]
On the amendments.
J. Dalton: I think it's fair to make a few observations of this very extensive section, which has -- I've sort of worked it through -- 13 separate parts to it. A lot of it is repetition, of course, from the Election Act, which we've already debated at length. But I just want to make it very clear that we in the opposition are on record as obviously being opposed to the advertising limits in section 125.1, for example, the third-party gags -- all the other things that have been raised previously today and in other arguments prior to that. I don't think it's necessary that we belabour the point.
There are two things, though: first, we're obviously not in favour of all the implications that extend out of the Election Act into this recall act; secondly, as we've already commented, the recall act itself wouldn't work previously, and it certainly won't work with these very cumbersome new and, in some respects, very late amendments that the Attorney brought in to further impact on this act.
It's very disappointing to us to see that we're still facing the same problem. I've already commented on an actual example I recently experienced. We know this act won't work. With what the Attorney has done with the combination of the Election Act provisions and the amendments to this act, it's further unworkable.
Amendments approved on division.
The Chair: Just to clarify, the Attorney General moved all the amendments that are listed for section 302.
On section 302 as amended.
J. Weisgerber: There's one area here that I have to comment on: section 31, which is outlined on page 207 and deals with the application to become an opponent of an initiative petition. From reading this, it suggests to me that all of the people who might be opposed to an initiative have to group together, select a financial agent and then act as a group in opposition to the petition.
I'm reminded of the opponents of the Charlottetown accord. It seemed to me that the groups were widely disparate, held fundamentally opposite and different.... They were all genuinely opposed, but had radically different reasons for opposing that. I expect you might well find the same situation created when an initiative has been put forward. A proponent for initiative goes forward, people are opposed to the initiative for a whole host of reasons -- genuine reasons.... Again, the only experience I have that would be parallel would be with the Charlottetown accord. But I found myself on stage at community debates on the No side with the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast, who was far from being one of those most misaligned from my position. Indeed, there were people from every corner of the argument. To think that we would have had to sit down as a group and somehow select a financial agent and apply to become an opponent. I wasn't going to say anything about it, but this is so fundamentally unworkable.
Interjection.
J. Weisgerber: Well, indeed. The minister says: "How else would you do it?" I think that anyone who wants to oppose an initiative.... If the minister and the government of the day are determined to put a spending limit on them, they surely can't expect everyone to fall under an umbrella. I am, quite candidly, not going to try and remedy the problem for the minister. I'll just say that the solution presented here is absolutely unworkable. I mean, there's no sense trying to amend it, because it fundamentally wouldn't work. I think it speaks to how unreasonable the whole presumption of this section is. As I said, perhaps spending limits for groups and some discretion by the chief electoral officer in requiring groups with a similar perspective to form together.... But it's absolutely unreasonable to take two or three groups of people
[ Page 16886 ]
who, for fundamentally different reasons, are opposed, and require them to pile together underneath. It simply isn't workable. So I'm standing to register my criticisms, disapproval and rejection of this notion. Again, I'm going to continue with the position that I started with originally: the whole process is so unworkable, I'm not sure that it matters, but certainly this is a fundamental flaw in the way this is designed.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: We had this debate during the debate about recall and initiative. We disagreed then, and we still do. I don't think the member has properly taken into account section 32, the next section, which in fact allows for a division of the opponents if they can't get together, as long as they have 20 percent.... It's a complicated process defined in the next section, but there is the possibility of dividing the opponents. I'm sure the member knows this.
I just say to members that there was a period.... The only political statement that I'm going to make -- and I won't do it in a provocative way, because I don't think it's useful to the House -- is that there was a period during the last almost four years when these provisions could have been used to recall me, and I have no doubt that it would have been successful. Half the people in my constituency association would have voted for it during the height of the controversy over Stephen Owen's report. That has subsided since, and peace reigns in the valley; it may not succeed today. I'm totally convinced that when that kind of political climate exists -- that's what the bill was designed for, and we talked about it during the debate last year -- and people are really serious about using it, they could. However, having said that....
Interjection.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: This is initiative; I appreciate that. But I'm going back to the member's earlier comments on recall, and this is on initiative. We're now talking about another matter, but I just want to get it out, because the member expresses such concern about this whole notion and how we've dealt with it. We had the debate last year -- enough said, I think.
C. Serwa: I'm not surprised by the way this has been designed and developed, because I was not surprised with recall and initiative, after serving on the particular committee. The ridiculous aspect is that the whole section, and this is included as well as the recall and initiative legislation, was designed not to work. I've never seen that occur in any other government, but this government has set the record for that. They must have really enjoyed designing legislation that section after section is designed not to work, and this certainly is a consistent indication of a government bent on this design to create the perception that they're satisfying the public demand for recall and initiative. But there is so much hypocrisy in the government, and in this particular section, that it's really not worthy of comment. It certainly enhances the cynicism that the public out there have with respect to government.
Section 302 as amended approved on division.
Sections 303 to 306 inclusive approved.
On section 307.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I move the amendment to section 307 standing in my name on the order paper.
[SECTION 307, in the proposed section 307, by deleting subsection (3) and substituting the following:
(3) Section 279.1 comes into force when section 54 of the Employments Standards Act, S.B.C. 1995, c. 38, comes into force.
(4) All provisions of this Act and the Schedule to this Act, other than section 279.1, that are not already in force on September 1, 1995 come into force on that date.]
Amendment approved.
On section 307 as amended.
D. Mitchell: This is the commencement clause for the bill. We are getting very close -- tantalizingly close -- to the end of this bill. For what it is worth, this is a bill that I think has a lot of problems. I know the Attorney General has a lot of representation, not just from members in this committee; I know he is getting a lot of cards and letters as well. I received copies just today of letters from my own constituents that are still going forward to the Attorney General, urging him to withdraw the bill. I don't think he is going to do it; we're here on the commencement clause. Although I'm going to continue to oppose the bill, I'd like to compliment the Attorney General for his willingness to at least entertain opposition amendments on some sections of the bill. While I'm at it, let me also compliment the endurance of his officials as well during this exercise.
I'd like to ask a question on the commencement clause, which is complicated. I don't want to get too technical, but let me ask the question about a possible judicial challenge to this legislation should it be passed, receive royal assent and come into effect. We've heard a lot of talk in the community at large about opposition to this bill and about potential challenges in the courts to this legislation. I want to know from the Attorney General what impact any prospective judicial challenge will have on the commencement of this bill. Is it conceivable that a challenge in the courts will prevent this bill from coming into force prior to the time of the next provincial election, for instance?
[10:45]
Hon. C. Gabelmann: It will come into force. Following that, if someone chose -- I can't imagine why -- to challenge a section or two, or a few parts of it, they are entitled to do so. It remains in force until and unless the court might say a particular section is null and void. It comes into force as laid out in the commencement section. Following that, if someone wanted to challenge, they could. I really believe we've fixed it so no one will even want to do that anymore.
D. Mitchell: I think the Attorney General has fixed it so no one is going to want to run for office anymore in British Columbia, we've made it so complicated. Just to make sure I understand what the Attorney General said, should a judicial challenge of any section of this bill come forward after it is passed by this Legislature, the mere fact that such a challenge would be before the courts would not prevent this act from having effect. I suppose it is conceivable, although unlikely, that if the next provincial election were not held until the end of the constitutional term of the mandate of this government, which would be sometime late in 1996 -- this bill could have
[ Page 16887 ]
some portions struck down by the courts, in which case all of the bill, and perhaps the act itself, may not be in effect at the time of the next election. Is that correct?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm not going to concede that any part of this bill has the faintest chance of being struck down. But if something was to be struck down, it would be parts, not the whole. The overwhelming portion -- I think 100 percent of it -- would stand, but there might be a section or two that people would disagree with me about, and the courts would make a decision.
Section 307 as amended approved.
Schedule approved.
Title approved.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Bill 28, Election Act, reported complete with amendments, to be considered at the next sitting of the House.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I thank members for their endurance. My staff have gone, but I want to add my words to the words that have been expressed for their hard work over a long period of time -- not just the visible work here in the House, but for several years.
I call committee on Bill 53, hon. Speaker.
PARK AMENDMENT ACT, 1995
The House in committee on Bill 53; G. Brewin in the chair.
On section 1.
J. Weisgerber: I'm going to look for a little bit of direction here, but it is my intent to move an amendment to the act dealing specifically with schedule D. As schedule B of this act brings into force designation of provincial parks named and described in schedule D and establishes them as class A provincial parks, it seems to me appropriate to move my amendment now. I hope that you will agree with me.
Having done that, I would like to amend schedule D to remove No. 95, the Tatshenshini-Alsek Wilderness Park, in its entirety from that schedule.
The Chair: Advice has been given to the Chair that it is not appropriate to do that at this stage. When we get to schedule D, you can move that amendment and, in a sense, you have given us notice. We will call upon you; we won't miss you at that point.
W. Hurd: I want to briefly ask the minister a series of questions with respect to section 1, section 5(2)(a) and (b). I wonder if the minister can advise us of the figures that are contained in subsections (2)(a) and (2)(b) -- where exactly they emerged from the ministry. And what is the significance of this number of hectares? I assume the formula of 9 percent of the land base refers to the figure in subsection (2)(b). Is that the rationale? Are we dealing with specified percentages here with respect to the number of hectares that are spelled out in subsections (2)(a) and (2)(b)?
Hon. E. Cull: The 7.3 million hectares brings us up fairly close to what is protected now under class A parks, national parks and other protected areas in the province. That brings us to about 9 percent -- to where we are right now. The second number, ten million hectares, which is the target for the year 2000, is the requirement to meet our 12 percent commitment, the target that we have set of protecting 12 percent of representative ecosystems in British Columbia.
W. Hurd: I wonder if the minister can take a moment to advise the committee of whether there are any specific proposals on the books that would logically lead us in the direction of ten million hectares by January 1, 2000. Are we dealing with just a generic goal here, or is there a strategy in place? Is there a series of park proposals that the government is actively considering that might enable the mandate of ten million hectares to be reached by the year 2000?
Hon. E. Cull: There are a number of land use planning processes that are underway, regional planning processes, local planning processes and the protected-areas strategy, which cover the parts of the province that have not been dealt with in the Cariboo, Kootenay and Vancouver Island CORE processes. While those processes are identifying land that will be protected, as you know, we have just announced the protected-areas strategy for the lower mainland. There's a LRMP in Kamloops, and there are a number of LMRPs in the Peace area and other parts of the province. It's those planning processes which are identifying land for protection which will take us from 9 percent to 10 percent, where we are right now, to 12 percent by the year 2000.
W. Hurd: The minister will be aware of proposals for parks with respect to the Cascades international park and the northern Rockies proposal, which are two initiatives that are being advocated by the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society. I just wondered whether those two proposals were part of the equation that will get us from 7.3 million hectares to ten million hectares by January 1, 2000. Are these two specific proposals part of the equation, or are they outside the government's calculations?
Hon. E. Cull: Those two areas are examples of some of the proposals that are being put forward in the various planning processes. But it would be premature for me to say, while this process is going on in various regions of the province, that this area will or won't be a protected area. There are many, many proposals that have been put forward by local communities, environmental groups, conservationist groups and those who are interested in fish and wildlife to protect certain parts of the province, and they will all be considered as part of the planning process for their region.
W. Hurd: As the minister knows, the northern Rockies proposal, if I have the information correct, is a proposition that involves eight million hectares alone. Is that the figure that has come to the attention of the ministry with respect to that
[ Page 16888 ]
proposal? The minister has acknowledged that the northern Rockies proposal, which certainly causes some concern to people who live in the north, is in fact part of the parks planning process within the ministry. I wonder if the minister could elaborate, in terms of dealing with targets of protection between 1995-96 and the year 2000, on whether the northern Rockies proposal will remain open for discussion as to whether all, part or some percentage of that proposal will eventually find its way into the parks target that's been established under section 1, section 5(2)(b) of this bill.
Hon. E. Cull: I can't confirm the area the member has just mentioned. I know there are a number of proposals for the northern Rockies -- some very large, covering a vast territory, and some much more focused. The answer is that we will be protecting 12 percent of British Columbia's land base in protected areas by the year 2000, and we will evaluate the proposals that come forward. While it won't be exactly 12 percent in each and every region, by the time we've added it up for the whole province, it will be 12 percent. We will have to deal with the requests as they come forward -- which undoubtedly will be for more than 12 percent -- and make decisions, set some priorities and decide on the management scheme that's most desirable for each area.
W. Hurd: I have one additional question of clarification with respect to the goal of 12 percent. There is currently a debate within the preservationist community about whether we are protecting 12 percent of representative ecosystems or whether we're dealing with just a percentage of the overall land base. I wonder if the minister could clarify for the committee: when we're talking about protection of ten million hectares by January 1, 2000, is that representative ecosystem protection, or is that strictly a percentage of the number of hectares that exist in the province?
[11:00]
Hon. E. Cull: I'm surprised that this member, having been around here for the last number of years, hasn't got this one figured out yet. It's 12 percent of the land base, but the intent is to make sure that that 12 percent contains areas that are representative of British Columbia's varying ecosystems.
W. Hurd: I would like confirmation with respect to the 10,000-hectare figure. Clearly there is a lot of latitude when we're talking about representative ecosystems; there is a lot of latitude there between 7.3 million hectares and ten million hectares. Other than offering the vague assurance that as much of the representative ecosystems of the province as possible will be protected, surely the minister would want to elaborate more fully with respect to the final 2.7 million, hectares.
What is the strategy? What is the goal of the ministry with respect to this important issue? If the ministry decides it is simply going to add 2.7 million hectares of land just to get to the figure of ten million hectares by January 1.... I think it's important to ask the minister to elaborate a little more fully on the strategy of the ministry with respect to the remaining 2.7 million hectares that will have to be reached. I have been asking her what specific proposals are on the books. What are the goals with respect to the 2.7 million hectares? I welcome a greater elaboration on what the specific strategy of the ministry is. Or is this, as I suspect, just pulling figures out of the air and producing ten million hectares as a means of producing an election-style goal that doesn't appear to have a rationale behind it? I wonder if she could just elaborate on what kind of strategy and overall plan exists with respect to the remaining.... I guess it would be about 270.... Well, the remainder of the strategy.
