[ Page 1703 ]

The House resumed at 7:01 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Hon. J. MacPhail: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply, and for the information of the members, we'll be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and the Ministry of Small Business, Tourism and Culture. In the House, I call Committee of Supply, and for the information of the members, we'll be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Labour and the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs.

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

On vote 42: minister's office, $403,000 (continued).

The Chair: Shall vote 42 pass? I recognize the hon. member for West Vancouver-Capilano.

J. Dalton: A little later this evening, yes, hon. Chair, but not at the moment.

For the information of the minister and his staff, I have a series of questions which I want to ask on labour relations and labour programs, which are the essence, but not the complete essence, of his ministry. These will be questions on accountability -- i.e., where the money is being directed. As the minister might expect, there will probably be some questions on policy issues such as the fair-wage policy, too.

First, I take note of the labour relations division profile. I believe I gave them credit yesterday, but I want to do so again. I thank the ministerial staff for their briefing and some of the overview notes that we received, which were helpful. But naturally, there are some questions that come out of the overview, and we just want some clarification on some of them. With regard to the labour relations division profile, which has a budget of $226,600 for this current estimates year, I note, under the major responsibilities of this division, that it's listed that there's an ongoing liaison with the Labour Relations Board. That's a fairly brief statement. Can the minister amplify on what the ongoing liaison with the LRB would be in this regard?

Hon. M. Sihota: What that means in simple terms is that Mr. Cott is responsible for the linkage between the Labour Relations Board, the ministry and myself. So he has staff and responsibilities to make sure that there are channels of communication, that the Labour Relations Board, for example, stays within its budget, behaves itself from a fiscal point of view, carries out its administrative functions and follows through on the directives that I may, from time to time, issue.

J. Dalton: That's, as I probably would have anticipated, a fairly general response. Does that mean, for example, that the minister will be advised through his assistant deputy minister, who, of course, is the overseer of this particular division, that any specific issues that have been brought to the attention of the Labour Relations Board will, in turn, be forwarded to the minister for his attention, if need be? Does this division perform that kind of responsibility?

Hon. M. Sihota: Because the Labour Relations Board is independent of government, and because there is a need to maintain some communications with that agency from time to time.... Let me give you an example. Fees -- charging fees, filing fees -- with the Labour Relations Board are an administrative and fiscal issue. It may be that the Minister of Finance says to me, "Look, we need to raise more revenue. Can you do something out of Labour?" and I say: "Well, we'll look at this issue of fees." I may ask Mr. Cott to go and talk to them, seek their advice and see what they think. Anytime I do that, the answer from the Labour Relations Board will be: "No, you shouldn't do anything along those lines."

That's the kind of thing that would come up. From time to time I'm made aware of issues that are before the board, where once a decision is released -- you know, when a decision is out -- you may want to be aware of it. It just arrived today, and it lays out the parameters upon which education may be considered an essential service.

J. Dalton: That probably leads into the very next point that I want to seek the advice of the minister on. Another major responsibility as listed for the labour relations division is "any bargaining issues involving high-profile public interest labour relations disputes." That's a rather lengthy phrase, but that's a direct quote from the overview as provided.

The minister has cited the example of the essential service designation, and we discussed earlier in this committee the Vancouver school district application to the LRB about essential service, which, as we agreed, was only an academic exercise because of the intervention of the government through a special session. Would that be an appropriate example, when the public interest is brought to the attention of this division and then, of course, directed to the minister for his overview?

Hon. M. Sihota: There are other examples. You know, I have to approve the commencement of the process for designations for essential services. So the assistant deputy will come to me, and I may take the view that it's too early to start that, even though the board may think they want to get on with it. There are times when I think I want to get on with it, even though the board thinks it might be a bit premature. Sometimes there will be discussion; occasionally there will be a discussion about.... I don't think I've ever directed who should be involved in a dispute, but sometimes I'll be advised as to who's involved in a dispute.

Sometimes there are broad disputes like AirCare. Again I'll be frank with you; I'll give you another example. I came out of the Environment portfolio and was well aware of the impact on AirCare. So I let it be known to staff that I want an update on what's happening in that dispute. Normally, I wouldn't pick up the phone to the mediation division and ask them. I'd just ask Mr. Cott, and he'd get me the information. I may want to say: "Look, perhaps you should know that government is considering A, B and C, and you may want to convey that to the parties." So sometimes that kind of signalling will occur.

J. Dalton: It is interesting that the minister cited the very example that we had considered earlier today of the essential service designation, whereby, of course, he does have the final say as to whether such an application would proceed. Now, I don't want to revisit old territory, but given his dual capacity as both the Minister of Education and the Minister of Labour -- we're now debating the Labour estimates -- it may come back one day and present a real problem, a conflict, for this

[ Page 1704 ]

 minister in his dual capacity. But as I say, I just want to cite that as a potential example whereby the minister's dual portfolios could cause him some awkward times.

I don't think anyone in this House or committee would disagree that the essential service designation issue is clearly a high-profile public interest issue. Perhaps it is one we don't have to confront, given provincewide bargaining and other methods of trying to resolve education issues that are now in place -- but we'll have to see.

Major activities of this division are listed. Well, we've covered essential service designation requests. Earlier this committee touched on monitoring the impacts and effectiveness of labour relations law. I would take that to mean the invocation of section 3 of the Labour Relations Code. The minister agreed earlier that he has in mind to implement that, and I hope fairly soon, because I think it's long overdue for a very serious, objective look at the impacts of the code, which has now been in effect for almost four years. As the minister will recall, I did suggest that he might want to invoke section 7 of the Employment Standards Act, but he has indicated he's not prepared to do that.

I remind the committee that I reinforce the suggestion raised by my colleague for Richmond East that we consider an ongoing review of the Workers Compensation Act.

Hon. M. Sihota: Yes, those may be examples. You know, it's not out of the realm of probability that staff will come to me and say: "Look, this provision of the code isn't working, minister, and we really should make a change." It may show up as a miscellaneous statutes amendment provision. That would be another example.

Another example would be the construction industry. I may sit down and talk to staff about the challenges in the construction industry sector, just to see what our options are, and one of the options may be to appoint somebody out of the board or the mediation side of the operation to look into that issue for implementation. That's the kind of ongoing advice that I get from my staff in that division, and they get an indication of what the priorities of government would be.

J. Dalton: I have two other issues I want to canvass right now, which I'll get to in a moment. I see my two colleagues from Okanagan-Vernon and Vancouver-Quilchena are champing at the bit to get at the minister on a particular issue, so I will certainly be sure I allow them in, probably in about five minutes' time.

The next thing I do want to have a comment on is one of the statutes that is under the purview of this labour relations division, the Fire and Police Services Collective Bargaining Act -- not an easy thing to say -- and the minister is certainly familiar with that act. I presume the minister has had the opportunity to read or certainly to review Allan Hope's decision in the arbitration involving the Vernon firefighters. I understand -- and perhaps the minister can confirm this -- that that decision of Mr. Hope's went to a judicial review. If so, what was the outcome -- if there has been an outcome -- rendered in that case?

[7:15]

Hon. M. Sihota: The matter was referred back to Mr. Hope on the basis of inappropriate application of the criteria.

J. Dalton: Is it true that this inappropriate application was because he didn't apply the actual wording of the current act? Maybe he was relying on previous decisions or something that was not contained within the statute itself?

Hon. M. Sihota: No, it related to local conditions and the court's view that Mr. Hope perhaps had not taken into account or applied accurately and appropriately considerations involving the local conditions in the local market.

J. Dalton: I think probably one final question. Has Mr. Hope had the opportunity to revisit this issue? The reason why I am raising this, as the minister might appreciate, is that the city of Vernon, of course, is on record as being very concerned about the implications to the taxpayer, with wage parity being the central issue to the arbitration. Has Mr. Hope had the opportunity now to sit down and, in the context of the judicial review, revisit the application itself?

Hon. M. Sihota: Not that we are aware of.

J. Dalton: So we'll all stay tuned to see what the outcome of that revisit process is.

The other thing I wanted to ask about with regard to one part of the labour programs in the estimates is the labour services branch. There is a budget in the estimates of $226,400. I can't find any information provided as to the function of the labour services branch. What is the mandate of this particular branch?

Hon. M. Sihota: It is to provide management services for the office of the Assistant Deputy Minister of Labour, to liaise with chairs, members of the board, board reference groups and committees and with senior officials of business, labour and management; to assist boards with policy planning, research and analysis so that the goals of the ministry and the government are reflected. Those are the types of matters, and there is a broad range of issues that are to be dealt with, including recommendations for new trades, occupations, flexible learning alternatives, compulsory training and certification, cooperative education, equity issues, access, extensions of technical training, secondary-school apprenticeships and enhancement of trade advisory committees. The kind of boards that are involved there are, of course, boards such as the Workers Compensation Board, the Labour Force Development Board, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, the Ministry of Education -- because we talk to each other from time to time -- and so on. So there is a whole plethora of boards and activities there.

A. Sanders: I'm here specifically to discuss an issue with respect to the Labour ministry that affects my riding of Okanagan-Vernon. This is the Venture Training program that is operating in Okanagan-Vernon. The minister will have been apprised of this, as there has been a considerable amount of documented correspondence between Nancy Pike of the Venture Training program and the minister's office. Specifically, I'm here to address the facility.

Venture Training is made up of three sheltered workshop programs which are in operation for the physically and, more importantly, the mentally handicapped. Those two groups of disabled individuals are, using the word loosely, "employed" at the Venture Training program. Venture Training will close July 31, primarily because of the Employment Standards Act. There are three aspects to the Venture Training program: Venture Training, which is a sheltered woodwork shop facility; All Occasions, which is a party decoration facility -- the individuals who are, again using the word loosely, "working" 

[ Page 1705 ]

at All Occasions make decorations for weddings and birthdays, etc., for the community; and Cycle Cycle, which is a bicycle repair facility. It also finds lost bicycles and is a glass recycling enterprise.

This three-faceted sheltered workshop is run by the Vernon and District Association for the Mentally Handicapped. This operation has been in existence for 40 years. There were, as of last week, individuals who had been in that program for 25 years continuously. There are 80 individuals. They are individuals who have impairments of severe magnitude, in some cases, with extremely compromised IQs -- if the minister still looks at IQ as a measurement. From my point of view, they often will be severely handicapped individuals -- with Down's syndrome, for example -- who have concomitant physical handicaps of congenital abnormalities of the heart, blood pressure, perhaps digestive system, visual system or who are hearing impaired, etc.

These 80 people, some who have worked there for 25 years, are employed in the Venture Training program. The problem with Venture Training is the Employment Standards Act. This has been a hard pill to swallow for the individuals who run the Vernon and District Association for the Mentally Handicapped, because of an NDP government -- because the NDP is supposedly the government that stands up for the small people, the minority groups, those who have impairments of some kind. Specifically, the Employment Standards Act is cited by the Vernon and District Association for the Mentally Handicapped as the reason for the facility's closure. The woodwork shop closed last week; the bicycle repair and glass recycling station will close in September.

I presented a petition on behalf of my district today, containing 2,700 names. These names are of people from the business sector, people who work in the facility and members of the Vernon and District Association for the Mentally Handicapped. It also contains the full script of the mayor and council of Vernon; a letter from Joanne Kineshanko, the mayor of Lumby; the scripts of the Social Planning Council in Vernon; and the scripts of the participants and their families, many of these who have been employed there for quite some time. I do have letters from participants in the group that I am very happy to table for the minister.

But most importantly, they include 2,700 names of people in the Vernon community who -- over a very short time, specifically about a month -- have gone to the trouble of signing the petitions in various locations in Vernon, to say: "We do not want this government to stop this program. We've had it for 40 years. It's worked; it's provided a service. Our community cannot believe, especially under an NDP government, that we're going to see this service go."

So what specifically is the problem? What has happened under the Employment Standards Act is that government has said what these individuals are doing is classified as a job. If it is a job, these individuals are working. If they are working, they should be paid minimum wage. If you go to this facility, you will find that some of the people working in Venture Training are not able to speak. Those who are able to speak may not be able to read, and those who are able to read may not be able to write. We're talking about a number of individuals who are not productive enough within any society, let alone ours, to be appropriate for mainstream training.

This program in Vernon, with its three sheltered workshops, runs on a deficit. When the Employment Standards Act was first introduced, the government said to this group: "Come talk to us, and we'll see how we can work with you so you can get around the rules, and you can have your handicapped individuals be on some kind of training program." Many of the people who are on the board of this particular group are fairly ideologically driven, as is our present government. Not only have some of them worked there a long time, they have individuals in their family who are employed in Venture Training, -- handicapped individuals who are adults living in their own homes. What they really took exception to, with the government's view that if they just came in here, they'd figure some way for them to get this under the rug, was that their programs would be exempt unless they went into the refocus program.

The refocus program under the Employment Standards Act, as I understand it, assumes that clients would one day enter the job market. We are looking at individuals who in some cases have worked in this facility for 25 years. From the director's descriptions to me, there are individuals who have spent a very considerable period of time taking a bottle from this area and putting it over in that area, or taking a piece of wood that's been cut to a certain shape and moving it over to the next station. They are completely happy and productive; they have a place to go, and they are doing good work. But the limitations in scope of what they're doing would never be delineated into a retraining program where in three years they would move out into the workforce and obtain a job with competition within the real world.

I have very good descriptions of many of these people from a medical point of view, if the minister wishes to look at what kind of people we're talking about. To assume that some of these clients would one day enter any realistic job market is absolutely, totally, patently ridiculous.

Venture is not an achievement centre. Under the Employment Standards Act, one of the things that has been asked is what can be done to move these people out into the world so that they can achieve something -- so they can move beyond what their scope is and get into the active job market. Venture operates under a self-help skills contract that is augmented by sales and contracts with outside businesses such as B.C. Gas, B.C. Hydro and Tolko Industries, a large employer in the forest industry in the Vernon and district area. The information that I have for the minister, along with the petition, includes supporting letters from all these industries and groups who employ the individuals who work at Venture Training.

The other part that was very difficult for this group to look at was that the government went in and did a mockup, and they said: "These people are working, and because they're working, you need to pay them minimum wage. This is work. This is not training; you don't have a program." The people at Venture said to the ministry officials who were involved in enforcement of the Employment Standards Act: "What is a training program? Show us an example."

[7:30]

Again, objective criteria are lacking. There is no objective criterion such as: "This is a training program, and this is what you have to look at and go by." There were no examples of training programs, and there was no incentive for the hiring of extra staff to somehow make a mockery of this and invent training programs for these individuals who are moving one block or one bottle from here to there. In addition, there was no funding. Everything else was the same, but no funding was provided for extra staff to come in and invent mock training programs.

The ridiculousness of thinking that in many cases these people would in three years be going into the competition for 

[ Page 1706 ]

mainstream employment is beyond belief, when you look at what is happening in these sheltered workshops. So from an ideological point of view, the board of this group said: "Forget it. We are not going to play a charade and invent some stupid training program so that the ministry is happy that these people who have been here for a quarter of a century are going to be trained and out of here, competing with the real world in three years."

Now, what the people from Venture Training have told me is that the government will have a definite response to the argument. They will say that these people in Vernon are renegades. Their own associations, the B.C. Association for Community Living and the Canadian Mental Health Association, are in agreement with the Employment Standards Act. Well, I think what's important for the minister to recognize is that these organizations, the CMHA and the BCACL, are not training programs. They are often therapeutic programs, and in the case of the CMHA, they do run therapeutic programs for psychiatrically disabled patients who often, from a medication point of view, can be remediated and sent into the workforce. They don't have a congenital or an acquired condition that keeps them in a circumstance where for life they will be the way they are.

For the staff positions, Venture Training itself is in full support of the Employment Standards Act. The people who work on the Venture Training program as coordinators or administrators are paid far beyond minimum wage, so they are well remunerated for what they do. Those individuals are quite happy with looking at the minimum wage for this particular program and saying that if you're doing work, you're paid the minimum wage.

So what do we have? Well, we have what I consider to be a big mess and something that is really a mockery of what we're trying to do. We're trying to produce a program where people are paid for doing work at a level that they can live on, and that's not even going into the arguments about whether minimum wage at $7 and increasing with yearly inflation is appropriate, because that's a whole other set of points of view and arguments. But in terms of people who are permanently handicapped and disabled, is this appropriate? Do we now close this program that's been there for a really long time, supported by a huge part of the community and certainly by the governance part of the community, because of some stupid act the government brings in?

We now put those people on day programs or make-work kinds of projects or pretend training when, in fact, none of those things makes sense for these people. These people are doing fine, and we're closing down their place, a place they've gone for a really long time. My community is furious over this. They're not furious over the Employment Standards Act. Some may be, but it's not related to this. They're furious about the definition of work and the fact that these individuals are now going to be put in day programs, or whatever. In some cases, the money for restructuring is far in excess of what these people would get for what they're doing, and this program is folding.

My community has said: "We want the minister to be aware of this. We've sent letters. The minister is too busy to meet with us. The ministry staff is too busy to correspond with us." They want to hear from this minister in this ministry, and they have asked me to bring this issue here so that they are sure that you understand what's going on for them. If you understand and the decisions are the same, then so be it. But they need to know, in what they are doing in the community, that there is no potential for misrepresentation or misunderstanding. Whatever the information the minister wishes to impart to me tonight, I will take back to these individuals and their families. But it's important for me to know that he understands what this is about and what the legislation has indirectly created in one community in British Columbia.

I look forward to the minister's rebuttal. I have some questions -- five questions -- and they are brief, after my monologue, but they will just impart different areas of....

The Chair: Excuse me, hon. member. I am sure you appreciate the time limits that do exist, even in discussions at this time. If you just want to let the minister reply, then you can ask your questions.

A. Sanders: Thank you, Madam Chair. I would look forward to the minister replying.

Hon. M. Sihota: The hon. member, I think, made one comment which I take umbrage with. She called this a stupid act. I don't think she really meant to say that; at least, I hope she didn't mean to say that. This act tried to grapple with a significant and difficult philosophical issue in society, and that issue is the degree to which we would try to apply the principles of equality to individuals suffering with disabilities.

We have an obligation as a society to try to treat people who suffer from disabilities in a respectful and dignified way. We have an obligation, and we believe in this country that one ought not to be discriminated against on the basis of their disability, and that all people are to be treated equally, regardless of disabilities.

The Employment Standards Act changes that the hon. member refers to were designed to grapple with that issue which many in the past have chosen to be blind to. Now, there is an outcome in terms of the legislation, and in the application of trying to extend those principles of equality, it may well be that it isn't applied with perfection, and it may well be the system doesn't work as well as one would have hoped it would. It may well be that in trying to grapple with the issue, people overreached or underreached, as the case may be.

But quite frankly, hon. Chair, I take exception to the categorization of the effort to deal with that issue as being stupid. I come very close to getting angry when I hear that. I will just say that for the hon. member. I don't have difficulty with her standing up here and saying: "Look, you tried to deal with this problem, you came up with an act, and I don't think it's working." I don't mind having a debate on that basis. But when one begins to sort of poke at the philosophic underpinnings of legislation, I do have difficulty.

Now, there are 22 centres of this nature in the province, and two of them -- one in Vernon and, I believe, one in Surrey -- are centres that we're having some difficulties with. My own sense of this matter is that there are some hard opinions held by both the Ministry of Social Services and the operators of this facility in Vernon. It seems to me that inasmuch as we have been able to resolve 20 of the 22 cases, there's got to be some way to respect the principle that was found in the statute and to allow for some consideration of the situation that exists in Vernon.

The hon. member is right. She knows that if it's a training program, a preparation program or a support program, as opposed to an employment program, then there are different outcomes. The act does not apply in the case of a support program or preparation program or, as the member alluded to, for three years under a training program.

[ Page 1707 ]

I will try in this House to defuse what I think could be potentially a really explosive debate by simply suggesting to the hon. member that I will have staff from my ministry, as opposed to Social Services, intervene in this matter and see if there can be a resolution to an issue that has clearly concerned both the MLA for the area and the community that she represents.

G. Wilson: I think this is a critical issue. I think that the minister will be aware that through a number of organizations -- BCACL is one -- active work is already underway with respect to the ministry and staff actions to look at the Employment Standards Act in terms of whether or not the definition of work, as it is already there, applies.

In fact, the member for Victoria-Hillside has already done a lot of work, and I know the Powell River Source Club has already actively pushed this issue forward over the last number of months to try to get that definition clarified. I would say that while I certainly concur that these are by no means stupid programs -- these are programs that are of enormous importance to these people -- the definition of work that is contained within the Employment Standards Act quite likely does not apply with respect to the number of minimum hours. That's the issue.

I think that there is a solution underway. It would be nice to hear a commitment from the minister that the definition could be clarified, and that there could be some kind of communication to those organizations to let them know that there shouldn't be a great deal of excitement around this right now, that this is an issue that is acknowledged by all parties as needing to be clarified and that, in fact, work is underway to get that clarification in place. I do know it has caused considerable trauma, perhaps unnecessarily so. In this debate I would certainly not want to exacerbate the situation by having people who may be tuned in maybe misunderstanding what is being said here and thinking that this issue is not in fact being solved. I believe the solution is near at hand, and I know that many people in this condition and situation will often become easily traumatized by a situation that is quite unnecessary.

[7:45]

A. Sanders: In rebuttal to the minister's comments, I apologize to the minister if I have offended his ideology. There was no intent to do that. Those words were not my words. In fact, they were words of one of the individuals who had written to me, who is a member of the Venture Training program and a self-advocate in terms of how she viewed how this was affecting her life. I do not look at this program in terms of the Employment Standards Act; I am looking at it from the point of view of someone employed in this situation who is mentally and physically challenged and finds that they've been put out of work by an act that's supposed to be good for them.

Now, if you have a situation where you invoke a treatment on a patient and the patient dies, then that is not a good treatment. In fact, it may be a stupid treatment. You look at it again and ask: what kind of changes could we make to curtail, dovetail, fit that treatment to that patient profile? These are the things I understand. I'm not a labour lawyer. I am not physically or mentally challenged, as far as I know. But I do appreciate from talking to these people and from talking to their advocates what it feels like for them to have just closed down their program and what it feels like for them to have tried to get an audience with this minister and this ministry. They have been told that there was no time, that the session was in, that we were too busy.

I don't want to get into an ideological argument here. We are on opposite sides of the House for a very good reason, and that is because our ideology is not the same. I'm talking about how we can work together in a win-win situation so that the government in power, who wish to have an Employment Standards Act which will work for a large majority of individuals, can also provide for people who are physically and mentally handicapped, without saying: "Let's sweep them under the carpet because they don't quite fit the rules." What can we do together that will offer them the opportunity to keep working?

As the hon. member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast has said, this has to do with the definition of work. It doesn't have to do with the act per se; it doesn't have to do with minimum wage. It has to do with how you define work. The employment standards branch of this government has come into this facility and said: "These people are working, and therefore they are paid minimum wage. They're not being trained, because we know that in three years they're not going anywhere."

We need to have something here to accommodate people like this. If we don't do this, this government, with its mandate to protect the little people, has totally missed the base. I am willing to work with this minister in any way, shape or form to get around or to make this situation one where these people can be profitably employed in something that has worked for a really long time, without putting them in the situation where we have to pretend that they're working or pretend that they're training.

They are writing their own letters to this minister, saying:

"You've got a lot to learn about what it is like to be a physically and mentally challenged individual. I know. I've worked at Venture Training and other workplaces. So please don't close down Venture Training and other workshops and workplaces that people like me need to have to be useful and happy citizens.

"Signed,
Amanda Lennard"

Hon. M. Sihota: Let's just step aside from this situation where people are suffering from disabilities. There are times in this province when people find themselves unemployed, for whatever reason. Sometimes it's because of a decision of government, because of a policy change in government; sometimes it's because of a decision of an employer. Those are always emotional times for the community and for the people that are directly impacted. Just as in this case, these are emotional times for the people that are impacted and, obviously, for the community, given the reaction that the hon. member refers to. It is very easy, in the world that we live in, to play upon those emotions. Different agendas sometimes get driven by doing that. I'm not accusing the hon. member of operating on an ideological agenda. Maybe she is; maybe she isn't. But I'm assuming that she's not. There may be others who are. Whatever the case may be, my approach in these kinds of cases has been to try to dampen these emotions and to take a cold, hard look at the matter to see if there's anything we can do to try to salvage the "employment" situation people find themselves in.

This government has indicated over the last ten days that we were prepared to meet with people to discuss this issue -- not myself and not the Premier, but that at the political level, we would designate someone to have a meeting; at the highest-officials level, we would designate somebody, because it would really be at that level that this issue should be resolved. That offer was not acceptable, but I want the hon. member to know that that offer and option is still open. I'm 

[ Page 1708 ]

prepared to have the member for Victoria-Hillside -- who has considerable experience in these matters -- meet my assistant deputy minister, who also has experience in these matters, to try to find a resolution. If a resolution has been found in 20 of 22 cases, I have no doubt that, if emotions are kept controlled, we can find a resolution to this issue. I would hope so. Whether people are mentally or physically challenged or not, it's a tragedy all around if they find themselves out of work. So I will deal with this issue in that fashion and, for the time being, in that fashion only. We'll try to get it resolved on that basis.

I don't think I have much more to say about this matter. I guess we can always get into a political fight about it, but that's what we're prepared to do. We will do that, and you have my commitment that that will happen.

A. Sanders: I wish at this time to thank the minister. This minister and myself will be working together in many areas, and I think this is a good building block for how we will work together. There are discrepancies in ideology, but I do believe that this is a reasonable individual, and I do believe that he will look at this circumstance, now that he's been apprised of it, and come up with whatever the right decision is. My responsibility has been to bring this issue to this House. I have done that, and I look forward to hearing the minister's comments when he reviews the situation.

Hon. M. Sihota: I just want, with the indulgence of the Chair, to put something on the record -- and because the hon. member is here, to give her the opportunity to respond, should she wish. That is as follows: yesterday, during the course of discussion on estimates as they relate to Education, we were involved in a passing debate about deficits in other school districts. During the course of that debate, I was advised by staff that letters had not gone out to a number of school districts who had made an application to have their deficits approved. Today, at 6:30, I was advised by my staff that indeed those letters had gone out. Inadvertently, on the record, I had given the hon. member the wrong impression. So, just to correct the record, I want to make sure that the hon. member is made aware of that. If she wishes to canvass that issue, I'm quite prepared -- I'm sure with the liberty of the Chair -- to canvass it further.

A. Sanders: I appreciate that from the hon. minister. I do not wish to canvass it, and I appreciate his honesty.

C. Hansen: The Employment Standards Act is a subject that is of considerable interest to me. I must say that I've seen it from an employer's side, and certainly I know the sentiments of individuals who are owners of small businesses. I'm trying to get a better understanding of it from a public policy point of view. In that vein tonight, I have a couple of questions to get a better understanding as to where the minister was coming from with the Employment Standards Act. He had indicated earlier this afternoon that while he wasn't prepared to undertake a review of the whole act, he was planning to be meeting with sectoral groups over the months to come. I'm wondering if the minister could advise us of what sectoral groups he plans to be meeting with.

Hon. M. Sihota: I intend to meet with the particular sectoral groups in the agricultural industry, because I think there are some challenges there. It is impossible for me to make my way through Victoria and not run into Don Monsour, so I might as well meet with the hospitality and restaurant industries, as well. Those are the two I had in mind.

C. Hansen: One of the sectoral groups that feels they were left out of the consultation process before the act was written is the small business community. As the minister may know, small business in British Columbia accounts for 70 percent of job creation, and it's certainly a very important and vital sector. They have some very serious concerns about the way the Employment Standards Act is being administered, as opposed to the act itself. I wonder if the minister would consider meeting with the small business sector, specifically with regard to their concerns on employment standards.

Hon. M. Sihota: I'm surprised that the hon. member would have to raise that on the floor of the House. I assume he's speaking of the Coalition of B.C. Businesses. Am I correct in that assumption? The member can just nod. Well, they met most recently with my deputy and my assistant deputy minister. At that point I didn't see the need for us to meet. I had a brief discussion with the president of that organization concerning a WCB matter. My recollection of that meeting is that she didn't ask for a formal meeting, but over the ordinary course of events those meetings will happen in any event. Largely because of the fact that the House has been sitting over the summer, and then after this, there will be a break, I'm sure, for everybody, I'll only start getting into my regular roster of meetings in the fall. I think it's inevitable that I'll meet with this group sometime over the next four to six months. These things happen, but I don't see anything pressing at this point that would warrant an immediate meeting.

C. Hansen: What I've found in the discussions I've had with owners of small business is that there's a lack of knowledge and understanding of the implications of the Employment Standards Act. It goes back not to just the changes that were made in the last parliament but to the Employment Standards Act as it's existed for years. Your staff at the ministry kindly sent me some information on the number of individuals who have gone through orientation programs with regard to the changes to the act. While it may seem like a significant number, it's really a very small number when you consider the number of small businesses in the province.

[8:00]

My concern is that the act serves not so much as the rules by which people administer their workplace, but rather that it becomes something that is basically there to punish a business owner after the fact when they inadvertently develop a procedure which was not consistent with the act. It's an area I have some real concern with, because I've raised some specific examples both from the previous act and from the changes for businesses, and people say: "Well, no, it can't be that, because that's not logical; it's not common sense." I think legislation is most effective when it is seen to be following common sense, so that it leads somebody who administers the workplace in a way that is in keeping with what would be defined as being a good employer -- in the direction of fulfilling the obligations of the act.

There are a lot of areas I want to explore more in the months to come, and perhaps next spring we can have a more substantive discussion on this. As I say, I'm still very much in the learning curve of the implications of public policy. I know that there is a provision in the act that allows for variances. I'm wondering if the minister could advise us of the numbers of applications that have come forward with regard to variances -- not the exact numbers, if he doesn't have them, but a rough estimate of what we're looking at in terms of a request for variances.

Hon. M. Sihota: We'll get you that information; we don't have it here. But let me say this to the hon. member. If he has 

[ Page 1709 ]

views as to what should be changed under the Employment Standards Act, he should send them to me. As I was saying earlier today, there's a benefit to being in a portfolio for the second time, because you sometimes see and hear a lot of things. The sky was supposed to fall in, you know, when we brought forward this legislation, but we have the best economy in Canada. Small businesses are doing reasonably well; in comparison to other provinces, they're doing very well. We have the best economy and the best job creation record in Canada. We have the best credit rating. Moody's rating came out today, and it reinforced the rating of the Dominion Bond Rating Service. That happened despite all the concern we heard about some forecast, so we're doing pretty good here in British Columbia. We have very good employment standards legislation. Now, it's true that sometimes people aren't fully informed of the legislation. Sometimes they only find out that they were supposed to do something after the fact. Most employers don't purposely violate provisions of the legislation. When they find out, subsequently, that they did something wrong, then they correct it. We get the odd occasion when we have to do some enforcement.

While you were talking, hon. member, it occurred to me that it might be a worthwhile idea to have more education right in our school system -- that's the benefit of having both hats on -- so we can teach young people a little bit more about their rights as employees and potential employers. I'd be interested to know whether the opposition would see value in that, because that might be a welcome curriculum change.

C. Hansen: The minister touched on another pet topic and project of mine: those aspects of the curriculum which affect the labour force. I know that the career and personal planning program is something that has been relatively successful, though not without glitches. That program is very good at orienting students toward finding employment, but my concern is that we have another program, too. We don't have programs in our schools that orient students in our school system toward the creation of jobs and employment. That is certainly something that is very much of interest.

I would like to come back to the minister's offer of information on applications for variances. That's something I would very much appreciate. Specifically, I know that in the act there are certain categories for which variances can be issued. If I could get information broken down by those different provisions of the act -- and by industry sector, if possible -- it would be most helpful. I also understand that there is a provision in the act for exemptions that can be granted under the act, and I know of at least one which has been well publicized: the taxi industry. I'm wondering if any other exemptions have been granted or are being contemplated at this time.

Hon. M. Sihota: I'd be quite happy to get that information for the hon. member, but I want to make sure that he understands that I run a very tight ministry with limited resources and high expectations. Sometimes they have to work long hours, and it's going to take some time to get this information put together. I don't think that it's collected in a way that fits with what the member has asked for. We'll get it done; I just don't want you to have an expectation that you're going to see it on your desk within 48 or 96 hours, as I often try to do with questions that are asked. It may take a while for us to get that information.

There have been some exemptions under the legislation; taxis are one. There are a number of applications for temporary exemptions now. That includes the truck loggers, truckers, regulations concerning the mentally challenged, and GAIN recipients, to name a few. I should also say that I believe in the agricultural field we've given at least some consideration to exemptions.

