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)
THURSDAY, JULY 13, 1995
Morning Sitting
Volume 21, Number 29
[ Page 16989 ]
The House met at 10:03 a.m..
Prayers.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I call committee on Bill 55.
MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT (No.3), 1995
(continued)
The House in committee on Bill 55; G. Brewin in the chair.
On section 22.
D. Mitchell: I have just a couple of brief questions on the amendments to the Liquor Control and Licensing Act, which are sections 22 and 23 combined in the act. I guess we'll deal with section 22 first.
During second reading debate on the bill, which was rather brief, the Attorney General made some comments. He said that this amendment is going to amend the funding authority for the liquor control and licensing branch by providing that all fees and charges paid under the act be applied first to the administration of the act, and then any balance would go to the consolidated revenue fund. I wonder if the Attorney General could just tell the committee briefly what's really going on here. Why is this provision necessary? What appears to be happening here is that this provision allows the branch to keep the fees instead of submitting them directly to the treasury.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: With this, we're trying to adopt and regularize a procedure that I think members would agree is more appropriate, which is that the revenues raised by liquor licensing be dedicated for the purpose of administration of that particular branch. Rather than being treated as revenue to the Crown, and then the Crown making some allocation back to that branch depending on the whims of Treasury Board of the day, we want to try to ensure that this is in fact a cost recovery program. The legislation has been written this way to accomplish that principle.
D. Mitchell: With this amendment, are we giving some kind of expression to the self-funding nature of what we might regard as a Crown corporation? We can look at the liquor distribution branch as a kind of Crown corporation, a separate entity. Is what we're doing with this amendment giving expression to its self-funding nature so that it's more separate from the provincial government and there's more of an arm's-length relationship in that it's actually self-funding? That would be a new direction we'd be heading in.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: It's more of an accounting principle than it is a policy principle. We are trying to say to the people who pay the fees for liquor licences that the fees one pays are not designed to enhance the government's revenue; they are designed to support the cost of providing the service and to support liquor licensing activities. It's really more of an accounting principle than anything else.
J. Tyabji: The Attorney General has said that this is not a policy principle. I know we don't want to split hairs, but I think it is, and the reason is that we've got the liquor distribution branch and the liquor control and licensing branch. It is a huge organization, as I'm sure the Attorney General knows, and there are many different aspects to it.
If the Attorney General is saying that the licences and fees paid into it are supposed to make it self-financing, that's news to me. I would assume that these are like licences and fees that any branch of government would charge, and whatever service may therefore be perceived to be given.... In this case, obviously people are trying to get access to a market or access to participation in the liquor retail sector, liquor wholesale or distribution or whatever other aspect of it.
The Attorney General is saying no. I guess the question is this. In here, it says that if there's a shortfall, it will be advanced from consolidated revenue, and if there's a surplus, it goes the other way. The concern is that if those licences and fees are currently in a situation where there would be a shortfall and the policy is to have it self-financing, one would assume that the licences and fees are going to go up. The justification for that is going to be that there was a shortfall and it's supposed to be self-financing. What is the current status of revenue versus cost for those licences and fees to the liquor control branch?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: First of all -- and I'm not picking on the member -- a common mistake that a lot of people make is to confuse the liquor distribution branch and the liquor licensing branch, which is a totally different group and a much smaller operation. Liquor licensing is the branch which grants a variety of licences to hotels, neighbourhood pubs and other liquor outlets but has nothing to do with the retail operations of the liquor stores. Those are two separate items altogether. This is only the liquor licensing branch. This is a branch which spends roughly $5 million a year and takes in roughly $5 million a year. We're trying to keep that in balance. In a particular year, if the licences and fees don't bring in as much revenue as is required, then it could be topped up by consolidated revenue. If it's the reverse, consolidated revenue would get the extra. But the intent is to keep it in balance.
J. Beattie: I ask leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
J. Beattie: I have three constituents in the House today. First, up in the gallery is Anne Hancock, a director from Naramata. She's on the Regional District of Okanagan-Similkameen, a hard-working member for her constituents. It's the first time she's been in Victoria, and I'd like the House to make her welcome.
Second, my son Cedric Beattie is here with his friend Tyler Kuhn. They are both from Penticton. This is the third time Cedric has been in the House but the first time for Tyler, and he's very excited about this. I'd ask you to make them welcome as well.
F. Gingell: I seek leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
[ Page 16990 ]
F. Gingell: Hon. Chair, I was going to wait until I caught your eye to speak to section 22, but I don't want my friends in the gallery to think that I do not intend to introduce them. I would like members in the House to welcome Bill King and Andy Wizinsky from Nanaimo.
J. Tyabji: I have a question for the Attorney General now that I understand the liquor licensing aspect of it. Listings are currently controlled by the liquor distribution branch, and all the fees and costs associated with it are still with the LDB. Is there any contemplation of changes in that, or are we still going to keep them completely separate?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: No, there are no changes.
J. Tyabji: I'll go back to the first question, then. The Attorney General said that it's roughly the same amount in revenues and costs. Is it the intent of this section, though, to make it a self-financing administration? It's a huge administration now, and if it does have a shortfall for a few consecutive years, would there not be an automatic increase in the licences and fees for pub applications and restaurants or hotels?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: In government terms -- I have to be careful how I say this, or I'll sound like C.D. Howe -- it's not a huge operation. There are 70 full-time-equivalent positions in the liquor....
Interjection.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: No, every community has licensed facilities. Don't confuse liquor stores with liquor distribution. That's something else altogether. There are 70 people, including inspectors and administrators and the general manager and others, who work in the liquor licensing branch.
The fees now bring in more.... I said that it was about $5 million out and $5 million in. I want to be really precise about that. The expenditures in '94-95 -- so we're in the last fiscal year; what actually happened -- were close to $4.6 million, and the revenue was close to $5.4 million, so there was a significant gap in '94-95. That gap continues. The fees are more than sufficient now to pay for the cost of the branch. It's not our intention that it be self-financing in the sense that the money goes to them and they spend it. The money still comes to the centre. Notionally, from a bookkeeping perspective, we want it to be roughly in balance, so that licences are not seen as a revenue item.
[10:15]
F. Gingell: This sounds like a very minor thing, but I don't think it is. I don't think there's some big scheme behind it. In this province we have a process by which the revenues of the province are controlled and administered through the Financial Administration Act, and I fail to understand the argument that this should be changed.
We're chipping around the edges of a financial control system that's been in place for many years, has been developed for many years and on most occasions has proven itself to be better than one would expect. If we want to do an accounting exercise, we don't have to go through this. The information is already there. Under the control of Attorney General, the liquor control and licensing branch can put out a little financial statement. I am surprised that this licensing process is only being looked at as a self-funding exercise. The province takes in revenues to pay for various services for its citizens from many sources, and this particular exercise provides the government, according to the numbers you gave, in excess of $500,000 a year. I know that is very small, but it's just part of the many government program functions you have.
The next thing is, we'll be dividing off every little program, keeping a whole bunch of little sets of books for these things and cutting them all off into little bits. To me that isn't logical. I would have thought all the things that you want to do in the form of seeing whether you are recovering all of your costs, which clearly you should do, you already know from the information that you have presented to the committee this morning. For us to move operations outside the Financial Administration Act, there should be a really good reason. There should be really good reasons to move away from the general practices and procedures, and the Attorney General hasn't convinced me this morning that he has solved that.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The Financial Administration Act still applies. The Financial Administration Act requires that revenues and expenditures be displayed. We are now, in this particular operation, in order to notionally.... So the public can see what comes in and what goes out in respect of liquor licensing itself, it will be displayed separately so that hotel owners and others who have licences will not think that they are serving as a cash cow for the province. They will know that the fees they pay are going to support the operation of licensing. It will be clear. The Financial Administration Act still applies.
F. Gingell: We already know that. You just stood up a moment before and told us what the results were for 1994-95.
Interjection.
F. Gingell: Hon. Chair, the Attorney General said: "Yes, I know I did" -- excuse me for putting some words in your mouth -- "but I may not do that next year." If the liquor control and licensing group were to report in some simple fashion to the Legislature, as I'm sure they do to the Attorney General, and if that information were made public, that would be the case. It's exactly the kind of question that gets asked in estimates. I would just hate to see us start to set up all of these little self-funding exercises.
If you were really serious about this, you would set it up as a special account, which would give you the accounting treatment that you're looking for. You haven't set it up as a special account. The information that you're going to show is already available, but we're going through this exercise: "Administrative receipts shall, at the close of each day's business, first be applied for the administration of or for any of the purposes of this Act...."
In the normal course of events, those revenues go into the consolidated revenue fund. This particular organization's expenses are paid out of the consolidated revenue fund. The comptroller general has his fingers on all those strings. I'm surprised that the Minister of Finance sits there quite happily while the Ministry of Attorney General takes away those roles and responsibilities and controls that are part of her responsibility.
[ Page 16991 ]
L. Fox: I have a couple of questions. The first one is: what prompted the need for this section? I understand that it's an accounting procedure that is basically going to show those who buy their licensing that it is indeed a user-pay system. That's my understanding of the discussion. But what prompted the need for liquor licensing to have this kind of accounting?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I think I can answer that in two ways. One reason is that the accountants -- the financial managers in the ministry -- think this is a more appropriate way to account for those revenues that come from liquor licensing. I think another reason, as well, is to demonstrate clearly to the people who hold liquor licences, who want to make applications or who have to pay the $1,000 fee that applies in some cases, will know that they are not providing fees which are just going into general revenue for some other expenditure.
L. Fox: I just want to follow that up, because I think it's an important precedent that is being moved forward here. If indeed this precedent was applied to the Ministry of Health, let's say.... I have been in this Legislature for four years now, and I haven't heard one complaint in terms of the cost of a liquor licence, but I've heard substantial complaints about the inspection and licensing fees for food delivery services.... I have some difficulty understanding why this kind of accounting is needed for liquor licensing and why we don't apply it to other services of government done under the Ministry of Health, like the licensing of restaurants and of other food delivery services. Indeed, we had a long discussion not too long ago about boiler inspection fees and other inspection fees offered by this government, where people do feel -- because they never see an inspector -- that indeed all they're doing is contributing to the general revenue of the province.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I can't speak for other ministries, only for my own, but I'm pleased to note from the member that we seem to have the fees in a pretty good balance, if there aren't any complaints.
Section 22 approved.
On section 23.
J. Tyabji: Just a quick question. It seems like an interesting amendment, because it would imply that the Attorney General did not have the power to impose penalties prior to this section of this miscellaneous statute coming into effect. The Attorney General is saying no. Could he clarify what this means?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: All this section does is consolidate the fee and the penalty regulations into one general regulation; it really is housekeeping. There are no new provisions -- or there are no fewer provisions. It's simply a consolidation so that people can look at the legislation and see clearly what the fee and penalty regulations are, all put together.
J. Tyabji: Very briefly, then: before they were separated -- in statute, anyway -- between fees and penalties, and now we're amalgamating. Is that all he is saying? Because there is only one paragraph being repealed for this, (c), so I guess it's just the wording.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The member essentially has it right.
Section 23 approved.
Sections 24 and 25 approved.
On section 26.
R. Neufeld: Just briefly, maybe the Attorney General could explain to me what happens with this amendment.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Staff is coming in, if there are further questions, but I think it is fairly straightforward. It provides confidentiality of specific trade secrets in the composition of hazardous materials that may be used in the workplace. In other words, because of FOI, a company that has a particular product doesn't have to give up its trade secrets.
Section 26 approved.
On section 27.
A. Warnke: Essentially, we're exploring here the question of the return of 75 percent. It is our position that what we would like to see is a return of 75 percent of traffic fines to the municipalities for local policing initiatives. Indeed, this point of view has been expressed to the Nanaimo administrator by Mr. Donald Lidstone. Essentially, we're concerned about the municipal concerns prohibiting enforcement of speeding.
I wonder whether the Attorney General has given any thought to the allocation of these fines, to where they are going and for what purpose to the municipalities, and so on, and whether there is any downloading or whether the minister is trying to avoid downloading to the municipalities.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: What the provision does is close a loophole that has been discovered by very clever lawyers, very recently, in respect to moving violations under the Motor Vehicle Act.
It has always been the practice in British Columbia that the province has jurisdiction over moving violations, and for very good reason, because there is a need to ensure that there is information about drivers' records so that there can be appropriate discipline through the court system, if need be, with respect to people who have a poor driving record. The loopholes in the legislation would enable municipalities to begin to levy moving violations. We didn't want that to happen, because the records would then not be complete.
In addition to that, there would be the fear -- it's a fear, not an allegation -- that there might be a temptation to devote more police resources to speeding violations, because it could produce revenue to the municipality as opposed to going after more serious crimes. Diverting police resources in what could be an inappropriate way.... We just wanted to make sure that that trend did not continue.
[10:30]
There remains outstanding -- and before we get into a big debate about this, I want to make it really clear -- serious concerns, genuine concerns, that municipalities have about police costs. The system that we have in place is, in my view, not an equitable one. We've had this discussion in estimates in various years.
[ Page 16992 ]
The arbitrary 5,000 population cutoff creates inequities, and there are a number of other problems with police costs. The 12 municipal police departments with the IPEG grant -- the independent grant that goes to them -- can argue legitimately that their grant is not as high as the grant for comparable municipalities under RCMP jurisdictions. There are a whole variety of problems.
We have established a joint committee with our ministry and the UBCM to work on solutions to those costs. I'm told that the committee's work is proceeding. There hasn't been as much municipal involvement as I would like -- at last report to me, out of the 156 municipalities, only 23 had actually involved themselves in this process. Nonetheless, the work goes on, and I hope to be able to report some progress to the UBCM this fall in Vancouver. It remains a serious issue, but the amendments are designed to make sure that the procedure that has always been in place in British Columbia continues.
F. Gingell: I represent a community that has its own police force, which presently collects $100,000 in revenue from moving vehicle violations. It is very concerned about the provision of this bill that will, in effect, take away its right to collect these funds. I've received quite a number of calls; I'm sure the member for Delta North has received them in the same fashion.
I understand that this is directed only at those communities with their own police forces and that only a certain number of those communities have taken action in this area, including Nanaimo, Delta and Kamloops. Would this have been possible for municipalities whose police work is contracted out to the RCMP?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Yes, this is an issue in both RCMP and non-RCMP jurisdictions. For example, Nanaimo, which is an RCMP jurisdiction, has a scheme not the same as but similar to the one that Delta has.
F. Gingell: Just one last question. I wonder if the minister could advise the committee of roughly how much money in total has been collected by the various municipalities, towns, cities, etc., in the past year, which will now be lost to them.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I don't have that figure; it's a very new phenomenon. It's not very much. When I say that, the total provincial picture is, if my memory is correct, in the $60 million range, and I think we're talking about perhaps a few hundred thousand dollars at the local level so far. It's the potential that is the issue.