Hon. E. Cull: I realize that the math is challenging this late at night. The protected-areas strategy was published and released by our government two years ago. I encourage the member to read it. It outlines the goals, philosophy and strategies that are being pursued, and it is an excellent document. I suggest that he have a look at it. As I said earlier, the way we will complete the protected-area designations is through the planning processes which are already well underway in a number of parts of the province.
R. Neufeld: Just further on the questioning from the previous member, the CORE processes are completed on Vancouver Island, in the Kootenays and in the Cariboo, and I guess all the parkland is set aside there. I have some concern about the 2.7 million hectares that are left to be claimed as parkland before the year 2000. Would it be fair to say that the balance -- the 2.7 million hectares or three million hectares, whatever it works out to -- would be coming out of the rest of the province, where the CORE process has not taken place?
Hon. E. Cull: In the areas where there have been CORE processes, we have already established what land is going to be protected there, so it is the rest of the province that's being looked at -- although there are some LRMPs that have been completed in some areas which have designated some land. If your question is simply asking if we are looking outside the three CORE planning areas, then the simple answer is yes.
R. Neufeld: Section 1, section 5(3.2), talks about the parks in schedule D that are class A parks. Can the minister tell us what moneys have been budgeted this year to look after those class A parks? Obviously, 106 parks are going to cost you a few dollars.
Hon. E. Cull: Unfortunately, that's a question we should have discussed during estimates. In fact, we did discuss it somewhat. I don't have the budget information for the ministry with me tonight but would be happy to provide that to the member.
There is a limited amount of money available for maintenance. Our priorities are safety and securing the land, and making sure that conservation issues are addressed. As the member well knows, there is not a not a large budget for maintenance or development. At this time we are trying to secure areas for the future. They are rapidly being precluded from protection status because of development pressures, particularly in those areas of the province that are closer to cities or to the urban areas.
R. Neufeld: I appreciate that the question should have been asked during estimates. Maybe the bill should have been presented before that time also, but obviously it is going to be expensive. The Ministry of Lands and Parks is closing parks in other areas of the province, is reducing the size of some of the
[ Page 16889 ]
parks in other parts of the province and is reducing the parks budget in this present year by $4 million. Yet we see a bill coming before the House that wants to set aside 106 new class A parks.
Some of it just doesn't makes sense. When you're closing sites in provincial parks because you want to meet a budget level but you have millions of dollars that you can use to purchase land in the lower mainland for parks, I don't think it's quite fair. It's a great concern to a lot of people that on the one hand, you close parks or parts of parks, and you dramatically reduce the envelope of the time they are open to the public in other parts of the province. Then you come along with a grandiose plan for 106 new class A parks that are obviously going to be very expensive. I would be interested to know the kind of money that is going into the 106 new class A parks and what is budgeted for the future, knowing full well that you're closing other parks. You are reducing the size of other parks in British Columbia, and you have reduced the budget for parks by $4 million this year.
The minister looks a little surprised, but it's a fact. I can tell you about one park, for instance, just outside Kamloops, where you've eliminated about 20 sites in a provincial campground. You just eliminated them. So you are. I know of a number of parks in my constituency where the envelope of time when they are open for public use was reduced dramatically last year by the past minister, and I'm not too sure what's happening this year. So it is happening. On the other hand, you want to open 106 new class A parks and reduce the Parks budget. It is an issue.
Hon. E. Cull: First of all, the member is not informed correctly. The Parks budget has not been reduced by $4 million; it's roughly the same as it was last year, which I believe is about $42 million.
In the Lower Mainland Nature Legacy, which the member referred to, we made an investment of $25 million. It is leveraged because of the way we put it together. With municipal participation and some private non-profit donations toward the acquisition of land, we've been able to acquire $55 million worth of land for a $25 million expenditure on the part of the province. I think that is very, very good value for the money. We're quadrupling the protected areas in the most populated part of the province. It is just an unprecedented acquisition.
What the member should be aware of, though, is that the vast majority of the land that's being protected as parkland is not being acquired from third parties; it's Crown land. We're making land use decisions that that land will be protected for wilderness and park and recreational uses.
The member is expressing concern that we don't have the entire maintenance budget to look after all of those parks and immediately develop them to the extent that perhaps he would like to see or that even I would like to see. Surely the answer should not be that if we can't afford to go in and immediately set up campsites and have staff on site in one or two budget years, we shouldn't protect the land at all. If we don't protect the land now, many of these pieces will be lost from the option of protection forever.
What we are doing through this process is making sure that we keep those options open for future generations. You only have to look around the world to other countries and other areas. Even in our own country of Canada people did not make decisions to protect land early enough and lost that opportunity for all time. It's hard to go back and reclaim it. Selecting some of these areas that are unique and still pristine is a very significant decision that has to be made now, to make sure that they remain that way.
R. Neufeld: One last kick -- I'm not disputing the fact of your working with the private sector and municipalities to get land and parks. I am saying that you're doing most of it on the lower mainland, at the expense of people in my constituency and people who live outside the lower mainland, by reducing service in existing parks, closing sites in existing parks and closing the envelope of time when those parks are open for public use. Money has already been expended, years ago, to develop those sites. I'm not talking about developing new little campsites in some of the Tatshenshini or in some of those parks. I'm talking about parks that have been in place for a long time in my constituency, in the constituency of the member for Peace River South, around Kamloops and in the Okanagan, where you're taking out of service sites that were put in a long time ago and reducing the time that people can use those parks. Then, in the next breath, you're creating 106 new class A parks.
You're giving a mixed message to the people of British Columbia. On one hand, you don't want them anymore; on the other hand, you want a whole bunch more. That's what I'm trying to get across to the minister. It's not going well with the people who have phoned me from my constituency or from other constituencies where you're cutting back or curtailing services in parks.
Hon. E. Cull: There are people living in your constituency who are writing to me asking me to protect new parks and wilderness areas in your constituency. Those people want to see that done because they accept the fact that those areas have to be protected now, or the opportunities may be lost. They want to see us move to do that. I think the whole question of protecting the areas is one that has to be done at this opportunity, and we will have to go through the budgeting process, as we do every year, and make the priority decisions about what needs to be funded. I look forward to this member changing the song he sings in this chamber about cut, cut, cut, and encouraging an increase for the Parks budget next year.
J. Sawicki: As we have been saying, section 1 talks about increasing the minimum amount of land protected in parks to 7.3 million hectares and sets a target for ten million hectares by the year 2000. I want to talk a little bit about the significance of that. I appreciate that we are in committee stage and that the comments must be strictly relevant. Regrettably, I was on constituency business during second reading. So while I promise to stay within the time limit, I trust that the Chair and members will allow me a little bit of leeway in my comments on section 1.
During the '91 election campaign, I talked a lot about our party's promise to change the way we manage our forests and to double the amount of protected areas in British Columbia. In fact, it was those land use allocation issues that motivated me to run for elected office in the first place. I could see that unless we took moves such as we are taking through this bill, in terms of increasing the stewardship of all of our natural resources, we couldn't hope to maintain the dynamic econ-
[ Page 16890 ]
omy we have or even hope to approach social equity in this province. That's why I'm really proud to stand up and speak about section 1 of this bill, which will increase the number of parks that we have.
[11:15]
It has taken an awful lot of hard work through a long number of years, and certainly hard work by our government in this last four years, in cooperation with industry, environmental groups, and citizens all across this province -- including, I'm sure, citizens in the constituency of the hon. member for Peace River North -- in order to get us to this point. I never believed that we would get this far. I'd hoped we would, but I didn't believe we could. From the Tatshenini-Alsek, which hon. members have already mentioned, to some of the smaller parks like Poplar Island, these parks will provide a legacy not only for present British Columbians but for future generations.
The arguments about whether we call them class A parks.... I appreciate what the members are saying, because I have some reservations myself. I know that class A doesn't really allow us to protect some of the values we might want to protect. We might have to wait for a second term in order to be able to fine-tune those classifications. But whether we call them class A parks or call them something else, the arguments to protect representative ecosystems -- which is what the minister has been talking about -- are overwhelming, whether they are made on economic, social or environmental grounds. The endangered spaces campaign listed 15 reasons why we need to protect representative ecosystems. A recent Parks study right here in British Columbia talked about some of the short-term and immediate economic benefits in terms of jobs. Certainly the Minister of Small Business, Tourism and Culture likes to remind us of just the kind of dollars that parks can bring to our economy. And as the Minister of Finance and Environment, Lands and Parks is often fond of saying, it's not coincidental that we in British Columbia have the best economic rating and the best environmental rating.
But what is given less weight in terms of significance to our children and grandchildren -- and I think this is really important when we're talking about the parks in this act -- is the importance that these protected areas will have in terms of research, education and scientific study. As any mechanic or plumber knows, saving all the parts is the first law of intelligent tinkering.
The reality is -- and earlier the Leader of the Third Party mentioned a comment that he was going to be making later on in the bill -- that we don't even understand all the parts, or all the pieces, even in British Columbia, let alone the world. So truly, in terms of responsible stewardship and sustainability, the parks we are talking about in section 1 of this act today could well be the canaries in the mineshaft tomorrow. While the opposition may have preferred to mine the Tatshenshini rather than protect it, and while they might have preferred not to give any priority at all to what we're trying to accomplish in this bill, to do otherwise and to not protect the parks we are talking about today is -- just to cite David Jansen, a biologist at the University of Pennsylvania -- a bit like burning our libraries without bothering to see what's in them. That's the significance, hon. members, of what we're talking about in this bill.
I want to make one last point -- the minister mentioned it in response to a question just a couple of moments ago -- and it's a perspective that hasn't really been well canvassed in this bill -- that is, the role that these parks play and will play in the sustainability and livability of the urban communities in which most British Columbians live.
As members well know, as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, I'm responsible for the Georgia Basin initiative. Together with the Growth Strategies Statutes Amendment Act, 1995, that this House passed earlier this session, we are trying to meet the challenges of rapid growth in what is probably the most beautiful region in North America. If our urban communities are going to remain livable, and if our children and grandchildren are going to have anything close to the quality of life that we have in terms of natural surroundings, then we have got to protect the parks that are listed in this act, and many more.
M. Sihota: And we must protect the Burnaby mountains.
J. Sawicki: I hear a member across the way say that we should protect the Burnaby mountains, as well, and I know that my three colleagues in Burnaby would heartily endorse that.
Many of these parks that we are talking about in this act are within the Georgia Basin region, which is within driving distance of most of the population of British Columbia. On the Island here, we have the Vancouver Island Commonwealth Nature Legacy; on the mainland we have the Lower Mainland Nature Legacy. It doesn't really matter whether none of these parks are specifically in Burnaby-Willingdon, which is my constituency, because we know that there is a real interdependence. None of us don't go beyond the boundaries of our own communities for recreation.
I know that the analogy has been made before, but whether we are talking about the Tetrahedron or the Pinecone Burke or Boundary Bay, what we are doing today is tantamount to saving Stanley Park many, many years ago, when perhaps the population thought that that was a strange thing to do.
I've waited a long time for this kind of initiative and this kind of legislation. I'm really proud to be associated with a government that has had the courage to do this. We are on committee stage of this bill; it's late in the night. I would just ask all hon. members to not only support section 1 and the schedules that are listed in this bill, but to actually understand and promote the significance of what we're doing today and to join with government members in celebrating this bill as part of our legacy and responsibility to our children and our grandchildren. I thank this House for allowing me some extra comments on section 1 of this bill during committee stage.
J. Weisgerber: I'd like to ask the minister about the costs of compensation for third-party interests that might have developed as part of the establishment of these class A parks. It seems to me that we have a substantial acreage -- hectarage -- of land in British Columbia which has been designated as parks. Certainly many of those designations are supportable, but they weren't there simply without interests -- mining interests and tenure by forest companies -- that were filed. I know there is some provision for grazing and other agricultural uses, but there clearly has to be a significant alienation within these described parks. I wonder if the minister could give us some sense of the magnitude of the cost to taxpayers of compensation for third-party interests.
[ Page 16891 ]
Hon. E. Cull: No, I can't. In many cases, compensation is something that would have to be negotiated where those interests exist, and that is the appropriate route to do it. In certain cases there are discussions going on, but they haven't been concluded.
The member should be aware that in many of the cases there are no third-party interests that are being alienated or taken away and which have to be compensated for. As we get into other parts of the bill, you'll see that there are many cases where third-party interests are maintained through park permits in the newly created parks and the ones that currently exist in existing parks. In many cases we were able to make, particularly in the area of the forest tenures, alternative arrangements by shifting the forest tenure out of the park and into other areas, and providing for compensation in that fashion. While there is obviously going to be a dollar amount that's going to have to be attached as part of this, there are no negotiations that are concluded at this point that I can give a dollar figure for.
But I can assure the member that we're doing everything we can to minimize that through the other alternatives that are available to us, particularly in the CORE process, because the parties have been at the table, and there has been considerable discussion about what land will be protected and -- more importantly to many of the third-party interests -- what land will be available for integrated resource management and use. There is a value to many of those interests in getting the certainty that land is now available for forestry, mining or whatever the interests or uses are.
One of the things that accompanied this announcement was the designation by the Minister of Forests of land in the forest land reserve, which gave certainty for the first time to many of those companies in the Vancouver Island area, in the Cariboo and in the Kootenay area about land that is now available. That, in and of itself, has to be considered as part of the value that has been provided through these decisions.
J. Weisgerber: Well, I'm sure the tenure holders were pleased to learn that there are opportunities for tenures in previously uncommitted areas. That may well have come as a surprise to some of those folks who thought that most of the available tenures were already taken. But be that as it may, there may well be a sense of comfort among some other tenure holders over availability and access. That's an argument for another day.
However, I can't believe that the government, the minister and the cabinet would engage in an undertaking as significant as this one without establishing some cost parameters. Indeed, it's incredible for me to think that the government would engage in this whole process without having been given cost parameters for the compensation to third parties. I'm not asking for, and don't expect to get, a specific answer, but I think it's fair, as the minister stands and takes credit for the establishment of these 100-odd new parks, that there also be an acknowledgment, a recognition, that there is a cost associated. Voters, taxpayers, may well be prepared to accept the costs, but I think it's incumbent on the government to be candid with British Columbians about what those costs might be. The minister should, as part of this process, be prepared to tell British Columbians about the cost ranges that have been provided in conjunction with the decisions to establish these parks. Quite candidly, I would find it very, very hard to believe that any government, any cabinet, would enter into such an undertaking without having that kind of basic information.