C. Hansen: The information is certainly not something that I would want somebody to spend a lot of time on, because I appreciate that staff time is valuable. But even just information in a general sense, if somebody can give me some round numbers, or even a telephone call from somebody who can give me a feel for the kinds of requests that are coming in, would be most appreciated.

There was a comment that the minister made earlier, I think, regarding.... I forget what prompted this thought to go through my head. But I did want to comment that in this chamber there are 75 of us who all come from different backgrounds and experiences. Ten years ago I did not have any experience as the owner of a small business, and in the last ten years I've had that experience. All of us collectively bring experiences to this chamber that we can benefit from when we're evaluating the effects of legislation.

Certainly I would have looked at something like an Employment Standards Act quite differently ten years ago than I do now, knowing the realities and day-to-day life of individuals who are trying to run small businesses, keep themselves afloat and keep all the balls juggling in the air at one time when you don't have a large staff. Basically, you have a very small staff to deal with such a broad range of responsibilities, whether they're legislated responsibilities such as the Employment Standards Act or just the day-to-day crises that will happen in a small business. It's an enormous challenge, and I think anybody who has not been through that probably doesn't appreciate that challenge.

Then when you get an added paper burden and regulation put on top of that, it may seem like a small thing, but in fact it's really quite dramatic for a lot of small businesses. It's the kind of thing that often discourages people from continuing in business or from going into business in the first place. That's where I'm coming from on this. Certainly I hope the work that I hope to do on this over the months to come will be constructive. I will definitely be making what I hope will be constructive suggestions to the minister.

Going back to the minister's previous responsibility as Minister of Environment, there are those that in the interest of promoting better air quality.... I know that the work the minister has done in the past has been celebrated and applauded. But the whole area of the compressed workweek is something that has been encouraged as one way of dealing with air quality and emission controls. I wonder if the minister sees that as running contrary to some of the lack of flexibility in the Employment Standards Act.

Hon. M. Sihota: Under the legislation, opportunities to ask for variances that are tailor-made or off the rack, so to speak, are available for individuals or companies that may want to look at a compressed workweek for environmental and other reasons. There are good economic reasons to have those compressed workweeks -- maybe a lot of good reasons for us to reduce the amount of weeks one has to work and to have a shorter workweek, so as to deal with other challenges that society has, as well. There are provisions in the statutes that do allow for that.

[T. Stevenson in the chair.]

In terms of your ten years of experience and your experience before those ten years, I should say this is why, when we 

[ Page 1710 ]

made changes to the Employment Standards Act, I reached into the faculty of commerce at the University of British Columbia. I had Prof. Mark Thompson chair the employment standards review and have a wide dialogue with small and medium-sized businesses, workers, all numbers of people in society, before we brought forward the changes that we have placed in the Employment Standards Act, and which have contributed in some ways to the fact that we have the most buoyant economy in Canada, with the best credit rating in the country.

C. Hansen: I'm sure we don't want to get into a long discussion tonight about Mark Thompson's report or the ideological bent that may have driven some of that stuff. That's another discussion, but not for this hour of the day.

There is actually a very good publication that has the minister's picture in it. It says: "B.C. Leads Nation in Clean Air Action." It's got a very nice picture of the minister standing beside a bus on the Second Narrows Bridge. There are ten ways to breathe easier, and item No. 9 of the ten ways is to consider an alternative work schedule, compressed workweeks, flextime, telecommuting, etc.

I'm certainly aware of the provisions in the Employment Standards Act to allow for a compressed workweek. Quite frankly, it's not going to happen, because if you start putting a business owner, who already has enough things on their plate to deal with, through the procedure that is necessary, the paperwork that is necessary, to implement a flexible work schedule.... For all of the honourable objectives of a compressed workweek, whether it's to the advantage of the employee's quality of life, whether it's to the advantage of the employees when it comes to child care requirements, or whether it's to the advantage of the environment when it comes to reducing the amount of pollution in our air, I think the Employment Standards Act just results in so much additional paperwork and paper burden to a small business that it's just not going to happen.

When it does come time to review the Employment Standards Act, it's an area that I hope the minister looks at seriously. I hope that the minister, to the extent that he has flexibility and the ability to look at variance in the act in the short term, will take advantage of that flexibility and the ability for variance, to make the act easier to deal with, so that it's in the interests of both employees and employers.

Hon. M. Sihota: I want the hon. member to know that it takes less time to process that application for a variance than it does to read the entirety of that pamphlet.

C. Hansen: I had just said to my colleague from West Vancouver-Capilano that I was finished, but I really do have to respond to that. When we get into the Guide to the Employment Standards Act, which is a handy little summary, for which I certainly compliment those who drafted it, it's not so much the time it takes to process it. It's the time that it takes the owner of the company to go through the hoops with their staff, the posting, the filing of notices. It's that added paper burden that I know lawyers love. But from the point of view of a small business owner, it's the kind of thing that really stifles small business, stifles job creation and, I think, just makes it far more difficult for that small business sector to really thrive in our society. On that note, I will turn it over to my colleague.

[8:15]

J. Dalton: Funnily enough, I've got the very same document in my hand. I wasn't particularly intending to draw to the attention of the minister the content of it, because he is well aware of its content. But I think the previous two members who addressed particular issues in the Employment Standards Act reiterated and reinforced what I suggested to the minister earlier. I think a re-examination and evaluation is definitely needed very soon -- not just of the sectoral stuff that he is talking about, but a true, objective evaluation of the impact of this act.

I might, for example, draw the minister's attention -- my colleague from Quilchena just referred to it -- to chapter 8. Under the flexible work schedules, an employer has to jump through many hoops to get a flexible work schedule put together, all of which conditions are to be met -- all of them, not just one or two. You can't mix or match, or pick and choose. There are four listed; I'm not going to go through this, because this is all known to the minister and his officials. Let's not kid ourselves. The member for Vancouver-Quilchena is quite right about the paperwork, the regulations and the hoops that have to be jumped through. Small business people don't have the time, let alone the inclination, to go through that. It's a costly and very counterproductive venture. That's all I want to add to that subject.

I would like to move into another topic that no doubt will be a favourite of the minister's, and that's the fair wage. Of course, this House debated the fair-wage policy at length in the last parliament, leading up to the implementation of the act that we are all having to live with. I am sure the minister will be familiar with an interesting study -- and hopefully he's had a chance to read it -- that came out on July 9 of this year from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, dealing with this province's fair wage.

Interjection.

J. Dalton: Isn't it a surprise that the minister, in his own way, is suggesting that this thing has indicated that the province is doing a good job? I think we have to consider the authorship of this document. This document -- and I'll get to the authorship of it in a moment -- makes several recommendations, so perhaps we can just run through them quickly and see whether the minister has bought into this stuff. Or maybe he authored it; I don't know. However, maybe we'll discover that.

There is a recommendation that the dollar threshold be decreased from the current $250,000 to $50,000. Is that being contemplated by the ministry?

Hon. M. Sihota: Well, now that you ask.... I don't think so.

J. Dalton: Did I hear a negative on that?

Interjection.

J. Dalton: Okay, fine.

Secondly, as to whether the level set for mandatory tendering -- well, that's the first.... "And the legislation be extended to cover all public works, including social housing and highways" -- is that being contemplated by the ministry?

Hon. M. Sihota: I believe that highways are already covered under the fair-wage act.

J. Dalton: Certainly the Island Highway is, that's true. I'm just referring to this release that came out.

[ Page 1711 ]

Putting aside whether the ministry has bought into this stuff or not, I think it's of interest when you see the two people whose names appear in this document. One is Duncan Cameron, who is the president of this outfit. He's headquartered in Ottawa. I don't know what somebody from Ottawa has to do with a B.C. fair-wage policy. The other person is a Simon Fraser, I presume.... In fact, I did have occasion to look through the Simon Fraser directory, and I did find her name: Marjorie Cohen. Is she not on the Hydro board?

Interjection.

J. Dalton: Well, there you go. But we don't want to get into the Hydro stuff now, no. If we go down the hall, we can talk Hydro.

So we discover not only that Ms. Cohen is a director of Hydro, but also that the address provided in this release is her private address -- nothing to do with Simon Fraser. Putting aside the content of this document, I certainly would question the authorship or the pedigree behind it. I am hoping that we are not going to be stampeded into some of these policy statements that come either from afar or from somebody's private address in Kitsilano -- which is not going to motivate this government, I trust, into a change of policy.

However, let me be more specific about the Fair Wage Act. As the minister knows, there are three essential or stated purposes in the act, and I'm wondering whether the ministry has the capability of measuring whether in fact these objectives are being met. He's referred to these in questions put to him in the Education estimates, so this is not, of course, new stuff. We're just revisiting this issue in the context of the Labour estimate.

First, one of the purposes is "to ensure skill development training in the construction industry." Does the ministry have any capability to measure whether, in fact, skill development training is being met as a stated purpose of the act?

The Chair: I'll just remind the member to speak through the Chair, please.

Hon. M. Sihota: The other day I was reading something from the Fraser Institute, when I realized that it was written by Owen Lippert. It occurred to me that he was a member of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada. Of course, I'm sure that the opposition isn't being stampeded by the ideology of right-wingers like Mr. Lippert, who ran in Esquimalt as a Conservative candidate and who got badly beaten, by the way, if memory serves me right.

The answer to your question is yes; we do monitoring. There has been a beneficial effect to the province of British Columbia on skills development, because of the apprenticeship provisions under the Fair Wage Act. I would like to think that inasmuch as all of us in this room can have a healthy debate about the Fair Wage Act, I would hope that nobody would take any issue with the increase in apprenticeships in the construction trades. There's been a 15 percent increase, and because of it, we're better off as a society. We've got people out there who are trained, and it makes those people far more employable. That is a valid and appropriate objective of the fair-wage policy, and it's working.

J. Dalton: I certainly do agree with the minister's comment about apprenticeships. In fact, it's another item I want to come to, after we've gone through some other aspects of this. As an aside, I have read both Marjorie Cohen's column published in the Vancouver Sun of July 16 on this topic and, of course, Mr. Lippert's column which followed on July 25. So we've all got this stuff. I'll put it in my drawer, and we'll worry about that later. They're interesting philosophical approaches, of course, to what is very clearly a philosophically driven issue. No surprise there.

Another very important objective.... I want to just first put on record what it is and then come back to some comments the minister made two days ago in his Education estimates. The objective is to ensure high-quality work standards in publicly funded construction projects. Two days ago, on August 6, the minister was asked about fair-wage policy in connection with the cost of school construction. There are studies out there which examined whether the fair-wage policy has added to the cost of construction. Two days ago, the minister told the committee in his estimates on Education that maintenance costs would be reduced by the fair-wage policy. Does the Minister of Labour have any evidence to suggest -- to go on the record -- that in fact maintenance costs have been reduced by the fair wage?

Hon. M. Sihota: Of course, we haven't done any studies in British Columbia, because the policy's just come in. But there have been studies done in other jurisdictions. A number of American studies have pointed that out as a fact. They've gone out and quantified it, and they've come to that conclusion. I think I cited those studies in this House in 1992 or 1993.

J. Dalton: I would like another response on the same issue that the minister talked about two days ago, dealing with higher quality. I'm wondering if the ministry has a measuring stick to determine whether in fact we are receiving higher quality in public projects that are subject to fair-wage policy.

Hon. M. Sihota: The mere fact that now we have the trade-qualification provisions in there as a screen helps. Although we haven't monitored beyond that, I know the trade qualification process.... The member makes a good point. Perhaps to be better able to ensure that that happens, we should go to some prequalifying system where companies can prequalify based on the skills of their employees. That might give us even greater assurance that those criteria are being met.

J. Dalton: The other objective which I indicated I want to come to later is the apprenticeship opportunity. Certainly that is one that we on this side would applaud, as long as it's properly coordinated between the two ministries. I think there's another issue that, again, I want to come to a little later, dealing with the Labour Force Development Board, because it's very important. At least we do have the one advantage -- and I hope it is an advantage, as I've indicated earlier. Given that we have one minister, or one person wearing two ministerial hats, he'll be able to bring these opportunities together in a coordinated fashion and not sort of piecemeal.

I just have one other particular question, or maybe two questions, to ask about the fair-wage issue, and it involves the role of one of the ministerial staff, Mark Tatchell, who is described as the liaison on the Skills Development and Fair Wage Act. Can the minister advise us as to what Mr. Tatchell's function is as a liaison? What responsibilities does he have?

Hon. M. Sihota: I believe it's policy interpretation. I don't know the gentleman, but I'm advised it's policy interpretation, application of the act.

[ Page 1712 ]

J. Dalton: The other thing in regard to Mr. Tatchell.... Apparently he sent out an introductory letter to a number of parties who are affected by the fair wage, expressing concerns about the construction panel's interim report as to whether compliance with fair wage is being circumvented. Is there any follow-up report to that? Is there any specific evidence of circumvention, and will there be any public consultation on this issue?

Hon. M. Sihota: I'm advised that the interim report said that fair-wage provisions were being flagrantly ignored.

J. Dalton: If that is the case, what is the ministry doing about these flagrant challenges to the act.

Hon. M. Sihota: Enforcement. But the more I thought about what I said earlier on about prequalification, that may be a solution as well.

J. Dalton: The next item I want to ask two or three questions on is the labour policy and program development branch. This is described, among other things, as a research component of the ministry, to provide labour-related information, research and analysis to the minister. Now, we know that the minister is receiving analysis and research from other sources within the ministry. I'm wondering whether there's not some duplication that this branch is performing. Or is it being coordinated with the other branches and divisions of his ministry? Are there research components in other branches that are duplicating this, or are they complementary to each other?

Hon. M. Sihota: There is no duplication; they are complementary. It is the central research branch. There are 11 FTEs, down from 12 last year.

I should also point out that there is another measurement on the fair wages as to how the system is working. We've had 5,000 challenges per year of the trade qualification exams by trade workers who are not certified. In other words, people who weren't originally certified now want to become certified, and that's a reflection of the fact that the legislation is there. So they want to upgrade or make sure that they've got the skills to be employed. It's very important, and that has doubled in the last three years as a result of this policy. It's good for B.C.

[8:30]

J. Dalton: The minister is always quick to get to his feet and applaud the virtues of the government and their economic policy, or whatever.

An Hon. Member: Explain that credit rating.

J. Dalton: Let's forget the credit rating. The credit rating is not the issue in the Labour minister's estimates, I can assure this committee.

Another function of the development branch that I think we have to be looking ahead on regarding a couple of issues deal with providing policy and writing support to independent commissions. They give the construction industry as an example. I presume that the Kelleher-Ready report on the construction industry review was conducted out of this branch.

Hon. M. Sihota: We provided writing and research assistance to the committee, but apart from that, they were on an independent basis. As I said, the number of FTEs in that branch has gone from 12 to 11, and the budget has gone down from $819,000 to $788,000. So we are doing as much work with fewer people, which explains why we have such a good credit rating.

J. Dalton: I do have the same figures in front of me that the minister has, of course, and I thank him for drawing to the committee's attention the decrease of one FTE -- admittedly, a useful decrease in the budget.

Just while we are on the construction industry review panel, can the minister advise the committee what the cost of that review was? How did it actually impact as a cost item?

Hon. M. Sihota: It's not completed yet. It's estimated to be in at about $150,000.

J. Dalton: On that same topic, can we anticipate some specific follow-up from the recommendations that have come out of the Kelleher-Ready report?

Hon. M. Sihota: Yes, we can. It may be the prequalification concept that you and I discussed today, hon. member. I would hope that there will be some ability to introduce legislation later on in this fiscal year -- maybe even next week.

J. Dalton: I would somehow doubt that we are going to see any more legislation in this current session, but maybe the Government House Leader has another idea in mind.

The other thing I want to touch upon is that in the same development branch area, workers' compensation is also itemized. Would it be a possibility that this branch would be providing advice or assistance of any nature to the royal commission on workers' compensation that the minister is about to put together?

Hon. M. Sihota: No. They might provide some information, but basically the answer is no.

J. Dalton: I take it that's probably because the minister would like the royal commission to be completely independent of the ministry; I assume that would be the philosophy.

I want to move into two other areas. One is apprenticeship. It's perhaps in apprenticeship in the following topic.... I also want to canvass the Labour Force Development Board, whereby it will be very useful for this minister, in the two capacities of Labour and Education, if things work out the way I hope they will.

Under the apprenticeship initiatives program, there are several functions or responsibilities, all of which impact on apprenticeship in one form or another. For example, there's working in partnership with the Provincial Apprenticeship Board and, maybe even more importantly, because I think this is really where the opportunities are just now starting to open up -- and the Minister of Education was asked this in his previous estimates -- expanding the secondary school apprenticeship program. I believe we don't need to go over that old ground; I can check the Blues. But I think the minister was asked, for example, how many students are now in the secondary school apprenticeship program. I'm just putting that into the record to make sure that the minister understands that this side of the House, just like his side, is very concerned about the application and, hopefully, the expansion of apprenticeships: high school, particularly in grades 11 and 12; post-secondary, obviously; and in the workforce itself -- which, of course, is his responsibility as the Labour minister.

[ Page 1713 ]

I do note a couple of figures here that I would like the minister to comment upon. I was advised at a briefing his staff very kindly gave us that at the moment we have approximately 14,500 apprenticeships in this province. The objective is to elevate that to 20,000, which is apparently what we had about ten years ago. I'm wondering, in the context of these very lofty objectives -- and I would applaud them if we can meet them -- why it is that the apprenticeship budget decreased from $11.9 million last year to $11.3 million this year. I think there may be a dichotomy there as to how we're going to realize these elevated numbers, with a smaller budget with in which to work.

[G. Brewin in the chair.]

Hon. M. Sihota: The reason we did that was because we were asked to cut our budget by about 2 to 21/2 percent. We did that. We felt that this was an area where we could get efficiencies, and we could probably do as effective, if not more effective a job without having to increase our expenditures.

J. Dalton: With particular regard to the Provincial Apprenticeship Board itself, I have been advised that the board members receive a per diem of $200. Does this board meet on a regular basis? How many board members are there?

Hon. M. Sihota: There are 22 people on the board. They meet once a month.

J. Dalton: I see in the list of items that this board can make recommendations to the minister -- apprenticeships in high school is the particular itemized subject. Again, I'm happy to see that there. I think it's long overdue that we turn our minds to the opportunities for people in the senior grades of high school to get out into the workforce, to learn and to earn at the same time. It's not just a post-secondary or co-op or workforce initiative; it has to come at the younger ages. So I'm hoping -- and I'll just make this observation as we see the functions of this board -- that all of the efforts through the high school and post-secondary initiatives are being coordinated.

I don't know whether it's even appropriate.... Maybe I should ask the minister this, and I will: would the minister contemplate shifting the apprenticeship function and maybe the Labour Force Development Board from his Labour portfolio to his Education, Skills and Training portfolio? I think, personally, they would be better served in that portfolio.

Hon. M. Sihota: This may come as a surprise to some, but actually, I've had those discussions. Secondly, let me also say that I'm going to be meeting with the Apprenticeship Board to have those kinds of discussions, and also to talk to them about the Labour Force Market Development Board in that context.

J. Dalton: It's good that there's some discussion among the minister's officials and the minister himself as to whether these functions we now find in the Labour portfolio might not be better rejigged into the Education portfolio. At the end of the day, of course, it's all public money, and that's what we're debating in the estimates. But I think we have to be very concerned about the best opportunities this public money will provide.

Just one other item about apprenticeship, and then I'll move into the Labour Force Development Board. In an overview that has been provided to us of the staffing of the Ministry of Education, we are told that ministry also provides administrative support to the additional 336 FTEs who are in the Ministry of Labour. Now, I'm a bit confused, and this is why I'm raising the point. Why is it that in the overview for the Ministry of Education we are told that administrative support is being provided to the Labour ministry? Are we not duplicating our efforts?

Hon. M. Sihota: No, it's exactly the opposite. We're picking up efficiencies. We're using the administrative and financial services component of the Ministry of Education to do the same work for Labour, and therefore we're actually saving money by consolidating the operations. It actually allows Labour to have a little bit more money its budget for some other areas that would otherwise be cut.

J. Dalton: I believe the minister actually answered my next question, which I don't have to ask, then, which was going to be: what was the administrative support? He's satisfied me in that.

A very important topic that I want just to spend a few minutes on is the Labour Force Development Board. Members opposite needn't get excited. I will not be lengthy, but I think this is an important item that we want to make sure we canvass before we leave these estimates.

Interjection.

J. Dalton: I hear some sort of side comment from the Government House Leader, but we're not going to worry about that.

There are two or three items that I want to draw the committee's attention to, and then we'll be able to move into other estimates, I'm sure. There is a significant budget item for this development board. It's $1.5 million, with a few extra dollars in change, in the '96-97 estimates. Quite frankly, I am somewhat surprised to see the extent of that figure. Can the minister explain to the committee why the sum of $1.5 million is devoted to this board?

Hon. M. Sihota: They're doing a number of studies, and work with the private sector. They contract out a good chunk of their work. They're doing some surveys which can be expensive, with employee-hours. For example, they are surveying a large number of employers in British Columbia to ascertain whether or not the graduates which leave the system have the skills that they are looking for. That is a major exercise that we need some answers to so as to make sure there is some symmetry between what we're training people for and what employers require. That's a cost item, but it's one which I'll defend, because I think we have not had that kind of data before, and we need it.

J. Dalton: Well, I'm hoping, of course, as we all are on this side, that this will be money well spent. I have with me the Training for What? document that we talked about in the Education estimates. The minister told this committee "Training for Whom?" is in the planning and development stage, so we'll certainly look forward to seeing that. I am heartened, and I want the committee to know that I can see a lot of positive potential -- I would say potential, hon. Chair, and I'll explain why in a moment -- that will come out of these initiatives. But again, I think they may be better directed into the Education portfolio, because I just have a fear that they may be lost somewhere in the Ministry of Labour and never see the light of day.

[ Page 1714 ]

When I read, for example, in the summary of some of the recommendations that the board has put together "five key gaps in the learning system: skills, diversity, relevance, capacity and funding, and accountability...." Well, God bless them, they're right on -- particularly accountability. I love that word, because.... I don't know that the government understands it, but certainly on this side we try and reinforce it. So there are some very good initiatives there, and that's fine.

[8:45]

However, the other day I was going through my bookshelves, just cleaning out a few odds and ends, and I came across a not dissimilar document that a previous minister of Advanced Education, Skills and Training -- or Training and Technology, as it then was.... This was Tom Perry, who, of course, is no longer an MLA. He commissioned a report which was put out by the B.C. Human Resource Development Project. In November of 1992, this was tabled by the minister. I don't know that this thing got anywhere. Finally, it got off my bookshelf, because I just found it the other day. This report, for example, talks about apprenticeships. I don't know if any government official ever advanced this thing forward, to put the recommendations or the suggestions together. For example, the report urges the Provincial Apprenticeship Board, which we just talked about, to identify the actions necessary to ensure that the apprenticeship system is recognized as a full partner in the adult learning system we propose. I certainly applaud that. Just for the record, is the minister aware of this document? Has it received any breath of life, or is it sitting around on somebody's shelf somewhere, like it was on mine?

Hon. M. Sihota: The report predates my time. That report led to the establishment of the Labour Force Development Board.

J. Dalton: Then I would just recommend the reading of that to the minister and his officials, because even though I haven't had the opportunity recently.... I would have to refresh my memory, but there were some very good, or at least generic, thoughts there on the topic of apprenticeship, training and things of that nature.

I have just one other question for the minister. Before I ask it, I want to thank his staff for their patience. We on this side always appreciate the fact that these gentlemen and women can sit through these estimates for hour after hour, yet they always look so attentive and keen. And I know that they provide good information.

Earlier, my colleague from Richmond East was asking about the Workers Compensation Review Board, and she made an observation about the criminal injury issue, which is, I think, wrongly placed with the Workers Compensation Review Board; she made similar observations. The minister did inform the committee that there is ongoing examination through the Attorney General ministry and his own ministry about the implications of this and the need for a change in the law. Is there a mandate within the Labour ministry to be actively involved in any proposed changes, or is that, strictly speaking, a function of the Attorney General?

Hon. M. Sihota: We are part of the committee which is looking at it.

J. Dalton: I'm glad to hear that. I've corresponded with some people who have been directly affected by the act. We think there are some areas that are missing in that act. The Attorney General's officials have recognized that.

Those are all the questions I have. I thank the minister and his officials for their information. We look forward to progressing further on the issues that we've canvassed next year.

Vote 42 approved.

Vote 43: ministry operations, $36,520,759 -- approved.

On vote 9: minister's office, $332,000.

Hon. J. Cashore: I'm pleased to rise and begin the estimates debate with regard to the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs. I'll make a few opening statements while staff are arriving. I'm proud of our achievements in the British Columbia Treaty Commission process and also, outside of that, in the historic agreement-in-principle which we reached with the Nisga'a in February. I can say with confidence that we will continue to make progress in treaty-making through open, inclusive and well-managed negotiations involving British Columbians from start to finish.

Before I provide you with a progress report, I want to say a few words about my ministry, about what we do and what our responsibilities are. We lead and represent the province in negotiating fair, affordable and just treaties with first nations. We are responsible for pretreaty consultation with third parties and for keeping the public informed about the treaty process. We negotiate important cost-sharing arrangements with the federal government to ensure Ottawa pays its fair share, and we provide support on aboriginal issues to other ministries and Crown corporations and foster working relations between government ministries and first nations.

Our mission is to work with first nations, the federal government, other provincial ministries and indeed all British Columbians to build relationships between British Columbians and aboriginal people that are based on equality and respect, to enable first nations to become self-reliant and to live in healthy communities, and to ensure that British Columbians enjoy the social and economic benefits of cooperation and certainty. To this end, we support any government measure or initiative that ends the archaic federal Indian Act and puts us on a new footing for the future.

When I reported to this Legislature in April of 1995, we had initialled framework agreements with four first nations. Since that time we have made significant progress. We have now signed framework agreements with 11 first nations, which means they are now in stage 4 of a six-stage process. That means these tables have decided on the subjects of negotiation and a negotiation schedule and are now working on an agreement-in-principle, the major agreement. Forty-seven first nations are in the process. Twenty-two tables have been declared ready in stage 2 and are working on stage 3, framework agreements. Openness protocols are being signed, and local and regional consultation groups are being established wherever treaty-making is underway.

Next year will bring even greater progress. Our government is listening very closely to what British Columbians are saying about treaty negotiations in their area. They are also telling us to get on with treaty-making, and I believe the record clearly shows that we are listening, making progress and moving forward. I think the discussion in the House today, with the launching of the Select Standing Committee on 

[ Page 1715 ]

Aboriginal Affairs, is an indication of another instrument that is available to us that will be very valuable with regard to this process of engaging all British Columbians.

Our goal is to build bridges and solutions, and to listen carefully while we are at it. One of our bridges was reached earlier this year on March 22 when the province, Canada and the Nisga'a signed an agreement-in-principle. It was a historic moment for all British Columbians, as the first agreement-in-principle signed this century. When we achieved that agreement-in-principle, we set out to inform the public about its content, and we have done so. As well, when the negotiators begin their final discussions, we will have a set of openness procedures in place that will guide the Nisga'a talks to a final treaty and ratification by all parties. I am confident that with this spirit of openness and consultation we can work toward the first modern-day treaty settlement in this province, one that is fair and affordable to all British Columbians and one that will bring the Nisga'a citizens into the legal and economic mainstream of the province, for the benefit of all.

I want to digress for a moment and talk about the other side of treaties, the new opportunities that are flowing from treaty-making, and our efforts to build bridges and establish new relationships between aboriginal and non-aboriginal British Columbians. One of the best examples of the new economic opportunities flowing from the treaty process is found in joint ventures which are being established today by those who have the wisdom to see the benefit of this new cooperation. There are numerous examples of efforts by first nations in B.C. to gain economic independence through partnerships with the non-aboriginal business community. These include Weldwood of Canada Ltd., joint ventures in the Burns Lake area, and Lignum partnerships, which include Ecolink Forest Services, Natasewed Enterprises Ltd., and Chendi Enterprises Ltd. We recognize the significant benefit that such initiatives have in fostering stronger relationships between first nations and non-aboriginal businesses. The presence of first nations in the social and economic mainstream of the province will benefit all of us. Business realizes this and so does the government of British Columbia.

While British Columbians want us to move forward with treaties, they also want us to manage our resources and keep the costs down. I believe we are handling our responsibilities in that area effectively and responsibly. In the 1996-97 budget there is a decrease in funding. To be precise, the ministry's estimates for '95-96 were $33.709 million, while the total estimated for '96-97 is $31.709 million, a decrease of 5.1 percent. This budget guarantees that the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs will continue to fund the coordination and management of our province's participation in negotiating treaties with first nations. Provincial negotiating teams will do their job, and consultation with British Columbians will continue.

As you can see, once again we have an ambitious program planned for '96-97. The ministry will continue to make substantial progress on treaty negotiations, using an effective, efficient and inclusive process with meaningful input from local governments, the general public and third parties. Together, we have an opportunity to bring about fundamental change with aboriginal peoples in this province and an opportunity to create a stronger, fairer and more prosperous province for all British Columbians. I believe that all political parties represented in this Legislature share in that goal and are interested in participating in this lively process that we involve ourselves in in estimates in order to assist in achieving that goal.

I want to indicate that present with me in the House today is Philip Halkett, the Deputy Minister of Aboriginal Affairs; Joy Illington, assistant deputy minister; and Mr. Richard Inglis, a negotiator on the Nisga'a team.

M. de Jong: First of all, greetings and welcome to the minister and his staff, who have been waiting some time to participate in what I know will be stimulating, exciting and perhaps even entertaining debate regarding the minister's estimates.

The minister concluded his introductory remarks with a very apt statement. That is his belief that all members in this House share his and, I think, his government's desire to move toward resolution of these matters. That is certainly the case with respect to members of the party I represent, the official opposition. The destination we seek to arrive at.... We have a common notion of what that is. That is not to say that there aren't alternative routes to get there, and that if we have some differences about how we will arrive at that destination, that is part and parcel of what these discussions commencing here this evening will be about.

But I think it is appropriate that we begin this debate and this discussion on the evening of the day in which the minister sought to activate the standing committee and to involve, in a very real and tangible way, members from both sides of the House in the treaty-negotiating process. The cynics would stand here and lament the fact that it's taken this amount of time. Who knows? Maybe through the course of this debate I will descend to that level of cynicism at some point. But today we should, I suppose, celebrate the fact that that process has commenced, as I think well it should. I won't dwell on the comments that were made in the House earlier today, except to say and to emphasize to all members, and to those watching, that there is a genuine commitment on the part of members for the opposition to provide constructive input into that process, to provide input that will assist rather than present obstacles to achieving final resolution. Though, as I say, there may be differences that arise in the views of British Columbians during the course of our receiving submissions, that point should be well understood and that point, I hope, is taken for granted. On this side of the House, at least, there is no questioning the wisdom of proceeding toward the certainty and the benefits that will accrue from concluding these agreements.

[9:00]

Having said that, perhaps I can just take a few moments to query the minister about the standing committee -- some nuts-and-bolts items with respect to the budget. Is that budget provided for through this ministry?

Hon. J. Cashore: The answer is no. It's provided for through the Legislative Assembly.

M. de Jong: Will staff from this ministry be attached to the committee during the course of its deliberations?

Hon. J. Cashore: If that were to be the case, it would be subject to discussions that would take place within the committee in working out the kind of arrangements they would be establishing to carry out their work.

M. de Jong: Having commented favourably on the decision to activate the standing committee, I guess I do have to ask the minister how he responds to the criticism he has heard -- from me, from opposition members and, I suppose more significantly, from other interested parties and third parties -- that there would be less cynicism about the process generally 

[ Page 1716 ]

and about the sincerity of the government's commitment to listen and respond to submissions from others were this discussion taking place prior to the cabinet having signed off on the agreement-in-principle. He has heard that argument and that submission from others.

He did have a choice, with the greatest respect. The agreement-in-principle was negotiated, and there is this sense that it was then rushed to cabinet prior to the election. He will, I'm sure, deny that that had any influence on the timing. Yet he is confronted by this lingering doubt in the minds of many in the public that submissions, representations after the fact, are destined to fall on deaf ears. I wonder if he could respond to that criticism, which he has certainly heard.

Hon. J. Cashore: There is, of course, cynicism expressed from persons who hold a certain perspective, and I respect that. There is a spectrum of opinions among the larger community, however, and in that spectrum there are those who say we should be moving more quickly, those who express the views that the hon. member has just characterized. I think that the significant thing is that we have entered into this process. It's an important process, but it in no way negates the very valid steps that have been taken, in many ways started, by the member for Peace River North toward the resolution of a very longstanding issue.