F. Gingell: One last suggestion. If the municipalities, towns and cities in this province have been more successful in collecting the fines for moving vehicle violations, perhaps they could give some advice to the Attorney General ministry, whose record in collecting fines has been abysmal. If the towns and municipalities can teach this provincial government a lesson or two, I would suggest to whichever minister this applies that they go out and get that advice. Those of us who don't break the law, or who pay our fines when we do, object strenuously to the province not taking proper corrective action to ensure that people who have been fined pay the penalty.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I couldn't agree more. The Minister of Transportation and Highways has this as a priority item; a number of changes have already occurred to ensure that in fact fines are collected.
L. Fox: Notwithstanding the Attorney General's comment, the fact is that when ticketing privileges were given to municipalities, it was never intended that they would be utilized for moving vehicle fines. Let's look at this from another perspective. The Minister of Transportation and Highways stands up and quotes ICBC statistics around the increases in accidents at particular intersections and says that the number of deaths is continuing to rise on our streets and highways. It seems that one approach that the minister and the government could have made with respect to this initiative started by the municipalities.... As I understand it, the first year in which only a few put through their bylaws was last year. Understanding that there is now that opportunity, word of mouth has travelled fast in the municipal circles, and others have looked at it. Police costs and crime are not decreasing within municipalities; they are continuing to rise.
It seems to me that if the government really wanted to control this and also wanted to control speeding and accidents at intersections for failing to yield to lights, it could set out criteria for which this money could be spent, which would have improved the policing costs to municipalities. In most municipalities that I'm aware of, the intent is to increase their policing within their respective communities, using the dollars raised by this initiative. It would have been a more appropriate direction if government would have controlled how those moneys were collected, how the fines were going to be reported, so that the record of bad drivers could be maintained, and how those moneys could have been spent.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I appreciate the member's comments, and I appreciate the problem. I don't diminish or deny the difficulty for municipalities. That's why we are working as hard as we can with the UBCM committee that we've established to try to address these issues.
J. van Dongen: Just to follow up on the previous speaker, I can appreciate the Attorney General's concerns about maintaining consistent provincial driving records and driving standards. But the issue here is revenue-sharing, where you have the municipalities incurring all the costs and the province getting all the revenue. I know this is not a new problem. Five years ago I heard mayors complaining bitterly about this arrangement, and I would like to ask the Attorney General for his assurance that after you go through the process with the UBCM that you've talked about, there will be a decision by the province on doing some kind of revenue-sharing of the dollars that come from the tickets. I would like some assurance that the province will make a decision and come up with at least some kind of a sharing formula.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: There are a lot of requests, and some of them obviously are more than can be met. I can't give any assurance about what the conclusion of this negotiation and discussion process is going to be. All I can say is that I recognize the problem. It's a serious one. There are inequities out there, and we have to find ways of dealing with those. I'm not going to prejudge the work of the committee.
[ Page 16993 ]
L. Fox: I have one final observation. I recognize that no matter how strong we argue, we're not going to convince the Attorney General to do anything with respect to this section of this act. But let me say this: police costs to municipalities are not something new. It's been on the front burner of municipalities for most of the eighties, and there have been other police costs committees struck by the UBCM and respective governments, which have tried to deal with this issue for probably more than 15 years. Even though they're taking part in it, I don't think there's a lot of faith at the UBCM level that this new initiative is going to be any more fruitful than was the police costs committee, which was struck between government and the UBCM in about 1987. Although the main focus of that committee was around negotiations over cost-sharing between the government of Canada, the province and the municipalities, it still didn't really address the major issues faced by municipalities today. Some municipalities are facing upwards of 40 percent of their revenues to offset their policing costs, while at the same time they don't have enough constables to provide 24-hour law enforcement. It's a real problem.
The municipalities were trying to utilize this particular clause to address these problems. As community leaders, they were being responsible and trying meet the needs of their communities with respect to crime control. My only concern is that once this legislation is passed, they will be placed in limbo once again. They will have to wait for this committee to report, in the hope that it might have more success than similar structures in the past. I would suggest that's very little comfort to municipal leaders. I hope the Attorney General can assure me that the government will be very proactive in terms of meeting the needs of those communities.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I give the member my assurance that this is a serious effort and that we're going to be proactive about it. The 1987 committee, I believe, was established to help rewrite the RCMP agreement that was signed in 1991, and we received excellent cooperation from the municipalities. In effect, I inherited the process and then signed the agreement. It was largely influenced by municipal involvement, and it's my intention that it will be the same in this process.
R. Chisholm: I'm not going to take very much of the committee's time on this, but my community is in the same situation that we've heard about in other speeches. I hope the minister will have an open mind when he talks with the UBCM.
As the minister knows, Chilliwack has been issuing tickets. If we don't solve this problem, we will have a problem with community policing, and the money to pay for these costs will have to come from somewhere. There is a way here, I think, to find a solution to this situation for these communities. If the communities are allowed to issue tickets, I hope the minister will take into account that the tickets should be accompanied with a point system. I hope that will be on the table, too, when they discuss this with UBCM.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm not precluding anything from the table.
Sections 27 and 28 approved.
On section 29.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Before moving an amendment, I wish to offer an explanation. There was an oversight in the drafting, in that there was reference made to the Municipal Act but not to the Vancouver Charter. There needs to be a reference to the Vancouver Charter, and that's what the amendment does. I'm acutely aware of the need to have unanimous agreement to go to third reading if a bill is amended. I very much would like to have this amendment. It's not a substantive issue; it was a drafting error. I don't think that members would want to wait until Monday to....
Interjection.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I give the member for Delta South my assurance that in fact the motion on the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts will be presented positively as soon as we get through this. If I could just get some assurance from members that third reading leave would not be a problem, I very much would like to move this amendment.
[10:45]
D. Mitchell: I don't think I see any problem with this, but I'd like some clarification as to the purpose of the amendment. The Attorney General is indicating that this was an oversight. What we're doing with the amendment that he's given notice of is adding to the consultation that would be required with the UBCM under this section -- the city of Vancouver, on matters related to the Vancouver Charter....
Maybe just before we move to the amendment and give some expression from the Committee of the Whole as to whether or not leave can be given, I could ask the Attorney General for some clarification on this. Would now be the appropriate time?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: We're on the section, so I can talk about what would happen if I did move the amendment. The amendment is to make sure that Vancouver is included in the consultation process for the railway tax issues that we talked about yesterday. What the proposed section does is allow consultation with all municipalities in British Columbia except Vancouver because of the Vancouver Charter. We clearly want Vancouver to feel that they're part of this, too, and that's what the amendment does.
D. Mitchell: Just for some clarification on this, when we say that the UBCM shall be consulted, my understanding is that the city of Vancouver is a member of the UBCM. I recognize that there are some unique matters relating to the Vancouver Charter, and I suppose the city of Vancouver is unique in having the Vancouver Charter, its own legislation. Can the Attorney General tell us if there are any other exceptions that we're missing here? If we ask for the UBCM to be consulted -- and Vancouver is a member of the UBCM -- are we creating some kind of precedent where we're going to have to say that it's the UBCM plus, plus, plus?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The fact is that the sections that are referred to in this amendment refer to the Municipal Act, and the Municipal Act doesn't govern Vancouver. You have to include the Vancouver Charter.
If this doesn't pass, we will obviously still consult Vancouver. There's no question about that. The bill won't require
[ Page 16994 ]
that we consult Vancouver; it will only require that we consult municipalities governed by the Municipal Act. It's only fair to say to the city of Vancouver that they have the same guarantee as every other municipality. If members aren't prepared to give.... I'm sure members are prepared to give third reading today if we pass this today, so it shouldn't be an issue. I didn't want to oblige members to have to come back to Victoria on Monday to do third reading.
The Chair: I think the point has been well canvassed, hon. member.
D. Mitchell: Just so I understand this, hon. Chair, this amendment, which forces consultation between the government and the UBCM -- it's forced; it's required under this amendment -- now also requires the same consultation with the city of Vancouver. It really is just dealing with an oversight. It's guaranteeing the rights of the city of Vancouver for consultation in addition to or as part of the UBCM. Is that correct?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Yes.
D. Mitchell: Okay.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: With that understanding, I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.
[SECTION 29, in the proposed section 274 (4) of the Municipal Act, by adding "or section 374.3 (1) (a), (b) or (c) of the Vancouver Charter" after "subsection (1) (a), (b), (c) or (d)".]
Amendment approved.
On section 29 as amended.
L. Fox: The effect of this section is really to give authority to government to be able to set the tax rate structure, which controls what is available.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: This section actually restricts the authority. The authority was granted earlier -- yesterday, I think. What this does is restrict it by requiring consultation prior to the establishment of the new tax regime.
R. Neufeld: Obviously, this section and section 3 would probably have been a little better one after the other, because one affects the other very much. It does affect the variable tax rate system -- or it gives cabinet the authority to change the variable tax rate system as it is in the Municipal Act. I guess that answers some of the questions we had that there may be some limits put on different classes of property in taxation. That's part of my fear. It may work well for a certain class of property -- we're talking about CN and CP -- but it could affect some other properties dramatically.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The only thing this amendment does is require that there be consultation with all municipalities prior to the passage of an order-in-council referring to an authority that has in fact existed historically on the part of the Crown. The Crown could set tax rates and the regulations around that. The province has historically had the right just to do it without consultation, and municipalities could find out about it when they read the report of orders-in-council. This requires consultation, and this section does nothing else.
F. Gingell: I was going to make a comment that perhaps the minister could have considered adding, after the words "has consulted," the words "and listened to."
Section 29 as amended approved.
On section 30.
D. Mitchell: I have a brief question on section 30, and it relates to sections 31 and 32 as well. This deals with development cost charges and allows them to be used by local municipalities for improving parkland to which the charges relate.
This flexibility is favoured by most municipalities. I've talked to the municipalities in the constituency I represent, and they're in favour of them, but the Attorney General will know that there have been some concerns expressed by the Canadian Home Builders' Association. Their concern is whether new home purchasers anywhere in the province would be expected to pay for any increased capital costs associated with improvements to parkland.
I'm not sure if that's a legitimate concern, but it is important for the Attorney General to put on the record whether there could be increased costs passed on to home purchasers as a result of this flexibility for development costs charges by municipalities. That's a concern that has been raised by the Canadian Home Builders' Association.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: These are very limited improvements. What we can do now under the legislation is to buy the park but not to plant the grass; this will allow you to plant the grass. In short form, this is effectively what it does. If it has any additional financial cost to homeowners, it would be very, very marginal.
D. Mitchell: It's important to recognize that there may be some minimal additional cost.
The Attorney General may be aware that stakeholders in the home construction industry as well as municipalities were promised some consultation when it came to the whole issue of development cost charges, which is what we're amending here. I wonder if the Attorney General could tell us that, because he has confirmed that there will be a modest increase in charges, possibly....
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Could be. I didn't say will be.
D. Mitchell: Oh, there may be.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Could be.
D. Mitchell: There could be, the Attorney General said. Will the government also stick to its previous commitment that there will be some consultation with all affected stakeholders on the whole issue of development cost charges?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Yes.
L. Fox: I have just a couple of points of clarification here. When I first read this, I was convinced that all this act was doing was expanding what the 5 percent could be utilized for. As I understand it now, what we're suggesting here is that a municipality, over and above the 5 percent for land, or cash in
[ Page 16995 ]
lieu thereof for recreation, and the new 5 percent that could be utilized under the school acquisitions act passed earlier this year.... We're now providing a further opportunity for municipalities to levy development cost charges beyond the 10 percent that is going to be supplied either by land or cash in lieu of. Are we now providing municipalities the opportunity to go beyond that?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: This doesn't have anything to do with the 5 percent. We're not doing anything here other than adding to what was there, which was the ability to acquire parkland. This will now enable that parkland to be improved by a defined list of improvements: drainage, planting of grass, landscaping, rest rooms, changing rooms and the like.
Section 30 approved on division.
Sections 31 to 33 inclusive approved.
On section 34.
A. Warnke: Actually, I'm asking this question on behalf of the member for Surrey-Cloverdale. Essentially, the member was concerned about the effect of the changes on the directors as a result of this particular amendment, and especially about the directors' potential for liability resulting from the proposed changes that are being put forward here. Also, I'm enquiring about the provision's effect on the constitution of the society and on the membership. I just want to get a comment from the Attorney General.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: This provision really only allows the PRA to apply to become a society. They then have to follow all the rules that are in the Society Act. What we're doing here is what you might call a form of privatization. It's getting government out of an area that it doesn't need to be in any longer. We needed to be involved in the transition period, but we don't now. So we're turning it back to the industry and they will establish a society under this, and the Society Act will apply.
A. Warnke: So from what the Attorney General said, my understanding is that it's really up to the society to determine essentially the relationship between the directorship and the membership, in the confines, of course, of the constitution they put together...rather than something that changes the nature of the directorship.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: It's pretty straightforward, but there are some limitations on what must be in the society bylaws: there has to be a government appointee on the board and the Attorney General of the day has the ability to reject under certain circumstances. This is intended to ensure that the public good is achieved and continued by the PRA.
Section 34 approved.
On section 35.
D. Mitchell: Section 35 is an amendment to the Police Act, and it allows a disciplinary tribunal hearing of a municipal police board to have a quorum of three persons rather than four. It seems like a fairly technical change, but was this recommended by the Oppal commission or someone else? Maybe I could just lump in my other question at the same time: how many police board hearings in the province have been delayed or set aside for lack of a quorum?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: This difficulty exists in a number of areas, particularly in the city of Vancouver, where disciplinary hearings have been delayed for as much as a year, I think, for failing to get a quorum requiring a majority of the board -- a four-member quorum. Three is a number that would enable more panels to be established so that the disciplinary hearings could be held more effectively. The Vancouver Police Board asked for it, and it was approved by the B.C. Police Commission, which recommended it to me to do.
Section 35 approved.
On section 36.
D. Mitchell: I think section 36 is a significant amendment to the Securities Act. I direct this question to the Minister of Finance, the minister responsible for the Securities Act. It guarantees confidentiality of certain information and "ensures confidentiality of information or evidence obtained or of the name of any witness examined...under...the Securities Act." Are these investigations under the Securities Act intended to be kept secret forever? Is the confidentiality ensured in perpetuity, or at some point, would the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act come into force? I wonder if there should be a time frame for keeping these kind of things confidential. Should they not at some point be allowed to be opened up for public review?
[11:00]
Hon. E. Cull: They are available once the case has come to conclusion. As the member is no doubt aware, some of these cases go on for a very long period of time. If people under investigation were able through freedom of information to access some of that information that was being put together, then we might end up prejudicing the cases.
While I accept the intent of what the member is asking, it's very difficult to put down a precise time frame. Some cases by necessity, because of their complexity and maybe sometimes because some individuals use absolutely every legal avenue open to them to prolong the investigation, sometimes take many years. So we were trying to protect the integrity of the investigation and to ensure it can continue -- under, of course, the requirements of the Securities Act and other laws that deal with collecting evidence and protecting both privacy and the security of an investigation.