[11:30]
Hon. E. Cull: One of the things we did in terms of getting the information that is required is that we had Coopers and Lybrand do a study of the cost-benefits of park development in the province. We released that study not too long ago, and that study showed conservatively that for every dollar we invest in parks, we get a $10 return to the economy. So the taxpayers are going to be very well served in terms of the increased investments that result in increased taxes being collected and going to pay for many of the services that people pay taxes for and depend on in this province.
J. Weisgerber: One could argue with that projection, I suppose, but it doesn't answer the question. If Coopers and Lybrand has gone to the extent of preparing that kind of projection, they must have known what the costs would be. How would they do a cost-benefit analysis? How would they do a projection of a multiplier of ten without having a base starting point and without knowing what the costs were going to be? It's unfortunate that the minister comes in with this rather substantial bill and asks us to approve a significant undertaking by the Crown without being prepared to give us at least the range of costs that the Coopers and Lybrand report was based upon. Surely to goodness the minister will be that candid with us.
An Hon. Member: We're going to leak it tomorrow.
J. Weisgerber: Someone said that they would leak it tomorrow, and one wonders. I would be far more comfortable with the minister being forthright and telling us. We're setting aside several million hectares of land. There's a value for that; there's a benefit for that. But we have to be candid enough to acknowledge that there is a cost. Surely to goodness, as a competent government -- or as a government that pretends to be competent -- there must have been some costing of those acquisitions. Surely to goodness the minister can't expect us to believe that we have simply gone out and created 100 new parks without any consideration of the cost of compensating tenure holders. Or maybe we're going back to Bill 32 of 1992, and we're simply going to come back and pass some legislation in some future session to say that nobody is entitled to compensation. Maybe that's the scam.
I would like the minister to be candid. We're prepared to accept this issue with a minimum amount of debate, but there are some basic parameters and fundamental information that the minister must be prepared to share -- if not with us, then with British Columbians.
Hon. E. Cull: As I said, the Coopers and Lybrand report has been released, so the information the member is asking for is in the report. I have here one of the summary sheets, which shows that over the whole province, expenditures to operate parks are around $43.8 million, and visitor expenditures are $388 million. It goes on to show that employment is in the order of over 9,000 people, and government revenue turns out to be about $40 million just in revenue alone. The net consumer surplus is $672 million. All of these figures in terms of the benefits that are derived from developing the parks are there to see.
[ Page 16892 ]
The member is asking about compensation. I have already indicated that in some cases, particularly in the Lower Mainland Nature Legacy, where there were third-party interests, we purchased land. We purchased land for the Lower Mainland Nature Legacy for $25 million. There are no compensation issues resulting as a result of those parks that have not been addressed either through the acquisition of the lands or through decisions that have been made with respect to resource management issues of reallocating some of the tenures to ensure that companies continue to have access to timber.
Forest Renewal B.C. is going into many of those communities to deal with any of the employment effects that might result. In other parts of the province.... I'm not saying that there aren't any costs. There's no question that there will be some related costs, but they will be negotiated on a case-by-case basis, and I can assure this member that with the ones that are currently under discussion, we will seek every opportunity to minimize the cash impact or the financial fiscal impact to the province, because it's important to do so. I think that it can be done -- not without any outlay; obviously there will be some cash outlay, and we will have to deal with those as they come along and as they are negotiated.
The member should not try to inflate that amount. I found that generally, particularly where the planning processes have engaged all of the people in the community, there is a real understanding that there are values from the decision which cannot be measured in a dollar amount but which do enter into the compensation equation.
The Chair: Hon. members, I would like to caution everyone. We have canvassed the issue of costs extensively, and you've had some answers. Perhaps those are the answers you're going to get, and you may well have made the points that you need to make. I would like to encourage you to take another tack.
J. Weisgerber: Madam Chair, with all due reference and respect, we sat and quietly listened to second reading debate. We have pursued a number of questions that I think have been focused and that I believe are legitimate. I think they are questions that folks want to hear answered. But given the hour, perhaps it would be appropriate for us to move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion negatived on the following division:
|
YEAS -- 11 | ||
|
Warnke |
Reid |
Farrell-Collins |
|
Hurd |
Stephens |
Weisgerber |
|
Mitchell |
Neufeld |
van Dongen |
| K. Jones | Jarvis | |
|
NAYS -- 29 | ||
|
Petter |
Pement |
Cashore |
|
Zirnhelt |
Charbonneau |
O'Neill |
|
Garden |
Hagen |
Kasper |
|
Hammell |
B. Jones |
Lortie |
|
Giesbrecht |
Miller |
Cull |
|
Sihota |
Evans |
Farnworth |
|
Conroy |
Doyle |
Janssen |
|
Sawicki |
Jackson |
Krog |
|
Copping |
Schreck |
Lali |
|
Hartley |
Boone | |
[11:45]
J. Weisgerber: Back to the issue at hand. I believe that it is fundamentally right and proper for the government and for the minister, if there is an estimate of the range of costs for compensation for third-party interests for the parks described in this bill, to advise this House and British Columbians of that range of cost. If the minister doesn't have a range of costs and is not aware, as a member of cabinet, of information around the range of costs, and if the minister advises that, then I'll accept her word. I'll accept one word or the other. Either we have a range of costs and will hear what they are, or we went ahead and alienated several million hectares of land in British Columbia without calculating any costs for compensation for third-party interests. It seems to me that those are the only two possible options.
Hon. E. Cull: As I said in response to this question a few minutes ago, the member is only looking at half of the equation. There are a range of benefits that flow from the land use decisions that are being made by our government, including the decisions around the parks. There is greater certainty in the rest of the land base. We talked about ending the uncertainty and the squabbles, and about the certainty and the financial benefits that flow from that. I don't think it's any surprise that groups like the Forest Alliance are now starting to use some of the parks that are being created in British Columbia, like the Kitlope, as part of their campaign with respect to international markets. Forest Renewal B.C. and land use planning are creating greater opportunities for high-intensity use and therefore greater economic opportunities. All of those benefits are part of the overall issue.
I'm not going to stand here and disclose items that would be prejudicial to any negotiations that would take place. What I can say is that in many cases compensation would not be required. In fact, if we were to look at the costs versus the benefits, we should probably be getting paid for some of this stuff. I'm not suggesting that that would happen, but the benefits will definitely outweigh the costs in many, many cases, and there will be no issue of compensation. There are many opportunities to provide for alternatives to the tenure and to third-party interests by using the existing resource management system. The Kitlope is a good example of a case where the company, the government and the first nations came together and agreed to create that land as a park without compensation. That's not an exception; there are many others.
The Chair: Hon. members, I would like everyone's attention. We've had a certain amount of leeway in discussing this particular section. Second reading debate is over. I would like to draw to your attention to the fact that the subject matter of this particular section has to do with hectares. I request that all members address their remarks to that point.
I recognize the hon. member for Peace River South on the issue of hectares. I'm going to have to rein us all in ever so slightly. Let's all do that.
J. Weisgerber: I don't want to get back into that debate, and I won't. However, I want to go on record as saying that I believe that the minister has deliberately withheld information that she has around the range of costs associated with these parks. If the minister would like to tell us why she's afraid to give that information to us today, we would be
[ Page 16893 ]
happy to move on. There are significant costs associated with this; it's evident that there are. I'm deeply disappointed and somewhat angered by the fact that we have entered into a debate on this legislation in good faith, and we are not getting candid answers.
The Chair: I recognize the hon. member for Prince George-Mount Robson -- on what point, hon. member?
L. Boone: I'd ask that the member withdraw his comment that the minister deliberately withheld information. That is clearly not parliamentary, and I'd ask that he withdraw that.
G. Farrell-Collins: Despite the objections of the member, there is nothing unparliamentary about withholding information. In fact, the government does it all the time, so I don't think there is anything to withdraw. They withhold information every single day of the week. There is nothing unusual about that whatsoever, nor anything improper.
The Chair: I'm prepared to make a ruling at this point, and I will do so. I would rule that I don't believe the remarks were, indeed, unparliamentary; we have heard them here before.
W. Hurd: I have no interest in belabouring the point, but I would like to briefly canvass an issue I raised in second reading that has, I think, important ramifications with respect to section 1. It is the study by Peat Marwick Thorne that was done for the government back in 1991-92. Item 4 talks about the alienation of resources through withdrawal for lands, parks and wilderness areas, and, as the minister well knows, cites specific examples of the Doman Forest Products compensation, the Casamiro Resources Inc. mineral claim in Strathcona and the Windy Craggy project. The last part indicates that the province should be developing information on potential cost and revenue implications in advance of any decisions that are made that will result in the alienation of resources.
I wonder if the minister, since she is reluctant to answer any questions about compensation, can advise the committee as to whether the government acted on that advice from Peat Marwick Thorne and whether they did in fact develop information on the potential cost and revenue implications of the decision to include 7.3 million hectares in a parks area that will alienate those interests. Can she tell us whether any action was taken on the Peat Marwick Thorne recommendation? And if there was, can the people of the province expect any information to be released, which I think is important for them to have in assessing the full range of costs that are associated with section 1 of this bill?
Hon. E. Cull: My previous answers apply to that question as well. I mean, one of the things we did was follow up the Coopers and Lybrand study in terms of the values of parks -- $1 invested for a $10 return to the taxpayers of the province -- as part of the work that they suggested we do.
The answer, with respect to looking at the alienation of any resource tenures, has been addressed by the government throughout the CORE planning process, Forest Renewal B.C., the decisions we've made to go to some of the high-intensity use areas, securing the land base of the forest land reserve and a whole variety of initiatives that have had at their heart securing certainty for those resource tenures. Through certainty we are providing benefits that have incredible value to forest companies and others doing work in British Columbia.
W. Hurd: I have one final question. Peat Marwick Thorne made a special appeal for specific dollar figures with respect to the reduction of revenues received through royalties and licences and also the potential reductions in corporate and personal income taxes. Certainly the minister, in her dual capacity as the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks.... It almost stretches credulity that there would be no information available on the reduction of royalties and licences. Even if there were offsetting advantages that the minister has identified with respect to creating parks, it almost stretches credulity that the government would not have nailed down those specific costs that were identified back in 1991-92 in a $1 million study: the Peat Marwick Thorne financial review of the province that this government commissioned. It almost, as I say, stretches credulity that no action has apparently been taken on that appeal from a respected accounting firm like Peat Marwick Thorne.
Hon. E. Cull: I can point out to the member that in terms of the amount of corporate income tax that has been collected as opposed to the rates, that has been going up. In terms of the amount of personal income tax collected and not the rates, that has been going up. One of the most significant increases in provincial revenue in the last couple of years has been from the resource sector through various rents and royalties that are being provided as a result of the development.
The point is that if you have a fight constantly going on in part of the province over a land use issue, whether it is forestry or mining, you are not collecting any taxes at all, you don't have anybody working and you are not collecting any resource rents. Once you have provided some certainty and have said, "This is the area that is being protected; this is the area that is going to be managed for resource use," you then start employing people and doing the development. We are seeing a net positive financial benefit to the revenues of the province by making these kinds of land use decisions.
A. Warnke: I just have one or two questions, and it is to follow up on what I focused primarily on in second reading. I've looked over the various sections, and perhaps the most relevant section where I can apply this question is to section 1.
The purpose of the bill is to increase the minimum amount of land to be protected and the parkland. Also, the ministry has outlined establishing a target of land to be protected under the Park Act. What I was referring to in second reading was a response by the aboriginal community -- specifically one example that really exemplified what a number of aboriginals were thinking. Using the Musqueam as an example, there was a concern that by establishing parks, this might be, from the Musqueam perspective, at the expense of the land claims process -- that is, the ability of aboriginals to pursue any claims in the area where parks are being established. One of the parks that is being proposed here.... As a matter of fact, it is being claimed by the Musqueam as a verifiable burial site.
What I seek from the minister are any comments that she would like to make to elaborate on this contention that has been put forward by the Musqueam. I'm sure she is aware of it, and this is what I indicated at second reading. I was wondering if she has any response to that.
[ Page 16894 ]
Hon. E. Cull: In the designation of all of the parks and all of the protected areas, we have made it very clear that it is without prejudice to treaty negotiations. The province of B.C. will take a position at the treaty table, obviously, and these decisions will have impact on that decision. One of the things we are doing by designating these areas as parks is saying that these are important environmental, cultural and recreational issues in these lands that have to be protected for the benefit of all British Columbians. I expect that many first nations will put the issue on the table. I can't control what they put on the table or what they don't put on the table, but the government can and must take its own position to the table.
[12:00]
Our position is that it's important for everybody -- aboriginal or non-aboriginal -- to protect 12 percent. It's important that those very significant areas be protected again for all people in the province, and we will deal with these as they come up during the treaty process. In every case of new park creation, we have indicated that the uses in the park, the management of the park and the future development of the park will be guided by a park management plan. We are open to considerable first nations involvement, not only in the development of the plan but in some of the decisions that come out of it, whether it's in managing or dealing with some of the cultural issues. There are proposals coming from some first nations for tribal parks. It's not a particularly well developed concept at this point, but we are interested in pursuing that.
So there are many opportunities, both economic and administrative, as well as cultural and spiritual, for first nations to become involved in the future of these lands. I think that's how it will be dealt with at the treaty negotiations table. I've met with members of the Burrard band. I understand their particular concerns, and we will work to address those.
W. Hurd: Briefly on the questions from the member for Richmond-Steveston, the minister well knows that the areas within the protected-areas strategy were set aside without prejudice to land claims. Obviously the conversion to park status -- an issue that was raised briefly in second reading -- does not contain that provision. I wonder if the minister could explain why that provision, which I think was of significant comfort to first nations people with respect to the CORE process, was eliminated.
Interjection.
W. Hurd: Hon. Chair, I'm being heckled by the former Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks, who just can't help dropping into these debates.
I wonder if the minister could briefly explain that change.
Hon. E. Cull: Actually, I'm glad the member asked that question, because I know it was raised in second reading debate, and I didn't have the opportunity to respond to it at the time. There were a lot of issues raised in second reading debate, and I didn't canvass them all in my wrap-up statement.
There were a number of statements made by members during the debate saying that all other legislation that our government had brought in had contained a without prejudice clause. That is actually incorrect. I think it's the Heritage Conservation Act that has a statement in it about not abrogating aboriginal rights. That's not a without prejudice clause, although I suppose that in reading it, it probably looks fairly similar. There are two reasons that we have not put these clauses into legislation and that it would not be advisable to do so. They are both legal reasons. One is that we have been advised by the Attorney General ministry that we don't have the constitutional authority to do it, so it would be meaningless to do so.