One of the factors has been that the interest of the public has increased as these issues have come more and more into the public eye. I think the happy thing about that is that the public is saying: "This might affect us. Therefore we want to know more about it." I think this is very timely.

M. de Jong: I guess what I'm looking for and what others have sought from the minister is an explanation or some justification, if that's the correct term.... What was the compelling reason in the minister's mind for taking this to cabinet for approval not just prior to this process of consultation but...? In our earlier discussions this session, the minister pointed to, I think he said, the 70 or 90 smaller meetings that have taken place since the agreement-in-principle was concluded. What compelling reason can he offer for moving to that stage, in terms of obtaining cabinet approval, prior to those meetings and prior to this process, which I suspect was in his mind even then?

Hon. J. Cashore: Hon. Chair, if the hon. member is referring to the timing on the agreement-in-principle, the compelling reason is that in government you have a responsibility to make decisions that move the public agenda forward. This is the compelling reason this has been done. We knew that those who sought to criticize, in many instances -- not all -- had two positions available to them. One was that if we concluded the agreement-in-principle prior to the election, they would say that we were doing that for crass political reasons. The other position available to them was that if we had not concluded it prior to the election, they were in a position to say that we had something to hide and were afraid to go to the public with it.

Therefore it behooves us in all of these issues to get away from election timing, depoliticize the process, do the right thing and recognize that there is a process going on out there where the public has its views, the public's views are being heard, those views are being brought back to government, and government, in the process that we're engaged in here tonight, hon. member, and in the process that was launched today, hears those views. It's my view that the more we can depoliticize that process, the better.

M. de Jong: I hope the minister doesn't misunderstand. I'm not quarrelling, necessarily, with the chronology of events that led to the initialling of the agreement-in-principle itself by him, by the federal minister and by representatives of the Nisga'a people. But the member for Vancouver-Fraserview is here and, in all likelihood, will chair the committee that travels the province that I and the member for Richmond East and others will be on. How does the minister respond to the suggestion that by virtue of the cabinet having accepted and signed off on the agreement-in-principle...? This, by the way, will not just be an argument presented by those cynics who question certain of the provisions but by the Nisga'a negotiators themselves. They will suggest that this, then, is the deal; you can consult the minister and the government of British Columbia all you like, but this is the deal that we have concluded; this is the agreement-in-principle that cabinet has approved, and we're not prepared to countenance any significant move -- "we" being the Nisga'a negotiating team -- away from that agreement-in-principle which has been approved by the cabinet of the government of British Columbia.

Hon. J. Cashore: I answered this question, for the record, at the time of the supply bill estimates, and my answer is the same. It won't be long now until the negotiators are engaged in drafting the final draft that would go forward for ratification. That drafting will be informed by the discussions that have taken place, that are taking place and that are about to take place in various contexts, including the context of the select standing committee.

I have no hesitation in saying that I feel very positive about the Nisga'a agreement-in-principle. That's my own position on that; I believe that it stands on a very solid foundation and that we are able to respond to the concerns that have been raised. Having said that, it would be foolish for any three parties to a tripartite process not to come up with an improvement on a tripartite basis, if an improvement was there that had been identified. It would simply be foolish not to take advantage of that opportunity, so that remains to be seen. I don't think we can gain much by being hypothetical about that. But the work that is yet to be done, which is significant work, will be informed by the public dialogue that is underway.

M. de Jong: The minister has delved tentatively and cautiously into the realm of the hypothetical. But that, of course, is the question the members of the committee, which has been commissioned today, will be asking themselves: what is the minister's response going to be if and when he is confronted by a report that recommends in certain limited cases, or in broader cases, moving in a direction diametrically opposed to that which exists presently in the agreement-in-principle? Surely he recognizes that this is a very real possibility. How is the minister purporting to present that sort of scenario to the other parties, most particularly the Nisga'a tribal council?

Hon. J. Cashore: I know that this is a discussion that will take place within the committee, but I just want to say that I'm not intending to speculate on hypothetical future possibilities among a huge array of possibilities. I'm simply not going to indulge in that. We will obviously have the wisdom of the advice of the select standing committee in whatever report they do end up putting together, and I look forward to that.

M. de Jong: I guess it's the age-old question that members of parliamentary committees, and probably more par-

[ Page 1717 ]

ticularly individuals in groups that appear before those committees, have. That is, to put it bluntly: are they wasting their time? Take a delegation or an individual who makes recommendations and submissions to that committee that are not consistent with the directions presently spelled out in the agreement-in-principle -- of course, we're restricting our comments now to the Nisga'a agreement-in-principle, and not dealing with the broader Treaty Commission negotiations. Is a person engaging in that manner of debate and submission before the committee better to save their breath?

I know the minister is a skilled politician and won't let me drag him into this hypothetical realm. But that, of course, will be the discussion, and he says that that will be the discussion around the committee table. I hope it's not. I hope that is not the concern that members of the committee have -- that is, whether the efforts they are undertaking, the deliberations that they are engaged in, are going to be tempered with a view to whether their final report is saleable to the minister. I'm afraid that seems to be the tenor of some of the minister's remarks, and that is something the members of the committee should be cognizant of as they receive submissions. I hope that's not what the minister is suggesting.

[9:15]

Hon. J. Cashore: That is not the tenor of the minister's remarks. The tenor of the minister's remarks are that I have a great deal of confidence in the members of that committee, without regard to the party they represent. I believe that, as I said, their initial discussions will be canvassing some of the very important areas that the hon. member is now referencing. I believe it's absolutely essential that that committee build a working relationship and mutual respect in the early stages. That is fulfilled in the report that is filed by the committee.

The other thing I realize in saying that is the variety of perspectives I have heard from British Columbians on the Nisga'a AIP and on other issues coming out -- the kinds of issues that have been raised in the discussion around the Nisga'a AIP. The wide spectrum of opinions that are out there in the public are going to be, I think, a very interesting and challenging array of opinions for that committee to come to terms with as it does its task.

I have to point out that I look upon my relationship to that committee as arm's-length. I think that is very important. At the same time, I hope to remain in communication with all the members of the committee, because I'm vitally interested in its ongoing work. I look forward to interim reports and a final report.

The Chair: Hon. members, I wonder if I might just intervene briefly to remind us all that on this topic, the standing order.... We had a motion this afternoon, Motion 41, which dealt with this, and there was some debate about it. The topic at hand is the estimates of the ministry, which deal with administrative issues. I would submit that technically many of the issues on the treaty belong with the standing committee as opposed to with the minister, who just said it's at arm's-length. I'm just reminding everybody of that. It's a delicate issue right now, and I would just like to suggest that folks keep that in mind.

M. de Jong: I should signal, and I'm happy to.... Well, maybe I won't be happy to take direction. We do intend to canvass the Nisga'a agreement-in-principle in detail. I think the minister is aware of that, and I don't think, from my understanding, at least, that he takes issue with that. Insofar as the discussions we're having are relevant to that process and the fact that the ministry will certainly be devoting resources on an ongoing basis to those negotiations, I think they're relevant.

I wonder, then.... I think I know the answer to this. If the minister will confirm it, I think this would not be unusual. The minister clearly is taking the position -- and he can confirm this on the record -- that he will not feel bound; he will feel persuaded. I won't put words in his mouth, but he's not going to feel bound by recommendations that arise out of the standing committee today.

Hon. J. Cashore: In a position such as mine, I and my colleagues are judged by the way in which the public judges us in seeing how we respond to such reports. I think that is part of the process that ensures that such a report would receive the appropriate consideration.

M. de Jong: Finally, by way of preliminary issues relevant to the committee and the Nisga'a negotiations, the minister, in the motion that was before the House this morning and in his comments, spoke to the fact that he expects a report in a timely manner and as quickly as possible. I wonder if the minister can indicate whether the commencement of the final negotiating phase will be held in abeyance until this committee has reported out to him.

Hon. J. Cashore: I will only say that we will take one step at a time when it comes to the work that we must do around leading to ratification of the agreement-in-principle. It would be highly unlikely that we would be at the stage of ratifying the agreement-in-principle in this House without the timing of the reporting of that committee having been achieved. But apart from that, this is hypothetical future speculation, and I don't think it gets us very far.

M. de Jong: I guess the simple question is: when does the minister anticipate that negotiations will commence, relative to the final treaty? When is that scheduled? Is there a date when that is scheduled to resume?

Hon. J. Cashore: Those negotiations will start this fall.

M. de Jong: Are those negotiations separate and apart from the negotiations that are presently underway dealing with the "openness protocol," as the minister has termed it?

Hon. J. Cashore: That is correct. There is some work going on at side tables at the present time in preparation for the date when those negotiations get going again. Those are tripartite.

M. de Jong: Can the minister indicate, in the weeks that have passed since we canvassed this issue in the special warrant debate, what progress has been made with respect to finalization of the openness protocol?

Hon. J. Cashore: We are hoping it will be finalized this month, in the week of the 19th.

M. de Jong: That optimistic outlook is a result of how many meetings over the past six or seven weeks?

Hon. J. Cashore: There have been three tripartite sessions.

[ Page 1718 ]

M. de Jong: The presentation of the conclusion of that openness protocol will immediately be made open to all, is that correct?

Hon. J. Cashore: Yes. The answer to that question is that it will be. I look forward to that, because whenever we are able to initial or sign off an openness protocol, that's a good day for our government.

M. de Jong: Is it the minister's position that main-table tripartite discussions, if I can use that term, relative to negotiating the final treaty terms should be open to the public?

Hon. J. Cashore: The answer is yes.

M. de Jong: Then, if I can return to the question that launched us on this avenue, do I understand correctly that the minister anticipates that those negotiations relative to concluding the final treaty terms, given the time line he's laid out for us, will be taking place contemporaneous with the workings of the standing committee?

Hon. J. Cashore: The answer is yes.

M. de Jong: Does it trouble the minister at all that there may be some concerns, expressed by those interested in the deliberations of the standing committee, that the issue being discussed by that committee in Prince George on a particular evening may be the subject of negotiations at the Nisga'a table elsewhere the very same evening?

Hon. J. Cashore: That's a good point. I think the committee itself will be doing the logical thing and addressing that issue and that logic will be operative in other processes that are ongoing.

M. de Jong: I don't think I understood that answer. The problem, of course, emanates from the fact that people making submissions to the standing committee would like to be left with the impression that there is some prospect of those submissions having an impact on the final outcome of negotiations. If the negotiations on the issue that concern such individuals are taking place before or during the time that they are before the standing committee, there's very little prospect of that actually taking place.

Members of the committee, including myself and the member for Vancouver-Fraserview, will be challenged with the task of assuring people that their time spent in front of that committee is time well spent, with some prospect of influencing the final outcome. I'm having difficulty understanding how that can be the case if negotiations are taking place at the same time.

Hon. J. Cashore: On the contrary, the fact is that those two processes ongoing at the same time are not in conflict. It would be a problem if government was in a position of trying to ram something through in an untimely way, in order to try to prevent the enjoying of the value or efficacy of what was coming through the committee process. That will not be the case.

M. de Jong: Hon. Chair, if we can maybe embark on our journey through the pages of the Nisga'a agreement.... I should say at the outset that I am indebted to the member for Richmond-Steveston, who has done extensive work in this area and has been of great assistance in terms of providing input and background material on a document that at times can be overwhelming for those like myself unaccustomed to some of the parlance.

In general terms, I wonder if the minister could respond to the suggestion that has been made that even calling this an agreement-in-principle is a bit misleading. There's no doubt that the project the two levels of government and the Nisga'a people have embarked upon is an ambitious and complicated one and, for obvious reasons, a difficult one to bring to conclusion. But when you look at the agreement as a whole and at the number of provisions where there are no specifics, and when you compare this document with some of the framework agreements we have seen arise out of the Treaty Commission process, an argument can be made that really what we have here is a glorified framework agreement. By virtue of what is missing -- the detail that doesn't exist -- it's a bit of a stretch to refer to this as an agreement-in-principle. We may be, right on the face of it, misleading people and unnecessarily raising expectations by presenting it as that type of a document.

Hon. J. Cashore: I completely disagree with the conclusion of the hon. member. This agreement-in-principle is consistent with the definition in the B.C. Claims Task Force report: "...which will form the basis of a treaty." An agreement-in-principle is a document which will form the basis of a treaty; that's exactly what it is. It goes on to say it sets out "the salient points of the agreement between the parties."

[9:30]

It's interesting that this criticism can cut both ways. There has been great criticism of the northern agreements. I understand, and I'm sure the hon. member for Richmond-Steveston knows this very well and perhaps can comment on it himself, that the typical agreement-in-principle from the northern agreements is about that high, with a stack of supplementary appendices that is much higher.

One of the things that I believe was generally agreed upon, when we talked to the advisory committees and to first nations was that we wanted a document that would be street-ready and understandable to the general public, and we believe we have achieved that. We do not want this to be the domain of the lawyers -- with all due respect to the two gentlemen in the front row at the present time. It needs to be a document such that -- indeed, as you, as members of the committee, go about conducting your deliberations will find -- people are able to discuss with you issues that are understandable. Therefore this agreement-in-principle is exactly what it was intended to be, and I believe that it fulfils the task it has.

Also, I would point out, from some of the concerns that have been stated about the agreement-in-principle somehow being a final document, that it would seem that the argument the member is making now would acknowledge that the work to be done in the final drafting is indeed significant work.

M. de Jong: I guess the point I'm trying to make is that this doesn't hinge on length as much as it does on the substance of what's included in the pages of the document. My understanding of an agreement-in-principle -- and I don't presume to apply any sort of legal definition to this.... You should be able to look at an agreement-in-principle and say: "These are the principles that will be enshrined in the final agreement." It would be a final agreement but for the fact that we have to draft the legal text that sets out what our intentions 

[ Page 1719 ]

are. I think the minister has to agree that there are some big holes in this document. There are some areas where there is no signal; there is no structure from which you can then move to defining the final terms and adopting the legal text. Where those holes exist -- where there are no specifics -- I guess I have to suggest and submit to the minister that that is because there hasn't been any agreement.

I think the minister must agree with me that it didn't take ten years for the parties to agree that the final treaty should bring certainty. I think that's a trite point. I think there was probably agreement on that point -- at least I hope there was agreement on that point -- from the outset. The fact that the parties haven't been able to secure, in some terms, in some sense, what the terminology will be, suggests to me that it's because they couldn't. It's because there was no meeting of the minds on that point. That begs asking the question: what happens if they still can't find agreement? If they couldn't find agreement on that basic principle, how are we now to expect them to move to drafting the legal text? They don't have the fundamentals. Is that going to lead, on a point of such crucial importance as the one I've just mentioned.... Does that threaten final settlement, in and of itself?

Hon. J. Cashore: I think the question is based on a wrong assumption, and that is the assumption that there's a wide gulf between the parties, where there's a need for further work to be done on the technical reading -- on a technical issue. The opposite is the case: there was a meeting of minds. The hon. member uses the phrase "meeting of the minds." There was a meeting of minds, and there was an agreement that there was work to be done to develop the precise legal wording in order to encompass the issue. That is the case in the vast majority of aspects of the document where there is further work to be done.

I want to thank the members for the opportunity to begin this debate, but by agreement we now move into some other business of the House. I know that we will continue this part of our discussion.

I move that the committee now rise, report resolutions and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Committee of Supply B, having reported resolutions, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I call Committee of the Whole to debate Bill 19.

The House in committee on Bill 19; G. Brewin in the chair.

On section 1.

G. Plant: I want to make a few comments about section 1, which I suppose you could say is half the substance of this act. Since the act really doesn't have a lot more to it, that would be a very profound statement.

I want to put my remarks about this particular provision into context for a moment. I don't think the debate this act raises is a debate about urban British Columbia versus rural British Columbia. I think to some extent, perhaps, the second reading debate could have left some people with the impression that that was the issue. The issue in fact raised by this provision is one about what's in the best interests of all British Columbians. I believe that all of us here, whether we come from rural ridings or urban ridings, are qualified to speak to that question.

We understand from the history of electoral boundaries issues in British Columbia that we need some balance. I suppose the question I have, which I'll come to more specifically again in a minute, is really: what is it about the current act which does not strike that balance in a way that is still as appropriate today as it was in 1989, when the act was made?

We're going to come to some of the particular issues of concern to some of the members in the course of discussing both section 1 and section 2. I'm mindful of the concerns expressed by the people who represent rural ridings that there are difficulties involved in providing adequate representation for all the constituents who live in those ridings. But I also think we need to look at what this act and this section are trying to do in a historical context.

I note that as recently as 1960, which really is not all that long ago, there were only 52 members in this House. We now have 75 members. Certainly from one perspective the result of that is obvious. Across the province, if you took an average, electoral ridings have been getting smaller over the years. I think that's something to bear in mind when we listen to people today express concerns, which I accept as legitimate, about the difficulties of transportation and communication that exist in rural ridings. I don't deny the legitimacy of those complaints, but I guess I have to say that things are a whole lot better than they used to be. The transportation is a whole lot easier than it used to be, and there has been tremendous improvement -- in fact, I'd say a revolution -- in communication, with the result that, in my own experience anyway, and I know it is a somewhat different experience.... In my riding, people can get hold of me from wherever they are in the world, by any number of means: fax, E-mail, correspondence in the ordinary mail, and so on.

I understand the concern of the members who live in more far-flung districts of British Columbia, but I'm not sure those concerns.... I guess the fundamental question is whether they in fact require that we move to an amendment of an act, which I want to say something about in just a second. We've already said, and I said it last night and I repeat it again, that the issue of the needs as expressed by members outside the lower mainland of British Columbia needs to be looked at in the overall context of fiscal restraint -- which we've heard a lot about and which I don't think is given much respect in this bill.

Those general observations take me to examine, first of all, the original section in the Electoral Boundaries Commission Act, which is the section that this section proposes to amend -- section 3. What that section does, in its current form, is set out the function of the commission. That function is to make proposals to the Legislative Assembly about the area, the boundaries and the names of the electoral districts of British Columbia. I think I understand what that means, and I must say that I was assisted in my understanding by reading what was said about this bill during the course of the first reading debate when the bill was introduced in this House in 1989. At that time, the Minister of Government Services, who introduced the bill, said things which the current Attorney General's predecessor actually agreed with wholeheartedly 

[ Page 1720 ]

when he spoke to the bill in second reading. As we know, this bill did in fact receive the unanimous support of the House when it was introduced and passed. This is what he said:

"The bill also establishes an independent, non-partisan Electoral Boundaries Commission to regularly review electoral boundaries so that they will continue to reflect the basic principles of fair and balanced representation for all British Columbians. The new Electoral Boundaries Commission will carry out its mandate in accordance with the principles specified in the bill. These regular reviews will occur after every two general elections and will ensure that the boundaries of the electoral districts reflect the changes in population that have occurred in the interim and that the adjustments are made on a purely non-partisan basis."

I think that is a fair statement of what this act did in 1989. Frankly, I think it applies with equal vigour today as it did then. I note with interest that the government that introduced this bill foresaw, among other things, that which was surely obvious: that there would be changes in population and that they wouldn't take place gradually, over the course of time, but rather they would take place constantly. So what we had was, in 1989, an act that was drawn up intending to accommodate the variety of issues that affect the organization of electoral boundaries, including the changes in population in British Columbia.

[9:45]

The act was welcomed as providing a mechanism for dealing with changes in population. The mechanism was the commission. The interesting thing is that the commission, the mechanism provided for in this act, has never been used; it has never been tried. What was thought of as being a great idea in 1989 and was unanimously welcomed by the members of this House who had just embarked upon, as had all British Columbians, a time-consuming process of anxiously considering problems with redistribution -- a problem which had, in fact, led to litigation which resulted in an important, ground-breaking and precedential decision by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and which led to this act.... This act says: "The first commission shall be appointed during the first session of the Legislature following the second general election after this section comes into force." Well, here we are. We are in the first session of the Legislature following the second general election after this section has come into force. So what the government and all members of this House foresaw in 1989 would come to pass has come to pass. The mechanism created by the government for the purpose of making sure that electoral boundaries are properly distributed is there in the act in a way that everyone then thought was the right thing and which I, frankly, think is the right approach today.

My first question to the Attorney General is: what's wrong with this act, and in particular section 3, that needs fixing in the new bill?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Section 3 as is does not give the commission the mandate to consider the number of seats. That view is further strengthened by the fact that the number of seats is presently fixed at 75 by the Electoral Districts Act, sections 1 and 2, and the Constitution Act, sections 18 and 19. So if you put those three pieces of legislation together, and you begin to place a construction upon that particular section, one can be, quite persuasively, of the view that the commission would not have the discretion to increase the number of seats if it so chose. Section 3 simply provides the commission with that latitude.

G. Plant: I guess part of my task here is to be sure that we understand exactly where this bill is going. I think part of the key is in what the Attorney General has just said. Because what the amendment proposes to do is to create what I would say is a qualitative change in the mandate of the commission. I think the Attorney General got it right. I mean, in this sense, if I heard him correctly, it is manifestly clear that the Electoral Boundaries Commission contemplated by this statute does not have the power to make proposals to recommend that there be either an increase or a decrease in the number of members of this assembly.

The fact that the provision dealing with the number of members is found in other statutes suggests to me that different considerations and perhaps different processes ought to come to bear on the inquiry into how many members there should be. It seems to me that there is a qualitatively different project here being added to the job of the commission -- that is, the commission now has the job.... Maybe this is just restating what the minister said. We're now going to say to the commission: "Not only should you look at where the boundaries of districts should be and how big they should be, but you should also look at how many there should be." I guess I would put the question this way: does the Attorney General agree that this is a significant change in the mandate of the commission?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I would not go so far as to say that. I would simply say that this is a clarification of what the mandate ought to have been in the first place, very clearly expressed.

G. Plant: That being the case, why choose 81?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I believe the hon. member referred to the figure of 52 MLAs back in the 1950s. From my research, I know that in 1963 there were 52 MLAs, and at that time there were 3.1 MLAs per 100,000 British Columbians in this Legislature. By 1991 that figure had come down to 2.3 MLAs per 100,000 people. If we had not provided this latitude.... And if the commission doesn't choose to go up to 81, of course, that's the commission's discretion. If we have 81 MLAs in the year 2000, it would be two MLAs per 100,000 population in British Columbia.

With a view to increasing the population in British Columbia, and to the long distances and the difficulty of transportation across the province for many of the constituencies, I think it's important for us to maintain that level of representation for all British Columbians. It is an effort to allow the discretion for the commission to consider whether or not two MLAs per 100,000 should be the norm. If the commission decides that doesn't have to be the norm, the commission does not have to increase the number from 75. It doesn't have to go up to 81, but we wanted to enable the commission to be able to look at those options.

G. Plant: I think the Attorney General is dancing around a couple of points; let's deal with them in order. I wonder if we could get one thing clear, because technically speaking, I know that the way this amendment works, it gives power to the commission to make a decision. Is it in fact the view of this government that the size of this House should be increased to 81 MLAs for the reasons the Attorney General has just expressed during the course of his last answer?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I believe that my hon. colleague from Richmond-Steveston is a member of the bar, and I don't believe I want to prejudice its deliberations by indicating to the commission that the majority in this House believes that 

[ Page 1721 ]

they should go up to 81 or stay at 75. I don't believe that's appropriate. We want to enable the commission to look at those options and make the decision in its own wisdom.

G. Plant: I understand what the minister is saying, but it doesn't make much sense to me. Why 81? Why not 82? Why not 80? What is the rationale for the number of 81, if it doesn't fundamentally reflect the objective of the government or the view of the government that the appropriate number is 81?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I've already indicated that I believe it's important to allow a certain adequate level of representation for all British Columbians. If the commission chose to increase the number of MLAs to 81, we would still have two MLAs per 100,000 population. If the commission didn't choose that, obviously the ratio would be about 1.8 MLAs per 100,000 population. If the commission chose to leave the number of seats at 75, that would be fine with the Attorney General.

G. Plant: I don't think the Attorney General can have it both ways -- and, with respect, I think he's trying to.

On the one hand, we hear that the fundamental objective here is to empower the commission to make a decision; and on the other hand, we hear some views from the Attorney General about his concerns as to what adequate representation would or would not be. If the legislation were truly honest, in the sense of completely conferring upon the commission the question of how many MLAs there should be, it seems to me that there would be no number at all. So again, my question is: why 81?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Chair, I've answered the question.

G. Plant: I guess I'll leave that issue with the comment that I think a fair-minded person reading this section would be driven to the conclusion that the government is of the opinion that there is some magic about the number 81. The Attorney General seems to be unwilling to express what that magic is in terms that make sense of it in relation to any other particular number. I think that the Attorney General is trying to achieve an obvious objective, yet to do so by a means which allows him to say: "I'm not making the decision. I'm letting the commission make the decision." There is an incongruity there which, frankly I find hard to follow. But that will lead me to the next question.

Since we have the number 81, wherever it came from, has there been any analysis by the government of the potential implications of an increase in the size of this House to 81? Has the government looked at where the map might be redrawn, where the six new MLAs might be concentrated, and those sorts of things?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I have not specifically looked at that, but the population in the lower mainland of British Columbia and in certain parts of the Okanagan is increasing. The commission would be at liberty to look at those options, and that's within the mandate of the commission to be appointed.

The objective of this legislation is to make sure that, while we take into account the population growth in British Columbia, we allow the commission to make sure that representation in the north and the interior remains at adequate levels. That's the basic objective of this legislation: that representation in the rural and outlying areas of British Columbia remains a reality at adequate levels. It is within the discretion of the commission to look at all the options and decide those issues.

G. Plant: In what respect does the current act not achieve that objective?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: It was our assessment, upon looking at this legislation, which is no more than about 19 sections, that if you put it together with the other two pieces of legislation -- the Electoral Districts Act as well as the Constitution Act -- the current legislative framework wouldn't be able to achieve that objective.

G. Plant: Has the government undertaken any analysis of the cost implications of an increase in the size of this House to as many as 81 MLAs?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes, we have certainly considered it. This Legislature is the least expensive-per-capita Legislature in this entire country. I think people in the north and the interior, as well as in Surrey, Richmond and other areas where the population is growing, deserve adequate representation.

G. Plant: What are the cost implications? How much will it cost if the commission decides to recommend 81 MLAs and if the government accepts that number? How much additional cost will there be?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I believe that the hon. member would be able to figure out that cost. If you look at the current cost of the Legislature, divide that by 75 -- hence the cost of one MLA, if one is added by the commission.

G. Plant: I want to make sure that I understand the minister's answer, at least conceptually. One way that you could figure out cost implications would be to look at allowances, benefits and salaries paid to MLAs and come up with an average figure per MLA, and then multiply that by six. I suppose part of the subtext of my question is that that clearly would be an inadequate measure of the true costs, because there would be other costs involved. There may well have to be changes to the configuration of not only this room but the building as a whole in order to accommodate six additional MLAs.

[10:00]

The discussion on this point doesn't need to be a long one. It could be made simpler if the Attorney General simply let us know if there has been any consideration of the cost implications of this legislation. I mean something more than just sitting down with a number out of the estimates and doing a bit of arithmetic; I mean serious cost implications. If there are, I'd like to know what they are.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: That's exactly the kind of cost that I've been talking about. We have given careful consideration to the possibility that the commission, in its wisdom, may decide to increase the size of this Legislature by six seats. We in British Columbia, this party, are prepared to pay that cost on behalf of the people of British Columbia for adequate representation for all British Columbians.

G. Plant: I'm glad that the minister is willing to pay the costs. Will he tell us how much it is, so that we can all share in the news?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I just heard the hon. member say prior to this question and prior to my answer that he wasn't concerned about the figures. Therefore I believe that he is satis-

[ Page 1722 ]

fied. He just said that he wasn't concerned whether I had figured out what the cost per MLA would be.

Interjection.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Oh, I see. Now I hear to the contrary; you are concerned. That information, I believe.... There is a calculation of the cost of this Legislature, and it is about $17 per capita -- per British Columbian -- per year. If that is divided 75 ways, you would be able to find the cost of one more MLA being added to this Legislature. How much might it cost? In fact, it might be less than that.

G. Plant: I understand the way the minister is doing the calculation, and I am going to impose on him, if I may, to do the calculation in a slightly different way. It seems to me that the calculation could be done in terms of raw dollars. That is, if we are going to add six MLAs to the House, and recognizing that there are going to be salary costs and all of that, and perhaps also physical costs, how much is that in dollar terms? I don't mean on a per capita basis; I mean in absolute dollar terms.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I have not calculated, from the costs I've given, the per MLA costs. But you would be able to do that. The cost of running this Legislature, which includes the salaries and allowances for all MLAs, and all of the other related expenses, is about $17 per British Columbian.

Interjection.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The hon. member should know that there is no pension scheme in place at this time.

Interjection.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes, you must. It hurts, does it?

The Chair: Order, hon. members.

G. Plant: I think I will try it one more time, because I am not sure that the method the Attorney General is using to come up with a number, which is intended to help us, is the right method. It still isn't very helpful.

One number that has been published is the figure of $100,000 per MLA. We've seen that figure. Now, if you were to take that as being the only cost associated on a per annum basis with increasing the number of MLAs from 75 to 81, you could say, when I ask the question of how much it will cost to add six MLAs: "Oh, that's easy -- $600,000." I'm not even getting that answer. But I am asking for more than that, because there will be more costs than that. There will be costs associated with changing this room, with perhaps changes to.... They may be nothing; they may be very little. As I said earlier, the point is that the hon. minister could shortcut the dialogue if he would just be upfront and admit that they haven't done the analysis.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I was just sitting down here and working out the $17 per capita cost of this Legislature. It comes to about 25 cents per MLA per capita for all British Columbians.

An Hon. Member: There's the class of '86, the class of '91, the class of '96. They're all going to be different.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Assuming the hon. member who interjected is correct, there would be no pension plan as it is now, so the future MLAs would actually be cheaper than the past MLAs. It would be less than 25 cents. I don't see the point.

G. Wilson: Honestly, I can't help but comment that the people of rural British Columbia must take great comfort in two urban-based lawyers up here discussing their future.

I'm curious, though, about the language of this particular section. Essentially, it's an addendum to the existing section 3, which says: "The function of the commission is to make proposals to the Legislative Assembly as to the area, boundaries and names of the electoral districts of British Columbia." That, one might argue -- and I think that has been argued by the member for Richmond-Steveston -- should be adequate for the government to determine what it needs to do.

Section 1, section 3(2), says: "If the commission in carrying out its functions under subsection (1) considers that the number of electoral districts in British Columbia should be increased...." And this is the key, "should be increased;" then we put a ceiling to what the increase can be. The minister said in second reading debate that they basically have the option to choose from 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 or 81; they have all these options to choose from. There's nothing in the language that precludes the Electoral Boundaries Commission from redesigning the boundaries and determining that in fact the numbers of seats could be fewer. I don't see it anywhere, except as we get into the next section, which we'll talk about there with respect to the population percentage rate. Under this particular section, there's nothing to suggest that that commission couldn't, if given proper persuasion, recognize that there could be a redistribution with respect to population or representation by population, if other considerations are taken into account such as those that were advanced by the members for Peace River North and Peace River South, myself and a few others that come from rural ridings.... In fact, we might put in place a weighting system that would allow for greater regional representation from the interior by actually reducing the number of seats.

I grant you that may be an unlikely outcome, certainly in the spirit of this debate, which seems to be focused all in one direction: increasing. It would seem to me that on the basis of the language in this subsection, there is nothing that would preclude the commission from actually recommending that there be fewer elected members. I'd like to comment on that.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I'm not going to give direction to the commission, but my reading of what's happening in this Legislature with the amendment is that there is an implicit understanding by the very fact that we are making this amendment, which gives the latitude to increase rather than decrease. There is an implication that that's the only direction this legislation is intended to take the commission if the commission so chooses.

G. Wilson: That speaks to the heart of the concern of some members -- I can't speak for all, but certainly some members -- on this side of the House. We start to see the clear implication that we're attempting to resolve the problems with respect to rural representation by simply adding numbers. Quite frankly, as we get into the next section, we'll be able to demonstrate almost equivocally that this is just not going to happen. We will not see increased numbers in the rural parts of British Columbia, especially the north; we won't. We're going to see added numbers in places like Surrey and possibly Richmond. There may be one or two other areas

[ Page 1723 ]

 peripheral to Vancouver and maybe one additional seat in a community like Kelowna. That will be it, and the rest of us will be gone.