J. Tyabji: When I saw this section of the act, I remembered some conversations I've had with people who are advocates for reform of the stock exchange. The last conversation I had with one of them on an investigation that was proceeding was on the frustration of getting any information to the public at all because of the Freedom of Information Act provisions. The way that the Freedom of Information Act could be interpreted, there would be no prejudicial outcome or any influence on the outcome of an investigation. Therefore there was a withholding of information.
[ Page 16996 ]
There is no reason for this section of the miscellaneous statute to be here. There's no reason at all for this amendment to be in here, except to block access to information that could be embarrassing to the Vancouver Stock Exchange. That's the only reason it's in here. The reason I say that....
Interjection.
J. Tyabji: The minister is saying no. It absolutely is. For this minister to bring this in when we already have a Freedom of Information Act.... We already have the discretion of the officers of the Vancouver Stock Exchange, which can block evidence. They can block names of witnesses -- particularly names of witnesses -- or questions or the nature of the investigation that may be ongoing, if that information could be perceived to be prejudicial.
The reason I know they can is that they already have; that's been done. There have been numerous requests by some publication outfits, by advocates for reform of the stock exchange and by people who are directly affected by some of the investigations. In every instance, those applications have been blocked through provisions of the Freedom of Information Act, under the qualification that this information cannot be released if it would be prejudicial to a person's business interest or to the outcome of the investigation. If it would in any way harm the operation of the exchange or could be deemed to harm it, it's already been blocked by the Freedom of Information Act. So this can only be here in order to prevent litigation of the decisions that have already come out.
Hon. E. Cull: First of all, the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act already covers material that is gathered once the investigation has started. So this is not changing that. What this does is make sure that information that is collected prior to that, but becomes relevant to it, it is also protected. That's the essential change that's happening here.
It does exactly the opposite of what the member is afraid this section will do, because if certain information can be obtained through freedom of information, we will make the whole question of securities enforcement much more difficult. It's not a criminal investigation, as you know. It's an investigation that occurs under the Securities Act. But people may decide, if the information is moved into a more public arena, that their rights would be prejudiced. It would have to then go into a much more legalistic system. They would be unwilling to provide information to investigators. The whole investigation might be impeded.
So we're trying to actually assist in the investigation of the types of abuses that have become far too common in the Vancouver Stock Exchange and in securities regulation in British Columbia, and to provide the investigators and enforcers with the ability to get on with investigating these abuses and concluding them more quickly. If we don't pass this section, it will work against the interests of all of those people who have been trying to provide tougher and more speedy enforcement, and to get the bad apples out of the stock exchange. I understand your point, but it's absolutely 180 degrees wrong.
J. Tyabji: I don't accept any of the minister's argument. The reason is that they're referring in this amendment to sections 127, 128 and 129 of the Securities Act. Section 128 says:
"(1) An investigator appointed under section 126 or 131 has the same power
(a) to summon and enforce the attendance of witnesses,
(b) to compel witnesses to give evidence on oath or in any other manner, and
(c) to compel witnesses to produce records and things and classes of records and things
as the Supreme Court has for the trial of civil actions, and the failure or refusal of a witness
(d) to attend,
(e) to take an oath,
(f) to answer questions, or
(g) to produce the records and things or classes of records and things in the custody, possession or control of the witness
makes the witness, on application to the Supreme Court, liable to be committed for contempt as if in breach of an order or judgment of the Supreme Court."
That's what we're talking about. This investigation is meant to precede the protection of the person who is not proceeding in a court of law. When the minister says that the person who is participating in the investigation needs to be protected, they already are. The reason that they're protected in terms of the security of person and the security of evidence is that that is not taking place in a courtroom; that's taking place with an investigator. Section 128 of the Securities Act is there to ensure compliance. It's there to ensure that when the investigator does that investigation outside of a court of law, the investigator has the full cooperation of all the people whom he or she deems necessary to conduct it. If we're trying to get bad apples out of the exchange, as the minister said, the investigator decides how that should be done and then has the full power of the Supreme Court, with the advantage of not having it happen in an open court.
Hon. E. Cull: The member is very concerned about the people who may be under investigation, but a lot of the investigation, of course, involves information from third parties. Those people will not come forward; they will not disclose. The power is not there is compel them to do so....
Interjection.
Hon. E. Cull: No, they are not in contempt of court, hon. member. The whole question of the securities legislation is that it does not give that type of authority. They cannot do what the member is suggesting they can.
This is entirely consistent with how the Ontario securities legislation works, and this is consistent with how securities legislation in other provinces and other jurisdictions operates. This is intended to ensure that we can proceed with these investigations. To not do this will impede the investigations and may cause some of the bad actors to never be brought to account.
The Chair: Hon. member, on a new point. I think you've made your point well.
J. Tyabji: The question I have is under section 128, where it talks about the summoning of witnesses and ensuring that
[ Page 16997 ]
they testify to the investigator -- which is a closed process; it's not open, anyway. Could the minister tell me whether or not those witnesses include the third parties to any investigation?
Hon. E. Cull: Before you could call those third parties in, you'd have to know what they know. You'd have to have some indication of what their evidence would be, and they'd have to be willing to provide that. A lot of this happens prior to getting into that type of formal investigation. This is not the formal investigation already covered under the act. This is the work that is done leading up to the investigation, and you may never get this information under those circumstances.
J. Tyabji: The minister has said that much of the information is gleaned prior to the investigation. The amendment in this miscellaneous statute refers specifically to sections 127, 128 and 129 of the Securities Act. Section 127 is the "Power of investigator." There has to be an investigation underway prior to this amendment even kicking in, so this amendment captures an investigation. That investigation has the full power of the Supreme Court. The witnesses must testify, or they are in contempt of court. If the minister is saying that it's coming prior to this investigation, then we shouldn't be dealing with 127, 128 and 129.
The Chair: Shall section 36 pass? The hon. member continues.
J. Tyabji: Could the minister clarify which section of the act is being captured by this specific amendment prior to the investigation under section 127?
Hon. E. Cull: The amendment ensures the confidentiality of information that is collected prior to an examination that would occur under sections 127, 128 or 129 -- not what happens under those sections but what leads up to the decision to use those sections.
J. Tyabji: Obviously what it's doing.... If we model it after a court of law, when the minister talks about the examination, we're dealing with the discovery process. So we already have the protection of that not being in the public domain.
Interjection.
J. Tyabji: The minister says that we don't, but we do. I'm not going to go into it at any length. There's obviously a fundamental disagreement.
We're dealing with an investigation, and that investigation is captured in this section. Could the minister tell me at what point members of the public will have access to the records, evidence, names of witnesses and questions asked of those witnesses under sections 127 to 129?
Hon. E. Cull: Let me give the member an example in the hope that this might clarify it. If you had a tip that something was going on, the investigation under section 127, 128 or 129 hadn't occurred, and someone could FOI that information prior to the investigation being started, the investigation would be ruined. It would be thrown out; there would be nothing you could do on it.
J. Tyabji: I'm not going to reargue the same point. I'm going back to my question. At what point will the public have access to the records, the evidence, the names of the witnesses and the requests made of those witnesses under this investigation?
The Chair: That's the same question, hon. member.
Hon. E. Cull: I did answer it earlier; it was the first question the member asked in this debate. The answer is: when the investigation has been concluded and there is no longer any need to keep the matter secure so that you can get the enforcement done.
I know the hon. member has a lot of interest in this, and I know the source of some of her information. I think the best thing to do is to offer a full briefing to the member on this particular matter.
J. Tyabji: I think the minister's referring to Mr. Du Plessis, and I actually have not talked to him with reference to this. She's saying no. Anyway, it doesn't matter.
The minister said that it's at the point where the information no longer has to be kept secure. Who determines that, and under what statute do they determine at what point it can be released?
Hon. E. Cull: The freedom-of-information and protection-of-privacy commissioner continues to be able to hear appeals and make decisions, so someone can check that out at any point during the process. The simple answer would be: when the investigation is concluded, the enforcement is concluded, and the decision is rendered as to whether the act was broken or not.
J. Tyabji: Will the decision of the investigator negate the amendment that we have in front of us; and at that point, can there be an application made for the release of that information? That's the first question. The second question is: at the point where the information may be eligible for release, do we need the commission's approval prior to the release of the information?
Hon. E. Cull: The answer is no to both questions.
Section 36 approved on division.
Section 37 approved.
On section 38.
D. Mitchell: This section of the bill is an amendment to the Supreme Court Act. It increases the number of judges that will comprise the Supreme Court by four. I'd like to ask the Attorney General a couple of brief questions on this section -- I think they'll be brief.
[11:15]
We're making this amendment at an interesting time. If we take a look at the recent history of the Supreme Court, we're moving from 82 to potentially 86 judges on the Supreme Court of British Columbia. If you look back just a few years, on July 5, 1990, we went from only about 30 Supreme Court Judges to 82. So according to research that's been provided for me, there was a huge increase at that time; at least there was a
[ Page 16998 ]
recategorization of County Court judges who became Supreme Court judges at that time. There's a cost associated with this, I suppose, because Supreme Court judges are paid more. In 1990, the rationale was that we were going to have greater efficiencies as a result of this change. This was a result of a study by former Deputy Attorney General Ted Hughes. Hopefully, cases were going to be heard faster and we were going to have a more efficient court system. That's why it's important to see why, five years after that significant change.... I guess the question is: why do we need four more? Do we have any statistics on productivity or waiting lists for the Supreme Court of British Columbia? One further question: could the Attorney General clarify for us who actually appoints the Supreme Court judges in British Columbia?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Just to clarify all of this, the County and Supreme Courts were merged five years ago, and that accounts for the jump. Since the last general election there has only been one change to this number, and that was at the time of the appointment of Justice Wally Oppal to head the commission. We added one to the Supreme Court complement to enable them to cover that. The Supreme Court has indicated to me very clearly that it wishes to have the number increased because of the increasing demand on the court system, the increasing length of trials, and all of those issues that are helping to create a backlog.
The federal Minister of Justice -- technically, the Prime Minister of Canada -- appoints the judges to this court. The federal government pays their salaries. The provincial government pays the costs associated with secretarial and office space and the like. So there is a cost to the province, but it is not as significant as it is to the federal government. The federal minister has indicated to me that he wishes to review the procedures by which determinations are made about what the appropriate number should be in the courts. I have no expectation that these new positions will all be filled. It's their call; it has nothing to do with me whatsoever. I'm simply providing the room, should they make a decision to do so.
D. Mitchell: Could the hon. Attorney General tell the committee whether he, as the Attorney General of British Columbia, is consulted before an appointment to the B.C. Supreme Court is made? Is the province of British Columbia consulted prior to the making of any appointments to the Supreme Court of our province?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I was trying to decipher a signature on a note that was sent to me while the member was talking. If the member's question was, "Is there consultation prior to the appointment of Supreme Court judges?" there is a limited form of consultation. The primary mechanism for consultation in British Columbia is through the judicial.... I've forgotten the precise name of it. There is a federal judicial appointments committee. I don't think that's its right name, but the committee has a representative appointed by me and by the federal government and others, and that committee vets possible appointments. Various federal ministers -- and I've now worked with three or four of them -- have different styles in respect of how much consultation they do, and it's their choice. Some are better at it than others, and I'll leave it at that.
D. Mitchell: Just one further question for the Attorney General on this. The Attorney General has pointed out that the federal government appoints the Supreme Court justices of British Columbia but that there is some consultation with the province. It's interesting to look at the current composition of the Supreme Court of British Columbia. It may increase with this amendment to 86 judges on the Supreme Court. While there's a separation between our style of justice and the American style of justice, there's a debate that's quite relevant to this going on in the United States right now with regard to Supreme Court appointments in the United States and whether or not the political philosophies of the government of the day have any impact on the bench and on decisions that come forward from the bench. It's quite important to their system. I would argue that this has some import in Canada as well, especially as we move into....
The Chair: Hon. member, that may be an interesting debating point, but at this point we're talking about the increase by four. So I would suggest that you take another tack, please.
D. Mitchell: We're increasing the bench by four. I've looked at the records, and I had the library do some research as to how many appointments have occurred during the current hon. Attorney General's term as Attorney General. My calculation is that it comes to something like 22 or 23 new appointments to the Supreme Court since the Attorney General has been in office. Could he confirm that?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Because I don't make the appointments, I don't have the number in my head. I could tell the member the number for the Provincial Court, which I did do, and that number is 30. But at the Supreme Court level, that number sounds close, but I can't confirm it.
D. Mitchell: It's not an exact science, but I think it's somewhere in that range. When we look at this question of whether or not political philosophies impact....
The Chair: I've just ruled that's irrelevant. The question is the four members, and that's what the amendment says. Stick to the point, please.
D. Mitchell: We're increasing the number of Supreme Court judges in British Columbia by four, and I'm looking at the impact that might have on the overall philosophy of the Supreme Court of British Columbia.
The Chair: Philosophy is not relevant here, hon. member.
D. Mitchell: Hon. Chair, we're looking at the increase in the number of Supreme Court judges by four, from 82 to 86, and whether or not that will have any impact on the kinds of decisions that come forward, given the fact that some 22 or 23 appointments have already been made during the current Attorney General's tenure as Attorney General. Now we're going to be increasing it by possibly four more, depending on what the federal government approves or disapproves, with consultation from the current Attorney General. Which Attorney General is in office at the time of these appointments may have some impact, and it may have some impact on the next four.
[ Page 16999 ]
The point I'm trying to make is whether you were a Gardom appointment -- with no disrespect to His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor, who was Attorney General for a number of years -- or you were a Bonner appointment, during that Attorney General's tenure....
The Chair: Hon. member, you're straying off again. It's four appointments. They increased the number. It has nothing to do with the province, essentially. These are federal appointments, so the question for you, to my mind, is: is four enough? Maybe it should be six or eight. I suggest you stick to that kind of point.
D. Mitchell: Hon. Chair, I appreciate your guidance on this, and I appreciate your participation in the debate, as well. My question is to the Attorney General, not to the Chair, through the Chair. Does the Attorney General agree that because there is some consultation with the province on these appointments to the Supreme Court that it is possible for the Attorney General of the day, whether it is he or any of his successors, to have an impact on not only those appointments but the overall philosophies of the bench during that period of time?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: It's not very likely.
D. Mitchell: Would the Attorney General agree that there is some merit in the notion, which has been expressed in the United States, that before someone can serve on the Supreme Court of British Columbia they should be referred...?
Interjection.
D. Mitchell: We're talking about the appointment of four new judges.
The Chair: You're out of order, hon. member. Shall section 38 pass?
D. Mitchell: I'm just talking about the review.
The Chair: Come on, hon. member.
D. Mitchell: No, hon. Chair.
The Chair: You may register your opposition by voting.