The other issue, perhaps of concern more to first nations, is that if you put a without prejudice clause into one act but not in all others, the fact that it's in some and not in some has some significance, and may be construed by the courts at some future time as saying that the Legislature didn't put that into that act, so they didn't mean that it would be without prejudice. We have not put it into any of the legislation, and I know there is some confusion on the part of some of the bands with respect to the Heritage Conservation Act and what that says. We have received very good legal advice from the Attorney General about not complicating the legal situation in that respect.
W. Hurd: That inevitably leads me to another question about the existing interim measures agreements in the province -- of which there are some 54 -- which require consultation with first nations before decisions are made. Can the minister tell us whether any of the 54 interim measures agreements are affected in any way by the designation of these regions of British Columbia as class A parks? Is the minister satisfied that all the interim measures agreements have been cross-referenced with the land areas that have been set aside to ensure either that no consultation is required or, alternatively, that the bands which may see their interests affected under the interim measures agreements have been suitably dealt with?
The Chair: This is second reading, hon. members. Hon. minister, do you want to reply?
Hon. E. Cull: There were several people talking around me all at once when that question was being asked. I think I got the gist of it. There is no requirement to have an interim measures agreement before doing this. There is a requirement to consult, and we have been consulting with first nations, through a variety of means, around land use decisions. I have several pages here of examples of various parks; they are all somewhat different, given the nature of the different parks. If the member would like more details on individual parks, I'd be happy to provide them to him.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us why, under the Lower Mainland Nature Legacy parks program -- or whatever it's officially established as -- only two parks, the Pinecone Burke Park and the Indian Arm Park, were included under this class A designation? Why were Surrey Bend, Barnston Island, Burns Bog, Douglas Island and Poplar Island, I think it is, put over to the GVRD instead of being put under this act?
The Chair: Hon. member, those parks are under schedule D, and we'll get to that when we get to schedule D.
Hon. E. Cull: I can clear that up quite quickly. As I said earlier, we spent $25 million on the Lower Mainland Nature
[ Page 16895 ]
Legacy, but we made $55 million worth of acquisitions. Much of that additional money came from the GVRD and municipalities, and when they contributed, I think it was only appropriate that those parks be regional parks. That was all negotiated with the GVRD as part of the Lower Mainland Nature Legacy. Some were designated regional parks, and they were ones that they put a significant amount of money into.
K. Jones: Could you tell us how much money the province put into Surrey Bend and Barnston Island in my riding?
The Chair: It's not included in this bill, hon. member. Next question.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us what the status of Pacific Spirit Park is?
The Chair: This is not included in section 1, hon. member.
Hon. E. Cull: I believe it's a regional park within the GVRD.
Section 1 approved.
On section 2.
W. Hurd: Just a brief clarification under section 2. I assume the penalty provisions under....
Wait a minute. I'm just a little confused by the bill here. I see section 2 is just an inconsequential amendment, so I'll wait until section 3.
Section 2 approved.
On section 3.
Hon. E. Cull: I move the amendment to section 3, which is in the possession of the Clerk.
[SECTION 3, by renumbering the proposed section 32.2 as 32.1.]
Just in case anyone wonders what the amendment is about, it's simply a numbering problem. The section, I believe, says "32.1," and it should say "32.2"; or maybe it's the other way around. That's all it is.
Amendment approved.
On section 3 as amended.
W. Hurd: Just a brief question on section 3. I assume the change in penalty provisions now brings the Park Act into line with the Forest Practices Code and the waste management provisions. Is that the intent of the change here, that the $1 million fines exist across the board for waste management, the Forest Practices Code and now the Park Act?
Hon. E. Cull: That is correct. It will now be consistent with the fines under the Forest Practices Code and the Waste Management Act. There are no specific fines set out in the existing legislation.
Section 3 as amended approved.
Section 4 approved.
On section 5.
W. Hurd: Just a brief question with respect to section 5. It talks about existing agreements or contracts or arrangements that may exist with people who, I assume, are carrying on businesses of some description in a class A park. Is it the intent of this section to enable the ministry to continue to pursue those business relationships with individuals, whether they be recreation types of businesses...? Is that the kind of intent we're dealing with here under section 5?
Hon. E. Cull: That's correct. This particular section deals with the new parks that are being created. It recognizes that during the planning processes for many of those protected areas there was agreement that certain uses that were there -- maybe a guide-outfitter, back-country recreation or something like that -- should continue. So this gives the authority for the minister to issue park permits to make sure that that use, as agreed to, can continue.
K. Jones: Could you tell us why, with the assurances that you've given in section 5(1), you would then come along in section 5(2) and put all of those assurances at risk by giving the minister the ability to renew, cancel, amend or transfer a park use permit?
Hon. E. Cull: Section 5(2) simply provides for the normal practice that if you can issue a permit, you also need to have the authority to do the normal administrative things that one would normally be able to do with a permit. If a permit holder was in violation of the permit, you need to be able to take action to cancel it. If a permit is for a certain period of time, you need to be able to renew that permit when that time has expired, if that's possible. From time to time you may also need to transfer a permit from one operator to another. So it's simply allowing for the administrative working of a park permit system. If you froze it in time, which would be the consequence of having only section (1) there, it would be meaningless, and it would be impossible to operate with.
K. Jones: If that's the intent, that's fine. If at some time the government chooses to cancel a legitimate permit -- which is the way this may be interpreted -- that's allowable here, whether they have been in violation of anything or not. Is that correct?
Hon. E. Cull: No, the intent is as I have described it. We wouldn't go to the trouble of recognizing all of the existing uses by permit simply to cancel them. It is an administrative requirement that if you issue a permit you may need to renew or transfer it and, as circumstances require, amend or cancel it. Without this authority it would be impossible to deal with the day-to-day management of the many park permits that exist.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us if the government, under section 5(2), has the ability to cancel the right of a park use permit without cause?
[ Page 16896 ]
Hon. E. Cull: That could be done, but that is no change from the existing circumstances. A permit can be issued and a permit can be cancelled. That authority already exists under the park permit system.
Sections 5 and 6 approved.
[12:15]
On section 7.
W. Hurd: I just want to confirm that the intent of this section is to carry the existing grazing tenures forward, despite the redesignation for class A provincial parks. Would that also include the ability of the Ministry of Forests, which has jurisdiction over the Range Act, to sign any new tenures for grazing permits in provincial parks? Or is the intent of section 7 merely to provide a level of comfort for the existing tenures? Does the Minister of Forests continue to have the ability to identify new opportunities under the Range Act, even though they may now fall within the jurisdiction of a class A provincial park?
Hon. E. Cull: The Ministry of Forests will continue to have the responsibility to manage the grazing permits. While there is no authority here for them to expand upon the existing grazing tenures, they can extend them over time -- roll them over from year to year or make other amendments. But there isn't a provision to add new grazing permits in the parks. This again reflects the decisions that were coming out, primarily at the Cariboo CORE table, where grazing is a major issue and where resolution of the land use decisions included the recognition of those existing grazing permits that were there. So they are recognized through this section of the act.
J. van Dongen: Just to follow up on the previous question, isn't that a loss of some potential opportunity in the management of the landscapes within the land set aside for park? I'm wondering what consideration went into the decision in this act not to allow the opportunity -- at least the legal authority -- for the government to allow expansion of grazing lands where it might be considered appropriate.
Hon. E. Cull: There is a grazing enhancement fund that has been provided to enhance grazing, both inside parks where it currently exists and outside the parks. So there is that activity going on that will ensure there is actually an expansion of opportunities.
With respect to your question about whether that curtails some opportunity within parks, the answer is yes. But that was part of the land use planning process that was gone through in the Cariboo CORE process. Decisions were made around the table that those lands should be available and these lands should not be available. This reflects a community decision that obviously took many months to make.
J. van Dongen: Are those discussions and decisions that were part of the CORE process considered a governing factor across British Columbia? Or is that where most of the grazing land tends to be? Why is that particularly relevant to this section and this issue here?
Hon. E. Cull: The main application so far has been in the Cariboo and the Kootenay CORE processes, but obviously, as we get into other land use planning processes, we will be following the same procedures. These issues had particular significance in those parts of the province, so as part of the land use decision-making process that took place, which set aside protected areas and other resource management areas, decisions were made with respect to grazing and where it should take place, where it should be expanded and, in this case, where it should be allowed to continue in provincial class A parks. This allows for those decisions to be implemented.
J. van Dongen: Just to complete the discussion, I would say that it should have been included in the act simply to provide the legal authority in the event that down the road somebody wanted to exercise it.
The final question I have on this section involves a situation where an existing permit is allowed to lapse ahead of its normal expiry date. Apparently there have been situations where a permit has been allowed to lapse. I'm wondering if any one of these words in section 7(2), where we talk about "transferred, renewed, cancelled or amended," would allow some sort of renewal or turning over of that permit to another potential tenure holder.
Hon. E. Cull: I'm just consulting with staff to make sure I have the right information.
If the grazing permit exists, the park is created, and if five years from now, for whatever reason -- inattention or neglect -- it lapses, I don't think there is anything that prevents the minister from reissuing that permit. Permits can be issued, renewed, amended or cancelled, and it's not contingent on them staying, in effect, legally all that time. I believe that's the authority that's here, and it's the best advice that I have from staff.
Sections 7 to 9 inclusive approved.
The Chair: Before we do section 10, I recommend that we proceed to do the schedules. Once those are done, we'll come back and do the commencement section, section 10.
On schedule A.
W. Hurd: In reviewing the parks under schedule A, I note that item 39 is the Peace Arch Park. I have to raise it, because I think the illusion has been cast at times during this debate that we are dealing with areas that are under imminent demise. I just wonder if the minister could clarify exactly what part of the Peace Arch might have actually been threatened with development or alienation from the 7.3 million hectares.
Hon. E. Cull: The existing Park Act has three schedules: A, B and C. My understanding is that the schedules have come about over time as new parks were added: A, first of all, followed by B and C. The new parks that we are adding are all in schedule D. There were some extensions or additions to some existing parks, and as a result, the entirety of the existing schedules A, B and C have been recast and put into this act. For the most part, schedules A, B and C are in existence right now, and there are some cases where we've made additions. The Peace Arch is a good example: it's an existing park, and it's being continued.
Schedules A to C inclusive approved.
[ Page 16897 ]
On schedule D.
Hon. E. Cull: I move the amendments to schedule D that are in the possession of the Clerk.
[SCHEDULE D, in the proposed section 16 by deleting "due East from the northwest corner or Section 14," and substituting "due East from the northwest corner of Section 14,".
SCHEDULE D, in the proposed section 22 by deleting "from the southwest corner of said Section; thence due east to the said westerly boundary;" and substituting "from the southwest corner of said Section; thence due West to the said westerly boundary;".
SCHEDULE D, in the proposed section 96 by deleting "flowing southeasterly into Rainy River, on the right bank thereof and being due East 2.04 metres and due North 1.4 metres," and substituting "flowing southeasterly into Rainy River, on the right bank thereof and being due East 2.04 kilometres and due North 1.4 kilometres,".
SCHEDULE D, in the proposed section 102 by deleting the title "VON DONOP MARINE PARK" and substituting "HATHAYIM PARK [a.k.a. Von Donop Marine Park]".]
Amendments approved.
On schedule D as amended.
J. Weisgerber: Before I get to the amendment I have on schedule D, I'd like to get some clarification. As I look down this list of parks, I see many that are familiar names. The minister said in her opening remarks that these were new parks or parks that were being created and established under schedule D. No. 6 is Bowron Lake Park; it seems to be quite a familiar name. Carmanah, Clayoquot: as I go down the list, it seems to me that there are a number of parks, including Tweedsmuir, that are very well known and well established parks. I wonder if the minister could clarify how they managed to wind up in schedule D rather than in schedule A, B or C.
Hon. E. Cull: Schedules A, B and C deal with existing parks that have been designated parks under the Park Act, so they're class A parks. The parks that the member is referring to, which are well-known existing parks, have not, until this act, been scheduled under the Park Act; they were simply parks that were created not by legislation but by order-in-council. We're taking a number -- and I'm sure somebody can give me the number in a minute -- of existing OIC parks and enacting them under the Park Act as class A parks.
J. Weisgerber: Just to keep some sense of the magnitude, I think it's important for us to know how many of these parks had previously been created, and, of the overall geographic area, how many are actually new parks and how many hectares of new parks are actually being created in this process.
Hon. E. Cull: I knew I'd have somebody here with the numbers as soon as the member got the question out. There are 64 new parks and 11 park additions, totalling over 1.1 million hectares. There are 31 parks that were previously designated by order-in-council that will now have legislated boundaries, and they add about 1.3 million hectares to the legislated parks.
J. Weisgerber: So there are 1.1 million hectares in new parks. The others have been existing over time -- created in former times -- and really don't represent new parks; it's simply a new "legislated park" tag hung on. Many of these were class A parks before, established under order-in-council. Is that correct?
Hon. E. Cull: Many of these parks that were designated under order-in-council were done since 1991, so we are now putting them into the park system through this Park Amendment Act, 1995. They would have been designated under OIC, either under this act or under the Environment and Land Use Act.
G. Farrell-Collins: I'm just trying to do the math, and I'm sure other members will help me with it. There were 31 OIC parks and 11 additional parks. Are those brand-new parks? You had 64 new parks and 11 additional parks. Can you tell me what the various categories are and how many of the OIC parks were brought in since November 1991?
Hon. E. Cull: It does add up to 106, but I don't have the number here, unfortunately. We're trying to see if staff have the number of how many of the parks.... We'd actually have to go through and look at each park under the OIC and the schedule tonight to be able to do that for you. Maybe somebody can start doing that.
There were 64 new parks, 11 additions to existing parks and 31 parks that were previously designated as OIC, totalling 106.
G. Farrell-Collins: I assume we will be getting that number some time in the next little while. Will the minister then commit to this House that she will encourage her caucus colleagues, her cabinet colleagues and indeed herself to start telling people what the real number of new parks is, instead of what the grand total of OIC parks, additions to standing parks and new parks is, so people have a clear idea of how many new parks have actually been created?
Hon. E. Cull: All that information was set out, just as I read it, in the press release and in the announcement I made on the parks.