Hon. Chair, I find it hard to understand why it is, notwithstanding the fact that on the national stage British Columbians lament the fact that we do not have adequate representation in the House. If we were to look at those numbers.... We've got a very serious issue in front of us right now with respect to the Ontario Liberal caucus, which is about to absolutely shaft this province with respect to our softwood lumber deal. Because the elected members from B.C. aren't anywhere close to having enough power to wield that decision in Ottawa or to protect the interests of the forestry community in British Columbia.

Interjection.

G. Wilson: I hear the Chair say: "Come on, let's get down to this bill." But that is exactly what this bill speaks to. When the member for Peace River North stands up and says, "Our oil and gas revenues are being directed in ways that don't represent the views of the people who develop that wealth," that's precisely the same argument that the people of B.C. can take to Ottawa right now, saying: "We're not going to let some Ontario Liberal caucus determine what we should be doing."

In this particular section, what distresses me is that the language of this bill is permissive in the sense that it allows the commission a wide option under the original act. The Attorney General is shaking his head. In fact, it does, because the original act does not specify either limits or ceilings. What this does by implementing those figures is not only specify a ceiling or limit but in effect direct the commission with respect to the intent of the legislation, which is to increase the numbers rather than to look at alternatives that may in fact decrease the number of MLAs and to look at different representative models. I think that's true, and I'd like to hear the Attorney General suggest that it isn't.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The ceiling or otherwise is not implicit in section 3. The ceiling is present in the Electoral Districts Act as well as the Constitution Act. Therefore the Electoral Boundaries Commission would be governed by those two pieces of legislation, in terms of the number of constituencies, until or unless we give them the latitude, either expressly or by implication, to increase if they so choose, which we are doing.

G. Wilson: Hon. Chair, this is my last comment on this. I know other members want to get into this debate, so I'll yield. The only thing that directs -- and, of course, we'll get to this when we deal with the amendments to section 9 -- is a rep-by-pop formula that's going to bind us to increasing urban seats. There is no opportunity within this act, from what the Attorney General has just told us, to do anything for rural B.C. at all, except increase urban seats. The rep-by-pop formula will direct this commission in that manner. I'd like to hear an explanation. If what the Attorney General has just told us with respect to the intent of the language and the amendment is not so -- if, in fact, there is not, under the existing act, some kind of opportunity for the commission to review alternative representative models, which it does provide for, notwithstanding the fact that there is the 25 percent-plus/minus issue in the original act.... Under that particular legislation, there is an opportunity for us to look at alternative representative models. That is now constrained in this act, and that's going to drive urban seats, not rural seats, into this Legislative Assembly.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Chair, with the utmost respect, I disagree with the hon. member. I don't believe that the current legislation implies that the commission has the jurisdiction, in determining boundaries of the electoral districts, to provide for an alternative representative model. The model is what we have, and the legislation allows them to determine boundaries and the like under section 3. The amendment that is before the Legislature today gives them the latitude to consider possible increases.

G. Wilson: I'd be happy to take issue with that statement and serve notice that as we get to the amendment to section 9, I'd be happy to point out to the Attorney General where, in fact, I think he's quite wrong on that point.

[10:15]

R. Neufeld: I listened to the minister's explanation of how this section, with the possible increase of MLAs in the Legislature to 81, is going to ensure rural representation at adequate levels. For the life of me, I can't figure out, when we talk about rep by pop, how in the world increasing the number of MLAs will in any way ensure adequate levels in rural B.C. That's my first question. Really, I have a hard time trying to see how five more seats in Surrey or someplace in Vancouver, and maybe one in the Okanagan, is really going to help rural B.C.

Secondly, the minister talked at length, and so did the member for Richmond-Steveston, about cost. The rationale the minister used is that in fact this Legislature is the least costly Legislature across Canada. Can I ask the minister why we should even use that as a rule? If we used that in everything we did in British Columbia, I'm sure we would be doing a whole bunch of things differently. I can't for the life of me see why, if we think we're doing it at a reasonable cost, and it's lower than it is in Ontario or Quebec or wherever, we should automatically get to that level. I've said that about our debt; I say it about the cost of running the Legislature. I'd like to know the rationale behind trying to increase the cost of the Legislature.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I'm sure the hon. member for Peace River North doesn't want to argue against his own position; he wants to ensure, obviously, that there is adequate representation. Sometimes adequate representation costs more. A modest increase in the cost of ensuring adequate representation for the interior, the north and the other outlying regions of British Columbia is acceptable to this party and ought to be acceptable to the others.

R. Neufeld: I had posed two questions. The other one, being my first question, was: how does increasing a possible six seats in the lower mainland really ensure rural representation at adequate levels?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: We believe that taking into account the amendments and the existing legislation would lead the commission to believe that we want to make sure representation in the areas my hon. friend comes from is ensured at adequate levels. Commissions usually follow the debates in the Legislature when they do their work, as well. They would, of course, follow the arguments that the hon. member for Peace River North might make or that the hon. member for Richmond-Steveston might make, take into account what each one of us may say, and then try and arrive at what the intent of the legislation was or is. I'm certain that any reasonable commission, looking at the circumstances under which these amend-

[ Page 1724 ]

ments were presented and what was said, and looking at the amendments themselves, might arrive at the conclusion that one of the aims -- in fact, the chief objective -- in crafting these amendments the way they were crafted is to make sure that adequate levels of representation remain intact in the areas we're concerned about, the north and the interior.

R. Neufeld: I have one more quick question. Other than the original bill stating that after two general elections a review must be taken, can the minister tell me...? I go back to increasing the number from 75, not assuming or saying that it's going to increase; I think it will. I know the minister said that the commission can stay with 75 if they wish, but I'd like to know if the Attorney General ministry has had lots of representation made to it by British Columbians, who are being told that dollars are tight, that we can't afford different things in the province.... Have many of those same people been coming to the minister and saying, "My goodness, we're underrepresented, and we need more MLAs in the lower mainland," or any part of British Columbia? Has there been one letter or one representation from the average person in British Columbia to government on that account, other than from government members?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Chair, we are bound by section 5 of the legislation that the hon. member for Richmond-Steveston referred to. We are bound under that section to appoint a commission. Either we amend the legislation or we appoint the commission, and the fairest thing to do is to appoint the commission. While appointing the commission, we considered that if we did so without giving any direction to the commission in terms of what factors the commission must take into account in deciding whether or not to increase the number of seats.... If we did not introduce this amendment at all, hon. member, your riding might double in size, triple in size or be eliminated altogether. Those are the kinds of considerations we took into account, and I'm being very candid.

G. Abbott: I'll keep my comments brief, given the hour and given that we're just on the first section of this bill.

I want to say, first of all, that it's certainly daunting to be following my good friend from Richmond-Steveston. I suspect this will be a bit like painting a moustache on the Mona Lisa.

An Hon. Member: Just like yours.

G. Abbott: Rather like this one, hon. Chair.

G. Plant: I'm an urban lawyer; I don't get that. [Laughter.]

G. Abbott: He does have a lot of deficiencies, as an urban lawyer typically does, but despite that he has shed a lot of light on the issues here. I hope I can get another ray or two in here, as well.

First of all, I think it's important to note that, whether the cost of a new MLA is 17 cents per capita, $17 per capita or $1,700 per capita, the time is wrong to be adding MLAs to the Legislature, as we noted in the debate yesterday. At a time when we're making very hard decisions about school and hospital construction, at a time when we're cutting in a whole range of areas, I think it's sending all the wrong messages to be adding members to this House.

I would like from the Attorney General, hon. Chair, just some clarification or summation about the intent of the bill with respect to the increase from 75 to 81. Is the objective of the bill to increase the number of seats in the Legislature to reflect population growth? Is it to protect northern and interior representation? Or is it both?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The objective is to take into account population growth while adequately ensuring the representation at reasonable and adequate levels in the interior and the north.

G. Abbott: I think the important point here is that just adding to the numbers doesn't necessarily do the latter. I would think that it would have been much more effective to possibly make some direction to the commission under section 9(c) of the existing act along that line, but perhaps we'll get into that on section 2.

I'm curious: is the addition of up to six new MLAs a reflection of the growth in population in British Columbia since the last census or since the last redistribution? I don't know what six over 75 is -- probably 8 percent or something. Is that a reflection of the population growth in British Columbia? My question is: are the two connected?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: To a large extent, yes.

G. Abbott: That leads me, then, to the next point: if, in fact, the intent of the bill is to begin a process whereby population growth is going to be the trigger that leads to redistribution and a larger number of MLAs in the Legislature, and if the demographers are correct and the population of British Columbia is to double in the next few decades, is it the explicit or implicit assumption of the Attorney General that the number of MLAs in this House will also double?

Interjections.

G. Farrell-Collins: I just want to raise a couple of points with regard to this section. The first one was a comment by the Attorney General after a somewhat protracted debate between himself and the member for Richmond-Steveston, with the Attorney General insisting that nothing in this act directs the commission to head off in a particular direction -- to choose 81 or 79 or 77. He then, in the next breath, proceeded to make a comment to the member from Powell River-Sunshine Coast that, in fact, the other part of that -- and the word is "increase" up to a maximum of 81 -- the word "increase" does give a pretty clear direction to the commission that it should be heading in that direction. One can't argue both sides of the equation. To say that one is increasing and that gives a direction, but 81 doesn't give any direction as to how far they can increase, is an interesting and, I would say, spurious argument -- but that's just an aside.

First of all, I want to comment on the figure of 81. If one does a spreadsheet and looks at what's happening here, it's really a pig in a poke that the people in the north are being offered. What they're being told is that this amendment will ensure that they have reasonable and proportional representation -- that they're not getting short shrift. Well, what happens is that the people in the north -- unless the minister doesn't take them for intelligent people -- are going to look at this and say: "Well, we have our ten MLAs. That's great."

What this bill does is allow for an additional six MLAs, five of which are probably going to be in the suburban areas of the lower mainland, and one possibly in the Okanagan. So in fact the proportion of representation that the people in the 

[ Page 1725 ]

north have shrinks by exactly the same proportion as it would if one were to reduce the north by one seat. It's a pig in a poke. You create the illusion that they're getting the same representation when in reality their representation is eroding, as it has done each and every time the process -- the number of MLAs, the redistribution -- has gone on since this province was created some 125 years ago. It's an illusion that you're protecting....

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: You'll have a chance, Mr. Minister of Finance, to get up.

It's an illusion that you're guaranteeing this representation. The other argument is interesting, too, because if one then goes to the geographic argument and says that what we're doing is trying to make the ridings of a reasonable size.... I spent, a few hours ago, an hour or 45 minutes in the library and went down to the basement. In there, there are some really neat maps of the electoral boundaries in British Columbia as they've been over generations. Without having the opportunity to overlay them, if one looks at them, one can see that the northern ridings have actually gotten to about the same size.... They've moved, and the boundaries have shifted, so it's hard to tell exactly, but they have either stayed about the same size or shrunk over time.

[10:30]

It's a lot easier to get around now than it was 40 years ago. I remember reading part of a book by a former member of this House, and he explained that when he was elected.... I can't remember where it was; it was somewhere up in the Cariboo, I believe. It took him seven days to get to the Legislature when he left home. I think the House had been called in February, and the car broke down, and then he finally got on the train and took it to Vancouver, and had to get on the overnight ferry and come over here. I mean, it was a difficult process.

It's still difficult to get to Victoria, but it's not that difficult; it's not as difficult as it used to be. Nor did they have fax machines or cellular phones. I know that cellular coverage doesn't nearly cover the province, but it is certainly heading that way. They didn't have fax machines or E-mail, they didn't have toll-free long-distance, they didn't have the mail service that we have now -- I don't know if that's better or worse. But things have changed, obviously. So the geographic argument is also an illusion, I think, because it certainly doesn't hold up under scrutiny.

The next point that I have about this number of 81 and why it is we have to increase by six in this section is that this province is represented federally by 32 seats, by 32 Members of Parliament. Boy, is the north ever underrepresented! Boy, are those ridings ever a lot bigger than they are provincially! So we could have an argument about whether the federal distribution is correct, and I suppose that's another question. But the number of 32 works. What it comes down to is deciding if 32 is the right number -- or is it 75, is it 81, was it 59, or was it 69? The reality is that if you look at it within the provisions of the act that is there now, without the addition of this section, one is leaving it up with the guideline of 25 percent plus-or-minus, with the provision under section 9(c) that the commission will be "permitted to exceed the 25% deviation principle where it considers that very special circumstances exist." It provides that opportunity for them. There is no need to give specific direction in this section. Whether it's intended or whether the minister is going to say that it's a direction or not, the fact is that it is, and it will be interpreted as a direction. We don't need to give this direction to increase it to a specific number of 81.

The minister's comment that the idea, the goal, could be to achieve reasonable representation on the order of two MLAs per 100,000 is a spurious argument in the extreme. The last time this House expanded, from 69 to 75 members, they actually had to come in here and take each and every one of these desks apart, cut three inches off them and glue them all back together. That to me is the height of ridiculousness, to have to do that. I mean, it is just silly in the extreme.

The next alternative, of course, is that we go to 81, and then, of course, there is going to be another redistribution. If one were to take the Attorney General's logic that the reasonable target should be two MLAs per 100,000, then, as the member for Shuswap said, in about 25 years, when the population of British Columbia is on the order of six million, we will have 120 MLAs in this House. I would suggest that rather than have very thin desks of about eight inches, we could just put a terrace in here. We could have bunk beds for the MLAs, or we could knock out the walls or turn this into a casino and move the Legislature to Prince George North or somewhere. It is ridiculous for the minister to say that that's the reason for this argument.

What one comes down to is the realization that this section and this bill are designed to do one thing. They're designed to ensure that.... The MLAs that represent the north -- for now, seven out of ten of them are with the New Democrat caucus -- have managed to create enough fuss within their caucus that they've managed to go to the Attorney General and say: "We don't want to lose our jobs; we just got them. Heaven forbid that we should have a redistribution and maybe be reduced by one seat, or be adjusted." They said: "Let's pretend with this section that we're going to keep good representation in the north. We'll just add a few MLAs down in the south, and nobody will notice."

The argument that we are reducing the representation in the north by doing so is an interesting one, because, in fact, the Premier himself mentioned that by doing this, we also could potentially reduce the number of seats in Richmond by one and the number of seats in Vancouver by one. My constituents are not in the north, but they may end up being less represented or underrepresented without this section, if I were to accept the argument. The member for Richmond-Steveston is justified in standing up in this House and saying that with the addition of this section, his constituents may well be underrepresented. It's not just a northern issue. It's not just the members from the north that have issues to be raised here. In fact, it is members from the urban areas, and indeed lawyers from urban areas, who have a right to stand up in this House and defend the rights of their constituents, too.

I think the act as it stands is far better, because it allows those provisions to be made in exceptional circumstances, but it keeps with the very justifiable principle, which that party voted in favour unanimously of, to keep the 25 percent rule and put in section 9(c). So the question to the minister becomes: given those arguments, how does he justify putting in a very specific indication to not allow them to make whatever decision they feel is appropriate? In fact, he's directing them very precisely that they should head in this direction -- that is, the direction of an increase -- and that they should only increase up to 81 but nowhere beyond that. You are giving very specific parameters, and whether you think you're directing them or not, you are.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Chair, I don't really want to respond to all of what my hon. colleague from Vancouver-

[ Page 1726 ]

Little Mountain has said. I think it boils down to a simple difference of opinion. We believe that people in the north and the interior deserve adequate representation and that this is the mechanism to ensure that. You believe differently. I believe that's a fundamental difference of opinion. I just want to make sure that everyone understands that the amendment we're now talking about does not give the commission a direction to increase the number of seats. It gives the commission an option, if it so chooses.

G. Abbott: The powerful momentum I was building in my remarks was broken up when the Attorney General declined to answer my one question. So I want to quickly conclude here.

Interjections.

G. Abbott: Well, no, he didn't; it was the Attorney General who broke up the cadence.

At any rate, I would just like to note that 100 years ago in this province, MLAs typically represented just a few thousand people -- in some cases, just a couple of thousand people. That was the total population, not just voters. Fifty years ago, they represented only several thousand people. Today, as has been noted, we're looking at something in the range of 50,000. Should we be astonished or frightened by that? I think not. Obviously, as has been noted by others, we have an ease of transport and travel that members 50 or 100 years ago could never have imagined. As well, we have the assistance in our work of communication technologies that we couldn't have imagined even 20 years ago. These things we should bear in mind in doing what I think is being suggested here: basically tying representation in this House to growth in the population.

I also think we should, in the years ahead, bear in mind the example of the province of Ontario, where the Legislature has grown to a point where its manageability and its workability has come into question. As a consequence, they are in the process of going to a new model of representation that will see a significant reduction in the size of that Legislature. So this government in particular, and ourselves collectively, should be thinking of ways that we can address the need for representation in this House in the future, without necessarily looking to an increase in the size of the Legislature as a solution.

What we're seeing in this bill.... And I don't want to be too critical of it here; this may sound very critical, but I don't want it to sound that way. This is what I think an urban lawyer might term complete ad hockery in terms of dealing with the problem that we face. I do hope that this government.... Perhaps the Attorney General, now having heard my complete argument, will be so persuaded by it that he'll immediately withdraw this bill. I suspect not. If he does not, I hope that as a Legislature we can look at some alternatives to providing representation across this province for an increased population. I really do hope that we're not looking, 25 years from now, at a Legislature of 100, 120 or 150, because I think that that will call the whole workability of this place into question. As the government of 1996 to whatever year, we should really be looking at these questions in a serious way, and I hope to hear from the Attorney General that we will in fact be doing that.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: We always listen to people very seriously, and to you too.

B. Penner: I've had some time to contemplate Bill 19, particularly upon my return from the Union Club this evening, which I had the opportunity to visit for the first time. I was struck by the grandeur of the Legislature on my walk back from the Union Club, and I started thinking about legislative history. What concerns me about this piece of legislation is how it will affect legislative history and procedure and accepted practice, particularly as it relates to British Columbia.

I know other members on this side of the House have raised concern about what we would do if we followed the apparent principle in this Bill and kept increasing the number of seats until we had, perhaps, 120 or 150 members in this House. My concern is about what we do with an extra six members in this House, given the tradition that has long been established. My question is: where would we put those extra six members? If those six seats were to go on this side of the House, then we would break the longstanding legislative and parliamentary tradition that the majority sits on the government side. If, on the other hand, those six seats were to go on the government side of the House, we'd have the strange situation where we could have six Liberal members sitting with the government. Clearly, that would be a breach of parliamentary tradition. Taking a look around the House, I simply can't see any other place to put those seats.

Again, I'm just thinking about legislative tradition, and I know that it's tradition that the government sits on the right-hand side of the Speaker. But the problem is that the majority of the seats would be on the opposition side, if the six were put over here -- because, clearly, they would all be Liberal; and if they were to be put on the other side, we would have a situation where we'd have six members of the Liberal Party forced to sit with the New Democrats.

Section 1 approved on division.

On section 2.

The Chair: I recognize the member for Richmond-Steveston.

G. Plant: The urban lawyer, right?

Interjections.

G. Plant: This will go faster, actually, if I have just a moment or two of indulgence in the form of silence.

An Hon. member: Don't count on it.

G. Plant: Okay. Then you know what? I've got lots of time.

Section 2 purports to amend section 9. I want to ask, I suppose, a fairly technical question first. I want to look at section 9 in its original form. Section 9 in its original form says: "The commission shall, in determining the area to be included in and in fixing the boundaries of proposed electoral districts, be governed by the following principles...." I won't read them. but there are three principles set out. Stopping there, we see that the commission has a job to do. The job is to determine the area to be included, and in fixing the boundaries of electoral districts and carrying out that job, it's governed by certain principles.

What the amendment does is to say this: "For the purpose of making proposals under section 3(2)" -- that is, proposals to increase the number of electoral districts up to a maximum of 81 -- "commission shall take into account the 

[ Page 1727 ]

following...." Then there are set out what look like two principles. This really is only a technical question. What we're going to have -- and I just want to be sure I'm understanding and reading this right -- is the commission doing two different things and being guided by two different sets of principles. Could the Attorney General assist me in letting me know whether I'm reading the section correctly?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes, there are two separate but complementary principles.

G. Plant: I think I'm going to take up the invitation implied in the last comment by asking the Attorney General whether, in his view, these two different but complementary sets of principles.... I mean, I guess the point is that they are different sets of principles. When he says that they are complementary, he means they will work together, but they aren't the same thing. They are two different sets of principles.

[10:45]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes. There are two different tasks that the commission is being asked to perform. Some of the factors that the commission takes into account in performing those tasks are the same and some are different.

G. Plant: I thought I understood, but now I'm confused. I think that what we have is what I said originally -- that is, when the commission is deciding how many constituencies it should recommend, it follows one set of principles. When it's deciding what the area and boundaries of those constituencies should be, it's governed by a different set of principles. I understand that the principles were intended to work together. But I guess my real point is that I want to be sure that this isn't just someone's attempt to restate the principles that are in the earlier section.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The intent is to allow section 9 as it stands, without the amendment, to function in what it purported to do and then to add the next subsection, to allow the commission to decide the initial question as to whether or not there ought to be an increase.

G. Plant: As it currently stands, the provisions of section 9 reflect the judgment of the Supreme Court of British Columbia in the Dixon decision. The judge was Supreme Court of British Columbia Chief Justice McLachlin, as she then was. My question for the Attorney General is: has there been any analysis of the proposed new principles which the commission will be required to take into account in deciding how many constituencies there should be? Has there been any analysis of those principles in relation to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the Dixon case?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I was present in the courtroom for part of the argument when it was made in the Dixon case before Madam Justice McLachlin, as she then was. It went to the issue of representation by population and successfully eliminated dual-member ridings in British Columbia for the first time. What we are proposing, by way of an amendment, is consistent with the principles of that decision.

G. Plant: I am grateful for that assurance. I want to look for a minute.... Again, coming back to the theme of some remarks I made earlier, why do we need to change to the existing act? The existing section 9 has the three principles that are to be applied in determining the area of constituencies and fixing the boundaries of them. The first principle is one that we all call rep by pop; the second principle is the 25-percent-plus-or-minus deviation; and the third principle, which is section 9(c), is that the commission is permitted to exceed the 25 percent deviation principle where it considers that very special circumstances exist.

What I want to do first, making sure that I understand this properly, is put a hypothetical case -- for example, the riding of Bulkley Valley-Stikine. That may now be a riding, which, by virtue of the increase in population across the province as a whole over the last few years, which would fall outside the existing 25 percent rule, up or down. One possible way of ensuring that the citizens and constituents of the current constituency of Bulkley Valley-Stikine would still have the same representation would be for the commission to decide that in the case of that particular area of the province, special circumstances exist. The special circumstances that might be called upon here would be the special need to protect the interests of people who live in northern, more remote parts of British Columbia.

The short of all that is that if one objective of this exercise is to ensure that we protect the representation of northern ridings, the statute already contains a mechanism for doing that. That's my question: isn't that so?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes, it does. But if you look at subsection (b) of the proposed section 9(2) that also provides for the commission to look at exceptional circumstances in deciding whether or not to increase. When you decide what the configuration ought to be, you have section 9(c), available to you as it is. But when you decide whether or not to increase at all, you also have those special circumstances available to look at.

G. Plant: I understand the logic of what the minister is saying, but I want to rewind the tape back to the more original question, which is: why do we need this statute at all? I understood that one of the reasons we needed this statute was to protect the position of people in northern British Columbia who are at risk in the redistribution that would occur under this act, if it were unamended, because of the changes in population that have taken place over the five or six years since the last redistribution. The risk apparently is that the change in population has been such that we might lose a northern riding or two. I heard that argument; I listened to that argument.

Because I do actually think about the interests of northern British Columbians, I thought: let's look at the statute and see whether there's a defect in the existing act that would cause that result. I don't see the defect. What I see in this act in its original form is the very thing which the government now seeks to achieve by this amendment. I have to say that what that leads me to conclude that is that, first of all, we don't need this act to ensure that the people of northern British Columbia are adequately represented.

What we have is a commission -- I respect what the Attorney General said about the integrity of that commission and the need to ensure that that commission does its job -- that can apply the criteria that currently exist in the act and can ensure that the people who live in the ridings of northern British Columbia, whose members have spoken eloquently about this issue over the last couple of days, will be represented in the next House following the work of this commission exactly as they are represented now. That means, in my mind, if I may say, that the real purpose of this bill is not to accommodate the regional diversity of British Columbia but to increase the number of MLAs and accommodate the political 

[ Page 1728 ]

aspirations of a few current northern MLAs who are worried about their re-election chances.

Before encouraging the Attorney General to respond to the partisan point, let me be absolutely sure -- if you'll indulge me -- that I don't misunderstand this. The point is that under the current act, regional disparity and the needs of rural British Columbians, whether they be in southern British Columbia or northern British Columbia, are in fact able to be accommodated.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: It's not adequate.

G. Plant: In what respect are they not able to be adequately accommodated?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: What you have in the current section is some guidelines for the commission to determine boundaries. If you have the kind of situation that you have in British Columbia today -- a large increase in population -- firstly you need to allow the commission to possibly increase the number of constituencies. The factors or the guidelines under section 9, I would argue, would not allow the commission to do that, because the legislation per se in the context of the Constitution Act and the Electoral Districts Act doesn't authorize them to look at that question as well. So you have to then provide for the commission to determine whether or not to increase. You have two considerations for the unique circumstances of the north and the interior: firstly, determining whether or not to increase at all; and secondly, how to redraw the maps.

The Chair: Hon. members, we're getting close to second reading. It may be, in fact, that we are doing more second reading work here. So I would encourage you all to be quite specific about wording and things like that.

G. Plant: I'm trying to figure out what it is that section 2 of the act does that isn't already in the act. I can't imagine a better place to do it -- with respect -- than in the debate in Committee of the Whole, which we're in right now. I'm mindful of the Chair's concerns, and I'll take them into account.

I just want to be sure I understand what the Attorney General just said. I think I do understand it, but I think that the Attorney General is again sending a mixed message. He seems to think that, in order to accommodate the regional diversity that exists within British Columbia -- and in particular the aspirations and needs of northern and interior British Columbians -- there needs to be more MLAs. In looking at the existing section 9, it occurs to me that that very aspiration and those very needs can, in fact, be accommodated by the exercise of the jurisdiction conferred by section 9(c), which will ensure that they will have the same number of MLAs.

Interjections.

The Chair: Order, hon. members.

G. Plant: I'm sure if the Minister of Finance has something to contribute to the debate I'll hear it by some other means.

Let me move along to a couple of other technical points. What does the government mean by the phrase "physical configuration" in what would become section 9(2)(a)?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Many geographic features, other than pure size: topography and the like.

G. Plant: I wonder if the minister has in mind any concrete examples that might illustrate what is meant by that phrase?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I don't know whether my urban-lawyer colleague's question was genuine; I don't know whether it was a serious question. Being an urban lawyer, formerly from a peasant farmer background, I may have missed the point.

Obviously, British Columbia is a beautiful province, with diversity in terms of the population, geography, topography, mountains, forests and the like, and no one area of British Columbia is like any other. So you have varied features across the province. To take into account all of those, this kind of language is being used.

[11:00]

G. Wilson: I want to come back to a point the Attorney General responded to earlier and seek some clarification on it. Under the current section 9, which will become section 9(1), the commission is empowered, in determining the area to be included and fixing the boundaries.... It says: "The commission shall, in determining the area to be included in and in fixing the boundaries of proposed electoral districts, be governed by the following." In that, it provides the kind of protection we've just been discussing -- such things as geographic and demographic realities, in terms of the legacy of our history and the need to balance the community interests of the people of the province. It's a very important phrase. Then it goes on to talk about the deviation issue with respect to the 25 percent.

But now we've introduced in this amendment section 2, section 9(2), which will be used, it would appear by the language, for the exclusivity of the decision taken by this commission, if it chooses to increase the boundary. It says: "For the purpose of making proposals under section 3(2)" -- which is essentially the decision to go ahead and increase from 75 to 81 -- "the commission shall" -- it says shall, not may -- "take into account the following: (a) geographic and demographic considerations, including the sparsity, density or rate of growth of the population of any part of British Columbia and the accessibility, size or physical configuration of any part of British Columbia...." Then it goes on to talk about two particular issues: communication and transportation.

It does not talk about special circumstances that may exist, allowing for deviational issues. It gives a very specific set of criteria by which the increase in these seats shall be determined, and that is quite different from the existing section 9. One could argue that the commission, in determining the area of proposed electoral boundaries, can look at section 9(1)(a), (b) and (c). But if it makes the decision to increase, it "shall" be bound by these considerations.

I know, hon. Chair, that often we don't put into the record those comments that are gratuitously offered by members who are not directly participating in the debate. But one comment that I think bears repeating at this point is the comment that was made by the Minister of Finance who said that you can't do it unless you sacrifice the principle of representation by population. That's the key. I would argue that because section 2 specifically directs the commission, if it chooses to increase the number of seats, to the conditions set out under section 2, sections 9(2)(a) and (b), that will enshrine the principle of rep by pop, which will make sure that those additional seats go to the urban-based ridings where the rapid population growth and demographic changes are occurring, if 

[ Page 1729 ]

not to one interior city where there is abnormal rapid growth right now, which is Kelowna. What the Attorney General has to recognize is that nothing in this amendment provides the level of security that might be found under section 9(1)(c). It gives very clear direction to the commission.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: As I said before, what the new section 9(2) provides is some guidelines for the new task that's been imposed on the commission: firstly, to decide whether or not to increase the number of seats. Once it decides to increase the number of seats, section 9(1), which would be new, would apply. Therefore rep by pop will not be sacrificed, and unique circumstances could be taken into account under section 9(1)(c).

G. Wilson: I don't want to get into a lengthy philosophical debate on that question. But I do want to come back to the language that's included in the bill with respect to the directive to this commission, where it "shall take into account the following" in the consideration of increases in the number of seats. Those are geographic and demographic considerations, including sparsity, density and rate of growth. That speaks to the 25 percent; it speaks to the representation-by-population factor. Clearly, you're not going to increase the number of MLAs because of sparsity of population. Clearly, you're not going to argue in favour of increased MLAs if you have a reduction in density of population. If people are leaving, you're not going to ask for more. What this drives, then, is the number of representatives to be sitting in the Legislative Assembly on the basis of those areas where densities are increasing.

One could -- and I haven't, but I would certainly be happy to at some point -- bring forward the demographic trends within the province to determine where those areas are. Probably the easiest way to do that would be to simply look at school district figures. We know where the rapid-growth areas are. They are in the peripheral areas around the lower mainland centres -- Richmond, to a degree, and Surrey, definitely -- and maybe one or two urban centres, one of which is Kelowna. What this commission is going to be constrained by and what we're going to hear after this has been passed and we're underway.... I see the Minister of Finance shaking his head. There is nothing within the terms of this amendment that gives the commission flexibility outside of the constraint of what they "shall" take into account. That is going to drive them on a rep-by-pop basis to increase the number of seats in the urban centres and not in the rural regions. So it is a completely specious argument that this is somehow going to increase rural representation. Because the commission isn't going to be able to do so.

R. Neufeld: I have an amendment that's been given to the Clerk -- obviously, it meets the rules -- on this section. I think if we listen to the arguments about population and where the seats are going to go, it's pretty obvious to everyone. Assuming that there are going to be 81 MLAs after this process is finished, and assuming that the population of British Columbia is about 3.6 million, the average is going to be 44,000. If you go 25 percent less or more than that, we're about in the same position we are in today. There are some of the northern ridings that don't fall within that number. I've proposed an amendment that will take care of some of the northern ridings specifically, so that we don't have to argue about what the legislation really says. This is very specific. It's adding section 2.1, and reads:

districts...."

The Chair: I'm sorry to interrupt you at this point, but in terms of the process and the procedure that we may follow to deal with this amendment, we will discuss this section first and then we'll add your amendment, because it is an added item; it doesn't change anything that's already in the act. What I would propose is that I will ask the members, "Shall section 2 pass?" and then we will have your amendment. It adds a new section, section 2.1. There will be 2 and 2.1. It's a brand-new section.

I am sorry to have interrupted you. I should have relayed this earlier, so that you didn't get partway into it before we did this. I would like to put the question to everyone, and if you would then like to comment on section 2, we can do that. Shall existing section 2 pass?

G. Wilson: I have just a quick question. On a number of occasions, the Attorney General has made reference to the Constitution Act with respect to the electoral boundaries and the number of members. Is the Attorney General referring to section 18 of the Constitution Act, with respect to the provision of numbers? Is that what he is citing as the reason this has to be amended?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes, sections 18 and 19.