D. Mitchell: I'm not opposed to this section at all, hon. Chair. I want to know if the Attorney General, with respect to the four new judges being appointed to the Supreme Court of British Columbia, agrees that there may be some merit in having that appointment process approved and ratified by elected representatives at the provincial or federal level, which would be similar to what is done in the U.S. congressional system.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'll answer that question in estimates next year.
Section 38 approved.
On section 39.
A. Warnke: I want to pursue this, because the explanatory note is somewhat inadequate. I suspect I know the purpose and nature of the amendment being proposed. The reason I suspect it is that there was an unclear period where the funding of the commissioner's office was somewhat confusing. I'm wondering whether some of the problems in terms of the funding of the commissioner's office have been rectified. I know the federal government had a role here. I was wondering whether it is the purpose and nature of this amendment to take into account some of that early confusion. Could the Attorney General elaborate on the purpose and nature of what is being proposed here?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: There's a necessity to get our legislation in sync with federal legislation. It doesn't have any impact on cost-sharing or any of those issues; it's simply a question of making sure that we have the same provisions. It was anticipated that the House of Commons would deal with it prior to adjourning in June. They didn't, but it's anticipated that they will in the next session. This will put us in sync.
A. Warnke: I'm wondering whether the government, in proposing this legislation, has any idea that what is being proposed here will be in sync with what will be proposed by the federal side.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Yes, it has been agreed to.
J. Tyabji: I am assuming that there have been decisions made by the prior commissioners and that those decisions are now going to carry through into the Treaty Commission process. Could the Attorney General comment on that?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: This simply ensures continuity, so that the commissioners who have been working will continue through the change in legislation.
J. Tyabji: But these "prior commissioners" are people who weren't previously captured by the Treaty Commission Act. The Attorney General has been saying that these commissioners, prior to the Treaty Commission Act coming into force, were working under a federal statute. Under that federal statute, they were negotiating and making agreements with the people they were dealing with. I am assuming that there were contracts, memorandums of understanding or negotiated principles which are now being brought into the provincial statute. What are the implications of that?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The implications are that the contracts that were entered into by the prior commissioners now become part of the Treaty Commission.
J. Tyabji: It's been a year or two -- it's all a blur with these 24-hour debates -- but as I remember it, the funding structure for decisions that were made under the provincial Treaty Commission process was roughly.... Was it two-thirds or one-third? The point is there's a different funding structure between the provincial Treaty Commission and the federal government's negotiations. Are we now going to have contracts that were made under federal statute, which would have been, I would assume, primarily or exclusively financed by the federal government, coming into provincial law and having a different funding structure?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The Treaty Commission is one unified body, not separate bodies. The funding formulas are a separate issue altogether.
[ Page 17000 ]
J. Tyabji: Let me come at it from a different angle. Do any of these contracts or agreements that were brought in by these prior commissioners -- the ones that were under the federal statute -- have any financial implications?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The contracts or the funding arrangements that have been made by the commissioners to date could involve personal services contracts they have entered into with staff or could include financial arrangements with various first nations in respect of the preparation for treaty-making negotiations. This is to ensure that when both parliaments have enacted their statutes -- we're doing it here now; Ottawa is doing it perhaps in the fall -- those contracts will endure and will continue to be in full force and effect following the transition to a full, legally established Treaty Commission.
[11:30]
J. Tyabji: I think we're talking about two different sets of contracts and negotiations and discussions. The Attorney General appears to be talking about staffing or consulting and the administrative contracts within the Treaty Commission process. What I'm curious about is when we deal with prior commissioners under the federal statute. Where were the prior commissioners captured if they were not captured under the provincial Treaty Commission Act?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The two governments appointed by order-in-council. There was no statute. There was a provincial statute, which is being amended, but there was no federal statute. The federal appointments were done by order-in-council, as were the provincial appointments.
Once the two parliaments have passed their statutes establishing the Treaty Commission, it then becomes a legal entity. The initiatives and activities and contracts and arrangements that were made prior to the legal entity being established by both parliaments continue to be in force through the transition from a body established by order-in-council and without the authority of a statute to one appointed under a statute.
J. Tyabji: One last point of clarification. Were these prior commissioners -- who may have been appointed by federal order-in-council -- empowered to do any negotiations with bands outside the administrative structure or outside the Treaty Commission process?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I think the member misunderstands how this works. The Treaty Commission does not negotiate. The negotiations are tripartite, between federal, provincial and first nations. The Treaty Commission acts as a facilitating body assisting in development and preparations, but it is not involved in the negotiations.
J. Tyabji: All right. The Treaty Commission is the facilitator of the negotiations, which are tripartite. That aside, were any of the federal appointments of prior commissioners under order-in-council involved in facilitating in any manner outside of what we would have had under the Treaty Commission Act?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: What they have done, are doing and will do is all the same.
D. Mitchell: I just want to try to understand the exchange that we've had here between the member for Okanagan East and the Attorney General. When we take into account the contracts signed by prior commissioners, then, it's not just a question of getting their signatures on any prospective treaties in the future. In addition, we are taking on other obligations as well that those prior commissioners have made. Is that correct?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Treaty commissioners under the Treaty Commission do not sign treaties. Treaties are signed between first nations, the federal government and the provincial government. The Treaty Commission is a facilitating body which assists in the preparation and readiness for negotiations. In the preparation for doing that, they do things such as organize the provision of financial resources for first nations so they can prepare their claim, for example. They sign contracts with individuals to do other work in the preparation that is necessary before negotiations can take place. This is simply to ensure that the work that was done by the commissioners who have been appointed now and in place for about a couple of years, I guess, can continue once the statute is in place both in Ottawa and here in British Columbia. It's just a simple technical ratification of the work they have done.
Section 39 approved.
On section 40.
V. Anderson: I'd just like a clarification on section 40(c). At first reading it looks like if the council were to pass a bylaw regarding a speeding zone in a park, then it's not an offence. So how does that work? What's the explanation of that?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: This section mirrors or replicates the section we debated earlier in the Municipal Act. What this particular subsection the member refers to clarifies is that the city of Vancouver or its parks board can in fact establish a speed limit. Let's say, for example, they decide the speed limit in Stanley Park is 30 kilometres per hour; they can do that. The ticket that is issued if somebody violates it is a provincial offence, not a municipal offence.
J. Tyabji: Out of curiosity, would this mean that the provisions under the Motor Vehicle Act that the Minister of Transportation and Highways is bringing in with respect to photo radar would now be captured by the Vancouver Charter, where they wouldn't have been before?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: There's no connection, and I'm puzzled to try to figure out how there could be.
J. Tyabji: Because what we're doing now is moving from "notwithstanding" anything in the Motor Vehicle Act to "subject to." It would seem to now bring the Vancouver Charter within the Motor Vehicle Act with respect to offences. So that's why I was thinking, given the controversy with the photo radar, that would now allow for that.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Photo radar is simply a technique that police officers would use, the same way as a radar gun is a technique and reading their own speedometer when they follow another vehicle is a technique. Those are not covered in this statute.
[ Page 17001 ]
Sections 40 to 43 inclusive approved.
On section 44.
F. Gingell: I note that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources isn't here at the moment, but perhaps there's some staff coming to help the Attorney General. Perhaps we should start this section with the minister explaining to us the purpose of this extension and the purpose of allowing the original contracts that were signed and then subsequently amended to be assigned to a new party.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The amendments will facilitate the restructuring of the Vancouver Island natural gas pipeline project. Under the original 1989 agreement to help finance the pipeline, the province was committed to funding all project losses. I might, in parentheses, say that we told Jack Davis at the time that this would happen, and he wouldn't listen. Those agreements were initially expected to require the province to provide an interest-free loan of $70 million over a 20-year period, but by the time we began renegotiating the original deal in 1993, two years ago, the amount had by then risen to an obligation of more than $200 million. Since then, the costs have continued to escalate, based largely on factors outside the control of the parties such as oil and gas prices and interest and exchange rates. This level of financial exposure to the taxpayer is just unacceptable to the government, and we have been working very hard to negotiate a better deal by eliminating this growing financial risk. Current negotiations contemplate a corporate restructuring of the VI gas companies.
F. Gingell: Does that corporate restructuring contemplate the possibility of the sale of interests in PCEC to others presently not party to these arrangements?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The negotiations are underway, and I think it would be inappropriate for me to speculate on matters that are actually under intense negotiations now.
F. Gingell: As we all know, there has been speculation in the media and outside that there is a proposition to bring new parties into the agreement. Is the purpose of this section to make the changes necessary to facilitate this, so that the government would not be in any way hamstrung but would be free to respond to sale opportunities?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: That first amendment is designed to provide sufficient flexibility to facilitate payments under a corporate restructuring that could result from the negotiations.
F. Gingell: As well as the province being required under the Vancouver Island Natural Gas Pipeline Act to make payments under the rate stabilization facility, there are of course provisions in the act for the province to receive repayments of these amounts in the future. In this restructuring, has the province given any thought to the issue of whether there might be forgiveness of these contingent assets?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Because of negotiations I can't be as forthcoming with the member's question as I ordinarily like to be, but I can say that the provincial loan will be repaid.
F. Gingell: I appreciate that there are negotiations going on, but I'm sure the minister will recognize that this is a very substantial matter for the people of British Columbia. Of all the horror stories that Peat Marwick brought out in its review, the suggestion that the liabilities could be as high as $672 million under this proposal was somewhat frightening. Recognizing that you're not going to be buying lottery tickets to pay off these costs, changes that will be facilitated by the amendments proposed here will have to move the cost that was to be borne by the taxpayers of British Columbia onto someone else. Would the minister please advise the committee who it is that he's planning to stick with this? Would it be residential consumers on the Island? Would it be industrial users? Or is there some other process that will look after this?
[11:45]
Hon. C. Gabelmann: All I can really say to the member.... I apologize for this, but I know the member understands. As a result of these negotiations and anticipated conclusions to them, the liability for all British Columbians will be significantly reduced. Among the lurking liabilities identified by Peat Marwick, this was clearly one of the more staggering -- the member called it frightening -- liabilities. This amendment and the processes underway will dramatically reduce that liability for British Columbia taxpayers.
F. Gingell: This is really not a question, but an opportunity that one has to take to suggest things to government. When one looks at this whole issue, as the minister correctly pointed out, there's nothing you can do about the price of natural gas or the price of stove oil. What is really involved in this exercise are projects that will increase throughputs. In the end, that's the only way that this project is going to get finalized.
I would like to suggest to the minister that there isn't any way that government can suddenly turn around and try to load this cost onto industrial consumers -- the ones that are perhaps the easiest prey for us -- because in the end, that affects jobs and the amount of taxes you collect. You will be giving them back a little more than half of what you sit them with through corporate taxes. Primary industries -- particularly on Vancouver Island -- and competence and profitability are important to people who live in all the communities on the Island.
If I may, I'd like to finish with a plea for looking to solve these problems by means other than moving the cost onto other consumers. Perhaps we should all try to think about ways in which throughputs could be increased through this facility, which will be the solution in the end. Perhaps that could even be a subject for investigation by a select standing committee. After all, those are the kinds of things that select standing committees should be doing and could contribute.
D. Mitchell: I listened with interest to the comments of the member for Delta South. The Attorney General was unable to respond to a number of the questions because of the sensitive nature of the negotiations. The committee is therefore placed in a somewhat awkward position, where we're being asked to approve legislation which is going to be limiting the financial exposure of the province in this project, according to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. I think the Attorney General indicated that the legislation itself is really designed to help bring negotiations to
[ Page 17002 ]
a head. Yet we can't really talk about it, because the negotiations are ongoing. So it's a difficult role for us as legislators to be asked to approve legislation, but we can't be told what its effect is going to be, because the legislation is designed to bring together negotiations that are ongoing. I don't know if there is any way around this, but I think the Attorney General would agree this is an awkward circumstance for the House to be put in.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Not particularly. The fact is that if there is no deal, then this amendment may not need even to be proclaimed. The proclamation of this amendment would only be required should a deal be reached.
Section 44 approved.
On section 45.
D. Symons: I have a few comments rather than questions on this section and the following four sections dealing with waste management. It's not the amendments being brought to the act that are of concern. Rather, it's the regulations that will follow from these that I think are going to cause a great deal of concern to everybody in this province who drives an automobile.
As far as section 45 goes, you can't complain at the definitions that are here, but these definitions lead into some possibilities of changes in regulations and the type of automobiles that will be allowed for sale in the province that I think everybody in this province should be very aware of, because the possibilities for a hike in the cost of an automobile and for restrictions on what will be allowed on the highways are quite high. I will speak further on that when we get to further sections.
Hon. E. Cull: I just thought I might take a moment to outline why all these amendments are being made to the Waste Management Act. This act was amended last year to bring in authority to deal with regulations to do with cleaner vehicles and cleaner fuel. We have had a very positive set of discussions with the fuel companies, the automobile manufacturers and the automobile dealers over the last year, and they're still continuing. In fact, I'm going to be meeting with them again next week.
These amendments are being brought in to facilitate the progress that we are making in talking to the dealers, the manufacturers and the fuel companies. As we have been discussing the possible regulations and the amendments that we made last year, we've been refining our approach. And I must say that the automobile dealers in particular, who I think want to sell clean cars to their customers and want to be able to provide the product that the consumer is going to be demanding, are very interested in making sure that we are able to conclude an agreement and that the legislation we have in place facilitates that agreement. In the course of our discussions with the industry, we've concluded -- and the industry concurs -- that some of the requirements that are in the current Waste Management Act and were enacted by our Legislature last year don't provide the flexibility that will be needed for us to conclude the work that we're doing right now or be able to implement it.
So just by way of context -- then we can get into the details as we move into the other sections -- these amendments are being made to facilitate discussions that are ongoing right now with the industry. Without these amendments we would not be able to reach the resolution that I think is going to be possible in the very near future with the industry.
M. de Jong: I think the minister appreciates that debating enabling legislation like this in something of a vacuum was difficult a year ago. It's equally difficult now, though I recognize what she has said about some of the structural changes to the legislation that are being made. If they are enhancing the negotiations that are taking place with the dealers and other stakeholders, so much the better.
With respect to section 45, when we debated the original round of amendments last year, we discovered that we had not included, initially at least, leased vehicles. Can I just clarify if the definition of "sell" is included to remove any doubt that leased vehicles are captured by these provisions?
Hon. E. Cull: Yes, I understand that last year there was actually an amendment that included "lease" in the definition, and this just clarifies that.
L. Fox: Just by way of clarification, is the definition of "manufacture" perceived to include rebuilders or remanufacturers of engines?
Hon. E. Cull: It would apply in the case of rebuilt engines but not in terms of the vehicle itself, so it would apply with respect to the engine but not to the vehicle.
L. Fox: If it does apply to rebuilt engines, is there within this section a definition which does cover a rebuilt automobile in the case of an automobile that's been in a serious accident, purchased, remanufactured and then put back onto the streets as a licensed vehicle?