[12:30]
G. Farrell-Collins: It's not so much what the government puts in writing; it's what they say when they're out there. The former minister of Environment, Lands and Parks has said in this House a number of times that the government has created 100 or so new parks. I don't mean to do you a favour, but it would in the better interest of the credibility of the government members if they actually told the public what the actual number was.
I'm surprised that at this stage of this bill we don't know what that number is; rather, we're pulling this number, 106 new parks, out of the hat. I think the credibility factor applies more importantly to the Premier, who, of all members of the governing party, has been using that figure constantly for the last year or so. I would just advise that it would probably be better if you figured out what the actual number is and then used that number and told people what the actual fact is, instead of what you'd like them to believe the facts are.
Hon. E. Cull: There's no confusion about the number of parks. It's not something that has just been revealed at this
[ Page 16898 ]
point. In the statements I made when I made the announcement, we talked about the 64 new parks, 11 additions and 31 OIC parks. There was a lot of discussion about that. In fact, particularly with respect to the OIC parks, considerable work had been done over the past number of months with various interest groups around the province about the need to move these parks from their lesser status into a very certain status under the Parks Act.
If that information has not been clearly conveyed, it's certainly not for lack of what was said when the announcement was made, in any of the documented material that was put out at the time or in, indeed, any of the press statements I made afterwards, because we did talk extensively about this.
We're looking through the schedule right now. The only park that I can find that was created prior to 1991 was the part of the Carmanah that was....
Interjection.
Hon. E. Cull: In terms of OIC parks that are covered, as I said, I don't have the number here. We're looking through the schedule, and I think the vast majority of them have been created. If there are others.... If you stand here long enough, the paper starts to come.
G. Farrell-Collins: When the minister finally figures out what that number is, I would advise her to forward that number to the Premier, along with her announcements and her press releases when she announces these parks, so that in the future the Premier will refrain from making statements that this government has created over 106 new parks and actually give us the true figure of the number of parks. I'm sure that whatever number it is, the government will be proud of it. I think it would be in the best interests of the Premier's credibility if he started to use the true numbers, once the minister determines what they are.
Hon. E. Cull: I've had the information passed to me. Of the 31 parks I've just counted, the ones that were designated by OIC prior to 1991 total seven. If the members are interested, I'll read them into the record if they want to know what they are.
An Hon. Member: Yes, please do.
Hon. E. Cull: Shuswap Lake Marine Park, Silver Beach Park, Bowron Lake Park, Cinnemousun Narrows, Liard River Hotsprings Park, Purden Lake Park and Shuswap Lake Park.
G. Farrell-Collins: My calculation comes to 64 new and 24 OIC parks, for a grand total of 88. I assume the Premier will get that memo from the minister in the morning.
J. Weisgerber: If I understood the minister's response -- that seven of the so-called OIC parks were added before 1991 -- can the minister explain how Wells Gray Park and Tweedsmuir Park are on this list? I just mention a couple of very large, longstanding parks, which I can't imagine were OIC-created after 1991. I didn't hear the minister mention those two large parks.
Hon. E. Cull: Those parks are not in schedule D; they are in the restating. Remember, I talked about A, B and C being restated.
Interjection.
Hon. E. Cull: Is Tweedsmuir in schedule D? Then that's an addition to Tweedsmuir Park. There are additions to existing parks. There are new areas being designated, and if that's the case, they will be in schedule D.
W. Hurd: I just want one additional point of clarification. I think the minister indicated that the total area protected under the OIC designation by this government was some 1.3 million hectares. Is that the figure she used? And I note that under schedule D95, which is the Tatshenshini-Alsek Wilderness Park, the total is 958,000 hectares. So it would be fair to conclude that in fact most of the areas under protection are contained in one park, and all the additional parks she's named account for some 300,000 hectares. Does that figure of 1.3 million include the Tatshenshini-Alsek Wilderness Park, which really, at 958,000 hectares, is the lion's share of all the new parkland we're setting aside?
Hon. E. Cull: Yes, the Tat is one of the 31 parks that total 1.3 million hectares and that were previously designated under order-in-council.
W. Hurd: One brief point, then. Thirty parks contain around 300,000 cubic metres.... I keep saying "cubic metres." It's the forest land and parks designation that does it every time. But the 30 parks are dealing with 300,000 hectares, and the bulk of that is within the newly created Tatshenshini. Is that the breakdown we're dealing with here?
Hon. E. Cull: Of the 31 parks that are designated by OIC right now and which are going to be created as parks, you're right: the largest one, which has the majority of hectares, is the Tatshenshini. There are many significant areas that are not large in terms of hectares, but they are significant nonetheless and are being protected.
D. Jarvis: If you were to add -- and I'll be kind of silly in this -- one square inch to a park, would this be considered as taking credit for a whole new additional park?
Hon. E. Cull: I think it is important to take credit not only for the additions to the park but also for making the decisions to put these parks into legislation instead of leaving them in the uncertain situation they were in under order-in-council.
D. Jarvis: I would like it if the minister would give me an example. How much was added to Helliwell Park, which was donated to the province some 20-odd years ago? Could she tell me why it is endangered and how much she has added to it?
Hon. E. Cull: Sorry, we were just looking at the legislation. The legislation doesn't show the addition; it shows the total amount. The figures I have, of course, have the total amounts, too. I am not personally familiar with Helliwell Park, so I can't provide the information on exactly how many acres were added.
D. Jarvis: Does the minister have any records there at all as to what she has added to all of the OIC parks? Do her records show Helliwell Park when it was first donated to the province?
[ Page 16899 ]
Hon. E. Cull: No, I wouldn't have any of the history of the park here in terms of when it was donated.
D. Jarvis: I assume that the minister doesn't have very much information here and that this is really just a smoke-and-mirrors presentation that she's giving us. Has she got a gross total as to how many of the OICs were added in order to create new parks for this wonderful government?
Hon. E. Cull: I'm sorry, I don't have the figures broken down. The only information I've got here at this point is that the new parks plus the additions total 1.1 million hectares. I suppose someone could add up the new parks and subtract it, but that's how you get it.
R. Neufeld: The 64 new parks and the 31 OIC parks leaves 11. Would the minister names those parks by number? The 11 parks are, as I understand it, parks that were already in place, but there were additions to them. That's the quick way of doing it. I could go the other way and ask for the 64 and the 31, but I don't want to do that.
Hon. E. Cull: The additions are to Bowron, Cape Scott....
Interjection.
Hon. E. Cull: I don't have the number; I'm reading them to you. They're to Carmanah Pacific, Upper Carmanah and Walbran, I guess -- putting all those together -- and to Chasm Park, Cinnemousun Narrows Park, Codville Lagoon Marine Park, Elk Lakes Park, Helliwell Park, Horne Lake Caves Park, Kokanee Glacier Park, Liard River Hotsprings Park, Maquinna Marine Park, Purden Lake Park, Schoen Lake Park, Shuswap Lake Marine Park. I'm not clear from the notes here whether Scott Islands Park is an addition or just three protected areas that have been consolidated.
[12:45]
R. Neufeld: I did lose count, but I think we went over 11. You never mentioned Wells Gray or Tweedsmuir, which were parks before that I know of. We're over 11, and there are still some you haven't counted, so I'm not sure.
Obviously there's some confusion on that side of the House concerning which are new parks, which have been added to and which parks were there before. I know very well that you did not mention Wells Gray and Tweedsmuir. Both are parks that have been on the map for a long time -- long before I started camping. You didn't mention them, and I think we were over 11 parks.
Is the minister saying that she cannot get the information to tell us which 11 parks out of the 106 were added to? If it's too difficult to get it tonight, can we get it tabled in the House tomorrow? Maybe we should rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again -- or something.
Hon. E. Cull: I was reading the list out; I'm sorry, I wasn't writing down the numbers. Here we go. Helliwell Park: 69 hectares when it started; an addition of 2,800 hectares.
An Hon. Member: Is that 2,800?
Hon. E. Cull: Yes.
Interjections.
Hon. E. Cull: Foreshore has been protected.
Interjections.
The Chair: Order, hon. members. I know it's late, but order, please.
R. Neufeld: I appreciate the response to the member about Helliwell Park, but I still have not received the 11 parks in the list of 106 that were parks before your government took office and that either have been added to or had land taken away from them -- one or the other. Could the minister please give us that information?
Hon. E. Cull: All of that information is in the schedule. There are a number of parks.... There are 31 being designated as parks that previously existed as OIC, there are 64 new ones, and there are 11 park additions that add up to the new parks that are being created.
G. Farrell-Collins: They're not new.
Hon. E. Cull: The member is taking exception. I think if you take 69 hectares and add 2,800 to it.... If the member wants to say that that's not a new park, I'll let the member say that. I say that when you've added 2,800 hectares to it, you've certainly created a new park.
R. Neufeld: I'm going to ask again for those 11 parks. Obviously there's some terrible disarray over there, and I think it's sad. From the questions that were asked at the beginning of this bill, when the minister kept on telling the House that she did not know how much money it was going to cost in third-party costs to remove all this land from the forest base, from mining, from oil and gas.... It stonewalled that whole discussion right at the start of the bill.
She didn't really know what was going on or was not willing to share that with British Columbians or members of the Legislature. And then we finally get to the fictitious 106 parks that this group has been talking about for however long, and we find out that it's really not 106, that you're short 11. You have three staff members with you now, and you still can't come up with the 11 parks that were just added to.
Hon. E. Cull: Well, I've got the 11 parks. They are the additions to Bowron Lake, Cinnemousun Narrows, Liard River Hotsprings, Purden Lake, Shuswap Lake, Wells Gray, Tweedsmuir, Syringa, Stum Lake, Strathcona and Maquinna Marine Park.
D. Jarvis: I hate to push the minister, but I looked at the description on page 123 of the addition to Helliwell Park. You really haven't described it properly, because we're out at sea. You're talking about from reef to reef. This is not a park; it's a marine park. You should describe it properly if that's the case. If it's a marine park, have you taken into consideration the question that there may be leases in that area?
Hon. E. Cull: Yes, we have, and if this member is suggesting that marine parks don't count, go out there and visit some of the marine parks in this province. They are absolutely
[ Page 16900 ]
excellent recreational opportunities. They are wonderful opportunities to protect valuable ecosystems. Not all the ecosystem is on the upland and in the forest; some of it is foreshore, and those are very important areas that are being protected.
D. Jarvis: I'm surprised at the attitude the minister is taking -- that I don't know anything about marine parks. I know quite a bit about marine parks. I'd like to say that she, if anyone, doesn't know what the hell she's talking about. She's so confused over there. She cannot give us the information that we want, and she is trying to bluff her way through with the smoke-and-mirrors policy that she and her government have created 106 new parks. I'm wondering if the minister could possibly, as we asked before, table tomorrow the number of hectares that were added to every OIC park.
Interjection.
D. Jarvis: We keep hearing from the old minister, who is sitting back there in shame. He shouldn't be talking anyway, because he is not in his proper seat. I was wondering if the minister could respond to that question.
Hon. E. Cull: Obviously individual members have great interest in specific parks in their ridings, in their regions and maybe in other areas of the province. If the members wish to receive a full detailed package on when a park was created, the hectarage and any of the permits, I'd be happy to table that.
[M. Farnworth in the chair.]
W. Hurd: The minister made reference to the additions to the boundaries of Strathcona Park. I wonder if the minister could clarify when those changes were made and whether they would in any way impact the arrangement that was announced recently by the Minister of Forests with respect to the changes in the Strathcona timber supply area. Were these additions factored into the plan for timber allocation in that region? Maybe she could clarify for the committee exactly when the additions to the park were made under schedule D.
Hon. E. Cull: The addition is the Megin, as part of the Clayoquot Sound land use decision. Yes, the forest tenures were taken into consideration.
J. Weisgerber: It's a most interesting discussion this evening. It makes one reflect on the Premier's statements about doubling the parks in British Columbia. I wonder if the minister in her undertakings tonight would advise whether that was doubling the number of parks. Was it doubling the number of parks that are now covered under the Park Act or was it doubling the number of hectares of parkland? Could the minister advise what her government refers to when it talks about doubling the parks in British Columbia?
Hon. E. Cull: The doubling of parks is, roughly, going from just under 6 percent, where it was in 1991, to 12 percent. Our target is the year 2000. We're at just over 9 percent right now with the areas that have been added. The 6 percent base includes national parks, provincial parks, OIC parks and other areas that were protected.
J. Weisgerber: It's getting late, and I don't think we want to prolong this, but I think it's important to recognize that the minister has said that prior to the election of this government, somewhere in excess of 6 percent of British Columbia's land mass was in parks. There is currently, with the addition of almost a million hectares in Tatshenshini-Alsek Park, an increase to somewhere around 9.3 percent. In fact, this fictitious notion of doubling the park size reflects or relates nothing more than a statement of intent, included in section 1 of this bill. Are those essentially the facts?
Hon. E. Cull: We have been very clear all the way along that our program is to protect 12 percent of the land base in parks. We didn't say that we would do that in one year, but we've progressed tremendously through the land use planning process to increase the area that is now protected as parkland to just over 9 percent. If the other land use planning processes take place around the province, we will complete the 12 percent.
G. Farrell-Collins: I think the point we have been making here is that the Premier has been saying for some time that he's created over 100 new parks, and as we find out tonight, that's not necessarily the case. I assume that the Premier is misinformed and that in fact it's 88 parks. The Premier has also been saying that he's been doubling the number of parks.... "Doubling the parks in B.C." is the phrase that he's been using, and we have found out that that's not the case, either.
I think it's important. I know the minister says that she has been forthright, clear and precise in her statements and press releases, and I'm not saying that she hasn't been, but somewhere along the line the minister has forgotten to inform the Premier of what the actual numbers are with regard to the creation of parks in British Columbia.
I would ask the minister to confirm for us tonight that the number of new parks that have been created by this government is 88 and that the amount of the province that has been set aside for parks by this government is 3 percent. It's gone from 6 percent as a base, the minister said, to 9 percent, for a total increase so far under this government of 3 percent or a 50 percent increase in the amount of land set aside for parks. Can she confirm both those facts for us?
Hon. E. Cull: I can confirm that 6 percent of the land base was protected in 1991, and by the year 2000 there will be 12 percent. We are halfway there, at 9 percent right now, so the numbers the member has given are correct.