G. Wilson: Then surely the Attorney General would recognize that section 19 of the Constitution Act actually provides that the boundaries shall be determined in the manner provided for in the Electoral Boundaries Commission Act, which allows them to increase or decrease the numbers. To suggest that the Constitution Act is the reason we need this amendment is not so, because it says that for returning members of the Legislature, there should be 75 electoral districts. Then it says: "...which shall be determined in the manner provided for in the Electoral Boundaries Commission Act." That act specifies that there will be a review of those boundaries in the second consecutive session of the Legislative Assembly, which obviously provides for there to be ongoing amendments. It is a completely specious argument to rely on the Constitution Act and say that that's the reason we need this amendment.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: You have sections 18 and 19 indicating that there shall be 75 members elected in the manner provided by the Election Act. If we do not allow the latitude in the Electoral Boundaries Commission Act to increase, the commission may believe that it doesn't have the right to increase at all beyond 75, because that's all that is mentioned anywhere.

Interjections.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: And there is a legal opinion to that effect.

G. Farrell-Collins: A quick question to the Attorney General: does the Electoral Boundaries Commission have the power or the ability to recommend any number of MLAs? I know that the Constitution Act fixes that number, but I doubt 

[ Page 1730 ]

the recommendation to arrive at our current number of 75 was set by the government in an arbitrary fashion. I don't recall; I wasn't here. I assume it came as a result of a recommendation from the Electoral Boundaries Commission -- at that time it was a Royal Commission on Electoral Boundaries. So does this commission not have the power to make any of those recommendations as they see fit? Maybe they decide it should be.... I'm being told no, so I'll sit down.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Let me address this very briefly. Even the legislation itself, the Electoral Boundaries Commission Act, talks about 75 constituencies only. The Constitution Act talks about 75; the Electoral Districts Act talks about 75. There is a legal opinion within the Ministry of Attorney General that unless we specify that the commission has the latitude to go beyond 75, the commission may legitimately consider that it doesn't; hence the amendment.

G. Wilson: As a matter of interest, I for one would like to have a chance to look at that legal opinion outside of this debate. It seems to me that if the commission, under that act, has the right to make recommendations, then as a result of that recommendation and its adoption, there will a consequential amendment to the Constitution Act. That's the way it would work. You don't have the Constitution Act confining the Electoral Boundary Commission, whose charter is set to do exactly what we're asking it to do, and that's to determine what the numbers should be. So once it makes its recommendation to government, if government and this Legislative Assembly adopt that recommendation from the commission, the consequential amendment amends the Constitution Act. That's the way it works, surely.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I don't really want to get into this esoteric discussion at this late hour, but if the members put their minds to section 3 of the current Electoral Boundaries Commission Act, it clearly states: "The function of the commission is to make proposals to the Legislative Assembly as to the area, boundaries and names of the electoral districts of British Columbia." It does not refer to the number; hence, by implication, all of the other sections that refer to the number in the other legislation that I have referred to, as well as this legislation, govern as to the number.

Obviously, there is a legal opinion and a difference of opinion. We're never going to sort this out here. Let's get on with it.

[11:15]

D. Symons: I'm not a lawyer, which I'll say off the top. I'm just a plain citizen trying to figure out what's going on here.

An Hon. Member: Urban is bad enough.

D. Symons: Urban or rural doesn't matter here.

What this says, and I have to make sense out of it.... As I read the original section 9 (a), it says: "...the principle of representation" -- which was referred to by one of the members across there earlier -- "by population be achieved, recognizing the imperatives imposed by geographical and demographic realities, the legacy of our history and the need to balance community interests of the people of the Province." Then it goes on to talk about this 25 percent deviation. What we find in the section that you're adding to that portion is: "For the purpose of making proposals...the commission shall take into account...geographic and demographic considerations, including the sparsity, density or rate of growth...." Now, I happen to come from a community that has a rapid rate of growth. People have mentioned Surrey and Richmond. I'm from Richmond, and it has that problem. So they are theoretically looking at this. We're very likely, because our rate of growth has been, continues to be and will likely continue to be extremely great.... Therefore, compared to other parts of the province, we are going to get -- ahead of time, by the wording here, I would suspect -- an extra seat, because we've got to anticipate that five years down the line our growth is going to go up by another 10,000 to 20,000 people. That's what it has done in the past.

If you take that into consideration, we're trying to balance that with what we're trying to do at the same time with those areas up north that are fairly sparsely populated. I don't see how putting these words in here -- if you're still constraining what can be done by the words that say you have to work within that 25 percent parameter -- adds one iota of difference to what is currently the case.

Now, if we look at the possibilities of what could happen here.... I was just adding up the members of this House. Basically, 36 of the 75 members live outside of what I'll call the lower mainland, extending out to Chilliwack. If I go beyond Chilliwack, I'll call that the rest of the province. There are 36 people, then, represented in this Legislature outside of that area. That represents 36/75, or 48 percent, representation in this House by people from outside of the lower mainland area. If we take the figures bandied about by other people in here that likely, because of the growth rate in the lower mainland, five of those six seats would go into that area and one would go elsewhere, you now have 37 members from the rest of the province out of a possible 81. That is 45 percent. If you're trying to give better representation to the people in the rest of the province.... Indeed, their percentage of representation in this Legislature has gone down, not up, as you're suggesting this act will enable.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Let me just say this in conclusion, because I'm not going to answer any more questions. I think enough has been said. The question has already been answered. There is a fundamental difference of opinion. Opposition members on that side want to reduce the number of seats in this Legislature to 50 or 60. We want to make sure that the number is maintained at 75, or that the commission has the latitude as well to increase that number. That's the issue; the rest is all sophistry. Let's get on with it.

Section 2 approved on division.

R. Neufeld: I move the amendment in the hands of the Clerk adding a new section 2.1.

[SECTION 2.1

Section 9 be amended by the addition of the following subsection:

(3) For the purpose of making proposals under section 3(2) and notwithstanding subsections 9(1)(b) and (c), in the case of no more than 4 of the proposed electoral districts, if the commission is of the opinion that all 3 of the following criteria exist in a proposed electoral district, the proposed electoral district may have a population that is as much as 50% below the average population of all the proposed electoral districts:

(a) the area of the proposed electoral district exceeds 50,000 square kilometres;
(b) the distance from the Parliament Buildings in Victoria to the nearest boundary of the proposed electoral district by the most direct road route is more than 800 kilometres;

[ Page 1731 ]

(c) the proposed electoral district has a portion of its boundary coterminous with a boundary of the Province of British Columbia.]

On the amendment.

R. Neufeld: I won't re-read all of the amendment, because the amendment has been handed to the Chair and the minister has a copy of it. But I would like to read into the record the three criteria used to maintain the four ridings:

"(a) the area of the proposed electoral district exceeds 50,000 square kilometres; (b) the distance from the Parliament Buildings in Victoria to the nearest boundary of the proposed electoral district by the most direct road route is more than 800 kilometres; (c) the proposed electoral district has a portion of its boundary coterminous with the boundary of the Province of British Columbia."

That would set aside the four ridings of Peace River South, Peace River North, Bulkley Valley-Stikine and North Coast, regardless of their population. We could go to a maximum of 50 percent.

I don't think it changes the intent of the bill a great amount, but it does get away from a lot of the argument that we've already seen tonight from one side and the other about what the legislation really means. I think it just clarifies it a little bit more and would ease the minds of those individuals who represent those areas on behalf of their constituents.

G. Plant: I want to express two concerns that I have with this amendment, and I'll do it as briefly as I can. The first is this: we were told by the Attorney General during the course of debate, both in second reading and here tonight.... We were reminded of the fact that the real process here is that the commission is being given certain authority and opportunity to make decisions, to make recommendations. I think if we are to respect the integrity of the commission, we need to do so in a meaningful way. This amendment, if passed, would take away that discretion by in effect requiring the commission to create four electoral districts. The criteria which are set out, although they are dressed up as matters of opinion, are really matters of fact, and no one could be under any misapprehension about whether the facts exist or where they exist.

The first concern I have with the bill is that it in fact removes and constrains the discretion which I think the commission should have.

The second concern I have is that by adopting the 50 percent figure, the amendment goes too far and, in fact, would not withstand constitutional scrutiny. We need to constantly be reminded of the fact that the whole issue of apportionment of electoral districts has been subject to judicial scrutiny. In the decision we talked about earlier tonight, the judge had before her variations on the order of 30 percent and 40 percent -- they went outside the 25 percent range. She expressed serious reservations about, and indeed opposition to, figure as high as 40 percent. To go as high as 50 percent is to go outside the limits of what the constitution allows.

Having said that, the basic intention of this amendment is to ensure that there is in fact proper representation in this House for people in the north, and we on this side of the House support that. The way to deal with that is to do two things to this amendment. If the amendment passes, I will be proposing a further amendment to the effect that the criteria be adjusted in a way that ensures that the application of the criteria does not fetter the discretion of the commission but leaves the decision with the commission. I will also be proposing an amendment that would accomplish the objective of avoiding the constitutional problem by reducing the percentage figure from 50 percent to 40 percent.

I have two serious reservations about the amendment, but in the interests of ensuring that the way this act is implemented does in fact give effect to the goal of providing support to the northern and interior ridings, we will be supporting the amendment.

G. Wilson: Hon. Chair, I just want to clarify one point. On the matter of being 50 percent below average, it has already withstood a constitutional test in Alberta. That's point one. Point two: what this does is provide security for the northern regions to be able to benefit from whatever additional representation might be forthcoming in this formula as it's now cast.

I think the two concerns that were expressed, if we're to accept them, are going to simply underscore what we've been saying all along. If we don't put this in, it will continue to fetter the boundary commission from being able to make the necessary adjustments with respect to northern and rural representation.

On the question of the constitutionality of it, it's tested and already working in Alberta.

Amendment negatived on division.

Section 3 approved.

Title approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Bill 19, Electoral Boundaries Commission Amendment Act, 1996, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

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

Hon. J. MacPhail moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:30 p.m.

The House in Committee of Supply A; W. Hartley in the chair.

The committee met at 7:06 p.m.

On vote 45: minister's office, $339,135 (continued).

M. de Jong: Over the weekend I became aware of a situation that I want to alert the minister to. He may or may not have a response, or he may simply want to make note of the facts. I'll try and do this in point form so both he and I can follow this.

[ Page 1732 ]

This relates to the electrical safety branch. I am advised that back in July of last year a particular regulation, 487/95, was introduced. I am advised by members of the electrical profession that since then they have noted what they would call a deterioration in the level of service with respect to contractors renewing their licences. Apparently they come due for different contractors at different times of the year, but the essence of the issue is that formerly a contractor could attend at their local electrical safety inspection branch and renew their licence on-site: fill out an application form, provide a cheque, and the matter would be processed. That is apparently no longer the procedure that the Vancouver office -- the head office, if you will -- has indicated to the local offices. All of those applications must be processed through Vancouver.

I'll just provide to the minister an example of something that is apparently taking place, which is rather commonplace and not just an isolated incident. In this particular case, the contractor's licence expired on June 30. He attended at the office in Abbotsford in mid-April. He was told of the new procedure at that point and was also told that since his licence didn't expire until June, it was too early to submit the paperwork at that time. So he went back at the beginning of May with his application -- apparently there's a bond requirement -- and a cheque for the processing fee and sent everything in. Three weeks later, on May 21, he got everything back from Vancouver. Apparently the bond stamp of a seal that's required from the insurance company -- it had to be the insurance broker, not the insurance company -- was incorrect. So the following day, May 22, he sent the material back, and he has heard nothing since. As I am sure the minister can appreciate, that has led to some difficulties.

In the Abbotsford area, apparently Mr. Tuttle, the regional manager, has gone to some length to accommodate him. Apparently he has a list of contractors who find themselves in similar difficulties. He is not, and his office is not, halting the issuance of permits on that basis. But in Surrey and Burnaby, apparently they are. If the policy is, as it apparently is in Surrey and Burnaby and other jurisdictions, that we won't issue a permit for electrical work unless they have a valid licence, and they can't get their valid licence because it's held up somewhere in the bureaucracy, the contractors, of course, are losing the ability to do their jobs and to earn a living. So it is an issue of grave concern to people who earn their living in that particular field. I don't know that the minister is going to be in a position to respond at this point, except obviously these people would appreciate it and be very interested to know that the ministry is going to look into it.

Hon. D. Miller: Well, absolutely, Mr. Chairman. There should never be an excuse for.... I'm not going to lay blame, because I don't know the circumstances or what the story might be on the other side. But I'll make a blanket statement that we should never allow bureaucracy to exist that doesn't allow for people to get those required licences in a timely way and in the least bureaucratic way. Certainly we've taken the information, and first thing in the morning we'll start to check on that. If we get any information of a positive nature or information useful to the member, we'll certainly get that to him tomorrow.

M. de Jong: That's the assurance I was looking for today, and I think the minister, if I could forewarn him, will likely be receiving representation from the Electrical Contractors Association in a similar vein.

G. Abbott: I'll return to the issue that we were discussing at the time we broke for dinner -- that is, the question of municipal/regional district liability, in particular liability related to building inspection. When we left, I had just asked about the possible reconciliation of treatment of this issue in the Vancouver Charter and the Municipal Act, and that does not appear to be possible, at least in the foreseeable future.

One issue that I want to explore briefly here is that because we have these two different treatments of a very important issue in two different documents -- i.e., the Vancouver Charter and the Municipal Act -- it is, I guess, an ongoing experiment in how to deal with this issue. We have dealt with it one way in one charter and another way in the other charter. Could the minister explain or characterize what the experience of Vancouver has been since the change was made with respect to liability? For Vancouver, how has that played out in terms of the liability issues that come into play here? I believe one fairly significant event occurred in Vancouver since the change, but perhaps not.

Hon. D. Miller: Yes, there was an incident in Vancouver apparently, where an individual did try to pursue a suit relative to a claim of faulty building inspection. Obviously, with amendments to the charter, it was unsuccessful; it was thrown out. I don't know the number, but apparently in other municipalities, they don't have the protection of that charter. Prior to the break, I referred to that as being an anomaly. I don't think it would be reasonable, notwithstanding that we haven't completed our analysis of the broader issue and that we do have a process to attempt to remove that amendment to the Vancouver Charter -- hence my answer that it's going to exist as an anomaly. Hopefully, the culmination of the work will give us a better sense of direction in what is arguably a pretty complex issue.

G. Abbott: I agree that it is a complex issue. I am not going to make it any less so with my questions here. I guess the most powerful argument -- that I have seen, at least -- advanced against making the kind of change to the Municipal Act that's already been made to the Vancouver Charter is that if the government were to do so, then it would shift the burden of liability away from local government to others.

It's impossible to generalize based on one incident, obviously. But based on the one incident, did the aggrieved or injured party in this case attempt to secure a civil settlement from sources other than the local government after that remedy failed?

Hon. D. Miller: I'm not certain. We don't have information as to whether or not any other recourse was attempted by the individual.

G. Abbott: Just to conclude the discussion of this area it is clear that in some areas the minister's initiatives with respect to the liability issue are ongoing. In the general area, it would appear that there still seems to be some openness with respect to this question -- at least that's what I gather from the response to the question about the Charter versus the Municipal Act.

[7:15]

Hon. D. Miller: It really goes back to the central issue, and the member might recall some public issues that were aired some time ago with respect to condo developments and whether they had been built to a certain standard. Damage occurred, including water damage and that kind of thing. It is a complex question that involves consumer protection, the 

[ Page 1733 ]

responsibility of contractors and presumably building inspectors, and the municipal inspection of those premises. I don't think there's a simple answer, but that's probably not satisfactory in terms of what the consumer is looking for. In other words, if they buy a condo, they tend to think that there has been a fairly rigorous process which has resulted in them buying something that has some quality. Even when you look at those stories, it's certainly quite possible that the buildings were constructed absolutely correctly in terms of code and everything else, but the fault might lie with the maintenance. So it's a very difficult area to draw any absolute conclusions about. Going back to our earlier discussion, that's probably one of the reasons that it's not an area -- even with the best of intentions at our level, at the municipal level, etc. -- where you can arrive at a quick and absolutely conclusive policy on how to handle these things.

I really think that there is an issue, though, for consumers. We don't fully accept the caveat emptor approach with respect to consumer protection; we do have other legislation. The question is: how can you design something that makes sense for all concerned, both for the parties that might be subject to suit and the consumers? It's a pretty tough area, and it has obviously been going on for a long time. I'm not naïve enough to think that under my tenure we're going to solve all those problems, but there is an attempt, involving municipalities and the provincial government, to continue to move forward.

G. Abbott: It certainly isn't a simple issue, and in many ways I'm relieved that the minister bears the onerous responsibility of trying to sort it out, rather than me. It is a tough one.

Just a parting thought on this. Obviously every other political jurisdiction in this country -- and I suppose in the United States and elsewhere -- has to deal with similar issues. Has the ministry canvassed what the experience of other jurisdictions in Canada has been -- say, provincially?

Hon. D. Miller: Yes, there was a canvass of jurisdictions about three years ago, and the conclusion was that nobody really had it right. So we're not the only ones grappling with the problem.

G. Abbott: I'd like to turn briefly now to a couple of questions I have with respect to municipal elections. As everyone knows, 1996 is an election year in the world of municipal politics. Around November, I suspect that I myself will feel a bit like a salmon that's unable to return to spawn -- although the experience here has managed to reduce some of that desire to spawn again.

One of the most spirited debates I ever saw at the Columbia-Shuswap regional district was over the question of whether a three-year cycle was appropriate or we should go back to the two-year or one-year cycle. I was one of the stronger proponents of maintaining the three-year cycle, something which I personally very much endorse. But I must say that others on the board held a different view and advanced their position very forcefully as well.

Is it the opinion of the minister and the ministry that the three-year cycle, which is relatively new here in municipal politics in British Columbia, has on balance been a success?

Hon. D. Miller: That might be an opinion that varies from municipality to municipality, depending on how people feel about their local council. Yes, I think it has worked, and I should tell you that when I was in opposition back in 1989, I broke with my caucus and voted against this. There were two of us. The first time I ever stood up and voted against my caucus or voted against a bill we were supporting -- although we weren't the government -- I recall the kinds of cries that came from the other side, the government side. I did that on my own feeling about having run three or four times municipally. I don't know that there's any benchmark you can use to judge whether that's been a success or not; it's impossible. It has worked. This is the first re-election under the three-year term. It seems there is no evidence to suggest that there should be any change. We'll see entire councils up this time, but surely at the municipal level.... There used to be the old saw that there are no politics at the municipal level. I used to say that occasionally; believe me, it was another thing. I think it has been working fine. It provides a longer term of stability with the existing council, and we'll see how it goes. I don't....

Interjection.

Hon. D. Miller: That's actually not a bad point. I've just been passed a note by Mr. MacLean. We tend to forget that municipal councils and regional districts are people who put forward their names with the best of intentions, even with different opinions. It's not something you go into for.... Particularly in the smaller communities, there's sort of a feeling of community service. One of the reasons people objected to it is that they didn't want to commit to the three years. It's a long time; it's volunteer. But I expect there won't be any shortage of candidates putting their names forward in November for municipal elections. I should tell the member that I did run successfully three out of five times, and I ran for mayor of my hometown -- when was it? -- a long time ago and got beaten badly, like real bad. About a year and a half later I was elected MLA, so things worked out fine.

G. Abbott: We'll compare sob stories here. I once ran for mayor in my hometown too and lost -- not real badly, but lost. I too somehow ended up here.

Given that we are going into elections in a few months.... I did note on a couple of occasions over the past three years that one gets circulars from other municipalities and regional districts saying we should go back to the two-year cycle or whatever. From the minister's comments, I would surmise that although the minister may have received some requests in that regard, there is certainly no contemplation on the part of the ministry about changing the three-year cycle at this point in time.

Hon. D. Miller: No, there's not.

G. Abbott: Pardon my ignorance if this is not the case, but I'd like to briefly discuss what I think is a relatively new position within the ministry, and that is what I'll characterize here -- and it's subject to correction -- as the aboriginal liaison officer. Is this a relatively new position? Would the minister please outline the role of this officer?

Hon. D. Miller: Yes, it is. There are some municipalities in the province that are contiguous to aboriginal communities. Occasionally, issues of a confrontational nature do arise. I think there's one currently raging in Delta -- in respect of condos, water and those kinds of things. We don't presume to be the arbiter or the agency that can solve all those problems, but to the extent that we can provide some assistance, facilitation between those two entities, we attempt to do that. The individual, Alixe Knighton, has been with the ministry a little more than a year. I think that's a reasonable....

[ Page 1734 ]

When you look at the development of aboriginal communities, I recall -- for example, up in the interior -- aboriginal communities wanting to take on more responsibilities such as zoning and taxation issues, which we want to encourage. On the other hand, we have had situations in the province where it's almost two solitudes. In other words, people really live with a street separating the aboriginal community from the non-aboriginal and have an inability to come together. When you're coexisting in those kinds of circumstances, common issues of service, water, etc., are really quite critical. It's just an attempt to assist.

G. Abbott: I certainly don't question the need here at all. In my own riding -- and I'm sure my own riding of Shuswap is by no means exceptional -- there are a number of areas where, in the past few years, tensions have certainly surfaced between the aboriginal and the non-native communities.

Could the minister briefly outline the kind of situation or circumstance in which the aboriginal liaison officer would do her job and outline what the nature of that job is?

Hon. D. Miller: Again, just elaborating, we did talk about the issues of joint services and taxation. Those are generally the kinds of issues. I understand that there's been some work done in the Salmon Arm area with respect to the Adams Lake band, in Central Saanich, in Lillooet and in Burns Lake -- just trying to facilitate issues that arise.

G. Abbott: The ministry is, at least to some extent, monitoring relations between local governments and aboriginal communities. Could the minister advise how many local services agreements are in place across the province at this point between aboriginal bands and local governments?

Hon. D. Miller: We don't have the number this evening, but I will certainly get it, as well as the information around joint taxation agreements that obviously involve the federal government.

But just to elaborate, the ministry has in the past played a facilitation role, beyond the aboriginal questions, when you get to larger question of incorporation -- whether they be in small areas or district-type areas. So I think we do play a fairly important role in assisting people at the local level in trying to coordinate their activities. As I say, whether that's an incorporation issue or what have you.

G. Abbott: I believe the minister already briefly referred to this, but could the minister outline situations -- including the dispute between the district of Salmon Arm and the Adams Lake Indian band, and others in the province -- where the ministry may be playing a mediating role?

Hon. D. Miller: Again, I did indicate four areas where we've played a bit of a role. Those turned out to be primarily at the request of the municipality. I believe that Salmon Arm.... I'm not familiar with the issues in any level of detail, but I believe that did go to the courts. In other words, we weren't successful in facilitation. But at the request of either party -- it's been primarily municipalities -- we will attempt to assist.

[7:30]

G. Abbott: I think I know the answer to this, but I would appreciate confirmation from the minister. Does local government planning have any application within aboriginal reserves?

Hon. D. Miller: No, it doesn't.

G. Abbott: Could the minister advise of the applicability of other provincial statutes which may come into question -- i.e., gaming, environmental management and that kind of thing? Are there any of those areas in which provincial statutes can come into play?

Hon. D. Miller: There are really very few provincial statutes. It is an interesting point, because when you look at some of the issues that arose as a result of the Nisga'a settlement, clearly the federal jurisdiction and federal law apply. If you look at issues like gaming, then there is no question that that jurisdiction applies -- criminal law, if you like.

Sometimes people fail to appreciate the inability to apply provincial statutes on aboriginal land. It tends to get a bit murky or complex. One of the arguments, of course, with the Nisga'a agreement-in-principle was that -- one of the benefits, if you like, which I don't think is truly appreciated -- it does provide for the application of provincial standards where previously they really weren't applicable. But those are negotiated agreements. The simple answer to the question is that there is very little provincial jurisdiction that applies on federal land. It's really federal land; it is held by the federal Crown in trust for aboriginal people.

[P. Calendino in the chair.]

G. Abbott: Further to the area of aboriginal affairs, one of the really important questions that is current is in regard to are models of self-government for aboriginal communities. One of those is, of course, the Sechelt Indian government district, I believe that's how it is properly characterized. Are other aboriginal communities considering that model of self-government in British Columbia?

Hon. D. Miller: No, I don't think any others have approached. Again, that raises an interesting point, which I don't think is well understood. The Sechelt model, the so-called municipal model, was generally lauded as the preferred approach, if you like, with respect to the issue of self-government. I recall the debates back in the eighties and most recently as a result of the Nisga'a agreement-in-principle, and it was interesting, because some of the people who object to the Nisga'a self-government model that is contained in the agreement-in-principle have argued that it's wrong in that it's exclusive. In other words, despite who may live in that geographic area, the ability to vote is restricted to Nisga'a citizens. That has been one of the criticisms, and it has generally been reflected in the characterization of one law for all. It encompasses other issues, but just sticking to that.

Yet when the Sechelt model was approved by legislation, the so-called municipal model, it had exactly the same provisions -- that only members of the Sechelt band were able to vote. In other words, they simply extended the band council concept to the municipal council concept. So the very same principles exist in both, and yet one was lauded some years ago as the correct model, and the agreement-in-principle model has been decried by critics -- and actually the same source, I think -- as being the incorrect model. It's an interesting point. Maybe it is interesting; maybe it isn't.

G. Abbott: It is an interesting point, and one I want to explore a little more for that reason.

I was interested that there doesn't appear to have been any recent attempts by aboriginal communities to follow that model. 

[ Page 1735 ]

Is there any reason apparent to the ministry as to why other aboriginal communities wouldn't be exploring that particular model?

Hon. D. Miller: I think there are lots of reasons -- a sort of rejection of that model in terms of the issues of autonomy and self-government. We should generally understand that self-government is not an absolutely defined concept. Within the aboriginal community, it's not defined. Notwithstanding the absence of that absolute definition, it's still....

I recall the debates years ago when Joe Clark was the Prime Minister, arguing that self-government should be entrenched without the definition and that it was an evolving thing that would be determined through a negotiated process. But I suspect the majority of aboriginal groups tend to reject that as not being a model of their own. There still is, in some instances, a bit of a struggle going back to a change that took place many years ago -- in other words, the hereditary chiefs versus the elected band councils. I still occasionally run into an elder who complains that these elected councils shouldn't have any authority, that the chief should have the authority.

I think there's a lot bound up in this discussion, which is well beyond my mandate in Municipal Affairs, with respect to the cultural issues. I do think, however, that's an issue that aboriginal people have to come to grips with and will, because one of the benefits of the resolution of land claims is the removal of the paternalistic relationship. In other words, aboriginal people were essentially wards of the state, if I can use that term. They are, in all respects, wards of the federal state -- to a situation where they have to assume responsibility for their own governance. That means, to any of us who have been involved, whether at the municipal level or the provincial level, that with rights come responsibility and the very vexing questions that face elected people -- whether they be taxation or decisions about capital spending and the things that we grapple with routinely.

One of the things that I think is a real benefit of the resolution of the claims is that conferring of responsibility. Without that, how can you expect that things will change? It's a difficult issue, but I really believe that's important. Again, it has not been broadly debated in that context, in terms of the overall question of the resolution of claims.

G. Abbott: I agree. The ministry is perhaps very well placed here, at least as well as anyone, to give a very brief assessment of how the experiment, if we can call it that, of the Sechelt aboriginal community has worked out. Could the ministry characterize through the minister to me how that has worked out? I presume, in the absence of not a lot of concerns being expressed, it's working out reasonably well, but I'd be pleased to hear more of that.

Hon. D. Miller: I'm advised that it seems to be working fine. There have been very few complaints from the non-aboriginal side. No issues have come to the attention of the ministry, so it appears to be working fairly smoothly.

G. Abbott: Could the minister briefly outline how the relationship of the Sechelt Indian government district varies -- if indeed it varies at all -- from a comparable municipality adjacent to it?

Hon. D. Miller: In most respects, it seems to be operating in much the same way as the normal municipal model. I've talked about the difference in the voting rights. In terms of the homeowner grant, there's some special legislation, but the normal grants of transfer payments from the province to the municipalities are applicable. In most respects it appears to be working much the same as any other municipal model.

G. Abbott: I have a final question in this area. Words will probably fail me here, and that's probably not unusual. In some cases where aboriginal bands have assumed the taxation authority for non-native leaseholders within their reserves, they have taken over the taxation authority and continue to use assessment numbers that have been provided, I think, by the Assessment Authority. But they have also put in place homeowners' grants and seniors' grants, which they vary in order to achieve bottom lines that appear to have no sort of relationship to the authority. Does the Assessment Authority have any jurisdiction with respect to taxation by aboriginal bands at this point?

Hon. D. Miller: Getting back to some of the earlier questions in terms of authority, obviously we don't have the authority, but the ability to use Assessment Authority models is by contract. Beyond that we really don't have much control.

G. Abbott: That's fair enough, and that's my understanding.

I'd like to turn briefly to a couple of questions on the downtown revitalization program -- and this is a sharp change in direction for you. While you adjust to that sea change, I want to say that I think the downtown revitalization program has been a great success in this province. It's very capably administered by Martin Thomas, and has been for years, and there are a great many communities in this province that have been improved immeasurably by this program.

The first question is: could the minister advise what the contributions from the province have been to qualifying projects in 1996-97?

Hon. D. Miller: Our budget currently contains $125,000 in expenditures for the society, and the society in turn dispenses almost $2 million to various municipalities around the province.

G. Abbott: Could the minister please advise how this compares to 1995-96?

[7:45]

Hon. D. Miller: It's relatively the same, and I should say that I happen to agree that the fund and the disbursements have.... I haven't travelled around a lot, but a fair amount would be in B.C., and you can see the evidence of that in some of the fa�ade restoration that has taken place. I'd obviously like people to travel to Prince Rupert, where it's been a remarkable success, particularly in terms of the early days in combining the heritage revitalization with the downtown revitalization, and it's a great community where people might want to go to and look at some of the older buildings there. We have some outstanding architecture: an art deco city hall with aboriginal design incorporated into the building, built in the thirties. What can I say? I'm also the minister responsible for Tourism for a short while, hon. Chair.

G. Abbott: Is there no special allowance for me to view Prince Rupert? I'd love to do it, after that. So as not to risk appearing inhospitable, I should at the same time extend an 

[ Page 1736 ]

invitation for my hometown of Sicamous, which has recently benefited from downtown revitalization funding. It, of course, is a very beautiful community. We lack the heritage that Prince Rupert is so rich in, but we do have a tremendous natural setting -- which, I should note, all of you will soon bear on your drivers' licences. It's the background scene on the new provincial driver's licence. So even though you may not travel there on a regular basis, whenever a policeman asks to see your licence you'll be able to show off the Shuswap. With those two brief advertisements, perhaps we can return....

Hon. D. Miller: I spent a couple of days on a houseboat up there once.

G. Abbott: Yes, it's a wonderful vacation, a houseboat vacation.

The point I was getting to is: by what amount did applications for funding under the downtown revitalization program exceed funds available, in the current year?

Hon. D. Miller: I don't have the numbers, but I'm advised that there wasn't a huge amount of applications we were not able to process. It appears to be a regular flow. As the member is aware, these are fairly modest grants. Depending on the kind of work, they could be $1,000 or $1,500. It's not a huge money program, but it's certainly assistance to the private sector in terms of trying to look at revitalization of some of the downtown buildings.

G. Abbott: I would surmise from the comments that have been made that the ministry's not contemplating any dramatic change in direction with respect to the downtown revitalization program in the years ahead.

Hon. D. Miller: Well, I'm not the Minister of Finance, so maybe I should not make any commitments, but no, certainly in the time I've been here I have not had any occasion to contemplate any changes.

G. Abbott: To growth management strategy now, and in that area, again just a couple of questions to update us on where the ministry is at with respect to this particular initiative. Again, I know it's been something of an issue in the Okanagan; I'm sure it has been in the lower mainland as well. Could the minister describe what initiatives have been undertaken by the ministry with respect to growth management in the past year, and what's anticipated for this year?

Hon. D. Miller: The overall concept is one of trying to anticipate future growth -- that's self-evident, but nonetheless.... The response has really been, as you might expect, from areas that are experiencing that kind of growth: the GVRD, the Nanaimo area and the like. It's an important concept, in that to anticipate certain levels of growth and try to plan for that reduces overall costs in the future.

Not only the growth management strategy but other related initiatives have not been without some level of controversy. For example, when you look at the whole issue of having land available for school construction, there have been some who have said it's wrong to request the private sector to set aside land for future development. I don't know; that seems to me shortsighted. Particularly in the areas of British Columbia where there is significant growth, I think we have to try to plan as best we can with respect to the provision of services, whether they be health, education or the like. It's not an attempt to limit growth but rather to plan for and, to some degree, to direct growth, as opposed to the opposite of that, which I suppose is absolutely no planning at all. There are people who subscribe to that school of thought, interestingly enough, and I guess you can get into overplanning.