Hon. E. Cull: We want to ensure that we prevent situations where people change or remanufacture the engines to make them dirtier, but not to get in the way of dealing with the situation where a car is essentially rebuilt after an accident. The regulations will be flexible enough to allow remanufacturing of motor vehicles, but they will allow us to deal with those who might try to redo an engine that would result in it becoming a dirtier engine by taking off the catalytic converter or other pollution control devices. So that's the kind of situation we're trying to get at. We don't want to prevent remanufacturing per se, but to be able to deal with issues or situations that would cause a higher-polluting vehicle to be produced.
L. Fox: Just one final question, then, in terms of the remanufactured vehicle. I don't believe it's covered in this legislation anywhere. What specific criteria is that vehicle going to have to meet to achieve licensing for the roads, with respect to the intent of this legislation?
Hon. E. Cull: As the member knows, this legislation is primarily intended for new vehicles. While it's possible, as I've said, that the remanufactured engine may be required to meet some standards, it's primarily intended to deal with new vehicles.
[ Page 17003 ]
D. Mitchell: I'd like to ask a question that deals with section 45, but it relates to others as well. I know when we get to section 47 dealing with fuel emissions that that is something the government should be complimented on, but this whole series of amendments to the Waste Management Act, including section 45, is significant. I wonder if the minister can tell us what kind of consultation has taken place on these amendments. In particular, has there been any consultation with the province's automotive retail industry?
Hon. E. Cull: As I said in my opening remarks, there has been considerable consultation with automobile dealers, manufacturers and fuel companies. Those discussions are happening right now and will continue next week. We have reviewed drafts of these amendments with those people so that they are aware of the intent. The intent is to facilitate what I hope will be a soon-concluded agreement between the parties to put in place cleaner vehicles and cleaner fuel in British Columbia.
Section 45 approved.
On section 46.
R. Neufeld: Just one brief question on section 46 about racing engines. I can't seem to find where it would take them in. For instance, you cannot sell, display or deliver engines that must have an emission control system. I've asked the question about racing cars before, and it seems to get lost in the shuffle. How are those people going to be able to continue with the sport they enjoy?
Hon. E. Cull: Subsection 24.2(1) says you can't sell -- or display or a number of other things -- a vehicle that is required by the regulations to do this. We would not require racing vehicles to have those standards. You would only require, essentially, passenger vehicles and commercial vehicles to. You can specify which vehicles would be required to meet the regulations. Obviously, exceptions would be made in that case.
R. Neufeld: I appreciate your response. If that's the case, it's great. But as I read the legislation, it says: "A person must not sell, display for sale or deliver over to a purchaser an engine or new motor vehicle that is required by the regulations (a) to have an emission control system installed or incorporated...." Well, all newer engines are required to, as I understand, unless there's some place where you can point it out -- they must have an emission control system. That's the whole premise of the act. But where does it say that for that particular industry they do not have to have the same emission control system -- understanding that the engines in some racing cars are exactly the same as engines on some cars that are licensed for the street?
[12:00]
Hon. E. Cull: Not to belabour the English here, but it says -- and I'll just leave out some of the words so we can get to it quickly -- you can't sell a "motor vehicle that is required by the regulations" to have that. So if the regulations don't require a racing car to have emission control equipment, then there is no prohibition here. It's the regulations that will set that.
R. Neufeld: You will have that in regulations.
Hon. E. Cull: Yes.
L. Fox: Section 24.2(1) would imply that any purchaser of a new engine, irrespective of whether the vehicle is ten years old, would have to comply with this legislation. So one would expect, then, that it's going to be a substantial difficulty trying to police that. I'd be interested to know what kind of process is going to be in place to prove that engines for sale, under this particular clause, go into vehicles that are not new vehicles but indeed used vehicles. How is that remanufactured engine going to be approved? And how is this going to be enforced?
Hon. E. Cull: While these sections were brought in last year, giving us the authority to do regulations dealing with these matters, we have spent a year discussing them with the industry, trying to come to conclusions about what the regulations should look like. This has been a very consultative and, to date, a very positive process with the industry. We are going to continue to discuss the regulations with them prior to bringing them in, so that we can ensure that we've got the agreement -- or at least as much as we can get the agreement -- of all parties as to how these regulations should work and how they should be applied.
The intent is not to deal with old vehicles. Although I said that a remanufactured engine could be covered by the regulation, our primary intent right now is to deal with new vehicles. It's part of a larger plan that deals with new vehicles, used vehicles and a number of other activities that are devoted to cleaning up the air. While there can be a regulation brought in to require a remanufactured engine to be put into an old car to meet certain standards, that's not something we're currently working on. If we decide that that becomes a priority and should be addressed in the regulations, we will be discussing the process and the standards with the industry prior to the regulation coming in.
L. Fox: I guess it gets back to comments made by the member for Matsqui and others around the issue. We're debating something here when we don't know what the end result is going to be. That makes it extremely difficult. I believe that if you are going to put legislation in place, it's got to be workable, it's got to be affordable and it's got to be enforceable.
I see a whole host of problems with this particular clause when we talk about the purchaser of an engine. Having considerable experience with that industry, I understand -- and we'll get into some of that in the next section, when we talk about areas.... If it isn't the intent at this time to consider within the regulations an enforcement on the engine side, why is the word "engine" even in there? Why are we not just talking about new motor vehicles? That would make a lot more sense, and it would bring a lot more focus to debate.
Hon. E. Cull: The regulations, as I said, are going to be extensively discussed with the industry. As is common with legislation, it requires that some flexibility be in the regulations as opposed to being cast into the legislation itself. Our commitment is to continue to discuss that with the industry and to reach agreement. The reason we can't leave engines out of this entirely -- and this is existing in the legislation; we're not adding something new -- is that we want to make sure that someone who purchases a new vehicle can't do some-
[ Page 17004 ]
thing to the engine that makes it dirtier. They can't take off emission control equipment, for example. The engine has to be captured as well as the vehicle.
L. Fox: I won't belabour this point too much. This does point out, though, what the problem is with this particular bill. We have a number of major initiatives contained within Bill 55 that have been dumped on the Legislature in the last week. This one and others should have been individual bills that we should have been discussing at some length earlier in the session. It's really unfortunate that we're not getting the opportunity of exploring this at some length without feeling somewhat guilty because everybody wants to go home. That really disturbs me. I am going to try to expand on this just a bit, because I feel it's my obligation to do so.
When we say that "a person must not sell, display for sale or deliver over to a purchaser an engine," that does not suggest to me that it does anything in terms of maintaining the specifics and the levels of emission controls that the manufacturer produced in the vehicle to meet the specs of this legislation. That suggests to me, and I think it will suggest to all British Columbians, that the sale of an engine must comply with this legislation. We have other legislation.... I think there are other statements in here that obligate you to maintain the level of emissions that have to be met under this act, but this section talks about the sale of an engine. I'll leave it at that, but I would just say that I disagree with the minister. It doesn't specifically deal with maintaining emission standards.
Hon. E. Cull: I'm just going to point out that the only change between this section and the section of last year is the definition of the word "sell" and subsection (b). If the member is trying to return to the debate we had last year, that's another matter, but this is not new.
D. Symons: The concern I would express has been expressed before. Basically what we have here is a crystal ball. We're trying to look into the future, but the crystal ball is so foggy that we can't see anything unless we look into the next section. I'll jump ahead because it's germane to the section we're currently discussing.
On the explanation side of the bill, they talk about making British Columbia regulations parallel to those in other jurisdictions, such as the state of California. Indeed, the previous Minister of Environment went to California and was very enthusiastic about the legislation and the direction that they're taking there. But I would remind....
The Chair: Hon. member, we're on section 46. We'll have ample time to discuss the other sections.
D. Symons: The sale of automobiles certainly comes under section 46. California is bringing in legislation, I might add, to the effect that a certain percentage of the vehicles being sold have to be zero-emission automobiles. The only zero-emission automobiles I know of are electric cars. The previous Minister of Environment would occasionally drive an electric vehicle to the Legislature; it was supplied to him. Now that he is no longer a minister, it doesn't seem to be his vehicle of choice. So although he was....
The Chair: Hon. member, section 46 is under discussion at the moment -- i.e., "sell, display...or deliver," as it states in the section.
D. Symons: I am talking about new motor vehicles that must not be sold. I'm getting back to California, where they now have a percentage -- it's 2 percent, I believe, and it escalates -- of zero-emission automobiles, and these are electric cars. An electric car will cost somewhere in excess of $20,000 above the same model with a gasoline motor. On top of that, electric batteries need to be replaced every two years at a cost of somewhere in the neighbourhood of $15,000. Therefore, over the ten-year life cycle of a car, you're looking at $75,000 extra to drive an electric vehicle. Who on earth would buy one under those conditions? They won't unless the automobile retailers are going to offer an incentive, and they will do that by simply levelling the price of the electric automobiles that they have to sell to reach mandated numbers -- it's in California and it sounds like it's coming into British Columbia -- and that means they'll up the price of the gasoline vehicles so that somebody will be attracted to buying the electric vehicle. We're looking at least $2,000 to $5,000 extra on every vehicle that's sold in British Columbia, if that's the direction this government's taking. Indeed, when we look at the next section that's coming up, where they talk about paralleling California, we're there.
The Chair: Hon. member, section 46.
D. Symons: I am talking about section 46, hon. Chair, because I'm talking about new motor vehicles and the regulations that will forbid the sale of new motor vehicles that don't meet the regulations this government's bringing in, and that is indeed on section 46. I've made my point.
The Chair: You're verging on second reading discussion of principles as opposed to the details. Hon. member, that's enough.
Section 46 approved.
On section 47.
L. Fox: For clarification, are we going to do the whole section or are we going to do the subsections individually?
The Chair: We'll do the whole section.
L. Fox: Section 24.3(1)(d) says: "...specifying the areas in British Columbia to which the regulations are applicable and specifying the date on which the regulations become effective in those areas...." I understand that's in the old act, but what I want to clarify in my mind is: how does the minister envision defining those areas, in terms of whether or not...? Let's look at the Fraser Valley, for instance. It could be perceived that right up to Hope would be part of the air quality problem in the Fraser Valley. I'm quite interested to find out how the definitions are going to work and how this is going to work. It seems to me to read that standards from Hope to Vancouver, let's say for argument's sake, could be different from standards required from Merritt to Kelowna. If that's the correct interpretation, I'd like to hear some explanation from the minister with respect to that.
[12:15]
Hon. E. Cull: We are actually already doing some of our clean air regulations on a regional basis. The reduced pressure
[ Page 17005 ]
vapour regulation that we've brought in for the Fraser Valley is one example of that. Low-sulphur diesel regulations are being dealt with on a regional basis, and they are very helpful to the industry. This kind of flexibility that the industry has been discussing with us.... We want -- as someone said earlier -- a regulation that's affordable, enforceable and practical. In some cases, regional variations make a lot of sense. It's quite simple to do it. You can do it with a map line as part of the regulation, or you can define the jurisdictions by regional district, I guess, or some such fashion. We want that flexibility, because it's proven valuable to us in the regulations we already have in place and because the industry has encouraged us to put this in.
L. Fox: Further on in section 47 it makes reference to prohibiting a manufacturer who is producing within the same motor vehicle product line.... As well, there are other suggestions of opportunities to provide ratios in terms of alternative fuel sales versus traditional fuel sales. The reason I ask about this particular section is that vehicles are being sold more and more by fax today. Indeed, there are invitations every day on fax machines from all over the province.
One must wonder, when we get talking about the other issues around.... Let's say we develop one electric car for every quota of ten within a prescribed area, and I see that opportunity somewhere further on in this. You would have some real competition problems from outside the area to inside the area, and it could put some smaller business people at a real disadvantage. It's in that vein that I ask this question. I would really like to know what understanding the minister has around those kinds of issues.
Hon. E. Cull: The reason we're discussing amendments to the changes that were made last year is essentially to provide that flexibility. We've been discussing that flexibility with the industry and the need to be sensitive to those issues. If we don't bring these amendments forward, we're stuck with what we've already got and then we don't have that flexibility.
M. de Jong: I understand that the two sections take what was formally one section out of the act and split it off between a section now dealing with fuel exclusively and a section dealing with engines. Section 24.3(1)(a), which appeared in the previous act as subsection (j), excludes the words "classes of fuels" in this present bill. I'm wondering whether the minister can explain whether that's a deliberate variation and something that has arisen as a result of negotiations. The other thing I want to ask the minister about concerns the issue of fuel additives, particularly the negotiations that may be ongoing with respect to MMT.
[L. Krog in the chair.]
Hon. E. Cull: On the MMT issue, the federal government did introduce legislation this session, but it wasn't passed. It's my understanding that they intend to bring it in in the next session. With respect to the classes of fuels, that just shows up now under section 24.3(2).
D. Symons: Just a couple of questions, and I'll lump them together to save time. If we look at section 24.31(1)(n), "prohibiting the sale of a new motor vehicle or engine unless it is sold with an emission control warranty that is provided by the manufacturer and that meets the content requirements specified in the regulation...." Would this emission control warranty be one way the government may be considering removing the requirement for AirCare for people who have a new vehicle for a period of time while this warranty is in effect? Now they can go back to the manufacturer and have the emission control adjusted there, and not have to go through the AirCare system. It seems that this would be an excellent chance to reduce the load on the AirCare stations and put it back on the manufacturer.
Hon. E. Cull: That's not what this section does.
D. Symons: Just one further question regarding AirCare, because it ties in with emission controls. I have to question, I guess, the government's sincerity in bringing in this particular one, which seems to home in very much on automobiles, when they haven't yet dealt with the issue of commercial vehicles. On Monday I followed a bus off the ferry and into Victoria that was belching out a fantastic amount. I wondered how this thing could be on the highway. You haven't addressed that; you've simply said maybe in two years. So why are you dealing with this now when you can't even deal with the problems that are on the road currently?
Hon. E. Cull: Earlier this year, on April 11, we announced that we were expanding the AirCare program to heavy-duty vehicles, including commercial vehicles and buses. A task force on this was completed last fall, and the program is now in the design stage.
M. de Jong: One other section I want to question the minister about is section 24.31(1)(d), dealing with the testing and certification proceedings. When we first considered these amendments one year ago, I tried to make the point to the previous minister that although I had some sympathy for the need to develop regulations in some of the other areas and I understood there were ongoing discussions, in this particular case there was no reason why we shouldn't know precisely what the government intends to do insofar as testing and certification procedures are concerned. They are not necessarily contingent, to the extent that some of the other areas in the legislation are, on consultative processes. It's been a year, and presumably the minister has some information and can enlighten us. At the time, her predecessor said: "We're considering a whole range of options." I presume that's been narrowed down, following the passage of some 13 months.
Hon. E. Cull: As the member knows, this section was passed last year. We're doing the amendments, so it's back in here again. We have narrowed it down somewhat, but the regulations are going to be circulated, and there will be ample opportunity for all interested stakeholders to have a look at them before they're brought into effect. They'll be dealt with at that time.
R. Neufeld: Section 24.3(1)(a) talks about "quantities for and areas in British Columbia where fuels must be made available." I guess I'm assuming.... Maybe the minister could enlighten me: are these natural gas or propane stations where the sellers of these products have to place their facilities?
Hon. E. Cull: Essentially, the regulations could provide for that.
[ Page 17006 ]
R. Neufeld: Will the regulations tell the major companies where they have to install a natural gas fuelling station or a propane fuelling station? I'm in favour of it; don't get me wrong. I agree that we should be using a lot more natural gas in fuelling our vehicles throughout the province, specifically in the lower mainland, to clean up the air quality. I don't have any problem with that. I do have some problems with the fact that there's apparently no place on the Island you can get it commercially.
When we talk about natural gas, the other thing that amazes me is that when I questioned the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, she wasn't sure how many vehicles they had that used alternative fuels. In fact, she thought probably one. One vehicle of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources was converted to natural gas. I think we should be taking the lead. I know that the minister is driving one at the present time -- testing it -- and that's a good idea. As government, we should be taking that lead and converting the public's vehicles to an alternative fuel -- either natural gas or propane -- to clean up the environment and start the process going.
Second, we should not be instituting a road tax on alternative fuels such as propane and natural gas in 1997 until we can get a lot more vehicles on that system, which will improve the air quality in British Columbia. I understand from that section and the minister's response that by regulation they can designate where companies are going to place their facilities in a region to supply this type of fuel.
Another question I have goes back to my racing question. I don't partake in racing, but I have some friends who do who have had some problems with leaded gas. Some racing engines burn leaded gas, and it's not uncommon to have that happen. I know there have been discussions going on in the past with the federal and provincial governments about leaded gas for racing purposes only, and I wonder if section 24.3(1)(e) would deal with that problem.
Hon. E. Cull: In answer to the last question, yes, that would. With respect to his comments on the public fleet of vehicles, I wholehearted concur with the member. I think that we should be using our purchasing power to purchase vehicles that run on cleaner fuel. One of the reasons I'm test-driving the natural gas van is that it is a vehicle that meets the California ultra-low-emission standards. It is a new manufacture for that purpose, as opposed to a converted vehicle. Having driven it for two days, I can tell you that it's a very nice vehicle to drive, and I've been monitoring the mileage I get for the fuel I'm using.
In this year's budget we have approved the purchase of 25 natural-gas-powered buses for B.C. Transit, so we've got that starting. I know that the Ministry of Government Services, which looks after fleet management, is coming forward with a proposal to purchase vehicles purchased in the normal fleet replacement that are powered by alternative fuels. So we're wholeheartedly in support of your comments in that regard.
R. Neufeld: Talking about the buses, they're tremendously expensive compared to diesel buses. But I agree with the process. We have to start someplace to get there.
Because we're jumping to the second section, I also have a question on section 24.31(1)(e), "requiring motor vehicles or engines to meet design requirements that are certified in a specified jurisdiction to conform to emission control standards of that jurisdiction." I want to assure the minister that I think we have to look at emission controls. I'm not trying to get away from that. But if we have certain areas where there are more stringent rules for emission controls, how do we control the movement of vehicles within British Columbia? If you have more stringent controls in the lower mainland, for instance, because I assume that's where it's going to be, and someone moves from Prince George to the lower mainland, what happens? Do they have to upgrade the system? Do they have to go through a program?
I ask the minister that because, as I understand, the motor vehicle branch is starting a program where cars and pickup trucks coming from out of province, regardless of their age, are supposed to go through a safety inspection program before we will license them in British Columbia. I find that onerous. It's rather ridiculous that if you have a brand-new vehicle it's quite capable of driving anywhere in Canada, but if it's six months old or a year old, once you hit British Columbia, you have to put it through a testing process first to find out whether you can license it. Larger vehicles and commercial transports are no problem; that area has been there for a long time and I don't have any problem with that.
I wonder how you're going to enforce those two issues. Will that somehow come in regulations? Will it be something similar to what the motor vehicle branch is doing?
[12:30]
Hon. E. Cull: I'm advised by the Attorney General that only Quebec doesn't require this safety testing for licensing...
Hon. C. Gabelmann: It's to deal with fraud.
Hon. E. Cull:... and it's to deal with the issue of fraud.
Interjection.
Hon. E. Cull: That's another issue the member is raising about the ICBC offices.
Anyway, with respect to vehicles, you obviously can't control vehicles moving around the province, and they can go from one region to the next. We have that situation right now with AirCare, where vehicles have to qualify in Vancouver, and if they move to Victoria or up to the Peace country where we don't have AirCare, they don't have to meet those qualifications.
We're focusing here on new vehicles, and what we want to be able to do is ensure that British Columbians have the same opportunity as other North Americans to purchase the cleanest vehicles possible. I know the dealers support this, because the dealers are very tuned in to consumer demand, and consumers are aware that you can purchase a clean vehicle in Washington State, California or the northeast United States. The industry manufactures vehicles for the entire North American market, and they'll want those vehicles here. We want to have the ability to require new vehicles to meet certain low-emission or ultra-low-emission standards, and to get a certain mix of vehicles offered for sale that meets those different standards. That's all that this is intended to do. It is not intended to prevent vehicles from moving from one part of the province to another.
[ Page 17007 ]
J. Tyabji: I have a few questions. I know that we all want to get out of here as soon as possible, but there are some things that need to be covered. First of all, both 24.3(1)(c) and 24.31(1)(p) have the same requirements for "manufacturers and persons who test, certify or sell...." It's roughly the same language, but in the first we're dealing with fuels and in the second we're dealing with motor vehicles or engines. They have "to record and report specified information at the times and in the manner provided in the regulation."
I don't know if there are draft regulations about the reporting process. Earlier this morning, when the Attorney General was here as well, we talked briefly about the B.C. liquor distribution branch having something very similar for a report-and-record process in all the establishments in the province that sell alcohol, and those forms have to be filled out every day. They're filled out in quintuplicate -- five forms -- and those are sent off into a huge bureaucracy associated with this. The first question that comes up is: what is going to be the reporting and recording process, and who will administer that?
Hon. E. Cull: It will be administered by the Ministry of Environment. We've had tremendous cooperation with the industry already on low-sulphur diesel regulations. I should point out to the member that these sections are in existing legislation.
J. Tyabji: They may be, but the new regulations may require a different reporting and recording process. What I would be concerned about, for example, is if the regulations come in and are fairly different. If there's a big departure from the past, there may be a new reporting process -- for example, a monthly process. If it's going to be administered by the Ministry of Environment, which branch will it be? Is it going to be the wildlife branch or one of the branches that already has an administrative structure in place, and if so, which one?
Hon. E. Cull: It would be dealt with by the regional operations branches of Environment in each region.
J. Tyabji: It's hard to hear over here, but it sounded like the minister said the regional environmental offices in each region of the province. Which branch? As the minister may know, they have regional offices, but they have water, parks, waste management and wildlife. Each region has different branch offices for each line of the Environment ministry.
Hon. E. Cull: The conservation officers in the regional offices do the enforcement for all of the branches.
J. Tyabji: Is there going to be funding for more conservation officers? That's a totally different ministry now, but if the Minister of Finance and of Environment is now going to demand a lot more administration, the conservation officers are already overworked. It sounds like she's saying that the conservation officers are going to be enforcing the new fuel regulations. If so, I think that's a problem, unless she's planning to increase the number of conservation officers that are available to do this.
Hon. E. Cull: We'll be looking at the workload of all of the conservation officers and dealing with that as part of the budgeting process.
J. Tyabji: On subsection 24.3(1)(d), just very quickly, are there draft regulations for the areas in British Columbia to which regulations for the fuel will be applicable? If so, at what point will we be able to see them?
Hon. E. Cull: The regulations are not ready yet. They're being discussed with the industry. I've already stated that prior to them being passed, we will circulate them for public and stakeholder information and review.
J. Tyabji: Section 24.31(1)(d) says: "...providing for the testing and certification of motor vehicles, engines and emission control systems for compliance...." Providing how? Is it going to be the government providing that? Is it going to be an ICBC type of model? Is it going to be the private sector providing it and the government regulating it?
Hon. E. Cull: It will depend on the nature of the regulation itself. It could be some industry reporting, it could be AirCare or it could be other testing that's required to show that the standards have been met.
J. Tyabji: I do have a few more questions. Are there any plans about the provision to enlarge the provision that the government has currently set up for AirCare and for other government programs that are in place?
Hon. E. Cull: There are no current plans, but as we are continuing to work on the clean air policy, we will look at whether that makes sense in the future.
J. Tyabji: Subsection 24.31(1)(e) says: "...requiring motor vehicles or engines to meet design requirements that are certified in a specified jurisdiction to conform to emission control standards of that jurisdiction...." I note in the jurisdiction definition in this section that it talks about including a foreign jurisdiction. In this subsection and later on when the minister refers to specified jurisdictions, is she talking about foreign jurisdictions? If so, in what manner?
Hon. E. Cull: An example could be California. We could simplify our regulations by adopting a California standard if we were satisfied that it met our requirements.
J. Tyabji: Then I need the minister's help with this. She's saying that they can adopt the regulation model that they have in another jurisdiction, such as California. What this appears to say, though, is that it requires motor vehicles or engines to meet design requirements certified in a specified jurisdiction, and that sounds like it's saying that if the vehicles or engines are certified in that jurisdiction -- it could be in Japan or any other specified jurisdiction -- then this government may require that they meet the standards of this regulation in that specified jurisdiction. If that's the case, then I'd like to know it, because I have a further question on that.
Hon. E. Cull: It's not the vehicles that would be certified by the other jurisdiction; it's just simply saying that you could require a vehicle sold in British Columbia to meet the same set of standards that it would need to meet to be certified in California. As an example, the natural-gas van I'm driving right now is certified in California for ultra-low-emission vehicle standards. We could adopt those same standards by reference to the California standards.
[ Page 17008 ]
J. Tyabji: Okay, that's a different reading of it.
Under section 24.31(1)(h), where it talks about prohibiting, what provision is there for vehicles that are not new in the prohibition by government? Would those be exempted from the regulations?
Hon. E. Cull: The regulation applies to new vehicles.
J. Tyabji: Section 24.31(1)(j) appears to read like the government is driving the market, because the government may establish a scheme under which each manufacturer's new vehicles "that are produced and delivered for sale in British Columbia during a specified time period must be a mix of motor vehicles determined in accordance with a specified formula." I don't know why this would have to be in this amendment, but it sounds very close to the government saying: "Well, we've decided that this is the mix of new vehicles that we want in our jurisdiction within this specified period of time, and therefore there must be a scheme developed to meet that model." Why is this required by legislation? Why is this enabling section in? How would it play out in practice?
Hon. E. Cull: This is a section that was debated last year. It is being debated and discussed right now with the industry. As an example, it would allow us to require that 5 percent, say, of a manufacturer's vehicles offered for sale in British Columbia be ultra-low-emission vehicles. I picked the number out of the air just as an illustration, but it allows us, short of saying that you have to sell the vehicles, to at least ensure that if they're being manufactured, then they're offered for sale.
That's very important, because California, the northeastern United States and other jurisdictions are going to be requiring that these vehicles be produced by the manufacturers. We want to have the ability to make sure that they're available for sale in British Columbia.
J. Tyabji: I don't know why that isn't captured under section 24.31(1)(k), but in the interest of time, we'll leave it for now.
Under section 24.31(1)(m), where it talks about "prohibiting the sale of a class of new motor vehicles or a class of engines," are there any potential problems with NAFTA, GATT or the free trade agreement if this government takes some sort of unilateral action that is not an action that may be condoned by the federal government, as we are one of the component signatories to those agreements?
Hon. E. Cull: No, there are no problems. We're doing this to clean up the air, and we have authority to do so.
J. Tyabji: Just a quick comment. I wish this section of this miscellaneous statutes act had actually come in in a separate bill earlier in the session, because clearly there's a lot that needs to be covered here, and it shouldn't be done when we're already running the clock out. I don't think it does justice to what the minister is trying to do, and I should say that I think that most of the people who have spoken to this have spoken strongly in favour of the direction the government's going in. But we'd really like to have some more details and debate.
Lastly, and maybe of most concern, section 24.31(1)(o) talks about "prescribing fees and charges to be paid in respect of any matter for which the ministry provides a service or performs a duty...." Going back to when I was asking previously about the regulations and the provision of the services to ensure that there's compliance with them, if the government does expand -- whether through AirCare or through ICBC -- in order to provide the services to meet these codes, is that then going to be passed on to the manufacturer and then again to the consumer through these fees and charges?
Hon. E. Cull: I actually think this is a good example where user-pay should apply; otherwise, it's passed on to all the general taxpayers through the tax base.
J. Tyabji: Where I would be concerned is if the private sector could provide a more efficient way of setting up a model to comply with the regulations, and the government chose to do it instead through ICBC or an expansion of AirCare -- through government facilities, it could be a higher cost. If the minister is saying that cost would be passed on, then yes, it may be user-pay, but who decides how much we pay?
Hon. E. Cull: Wearing my other hat as the Minister of Finance, I can assure the member that if there is a cheaper way to do it than through the public, I'll be the first to propose that.
J. Tyabji: A very quick last question, then. Is there going to be any attempt by the minister to regulate -- in terms of the foreign jurisdiction, other than the certification process that was referred to earlier -- some of the manufacturing processes that may exist in another jurisdiction?
Hon. E. Cull: No, it's simply a matter of dealing with the ability to set standards, not re-creating the wheel here.
D. Symons: I just want to assure the minister that although we seem to be asking a good number of questions, I'm sure that everyone in this House agrees with the intent of lowering fuel emissions from vehicles in order to look after air quality. But I do have some concerns, as I said earlier, about exactly what will be required, because that's very important, and we don't know that from this.
If I could just backtrack for a moment, in 1992, the first sitting of this government, I believe, removed or grandfathered a clause that gave an incentive to convert a vehicle to natural gas or propane. That was an incentive on fuel tax. I wonder if the minister might put her other hat on as Minister of Finance for a moment and tell me whether they might consider bringing in some sort of fuel tax incentive for people to buy alternative-fuel vehicles and in that way encourage people, rather than what this may do, which is simply to force the issue by bringing on certain vehicles. You seemed to indicate that that might be the case, with a 5 percent requirement on manufacturers. Could there be an inducement or carrot rather than a stick approach to encouraging people into alternative-fuel vehicles?
[12:45]
The Chair: Hon. member, the standing orders require that the debate be relevant to the section specifically at hand.
J. Tyabji: We're not going to call for a division because of the time. I assume that on this side of the House, anyway, we are in favour of this bill. I'm stating that because I'm assuming that there will be a division vote at the end.
[ Page 17009 ]
Sections 47 to 51 inclusive approved.
On section 52.
D. Mitchell: We see that the penalties are increased for offences in relation to grizzly bears, in particular from $10,000 to a maximum of $25,000. I think that the government deserves some credit for this, for protecting this magnificent creature, which is associated with British Columbia and which is identified with British Columbia now more than ever, now that in Vancouver we have an NBA basketball franchise coming to our province that is named in honour of this magnificent creature.
I not only hope that the government receives some credit, but as the government courts the vote of grizzly bears throughout the province, I would also like the government to know that I too support grizzly bears in my constituency of West Vancouver-Garibaldi.
[G. Brewin in the chair.]
M. de Jong: With respect to this section, I note that a senior conservation officer, Mr. Jim Hart from the Fort Nelson area, made the comment in response to notice that these provisions were to be tabled that it was his considered opinion that a more effective way to get at what the government is trying to do in terms of protecting this animal would be to ban the sale of grizzly pelts. He also made the point that he thought some consideration should be given by the government to proceeding pursuant to the Criminal Code provisions. I don't know if that's something the ministry is considering. I'm not even certain how he contemplated that coming about -- employing provisions of the Criminal Code. But if that's something being discussed in the ministry -- those two issues, the banning of the sale of pelts and the employment of Criminal Code provisions -- I'd like to know about it.
Hon. E. Cull: While the banning of the sale of pelts has some kind of appeal -- the public might think it is the way to go -- it actually will fall short of what the public really expects to be happening in this respect. It would certainly be difficult to enforce.
This bill deters a whole range of activities that are offences with respect to grizzly bears. It's more comprehensive than what others have suggested in simply dealing with pelts. The power to create a criminal offence is the federal government's. The government is taking a very strong stand here, and we're hoping the federal government will follow our lead.
R. Neufeld: I appreciate what the ministry is trying to do here in increasing the fines for poaching grizzly bears. But it often amazes me that we'll go the extent of putting in a piece of legislation such that a first-offence fine cannot be more than $25,000 or not less than $1,000, and second offences not more than $50,000 and not less than $6,000, and at the same time, you can get an impaired driving charge on the highway in British Columbia where someone has died and have a fine of about $800 or $1,000.
You know, really, in relation to what we're trying to do in British Columbia, it just amazes me that we want to go on with things like this, which I guess get some headlines or bring some notoriety to the minister, when we have some real problems on our highways with drinking and driving and we don't want to address those. In fact, we've asked the Attorney General many times about some of those problems. But here we are, in grandiose terms, saying: "Hey, we're going to fine you up to $25,000."
I wonder what happens to aboriginals. If aboriginals are caught hunting grizzlies, will this fine apply?
Hon. E. Cull: Absolutely.
R. Neufeld: Actually, it amazes me that I would get an answer of "absolutely," because your government's record since you have been in office has not been that. We know that and the minister knows that. Around the province there have been animals killed out of season that shouldn't have been where charges either were not laid or were stayed. We have to look seriously at that. If this is going to apply to aboriginals, all other issues about hunting out of season.... What about Dall sheep, moose or elk? What about buffalo -- bison -- in my constituency? What about that issue? Where is that? That didn't happen.
Hon. E. Cull: Well, there have been charges laid. There have been prosecutions. When it comes to conservation policy, there's one law. It affects everybody in the province.
A. Warnke: This is just a follow-up, because my colleague from Matsqui actually touched on the first question I wanted to raise. There's still a follow-up that I want to put forward to the minister, and that is not only in the context of bear pelts but also bear parts. It seems to me that it should entail higher penalties. In other words, what is being laid out here under section 52(d) are the fines for a first offence, or what happens if one is convicted of a first offence; then for a second and subsequent offences there are heavier penalties, and all the rest of it.
But I'm also wondering whether the quality of the penalties could not vary according to some of the activities, such as collecting bear pelts and bear parts, which provide incentive to people who are poaching. Perhaps they'd be quite willing to pay $6,000 or whatever. I'm just wondering if the ministry has looked at the quality of the penalties that are applied for activities such as collecting and selling bear parts and pelts, and so on.
Hon. E. Cull: As the member has noted, there is a range of fines. The judge would determine the fine and would take into consideration those types of things the member has raised.
C. Serwa: This is a very interesting section. I probably.... There may not be many of us in this Legislature who have spent a lot of years hunting grizzly bear in the high country in the springtime of the year, but I have. I have shot one, and I really enjoyed the whole process. Sometimes I think that perhaps a grizzly once in a lifetime is an adequate number. But British Columbia is very specially endowed in that 50 percent of the world's grizzly population resides here. I believe we have a good, healthy population of bears.
[ Page 17010 ]
But the first question on this.... We had a significant fine prior to this. This legislation appears to indicate that it is really going to do something to prohibit poaching of bears and perhaps utilizing bait or other tactics. But has a court or a judge in the province ever imposed the maximum fine for someone convicted of hunting grizzlies out of season, for example? Has that previous maximum fine ever been tendered, even once?
Hon. E. Cull: I'm not certain.
C. Serwa: Regrettably, to the best of my knowledge, it never has been. We have something here where the court system is not utilizing the latitude with fines that the ministry enables, and now we're going to be perceived as doing something to protect a species by doubling the fine. I have some real concern there.
But I have to speak a little bit about the minister's statement with respect to native hunters in British Columbia.
The Chair: Hon. member, regrettably -- I should have mentioned this earlier -- the issue here is this section. It has nothing to do with and does not mention anything about native or aboriginal issues. It's not on the agenda; it's out of order. The fines are there; that's the topic.
C. Serwa: I appreciate the steamrolling tactics of the Chair, but the minister made the statement, and I'm responding to the minister's statement. If the Chair wanted to be impartial, the Chair would have cautioned the minister in referring to that statement. The latitude has been opened up, hon. Chair. Furthermore, it was decided at the onset of this legislation that second reading debate could, in fact, take place with this legislation. Perhaps the Chair would care to reassess her admonishment.
The Chair: As long as it's in order, hon. member.
C. Serwa: The concern I have is that the minister's statement was absolutely incorrect. The virtual annihilation of the Pink Mountain bison herd was by two native hunters from Prince George. It was not an indigenous hunting right. The buffalo -- the bison -- were not in that particular area historically. There have been no prosecutions on that.
The tack was taken.... First of all, your ministry decided that the enforcement should not be imposed on native hunters in British Columbia. When pressures came on, such as the shooting of a ram at a feeding station in the Kootenays, then it was felt that charges had to be laid. But you know what? It took the heat off the situation, but nothing has really transpired. It's a burning issue that the government is going to have to confront. There has to be responsibility.
The reason I am saying this is that we have another avenue here. Many hunters from anywhere in the world -- be they from the United States, Germany or any European country -- will pay inordinately large sums for a grizzly pelt. Whether it's taken out of season or whether it's taken in a provincial or a national park by a native hunter, the fact remains that large sums of money.... In spite of the fine they will pay substantially more than the $25,000 maximum fine for a prime grizzly hide. That's a reality. So unless there's a sustained effort on the part of the Ministry of Environment to tell its conservation officers to treat all British Columbians equally in the eyes of the law, the grizzly bear will be under very heavy pressure from native hunters. That's the reality. I have an expressed concern about this, because even the $25,000 is not enough to cover the value of a prime silvertip grizzly pelt.
Perhaps the minister would take this concern to the Ministry of Environment, because a number of sportsmen throughout the province.... I'm confident that a number of our citizens in British Columbia are very concerned about the sustainability of many of our animals, and we have a diverse and abundant supply of the ungulate. The grizzly is a very, very special animal in British Columbia. I've always felt that if there was one animal that should be recognized as a provincial animal, it should be the grizzly, because 50 percent of the world's grizzly population is here in British Columbia. Perhaps the minister would reconfirm that native hunters, just like non-native hunters, in British Columbia will not be allowed to take the grizzly bear for the pelt or for ceremonial purposes.
[1:00]
Hon. E. Cull: First of all, I do have some information on the situation of the ram. Charges were laid, there was a conviction and it's under appeal. There are many other cases where charges are laid or investigations occur. In some cases, prosecutions don't take place because of a lack of evidence or many of the other things that occur around prosecutions in general. Not every offence, unfortunately, leads to a successful prosecution.
With respect to aboriginals, the issue is very clear. When it comes to conservation, the policies and laws of British Columbia apply all the way across the province to everyone. As the member knows, these fines are part of a comprehensive strategy. The other parts of the strategy do not require legislation to protect the 25 percent of the grizzly population which is resident in British Columbia. Your numbers are off, but it's still a very significant portion of the grizzly population in our province. There are treaty rights. There are inherent rights that aboriginals have for cultural uses and for ceremonial uses. Those are factored into our policy, but when it comes to violating the requirements of the Wildlife Act, there is no special treatment. Everyone is treated the same.
R. Neufeld: Just a couple of questions, and I'll put them both together for the minister on this issue. On the minister's last statement, I would appreciate it very much if the Minister of Environment would put that in writing and state it specifically to the conservation officers in my constituency, because it's not applied that way at the present time.
Also, I did not get a response to my observation, so maybe I'll put it as a question. How can we justify the low fines, $1,000 maximum, for the carnage on our highways, with alcohol involved in killing people? Yet we see fit to put in fines of $50,000 for killing a grizzly bear. That doesn't mean I'm devaluing a grizzly bear. But what I am saying is that if this government wanted to make a statement about looking after the lives of people and the carnage on our highway, maybe they would get a little stricter with either licensing or fines, and the repercussions of what happens when you drink and drive and kill people. To me, it does not make any sense. The public stand out there in amazement and say: "I can't believe this. This is absolutely unbelievable. They're doing this in the last act."
[ Page 17011 ]
Hon. E. Cull: It's very tempting to enter into this broader debate around traffic safety, the Criminal Code and the Motor Vehicle Act, and how they apply to drinking and other driving offences. I'm going to resist the temptation. We're dealing here with fines for grizzlies. I don't disagree with what the member says. There appear to be many cases where there should be much stiffer penalties for other actions. In this case, we're bringing in fines that will, when they are applied, be large enough to deter poaching. They will certainly be greater than the value of the pelt, the bear or the hunting exercise.
J. Tyabji: I want to echo the comments of some members and very briefly say to the minister that one thing has been left out of this debate. There should be credit given to those people who took the time to put the demonstration together on the lawns of the Legislature in order to raise this issue. Every year they've come forward asking for recognition of this as an issue. I think the member for Peace River North is absolutely right. There are other issues out there that people have asked for redress on. In this particular instance, there are some people who have worked extremely hard to get this small amendment into the bill.
I agree wholeheartedly with the member for Okanagan West that this doesn't go far enough. Just in terms of the pelts -- I think the member for Matsqui first raised this -- there are so many things that could be done beyond what is being proposed, but there are people who should get credit for us getting as far as we have. They're not in this chamber, and that should be recognized in the record.
Sections 52 and 53 approved.
On section 54.
A. Warnke: Just before I refer to a proposed amendment, I think it is fair to add our appreciation for a program put on by CBC's "Market Place." I believe the producer responsible for that was Mr. Sig Gerber, who brought the problem of ceiling heating panels to the attention of the public. I thought the program was very informative and instructive, and I gather that they've been in touch with the government of British Columbia. Any move in this direction would certainly be most appreciated.
I would like to refer to an amendment to section 54 that will be proposed by the member for West Vancouver-Capilano; it has not yet been put forward. To provide context, we have noticed that in section 54(3)(b) there is a reference to a municipal public officer essentially being liable. I suppose there is a view that public administrators, commonly called bureaucrats.... To a certain extent, when they're administering public policies and decisions made by essentially political leaders, it puts them in an unfair position of administering those bylaws or laws and being held liable for them. I suppose that negligence resulting from inadequate bylaws, or from a bylaw for that matter, is really the problem of the municipality, city or regional district. That kind of burden should not be placed on the public administrator. We're just red-flagging it, and nothing more than that. I wonder if the Attorney General would briefly describe why it's there.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The public officer is acting on behalf of the municipality. The liability really applies to the municipality, not the officer. Section 755.1 of the Municipal Act in effect waives the personal liability.
J. van Dongen: Just a question and a quick comment. There are about 3,000 people in British Columbia who are affected by this. They've had a report, and they're now involved in what appears to be unsuccessful mediation. There's concern in one of their newsletters about the proclamation of the Class Proceedings Act. I wonder if the minister could confirm that it will be coming shortly or tell us when it will be coming.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I was trying to recall what the schedule is for the Class Proceedings Act, and I can't do that. But I can assure the member that the Class Proceedings Act will be available to people should they choose to go that route.
J. van Dongen: I raise it because it seems almost inevitable that they will want to proceed with that fairly quickly, because they'll be going into their second winter with a temporary heat system.
The other thing that I want to mention with respect to this whole case is that possibly the minister responsible could look into the role of the approval agency, the CSA -- Canadian Standards Association -- that approved this product, not just with respect to this product but also the role and procedures generally and what reliance consumers can put on a CSA approval. I don't need a response other than the minister's confirmation that the minister in charge will take a more serious look at that than she has to date.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I will undertake to ensure that the minister in charge is aware of the member's comments.
D. Mitchell: I too would like to echo the comments of the member for Abbotsford. There is a real concern here -- a major flaw, I think, in the country's CSA rating system. We have to know whether the Canadian Standards Association logo and identity really means anything. Many British Columbians are wondering about that after this whole issue.
Could the Attorney General give a guarantee to the committee that this amendment will not saddle municipalities with potential legal costs with respect to any liabilities arising out of the reversal of policy by the provincial government in terms of inspection of radiant heating panels?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: It opens the possibility of suit, and the consequences are unable to be predicted. But the reality is that there is a mediation process underway, which is the preferred avenue of resolution.
J. Tyabji: This is not my file. I'm bringing this up for the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast. As the Alliance leader, he has been dealing with some of the people who have been affected by this. As I understand it, two companies had disconnect orders placed by the electrical safety branch of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. Two separate orders were issued for each of those two companies. The first was targeted at specific products of the heating panel line of the company only, identified by serial number. After more complaints surfaced, a second order was issued ordering the disconnection of all the heating panels produced by those companies, individually and separately. The second order encompasses the specific models mentioned in the first. Altogether, there were four orders issued, two to each company on two separate occasions.
[ Page 17012 ]
The people who are affected are concerned that the second orders may be interpreted to not encompass the serial numbers of the first orders. That's my first question. I'd just like confirmation that the second order of the electrical safety branch sent to both of the companies involved encompassed the first order's specific model numbers.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I would advise the member to discuss the issue with the minister directly, because it's not that relevant to this amendment. It's an interesting and important question, but it would be far more productive for her to arrange to meet with the minister or her staff.
J. Tyabji: I have two other questions. Because the Municipal Act is specific in having a very short period of time for the statute of limitations, there's some concern that this amendment won't be sufficient to capture all the concerns of the people who have been affected by the radiant heat panel issue. We've been asked to put on the record that all the concerns that are important to them will be captured by this, given that there's a very short time limit and this may be the only opportunity to amend the Municipal Act to extend the statute of limitations.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: There's almost a year -- more than 11 months -- before this limitation expires under this provision. Mediation continues, and if the mediation is not going to work, it's not going to work long before that date.
J. Tyabji: The last question under this section is again one that will be hard for the Attorney General to answer, but he may have an answer. It has to do with the chief electrical inspector -- who is mentioned in this amendment, but who, I assume, actually would fall under the Minister of Municipal Affairs -- where that person has given an opinion that is not on the record yet with respect to panels that may have been certified prior to 1994 but weren't installed -- for example, something may have a date on it that's from 1993. There's a concern that that might not be captured, because this only goes back to November 18, 1994. That's how I read it. I'm at a bit of a loss, because this isn't my file, and I'm doing this for the Alliance leader. But as I understand it, what they're concerned about is: if 1993 is on there but it wasn't installed until the date captured by this amendment, is it still covered?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: It's not my file, either, but I'm not at a loss. The relevant date is the date of the disconnect order, and that date was November 18, 1994.
[1:15]
J. Tyabji: For a point of clarification, then....
Interjections.
J. Tyabji: Look, if we're going to get carried away, I'll just mention that if I had staff sitting beside me, I wouldn't be at a loss, either.
I just want to be sure that every single panel that would have been affected by a disconnection notice, regardless of the date on that panel, will definitely be captured for the purpose of litigation later on.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The answer is yes.
Section 54 approved.
On section 55.
D. Mitchell: Just two brief comments on the commencement clause. I think this commencement clause is very important to this horrible piece of legislation that we've been forced to deal with at the end of this session. The commencement clause refers to section 12, which was steamrollered over in this committee, and we didn't deal with it. Section 12 deals with the Court of Appeal Act, and it allows cabinet to make regulations ensuring that the Court Rules Act applies to the Court of Appeal. The commencement clause says that section 12 will be retroactive to June 29, 1990. Why that retroactivity? Are we trying to protect a certain case before the Court of Appeal?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: It was an oversight. When the Court of Appeal Act was amended to establish the rules and procedures, the definition was not included. It's retroactive to that period in order to make sure that the decisions that have been made under those rules, which included what's in section 12, in fact have force and effect.
D. Mitchell: This commencement clause is the final section in Bill 55. It relates to all the sections of the bill. Each one of them probably should have been a separate bill on its own. The Attorney General has tried to shepherd most of Bill 55 through the House. It's a terrible piece of legislation, hon. Chair, I think you'll agree. When we look at the commencement clause, we take a look at how these various amendments to 25 different statutes are going to be brought into force.
Could the Attorney General make a commitment to the committee on behalf of the government that this kind of horrible omnibus legislation that makes our Legislature look so amateurish will never be brought before this Legislature again? It's a shameful exercise. Can the Attorney General make the commitment that never again will we have this kind of a miscellaneous statutes amendment act brought in in the dying moments of the session? We debated until two in the morning for two consecutive days. Can the Attorney General make the commitment that this kind of abusive legislative process that reflects so poorly on every member of this House will never again occur in the British Columbia Legislative Assembly?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I thank the member for his view, and I promise him and all members that no abusive actions will ever be taken by anybody in the future ever again.
The Chair: Shall section...?
The member for Richmond-Steveston.
A. Warnke: I just wanted the last word. Thank you, hon. Chair. [Laughter.]
Section 55 approved.
Title approved.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.
[ Page 17013 ]
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Bill 55, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 3), 1995, reported complete with amendment.
The Speaker: When shall the bill be considered as reported?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: With leave now, hon. Speaker.
Leave granted.
Bill 55, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 3), 1995, read a third time and passed on the following division:
|
YEAS -- 30 | ||
|
Dosanjh |
Priddy |
Zirnhelt |
|
O'Neill |
Kasper |
Hammell |
|
B. Jones |
Lortie |
Miller |
|
Cull |
Harcourt |
Gabelmann |
|
MacPhail |
Barlee |
Sihota |
|
Randall |
Beattie |
Farnworth |
|
Doyle |
Janssen |
Lord |
|
Simpson |
Sawicki |
Krog |
|
Brewin |
Copping |
Schreck |
|
Lali |
Hartley |
Boone |
|
NAYS -- 19 | ||
|
Warnke |
Reid |
Campbell |
|
Farrell-Collins |
Hurd |
Gingell |
|
Stephens |
Weisgerber |
Serwa |
|
Mitchell |
Tyabji |
Chisholm |
|
Neufeld |
Fox |
de Jong |
|
van Dongen |
K. Jones |
Symons |
| Anderson | ||
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I call Motion 92 standing in the name of the Minister of Employment and Investment.
[That in addition to the powers previously conferred upon the Select Standing committee on Forests, Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources the Committee be empowered:
(a) to appoint of their number, one or more subcommittees and to refer to such subcommittees any of the matters referred to the Committee;
(b) to sit during a period in which the House is adjourned, during the recess after prorogation until the next following Session and during any sitting of the House;
(c) to adjourn from place to place as may be convenient;
(d) to retain such personnel as required to assist the Committee;
and shall report to the House as soon as possible, or following any adjournment, or at the next following Session, as the case may be; to deposit the original of its reports with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly during a period of adjournment and upon resumption of the sittings of the House, the Chair shall present all reports to the Legislative Assembly.]
I so move Motion 92.
Motion approved.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I call Motion 93 standing in my name on the order paper, and I so move.
[That a Special Committee be appointed to select and unanimously recommend to the Legislative Assembly, the appointment of a Chief Electoral Officer for the Province of British Columbia, pursuant to section 4 of the Election Act, and that the Special Committee so appointed shall have the powers of a Select Standing Committee and is also empowered:
(a) to appoint of their number, one or more subcommittees and to refer to such subcommittees any of the matters referred to the Committee;
(b) to sit during a period in which the House is adjourned, during the recess after prorogation until the next following Session and during any sitting of the House;
(c) to adjourn from place to place as may be convenient;
(d) to retain such personnel as required to assist the Committee;
and shall report to the House as soon as possible, or following any adjournment, or at the next following Session, as the case may be; to deposit the original of its reports with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly during a period of adjournment and upon resumption of the sittings of the House, the Chair shall present all reports to the Legislative Assembly.
The said Special Committee is to be composed of Mr. Farnworth (Convener), Mmes. Copping, Hagen and O'Neill, Messrs. Sihota, Hartley and Janssen, Messrs. Farrell-Collins, Dalton and de Jong, Mr. Neufeld and Mr. Mitchell.]
Motion approved.
Motion without Notice
Hon. C. Gabelmann: With leave, I call a motion introduced by the deputy Government House Leader that I think I should read, given that it's not in Orders of the Day:
"That the report of the auditor general of British Columbia and Deputy Ministers' council dated June 1995 entitled Enhancing Accountability for Performance in the British Columbia Public Sector be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts, and that in addition to the power previously conferred upon the said committee, the committee be empowered:
(a) to appoint of their number one or more subcommittees and to refer to such subcommittees any of the matters referred to the committee;
(b) to sit during a period in which the House is adjourned, during the recess after prorogation until the next following session, and during any sitting of the House;
(c) to adjourn from place to place as may be convenient;
(d) to retain such personnel as required to assist the committee;
and shall report to the House as soon as possible, or following any adjournment, or at the next following session, as the case may be; to deposit the original of its reports with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly during a period of adjournment; and upon resumption of the sittings of the House, the Chair shall present all reports to the Legislative Assembly."
I so move.
[1:30]
F. Gingell: I'm not going to make a long speech, because I wouldn't want to do anything that might convince the government members to not support this bill. But I do think it's important to recognize and acknowledge that this is a significant day. This is the first time, I believe -- I'm not certain -- that the Public Accounts Committee has ever been empowered by this Legislature to sit out of session. It's an ability that I believe is critically important to the sensible and useful operation of that committee. I want to congratulate the government on bringing this forward. We have finally caught up with all the other provinces and jurisdictions in Canada.
Interjection.
[ Page 17014 ]
F. Gingell: No, you haven't passed them. You've just caught up to them. It was an embarrassment for us to have been behind, but I do want to take this opportunity to commend the government for finally doing this. I give it my wholehearted support.
J. Weisgerber: I'm interested in the resolution, and I'm interested in the notion that the Public Accounts Committee would sit year-round. I think that's something that has been debated for a long time, and it's worthwhile. I'm a bit disappointed that we have the resolution here without having had an opportunity to discuss why the committee might want to travel from place to place, and what is indeed anticipated in what is obviously quite a fundamental change in the process for public accounts. Perhaps someone could give us some....
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please.
J. Weisgerber: Indeed, I've got absolutely nothing against openness, and it is for that reason that I have a good deal of concern about a resolution brought into the House two or three minutes before adjournment -- of which notice wasn't circulated in the House -- that calls for the Public Accounts Committee to fundamentally change the way in which it has operated. I think it is fair and reasonable to ask this House why the committee might feel the need to move from place to place, rather than in fact continuing to hold meetings -- year-round, if it may be -- here in the building, as has been the practice in this Legislature and in this House.
G. Farrell-Collins: I thought this motion had been discussed with the third party, and I think the government did also. I didn't think there was anything quiet about it or anything to be hidden. My understanding is that the only intent here is to allow the committee to meet outside the House. The travelling from place to place is a standard provision when we refer things to committee, so I don't think there's anything sinister in that.
I just want to say a few words, because I want to congratulate the member for Delta South, who has been the Chair of this committee for three years now. He has done a truly outstanding job of chairing the Public Accounts Committee in a very responsible manner. He, along with his colleagues from all parties, has brought forth top-quality reports every year at the end of the session, and I think this is a major improvement in accountability in the province. I think a great deal of credit goes to the member for Delta South for his dogged determination, and for his good and intelligent work on that committee.
J. Tyabji: I think it's interesting that we've talked about consultation and accountability in this motion, which requires unanimous consent of the House. Well, it's all news to the members over here, who have not been consulted. We're not sure of the background of this. We're not going to obstruct anything, because obviously we've been speaking out throughout the session for parliamentary reform, and I'm assuming that these committees are going to be in lieu of a fall session, which is what we've been calling for. We'll at least be able to point to that and say, "There are some members doing something," but it is highly ironic.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Members of the Public Accounts Committee have been involved in attempting to have this report referred to them. It's my understanding that this was a unanimous understanding and agreement with all members of the Public Accounts Committee, and we're delighted to accommodate their request.
Leave granted.
Motion approved.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I have the pleasure of tabling the annual report of the Motor Carrier Commission for 1994-95; and, on behalf of the Minister of Employment and Investment, the annual reports of the B.C. Transportation Financing Authority for 1993-94 and 1994-95, the B.C. Ferry Corporation for 1994-95, and Victoria Line Ltd. for 1994.
G. Farrell-Collins: I'd like to beg leave of the House to make an introduction of sorts, if I may.
Leave granted.
G. Farrell-Collins: I want to extend at this time my thanks and the thanks of the caucus to the staff of this Legislature, who continue to serve us session after session in the most professional manner, extending from the Speaker's chair all the way through the organization to those hard-working people who are up till past midnight in the cafeteria, serving us when we go in there and cheering us up when things aren't always going so wonderfully.
I want to particularly thank the staff in the Clerk's office, who have been particularly supportive this year. A good deal of credit goes to all of those who continue year after year to serve this House, as well as the diligent staff in our caucus offices, who helped us this session as in every session.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: On behalf of government members and all members as well as the House Leader of the official opposition, may I extend my thanks and our thanks to all of the people in and around this building who have assisted all of us during the last four or five months in this session and will continue to assist us in the months to come. Their work is invaluable and is very much appreciated by all members.
I make particular reference to both the staff in the parliamentary dining room and to the Sergeant-at-Arms staff, who are always extremely cooperative and helpful to all members.
C. Serwa: As we look forward to the adjournment of the fourth session of the thirty-fifth parliament, I too would like to add my thanks to all of those who so ably serve this Legislature in this particular building.
Special heartfelt best wishes and thanks go to John Semeniuk, who, I understand, is retiring at the end of this session. I have always appreciated his cheerful, personable service. His steadfastness in the service of this Legislature has been exemplary. On behalf of my caucus and perhaps all members here, I would like to extend my sincere and heartiest thanks to John for his service to this Legislature.
The Speaker: Hon. Members, I had intended to say some similar remarks at the end, following the L-G's appearance. However, I want to stay in tone with what members have expressed. I want to say thank you, on behalf of all members
[ Page 17015 ]
and myself, to my staff, the Clerks and all of the people in the various branches, the Sergeant-at-Arms, the Legislative Library, Hansard, the closed-captioners -- whom we never see, but who do yeoman's work behind the scenes -- the Queen's Printer, the dining room, the legislative comptroller and all of the members who are working behind the scenes for the various parties. You have been doing a super job to keep democracy working and healthy. Something that I think, quite frankly, we probably don't pause enough to do is thank the people who are not always visible but whom we all rely on a great deal in order to do our jobs. I know that there are some hundred or so of them out there someplace, most of them behind the scenes. Thank you.
It's been a very long session, and I know that all members are looking forward to a little break. I think we can all take pride in having this forum in which to do our business on behalf of the people of British Columbia. Thank you very much.
Hon. members, I believe His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor is about to enter the chamber. If members will just keep their seats, he should be coming in soon.
His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor entered the chamber and took his place in the chair.
Law Clerk:
Election Act
Park Amendment Act, 1995
An Act to Protect Medicare
Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 3), 1995
Workers Compensation Amendment Act, 1995
Clerk of the House: In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor does assent to these bills.
Hon. G.B. Gardom (Lieutenant-Governor): Hon. members, this rather none-too-endless summer is well upon us, and I think on this concluding day I would rather like to deliver a message myself and offer a few words of commendation to you, because on behalf of your constituencies, your constituents, and the province you have laboured hard and long during the whole of the session. Well do we all know -- and I say, especially each one of you and yours -- that the political adventure is not an easy path. But it's what democracy is all about and what makes it work.
So for all of that, on behalf of the office that I am honoured to represent, plus personally, I extend to each one of you my commendation, my congratulation and my appreciation for jobs well done. Now, I hope you'll all be able to enjoy some glorious summer with your spouses, your partners, your children and your friends. You've earned it. Have a great one. Keep health, God bless and a bientot.
[1:45]
His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor retired from the chamber.
[The Speaker in the chair.]
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I move that the House at its rising do stand adjourned until it appears to the satisfaction of the Speaker, after consultation with the government, that the public interest requires that the House shall meet or until the Speaker may be advised by the government that it is desired to prorogue the fourth session of the thirty-fifth parliament of the province of British Columbia. The Speaker may give notice that he is so satisfied or has been so advised, and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated in such notice and, as the case may be, may transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned to that time and date. And moreover, in the event of the Speaker being unable to act owing to illness or other cause, the Deputy Speaker shall act in his stead for the purposes of this order.
The Speaker: Hon. members, before I put the question, I will just make one brief announcement. There will be a reception in the rotunda for all members, their staff and people in the precinct, so that we can thank everyone personally and wish them a happy and enjoyable summer.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 1:46 p.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]