With respect to the new parks, the numbers that I've given previously are the numbers that are relevant. There are 64 new parks and 11 park additions -- some of them quite significant, as we've heard. There are 31 parks -- all but seven were created by our government -- designated under OIC, which have now been permanently protected in park status.
[1:00]
G. Farrell-Collins: So by my calculation, that adds up to 88 parks -- 64 new parks and 24 OIC -- created by this government.
J. Weisgerber: A final question from me, at least, in this area. Of the approximately 3 percent of parks added, will the
[ Page 16901 ]
minister confirm that one-third of that -- roughly 1 percent or a million hectares -- was in the area described as the Tatshenshini-Alsek?
A. Warnke: Just one quick question. With regard to the Tatshenshini-Alsek, to what extent is this park being established in the context of the international park that's established in the northwest corner of the province?
Hon. E. Cull: The Tatshenshini is a world heritage site, and we are working in cooperation with the Yukon government, the federal government of Canada and the Alaska government with respect to the parks in that area.
J. Weisgerber: I think this is probably an appropriate time to introduce the amendment that I had provided notice of earlier this evening.
[Schedule D by deleting in Schedule D
"95. TATSHENSHINI-ALSEK WILDERNESS PARK" and everything up to and including "The whole containing approximately 958 000 hectares."]
On the amendment.
J. Weisgerber: For a number of reasons, I think it's inappropriate for the government at this time to proceed with the declaration of Tatshenshini-Alsek as a provincial park. As indicated in the schedule that we're going to deal with a bit later, the government wasn't, and isn't, in a position to declare it as a park until sometime next year, at the very earliest.
But more importantly, an analysis with regard to the value of the resources in that described area has not been done, to the best of my knowledge. Indeed, in a lengthy discussion earlier this evening on section 1, the minister indicated that she had no idea of the costs of compensating the tenure holders. Also, there is no indication that there has been any analysis done of the mineral value, particularly in the Tat area.
Those people in the mining industry who know this area -- the B.C. and Yukon Mining Association, the B.C. Mining Association -- suggest that this is the largest undeveloped mineral deposit in North America today. We know that we were in the middle of a mine assessment review process when the government, in a knee-jerk reaction to pressure it was facing in the Clayoquot, declared unilaterally the decision to create a park.
There was no consultation with the aboriginal people who live in the area. There was no consultation and no discussion with the people in the communities around northwestern British Columbia that are dependent on activity in that area. I think it's premature. I believe the government -- the minister, the ministry -- has an obligation to do an assessment on the values there and determine whether all or most of the area should most appropriately be used as a set-aside for parks. Over the years there have been reports that there should be access both to mining and to areas set aside for wilderness or park areas. I have not seen any reports done by any agency which suggested that the entire Tatshenshini-Alsek area be set aside. I don't believe the government commissioned any studies. I don't believe the government commissioned any examination of the value of the resources that are being alienated. And I don't believe there is any report from any reputable group suggesting that that entire area be set aside.
I know the minister is anxious to get on with passing this bill. I know the government would like to add the million hectares that are involved in this. That's an incredible area of land -- a million hectares of land in one area. So I move that we stand down this one park before proceeding with the bill.
Hon. E. Cull: Obviously I will speak against this amendment. We're talking about a world heritage site, an area that has been recognized for its significance internationally. This member is suggesting that despite that, we can have mining in parks. I thought it was only the Liberal critic for Mines who believed you can mine in parks and was promoting it on a regular basis.
This is obviously going to be an issue where there is a difference of opinion between this government and that particular member -- and perhaps other members over there. We don't accept that. There was a study done by CORE that looked at the Tatshenshini. It was released. Recommendations were made with respect to the various options, and we have selected the option to protect the area as a park, because we don't believe that mining and parks can coexist in that case. It's a very fundamental issue, and I suspect it's one that we will not agree upon.
J. Weisgerber: I don't expect that I will change the minster's mind. I do want to clarify, though, that I have never suggested that there should be mining in parks. What I have said, and what the amendment says, is to stand down this particular park designation and study the area in question to determine whether the entire 958,000 hectares should be designated as parkland; or whether it is in the best interests of British Columbia to identify particularly rich mineral deposits in the area that could, indeed, be established as available for mining and the rest of the area set aside for park, as has been recommended in numerous studies by folks who have examined the area.
Let me go on record also that I've been there. I've been to the Tatshenshini, I've been to the site of Windy Craggy, and I have examined the geographical area there. That doesn't make me an expert, but it gives me an edge over most British Columbians, because there aren't very many who have been there. I raise that point only to let you know that I have been there, and I understand some of the issues and questions.
I'm not asking the minister to make any decisions. My argument is that the homework hasn't been done; the work hasn't been done. We don't know enough about the options that were available, and it's inappropriate for us to move ahead with legislating as a park today the area described as the Tatshenshini. That is the purpose of and the clear message in the amendment that I put forward.
D. Jarvis: I think that I have to stand and advise the minister that the fact that the Tatshenshini-Alsek has been nominated -- or not nominated anymore -- as a world heritage park is due to a complete misrepresentation by this government and by the Premier. If she will recall, the Champagne-Aishihik aboriginal tribe in the area made claim to this land, and the federal government refused to nominate it to the United Nations as a world heritage park until such time as the tribe had signed off that they were not going to make it into one of their land claims. On December 5 of last year the Premier found out about it as time was running out for the nomination. He called the chief of the Champagne-
[ Page 16902 ]
Aishihik tribe to Victoria, where he met with several of the ministers. The Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and himself.... We know that at least those two individuals were there. He stated to Chief Birckel that there was no mineral value in the Windy Craggy mine area of the Tatshenshini or Haines triangle. Yet when I questioned the Minister of Energy and Mines, she stated that she was aware that the Tatshenshini area was full of minerals. She brought it before the cabinet table and gave them the report that it was a highly mineralized area of great value and potential to this province.
Chief Birckel stated afterward that when he signed off, he was informed by the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and the Premier that there was no value in that land area, and that is why he signed off and allowed it to be nominated as a United Nations heritage park. Now the chief finds out that that was a misrepresentation, so we're down to the point where either the chief is lying or the Premier is lying. I thought I would just ask the minister what the real truth is about what's going on with this government.
R. Neufeld: I'd like to speak briefly to the amendment. It's interesting to note that the fears of the people in the north -- in fact, I asked the question earlier -- are that most of the north will be put into a park or locked up, and that is, in fact, true. The government has talked about all the parks that they've set aside in 1.1 million hectares. Almost one million of that is the Tatshenshini, and that's in the northern part of British Columbia. I guess the other few hectares are scattered across the rest of the province or are here in the lower mainland. In fact, if you were to take that out, all you have really increased the parkland in British Columbia by is about 2 percent. The Tatshenshini represents 1 percent of the total land mass that your government continues to brag about having set aside.
The member for North Vancouver-Seymour brings forward an interesting argument that I was also going to make about aboriginal claims.
The minister spoke about us wanting to mine in parks. That's not what my colleague from Peace River South said at all. But I want to remind the minister that it's not only Windy Craggy. Your government at the present time is negotiating with quite a number of people who have been mining -- small placer mines, some goldminers -- in the Tatshenshini for quite a few years. They were there long before your government decided that this was going to be a world-class park -- or, actually, Karl Struble or Al Gore did. Someone in the U.S. did, because they knew about it a couple of weeks before British Columbians. You happened to be talking with those people and shared the information with them, but not with British Columbians.
I think it is fair. I think the amendment that we remove the almost one million hectares of land in the Tatshenshini out of the schedule deserves the support of the government, to deal with it later on when we find out exactly what minerals, timber or whatever is in that area -- other than just declaring it a world heritage park.
Hon. E. Cull: Just a bit of information in terms of what the member is saying about where the land is being protected. About 12 percent of the Pacific northwest part of the province is now in protected areas, which is the strategy, the goal, overall. In the northeast, only about 2 percent of the land is currently protected. The distribution of protection across the province varies. On Vancouver Island, it's 13 percent. In the lower mainland, it'll be about 13 percent. In the Cariboo and Kootenay areas, the numbers have been established.... Not all of the province has yet been protected, but the northwest.... While this is a very significant size, it's also a very significant area from an environmental and world heritage point of view. The whole area, which includes Khutzeymateen, Spatsizi, Atlin and a number of other parks, is still 12 percent, which is the target. Most people in this Legislature have agreed that that is a reasonable target.
[1:15]
W. Hurd: Just following up briefly on the remarks on the amendment from the members for Peace River North and Peace River South, I think the minister is well aware of the corrosive nature of this issue for people who live in the north. As the minister well knows, the Tatshenshini was hauled out of the mine development assessment process in midstream. We started off this discussion asking the minister specific questions about the costs of compensation -- something that was called for by the Peat Marwick Thorne review of the government. Clearly, in the Tatshenshini there are a number of unextinguished third-party rights that the government hasn't addressed. I think that before any member of this assembly can realistically vote to exclude almost a million hectares of the land base of this province from any use in perpetuity, surely the minister agrees that it is fair for those members to ask about the costs, to try to get some idea from the ministry and the government about what the mineral claims in the Tatshenshini are worth. Those answers have not been forthcoming from this minister or this government. I think the amendment to stand this portion of the schedule down until those questions that are of importance to people throughout this province can be answered is a reasonable one under the circumstances. It's unfortunate that the government hasn't produced those figures. They need to be out on the table, and I think the amendment deserves support....
Interjection.
W. Hurd: I'm being heckled by the former minister again, who is finally back in his seat. I'm surprised that he has been silent so far in this debate.
Interjection.
The Chair: The member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove on a point of order.
G. Farrell-Collins: The former Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks, the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin, who is now sitting over there, made a statement questioning how much individuals were paying the member for Surrey-White Rock for this speech. I would suggest that that type of comment is extremely out of order and objectionable, and I demand that it be withdrawn immediately.
Interjections.
The Chair: Order, please. It's late. The Chair did not hear the exchange, but I'm sure that if....
Interjection.
[ Page 16903 ]
The Chair: Just a minute, hon. member. I'm sure that if the member made any such statement, he would withdraw that remark.
M. Sihota: The Liberal Party has taken the view that there ought to be mining in the Tatshenshini. That's on the record.
The Chair: I didn't ask about the Tatshenshini, I asked about a remark. The Chair said that if any....
M. Sihota: Hon. Chair, I had no intention to impugn the character of any members opposite.
The Chair: Thank you, hon. member.
Amendment negatived on the following division:
|
YEAS -- 9 | ||
|
Warnke |
Reed |
Farrell-Collins |
|
Hurd |
Stephens |
Weisgerber |
|
Neufeld |
van Dongen |
Jarvis |
|
NAYS -- 26 | ||
|
Pement |
Cashore |
Zirnhelt |
|
Charbonneau |
Garden |
Hagen |
|
Kasper |
B. Jones |
Lortie |
|
Giesbrecht |
Miller |
Cull |
|
Sihota |
Evans |
Conroy |
|
Doyle |
Janssen |
Sawicki |
|
Jackson |
Krog |
Brewin |
|
Copping |
Schreck |
Lali |
|
Hartley |
|
Boone |
Schedule D as amended approved on division.
On section 10.
W. Hurd: Just a brief question with respect to section 10. Sections 95 and 104 of schedule D obviously have dates when they come into effect. My reading of section 95 indicates that the Tatshenshini isn't scheduled to come into force until February 21, 1996. I wonder if the minister could clarify why. The other park mentioned was West Arm Park. I wonder if the minister could advise the committee why separate dates are established with respect to the Tatshenshini and West Arm Park as to when they come into force under the commencement section.
Hon. E. Cull: With respect to the Tatshenshini, we have negotiated a framework agreement with the Champagne-Aishihik, and February 21, 1996, is the time frame that's been set for the negotiation of a transboundary agreement with them. That will be concluded by then, and the park will come into force.
With respect to the West Arm area, there were some cutting permits that had already been issued in that area, and this delay will allow sufficient time for those cutting permits to be honoured and resolved.
J. Weisgerber: A point of clarification. If section 95 doesn't come into force until February 1996, is the statement in section 1, which refers to the total area of parks as being 7.3 million hectares, accurate, or will it become accurate after February 21, 1996?
Hon. E. Cull: The Tatshenshini was already an order-in-council park, so it would has been included in the amount.
J. Weisgerber: I'm probably being a little thick, but if it was already a park created under an order-in-council, how can you rationalize not bringing into force a legislated description of the park immediately? I don't see the effect of deferring, or the need to defer, if a park has already been created.
Hon. E. Cull: It's simply because we have agreed with the first nations to use the eight months to negotiate and resolve a transboundary agreement.
J. Weisgerber: Well, if it was already established under an order-in-council as a park, then it would seem to be difficult.... Or is it the intent of the minister to pass an order-in-council rescinding the existing one in order to allow this other process to take place?
Hon. E. Cull: Schedules to acts override orders-in-council. There are a number of orders-in-council that have been passed. We talked about 31 parks that had been designated by order-in-council. They are overridden with the scheduling of the parks under the Park Act.
[1:30]
J. Weisgerber: Is the effect, then, of this deferred commencement date that it overrides the order-in-council that was passed? Surely the effect of that is not to decommission the park. We're left with this confusion. A park has been created, according to the minister, but for some reason there's a reluctance to bring it in in the schedule because some negotiations are ongoing. Are changes anticipated to the park?
Hon. E. Cull: No, there aren't any changes anticipated to the park.
R. Neufeld: Section 10(2), the West Arm Park.... The minister stated that some cutting permits were involved. That's why there's a date of December 31, 1995. Can the minister tell us: does that mean the cutting is going ahead? The cutting permits that were allowed, are they going to be finished? If not, can the minister tell us how many cubic metres we're talking about?
Hon. E. Cull: They are going ahead. They will be finished before December 31.
D. Jarvis: I would like to ask the minister if she could tell me.... Have any leaseholders or licensees in these areas been given notice yet by the government to get off the land?
Hon. E. Cull: Our discussions have taken place with anyone who has either lease or tenure rights as a result of the land use decision. Part of making the land use decision involved having those discussions.
D. Jarvis: Could the minister confirm that they will be paid compensation?
[ Page 16904 ]
Hon. E. Cull: I can confirm that we're definitely off section 10 here now. We're recanvassing issues that we went through earlier. But I can confirm what I said earlier about compensation: we are discussing those issues with various parties as it is appropriate to do so. But I'm not prepared to get into revealing the details of those negotiations and prejudicing those negotiations at this point.