So that's generally the thrust of working with the regional districts: to assist them in developing those kinds of growth management strategies to meet anticipated population increases in their regions.

G. Abbott: Just a final question in this area: is the ministry planning any new initiatives with respect to this in the year or two ahead? The second part of the question is: to what extent does the ministry consider its previous initiatives to have been successful?

Hon. D. Miller: Well, the act is really not much more than a year old. I think, just taking advice from the officials, that it's not been a long enough time to really make any major evaluations, but I think there's some response to it.

There is a cross-ministry team that is preparing provincial planning mandates for the lower mainland, the east coast of Vancouver Island and the Okanagan. There is some anticipation that they will be submitted to cabinet, and that cabinet direction will inform provincial participation in regional district growth strategies for the Thompson, Nicola, Fraser Valley, Cowichan Valley and capital regional districts. Central Okanagan is expected to initiate a strategy this year. We're looking at '96 for the completion of provincial planning mandates for the lower mainland, the east coast of Vancouver Island and the Okanagan. Those are high-growth areas.

There have been appointments of intergovernmental advisory committees to begin working in regional districts, developing guides dealing with the following topics: negotiating and reaching agreement on the content of a regional growth strategy, building partnerships with provincial government agencies, and public consultation. So it is moving nicely, I think, in the direction that it was intended to go.

G. Abbott: I'll be moving next into the areas of restructuring and airport transfers. My colleague from Parksville-Qualicum has a few questions first.

P. Reitsma: Not too much backtracking, but I thought we'd go through a couple of issues and then fill in some of them.

First of all, just for your records, the gentleman on your left is Assistant Deputy Minister Ken MacLeod, not MacLean. I've known Ken, of course, for quite some time.

Interjection.

P. Reitsma: That's okay. In 1987 was the first time we went to three years, actually, so this is the fourth time.

The question I had: is the manager of the aboriginal issues that we talked about aboriginal? Has that been considered?

Hon. D. Miller: No, I don't believe so.

P. Reitsma: Has that consideration been given? Were there applicants to consider? It would be logical, in a way, to maybe have staff relating to those issues.

Hon. D. Miller: Certainly. For example, the colleges and universities have all been funded for aboriginal coordinators. I 

[ Page 1737 ]

think most of them are aboriginal people. No discrimination -- it's just that in this particular circumstance that's not the case.

P. Reitsma: I have one question on the regional growth study. Certainly in my area, the RDN, we were one of the first ones to benefit from the program. However, the concern that we have -- we very much appreciated that Darlene Marzari at the time was in the forefront -- is that in one particular area of our encompassing, electoral area F, which is Coombs-Hilliers-Errington, is one of two areas that has no planning or building. This gives us concern. How could we possibly plan and build for the future if one of the areas does not have any planning or building? If one of them were not to sign on, what would likely happen to the regional growth management study?

Hon. D. Miller: I gather we can actually oppose it. I don't know if the member wants to advance that argument. I'm not that familiar with it. We would hope that, through encouragement in the regional district, they would be encouraged to put those kinds of zoning in place in that electoral area. Obviously, we prefer to see that come from there, as opposed to us imposing it -- bearing in mind the admonition and the earlier discussion about the protocol agreements.

P. Reitsma: Not wanting to push the subject.... However, if it were to be no, would the government then impose those controls on that particular area?

Hon. D. Miller: Well, my staff advise me to say it's pretty hypothetical, but I can tell you...

P. Reitsma: Not in our area.

Hon. D. Miller: ...without making any specific commitment, that I have no trouble making decisions.

G. Abbott: The discussion leads me to reminisce about the days when a former Premier was Municipal Affairs minister, and she actually refused to sign a bylaw in which the regional district would have imposed planning on one of its electoral areas. So I don't know whether that's an argument and what direction that is, but I'll just let it pass anyway.

I want to turn to restructurings and amalgamations. I'd like the minister to outline what support is currently being offered by the minister for restructurings, and I'm thinking particularly here of currently unincorporated areas that might be considering incorporation.

Hon. D. Miller: Before I get into it, I just want to respond. The member for Parksville-Qualicum talked about the former minister. I really was remiss at the outset for not paying some tribute to Ms. Marzari and the job she did in this portfolio. I think she was very, very popular and worked extremely hard with municipalities and regional districts to deal with their issues.

On the subject of zoning, I recall being highly amused watching the Socred leadership convention on television way, way back -- perhaps not that far back. I think it was Duane Crandall, the member for Golden who in his speech to the convention proudly cited the fact that as a member of the regional district there they had successfully fought any attempt to introduce any zoning regulations whatsoever, and that was a badge of honour for him. I'm also reminded of my own constituency, where people on islands sometimes tend to resist zoning and regulation. That's rather charming, because they say, you know: "If we get those rules in, you're going to start telling us what to do; we don't want that." I recall in my own constituency in an unnamed area, unincorporated, where somebody started to build a rather long seaplane dock out in front of somebody's hotel, they immediately phoned me and started yelling and shouting: "How can this happen?" I said: "Well, there's no zoning." So in the vein of what goes around comes around, sometimes zoning is better than no zoning.

And now, Mr. Chairman, I've actually forgotten the question they were asking.

[8:00]

G. Abbott: I very much enjoyed sharing a board table, actually, with Duane Crandall at Columbia-Shuswap for eight or ten years. You're absolutely right; he did wear the no-zoning badge with much pride.

The question, though -- although it does tend to wash away in the larger issues we were discussing here -- was on the extent and nature of support by the ministry for restructurings, particularly of unincorporated areas.

Hon. D. Miller: Well, I could tell another story, where years ago in the early seventies, I led an unsuspecting official of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs -- Tom Moore, I think his name was -- into the wilds of the Queen Charlotte Islands. We wound up in "Hippy Hill," as it was then known, in Queen Charlotte City. We had to scamper up a ladder to these lofts, beautiful lookouts over the harbour or Skidegate Inlet. We tried to convince the people there that incorporation actually made sense for the community. That was in 1973, I think, or '74, and they haven't made it yet after three tries.

We do offer a fair level of financial support and expertise with respect to proposed restructuring. In fact, that's an area I'm interested in. We could potentially spend a fair amount of money trying to support people to organize and take charge of their own affairs. I'm kind of interested in canvassing that as to whether or not we shouldn't try to expect a much stronger request. I'm not familiar enough yet with the issue to know what the balance is between us trying to offer encouragement and the people in a particular region asking for help, and I think that is a critical question. To go back to my example, there have been three attempts to incorporate in Queen Charlotte City, with three referendums, and they've all failed. At some point, you may want to ask yourself if you should perhaps let demand build to a higher level before you start to move in to offer support.

Again, I want to say that I'm not familiar enough with this to make any judgments at this point, but historically the ministry has offered a lot of support. I talked earlier about facilitation and those kinds of services offered by the ministry, and I think that what they do is superb. There is a fair amount of support for areas that want to look at incorporation.

G. Abbott: The point the minister makes is a very good one. Actually, the dynamics of incorporating or not incorporating are quite fascinating. We sound like a couple of elderly gentlemen at the Legion exchanging stories, but in my own experience, in the very early 1980s what's now the district of Sicamous was considering incorporation, and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs generously provided a grant to study it. The issue went to public meetings and to a referendum, and it was defeated by a margin of something like 70 percent against 30 percent. Just eight years later, we again 

[ Page 1738 ]

launched into another round of discussions, because it was quite obvious to the community that there were some problems that weren't going to be resolved in the absence of incorporation. It was discussed again, and on the second occasion it passed by roughly the same level of support that it had failed on the first occasion, so the district of Sicamous was born.

To get to the root of the question I've been asking, however, does the ministry provide a grant in proportion to the number of people in the proposed community? On what basis is support extended? I know that you provide funding for consultants and so on, but is that funding based on the potential size of the community?

Hon. D. Miller: Yes, the grants are on a per capita basis and could be as high as $2 per capita -- oh, $200. We're generous. That's a ceiling. There are also grants with respect to assistance on issues like roads and police. Generally, you look at trying to develop a package that's appropriate to the particular area. It's not an exact formula, but we do design packages.

G. Abbott: What I was getting at particularly was the restructuring study side of things. I think the $200 probably refers to the actual restructuring. I'm thinking of restructuring studies, as opposed to restructuring itself.

Hon. D. Miller: They tend to be in the $30,000 range. It's not a per capita thing; it's just a question of the appropriate cost for a study.

G. Abbott: Could the minister advise me if ministry support for amalgamations as opposed to restructuring is similar, or is it on a somewhat different basis? Again, I'm talking about studies as opposed to actual amalgamations.

Hon. D. Miller: They really are quite different circumstances, particularly if you are looking at two organized areas contemplating amalgamation. Again, that's a touchy subject. I was up in Comox recently, where my daughter lives, and they've got an ongoing issue there with respect to Courtenay-Comox. So there really isn't a need to provide the same kind of support in those circumstances. In fact, I suspect that in those circumstances, there's probably a benefit to amalgamation in terms of reduced administrative costs and those kinds of questions -- overlap, duplication in services. Really, those are more the responsibility of the municipalities in question.

G. Abbott: Could the minister advise what areas, if indeed there are any, are currently contemplating incorporation through restructuring?

Hon. D. Miller: Rather than attempt to get into any kind of list, I understand that a report is coming to me very soon. We could certainly get a list to the member.

G. Abbott: Generally, hon. Chair, could one characterize it as half a dozen or a dozen or...?

Hon. D. Miller: The member is correct, really; it's in the half-dozen range.

G. Abbott: Before we leave the restructuring area, I just want to briefly make a comment. The minister could certainly comment on it if he wishes, although this is really a program that's in the area of Transportation and Highways, but which has very much a bearing on newly incorporated areas. Back in the late 1980s, when the district of Sicamous was being incorporated and restructured, there was created a provincial program called the capital rehabilitation program for newly incorporated areas, which was to provide upgrading to roads the municipality was going to be inheriting from the province which required quite substantial work.

Newly incorporated municipalities have certainly benefited from this program, but the level of funding has not been consistent with the number of newly incorporated municipalities in the province. As a consequence, for example, the district of Sicamous has not been able to benefit from the program for, I believe, three or four years. Would the minister have a view with respect to whether the province would be able to have funding that reflected the number of new incorporated municipalities in the province?

Hon. D. Miller: No, I really think that if you look at, going back again to some of the other questions.... It's appropriate to try to develop a package that makes sense for areas that are considering incorporation. As part of that package, we certainly have the ability to sit down with the Ministry of Transportation and Highways to see what they might be prepared to bring. Notionally, they have a commitment to do what they can. Obviously their budget constraints influence those kinds of decisions.

P. Reitsma: On amalgamation, I think Abbotsford and Matsqui are a good example of amalgamation. They initiated -- and I think the Fraser Valley regional district as well -- local initiatives. Does the ministry leave it up to individual municipalities to initiate any type of restructure?

Hon. D. Miller: We haven't forced an amalgamation or incorporation for many years. No, we really want to see that initiative come from the local level.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

P. Reitsma: I'm not suggesting that the ministry has forcefully suggested -- and I suspect that the ministry will not forcefully suggest -- that particular smaller communities amalgamate. But I take it, then, that the minister leaves it up to individual municipalities to initiate any type of restructuring. They'll come to the government, and it will be considered.

Hon. D. Miller: Yes, that's correct.

P. Reitsma: Could I get an update? Is the current method an overall vote or a majority vote, once amalgamation takes place?

Hon. D. Miller: It depends on the circumstances. For example, assuming that there are two roughly equivalent population areas, then obviously a majority would be appropriate. If you have a severe imbalance, very large or very small, then it's really the majority in each case that would govern. So it depends on the circumstances.

P. Reitsma: Certainly in our area, as the assistant deputy minister will remember, we've had about three or four attempts for boundary changes. There was a positive and a negative, thus a negative was not an overall vote.

An item, not of a personal nature but certainly one pertaining to my constituency.... The minister will have 

[ Page 1739 ]

received -- and maybe has not had an opportunity to look at -- a letter sent by two of my constituents. I'll provide you with a copy. I appreciate that the minister gets lots of correspondence. This one was written on July 15, a couple of weeks ago. The issue that's been brought to my attention is that in your capacity -- and it's addressed to you, hon. minister -- as Minister of Municipal Affairs, you are able, with no more than a stroke of your pen, to alter the boundaries of any municipality in B.C.

I live in San Pariel, which is between the resort areas and Parksville, immediately southeast of Parksville and presently under the jurisdiction of the RDN, the Nanaimo regional district. It has been incorrectly reported in the paper -- as often happens, of course -- that Parksville would like to incorporate us into their boundaries. I've talked to them; they're good friends, actually. They happened to sing with me in Handel's Messiah for many, many a year. But she's singing a different tune, and I've already told her: "No, that's not the case. We don't particularly want them if it's not initiated by them." So I hope that the minister will respond to them and say that you've just given up your pen. You won't be able, with a stroke of your pen, to change that. I hope you undertake that. I'll give you copies.

[8:15]

Hon. D. Miller: Well, I come from the Prince Rupert area, and if you want to leave Prince Rupert.... By the way, it's a very interesting community with respect to those questions, because, unlike a lot of small communities, it has a very concentrated, central downtown core with suburban residential areas around that. As a matter of philosophy, we always tried to -- at least when I was there -- ensure that if we were going to expand our downtown core, it went like that as opposed to these satellites. When I drive up Vancouver Island, I sometimes get confused as to whether or not I've ever left a municipality.

What that brings back to me, going back to the work I was engaged in during the early seventies, which was essentially zoning or planning....

I guess there's a broader question in terms of what costs are imposed on others as a result of people's failure or reluctance to engage in some kind of planning. With no disrespect, I suggest that when I drive through Nanaimo, perhaps.... Then I think, as a minister of the Crown, of the kind of money that we're spending on the Island Highway, and I tend to ask: back in the days when they built a new highway, why didn't they protect the integrity of the corridor so that we wouldn't have to spend billions of dollars building a new corridor when that one, which was intended as a regional corridor, was bottlenecked because of adjacent development?

Every taxpayer in this province pays for that, essentially. Again, I mean no disrespect; I'm trying to talk in the abstract here. I'm using that as an example. Every taxpayer in British Columbia pays for someone's failure to plan. If you want to go around this province, there are any number of stories about millions of dollars -- I suspect billions, over the years -- that were spent to try to accommodate traffic patterns and to maintain the integrity of main transportation corridors that have been completely and utterly destroyed because there was no consequent planning to protect the corridor. At some point you have to ask yourself, as a society where money is pretty tight: is it legitimate to start to impose standards for everyone's benefit? I'm not proposing that we move in with the heavy hand of the state, but those are extremely legitimate questions.

I came down the Island not long ago and said: "What are we doing, in a zoning sense, to protect the integrity of the new Vancouver Island Highway?" The worst mistake in the world would be to expend the $1.2 billion on that corridor only to find that 20, 30 or 40 years from now, it's jammed or bottlenecked because there's development along the corridor. So Vancouver Island is a good example of strip development that didn't necessarily have to take place. Our concepts of planning change over time, and we don't want to impose this sort of.... We don't want the provincial government to be the one that's out there telling everybody what to do. But surely there should be some awareness of these kinds of questions.

Years ago the former Minister of Municipal Affairs, Jim Lorimer, did some pioneer work. I don't think those things are generally acknowledged, but back in the seventies we imposed amalgamation in some areas. Do people remember today? I doubt it. Do people in Prince George, Kamloops, Kelowna or Nanaimo remember?

G. Abbott: They do.

Hon. D. Miller: Do they? Long memories for unimportant things.

We don't want to impose on the area south of Parksville. I've spent the odd weekend up there in some cabins, on non-government business. But it's sure hard to drive up there, with all that development that just runs along the highway.

P. Reitsma: On a lighter note, the minister is welcome on my boat any time, particularly if he can bring some cheques for the area as well.

In terms of planning, I guess the philosophy of today is incorporated in what we plan 25 years from now. We've just gone through an upgrading of the French Creek sewer plan. We never expected that many people to come. In fact, when I came to Parksville in '72, it had 2,200, people and Qualicum had 1,400. Today, 25 years later, it's over 10,000 in Parksville and 7,000 in Qualicum -- up five times.

I take it that the minister will respond to the letter-writer. In terms of the corridors, it's our hope that no building, commercial or residential, will be permitted around the new inland Island Highway. Of course, that's only going to advance the problems that we have: not too many accesses and certainly no commercialization, in terms of gas stations and what have you, along the new Island Highway.

G. Abbott: I want to briefly talk about another aspect of local governance. In one of the ministry's rounds of reform of local governance -- I guess it would have been seven or eight years ago -- the ministry resolved that there would be no more improvement areas; that there would be three or four different levels of incorporation: the municipality, the regional district, the regional district electoral area; and for those portions of regional district electoral areas that felt themselves to be communities but were not prepared to take that important step of incorporating, there would be a stage known as a local community. Have any number of areas tried out that concept, and how well has it worked?

Hon. D. Miller: I think there are only three. Fraser-Fort George is one example; I can't recall the others. There has not been a tremendous uptake on that.

G. Abbott: If I could just explore that for a moment, there are a few communities at least in my former regional district 

[ Page 1740 ]

that were thinking about that possibility. Falkland being one -- a community of possibly 500 people -- that is rather small to incorporate but having, to put it in this blunt fashion, a kind of community of interest in an established area. Why hasn't the concept taken root, and is it anticipated that that alternative will remain in that form or in some different form?

Hon. D. Miller: I gather there has not been extensive analysis on that question, and certainly it's an open question as to why that concept has had some limited takeup.

G. Abbott: What level of support, if any, is provided to areas contemplating taking that step? Is it done through a regional district exclusively or...?

Hon. D. Miller: It's really with the regional district. The fact that there hasn't been a lot of interest.... I think we could probably advance some modest funding in terms of studies on those kinds of questions, but it's not in the same category as restructuring, and it really is with the regional district.

G. Abbott: I'd like to turn to another form of local governance, which, to a guy from the interior, always appeared to be quite exotic, and that is the Islands Trust -- a concept which you may be very familiar with, but which is an exotic flower to me. Could the minister outline how local governance on the islands takes place within the Islands Trust area in comparison to, say, municipal or regional district government?

Hon. D. Miller: I did actually have occasion, when I was in opposition, to be on an all-party committee that looked at some issues around the Islands Trust -- not that I learned a heck of a lot, but a little bit. It was a long time ago, so forgive me. The concept, essentially, with the Trust is that the islands are considered to be something unique in British Columbia. The reason for the trust -- brought in by Jim Lorimer, I believe, back in the seventies -- was to look at the issue of land use planning broadly across, I guess it's fair to say, these jewels of British Columbia. They're truly magnificent islands. That has caused, I think, some level of confusion over the years. They don't deliver services. The services are delivered by the regional district, one based here on Vancouver Island and one based on the mainland, and there is the kind of overlap that you might expect between a body that is charged with a higher level of responsibility for land use planning versus the day-to-day responsibilities of a regional district for zoning issues and those kinds of questions. Notwithstanding that, I think it has actually worked reasonably well. There are eruptions of issues from time to time. A number of years ago, we had the attempt by the trust to impose a zoning-type regulation with respect to tree-cutting, which was essentially a way of trying to prevent logging on private land. But that's fine. I think that's fine for the islands themselves, because they are unique.

As we move forward, we have to develop an ability to deal with the fact that on Saltspring, for example, it is potentially possible to have incorporation, and then we'll have another level that will be part of that mix between the trust and the regional district. It's something that is the cause of some study from time to time. There has been a variety, and I'm not familiar with all of them; in fact, I can't actually recall the details. I can't even recall what we were studying when I was on the committee or even what we recommended. I think it was something to do with road widths, which has been a perennial issue on the Gulf Islands.

G. Abbott: The minister anticipated, at least in part, my next question. Are any communities within the Islands Trust area contemplating incorporation? I gather that Saltspring Island is -- or the Saltspring community is. How would that mesh with the form of local government known as the Islands Trust? How would those two mesh?

Hon. D. Miller: As I said, the trust doesn't deliver services, so the issue is planning functions, essentially, with the one level looking at land use planning, in theory not wanting to have the islands overpopulated or inundated by being completely given over to residential use and not maintaining some of the natural areas. Really, I think the issues would be the same. It's the ability to sort out the protocol between the trust and the regional district -- or in fact, the municipality -- that would be at the heart of it.

Islanders are long acquainted with Jim Campbell, who used to be there for years, and he was chair. I happened to run into him on the ferry after about ten years. I hadn't seen him for ten years, and here's this hoary old guy on the ferry. He spotted me right away, and next thing you know, I was sitting down talking about the Islands Trust and the regional district. He promised to come and pay me a visit, and he hasn't yet.

C. Hansen: He will.

Hon. D. Miller: I'm sure he will. I think he was an old buddy of Pete Lester, the mayor of Prince Rupert who beat me so badly in that election back in 1983.

Did I answer the question? I think I tried to.

G. Abbott: Actually, maybe the question I was getting to is obvious. If a portion of Saltspring were to incorporate, would they have jurisdiction over planning in the same sense as any other municipality in a regional district?

[8:30]

Hon. D. Miller: I just tried to make that point: not in an absolute sense but in an agreed sense. I talked about the protocol between the two functions -- the Islands Trust and the regional district -- but leave aside regional district and say "municipality." Essentially, the issues are the same. There would have to be an agreed-upon protocol with respect to that.

G. Abbott: I now want to turn to another exotic form of local government, the University Endowment Lands. I was a resident of the University Endowment Lands for three years, although I was too busy trading stories in the pit, in the student union building, to really give a lot of thought to how local governance was being carried out at the time, but obviously it's an object of fascination to me now. Could the minister outline the process of governance with respect to the University Endowment Lands and, in particular, what role, if any, the University Endowment Lands Ratepayers Association plays in that?

Hon. D. Miller: I never had occasion to attend the institution. I've been there a few times, got lost a few times and actually announced construction of a few buildings a few times. It is under provincial responsibility. We have the responsibility for land use servicing, which is self-financing. They do have a representative on the electoral area of the GVRD. We pay about $4 million for fire protection and about $140,000 for administration. So that's the bare bones of the UEL.

[ Page 1741 ]

G. Abbott: Just a quick review of that. The province takes care of land use. Could the minister advise through what kind of mechanism land use is provided?

Hon. D. Miller: There is a community plan and zoning. Not that I have had to become involved, but there is an appeals process to the minister, I think, or to his or her designate.

G. Abbott: The GVRD is not involved in that. Is it an issue between the local community and the ministry?

Hon. D. Miller: Yes.

G. Abbott: Did the minister say that there was an electoral area director of the GVRD?

Hon. D. Miller: Yes.

G. Abbott: This is apparent. I gather there was a referendum in the UEL within the past couple of years that looked at the question of integration with the city of Vancouver or options for the area.

Hon. D. Miller: Yes, and it failed.

G. Abbott: Could the minister advise what choices the residents had on the referendum?

Hon. D. Miller: Mr. MacLeod doesn't recall, but it was either to incorporate as a separate municipality or join Vancouver. I guess, by default, the other option would be to stay the same.

G. Abbott: Perhaps the ministry doesn't anticipate anything here, but does the ministry anticipate provincial governance of the University Endowment Lands in the long term, or is the ministry looking at these things on an ongoing basis?

Hon. D. Miller: I think there are ongoing discussions, but there's nothing particularly alive right now.

G. Abbott: Did the minister advise that the province was achieving full cost recovery on the various functions that the province provides? Is there full recovery, for example, on water, roads and fire protection?

Hon. D. Miller: There is cost recovery on services, but I did outline that the bill on the fire protection side is some $4 million.

G. Abbott: Just for clarity, then, there is full cost recovery on, for example, water. There's full cost recovery on roads, but there is not full cost recovery on fire protection.

Hon. D. Miller: To further explain, the fire protection side -- the ratepayers or the residents -- is cost recovery, but that's a minor portion of the fire protection costs. The balance is for the physical facilities, the plant at UBC.

G. Abbott: Not to quarrel with it, but I presume that it's an indirect subsidy to the University of British Columbia. Does the fire protection the province provides constitute a kind of indirect subsidy to the University of British Columbia?

Hon. D. Miller: Yes, it does. Again, this is not a subject I've canvassed that extensively, but why not transfer it in the grant? This is the structure that's been in place for some time, I suppose. I think there have been attempts over the years to have that incorporated. It seems to me that with respect to the service, there is some logical argument with respect to the city of Vancouver. Again, I don't have a history in this issue, and I'm not certain why that hasn't been resolved in that fashion. Currently we do contribute about $4.25 million on the administration and fire service.

G. Abbott: My colleague from Vancouver-Quilchena has a question on this, and then I'd like to proceed to airports.

C. Hansen: I just want to pursue some of the numbers in the cost recoveries. When you mentioned earlier the $4 million for fire and $140 million for administration, that $144 million in total would basically be the cost of running what I believe is called electoral area A, which is that portion of the province. Is part of that $140 million for administration in the way of cost recovery from the university? I know that with other universities, when they're situated within municipalities, there are grants in lieu of taxation that go to provide for municipal services. I'm just wondering what the route is for these moneys in the case of electoral area A at the University of British Columbia.

Hon. D. Miller: Again, just to be clear, the administrative cost is $140,000 annually, and UBC is an electoral area. That's about 40 percent of the administrative cost.

C. Hansen: So the $140 million for admin is really....

Hon. D. Miller: I said $140,000.

C. Hansen: I'm sorry. Is the $140,000 for admin what is actually collected from ratepayers in that electoral area?

Hon. D. Miller: No, our costs.

C. Hansen: That's our cost, okay. My question to the minister is: how much is actually collected from property owners in that electoral area, and what is the route for those funds? I assume they come into provincial revenue.

Hon. D. Miller: Two point nine million dollars in total is raised. But just looking at this narrow issue of the administrative costs, here's a question I used to get in math in school. If $140,000 is 40 percent, how much is 100 percent or how much is 60 percent?

C. Hansen: It's $84,000.

Hon. D. Miller: That can't be right.

C. Hansen: Just to clarify.... Actually, this may be an issue. Perhaps I'll direct a letter to the minister to get some clarification on the details of this rather than taking up time in estimates. But it is a matter of interest to me that I'd like to pursue.

I think the issue of the governance of UBC is something that is becoming more controversial in these last few months because of potential development plans that are being put forward by the university, which there is now a moratorium on. There is an official community plan being developed for electoral area A. I know there was great concern by individuals who live in my constituency. While electoral area A is not 

[ Page 1742 ]

in my constituency, it's immediately adjacent, and the developments that take place at UBC have enormous impact on my constituency in terms of traffic flows in particular and the need for transit. When the university announced their moratorium on that development, I think it was widely applauded. But there are still concerns as to what the future may hold for the development of that community.

There was reference made earlier to the referendum that was held in years gone by. My understanding of the question that was put is that there were two options. One was the status quo, remaining under the authority and administration of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. The other option was to establish a separate municipality of their own. There are other options that have been discussed but were not part of that. The net result of that particular referendum is that there was no resolution of the issue. In fact, I would say there's more anxiety there today than there was prior to the referendum being put.

I had heard that there was thought of addressing this issue of governance in the months or perhaps years to come. I was wondering if we would see any re-examination of this governance structure in the coming year.

Hon. D. Miller: No, there is not. I'm not aware of any discussions in the time I've been here. I understand there have been some discussions at a staff level. I assume the anxiety is with those outside UBC as opposed to those inside. Or is it...?

C. Hansen: Both.

Hon. D. Miller: Both -- everybody is anxious.

C. Hansen: I'll speak to the ones outside.

Hon. D. Miller: Everybody is anxious. You know, the best solutions often come from the people who are anxious, so that may be a good thing.

C. Hansen: As the minister may know, I have strong views when it comes to the ability of individuals living in neighbourhoods for self-determination on the style of government. I would certainly feel the same in this particular case, that those who live in electoral area A are the ones who should properly determine the kind of governance they would like to pursue.

My final question -- this was the question I was going to lead off with, but it's actually my remaining question. I was wondering if the minister could give me a sense of the time it takes the ministry to fulfil those functions that would otherwise be fulfilled by a municipal government. Maybe that's a general question; I'll put it as a specific one. For example, how many times has the deputy minister physically had to visit the university to deal with things such as zoning, building and those types of functions that would normally be handled by municipal government?

[8:45]

Hon. D. Miller: I suspect the provincial cabinet ministers visit there more often than officials. If there is an on-site manager, then officials of the ministry do. So it's not seen as a terrific burden with respect to administrative time and the like. But just a suggestion: if it was deemed appropriate to have a referendum, we could always consider posing the question and the threshold, if it was helpful.

C. Hansen: I'm aware of at least one case where there was a building, a zoning.... It was basically the design of a residential structure that actually got appealed to the deputy minister. I was surprised that it actually involved the deputy minister physically visiting the site. I just questioned whether that was an appropriate use of a deputy minister's time in this context. Certainly for an area with the population base that electoral area A has, there has to be a better way of governing this kind of structure.

My final question to the minister -- although I've said that before at times, and it didn't turn out to be a final question -- is: are there any other electoral areas in the province that are urban in nature, such as electoral area A, which are administered by the provincial government? Or is this truly a unique situation?

Hon. D. Miller: No. Look, I don't disagree. Again, I'm not familiar with all of the intricacies of this issue, but it does seem to me that there is probably a more practical way to deal with this rather than have zoning appeals go to the deputy minister or the minister. Heaven forbid that they would ask my opinion on those kinds of questions.

But there's been a challenge. I don't know if people follow the Simon Fraser issue in Burnaby, but it was a fairly protracted issue with respect to lands and some question about ownership between the municipality of Burnaby and Simon Fraser. Eventually it worked out, I think, to the satisfaction of everybody. I suppose that's better, in the sense that you've got two entities working together to solve their problems as opposed to their having to run to the province. That certainly would be my preference.

Again, it's not an issue I have really turned my mind to, nor am I naïve enough to think that I'll be able to find some magic solution over the next short number of months to some existing problems or situations that have existed for many years. If one comes along, and certainly if there are ideas out there, I'd be happy to have some further discussions on it.

G. Abbott: The hon. member's questions prompt just one or two more in my mind on this particular subject.

The director for electoral area A, representing the University Endowment Lands.... I know there are other electoral area directors on the GVRD. How does the role of the electoral area A director vary from that of other electoral area directors?

Hon. D. Miller: It is a bit of a hybrid; in practical terms, it is probably more akin to a municipal representative than to an electoral area representative to the regional district. There aren't many electoral areas. I don't know what the exact number in the GVRD is -- probably very few, because it is highly urbanized.

G. Abbott: I don't want to study this particular flower to death, but this hybrid does fascinate me.

If the GVRD doesn't really provide anything for the University Endowment Lands, it is not clear to me what the relationship between the electoral area director and the GVRD would be, but obviously I am just missing something here.

Hon. D. Miller: Maybe all of us should be content in knowing that this situation existed for some considerable number of years. I don't think we have come up with any real solutions to it in our discussion so far. It certainly is fascinating. Among the many things in life that one might choose to 

[ Page 1743 ]

study, some may look at this as a subject that invites further study; some might decide that in fact there are other issues that require more attention.

G. Abbott: I spent much of my youth turning over rocks to see what kind of bugs were underneath them. I'll try to restrain myself from doing that here.

To follow up on one other question that was posed by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quilchena, in vote 46 there is an allocation of $4,241,006 for the University Endowment Lands, net of recoveries. The minister cited a $2.9 million figure. Is that revenue to offset that $4.24 million? Could the minister outline how that financial arrangement works?

Hon. D. Miller: Ratepayers are responsible for 60 percent of the administrative costs, as I indicated earlier, and 100 percent of the public works, including water supplied by the GVWD, and about 8.2 percent of the fire protection services. I think I indicated that in the previous answer as well. The total is just shy of $2.9 million, and those are the recoveries indicated.

The committee recessed from 8:51 p.m. to 8:56 p.m.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

G. Abbott: I think our questions on the University Endowment Lands are exhausted.

I'd like to turn, if I could, to an issue which I know the Union of B.C. Municipalities has highlighted with the minister. I know because they've also highlighted it with the Liberal caucus. That's the issue of airports, specifically smaller municipal or regional airports that have been, how shall we say, downloaded by the federal government to the municipalities. There are some problems which have emerged as a result of that.

One of the problems which has been highlighted by UBCM to our caucus -- and I'm sure it has been to the minister as well -- is the question of airport fees. I gather there is some problem with respect to the municipality or the regional district collecting a full range of airport fees, and some amendment is required to section 928 of the Municipal Act. Could the minister confirm or expand on that particular problem?

Hon. D. Miller: Yes, that is required, and it is our intention to move forward in the spring to provide that provision.

G. Abbott: Could the minister briefly outline what is needed to provide the kind of statutory authority that's needed? Is it simply a recognition of that? What change is required?

Hon. D. Miller: Notwithstanding the technical details, it does require an amendment to the Municipal Act. Somewhere in these notes it will probably explain the kind of technical issues at stake, but suffice it to say it requires that amendment, and we want to move forward and give that provision. Some of the conditions are not that bad, I suspect, in terms of municipalities being able to assume that responsibility and try to operate airports on a reasonable basis -- in other words, in terms of the kind of costs that are required. Getting that authority obviously gives them more tools to use to develop a sustaining ability to manage and run these airports.

Many of them are in a slightly different category, where notwithstanding any ability to charge fees for a variety of services, the operating losses are fairly significant. Those, including my community of Prince Rupert, are more significant challenges, because they involve transportation issues and the like.

But we want to move with the municipalities with respect to the issue of fees. Another issue that we're working with them on is the transfer of Crown lands as part of a package with respect to those airports -- again, to try to give them some opportunity to run those airports on a sustaining basis.

[9:00]

G. Abbott: The second area which UBCM has highlighted as requiring an amendment to the Municipal Act involves expenditure. To quote this particular document: "The Ministry of Municipal Affairs needs to amend the Municipal Act to give airport operators the power to expend funds for airport purposes." Does this fall into the same category as the previous one? Can we anticipate, as the minister has noted, that this will be something which will be addressed in legislation in the spring session?

Hon. D. Miller: Yes. There are, I think, some issues that we have to work out with municipalities through UBCM. That's one of them. I guess there's not absolute agreement on that question. Notwithstanding that, prior to my taking this ministry, when the federal government announced their withdrawal from airport support in the province, through a provincial organization, including the Vancouver International Airport, we endeavoured to try to work with the communities to assist them to meet the challenge of that federal withdrawal. One of the issues we have proposed is that the Vancouver Airport is a net revenue generator. Given that that revenue is generated here, it seems to us reasonable that the airport is an unqualified success, not for the least of reasons that they have been given the authority to tax, and that tax has been used to offset or pay for the capital. Since they do make a profit, it's reasonable for British Columbians to say let's keep it at home and use that to assist other municipalities that are faced with tougher circumstances.

G. Abbott: I know that certainly has been the view of UBCM as well. What degree of success has the minister enjoyed in taking that particular viewpoint forward with federal authorities and/or municipal authorities in Vancouver?

Hon. D. Miller: I have not had any personal discussions on that, nor am I aware of an explicit response to the negative from the feds with respect to that issue. So I really can't give you much of an answer.

G. Abbott: I would like to confirm that municipalities and regional districts can anticipate that the necessary statutory authority for expenditure for airport purposes will be provided by legislation in the spring session.

Hon. D. Miller: I am anticipating.... Quite frankly, I would have liked to have done it in this sitting of the House, but members are all aware that things have been a little compressed with respect to time. So I'm anticipating that we would move forward in '97.

G. Abbott: Along the same line, I have a related issue with regard to regional district powers. According to UBCM, there is apparently a need for the Ministry of Municipal Affairs to obtain amendments to the Municipal Act to allow 

[ Page 1744 ]

regional districts to establish airport commissions without having to obtain the assent of electors. Does the ministry anticipate any problems with respect to such amendments? Again, when might those amendments be anticipated?

Hon. D. Miller: Some issues may be raised with respect to that in terms of local accountability. Obviously, eliminating the requirement for electors to assent does raise some issues. We're going to continue to work to see if we can't resolve those.

G. Abbott: We're venturing into a bit of a technical area here, but I guess it's also political. For example, if a regional district wants to undertake some function or introduce a new facility, there are a number of ways they can proceed to gain the assent of the electors, if indeed it's sought -- the counterpetition, the petition, a full referendum -- and there is the mechanism of director assent as well, where the directors don't go to the public. This is a technical question, but perhaps your staff could advise, or maybe you know it offhand: why is this situation different than any other issue that might face a regional district?

Hon. D. Miller: With respect to the Municipal Act rewrite of '89, I gather there are stricter rules. In other words, in certain categories of functions, some have more relaxed rules; some have more strict rules. I'm not familiar with the thinking at that time in terms of the gradient, but it appears to present some policy questions that need to be resolved.

G. Abbott: I have a few specific questions, and these I am relaying from the acting mayor of the city of Penticton. They're related to the area of airport transfer. The first question they pose is: will the ministry provide funds to assist municipalities in the airport transfer process?

Hon. D. Miller: We don't have any specific budget items for that purpose.

Again, I don't have full knowledge of this. My understanding is that the federal government does have funds earmarked as part of that -- the nice word is "devolution" -- as they have in a number of other categories, both the ports.... I don't know that it has necessarily been explored to the extent it should be. But I think the federal government has a policy in terms of dealing, for example, with..... We talked earlier about issues around incorporation, what used to exist with highways and bringing highways up to a certain standard prior.... I think there is some program, notionally at least, within the federal government that would also apply in terms of airports.

G. Abbott: The second question they pose -- and I'm not subtle enough to determine offhand whether this is repetitive or not -- asks if the ministry will provide capital funding programs to assist municipalities in taking over airport infrastructure under the national airports policy.

Hon. D. Miller: No, we won't. Of course, the mayor of Penticton now has lost his right to ask me these questions when I go up to the UBCM in September.

G. Abbott: You'll have to write him in advance and advise him of that. He probably thinks he could pose it in a much more forceful manner and derive a different result. I suspect he will -- or she will -- want to maintain a....

The final question posed in this area by the acting mayor of Penticton asks if the provincial government will take a more active role in the airport transfer process to maintain the provincial airport system. I guess you've answered that in part, with the amendments proposed.

Hon. D. Miller: Yes. Again, my predecessor did strike a provincial committee, with representatives from various municipalities affected by the devolution, to pursue this area. As far as I know, the people have bought into that process.

G. Abbott: Is this an item which is on the agenda at UBCM? Are you aware that there are going to be discussions of it there?

Hon. D. Miller: Yes, it certainly was discussed between myself and the executive of UBCM at a meeting I held here in Victoria.

G. Abbott: I'm sure members of the UBCM will avail themselves of that opportunity, because it certainly seems that it's one of the major issues in the area of municipal politics at this time.

I want to turn now to another area which is very much at the forefront of municipal and regional district concern at this time: Bill 55. Just quickly, as a matter of review, Bill 55 was put in place last year, I believe, and it provides for some significant amendments to the ways in which railways are taxed in this province. As the minister knows, because he received a delegation from UBCM just prior to this side of the House receiving the same delegation, Bill 55 remains very much a concern of UBCM, municipalities and regional districts. One of the aims announced when Bill 55 was put in place was that all the details with respect to remedial measures, etc., would be sorted out prior to the 1997 taxation year. Is it still the aim of the ministry to achieve that objective?

Hon. D. Miller: Yes, it is. It is a fairly complex issue. On the surface it's fairly straightforward in that the bill provides tax relief, if you like, to the railways. But it does involve some very complicated issues. For example, there are the assessment procedures used to evaluate structures, the definition of rights-of-way and those kinds of questions, which the Assessment Authority will be working on. There are issues we have to consider with respect to the impact on municipalities -- mitigation, if you like -- particularly the areas that rely inordinately on railway taxation as part of their fundamental base.

Nonetheless, it's an issue that we thought needed to be addressed, particularly with respect to the competitiveness of railways. Looking at that in relation to British Columbia's position as an exporting province in the ports, it's clear that the level of taxation relative to other provinces was inordinately high. We also know that with changes to federal legislation, competitiveness has become even more critical. Thinking of a variety of commodities -- for example, grain -- the potential was to see that go into the U.S. and out of the U.S. ports versus maintaining the kind of throughput we'd like to see out of British Columbia ports.

So it's a very complicated and challenging issue, and I know it has raised some criticisms. But notwithstanding that, I think the measures we took were appropriate. There are some complex issues to work out as a result of Bill 55, and we are working on those.

G. Abbott: I certainly would be among the last of the people on the face of the earth to suggest that this issue was a 

[ Page 1745 ]

simple one. It's incredibly complex. For a simple person like myself, it's quite mind-boggling. I don't envy the person at the computer who has to sort out all of the details related to this.

I guess that's one of the reasons I posed the initial question of whether the ministry still see themselves as on line to complete this process in time for the preparation of tax figures for next year. What are the target dates in terms of consultations, preparation of background materials and finalization of tax figures? Are those coming in the fall? Perhaps the minister could advise.

Hon. D. Miller: Currently, consultation packages will be going out next week to municipalities. Implementation measures have to be adopted by cabinet by late September. Of course, with respect to the tax rolls, they'll be issued at the time the tax rolls are normally issued in '97. So there is a fair amount of work to do, as I said, both by the ministry and by the assessment authority.

G. Abbott: To further pursue a number of aspects with respect to Bill 55, the bill, as the minister knows, had two sides to it: one was relief for the railways from municipal and regional district taxation, the other side was relief for the railways from the school tax. I understand that the school tax provisions of Bill 55 were implemented in 1996, and that these involved a reduction in the school tax bill in 1996 to the railways of approximately $9 million. Could the minister confirm that that figure is in the ballpark?

Hon. D. Miller: Yes, it is in the ballpark.

G. Abbott: Again, I'm going from memory, which is probably not a very good thing, particularly for me. But as I recall, in 1995 when this was brought forward, the initial goal was to see the railways save a total of $15 million in a combination of those two things -- the school tax relief and the municipal or regional district tax relief. Let me first of all get a confirmation that $15 million was the approximate figure that was hoped to be achieved.

Hon. D. Miller: Yes, that was the target, with the added proviso that it's by the year 2000 -- in other words, $15 million by the year 2000.

G. Abbott: Right, and that's certainly my understanding as well, that this was going to be phased in over three or four years, and that it would be by the year 2000.

Would it be fair, then, given that nine of the 15 have already been achieved, to say that perhaps the expectations with respect to relief from the school tax have been in excess of what was originally anticipated?

Hon. D. Miller: No. Again we get into the sort of complications.... Really, we're looking at maintaining the equal split -- the school and the municipal-regional -- and I'm advised that we probably "over-relieved," if that's the word, because of some other complications relative to the two rail lines, CP and CN. But no, the target is to have that split equal, and to have that phased in over an appropriate period of time.

[9:15]

G. Abbott: I'm sure that from the municipal perspective they would welcome over-relief, to coin that new phrase. Please keep up with that over-relief.

The expectation is that ultimately what we'll be seeing is not a combination of $9 million in school tax relief and $6 million in municipal relief; it will be $7.5 million and $7.5 million, as was anticipated, and the adjustment will be made. Fair enough.

My second question here, and this would be, I think, just a matter of confirmation by the minister: Bill 55 was based on a model being developed to assess municipal impacts, and then loading a whole lot of data into that to make it work. Is that correct, and has it been done?

Hon. D. Miller: That's correct, and that will be available for inspection by municipalities.

G. Abbott: In relation to municipalities, again, my initial read of this is that the model for regional districts would be even more complex, because of the nature of electoral areas, and their dependency on railways and that kind of thing. Has a model been developed for regional districts, or is that something that will be phased in at a later point in time?

Hon. D. Miller: The member is correct. It is more complex. We are about a couple of weeks behind with respect to the development of that model.

G. Abbott: In terms of the consultation schedule, I think it was originally anticipated that consultations would begin in July. Obviously, that hasn't been possible -- and again this is not to quarrel or criticize, but rather to inform municipalities and regional districts about what to expect. They will be seeing something in the mail in the coming weeks with respect to this issue, they'll be responding to you, and there will be face-to-face consultations at some point, will there?

Hon. D. Miller: Yes, we expect we would have that out by next week.

G. Abbott: Just to perhaps flesh out that response a little bit: what will happen after that, in terms of the municipalities responding and/or the regional districts responding, and what follows from that?

Hon. D. Miller: I think I'll go to UBCM and be pounded on, but that's fair enough. There are really two tracks: through UBCM in terms of policy questions, and through individual municipalities in terms of the kind of options on mitigation. We expect both to happen.

G. Abbott: That's good, and certainly the discussion at UBCM will be welcome in terms of the actual individual municipalities and regional districts as they set about to explain to you, and for you to understand, how they're trying to make this system work. If, for example, a municipality has a very valuable railway bridge, and they're losing that piece of assessment, how is that piece of information going to be communicated back and forth, and how is it going to be built into the model, and how is this going to happen in the weeks to come?

Hon. D. Miller: There will be, in the information, various scenarios that will be modelled. The municipalities, having had the opportunity to look at that, will then contact our financial officers in the ministry to discuss this or perhaps give some preference with respect to those models.

G. Abbott: I must say that I don't envy the officer who is going to be assigned the function of sorting all that out, but that's great.

[ Page 1746 ]

The model that was discussed at the informational meetings that the ministry put on last summer indicated that the goal of the ministry would be to try to limit the impact on any given municipality or regional district to something in the neighbourhood of 5 percent. In other words, if a community or regional district was getting $100,000 in railway revenue, the expectation was that, by year 2000, they would not be looking at any less than $95,000. Is that kind of assumption still driving the model here?

Hon. D. Miller: Yes. We have actually used a 6 percent hypothesis on that.

G. Abbott: I guess there's no anticipation of using the over-relief on the school tax side to bring that back to 5 percent, but I'll leave it to the municipalities to deal with that one.

In order to implement Bill 55, I gather that a number of decisions have to be made with respect to a definition of right-of-way, and that kind of thing. I am proud to say that at one point I actually understood some of this stuff. I'm even more proud to say that I've forgotten it all in the intervening time. Could the minister advise what kind of progress is being made with respect to a definition of right-of-way, the commissioner's rate calculations and all that stuff that has to go into this model?

Hon. D. Miller: Mr. Taylor is here from the Assessment Authority. The technical work is being done, and that will be available. I did refer back to the implementation measures which needed to be adopted by cabinet, hopefully by late September.

G. Abbott: At this time, I'd like to turn to one of the areas that has been highlighted by a number of municipalities and regional districts with respect to Bill 55. I'm not sure whether it should be characterized as inadvertent, accidental, coincidental or whatever, but in changing the way railways were being taxed, it was a problem that other utilities were also inadvertently, accidentally or coincidentally changed in the way they were taxed. Let me briefly quote from a letter from the mayor of Richmond on this subject:

"In the city of Richmond, this legislation will have a serious impact on the taxes we are able to levy on B.C. Hydro, B.C. Tel, B.C. Gas and other utility companies using transportation corridors. In fact, although we anticipated losing $253,000 in overall taxation in this category, we will lose $31,000 for the railway portion and a considerably greater amount, $222,000, for the other utilities in this category."

Could the minister comment on this particular problem and on what, if anything, is going to be done to relieve it?

Hon. D. Miller: It is a very technical field, but the response is that we don't anticipate any tax loss from the utility class as a whole as a result of these changes.

G. Abbott: Tax loss as a whole -- meaning that across the province you don't anticipate generally that this will change? However, as is the case with the railways themselves, within specific municipalities or specific electoral areas or specific regional districts, there might well be very substantial changes. Is that correct?

Hon. D. Miller: I'm not sure I can give the member an answer to that question. There are really two issues here, to some degree. One is with the loss of revenue on the railway class: will there be an attempt to try to recover that in other utilities? In that respect, the proposal is for a cap that won't allow that to happen. But the question I think you're really getting at is with respect to the change: are we anticipating, or can the municipalities anticipate, a reduced taxation from other utilities? With all due respect, I'm sorry I can't give you an answer to that question. I think it's a good question, and we obviously need to have a response to that with respect to the consultation process.

G. Abbott: Hon. Chair, if I may, could I have your guidance with respect to the issue of the Bill 19 discussion in the big House? We're going to continue here -- is that correct?

Interjection.

G. Abbott: If I may then yield to our Housing critic, perhaps that area could be undertaken. That will perhaps provide some opportunity for you to discuss with staff the technical question from Bill 55 about the utility changes that municipalities may face.

The committee recessed from 9:29 p.m. to 9:32 p.m.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

R. Coleman: Before we get into the estimates on Housing, the critic on this side of the House has a different opinion than the Minister of Housing on that side of the House. In our caucus, for some reason, Housing means everything to do with housing: mobile home manufacturing, residential tenancy and what have you. The only comment I'd make before we get into Housing is that when I see the number of ministries that touch on housing and deal with housing issues, I do wonder why we don't put everything under Housing. That way, maybe we'd have some control over all the issues that affect housing relative to tenancy, operations, etc., in the province.

Hon. D. Miller: That may be a good question. I'd just ask the member not to ask the Premier to give me those additional responsibilities right now.

R. Coleman: After the amount of time you've been sitting in that particular chair for the last week or ten days, I can understand why you don't want it right now.

Last night when we were doing estimates, I mentioned that I'd like to move one Crown corporation, the Provincial Rental Housing Corporation, over for discussion tonight because it directly relates to B.C. Housing and the operation of housing in the province, and that was agreed to by the minister at the time. I'd like to deal with the corporation quickly, because its operation is fairly much like a shell. It appears that the corporation is the clearinghouse for the purchase of properties that are then held on title by the Provincial Rental Housing Corporation. Title is held by the PRHC and then leased out back through B.C. Housing under operating agreements and long-term leases to operating societies.

Hon. D. Miller: That's essentially correct.

R. Coleman: My only concern with the PRHC would be that I did request from the commission a listing of the properties that were owned by PRHC, and the message I got back was that I already had the list because of the list of non-profit 

[ Page 1747 ]

housing projects that were existent on the list of properties that were already being operated by the commissioner, by non-profit societies.

I had a title search done on a piece of property located in Langley. It was purchased by the PRHC a couple of years ago for $1.2 million or thereabouts, and it is still held on title by the PRHC. It was actually purchased on April 20, 1993. The property is located on 216th Street at about 6th Avenue in Langley. I have the title search here -- the record of the title. Is the commission familiar with this piece of property and its ownership?

Hon. D. Miller: I gather that we don't have that information at hand.

R. Coleman: I'll give you a brief history on the property; it might ring a bell with somebody, and it may not. The property was formerly owned by a non-profit society referred to as the Chrisholme Society. The Chrisholme Society operated a residential school program for boys that was subsidized by the Ministry of Social Services. The board ran into some problems with staff, relative to the union and what have you, and the ministry stepped in in 1993, purchased the property through the PRHC and continued to operate a program there for about 18 months, in association with the Salvation Army.

The program has now been shut down, but 14 residential units are still sitting there -- and a home, a swimming pool, a shop and about 80 acres of land. It's under the ownership of the PRHC, so I'm assuming that the commission has some direction on what happens with this particular piece of property. If not, then could you tell me what other lands the PRHC may own that are not under the purview of the commission?

Hon. D. Miller: Again, I'm advised that we don't hold many pieces of property that aren't developed. We'll double-check with respect to the list that was provided.

R. Coleman: Thank you, hon. minister. I'd like to quickly touch, then, on the board of directors of PRHC and just confirm that they are as was transmitted to me by, I guess, your legal counsel. The board of directors is made up of what appear to be employees of B.C. Housing, with the exception of Peter Stobie, who I believe is a former employee of B.C. Housing. I'll give you the names: we have Janet Austin, Richard Petty, Sylvia Porter, Peter Robinson, Peter Stobie and James Woodward. Richard Petty is the president, and Daniel Maxwell is the acting comptroller. Would that be correct?

Hon. D. Miller: That is correct. I'm advised that Mr. Stobie is still an employee of B.C. Housing.

R. Coleman: I think he was a former general manager. What capacity is he in? What was his former position, and what's his position now?

Hon. D. Miller: He was and still is director of corporate services.

R. Coleman: If you could just do a review and provide for me -- we'll save any more discussion on PRHC -- the listing of properties owned by PRHC, that might clarify some points as to some lands that may be available basically for special projects or whatever, which you may even find yourself wanting to do something with.

I'd like to move on, then, relative to the discussion of B.C. Housing. As you know, last night I had a systematic approach that I went through, and I'm doing the same thing tonight. First of all, I'd like to deal with the structure of the commission itself. The commission seems to have a number of offices. There are offices and sub-offices, and I think there are seven in total. Could you confirm that for me?

Hon. D. Miller: Yes. I'll give the locations very briefly: three locations in Burnaby -- Kingsway, Edmonds and on Lane Street; Douglas Street in Victoria; 11th Avenue in Prince George; 8th Avenue in Vancouver; and Nanaimo Avenue in Penticton. Kingsway in Burnaby is the head office.

R. Coleman: Actually, the commissioner referred to it as the home office, if I remember correctly.

The operation of the commission. I really don't want to get into its staffing complement, its FTEs and all that this evening. I don't think that's really a necessity. I'd like to just skip over briefly, before I come back to how management impacts on units, and what have you, in the two sectors. We have two sets or types of management at B.C. Housing. We have the management in non-profit units and the management of units by the commission. The management of units by the commission is somewhere around 8,000 units; I don't think we need to confirm that. I did have a number for the non-profits, which is 25,406 units if my addition is right, because I was doing it during somebody else's estimates -- not yours, mind you. Would that be approximately right, about 25,000 units?

Hon. D. Miller: I'll perhaps very briefly run through a list for the member, with a total of about 37,000: directly managed public housing, 7,800; non-profit managed, 14,700; unilateral provincial, 1,255; other provincial, 1,137; private rent supplement, 322; B.C. rental supply program, 1,879; and rent supplement -- that's non-profit -- is just shy of 10,000. That's a total of 37,128.

R. Coleman: Just to confirm the list that I was provided with, obviously it has a combination, a variety of kinds of housing which all fall into different sections of housing. My main concern with this is to provide you with some examples of duplication of services. I'd like to first of all go directly to my community, because it's one of the communities in my riding that's a good example of duplication of services that you may want to have the commission look at, as far as the way housing is managed and delivered within communities.

The community of Aldergrove presently has a project called Lions Grove Estates. Lions Grove Estates is managed by the local Lions organization, a non-profit society. Besides Lions Grove, there is a place called Jackman Manor, which is actually an intermediate care facility that is now having some expansion done to it, and is also under the purview of a related society.

Directly across the street -- you could probably throw a rock through the front door -- is another project, which is referred to as Alderhaven. Alderhaven is a self-managed project by the B.C. Housing Management Commission. It's an apartment block for seniors.

I wonder why the commission hasn't gone to related non-profit societies. I note that in your riding in some of the areas, I think in Prince Rupert, there is some duplication, and other areas where non-profit societies operate -- if you cross-reference maps -- non-profit housing for seniors that is directly within blocks of non-profit housing for seniors that is being self-managed by the commission. I am wondering if the 

[ Page 1748 ]

commission has ever conducted a review of the duplication of their management in a community versus the management by a non-profit that already exists and manages housing in a community.

Hon. D. Miller: Again, I think some of that housing involved.... I've been sticking with Prince Rupert and my own personal knowledge of it, and some of it evolved through different programs. But there are occasions when we do take over the management of non-profit or presumably self-managed versus those run by societies. I'm not quite certain.... Perhaps the member might want to sort of get to the point with respect to that. Although there is a variety out there, some of that is evolutionary in terms of when it was constructed, societies.... It has been a changing scene, quite frankly, with respect to federal and provincial programs.

R. Coleman: I will try and clarify the point, because maybe I did confuse you a little bit. In review of the five or six programs that have taken place in housing in the last 15 to 18 years, there are CMHC programs, there are interrelating programs with the province, and there are programs now where societies are managing projects under the guise of public proposal calls. Basically, the only requirement with any one of the programs for a society to take over and manage a project is that they have within their constitution the fact that housing is their main initiative and that they meet the criteria of the National Housing Act.

[9:45]

I realize that there are different programs and different types of delivery of services. My concern is that we have staff from BCHMC in New Westminster arranging to have people cut the grass at a housing project in Aldergrove, arranging to have the maintenance done at a housing project in Aldergrove, arranging for the management on site at the project, when across the street is a perfectly legitimate society that has had a successful track record in management. I'm wondering why we don't go to that society and say: "Would you like to take over the management of this particular project? Then we can use your people to do the landscaping, your people to do the management and your people to do the administration on two projects, and we can come to an arrangement which would save us some money." That's all.

Hon. D. Miller: Certainly we don't disregard any examples of efficiencies that might be realized, and I think the corporation is an efficient corporation. Really, all I can say is that we're prepared to consider any of those kinds of suggestions with respect to efficiencies.

Again, I'm not that familiar with the lower mainland; I am familiar with the management in Prince Rupert. There have been a variety of programs over the years, and B.C. Housing provides management services in a very coordinated way to a number of projects in that community. It's true that there are seniors' projects that are self-managed, but at the same time, there have been instances where some of those projects have asked B.C. Housing to provide the management and the maintenance -- those kinds of things.

R. Coleman: I'm aware of that. I was referring to this particular situation. You already have strong management in place in the community, and I think these efficiencies exist within the system. From time to time, every corporation, including corporations like we reviewed last night, has to take a review of itself, set its goals, look at its boundaries and ask how can it can provide the service more efficiently. One of the ways we could do this is by taking a look at our strong non-profits, particularly in the lower mainland where we have a large number of units being managed by the commission and a large number managed by some very successful non-profit organizations, particularly in the inner city. I won't name the organizations, but there are some organizations that now manage over 1,000 units in the lower mainland.

The other thing I might point out, just for the interest of the minister -- I asked the question in interim supply -- is that on average, it costs about $34 a month per unit more to manage a self-managed unit by B.C. Housing than it costs for one managed by a non-profit, according to the figures supplied by the commission. Liars figure and figures can lie, so I don't want to get into a discussion on that particular formula. My research over the ensuing months will confirm the depth of that.

There was also a comment made about the cost of market management, and it was astronomical. My research in the last two weeks with various real estate councils and with the urban land economics department at UBC shows that those figures are way off. But I don't think tonight is the night for that discussion.

I would like to go to management on the non-profit side of the sector, basically, because the commission manages its units based on a management philosophy where it hires its own people and uses its own space. Especially in the lower mainland, you do have some staff taking care of management.

Each of these societies has to operate on what we call a non-profit operating agreement, which essentially hasn't changed in about ten years. There is the odd thing that changes from time to time. I want to ask a few questions about the non-profit agreement as it relates to non-profit societies. I have some concerns about the agreement, through my research, which I'd like to bring to your attention. Section 3.1 of the operating agreement for non-profit societies states:

"At its discretion, the commission has the right to provide applicants from its applicant list for up to 25 percent of the units in the project. The society must accept applicants provided by the commission as tenants." That statement says "must. "The commission may exercise this right at any time...and units so selected may be identified as designated in schedule A."

Schedule A is what happens at the finish of construction. They come in and identify the units. From then after, those units are called B.C. Housing units.

I have a concern about this, because, first of all, the method of selection of B.C. Housing tenants from their central registry in Burnaby is simply that the people whose points score the highest and who want a unit in a particular area are sent to that particular project. I'd like to confirm that that's the formula presently being used.

Hon. D. Miller: There is apparently a new operating agreement. The 25 percent is apparently accepted by the societies, and we have a considerable wait-list of people seeking that kind of accommodation.

I want to deal with the previous question as well, in terms of operating costs. The communication I sent to the member on July 23 does cite figures that are somewhat different from what he has. In 1994, B.C. Housing's monthly operating cost per unit -- this is direct-managed -- was about $247, with a further $66 per unit on capital improvements such as roofs and those kinds of things. Those projects that we were talking about are, on average, more than 25 years old. The non-profit projects in '94 averaged less than $234, with only $45 per unit for the replacement reserves. But that portfolio includes projects completed since 1986, and whose average age is about four years.

[ Page 1749 ]

So there are variables. That's really all I'm trying to point out with respect to average costs. Average costs, I think, have to be broken down somewhat further with respect to the age class of units that are being managed.

R. Coleman: The reason I didn't want to get into the figures is that my review would indicate that at those cost levels, maybe all of the management costs weren't prorated into the operation. In reviewing a 2,220-apartment portfolio that covers two western provinces, I found that the management costs and levels were substantially lower. That's why I didn't want to get into that tonight -- because I will do a future analysis. But suffice it to say that what's in the $247 or the $266 is not necessarily what normal corporations would do. The corporation that has 2,250 units under management does it with 12 people, and does it effectively.

I just want to get back to the 25 percent for a second. I know that there's a substantial list held on the registry of B.C. Housing. The formula, basically, if you want to get into social housing, is that you apply at the society at the local level, you apply at every project in every neighbourhood you want to get into, then you also apply at the commission. My concern is that when an applicant makes application to B.C. Housing at the commission level, do they receive an interview for screening to go into a particular project, or are they simply met when they bring in the application, point scored, and put on the registry?

Hon. D. Miller: They're screened generally, Mr. Chairman, and also given some opportunity to indicate preference in terms of which project they may want to move into.

R. Coleman: The reason I asked this question is this. I did a review of seven non-profit housing projects; four different types of societies, under different types of management -- all family-oriented projects. All seven projects were built since 1986 under the new program. All seven projects experienced a certain amount of damage to their suites in each year. I found that 85 percent of the damage to the suites was caused by 25 percent of the tenants.

In speaking to the societies and in looking at their screening processes and their interview processes, my concern was that the screening process and interview process at the B.C. Housing level -- which did create the 25 percent, creating 85 percent of the cost -- was not strong enough, and that the local societies' screening processes were stronger. We'll get into, in a bit, the moneys that are being funded for local registries for housing. I'm just wondering if the commission has taken a look at that problem. I know it's been brought to the commission's attention in the past, as to letting the local organizations receive the applications and do the screening on their point scoring, so at least they're getting the tenants that aren't doing 85 percent of the damage.

Hon. D. Miller: We certainly would be interested in your study. I don't know how extensive it is, but any information relative to that we would appreciate, if you wanted to forward it either to me or directly to the commission. We attempt to work with societies with respect to those issues of screening, and we haven't really considered transferring that responsibility directly to the societies.

[10:00]

R. Coleman: There may be a couple of societies' information I could provide to you if I blacked it out, but there seems to be some nervousness about the repercussions from the commission for having discussions with the Housing critic with regard to their operations. If the Housing Commission would like to provide me with a letter, or whatever, saying there would be no repercussions, I would then certainly release the information to you, but I really don't want to get the societies in trouble.

Hon. D. Miller: I'm the minister of this ministry, and I asked if the member would be prepared to give us.... We can keep it anonymous. There are not going to be repercussions. I asked. I'm the minister. If there are any repercussions, there's going to be some trouble.

R. Coleman: I'd like to go on to another portion of the operating agreement. Basically, it deals with the tenant rent contribution portion of the operating agreement. My concern over the tenant rent contribution is that there seems to be a difficulty that seems to be coming along that I don't know if the Commission has bumped into yet. In some areas of different types of housing, where we have a mixture of social and market-related housing, there seems to be a concern that we're going to reach a problem under the Residential Tenancy Act with regard to how we calculate our increases, and appeals to the residential tenancy board, because we have two types. We'll have somebody paying $700 a month here, and somebody paying $350 a month here. They'll get a rent adjustment, or there may be an increase over here. I know that there are some groups, and I think it's GVRD housing that is actually running into it now.... I'm wondering if we're aware of it, and what steps we're taking to deal with it.

Hon. D. Miller: The member has identified an issue that we are working on with the Attorney General's ministry in terms of trying to sort out the market rent versus the controlled rent, and their status relative to the...whatever it's called.

R. Coleman: I wonder if the minister could just keep me apprised of that, because I know we're going to run into it elsewhere. Somebody's going to ask the question, and that way we can be....

Section 11.2 of this operating agreement states:

"The Society shall ensure that all tenders for work on the project over $500 are called for and received in writing and records of all tenders are kept in the society files. Tenders under $500 may be called for verbally, but written records of quotations should be kept in the files."

I'm just wondering, does the commission operate under the same...on its own operated units -- that's how you handle your own tenders, your own costs?

Hon. D. Miller: Yes.

R. Coleman: There are certain audit requirements. Are the individual projects of the commission under self-management audited on an annual basis?

Hon. D. Miller: Yes.

R. Coleman: I know that there was a problem, and I'd like to know if it was rectified. There was a problem with getting a quick enough turnaround out of the registry at B.C. Housing to send tenants to projects, and of course the society is on the hook for any vacancies that occur, according to their operating agreement. How is your turnaround time on re-tenanting B.C. Housing units and non-profit projects?

Hon. D. Miller: There is a 30-day turnaround time.