A. Warnke: With regard to section 10(1), I'm going to follow up on a question I asked earlier that the minister responded to. I'd just like to know whether there has been any sort of protocol established outlining, essentially, any American jurisdiction over maintaining the Tatshenshini-Alsek park as an international heritage park that would come into effect after February 21, 1996. Could she briefly describe what the American role would be?
Hon. E. Cull: There's no American jurisdiction, but because the area abuts national parks in Alaska and in the Yukon, we are talking to those jurisdictions about the park planning process.
A. Warnke: A corresponding question: could the minister briefly describe what the federal government's role or jurisdiction in this area would be after February 21, 1996?
Hon. E. Cull: There's no federal involvement in terms of the park itself. The federal government is obviously involved in the transboundary agreement and the first nations issue.
Section 10 approved.
Title approved.
Hon. E. Cull: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Bill 53, Park Amendment Act, 1995, reported complete with amendments to be considered at the next sitting of the House.
Hon. E. Cull moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 1:36 a.m.
AMENDMENTS TO BILLS
28. [SECTION 302, in the proposed section 46 (1) of the Recall and Initiative Act, by deleting "Subject to section 87," and substituting "Subject to section 92.1,".]
[SECTION 302, in the proposed sections 53 (1), 55 (1), (2) and (3), 56 (1), 79 (1), 81 (1), (2) and (3), 82 (1), 114 (1), 116 (1), (2) and (3) and 117 (1) of the Recall and Initiative Act, by deleting "the Supreme Court" and substituting "a court".]
[SECTION 302, in the proposed section 72 (1) of the Recall and Initiative Act, by deleting "Subject to section 87," and substituting "Subject to section 92.1,".]
[SECTION 302, in the proposed Part 6 of the Recall and Initiative Act, by adding the heading "Division 1 -- General" immediately before section 85.]
[SECTION 302, by deleting the proposed section 87 of the Recall and Initiative Act and substituting the following: No indirect sponsorship of initiative advertising
87. An individual or organization must not sponsor initiative advertising with the property of any other individual or organization or indirectly through any other individual or organization.]
[SECTION 302, in the proposed section 88 of the Recall and Initiative Act, by adding the following paragraph:
(a.1) if applicable, indicates that the sponsor is a registered sponsor under this Act, .]
[SECTION 302, in the proposed section 92 of the Recall and Initiative Act,
(a) by deleting subsection (1),
(b) in subsection (2) by deleting "who publishes" and substituting "who first publishes",
(c) by adding the following subsection:
(2.1) If the results of an initiative opinion survey are to be published without the authorization of the sponsor, at least 24 hours before first publication, the individual or organization who publishes the results must notify the sponsor so that the report required under subsection (3) can be prepared. ,
(d) in subsection (3) by adding ", published as referred to in subsection (2)," after "the results of the survey",
(e) by deleting subsection (3) (d) and substituting the following:
(d) the exact wording of each question for which data are reported; , and
(f) by deleting subsection (3) (p).]
[SECTION 302, by adding the following immediately after the proposed section 92 of the Recall and Initiative Act:
Division 2 -- Initiative Advertising Limits
Advertising limits
92.1 (1) An authorized participant for an initiative petition may incur initiative advertising as an initiative petition expense and an authorized participant for an initiative vote may incur initiative advertising as an initiative vote expense, subject to the applicable expenses limit.
(2) Other than initiative advertising referred to in subsection (1), an individual or organization must not sponsor initiative advertising during an initiative petition period or an initiative vote period
(a) such that the total value of that initiative advertising is greater than $5 000 or a higher amount established by regulation, or
(b) in combination with one or more individuals or organizations, or both, such that the total value of the initiative advertising sponsored by those individuals and organizations during that period is greater than $5 000 or a higher amount established by regulation.
(3) As an exception to subsection (2), the value of initiative advertising that is conducted by sending a document directly to the members, employees or shareholders of the sponsoring individual or organization is not to be included for the purposes of determining whether the individual or organization has complied with that subsection.
[ Page 16905 ]
(4) An individual or organization must not conduct initiative advertising if, by this, the sponsor would contravene subsection (2).
Penalties for exceeding initiative advertising limit
92.2 (1) Unless relief is granted by a court under section 92.3, if a sponsor exceeds an initiative advertising limit, the sponsor
(a) is deregistered as a sponsor under Division 3 of this Part, and
(b) must pay to the chief electoral officer a penalty of 10 times the amount by which the value of the initiative advertising sponsored by the sponsor exceeds the limit.
(2) In the case of a sponsor that is an unincorporated organization, the members of the organization are jointly and severally liable to pay the penalty under subsection (1).
(3) A penalty referred to in subsection (1) is effective as follows:
(a) if no application under section 92.3 is made in respect of the sponsor, at the end of the period for making such an application;
(b) if, on the final determination of an application under section 92.3, the court refuses to grant relief from the penalty, at the time of that determination.
Court order for relief from advertising limit
92.3 (1) A sponsor may apply to the Supreme Court in accordance with this section for relief from section 92.2.
(2) An application may be made only within 58 days after the end of the initiative petition period or initiative vote period, as applicable, in relation to which the advertising limit was exceeded.
(3) Within 7 days after it is filed, the petition commencing an application must be served on the chief electoral officer.
(4) The sponsor and the chief electoral officer are parties to the application.
(5) On the hearing of an application, the court may
(a) grant relief if the court considers that, in relation to the non-compliance, the sponsor acted in good faith, or
(b) refuse to grant relief.
Division 3 -- Registration of Sponsors
Initiative advertising sponsors must be registered
92.4 (1) Subject to subsection (2), an individual or organization who is not registered under this Division must not sponsor initiative advertising.
(2) An authorized participant is not required to be registered to sponsor initiative advertising in relation to the initiative petition or initiative vote for which the individual or organization is an authorized participant.
Registration with chief electoral officer
92.5 (1) An individual or organization who wishes to become a registered sponsor in relation to an initiative petition or an initiative vote must file an application in accordance with this section with the chief electoral officer.
(2) An application must include the following:
(a) the full name of the applicant and, in the case of an applicant organization that has a different usual name, this usual name;
(b) the full address of the applicant;
(c) in the case of an applicant organization, the names of the principal officers of the organization or, if there are no principal officers, of the principal members of the organization;
(d) an address at which notices and communications under this Act and other communications will be accepted as served on or otherwise delivered to the individual or organization;
(e) a telephone number at which the applicant can be contacted;
(f) identification of the initiative petition or initiative vote in relation to which the applicant wishes to be registered as a sponsor;
(g) any other information required by regulation to be included.
(3) An application must
(a) be signed, as applicable, by the individual applicant or, in the case of an applicant organization, by 2 principal officers of the organization or, if there are no principal officers, by 2 principal members of the organization, and
(b) be accompanied by a solemn declaration of an individual who signed the application under paragraph (a) that the applicant is not prohibited from being registered by section 92.7.
(4) The chief electoral officer may require applications to be in a specified form.
(5) As soon as practicable after receiving an application, if satisfied that the requirements of this section are met by an applicant, the chief electoral officer must register the applicant as a registered sponsor in the register maintained by the chief electoral officer for this purpose.
(6) If there is any change in the information referred to in subsection (2) for a registered sponsor, the sponsor must file with the chief electoral officer written notice of the change within 15 days after it occurs.
(7) A notice or other communication that is required or authorized by or under this Act to be given to a sponsor is deemed to have been given if it is delivered to the applicable address filed under this section with the chief electoral officer.
Obligations of registered sponsor
92.6 (1) The identification of a registered sponsor referred to in section 88 must be a name filed by the sponsor under section 92.5 with the chief electoral officer.
(2) An individual or organization who is registered or required to be registered as a sponsor must
[ Page 16906 ]
maintain records of the following information in respect of contributions received by the sponsor:
(a) in the case of anonymous contributions, the date on which the contributions were received, the total amount received on each date and, if applicable, the event at which they were received;
(b) in other cases, the information referred to in section 45 (1) (a) to (e), with the class of contributor recorded in accordance with section 92.9.
Limit on registration
92.7 An individual or organization who is subject to a penalty under this Part or for whom a required report under this Part is not filed is not entitled to be registered as a sponsor until all such outstanding reports are filed and all such outstanding penalties are paid.
Division 4 -- Disclosure of Independent Initiative Advertising
Independent sponsors must file disclosure reports
92.8 (1) Subject to subsection (2), if an individual or organization sponsors, during an initiative petition period or an initiative vote period, initiative advertising that has a total value of $500 or a higher amount established by regulation, the sponsor must file with the chief electoral officer an initiative advertising disclosure report in accordance with this section and section 92.9.
(2) The report under subsection (1) must be filed as follows:
(a) in the case of initiative advertising during an initiative petition period, within 28 days after the end of the initiative petition period;
(b) in the case of initiative advertising during an initiative vote period, within 90 days after the end of the initiative vote period.
(3) An authorized participant for the initiative petition or initiative vote in relation to which the advertising was sponsored is not required to file a report under this section.
(4) A sponsor must file a supplementary report with the chief electoral officer if any of the information required to be disclosed in an initiative advertising disclosure report changes or if the sponsor becomes aware that the report does not accurately and completely disclose that information.
(5) A supplementary report under subsection (4) must be filed as follows:
(a) in the case of a report in relation to initiative advertising during an initiative petition period, within the equivalent period under section 50 (3) after the sponsor becomes aware of the facts in relation to which the report is required;
(b) in the case of a report in relation to initiative advertising during an initiative vote period, within the equivalent period under section 76 (3) after the sponsor becomes aware of the facts in relation to which the report is required.
Contents of disclosure report
92.9 (1) An initiative advertising disclosure report must be in the form prescribed by regulation and must include the following information:
(a) the value of the initiative advertising sponsored by the sponsor, reported by class as required by regulation;
(b) the amount of the contributions accepted by the sponsor during the period,
(i) beginning 6 months before the initiative petition was issued and ending at the end of the initiative petition period, in the case of advertising in relation to an initiative petition, and
(ii) beginning 6 months before general voting day for the initiative vote and ending at the end of the initiative vote period, in the case of advertising in relation to an initiative vote,
reported in accordance with subsections (2) to (4);
(c) any amount of the sponsor's assets, other than assets received by way of contribution reported under paragraph (b), that was used to pay for the initiative advertising sponsored by the sponsor;
(d) any other information required by regulation to be included.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) (b), amounts accepted from contributors must be reported separately for each of the following classes of contributor:
(a) individuals;
(b) corporations;
(c) unincorporated organizations engaged in business or commercial activity;
(d) trade unions;
(e) non-profit organizations;
(f) other identifiable contributors;
(g) anonymous contributors.
(3) If the records of the sponsor indicate that, during the period for which contributions are required to be reported, a contributor made one or more contributions of money that, in total, have a value of more than $250 or a higher amount established by regulation, the report under this section must include the following:
(a) the full name of the individual;
(b) the class of the contributor as referred to in subsection (2);
(c) if the contributor is a numbered corporation or an unincorporated organization, the full names and addresses of at least 2 individuals
(i) who are directors of the organization, or
(ii) if there are no individual directors, who are principal officers or principal members of the organization;
(d) the value of each contribution and the date on which it was made.
(4) For anonymous contributions, the report under this section must include the dates on which the
[ Page 16907 ]
contributions were received, the amounts received on each date and, if applicable, the events at which they were received.
(5) A report under this section must be accompanied by a signed declaration of the individual sponsor or, in the case of an organization, by a principal officer of the organization or, if there are no principal officers, by a principal member of the organization, as to the accuracy of the report.
(6) As a limit on the reporting obligations under this section, the obligations of a sponsor in relation to contributions accepted before the initiative petition period or initiative vote period to which the report relates is that reasonable effort must be made to report the information required under this section.
Late filing of reports
92.91 If a sponsor fails to file a report under section 92.8 with the chief electoral officer within the time period established by that section or by a court under section 92.93, on payment to the chief electoral officer of a late filing fee equivalent to the applicable amount under section 219 (5) (b) of the Election Act, the report may be filed within 30 days after the end of the time period under section 92.8 or before a later date permitted by a court under section 92.93.
Failure to file reports
92.92 (1) Unless relief is granted by a court on an application under section 92.93 commenced before the end of the late filing period under section 92.91, if an initiative advertising disclosure report is not filed with the chief electoral officer before the end of that period, the sponsor
(a) is deregistered as a sponsor under Division 3 of this Part, and
(b) must pay to the chief electoral officer a penalty equivalent to the applicable amount under section 219 (5) (b) of the Election Act for each day after the last day on which it may be filed under section 92.91 up to the date on which it is in fact filed.
(2) In the case of a sponsor that is an unincorporated organization, the members of the organization are jointly and severally liable to pay the penalty under subsection (1) (b).
(3) The penalties referred to in subsection (1) are effective as follows:
(a) if no application under section 92.93 is made in respect of the sponsor, at the end of the period for making such an application;
(b) if, on the final determination of an application under section 92.93, the court refuses to grant relief from the penalty, at the time of that determination.
Court order for relief from filing obligations
92.93 (1) A sponsor subject to section 92.91 or 92.92 may apply to the Supreme Court in accordance with this section for relief from an obligation to file an initiative advertising disclosure report or from a penalty in relation to the filing of such a report.
(2) An application may be made only,
(a) in the case of a report in relation to an initiative petition, within the applicable period under section 57 (2), or
(b) in the case of a report in relation to an initiative vote, within the applicable period under section 83 (2).
(3) Within 7 days after it is filed, the petition commencing an application must be served on the chief electoral officer.
(4) The applicant and the chief electoral officer are parties to the application.
(5) On the hearing of an application, the court may do the following:
(a) relieve the sponsor from the obligation to file the report, or from specified obligations in relation to the report, if the court considers that, in relation to the non-compliance, the sponsor acted in good faith;
(b) grant an extension of the time for filing the report without payment of a late filing fee under section 92.91 if
(i) the application is commenced before the end of the time for filing without penalty, and
(ii) the court considers that, in relation to the non-compliance, the sponsor acted in good faith;
(c) grant an extension of the time for filing the report, subject to payment of the late filing fee under section 92.91, if the court considers that, in relation to the non-compliance, the sponsor acted in good faith;
(d) make any order the court considers appropriate to secure compliance with this Act and the regulations to the extent the court considers reasonable in the circumstances;
(e) refuse to grant an extension or other relief.
Obligation to maintain records
92.94 An individual or organization who is or has been a sponsor of initiative advertising must
(a) ensure that the records required for the purposes of this Part are maintained in British Columbia, and
(b) retain these records for at least 5 years, or a longer period specified by the chief electoral officer, from the date of filing of a report required under this Division in relation to those records.
Publication of initiative advertising summary
92.95 As soon as practicable after an initiative advertising disclosure report under this Division is received, the chief electoral officer must publish a report including the following:
(a) the name of the sponsor for whom it is filed;
[ Page 16908 ]
(b) an identification of the relevant initiative petition or initiative vote;
(c) a summary of the information included in the report.]
[SECTION 302, in the proposed section 107 (1) of the Recall and Initiative Act, by deleting "Subject to section 122," and substituting "Subject to section 125.1,".]
[SECTION 302, in the proposed Part 8 of the Recall and Initiative Act, by adding the heading "Division 1 -- General" immediately before section 120.]
[SECTION 302, in the proposed section 122 of the Recall and Initiative Act, by deleting the proposed section 122 and substituting the following:
No indirect sponsorship of recall advertising
122. An individual or organization must not sponsor recall advertising with the property of any other individual or organization or indirectly through any other individual or organization.]
[SECTION 302, in the proposed section 123 of the Recall and Initiative Act, by adding the following paragraph:
(a.1) if applicable, indicates that the sponsor is a registered sponsor under this Act, .]
[SECTION 302, in the proposed section 125 of the Recall and Initiative Act,
(a) by deleting subsection (1),
(b) in subsection (2) by deleting "who publishes" and substituting "who first publishes",
(c) by adding the following subsection:
(2.1) If the results of a recall opinion survey are to be published without the authorization of the sponsor, at least 24 hours before first publication, the individual or organization who publishes the results must notify the sponsor so that the report required under subsection (3) can be prepared. , and
(d) in subsection (3) by adding ", published as referred to in subsection (2)," after "the results of the survey".]
[SECTION 302, by adding the following after the proposed section 125 of the Recall and Initiative Act:
Division 2 -- Recall Advertising Limits
Advertising limits
125.1 (1) An authorized participant for a recall petition may incur recall advertising as a recall expense, subject to the applicable expenses limit.
(2) Other than recall advertising referred to in subsection (1), an individual or organization must not sponsor recall advertising during a recall petition period
(a) such that the total value of that recall advertising is greater than $5 000 or a higher amount established by regulation, or
(b) in combination with one or more individuals or organizations, or both, such that the total value of the recall advertising sponsored by those individuals and organizations during that period is greater than $5 000 or a higher amount established by regulation.
(3) As an exception to subsection (2), the value of recall advertising that is conducted by sending a document directly to the members, employees or shareholders of the sponsoring individual or organization is not to be included for the purposes of determining whether the individual or organization has complied with that subsection.
(4) An individual or organization must not conduct recall advertising if, by this, the sponsor would contravene subsection (2).
Penalties for exceeding recall advertising limit
125.2 (1) Unless relief is granted by a court under section 125.3, if a sponsor exceeds a recall advertising limit, the sponsor
(a) is deregistered as a sponsor under Division 3 of this Part, and
(b) must pay to the chief electoral officer a penalty of 10 times the amount by which the value of the recall advertising sponsored by the sponsor exceeds the limit.
(2) In the case of a sponsor that is an unincorporated organization, the members of the organization are jointly and severally liable to pay the penalty under subsection (1) (b).
(3) A penalty referred to in subsection (1) is effective as follows:
(a) if no application under section 125.3 is made in respect of the sponsor, at the end of the period for making such an application;
(b) if, on the final determination of an application under section 125.3, the court refuses to grant relief from the penalty, at the time of that determination.
Court order for relief from advertising limit
125.3 (1) A sponsor may apply to the Supreme Court in accordance with this section for relief from section 125.2.
(2) An application may be made only within 58 days after the end of the recall petition period in relation to which the advertising limit was exceeded.
(3) Within 7 days after it is filed, the petition commencing an application must be served on the chief electoral officer.
(4) The sponsor and the chief electoral officer are parties to the application.
(5) On the hearing of an application, the court may
(a) grant relief if the court considers that, in relation to the non-compliance, the sponsor acted in good faith, or
(b) refuse to grant relief.
Division 3 -- Registration of Sponsors
Recall advertising sponsors must be registered
125.4 (1) Subject to subsection (2), an individual or organization who is not registered under this Division must not sponsor recall advertising.
(2) An authorized participant is not required to be registered to sponsor recall advertising in relation to a recall petition for which the individual is an authorized participant.
[ Page 16909 ]
Registration with chief electoral officer
125.5 (1) An individual or organization who wishes to become a registered sponsor in relation to a recall petition must file an application in accordance with this section with the chief electoral officer.
(2) An application must include the following:
(a) the full name of the applicant and, in the case of an applicant organization that has a different usual name, this usual name;
(b) the full address of the applicant;
(c) in the case of an applicant organization, the names of the principal officers of the organization or, if there are no principal officers, of the principal members of the organization;
(d) an address at which notices and communications under this Act and other communications will be accepted as served on or otherwise delivered to the individual or organization;
(e) a telephone number at which the applicant can be contacted;
(f) identification of the recall petition in relation to which the applicant wishes to be registered as a sponsor;
(g) any other information required by regulation to be included.
(3) An application must
(a) be signed, as applicable, by the individual applicant or, in the case of an applicant organization, by 2 principal officers of the organization or, if there are no principal officers, by 2 principal members of the organization, and
(b) be accompanied by a solemn declaration of an individual who signed the application under paragraph (a) that the applicant is not prohibited from being registered by section 125.7.
(4) The chief electoral officer may require applications to be in a specified form.
(5) As soon as practicable after receiving an application, if satisfied that the requirements of this section are met by an applicant, the chief electoral officer must register the applicant as a registered sponsor in the register maintained by the chief electoral officer for this purpose.
(6) If there is any change in the information referred to in subsection (2) for a registered sponsor, the sponsor must file with the chief electoral officer written notice of the change within 15 days after it occurs.
(7) A notice or other communication that is required or authorized by or under this Act to be given to a sponsor is deemed to have been given if it is delivered to the applicable address filed under this section with the chief electoral officer.
Obligations of registered sponsor
125.6 (1) The identification of a registered sponsor referred to in section 123 must be a name filed by the sponsor under section 125.5 with the chief electoral officer.
(2) An individual or organization who is registered or required to be registered as a sponsor must maintain records of the following information in respect of contributions received by the sponsor:
(a) in the case of anonymous contributions, the date on which the contributions were received, the total amount received on each date and, if applicable, the event at which they were received;
(b) in other cases, the information referred to in section 106 (1) (a) to (e), with the class of contributor recorded in accordance with section 125.9.
Limit on registration
125.7 An individual or organization who is subject to a penalty under this Part or for whom a required report under this Part is not filed is not entitled to be registered as a sponsor until all such outstanding reports are filed and all such outstanding penalties are paid.
Division 4 -- Disclosure of Independent Recall Advertising
Independent sponsors must file disclosure reports
125.8 (1) Subject to subsection (2), if an individual or organization sponsors during a recall petition period recall advertising that has a total value of $500 or a higher amount established by regulation, the sponsor must file with the chief electoral officer a recall advertising disclosure report in accordance with this section and section 125.9.
(2) A recall advertising disclosure report under subsection (1) must be filed with the chief electoral officer within 28 days after the end of the recall petition period to which it relates.
(3) An authorized participant for the recall petition is not required to file a report under this section.
(4) A sponsor must file a supplementary report with the chief electoral officer if any of the information required to be disclosed in a recall advertising disclosure report changes or if the sponsor becomes aware that the report does not accurately and completely disclose that information.
(5) A supplementary report under subsection (4) must be filed within the equivalent period under section 111 (3) after the sponsor becomes aware of the facts in relation to which the report is required.
Contents of disclosure report
125.9 (1) A recall advertising disclosure report must be in the form prescribed by regulation and must include the following information:
(a) the value of the recall advertising sponsored by the sponsor, reported by class as required by regulation;
[ Page 16910 ]
(b) the amount of the contributions accepted by the sponsor during the period beginning 6 months before the recall petition was issued and ending at the end of the recall petition period, reported in accordance with subsections (2) to (4);
(c) any amount of the sponsor's assets, other than assets received by way of contribution reported under paragraph (b), that was used to pay for the recall advertising sponsored by the sponsor;
(d) any other information required by regulation to be included.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) (b), amounts accepted from contributors must be reported separately for each of the following classes of contributor:
(a) individuals;
(b) corporations;
(c) unincorporated organizations engaged in business or commercial activity;
(d) trade unions;
(e) non-profit organizations;
(f) other identifiable contributors;
(g) anonymous contributors.
(3) If the records of the sponsor indicate that, during the period for which contributions are required to be reported, a contributor made one or more contributions of money that, in total, have a value of more than $250 or a higher amount established by regulation, the report under this section must include the following:
(a) the full name of the individual;
(b) the class of the contributor as referred to in subsection (2);
(c) if the contributor is a numbered corporation or an unincorporated organization, the full names and addresses of at least 2 individuals
(i) who are directors of the organization, or
(ii) if there are no individual directors, who are principal officers or principal members of the organization;
(d) the value of each contribution and the date on which it was made.
(4) For anonymous contributions, the report under this section must include the dates on which the contributions were received, the amounts received on each date and, if applicable, the events at which they were received.
(5) A report under this section must be accompanied by a signed declaration of the individual sponsor or, in the case of an organization, by a principal officer of the organization or, if there are no principal officers, by a principal member of the organization, as to the accuracy of the report.
(6) As a limit on the reporting obligations under this section, the obligations of a sponsor in relation to contributions accepted before the recall petition period to which the report relates is that reasonable effort must be made to report the information required under this section.
Late filing of reports
125.91 If a sponsor fails to file a report under section 125.8 with the chief electoral officer within the time period established by that section or by a court under section 125.93, on payment to the chief electoral officer of a late filing fee equivalent to the applicable amount under section 219 (5) (b) of the Election Act, the report may be filed within 30 days after the end of the time period under section 125.8 or before a later date permitted by a court under section 125.93.
Failure to file reports
125.92 (1) Unless relief is granted by a court on an application under section 125.93 commenced before the end of the late filing period under section 125.91, if a recall advertising disclosure report is not filed with the chief electoral officer before the end of that period, the sponsor
(a) is deregistered as a sponsor under Division 3 of this Part, and
(b) must pay to the chief electoral officer a penalty equivalent to the applicable amount under section 219 (5) (b) of the Election Act for each day after the last day on which it may be filed under section 125.91 up to the date on which it is in fact filed.
(2) In the case of a sponsor that is an unincorporated organization, the members of the organization are jointly and severally liable to pay the penalty under subsection (1) (b).
(3) The penalties referred to in subsection (1) are effective as follows:
(a) if no application under section 125.93 is made in respect of the sponsor, at the end of the period for making such an application;
(b) if, on the final determination of an application under section 125.93, the court refuses to grant relief from the penalty, at the time of that determination.
Court order for relief from filing obligations
125.93 (1) A sponsor subject to section 125.91 or 125.92 may apply to the Supreme Court in accordance with this section for relief from an obligation to file a recall advertising disclosure report or from a penalty in relation to the filing of such a report.
(2) An application may be made only within the applicable period under section 118 (2).
(3) Within 7 days after it is filed, the petition commencing an application must be served on the chief electoral officer.
(4) The applicant and the chief electoral officer are parties to the application.
(5) On the hearing of an application, the court may do the following:
[ Page 16911 ]
(a) relieve the sponsor from the obligation to file the report, or from specified obligations in relation to the report, if the court considers that, in relation to the non-compliance, the sponsor acted in good faith;
(b) grant an extension of the time for filing the report without payment of a late filing fee under section 125.91 if
(i) the application is commenced before the end of the time for filing without penalty, and
(ii) the court considers that, in relation to the non-compliance, the sponsor acted in good faith;
(c) grant an extension of the time for filing the report, subject to payment of the late filing fee under section 125.91, if the court considers that, in relation to the non-compliance, the sponsor acted in good faith;
(d) make any order the court considers appropriate to secure compliance with this Act and the regulations to the extent the court considers reasonable in the circumstances;
(e) refuse to grant an extension or other relief.
Obligation to maintain records
125.94 An individual or organization who is or has been a sponsor of recall advertising must
(a) ensure that the records required for the purposes of this Part are maintained in British Columbia, and
(b) retain these records for at least 5 years, or a longer period specified by the chief electoral officer, from the date of filing of a report required under this Division in relation to those records.
Publication of recall advertising summary
125.95 As soon as practicable after a recall advertising disclosure report under this Division is received, the chief electoral officer must publish a report including the following:
(a) the name of the sponsor for whom it is filed;
(b) an identification of the relevant recall petition;
(c) a summary of the information included in the report.]
[SECTION 302, in the proposed section 133 of the Recall and Initiative Act, by adding the following paragraphs:
(g) contravenes section 92.1 or 125.1 respecting an advertising limit;
(h) contravenes section 92.4 or 125.4 respecting the requirement to be registered as a sponsor;
(i) fails to record information as required by section 92.6 (2) or 125.6 (2).]
[SECTION 302, in the proposed section 141 of the Recall and Initiative Act, by deleting subsection (2) and substituting the following:
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), the chief electoral officer or a representative of the chief electoral officer may inspect and make copies of the records of an individual or organization
(a) who is or was a financial agent at any time during the previous 5 years,
(b) who is or was an authorized participant at any time during the previous 5 years,
(c) who is or was required to file an initiative advertising disclosure report at any time during the previous 5 years, or
(d) who is or was required to file a recall advertising disclosure report at any time during the previous 5 years,
(2.1) Section 260 (3) to (6) of the Election Act applies in relation to the authority under subsection (2).]
[SECTION 302, in the proposed section 143 (2) of the Recall and Initiative Act, by adding the following paragraphs:
(h) prescribing information that must be included in
(i) an application under section 92.5, or
(ii) an initiative advertising disclosure report under section 92.8;
(i) prescribing classes of advertising for the purposes of section 92.9 (1) (a);
(j) prescribing information that must be included in
(i) an application under section 125.5, or
(ii) an initiative advertising disclosure report under section 125.8;
(k) prescribing classes of advertising for the purposes of section 125.9 (1) (a).]
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]