[ Page 1750 ]

R. Coleman: There is a requirement in the operating agreement -- which is good -- that basically requires the societies to protect the society against personal injury, death and property damage to an amount of $1 million under an insurance policy. The one thing I've always been concerned about with the operation of non-profit societies, even given the protection under the Society Act of the society taking on this type of responsibility, is the liability of directors and officers of societies. I'm wondering if the commission has added into its policies to allow societies, in their insurance on an annual basis, to include directors' and officers' liability insurance.

Hon. D. Miller: Yes, we think that is the case, subject to an absolute confirmation.

R. Coleman: I take it that we're going to get that confirmed.

There's a little twist in the operating agreement that I've always found kind of humorous. We're operating non-profit housing with non-profit societies, yet section 24(1.4) deals with default of the agreement. Under default of the agreement in that section, it says one of the ways a society can default is if "the society ceases to act without profit." Have we taken a look at this section to realize that if we have a non-profit society and non-profit housing, they're always going to operate without profit? I just thought maybe one of these days somebody is going to use this as a stink clause against somebody, and maybe we should have a look at it.

Hon. D. Miller: There may be some excuse with respect to some societies operating in some instances for profit. How's that for an explanation? It's existed, and I don't think it's caused any major problems. We need these anomalies in life -- if for nothing else, to talk about them.

R. Coleman: It was pretty lame, actually, but I don't know what else you would say. I would like to, if we could, maybe take the opportunity to clarify the clause. "Operate without proper fiscal responsibility," or something, I think is probably what you're trying to achieve there.

Hon. D. Miller: We've probably got 10,000 forms in a warehouse somewhere.

R. Coleman: With regard to the mortgage rollover, I just want to confirm.... I know I did ask this in the briefing, and I didn't want to get in any more detail. But we are still bulk-financing our projects on an annual basis. So a 1986, when it comes due in 1991, gets financed in bulk. So we get a better rate?

Hon. D. Miller: Yes.

R. Coleman: Okay. Well, that basically takes care of the operating agreement.

I'd just like to deal with a couple of issues in the guide for housing societies and their operation. First of all, before I maybe ask a question, is this particular operating manual still in use? It's pretty bad.

Hon. D. Miller: Yes, it's undergoing a major rewrite right now.

R. Coleman: Since we're under a rewrite, maybe we can just quickly today get the status of some programs that are mentioned in the manual: a rent subsidy program, non-profit for the disabled; a rent subsidy program, non-profit for seniors -- I might as well give you all four here; and also what was referred to as the PRAP for seniors and the PRAP for disabled. Are these still in effect? Are we still involved in those?

Hon. D. Miller: Yes.

R. Coleman: The formula that is still being used, with assets included.... I understand that there are certain asset levels that are only required to be able to apply for tenancy. Income levels are governed by the CNIT, which I don't want to get into. Has there been any change to the formula? Is it still 30 percent of the gross income?

Hon. D. Miller: That's correct.

R. Coleman: The one thing I found in reviewing non-profit housing, in speaking to a number of societies and, of course, in having been involved in a number of societies over the years, was that not so much in the relationship with tenants, but in the control over.... Let's for argument's sake refer to them as the bad tenant moving from project to project, who has already done damage in a location. I'm just wondering: have we upgraded some form of a registry for offenders in this regard? If somebody is in a Lions project in New Westminster and does $5,000 damage -- and they're not a B.C. Housing tenant but a society tenant -- and they move out to, for argument's sake, Aldergrove to a family project and get tenancy there because of need, and we all of a sudden find out we have a repeat offender, do we have a method of control so that repetition of the damage and the movement from place to place doesn't occur?

Hon. D. Miller: There is no central registry. Obviously B.C. Housing, going back to some earlier discussion, maintains their own but does rely on societies to provide information.

R. Coleman: Has B.C. Housing provided the societies with a form that can be faxed in to identify people who have moved out of one project and left damage behind, so that it can go immediately onto the registry at the commission?

Hon. D. Miller: If they've been referred by us initially, yes.

R. Coleman: I'd like to make a suggestion, then, to the commission that they put in place the next extension of that relationship with the societies. I attended a conference about three years ago where about 20 or 30 nonprofit societies met with the commission, and one of the major concerns put forward by that group was that they were getting tenants coming through their application process and were finding out that they had actually been evicted from another B.C. Housing project, owed B.C. Housing money or owed another society money. But they had somehow managed to slip through and got tenancy.

I don't think it would be that complicated a situation to have a fax form sent in; it goes into the registry, and societies can call in to confirm the validity of a tenant when they move into a project.

Hon. D. Miller: Yes, fair enough. There may be some questions about individual rights, obviously. If that informa-

[ Page 1751 ]

tion came from the society, for example, would there be an obligation on B.C. Housing to get that information on their own, unless there was a protocol, at least an understanding in terms of common standards? There are those kinds of questions.

R. Coleman: I think the standard of protocol is probably fairly straightforward. If it goes through an eviction proceeding and gets through the processes that are then put in front of the assistant to a tenant, there's probably already a record that should protect the commission, as far as that is concerned. I know that it would be a real asset to the non-profit societies out there trying to manage projects if they didn't get repeat offenders moving from project to project -- which is definitely a concern within the system.

I'd like to move off this particular manual. I should make the comment that this manual was brought into being about three or four years into the initial program of non-profit societies -- a 1986 program -- and it probably should have been written prior to us getting into it with societies. It would have helped them tremendously in their management and now gives them a tenancy agreement, etc., that would have been a real asset to them then. If we do any future housing, it would be a good idea to have this up front, because this is like closing the barn door after the cows have gone.

I would like to deal briefly with the tenancy agreement that B.C. Housing has devised for the non-profit groups to use on their projects. There are just a couple of minor issues in it; they are minor issues except for the fact that some of them seem to contravene the present Residential Tenancy Act, and I just thought you might want to review the tenancy agreement as it now applies to the act and applies to the formula. At this point in time it means it does need some revisions.

Hon. D. Miller: That has been done. There are new forms worked out with the Attorney General's ministry.

R. Coleman: I guess we all realize that this is really an odd form of tenancy, because of the actual upper value of the unit costs being subsidized by a government agency. There is a problem within the operation of non-profits relative to the tenancy agreements, and I'm pretty sure these clauses will not have been changed, but the difficulty is first of all in the household makeup. Basically, a person with two children gets a three-bedroom, and a person with three children gets a four-bedroom, depending on the age of the children, if two younger children under six are the same sex, etc.

The big concern is control of the household makeup. You have a single parent move with two children into a project. The difficulty and the challenge that's being given to non-profit societies, and probably your own management people, is how you deal with the change in the makeup of the household. Another adult moves into the property; you request or say.... I'll give an example of one. A 35-year-old employed man moves into a complex with a single parent. Obviously the household now has two incomes. The difficulty with trying to enforce for the two incomes is that when you make a request for the two incomes, you then have to change the rent subsidy form in order to raise the income. They don't report it. So then he says: "Well, I don't live here. I actually live at home," or "I live with my mother," or "I board." And they go get a receipt or literally a note from mother, saying: "My son pays me $200 a month cash to live in my home."

[10:15]

Have you been able to deal with this issue? How are we dealing with this family makeup issue? Basically, the abuse of the subsidy by virtue of changing the household mix has become a major issue in non-profit housing.

Hon. D. Miller: Well, it is enforced. But I think the member and everybody would realize that human behaviour is not something, particularly in the circumstances we're talking about, where you can rigidly define a process and have 100 percent success, because of some of the items mentioned by the member. There is on-site management and enforcement of the income test. Are we satisfied that those things don't arise? Absolutely not. They're going to arise from time to time, but I think it's fairly rigidly enforced.

R. Coleman: I agree with you, but it is a major difficulty. And my recommendation to the commission would be to come out with a one- or two-page directive to the societies and the people managing them to say how to handle this situation, so that the situation is handled in a manner that they're comfortable with. There seems to be real confusion even among your own line people -- depending which line person you have that's taking care of a specific area -- on how to handle this particular issue. So it might be good to give it to your own people and also to the managers of the housing societies and boards.

Interjection.

R. Coleman: You want me to redo the manual, too?

Interjection.

R. Coleman: One of the first things I learned as a member of a non-profit group, especially with a service club over the last 20-odd years, is that the most effective way of communication is short and sweet, because they don't read everything. That's why I'm making that type of recommendation for your communication with these groups.

Hon. D. Miller: We were talking about a manual, and it was helpful. I just thought that this may be something that may be useful to add to the manual. I assume that it's helpful because people read it.

R. Coleman: And that's fair comment.

That actually brings me to my next question. What is the process of ongoing board and non-profit management training that's taking place at the moment?

Hon. D. Miller: We do a lot of training, and a lot of that's been sort of at the front end. We're just now starting to get into more of the follow-up routine and going back.

R. Coleman: I understand that you're making a review of your residential tenancy agreement. One recommendation from myself would be for section 5, which refers to rent. It would be changed to not refer to it as rent, because it isn't rent; it's actually their contribution towards rent. And if you identify that as rent, and then you try to adjust it later, you're going to end up with a residential tenancy problem.

Hon. D. Miller: I understand that some of that terminology has been changed in the new operating agreement.

R. Coleman: Just so that we're clear, we're not dealing with the operating agreement, we're dealing with the tenancy agreement.

[ Page 1752 ]

The other section of the residential tenancy agreement that they sign when they come in.... I would recommend that you strengthen up the terminology with regard to repairs and cleanliness of their suites, as it's a very wordy section. We're finding in arbitration that, because the section is so wordy, arbitrators view it as something that's difficult for the tenant to understand and therefore will rule on the side of saying: "What we're really trying to define is cleanliness or damage." I would clarify that within the agreement.

Hon. D. Miller: Those are all useful suggestions.

R. Coleman: There's one other section within the agreement that requires a tenant first of all to get written consent from a landlord to have a waterbed, and then to carry $100,000 in insurance. My concern is that this agreement does not require -- and I know that a number of societies and organizations have required their tenants to do this -- the tenant to carry insurance on their own occupancy, a certain degree of minor liability, but certainly their own contents insurance.

I bring this point up because of a couple of fires that occurred in a project that I was involved in, where there was liability and the tenant liability, had none because the enforcement of that clause wasn't there, because it wasn't written into the tenancy agreement. I'm wondering if you're considering putting that into a tenancy agreement, in addition to a clause that requires insurance on motor vehicles that are parked on the site.

Hon. D. Miller: Yes, these are very interesting ideas. I guess, on the face of it, you may have to look at how you might structure that, particularly if the purchase of insurance is a financial problem for some tenants. It seems to me that it's not impossible that you would have to build that allowance into the rent. These are very useful ideas.

R. Coleman: Just for your information, it's about $17 a month that can be financed for insurance -- which is basically about a couple of cartons of cigarettes, I guess you could say -- somewhere in the formula, just to protect the society, whether it be carried as an additional rider to the insurance policy of the overall project or whatever the case may be. It not only protects the tenants from liability, but it also protects the project from a loss of claim in relation to the overall project, because we're dealing oftentimes with townhouses and apartment-type units where there's additional residual damage to other people's facilities.

Hon. D. Miller: I compliment the member. He's been extremely thorough in terms of some of these details, and we are taking notes of what I think are some very useful ideas.

R. Coleman: The next issue -- it's actually my last issue to deal with tenancy -- deals particularly with family projects, because it relates to second-stage housing. I had expressed a concern, I believe either in the briefing session or in interim supply, that there be an adjustment made to the point score system on the application form to take into account that people who are coming from abusive situations and have had to move back in with family -- they obviously couldn't get into a transition house or were fortunate enough to have a place to run to -- should be given the same weighting as people in transition houses.

Hon. D. Miller: As I understand it, the member did raise that in the mini-estimates, and both of those policies are under review. I think I have communicated to the member that with respect to placements in second-stage or transition housing for women, when a vacancy occurs in a family unit, it gives priority to women from transition to second-stage housing who have been screened by the transition house counsellor. So there is a priority placement with respect to that.

R. Coleman: That's right. My concern is that we take the next step in the waiting process and identify the fact that not everybody can get into a transition house. When you do that review, I might caution you on what's been happening out there in the system. In this system, it's a known fact that second-stage is a priority. We've had some incidents where the residency requirement of a year to get into social housing has been waived for people coming out of transition houses. That gets through the system very quickly, and people say: "If I get into the transition house, I get to jump the queue and get into social housing." I think you should take that into consideration in your review.

Hon. D. Miller: I guess the point is that we don't make the placement; the placements are referred from the transition houses. Clearly they are the people with the greatest need.

R. Coleman: I'd like to spend a couple of minutes on the operating budgets as they pertain to non-profit housing societies. I've done a review of a couple of audited statements in the last week, and I think we're probably getting close to my concern. My biggest concern in the operating of non-profit housing societies is that the commission gear their budgets, which they seem to be doing now -- and you may be able to clarify that they're doing it, because there was a point where it wasn't being done -- to the market costs of operation -- i.e., they got three quotes for their landscaping, and their budget reflected the cost of their landscaping.

There was a concern within the marketplace that the budget was just rolled over every year, and even though the societies were getting their quotes and sending them in, we were being told that that was the budget, that it doesn't change and that it will be adjusted at the end of the year. That can put a cash flow concern onto the society. I'd like to know that when they go out for their quotes for their landscaping, their maintenance and all those things, those are reflected in today's budgets. I'd like to know that you have a process in place for that versus trying to play catch-up all the time.

Hon. D. Miller: Yes, we do.

R. Coleman: I'd like to move on to some of the things that were laid out in your Homes B.C. in 1995 and in some of your 1996 information. You did a package up for New Options for Home Ownership. New Options for Home Ownership was a project where -- back to 1988 was the last report, which I read the other day -- there have been various new options for home ownership proposed within our society, oftentimes with limited success. I was just wondering how we were making out on this, so I want to go through a couple of things that were identified in this to see if that's the direction we're heading, what success you're having and what number of units you think you're going to be able to produce or handle with this type of home ownership, to try and meet the needs that were identified in what you refer to as the PCHO report, Provincial Commission on Housing Options.

First was the affordability and project cost. You're stating that you're going to have some eligibility requirements that are basically standard within the industry as far as trying to 

[ Page 1753 ]

put something together. This says that housing built under New Options was intended to sell for approximately 80 percent of market price for comparable freehold condominium units. Sponsors are encouraged to bring equity to the project through discounted land prices or reduced fees. Donations of time and money and a contribution of land or grants or increased density may be made by municipal governments. Affordability will also be enhanced by BCHMC construction loans at a favourable rate and by an elimination of mortgage insurance fees. Could you tell me what the status is on this particular program and how we're doing?

Hon. D. Miller: The project has been slower than anticipated, because we're relying on the non-profit sector for delivery, and there has not been the kind of interest that we anticipated. We're actually going to review that. There are ten or 11 projects in the pipeline, one under construction, two nearing construction -- one on Commercial Drive in Vancouver, which is under construction at present, and one over here in the Songhees.

[10:30]

R. Coleman: These are obviously your boilerplate models or whatever you want to call them. How did you deal with your limits on equity appreciation on those projects upon resale? Are you delivering the product at 80 percent of market?

Hon. D. Miller: With respect to the first question, it's by covenants on the title or leased land. With respect to the 80 percent, the Commercial Drive project is up to 86 percent. But on the other hand, the Songhees is below 80 percent. So there's a bit of a float there.

R. Coleman: Could you tell me what types of restrictions you're putting on the lease in order to ensure that you're protecting your 80 percent of value on resale? Are you doing some sort of market survey at the time of sale, saying: "This is the value today; this is what you bought it at, and we're basing it on 80 percent of market"? Or are you actually, because of the lease itself on the property, saying it's automatically discounted to market, therefore it will always be discounted to market?

Hon. D. Miller: We do market surveys throughout the project and are pegging the value at 80 percent of market.

R. Coleman: I just want to be clear on this, because I think this formula is very important to your viability on these projects in the future. The 80 percent is being paid by.... Is it a market survey every time a unit sells? Or is a market survey done on a biannual or quarterly basis and only pegged to the resales in that project or pegged to the overall market?

Hon. D. Miller: Yes, it's a market survey at the time of sale.

R. Coleman: Was it being pegged to the market survey at that particular project or to the overall market? One affects the other oftentimes. It might be simplistic to.... If you could just provide me with a copy of the formula, I'd like the lease so I could review it. Then I wouldn't have to drag you through a whole discussion.

Hon. D. Miller: Yes, that would be delightful.

R. Coleman: Thank you. You have another portion in this that I think is a good idea, which is that the homebuyer who meets the new options requirement and doesn't qualify for CMHC financing may be eligible for financing through BCHMC -- the partial provincial mortgage guarantee you referred to.

In your Commercial Drive project, I guess the first thing I should have asked is: how many sales? But the Commercial Drive project is under construction, so I would assume you've reached a presale level in order to go into the ground. At least, according to what you did here, you would have to have that. How many of the people who purchased will require that assistance as well? I'm just wondering how we're doing on moving the tenants to the next stage up; that's usually the case with these people.

Hon. D. Miller: With respect to the Commercial Drive project, there are 39 units, but 14 of them are through the Habitat for Humanity program -- in other words, people using their own sweat equity, so their income levels are considerably lower. They normally wouldn't be able to get in, but because of that program they do. The remainder are people with income levels that allow them to get in.

R. Coleman: As for the tenure on the land, were the properties in both locations non-profit society lands or Crown land?

Hon. D. Miller: Provincial land.

R. Coleman: Was the land originally owned by us, or did PRHC purchase the property from the non-profit or from the city or someone else?

Hon. D. Miller: The Vancouver property was purchased from Petro-Canada, and the Songhees property was owned by the Crown for some time.

R. Coleman: In order to achieve your formula of 80 percent, did you roll the land into the project at market value, or did you discount the land as part of the overall project?

Hon. D. Miller: The Commercial Drive property at market, and the Songhees at 75 percent of market.

R. Coleman: You achieved 86 percent of value on the Commercial Drive property by using market value for the property. Did you consider at any time taking market value for the property and rolling some of the equity back into units that you might have rented at just below market rates, not subsidized, but just below market rates by purchasing back units yourself?

Hon. D. Miller: No, Commercial Drive is an equity co-op -- no rentals.

R. Coleman: To move on, the next area of discussion relative to housing is project development funding. You have the loan limits from PDF, as it's referred to -- project development fund -- which is to basically help people get started in the development side of the business on special projects or what have you. You basically have $4,000 units for fully tendered projects and $2,500 units for design-built projects. How many projects have taken advantage of this opportunity, and are they similar to the Commercial Drive project, or are they non-profit projects?

Hon. D. Miller: Is this on the ownership or the rental program, just to clarify?

[ Page 1754 ]

R. Coleman: I'm into New Options for Home Ownership, so I'm assuming that we're dealing with new projects that you would be utilizing that funding for.

Hon. D. Miller: Yes, six or seven of those projects are in.... In other words, we front the money for the project development.

R. Coleman: I did take note that, under construction financing, you have some criteria in place as far as this particular program is concerned relative to the responsibilities these groups have to meet for B.C. Housing. You provide inspections during the phases of construction. There's also a reference back to CMHC, of course, because there are certain CMHC types of funding that are available, too. Basically, is BCHMC stepping in and assisting with the CMHC guarantee to provide 100 percent construction financing or 100 percent development costs for the entire projects?

Hon. D. Miller: Yes, we provide construction financing at roughly 2 percent below market, and there are further savings with respect to not requiring mortgage insurance.

R. Coleman: Just so I can draw the analogy, you're providing construction financing at 2 percent below market rates for construction financing, which obviously helps achieve some interest-saving cost during the construction phase. And you're providing 100 percent financing to the project, which is soft costs, hard costs and land costs. Then the takeout sales take you out of the project, except that you get your discharge fee of $75 a unit, which is basically the same as CMHC, and there's a $600 fee per unit in here that was referred to as something else. Are you essentially, then, trying to create a form that is similar to the private-public partnership form of 85 percent equity or value to a project? By being able to undercut it a little bit further by doing 100 percent financing, and then reducing the insurance fee because they don't have to carry insurance, you're actually becoming the insurer of the project.

Hon. D. Miller: Essentially, the member is correct, but there is a difference between this and the CMHC, in that this is targeted to certain income groups, and I gather that their program is not.

R. Coleman: In actual fact, both the CMHC private-public partnership and the B.C. Housing New Options for Home Ownership are trying to achieve the objective of getting some deemed community benefit out of creative financing for construction of different types of housing.

Hon. D. Miller: Again, the programs are different in terms of CMHC being a market and ours being a below-market type of program.

R. Coleman: I think we're probably discussing apples and oranges. You're below-market financing, right? They're market financing because they charge you a fee and what have you, and you're below-market financing if you do a BCHMC project with 100 percent financing. That would be the difference in the financing. BCHMC's financing at 2 percent below market is cheaper than going to CMHC. But I wasn't referring to that market; I was referring to the market of the product. The actual product being delivered in an equity co-op or some deemed benefit that the project has to the community is the reason that either CMHC or you would look at a project under either of those two programs.

[10:45]

Hon. D. Miller: That's correct.

R. Coleman: Maybe you could just tell me this. There is no CMHC financing, and you're buying down the mortgage. Who is the guarantor on the construction? Is it BCHMC?

Hon. D. Miller: Yes.

R. Coleman: So you're acting at that point, once you have your financing in place similar to a CMHC project under a private-public partnership, in that you demand a CCDC(2) type of contract, which is a stipulated-price contract for construction, and you want a review of soft costs. Before you allow them to go ahead, I would assume that you have certain criteria in place for appraisal of the project and for phase 1 environmental to be done. Do they pay you a fee at any time? Do they pay a placement fee to a mortgage broker, or are you actually providing the funds? Are they going out to somebody else to get the funds, who's the lender, and then you're guaranteeing it to the lender, or are you lending the actual dollars?

Hon. D. Miller: We actually give direct financing.

R. Coleman: Where do those funds come from, and how much do you have allocated for 1996?

Hon. D. Miller: Funds are borrowed from provincial treasury, with a ceiling of about $110 million.

R. Coleman: Do we...? I guess we do, because we're taxpayers. Do we pay interest to treasury for those funds?

Hon. D. Miller: Yes.

R. Coleman: What rates do we pay to treasury for that?

Hon. D. Miller: It's one-sixteenth above the provincial borrowing costs, and that's administrative and finance.

R. Coleman: How do those rates reflect the market rates?

Hon. D. Miller: They're 1 or 2 percent below. But I think the distinction is that this is 100 percent financing. I gather that in the other circumstances, that's not the norm, that you'd get, say, 75 percent financing. So it's a better program.

R. Coleman: There is no norm in the development business, so I can tell you that sometimes they can only get 60 percent, and sometimes they can get 75 percent. Under private-public partnerships, I've seen them get 85 percent of total costs. But they will also recognize the land value, so sometimes they're in for zero as well. That's why I asked how you book the land earlier, just to determine how you'd determine the equity.

I'm just concerned about how you're achieving the 2 percent below market, and I guess you're basically doing a flow-through because you can borrow for less through Treasury Board than the people on the outside can borrow. Would that be correct?

Hon. D. Miller: Yes.

R. Coleman: What is your presale requirement in order for an organization to go ahead with a project under this type of formula?

[ Page 1755 ]

Hon. D. Miller: It's 50 percent presale.

R. Coleman: In that 50 percent, do you have a criterion for deposit and a criterion for whether they're non-subject to sales, in order to go ahead?

Hon. D. Miller: The Real Estate Act applies.

R. Coleman: I don't know if it was the reverberation from the cough, but I didn't quite catch that.

Hon. D. Miller: I'm astounded. The level of detail is absolutely astounding with respect to the member's knowledge. I'm just amazed.

Interjection.

Hon. D. Miller: But it is a level of detail that's unparalleled in ten years. I really mean no disrespect at all. This is a highly technical examination of the ministry. While we've tried to provide -- really, relay.... These are technical questions that, quite frankly, I don't have the depth of knowledge on. There might be a process by which these kinds of very detailed technical questions might be dealt with. Again, I'm not trying to interfere with the member's.... I'm impressed, as I was last night, with the depth of knowledge, but I don't know how much longer I can sustain this. Really, I'm just trying to make a friendly inquiry. We do have an amazing number of issues yet to deal with in these estimates, and we certainly want to continue to make progress. I put that question out there for the member, to see if he has some indication of where we might be going in terms of conclusion.

R. Coleman: I have absolutely no idea. I am actually trying to stay away from the technical side of the industry in my discussions. I haven't got into the specifications of Homes B.C.; I haven't got into the environmental specifications or any of those things that are in Homes B.C.

The question about deposit is not really technical. When I ask what level of deposit and what form of agreement, the answer should be that you're taking a 5 percent deposit and that it's a non-subject offer before it will qualify the sale of the project. Under any real estate transaction -- except if something is special about this -- there should be some level of comfort to the lender, which is you, for 100 percent of the financing for the project.

The committee recessed from 10:54 p.m. to 10:57 p.m.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

Hon. D. Miller: I'll re-emphasize the point I tried to make earlier. This is really running through a level of technical detail with respect to tenant agreements etc. I don't mean any disrespect by this, but I don't think we should continue. I don't think we can continue answering these very technical.... I'm quite prepared to offer full briefings to the member on all these questions, with technical staff available to run through the intricacies of tenant agreements and the rest of it. But it seems to me that there should be a slightly broader level with respect to the estimates of the commission, which I think we should try to get on to.

The Chair: Perhaps with that offer by the minister, the member could look at a broader view of his questions on the estimates.

R. Coleman: In honesty, I have not gotten into the technical side of your industry or to the commission. I've tried to keep it as simplistic as possible, to be honest with you. When I got into the operating agreement, I actually only referred to four sections out of about 15 that I could have gone through all the way. I just picked up the highlights.

I don't want to get into a technical discussion. If the ministry is prepared to sit down and answer my questions -- and I mean specifically answer the questions; not vague answers -- with regard to the calls for the expression of interest; with regard to calls for the community housing initiatives and the application guidelines; and with regard to the implementation of all the recommendations of the Provincial Commission on Housing Options, when they're implemented, how they were implemented and what their success rates have been, then I can move off that portion of my discussion.

Hon. D. Miller: I understand there was a briefing, and certainly my staff want to be as helpful as possible in terms of responding to questions the member has.

R. Coleman: You have not received any questions tonight relative to questions that were answered in the briefing. Your staff did provide me with a substantial amount of information, which then had to be absorbed. As I absorbed it, I came up with more and more questions, and the longer I wait for estimates, the more questions I come up with.

[11:00]

Hon. D. Miller: Well, that may be the case, Mr. Chairman. I have no control over how long the member waits for estimates. We've tried to be accommodating with respect to the variety of issues under my ministry, and we've moved through issues like B.C. Ferries, B.C. Buildings Corporation last night and a number of other parts of the ministry -- B.C. Rail -- with some dispatch.

The member indicates that he doesn't have any end point in sight. There are many parts of the estimates process yet to do -- some with respect to this ministry. We have the return of the critic on the Municipal Affairs side; there are other ministries beyond this, such as the Ministry of Small Business, Tourism and Culture. At this pace, it may be next year that we get to them. I assume there is some broad understanding with respect to some pace in this estimates process, and I think that's appropriate to raise.

I'm just trying to say that, in my view -- perhaps not in the member's view -- this is technical. I can tell you, I have enough background in the real estate industry, and it seems to me that the questions are those.... They're germane, certainly, to the programs, but they are of a highly technical nature as far as I'm concerned. That may just be displaying my background. So I really think we've got to have some end point in mind here, otherwise we could simply be at this for a long, long time. I don't think I can continue to pop up and down like this.

R. Coleman: I have no intention of dragging this out, and I try to ask direct questions that require direct answers rather than get into some rhetorical discussion -- and I don't want to enter into that. All I'm trying to do is walk through a series of programs that the estimates, I would assume, of the B.C. Housing Management Commission are paying for, ask how they're implemented and pick out a couple points that I wanted for clarification on each portion of the program. That's all I'm doing. If I wanted to get into a technical discussion, I 

[ Page 1756 ]

could do it for days. Obviously there wasn't enough time in any briefing session to do that, and I don't want to do that.

Hon. D. Miller: I believe you.

R. Coleman: I'm sure you do believe me. We've actually been at this for only about an hour and 20 minutes in actual questions on estimates, and I know we spent more time than that on ferries -- which doesn't necessarily justify my line of questioning, but....

I'd like to go back briefly to a couple of examples with regard to the line of questioning. This goes back to the useful use of funds, to provide the needed services to the community that we're trying to provide. In this particular case, we're trying to provide subsidized housing to particular individuals or groups of individuals in their communities at a subsidized rate. I'm wondering if there has been any thought, other than some comments in some of your reports, on providing a program similar to the rent supplement program.

Hon. D. Miller: No.

R. Coleman: I guess that causes me some level of concern, because if you take a review of two or three projects that were done in 1986 to 1991, if you take you'll find that the cost of operation is about $1,360 a month on average, which is the economic rent which we're actually paying to run those projects. We're subsidizing those units on an average of.... About $340 a month is the average rent that's being achieved. So our average subsidy on those units is about $1,020 a month. If we went into the marketplace in three examples, we would find that the same type of unit rents for $765 a month.

So if we were to rent-supplement -- supplement the individual in place -- in actual fact, we could provide 446 units, based on the numbers that were calculated. Just based on 180 units of housing at $1,360 per month as the average cost to provide the service, and if we have an average cost of $765 to $750 as the average market rent for the same type of unit in the area, then the same dollars that we're spending to subsidize the 180 units would produce 446 units of subsidized housing in the same marketplace.

Hon. D. Miller: We'll take that under advisement.

R. Coleman: The other comment I have is with regard to the Homes B.C. program and the MUPs. The MUPs are basically the maximum unit prices that we're paying for units within a particular area in each year. I just want to use an example in the marketplace, because it concerns me that maybe we should be looking at another way of delivering housing. I'm just wondering if we've looked at purchasing existing housing.

I'll use an example of a MUP as it would be applied to the upper Fraser Valley. The MUP in the upper Fraser Valley, for an apartment with surface parking that we would construct this year, would be.... We would be paying, for a one-bedroom under a MUP with surface parking, about $106,000 per unit. We would be paying $136,000 to produce a two-bedroom unit in the marketplace.

In review of the upper Fraser Valley, you could buy a rental building for an average price of somewhere -- and I can give you specific examples -- between $42,000 and $58,000 per unit. The upgrade, which includes sprinkler systems, new carpet and new lino, would cost you about $10,000 a unit. You can end up producing the same housing for about $30,000 or $40,000 under MUP.

There is a vacancy problem at times. I'm just wondering if the commission has looked at the possibility of some of the upgrade units that are available in the marketplace as being a replacement for actually going to MUP and building a new product.

Hon. D. Miller: No, we've not considered that.

R. Coleman: I'd like to just ask one question with regard to the MUPs: how you calculate them from year to year. There's an increase in the maximum unit price, the MUP,

from 1995 to 1996 in both the Victoria region and the Vancouver region, yet the market has stayed flat in 1995-96. How do you establish what the MUP will be?

Hon. D. Miller: Through CMHC.

R. Coleman: I would like to go to page 3 of Homes B.C. -- Call for Expressions of Interest. Actually, page 3 has a comment that you require 5 percent of all your units to be wheelchair-accessible. There has been a problem in your marketplace with regard to wheelchair-accessible units. To maximize out the value of a project, a two- or three-bedroom wheelchair-accessible unit will be added to the project, which raises the overall MUP of the project without real consideration to the actual requirement for wheelchair-accessible units in the marketplace. Those units oftentimes end up being occupied by able-bodied people because there is nobody to occupy them. A particular example would be two- and three-bedroom townhouses. Have you taken that into consideration in this assessment? How are you going to assess your wheelchair units in the future?

Hon. D. Miller: We require an evaluation of wheelchair needs before we accept.

R. Coleman: I'd like some clarification on the Homes B.C. program. There is a statement made, and I'd like it clarified. It says that each tenant household occupying a low-end market rent unit will pay rent calculated at 90 percent of the appraised market rent for the area, as established on the date of initial occupancy. Rent increases will be subject to the appropriate regulations in the Residential Tenancy Act, as recently amended. Could you clarify what you're trying to say there?

Hon. D. Miller: We will forward an explanation.

R. Coleman: It's obvious to me that we're going to end up in a situation here where we're going to start to banter back and forth across the room. I'm prepared to provide questions on the balance of my concerns and questions about housing and all the formulas to the commission, provided they would be willing to answer those to my satisfaction. If they weren't to my satisfaction, perhaps the minister would meet with me and I could outline what other answers I would like to have, if they would be prepared to do that. I understand that the other House is ready to adjourn, and if we rise and report progress, I'd be prepared to end my estimates at this time.

Hon. D. Miller: We certainly will try to be as accommodating as we can. I would move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:12 p.m.

Copyright © 1996: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada