[ Page 5615 ]

The House met at 10:06 a.m.

Prayers.

Introduction of Bills

VANCOUVER CHARTER
AMENDMENT ACT, 1997

Hon. M. Farnworth: Hon. Speaker, I'm pleased to present Bill 52, Vancouver Charter Amendment Act, 1997. This bill is introduced at the request of the city of Vancouver and supported by many other stakeholders. It will enable the city to preserve and protect affordable housing in Vancouver's downtown core. The legislation will amend the Vancouver Charter to give the city the authority to regulate the conversion and demolition of single-room accommodations, such as residential hotels and rooming houses.

This legislation is not intended to freeze the single-room accommodation in the downtown core forever so that it would never change or never improve. It gives the city of Vancouver the tools, though, to ensure that this critical type of housing stock doesn't disappear faster than it can be replaced. The government will continue to allocate considerable resources to developing new, safe affordable housing in the downtown core of Vancouver. In the meantime, this bill will allow the city of Vancouver to ensure that some of the most vulnerable people in our society are not left homeless.

Hon. Speaker, before I move the appropriate motion, I would like to thank the work and effort of my colleague from Vancouver-Mount Pleasant, who put a great deal of time and energy into helping bring this bill forward.

Bill 52 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Orders of the Day

Private Members' Statements

100TH ANNIVERSARY OF
SIKHS IN CANADA

I'd like to give a brief chronology of events in the last 100 years. It was in 1897 that Sikh soldiers, as part of the Hong Kong regiment of the British Army, visited Canada en route to London to celebrate Queen Victoria's Diamond Jubilee. In 1902 a British Indian regiment based in Hong Kong, consisting mostly of Sikhs, travelled to England by way of Canada to the coronation of Edward VII. Soon after this experience, some of these soldiers led the first significant Sikh immigration, drawn to Canada's beauty and the opportunities for work, and most settled in British Columbia.

In 1903 Sikh immigration to Canada began in earnest as settlers came to Canada to stay for the first time. In subsequent years, as immigration from South Asia increased, all natives of India not of Anglo-Saxon parents were disenfranchised in 1907 by the British Columbia government. For the next 40 years, they could not vote in civic, provincial or federal elections, or join the public service or certain professions. Between 1908 and 1947, actually, immigration from South Asia was virtually at a standstill. Actually, depopulation of Indians and South Asians in Canada occurred during that time. In 1908, the first gurdwara, which is actually a Sikh holy place, was established in Canada and was built by the Khalsa Diwan Society in Vancouver. The first Sikh in Canada also took amrit, which is the Sikh initiation, and also got married here in this country.

Also in 1908, the continuous-journey legislation was passed by the federal government, bringing Sikh immigration to a standstill because it required that immigrants travel to Canada without any stopovers, which was an impossibility because no ship travelled directly from India to Canada. In 1912 the first Sikh Canadian, Mr. Hardial Singh Atwal, was born in Vancouver. He actually passed away last year.

In 1914 the infamous Komagata Maru incident took place. After two months in Vancouver harbour, the 376 South Asian passengers on board, of whom almost 95 percent were Sikhs, were refused entry into Canada and were forced to return to Asia. In 1919 a change in the legislation allowed families of Sikh residents to enter Canada. Many Sikhs returned, actually, to India to fetch their families -- or a lot of the singles, men who were here, went back to India to find suitable spouses.

In 1947 the continuous-journey legislation was repealed. Sikhs and other people from India and South Asia were given the vote and allowed to work as professionals in British Columbia. In 1951 an annual quota of 150 immigrants to come to Canada from India was approved by the federal government of the day. Six years later, the annual quota for immigration to Canada from India increased to 300. In the 1960s, many South Asian school teachers -- in particular, Sikh school teachers -- and other professionals immigrated to the Prairies, Ontario and the Maritimes. Sikh communities began to spring up all across Canada.

The point system for approving immigration applications was introduced in 1967. In 1973 the Canadian government granted landed immigrant status to those visitors who remained in the country. In 1973 steady immigration started and has continued to date.

Today there are over half a million South Asians in Canada. Half of these reside in British Columbia, and of those, nearly 50 percent reside in the greater Vancouver area; 70 percent of those people living in B.C. -- indeed, in Canada -- are Punjabi, and 60 percent of those are Sikhs.

Why did Sikhs come to Canada? I know there existed in India at the time, about 100 years ago, a taboo against travelling beyond the black waters. You'll know that Mahatma 

[ Page 5616 ]

Gandhi went to England to study. When he came back to India, he had to go through a religious rite in order to be reinstated into the Hindu religion.

Sikhs are also very adventurous people. They joined the British Army in great numbers and were stationed all across the British Empire. Canada was also an open land with a lot of beauty and economic opportunities. Punjabis were also from an area of India where there was a fair bit of prosperity, which allowed them the capital to be able to travel abroad.

[10:15]

Today I will have a chance to say a few words after the hon. member for Okanagan West has a few words.

S. Hawkins: It gives me great pleasure to rise in the House to reply to the hon. member for Yale-Lillooet and his statements on the 100th anniversary of Sikhs in Canada.

He is very correct in saying that the first Sikhs in British Columbia were probably soldiers from the Hong Kong regiments who travelled through Canada after celebrating Queen Victoria's Diamond Jubilee in London in 1897. As the member pointed out, over 5,000 Sikh men came to Canada between 1904 and 1908 to do labouring jobs on railway construction, lumber mills and forestry. Besides language problems, lack of education, lack of proper housing and health care, and culture shock, these folks had to face racial discrimination and segregation. This was an adult male population living in isolation. Only nine women were allowed immigration between 1904 and 1920.

When I was preparing for this, I came across a book called Becoming Canadians, by Sarjeet Singh Jagpal, who tells the story of the political history of Sikhs in this province quite nicely. I'd like to take a quote from that:

"As British subjects, Sikhs had the right to vote in all elections. This was viewed as posing a threat to the existing government, since it meant that a significant block of votes -- there were 5,000 Sikhs -- might go to another political party more sensitive to human rights, immigration and fair play. So in 1907 the government of British Columbia passed a bill to disenfranchise all natives of India not born of Anglo Saxon parents. . . . Until 1947, South Asians would remain excluded from the political process in British Columbia and from becoming Canadian citizens.

". . .the Canadian government adopted a new policy and issued an order-in-council on January 8, 1908, designed to stop all immigration from India. All immigrants seeking entry had to come to Canada by continuous journey, with through-tickets from the country of their birth or nationality or citizenship. At this time there was no direct passage from India to Canada. An immigrant from India also had to have in his possession $200, while immigrants from Europe needed only $25. . . .

"The harsh effect of this legislation was dramatic. From 1908 to 1920, only 118 immigrants from India entered Canada."

This province also has a sad history in respect of the Komagata Maru, which was a Japanese freighter that was chartered in 1914 to carry 376 Sikhs to Canada, in part to challenge the unfair Canadian immigration laws. The Canadian immigration department wouldn't let the ship dock, so it anchored in English Bay for over two months. Finally, under threat of attack from a Canadian navy cruiser, the Komagata Maru was escorted out of harbour and was forced to travel back to India without being allowed to disembark its passengers. On arrival to India, sadly, the passengers were charged with attempting to overthrow the British government. Most of the passengers were imprisoned. Some were eventually hanged, and over 50 unarmed passengers were killed when troops fired on them.

By 1944, over 98 percent of Canada's Sikhs lived in British Columbia. The Canadian Sikh population was 1,756: 338 Sikhs lived in Victoria and 462 lived in Vancouver. Although it was a time of prosperity in Canada, it was not a time of racial or cultural acceptance. For example, the main headline of the Kelowna Courier on Thursday, August 22, 1946, read: "Taxpayers Object to Hindu Buying City House, But Girl Openly Defies All Protests." This article recounted the story of a young Sikh woman buying a house in the town of Kelowna for her widowed mother and siblings to live in. Her father had immigrated to Canada in 1907, had been a foreman on the Canadian National Railway, and the family had lived on a Kelowna area orchard for over a decade and an half.

Mr. Speaker, I was one of the 1,100 immigrants of Indian origin who came to Canada in 1964, when my family came from India via Britain that year. By that time, fewer than 10,000 Indian immigrants had been permitted to come to Canada in its entire history. My father took his family to a small rural town in Saskatchewan called Sturgis, where he taught English and social studies at the local high school. He raised six children -- five daughters and one son -- to understand the privilege of being citizens of Canada. After more than 33 years in Canada, I consider my father to be one of the pioneers.

I think that Sikhs have contributed a lot to this province and to this country. I'm proud of my heritage, and I congratulate Sikhs on their 100th anniversary in Canada.

H. Lali: I share some of the emotions of the hon. member for Okanagan West that we saw moments earlier. I know it's sometimes very frustrating and a little difficult when you look at some of the historical events that have taken place.

Just to continue, hon. Speaker, today Sikhs work in the sawmilling and farming industries, in the taxi business and also as truck drivers, mostly as owner-operators. They own their own businesses in the import-export field as well in as the retail field. They're in professions such as teachers, lawyers, doctors, pharmacists, and also in government jobs. Sikhs are a very successful people, very hard-working, entrepreneurial and very proud in nature.

They have also entered politics. In 1986 the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin was elected on an NDP ticket and broke the ground for South Asians; in 1991 he was re-elected as an MLA. The member for Vancouver-Kensington was elected for the first time, and I, representing an area in rural B.C., Yale-Lillooet, was also elected, as well as Judi Tyabji for Okanagan East. In 1993 Herb Dhaliwal, who is another Sikh, was elected in Vancouver on the Liberal ticket as a Member of Parliament. Gurbax Malhi and Jag Bhaduria were elected in Ontario. In 1996 the three of us on the NDP side were re-elected as MLAs; as well, the hon. member for Okanagan West was elected for the first time.

[ Page 5617 ]

All of these names that I have mentioned, with the exception of two, are Sikhs; Judi Tyabji and Jag Bhaduria are the only ones that are not. I also want to mention that there are other individuals of South Asian origin who have been elected in Alberta, Manitoba and Ontario on Conservative, Liberal, Reform and NDP tickets.

I just want to also point out that 1997 marks the fiftieth anniversary of the voting rights for Indo-Canadians in this country and the ninety-first anniversary of the Khalsa Diwan Society, which established the first gurdwara in Canada. I'm actually going to be pressing the government to perhaps recognize these two momentous occasions.

Sikhs are in many communities in B.C., including Kamloops, Kelowna, Penticton, Vernon, Quesnel, Williams Lake, 100 Mile House, Prince George, Clearwater, Golden, Prince Rupert, Kitimat, Terrace, Smithers, Fort St. James, Houston, Fort St. John, Fort Nelson, Mackenzie, Abbotsford, Maple Ridge, Mission, Lillooet, Hope and, of course, Merritt.

Pioneers in Merritt included my father, Bhagat Singh Lali, and his brothers Ujjagar and Sohan Singh, as well as Tara Ghog, who's an industrialist that everybody knows. My father arrived in Merritt in 1959. My father and his brothers actually lived in an old shack by the Nicola River. There was no electricity and no running water. They actually had to go down to the river to break ice and make sure that it melted so that they had water.

In conclusion, I also want to point out that the New Democratic Party and the Sikhs in Canada have had a very close relationship over the years. The CCF and the NDP were fundamental in fighting for the rights of immigrants as well as trying to get the franchise for Indo-Canadians in this country.

I want to again thank the hon. member across the way for her thoughtful comments. I want to say, as she had indicated earlier, that I also am proud of my Sikh heritage as well as my Canadian heritage, and I'm proud to live in the greatest country in the world.

PURSUING PROSPERITY IN
THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST

Most visitors to British Columbia are impressed with our province. I dare say that many of them think that we were blessed in our province, blessed to live in such a beautiful part of the world with a generally mild climate and certainly a pleasant population, and blessed to live in a province that, at least until recently, has been the economic envy of virtually everyone. From the snow-capped mountains along the eastern and western extremes of B.C. to the roaring rivers and majestic forests, B.C. combines physical beauty with industry and economic know-how.

We are not completely alone in possessing these particular physical and economic features. We share some of these characteristics with a number of neighbouring U.S. states and -- perhaps this is a bit of a stretch -- with the province of Alberta. While we usually think of these neighbours as competitors, there is a great deal to be gained through cooperation. More than 20 percent of B.C.'s exports are shipped to the states of Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana and Alaska, plus the province of Alberta. Considering this degree of integration, it's surprising that it wasn't until 1991 that the five states and two provincial governments established a forum to address economic issues on an ongoing basis. This forum was named the Pacific NorthWest Economic Region, or PNWER for short.

PNWER brings together legislative, bureaucratic and private sector representatives with the goal of removing impediments to trade and promoting joint opportunities. The unique structure of PNWER permits both a vertical and a horizontal flow of that most precious commodity in today's world -- information. There are nine working groups within PNWER: agriculture, environmental technology, exports, forest products, government procurement, recycling, telecommunications, tourism and transportation. The various working groups meet from time to time as the need arises, and twice per year the general membership meets as a group. Our province has hosted the biannual conferences twice, once in 1991 at Whistler and again in 1995 in Kelowna.

I must confess that when I first learned about PNWER in my capacity as the B.C. Liberal trade critic, I was skeptical as to whether the spirit of cooperation could survive the natural inclination towards competition. However, through my involvement in PNWER as one of B.C.'s legislative representatives, I have become convinced that real opportunities do exist for individual businesses to gain a competitive edge globally by cooperating with other entrepreneurs within PNWER. For example, this cooperation allows businesses to develop and market technical expertise around the world, particularly in the area of environmental restoration.

At the legislative level, the presence of elected representatives at the biannual meetings helps to build contacts and understanding, which is necessary before constructive policy changes can be made to improve efficiencies within this region. We all know that there are many government-created obstacles to trade, many of which result from needless red tape and archaic regulation. I fully support efforts to streamline bureaucracy wherever it is possible and practical to do so.

Just what exactly is at stake, you might ask? The total population within the PNWER region -- that is, the five states and the two provinces -- is almost 18 million, with a combined gross domestic product exceeding $350 billion annually. To put that in perspective, if the member states and provinces of PNWER were their own separate country, PNWER would rank as the tenth-largest economy in the world.

That is not to suggest that PNWER represents a move towards nationhood or the creation of a new country of Cascadia. I certainly wouldn't support such a move. Rather, it underscores the potential for prosperity by harnessing the many divergent strengths and resources of this incredibly dynamic region. I am proud to be one of the B.C. Liberal legislative delegates, along with the member for Vancouver-Quilchena, to PNWER. Working together, I believe that we can advance the economic interests of our great province while fostering cooperation and goodwill with our sister province of Alberta and our nearby American cousins.

[10:30]

[ Page 5618 ]

astronomer, Copernicus, suggested that it was round, people laughed at him. It was only when we travelled that we realized that the whole assumption that was the basis for our model was mistaken. And now, of course, when we see the Earth from space, we think: "How foolish could we have been to have thought the Earth was flat?"

I think it's time that PNWER -- and all of us, quite frankly -- abandoned what one might call the flat-earth economics that says there is absolutely no limit to the amount of resources that we can extract from the planet and the amount of waste that we can send back. We don't want to accept the compelling evidence, because that means that we would have to change our lifestyle, change our habits. We don't want to do that, because we have all been brainwashed into thinking -- as, quite frankly, PNWER thinks -- that we need all these things for our high standard of living, that we need all these consumer items in order to employ our population.

We only have to look at the forest industry in British Columbia over the past couple of decades, where we have radically increased the harvest of our forests and radically decreased the amount of employment for our people. That is exactly why our government has embarked upon the jobs and timber accord -- to reverse that trend. That is happening, I think, in every industry. What we really need to do is encourage PNWER to use our incredible resources in this region, the incredible growth that we will continue to experience, our expertise, our knowledge and our market clout to actually refashion our economy into a much more sustainable one that is based on round-earth economics, not flat-earth economics.

I want to just leave with the member a little-known quote from Albert Einstein that I think is applicable here: "The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them." I would stress again that PNWER would be providing a much greater service to producing continued prosperity in our region if they in fact listened to some of the voices of ecological economists who say that our challenge in the Pacific Northwest is to consume less, not more, to use fewer resources, not more resources. I think that we have an economic imperative to do that, but also quite frankly, a moral imperative to do that.

B. Penner: I appreciate the comments of the member opposite. Certainly our duty to be stewards of the Earth is included in the Bible. It's one of the admonitions that we were given by our Creator: to be good stewards of the resources that we are given. One of the working groups that is included in PNWER deals with environmental issues as a highlight of their focus, and certainly I share the member's concerns about unlimited or uncontrolled growth.

However, I think it's important to know that people throughout British Columbia and the United States, I'm sure, depend on a health care system to look after them when they're sick. That takes financial resources, and that depends on a strong economy so that we can fund those important public services that all of us need to look after ourselves and our families. I also think that PNWER serves an additional purpose that perhaps isn't part of its stated mandate. It's hard to put a figure or a quantum on this, but there is a certain benefit to bringing together in one room people from different parts of the world, or different states and provinces, to discuss issues.

So often we focus on ourselves, and we think that we are the only ones to have certain problems, whether it's with transportation, health care or the environment, and we don't realize the good work that is being done in these other jurisdictions. If we don't know about that other good work that's being done, we end up reinventing the wheel -- wasting resources that we should be preserving and channelling into important areas such as health care and education.

Unfortunately, the history of British Columbia's participation in PNWER has not been particularly stellar over the years. While other member governments routinely send their maximum allotment of legislators, with a backup of support staff, B.C. has been the weak link in the group.

There have been a number of conferences where B.C. has not been represented at all at the government level or where that representation was very thin at best. In contrast, the province of Alberta takes PNWER very seriously, and it is using the trading opportunities to its own advantage. The most recent biannual conference was held in Seattle about one month ago, and no one from the B.C. government was present. This conference was sponsored in part by Boeing, the aircraft company, and the computer giant Microsoft.

Two days before the B.C. delegation was to attend the meeting, the Premier of our province cancelled our participation, no doubt offending the very same private sector sponsors we would like to have invest and create jobs right here in our province. The Premier used the cancellation of B.C.'s representation to gain media attention in connection with the Pacific salmon dispute. However, only the media on our side of the border was interested in this cancellation, amounting to preaching to the converted. The numerous Senators from the U.S., members of PNWER, were left to ponder our absence and our apparent lack of interest in pursuing economic benefits for our own citizens. As my Liberal colleague from Vancouver-Quilchena and I pointed out to the Premier in a letter: "Without a presence at the meeting, the American delegates could only guess as to why we were not there."

The Speaker: I ask the member to wrap up, please.

B. Penner: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I know you're enjoying this.

The official opposition is on record as supporting strong action. . . .

The Speaker: Member, I said please wrap up. I want a concluding statement. I've given you considerable time.

B. Penner: The official opposition is on record as supporting strong action to pressure the Americans to sign the Pacific Salmon Treaty. I hope that it's not too late to establish good relations with U.S. representatives on the importance of concluding a new salmon treaty.

UNIVERSALITY VERSUS REMUNERATION

In most people's minds, medicare is what has kept Canada together for the last 30 or 40 years, and most likely it will 

[ Page 5619 ]

be the link that will keep Canada together in the future. Today Canadians and British Columbians are proud to have a system based on the five principles of universality, comprehensiveness, accessibility, portability and public administration. The National Forum on Health discovered that Canadians are not willing to compromise on any of these five principles, yet they are prepared to pay more to ensure that the principles continue to form the basis of our health care system. The forum also found that even in the midst of confusing economic messages and drastic federal cuts in transfer payments to the province for health, Canadians see our health care system as relatively efficient and sound, even if it's not perfect. They are not prepared to have their right to access to a universal medicare system tinkered with in any significant way.

My desire to talk about our health care system was prompted by the call for a parallel private system by the past and current presidents of the B.C. Medical Association, Dr. Smith and Dr. Avery. By their fear-mongering assertions that the health care system in B.C. is deteriorating and that waiting lists for certain types of surgery are too long, Drs. Avery and Smith would have us believe that if we just subsidize wealthy people to jump the queue in a private system, by magic, all will be well in Lotusland and the waiting lists will disappear. Nothing could be farther from the truth. This grandstanding by Drs. Avery and Smith is unacceptable. Having billed their way to a $47 million overrun, doctors are attempting to use the threat of a private system as a bargaining tool to wriggle their way out of the fee agreement they signed with the provincial government. Indeed, Dr. Smith said in the Medical Post, a journal of the Canadian medical profession: ". . .to address our priorities, we have to get the profession angry, to take some action to increase our negotiating leverage." Dr. Avery even wants doctors to lobby their patients to opt for a private system similar to the two-tier American system.

I question the ethical standards of these two doctors and the B.C. Medical Association, and I find it immoral that they would take advantage of people at a most vulnerable time in their lives, when they're sick. It is inconceivable that medical practitioners would risk jeopardizing the best public health care system in the world for no logical reason other than to increase their personal remuneration.

Perhaps Dr. Martin Roberts, recently on a visit to Canada from one of the health commissions in England, explained it best when he said, about private health care: "It has nothing to do with health care and everything to do with profit margins." For this reason, I reject the BCMA's position, the government rejects it, British Columbians rejected it on May 28, 1996, and I'm pleased to see that even the official opposition has done an about-face and is also rejecting it now.

Today I want to give a brief comparison of the Canadian public health care system and the for-profit, two-tier American system, as the public does not always have all the facts. It's no secret that profits make the American system much more expensive and less affordable than ours. While Canada spends under 10 percent of GDP on health care for a very good system, the Americans spend about 14 percent without any tangible evidence to show for it. While we spend less, every Canadian, regardless of social status or size of wallet, has access to equal health care. By contrast, in the U.S. more than 40 million people are without health care, and 50 million to 60 million have inadequate coverage.

In B.C. a family of four pays a premium of only $72 per month for full coverage of doctors and hospital services. In the U.S. the average premium is $300 to $600 per month, with normally a substantial yearly deduction for services. On top of the high premiums, most American insurance companies do not provide coverage for pre-existing medical conditions such as diabetes and arthritis -- and AIDS, recently -- thus leaving patients to their own resources -- and we know what happens when patients have to pay medical bills. In B.C., as in the rest of Canada, we can walk into any doctor's office or into any hospital and get the service we need by simply showing our medicard. It's a different story in the U.S. There the first question asked is whether you can pay, and if you are poor or underinsured, you are inevitably at the end of the line or steered toward the door.

It's rather ironic that while some Canadians want to adopt the American system, the Americans look to us with envy as a model of health care that they would like to see in their own country. To give you some examples, Senator Edward Kennedy, who has long been a proponent of the Canadian health care system for the U.S., said that Canada's system is "the envy of every U.S. citizen." Hillary Clinton, on her visit to Canada in February of '95 and speaking about the universality of our system, says that it saves money and "it's not just a smart thing to do, it's economically the smart policy to take."

British doctors, who are seeing a two-tier system developing in their country, warn: "Canada would be utterly insane to develop a private sector." That's because we would end up with an American system, where there's no incentive to keep up the public system and where the private sector would cream off the lucrative components of health care and leave the chronic and more costly services to the public system, thus creating "a downward spiral of quality."

[10:45]

The Speaker: Member. . . .

P. Calendino: I'm just about finished.

The Speaker: Please do.

P. Calendino: . . .that if we believe that private enterprise and medical care will improve the system. . . . He wants to caution physicians not to "sacrifice the principle of Canadian medicare for the false illusion of the benefits of privatization."

M. de Jong: Let me tell you about a constituent of mine and of the member opposite. Judy Todd is a private practitioner, a physiotherapist. She and a patient came to see me a number of months ago. Her story ultimately ended up in a publication by the Physiotherapy Association of Canada.

The particular individual is a 30-year-old woman who suffers from cerebral palsy. She needs regular leg muscle stretches, which is the medical term; she needs that on an out-patient basis. Just to give you some idea about this woman, she has cerebral palsy, but she was able to raise two daughters. At the time she came to see me, she had a third child on the way. She came into Ms. Todd's office clinic once a month for about 45 minutes.

She did that because, although she required additional therapy, that's all that the government permitted her to 

[ Page 5620 ]

receive. She should be treated, according to her physiotherapist, once a week. But that would cost an additional $25 per treatment; she couldn't afford it. Her husband, I should say, works. They're not well off, and as a result, she goes without the treatment that she would require.

The physiotherapist services that are available to her have been cut back dramatically. From six full-time out-patient physiotherapists in 1991, there is now in the two hospitals in the area where she lives, Abbotsford and Mission, one half-time physiotherapist available between those two hospitals. In short, she doesn't get the treatment that she requires. At a time when she was pregnant and requiring additional therapy because of her condition, it wasn't available to her because of the cost.

I could offer examples of families who have come to see me and who are not in a position to receive regular dental care in this country. It has always been a mystery to me why we differentiate, when we talk about health care, between the health of one's gums and the health of one's feet. The whole range of people, of families -- a huge group in this country who don't receive dental care, and their children don't receive dental care. . . . Why? Because they're not employed by someone or by a company that provides a plan. They're not a government worker. They don't have a plan, so they don't get the service.

What I'm saying is that although I share the member's abhorrence of the American-style system, I am not nearly as content as he appears to be with the system we have in place. We have a lot of work to do, because it's very easy to make an argument that two-tier health care already exists in this country -- not, thankfully, to the extent that it exists south of the border. But it exists. So let us not pound our chests with a sense of pride that ignores the fact that we have citizens whose health care isn't being attended to.

The member says that in the U.S. they look with envy north of the border. I was there two or three weeks ago, and I'll tell you who looks with envy north of the border: the working poor, people on fixed incomes -- they do. If you're rich in the U.S., you don't. I think that's what the member reacts against, as I do.

He is correct when he says we risk sliding down the slippery slope. But let us not blind ourselves to the fact that we have citizens who are not being tended to properly, families who are not being tended to. Let us not hide behind false pride in a system that is good but that needs to be better.

Interjection.

M. de Jong: Hon. Speaker, you try to engage in these debates. . . . Some members, I think, would prefer to sit and hide behind rhetoric and pious pronouncements. But the fact of the matter is that we have a lot of work to do. I'm pleased that the member is interested. I'm pleased that he's speaking on the subject, and I'm happy to have contributed my piece today.

P. Calendino: It is really surprising that the member from the Liberal opposition wants to criticize the government for what it has done for medicare -- and he brings up individual examples. I think we can admit that in large systems like that, there is always some individual that doesn't receive the care they want.

But we have to look at the facts. The federal government cut $1.2 billion from health, education and social services in this province, and this government did not cut back like every other province has done. We have increased health care every single year; and even this year we have put $100 million into operating funds plus $300 million into capital expenses. For waiting lists, we have targeted $6.5 million simply to reduce heart surgery, hip replacements and other things; plus, we have taken action to reduce costs by introducing PharmaNet and the reference-priced drug policy, which should save millions of dollars that can be put back into services.

The member opposite wants to criticize this government. We are spending a third of the provincial budget on health care; we are spending over $7 billion. I wonder whether the member opposite will stand up and say he's going to provide those services to the people that he mentioned with $6 billion -- in other words, with $1.2 billion less, which the Liberals would have had.

I think we have an excellent system. I don't think I'm hiding behind false pride. I think I'm proud of the system. Every British Columbian is proud of the system, and they do not want it altered one bit.

I can give an example of another two-tier health system from my own country, where the private system, in the last 20 years, has managed to claw out just about every resource that the government gives them there, and the public system has deteriorated to the point that people are afraid of going into the hospital because they don't have adequate nursing, they don't have adequate doctors, and they even have to bring their own linen and their own food into the hospital. I hope that that will never happen here.

Perhaps I will conclude by giving you one more example of a doctor that practises on both sides of the border. He wrote a letter in the Canadian Medical Association Journal last March, and he called the letter, appropriately, "The Other Side of the Great Divide." And I hope that I will never have to go and live there. He practises in Florida, and he says that in Florida, medical care is excellent -- if you can afford it. He goes on to say, since he has ample experience on both sides. . . . I think he can make a truthful comparison of the two systems. I'd like to quote a paragraph from the letter, which, I think, crystallizes the essence of the two systems. The doctor says:

"When I see patients in Canada, I know they will be seen by a specialist, regardless of their income. A mammogram can be ordered without cost. . . . In the U.S. . .I have treated patients whose delay in having [bypass] surgery was due to their inability to pay. Meanwhile they remained cardiac cripples. As a Canadian physician, I cherish the freedom to treat patients without concern for their ability to pay. As a provider and user, my plea is that the beleaguered Canadian health care system does not become Americanized into a two-tier system."

FINDING OUR WAY:
CHANGING OUR WAYS

To understand, perhaps we need to realize that Cherry was herself a child who was abused in her youth by her own 

[ Page 5621 ]

family in Alberta. Finally, at ten years of age, she and her sister walked for three days from their home town to Calgary to see if they could find some escape. She then became part of the social service system, and over the next number of years she was involved in 20 foster home placements until finally she ran away again and sought to find her own life for herself.

Like so many in her case, she ended up on the street. She struggled with drugs; she travelled to the United States; she overdosed; finally, she began to struggle and fight her way back. And as she fought her way back, one of the things that helped her was that someone gave her the opportunity to go to a youth-in-care conference in eastern Canada. She went to that conference and heard other young people like herself who had, as she said, lived in hell and were now finding their way back into normal living.

She came back and had the opportunity to work with youth in care. Someone who believed in her and trusted her gave her an office and a computer and she helped set up the youth-in-care program in Alberta. She has done some of the same work here in British Columbia. Along the way she met Sen. Landon Pearson, who was impressed by her presentation, her story and her conviction to work with and help youths like herself. She's now working with Sen. Landon Pearson in setting up an international conference which will be held in Victoria next year with people who have been exploited in their youth.

She's a remarkable person, and it's a remarkable story. But one of the things that touched me particularly was her talking about marginalized youth in our society -- how they got to that state and how they may themselves discover a way out of that marginalization. One of the comments in her report, I think, is very telling: "Youth see marginalization very differently from most people. For most of us it begins the day we were born."

As I try to understand what Cherry is saying -- and it's difficult if you have not lived in her experience -- she's saying that from the day she was born, she was marginalized. She was disconnected from a loving family. Though she lived within one, there was not love and care; there was abuse and discare. All of her life, as she went through childhood and youth, she was more and more marginalized. She was marginalized even by our services, which were trying to help her.

[11:00]

She says -- and she draws it clearly in circle diagrams -- that the marginalization concept that she has in mind is to recognize that there are three key factors in the life of a child and of a youth: to be part of a loving family, where you're cared for and loved and appreciated for yourself; to be part of a culture which you can be proud of, which can be part of you -- and you can be part of it -- and that you can have some independence within; and to be part of a community, where you can act with people round about you, and they treat you with respect and caring. But when you are driven from the family, for there is no love; when you are driven from the community because they do not know how to cope with you; when you are driven from the culture, so you do not have that inherent validity to take with you into life, there is a problem.

Hon. Speaker, she says the normal response of our community is to put people further out. It's bringing them together inward, rather than pushing out, that is important and is a major lesson that she has to teach us.

E. Gillespie: As I've said before and I'd like to say again, I would really like to express my appreciation to the hon. member for Vancouver-Langara for consistently raising concerns about children and youth in this House. This is a very appropriate and important place to raise those concerns, and I'm happy to have the opportunity to respond. I'm going to talk a little bit about the Ministry for Children and Families, but as the hon. member has clearly said, this is much more than a ministry or a government concern; this is something that we all share in our society.

The Ministry for Children and Families was established in September of 1996. It has a very clear mission statement, which I'm happy to go back to, because it makes very clear the responsibility that all of us have. "A Ministry for Children and Families must ensure a child-centred, integrated approach that promotes and protects the healthy development of children and youth, while recognizing their lifelong attachment to family and to community. Communities and clients must be an integral part of the work of the ministry. Quality assurance, accountability and openness are fundamental to its success."

The reason I read this mission statement is that it's very important to recognize the role of family and community in caring for our children. "This ministry has a very clear commitment to youth. In participation with youth and in cooperation with the Premier's Office, the ministry will develop a strategy for improving services to better meet the needs of B.C. youth. The strategy will include new supports for teenagers unable to live with their families, ensuring they have the opportunities they need to reach their full potential."

The member has told the story of Cherry Kingsley. Cherry is one of many children in our society who has faced this kind of life. One thing that I have noticed from her story is that when she talks about her life as a prostitute, she says mainstream society is the consumer. Nice men, businessmen, fathers -- they are the consumers. That's something that we as a society have to take responsibility for.

I was thinking of a couple of local examples from my constituency that have come to my attention. I had a conversation with a junior high school teacher. Anybody who has ever been in a junior high school knows what a challenging environment that can be. This teacher said to me that he quite often experiences students who, by their attitude and behaviour, are doing everything possible to push away the systems around them -- push away the school, push away the teacher, push away the kind of social supports that are there for them. He said that is the time that he has come to learn is the time to draw that child in, draw that student in even closer and ensure that they at least have those minimal supports -- of school, of counsellor, whatever. That may be the only support that is available to that child. That can be a very difficult and challenging thing to do in a school environment, where behaviour affects all sorts of other things around the school. The behaviour affects everyone.

I also had an experience at a dinner gathering, where an individual told me that because he has high school-aged children, he quite often ends up having a number of children in his home. His home is known as a welcoming kind of place, where children who feel they can no longer live with their 

[ Page 5622 ]

own families can find a refuge. But the struggle that that puts him in with that child's own family and with the social services that we have in place can sometimes be too difficult to overcome.

In every review of child death, Cynthia Morton has reminded us all of the importance of the community and the role of the community in caring for our children. In this House, we've heard our Minister for Children and Families speak of how children long for the connectedness of families -- that the family is more likely to give up on the child long before the child is ready to give up on the family.

We need solid social supports for families, starting at birth, with programs like the Healthy Beginnings-Healthy Lives initiative. We need the inclusion of young people in plans for their care. And finally, we need a community which accepts and embraces our children and provides the support needed to nurture healthy adults. What we model, we inherit.

V. Anderson: I thank the hon. member for her continuing interest and support in the area of youth and children. When Cherry was doing her report, she had a group of young people that had representation from three areas: youth in care, aboriginal youth and street youth. She was dealing with the marginalization by our systems of street youth, aboriginal youth and youth in care. All of these youths had become -- not by their own actions -- disconnected from their families, their culture and their community, and in their disconnection was their problem. Out of the disconnection came, as Cherry expressed it, a great feeling of loneliness and isolation. The concern that they have and the concern that those who work with them have is how that isolation, loneliness and disconnection is overcome.

There are two little words that make a great deal of difference. Over the years a lot of people have been working for youth and for children, and even with all good intentions, we have continued their disconnection, their loneliness and their isolation. In fact, we have increased it rather than decreased it, and that's part of the story they would like us to hear. Instead of working for them, it's important that we who are no longer youths work with them. And let me read Cherry's own words:

"Marginalized youth understand their own experience and the experiences of those in similar situations. They know what it is like to be passive recipients of government services. They have endured neglect and abuse from their families and communities, and suffered estrangement from their cultures. They know better than anyone what it will take to give them power and make them involved."

We who would work with them and not for them must listen. We must support them, encourage them, assist them and help them. But we must allow them to lead us in their new lives, which they themselves are anxious and willing and able to find.

The Speaker: I want to thank all members for their statements and responses this morning. I draw attention, however, to a problem we seem to be having with private member's statements.

Let me do this for the record, first of all, by acknowledging Vancouver-Langara and Comox Valley for both abiding judiciously by the guidelines. Sadly, however, there's a tendency for other members to push the limits.

I would remind everybody of what standing order 25A says. It says that the opening speech is seven minutes, the response is five minutes and the conclusion is three minutes. I think the record would show, over the last month or so, that we are pushing those limits onward and upward. I have said consistently that I have no wish to interrupt any member in the midst of his or her statement. However, if we keep pushing, I will have to fight back. So I give members a gentle notice of that point.

Thank you again, members, for all your statements.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I call, for Committee A, the estimates of the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, and for this House, I call committee stage on Bill 22.

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 1997

On section 1.

G. Plant: We are today commencing debate in the committee stage of the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 1997, and it's a bit of a basket of amendments on a variety of subjects. I think some are likely to take more of our time than others, but the problem with miscellaneous statutes amendment acts is that in second reading debate, it's probably as difficult for the government as for the opposition to ascertain the unifying principle of the bill, so there really isn't much debate around those things. In fact, I think in this particular case the Attorney General may have actually said very, very little about some of the important issues discussed in this bill.

I'm going to invite the Attorney General, if he would do so, to set out what he considers to be the policy objectives that relate to the amendments to the court order enforcement sections. By my count, that's the first ten sections of the bill -- just to put this part of the debate into context.

[11:15]

Lastly by way of opening comment, I note that the minister is assisted here this morning by staff from his ministry. I want to record my appreciation at the outset to those staff people, who have already provided me with some considerable assistance in terms of understanding these amendments in a very helpful briefing I received a week or so ago.

With that, we are about to embark upon a discussion of some amendments to the Court Order Enforcement Act which are going to change the levels of exemptions that exist in the law and change some of the rules around what is and is not exempt from seizure when a debtor is being pursued by his or her creditors. I wonder if the Attorney General could spend a minute or two outlining what he sees as the policy objectives of these provisions.

[ Page 5623 ]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The hon. member has in fact just indicated what the essence of these amendments is: to review the issue of exemptions under the Court Order Enforcement Act that were last visited in 1974. The amount, in fact, is rather low and hasn't been reconsidered for some time. The essence of what we're trying to do is to have enabling amendments with some substance, but to make sure that at the end of the day, one wouldn't have to come to the Legislature to establish those limits for exemptions. They could vary from time to time through regulations.

I can tell the hon. member that those regulations are currently being discussed and drafted. My ministry has met with all of the stakeholders that might be interested in those regulations: the Canadian Bankers Association, the Credit Grantors Association of Vancouver, the B.C. Central Credit Union, the B.C. Insolvency Association and the Canadian Bar Association. Those discussions are taking place. I can tell the hon. member now, rather than as we go through the amendments, that we would be looking at other jurisdictions and at comparative limits established in other jurisdictions.

One addition to those exemptions that we're making as a result of these amendments is about your equity in your principal residence, above and beyond the secured creditors'. That is something new; that doesn't exist currently. We would be looking at what the amounts are in other jurisdictions to establish an appropriate amount in British Columbia.

I would also hope that we would be able to make that amount regionally sensitive in British Columbia, so that if you have equity that is exempt from seizure, the amounts might be different in Vancouver as opposed to in Port Alberni, obviously, or some other town where the prices aren't as high to get going with your life. That's in essence what we're trying to do.

G. Plant: I guess it follows from the Attorney General's comments that his view, the view of the government, is that the limits currently in the statute are too low. I understand that the amendments have remained there since 1974. I think all of the stakeholders with whom I have consulted agree that the limits are too low.

I suppose one way to deal with this, if one were truly approaching this issue of limits in a housekeeping way, would have been to simply repeal the existing limits, the numbers in the statute, and replace them with higher numbers. I'm curious to know why that approach was not taken by the government here.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Firstly, I understand that other jurisdictions across the country have separate categories under which certain exemptions are allowed, such as clothing, household furnishings, motor vehicles and the like. We didn't have individual exemptions in British Columbia on that basis, so we're joining other jurisdictions across the country in that regard.

I think the second important issue in this regard is that from the information that I have received, I know that these amendments have been in the works for the last two or three years and haven't made the legislative agenda because of the agenda being crowded. These limits were never reviewed since 1974. I think it's important that those limits are reviewed on a more regular basis and that they are reviewed in consultation with the stakeholders, as we're doing now in terms of establishing them in the first place. One might argue that they should always come here, but I believe that it's more appropriate, given the regularity with which they might need to be changed as the cost of living goes up -- or down, if it ever does -- that we make those changes.

I know that the hon. member might say that there is less scrutiny available. I agree, but it's important to strike a balance so that we can do this more easily than having to come to the Legislature all the time on those limits while the principles are already established in the legislation. I think it's important that there be consultation. I'm certain that any minister who wants to change this in the face of any concerns of the Canadian Bankers Association, the Credit Grantors Association, the Canadian Bar Association. . . . I'm certain those powerful bodies would not allow a minister to regulate or change the limits without any consultation; I'm sure there would be noises if that were done. So that's the guarantee that one has that these limits would always be established in consultation with those that might be affected by them.

G. Plant: The minister has anticipated part of my concern. It is a concern about accountability. I fully understand the need to maintain a degree of flexibility when you have a series of numbers that have to be responsive to changing economic circumstances. This is probably not an occasion where there's a hill I want to die on in terms of that issue of accountability.

I was thinking about this this morning. We debated yesterday, I guess at second reading, a bill which, when enacted and when regulations are enacted and proclaimed, will create a new code of guidelines for high-speed car chases. We had second reading debate on that bill, which is a debate on its principle, in circumstances where no one could find the principle of the bill anywhere in the language of the bill. So in the context of how our political process works, I think that the principle of the bill becomes, in effect, the statements of principle which the Attorney General makes as the minister responsible, and in the case of Bill 34, the statements that the Attorney General did make about what he seeks to achieve and hopes to achieve when the regulations come into effect. So part of the challenge, I think, is to ensure again that there are statements of principle -- at least, political statements here in this House -- about what the government seeks to achieve.

I want to push my way down that path a little bit further. The Attorney General referred in his last answer to the principles embedded in the text or in the language of the statute. I think that we can find some principles; that is, it's clearly now the policy of the government to expand the categories of property that will be subject to some exemptions to include principal residences and, I think, to include, at least with greater specificity, tools of the trade and other forms of personal property. Yes, I would accept that that's some expression of a public policy principle.

It only takes us partway down the road, however. As I've said before, privately and publicly -- and the Attorney General has heard me say it -- the really important question here is: what will the limits ultimately be? Obviously, if the limits are set too low, the public policy purposes that may exist in the mind of the government in relation to protecting the personal property of debtors will probably not be achieved. If the limits are set too high, I think that what will happen is that there will be a general cooling of the climate in British Columbia for the availability of credit.

I know that neither the Attorney General nor I can predict the outcome for what is a cabinet decision. But I think it's important that before we as a House give cabinet permission to make that decision, we hear a little more from the Attorney 

[ Page 5624 ]

General about where and how he thinks the balance needs to be drawn. I would, of course, be delighted to hear something about a range of numbers, recognizing that the Attorney General can't predict where on that range we'll end up. I would really like to hear a bit more in the way of specifics about what the Attorney General thinks the limits ought to be.

Let me add some flesh to that in the context of the piece of paper which I'm sure the Attorney General is looking at and that I'm looking at. We find that in Alberta, which recently revisited this whole question and enacted a new piece of legislation, there is an exemption in respect of the equity in personal homes of $40,000, which is quite different from other provinces, where there are no exemptions for equity in principal residences at all. Interestingly enough, in Quebec -- and the chart that I'm looking at is not correct -- there isn't a $10,000 exemption in respect of the equity in principal residences; there is something slightly different. The details are probably not that important, but in Quebec, as I understand it, there is an exemption for the principal residence of the debtor where the amount of the claim is less than $10,000 -- which is a little bit different, perhaps, from tying an exemption to equity.

So there are a range of approaches and a balance that needs to be struck here. I'm hoping that the Attorney General will accept the invitation to go a little bit further down the road in terms of giving the debtor and creditor communities in British Columbia some guideline or some idea of where he thinks the balance should be struck.

[11:30]

I think that if I get into the numbers game, I might prejudice a very thoughtful and independent consideration that should be had in consultation with those stakeholders. Obviously I can begin to enumerate certain numbers for certain categories. I don't believe that's appropriate. But I can assure the hon. member that our numbers would not be as high as Alberta's, because they are very high compared to other provinces.

G. Plant: While I appreciate the difficulty which the question raises for the Attorney General, perhaps I could ask a couple of other questions that don't necessarily involve numbers.

I am sure that those who grant credit and those who wish to obtain it would be comforted knowing that the Attorney General does not by this process intend to imperil or change in a fundamental way the granting or receiving of credit in British Columbia -- that is, the process is not intended to result in numbers that will send any kind of chill or freeze into the business community in British Columbia. Is that a safe assumption?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: That is a safe assumption. I think it's important that people who are trying to make a go of a sometimes difficult life, under difficult circumstances, are able to access credit. It's for the benefit of the consumers that we be careful in drafting these numbers.

However, getting specific on one issue, I'm just noticing that the limit with respect to a vehicle is $5,000 in Alberta. If I might say, in British Columbia that particular limit could be $5,000. I can say that the limit with respect to a home or a homestead is $40,000 in Alberta; that's very high. In British Columbia it would be significantly less than that. If that gives some general comfort to those who might be listening or watching, I would stop there.

[E. Walsh in the chair.]

G. Plant: Perhaps, from the other perspective, I take it that it would be a safe assumption -- a principle, as it were -- that the intention of the government going into this process is in fact to raise the limits somewhat in order to protect a slightly wider zone of property from seizure than is currently available -- to adjust the existing numbers upwards to allow for an increase in the cost of living over the 20 or 25 years since the bill was last looked at. Is that a fair assumption?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.

G. Plant: I want to pursue one other issue. I think I know now the answer to the question, but I also do want to get the answer from the Attorney General. I know that within the legal community there has been an ongoing concern about other parts of the Court Order Enforcement Act and whether they work appropriately.

For example, there are lots of issues around garnisheeing, the procedure for garnishment -- whether it works properly or doesn't. I can give the Attorney General a few examples of issues. There are concerns about the definition of the debts that are available for garnishment purposes. As I recall the information I was given, currently GAIN payments -- social assistance payments -- technically can be garnisheed. I may be wrong on that. But if I am right, that would seem to be an issue that needs to be looked at.

On the other hand, as I understand it, MSP payments by the Medical Services Plan to doctors are apparently exempt from garnishment. That may also be wrong. If I'm wrong, it's just because I'm a bad note-taker when I talk to people who give me information. But it would seem to me that this is another aspect of the orderly enforcement of debts that needs to be looked at.

We have had the problem -- and I have had this experience as a practising lawyer -- that garnishment orders tend to be limited in time. Sometimes it would make a whole lot more sense if we could enact a procedure that allowed for continuing garnishment orders, so the garnishment order would take effect on a continuing basis; it would not have to be renewed and all of that.

Those are other aspects of the process and procedure for the enforcement of debts that are part of the Court Order Enforcement Act and related legislation. It's unfortunate that what is happening here is a bit of a piecemeal review. What would be better is if we had a wider review, a broader review, and a commitment from the Attorney General that that review will be undertaken and that there will in fact be a holistic look, if I can put it that way, at the whole issue of court order enforcement.

I wonder if the Attorney General has any response to those comments and can give me any assurances about that.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Some work with respect to that review has already been done. Some more work is being done, and 

[ Page 5625 ]

hopefully within the next few months, and possibly at the next sitting of the Legislature -- if I can complete that work -- we may bring forward further amendments to deal with issues such as the ones raised by the hon. member.

With respect to the specific issues around GAIN payments, I understand that courts have decided, as a matter of public policy, that GAIN payments ought to be exempt. Similarly with MSP, I believe, courts have declined to issue garnishment orders. There is a distinction between MSP payments to doctors and GAIN payments to needy individuals, and we're looking at that issue, as well.

G. Plant: I'm glad the Attorney General saw the distinction there. In the one case, we have a category of government payments that -- at least from a superficial perspective -- should not be immune from the garnishment process, but another category of payments that very much ought to be.

I want, then, to pursue one other issue -- sort of a general issue, I suppose -- about the approach which is being taken in these amendments. I referred to this issue in a letter that I wrote to the Attorney General a few weeks ago, back on June 17, and that is the issue of global exemptions versus individual exemptions.

I don't, even now, want to claim that I have become an expert in how these amendments will work their way out into the real world of creditor-debtor rights in law and enforcement. It does seem to me that it would be a good reason to look at creating a situation where the aggregate of particular limits does not reach too high a level. If we're going to increase the limits -- in some cases the limits will be raised from $2,000 to perhaps $5,000 or more -- we may have a situation where particular debtors who happen to have accumulated more property than other debtors will perhaps have a slightly higher or even significantly higher overall zone of protection from creditors than others.

If I'm conceptually right about that, it occurs to me that at some level one could see this as almost a regressive form of legislation in the classic sense; that is, it tends to afford less relief to the less well-off. That, it seems to me, would be an undesirable result. I know that these are quite technical issues, but I do want to raise that question with the Attorney General about whether he has given thought to imposing some kind of collective global limit on the exemptions that would be available to debtors. And if not, why not?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I believe that we are looking at categories, and obviously the total of those categories would be the total amount. If I understand the hon. member's question correctly, he is arguing whether this categorization and availability of exemptions based on that categorization does not assist those individuals who have been able to accumulate property and goods over time, as opposed to others. I believe that the total limit would be the sum of those categories. I have looked at the Alberta situation, and that indicates about $70,000 total exemptions, if you're able to fall within each category and get the full exemption. That may be very high. Obviously I don't believe we could do that in British Columbia at this time; our total would be something less than that. But I think that if you categorize and provide the necessities for one to carry on with one's life, that's more appropriate than to allow someone a global amount, whether or not it's needed per se.

G. Plant: I thank the Attorney General for at least thinking about that issue. I think that is part of the overall issue of fairness, and if the total number is too high, I think there will be questions.

I received a bit of correspondence from a former colleague in the legal profession, and I'll just read this thought as a kind of closing piece on the general questions I've been asking:

"The intent of the amendments seems to be to ensure that the creditors of an individual will not be able to take all of that individual's assets unless those creditors directly financed the acquisition of such assets. On the one hand, that seems to be a commendable aim of social policy. On the other hand, it also removes from the individual the ability to use the assets in question to obtain credit, because those assets would not be available to creditors."

I have a specific question about section 1. This is a question I have also raised before, and it is the definition of value. This is a new definition for section 70. I guess it's necessary, because the term "value" is used later in the amendments, so we now need to have this term defined. The question -- and this is an issue I raised in my letter -- is: what does the author of the act mean by the words "net amount"? In some cases the phrase "net amount" would mean amount net of payments to all other secured creditors; in other cases, it might just mean the amount net of the costs of realization -- the expenses of seizure and sale. I'm sure that if there is any uncertainty the judges will be the ones who will finally decide that issue, but does the Attorney General have a perspective on that?

[11:45]

G. Plant: It is what the goods are worth after deducting whatever costs would be ordinarily associated with the attempt to dispose of them? Is that correct?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I move the amendment to section 2 standing in my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 2, by deleting the proposed section 71(4).]

G. Plant: What is the purpose of the amendment -- if I can impose on the Attorney General?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: It is simply to preserve the rights of secured creditors under the Personal Property Security Act.

Amendment approved.

On section 2 as amended.

G. Plant: What this section, as amended, does, among other things, is it enumerates certain categories of goods and 

[ Page 5626 ]

chattels that, at the option of a debtor, would be exempt from seizure or sale. Included in the list is sub-subsection 71(1)(d): ". . .tools and other personal property of the debtor, not exceeding in value a prescribed amount, that are used by the debtor to earn income from the debtor's occupation." I'm not intending to revisit all of the debate that we had a few minutes ago about generalities around what the limits should be, but I wish to at least bring directly to the Attorney General's attention an issue that has been brought to my attention. Clearly in some cases there are people in business who use personal property to earn income in circumstances where the personal property is extraordinarily expensive -- like D-9s and D-8s that are worth hundreds of thousands of dollars. So I assume that when the Attorney General continues the consultation process, he is mindful of that fact, and that there's no intention here to create limits that would be extraordinarily high -- notwithstanding the fact that out there in the real world, there is some awfully expensive personal property.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I don't believe this section would be sufficient to protect, for instance, a dentist's equipment completely. So I'm mindful of those issues, and I think it would be a reasonably appropriate limit.

G. Plant: I want to ask some questions -- or a question or two, anyway -- around subsection 71(5). The operation of that subsection is, I guess, that the exemptions which are created here will not apply to corporate debtors. I guess the first question on which I need to impose on the Attorney General for help is whether that is new. Is that provision new? I believe it is, but could I get the Attorney General's assistance on that?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: This provision is new. Other provinces, other jurisdictions, have this provision. This is simply to clarify that these exemptions are not available -- and they haven't been actually available in the past -- to corporate debtors.

G. Plant: The question is: why haven't they been available in the past to corporate debtors? Is that as a result of judicial interpretation of the phrase "personal property" in the act?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: That's correct.

G. Plant: Then one could say, in effect, that this amendment codifies what has been the jurisprudence around these exemptions in British Columbia. Even if that is so, the question is: what is the public policy rationale that distinguishes corporate debtors from personal debtors in this context? Let me be specific about the context. I'm not as interested in talking about clothing and household furnishings -- the distinction there is obvious -- but I am again thinking about the personal property that the debtor uses to earn income.

For many people, the difference between incorporating and not incorporating, from a practical perspective, is sometimes not much more than signing a few documents. There are many, many incorporated small businesses in British Columbia that are really corporate vehicles for the personal business activities of an individual. I'm wondering if there is a policy rationale that the Attorney General has in mind -- expressly now by statute -- excluding the operation of these exemptions from corporate debtors.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: It's my understanding that almost all consumer legislation extends only to individuals and not to corporations. If we attempted to take into account the concern expressed legitimately by the hon. member, I think it would be very, very difficult to enforce. So I think that it's important that we make sure that these exemptions are available only to individuals with respect to personal property and residence, and not to corporate debtors.

I do believe the hon. member is correct. Sometimes you may have an auto mechanic, for instance, that may have incorporated and may have tools worth only $5,000. Those are difficulties, but I'm sure that in those kinds of situations there is sometimes very little distinction between who owns those tools -- it's difficult to discern.

G. Plant: It sounds like in a past life the Attorney General has perhaps given advice to debtors and creditors. More seriously, I'm glad that the Attorney General understands the point, and I think the example given is a good one. If in that example the tools were in fact the property of the corporate body through which the mechanic conducted his or her business, then -- assuming for the moment that they weren't otherwise subject to a security instrument, which probably already cuts out most of the situations -- I think there is occasionally the potential for hardship. In that context, the point that I think I have probably made in some other context is that it would be interesting to see whether or not this section operates as an incentive not to incorporate. But I suspect that the number of instances where hardship would happen are probably relatively few.

I think that is all I have on this subsection. I was going to ask the Attorney General to explain subsection 71(2), but I think that would be an act of torture that I wouldn't want to impose on him. I think I know what it means, and I'm sure most people who need to know what it means know what it means. So those are all the questions I have on section 2 of the bill.

Section 2 as amended approved.

On section 3.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I move the amendment to section 3 standing in my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 3,

(a) by renumbering the proposed section 71.1 as section 71.1(1) and by adding the following subsection:

(2) This section does not apply to

(a) a corporate debtor, or

(b) a debtor who is party to a proceeding in respect of a mortgage.,

(b) in the proposed section 71.2(1) by striking out "71.1" and substituting "71.1(1)",

(c) in the proposed section 71.2(2) by adding ", unless otherwise provided by law or by the agreement of all interested parties," after "officer must",

(d) by deleting the proposed section 71.2(2)(a) and substituting the following:

(a) pay firstly to a secured creditor the amount owed by the debtor to the secured creditor if the secured creditor

(i) has, at the time of seizure, a financing statement registered under the Personal Property Security Act, or

(ii) has a charge registered under the Land Title Act; , and

(e) in the proposed section 71.2 by adding the following subsection:

(5) The priority of the claim of any person referred to in subsection (2) is not prejudiced by a payment to anyone made in accordance with that subsection.]

[ Page 5627 ]

G. Plant: I'm speaking to the amendment, but there are a number of parts of the amendment. First of all, the context is important. We have here the extension of the zone of exemptions to include principal residences. On the language of the provision as it is in the bill, would it be an argument that a corporate debtor would be, in some circumstances, able to claim this exemption, and that that has been removed?

Secondly, there might have been an argument that the language of the amendment would have perhaps precluded realizations pursuant to a mortgage on the principal residence. Again, the intention of the amendment is to clarify that. Is that a fair summary?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.

G. Plant: I tried again this morning to work my way through the language of the exclusion in respect of "a debtor who is party to a proceeding in respect of a mortgage." I had a discussion with the minister's staff on this issue when we met. I was going to describe it as an interesting discussion, but that might have been presumptuous on my part.

The word "mortgage," for example, could, of course, apply to a chattel mortgage. We no longer have chattel mortgages in British Columbia in the traditional sense, because we have personal property security instruments. Of course, the world is a lovely, complicated place. There are lots of debtors in British Columbia who have probably given chattel mortgage security over personal property located in other jurisdictions. I'm sure it's not the intention here that a person in those circumstances would not be able to claim the exemption in respect of his or her principal residence here in British Columbia.

My concern really just. . . . I mean, I understand that the author of the amendment wanted to give effect to its purpose in the plainest possible language. I should be clear that the purpose as I stated it earlier is a purpose that I support. That is, I don't believe the government ought to be interfering with the rights of mortgagees for principal residences in this context. So I'm glad that the amendment is there.

[12:00]

The second example I'll give, which I'm still troubled by, is the situation where you may have a debtor who is a party to a proceeding in respect of mortgage over some property which is not his principal residence and then, in those circumstances, might lose the protection for his principal residence, which I don't think is the intention. I understand that one of the minister's staff members disagrees with my analysis, because he was kind enough to tell me that when we met. But I hope I could impose on the minister to try and explain it to me one more time.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The hon. member has expressed some concerns. It is my view -- and I have been advised -- that under the usual rules of interpretation this section would be read as a whole, and, of course, the mortgage would refer back to the principal residence. I don't believe that there is any way that a court would regard it otherwise. Having said so here, the intention is clear. Sometimes courts do pay some attention to what is said at the time the legislation is being debated in the House.

G. Plant: I'm grateful for the Attorney General's assistance on that. Obviously, the last thing that really needs to happen here is an argument between two lawyers. I am trying to make it not sound like an argument between two lawyers. I hope that the Attorney General is right. I'll tell you that I could see a way to improve the drafting, to make it clear beyond doubt -- that is, the intention. In fact, all that you would need to do is add some words after the word "mortgage." You'd just have to say "mortgage in respect of the principal residence." Because you have the option to add those words, there is always the opportunity for a lawyer, who is desperately trying to achieve some object, to persuade a judge that the absence of those words, which are quite simple to add, is fairly significant and must mean that the term mortgage is not limited to mortgage in respect of the principal residence. Having heard myself say that, that is a legal argument. I invite the Attorney General to continue to think about that issue, if he's so minded.

I do have a second question with respect to the way this exemption will operate, but I don't know if the Attorney General has a response to the point I've just made or not.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I've given my response. I understand the concerns the hon. member expresses, but I believe that the section would be read as a whole. I'm certain that the courts will in fact do what we intend the courts to do in this regard.

G. Plant: Here's the second issue. Again, it's a fairly technical one. The phrase in what will become section 71.1(1), "the value of the debtor's equity in the principal residence," is a phrase which usually connotes equity after mortgage. Yet we now know that the section won't apply at all in respect to mortgage foreclosure proceedings. What is it that is meant by that phrase, "the value of the debtor's equity"? What is that going to be in circumstances where this section will essentially never operate -- in the case of proceedings to enforce a mortgage?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I believe that this section would be used not by mortgagees but by other creditors, and they would not be allowed to proceed if the equity was less than the exemption, over and above the mortgages on the title.

G. Plant: The interesting issue. . . . Jeez, there I am being presumptuous again. The section may then operate as an incentive to overmortgage, because what you'll have is a $2 million house that has a $1.995 million mortgage on it, and the person sitting in the house would essentially be able to wave off the foreclosure proceedings. I suppose that's perfectly legitimate, because in any attempt to seize or sell the house to realize on other debts, the mortgage would essentially scoop up all of the value of the property, in any event. Is that a fair statement of how that's likely to work?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: That could be true, if the mortgage was artificially inflated. I'm sure that banks and other lending institutions that do their work are not going to collude with an individual who wants to thwart ordinary unsecured creditors.

Amendment approved.

Section 3 as amended approved.

I. Waddell: I'm rising to ask leave to make an introduction just after you've finished that section.

Leave granted.

[ Page 5628 ]

I. Waddell: I'd like the House to welcome a group from the Inter-Cooperative Council, who are meeting today, representing the interests of section 95 co-ops. They've just had a meeting with the Minister of Municipal Affairs, who is also the Minister of Housing for British Columbia, with reference to the problems of CMHC clawbacks, section 95 co-ops and housing policy in general, including devolution of some federal housing powers to the provinces in the future. I'd like the House to welcome Doug Perry, Pat Fenner, Gary Panagiotidis and Megan Burnett. Doug, Pat, Gary and Megan, I wish to make you welcome here this afternoon.

On section 4.

G. Plant: I'm sorry to do this. I want to go back to one point. If anyone were ever to read this debate, they might at least want to pause for a moment on subsection (4) of the new section 71.2, and perhaps see on the record what I think is really the expression of a commitment by the government to the priority of maintenance orders under the Family Maintenance Enforcement Act. I take it that the effect of this amendment is to ensure that nothing in relation to this increase in exemption for personal property is intended to affect the priority of maintenance orders. So the government is saying that the enforcement of maintenance orders remains a very high priority.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Correct.

Sections 4 to 10 inclusive approved.

On section 11.

F. Gingell: I have been thinking at some length about the expansion of the sections which bring into the employee investment system the inclusion of cooperative associations and partnerships. Perhaps we should first of all deal with the issue of cooperative associations.

[12:15]

The issue of partnerships is even a little more complex, but let's deal with the issue of cooperative associations first. I wonder if the minister could perhaps give the committee some idea of what type of cooperative associations will be included and which, by prescription through eligible businesses, you will prescribe out.

Hon. J. Pullinger: Before I respond to the member's comments, I would like, for the information of the House, to introduce my staff. On my right is Robert Kennedy, who is the director of the business equity branch of my ministry; on my left is David Richardson, who is the ADM of the government agents, small business and cooperatives division.

With respect to the member's question, I think that part of the problem that the member describes lies in the definition of cooperatives that the member is using. The largest financial institution in British Columbia, of course, is a cooperative: the B.C. Central Credit Union. Dairyland is a cooperative; Island Farms is a cooperative. There are forestry cooperatives, where the communities gain a forestry licence and cooperatively share in the risks and cooperatively share in the benefits of it. We have an increasing number of cooperatives that make an awful lot of sense in the 1990s.

What we want to do here is simply to expand the definition so that cooperatives can apply for the benefits under this program; but they still wouldn't have to meet all of the requirements of the program. It simply acknowledges that cooperatives are a significant factor in our economy today, both in job creation and in dollars invested, etc., and that there is a lot of room in the 1990s to marry social and economic values, as you can through a cooperative and you can't in other forms of business in the same way. But in doing that, they should be eligible for the same benefits as other companies.

That is the purpose of the amendments here, and I think they will have a good effect. As I think the member is aware, the Employee Share Ownership and Investment Association has in fact applauded this move and said: "This is an excellent strategy for the government."

I appreciate the member's comments and concerns, but that is the intent here. I think it will in fact simply allow cooperatives the same advantages as other companies have.

[T. Stevenson in the chair.]

F. Gingell: The minister mentioned financial institutions, credit unions, and I make the immediate assumption that credit unions wouldn't qualify, because they don't meet the tests of an eligible business. But the intention of the Employee Investment Act is to give tax deferment a current deduction on an investment. In cooperatives, the investment is very often created or credited by means of some contribution that the members made in a form other than cash. It's been done through effort -- energy -- or it's been done by the volume of materials or goods that a person may have purchased from the cooperative organization. It may be done through the amount of product that someone has sold into the cooperative association.

I really have problems understanding exactly how these contributions, which could form the capital contribution, can be the subject of a deduction. When you buy a share, you get a certificate; you sign a document. There's a definitive amount of money paid for it, and it's nice and clean. You've got this piece of paper, and when you dispose of it, you get rid of it, so there is a disposition at that point. A cooperative normally doesn't have quite as formal an organization around it.

Hon. J. Pullinger: There is a wide range of kinds of cooperatives, and the member is quite right that some cooperatives are what you might allude to as social cooperatives, for instance, a child care cooperative. But there are also some very good business cooperatives. They form a significant part of our economy.

Those that meet the test of the legislation, it seems to me, should not be excluded simply because they're cooperatives. 

[ Page 5629 ]

That, in fact, is what has happened to date, and that's what we're seeking to remedy here. So there certainly is a wide variety of cooperatives. But those that would otherwise meet the test of the legislation and have been discriminated against because of their ownership structure would have previously been excluded. All we're doing is saying that if they meet all of the other tests of the legislation and are excluded only for the reason that they're cooperatives, that's clearly not fair.

Nor is it smart in terms of public policy, because cooperatives are an excellent vehicle for job creation and have a stability in some cases, because of their dual purpose, that another business might not. So to exclude them doesn't make economic sense, doesn't make community sense, doesn't make business sense and certainly doesn't make public policy sense. So all we're doing is saying that if any given cooperative meets the test of the legislation, they should be eligible for the same benefits.

F. Gingell: These various types of business organizations can be structured in different ways, as the minister says. I have no philosophical problem at all with including cooperatives.

I just see a whole range of issues, coming from the accounting profession, of how you define what is capital and what are various forms of earnings. To make this work, you're clearly going to have some pretty rigorously prescribed rules about the forms of capital, the way it will be put in and access that members will have to withdrawal of it. For instance, if you sell your share in a corporation, that's easy; it's a clearly defined transaction. Withdrawing funds or reducing capital from a cooperative may not be quite as easily discovered, if that's a good word. When we deal with this and go on to partnerships, that's going to be even more complex.

Hon. J. Pullinger: The investments taken under this program are scrutinized on a case-by-case basis. They're there for a specific purpose. Therefore each individual application is scrutinized on its own merits. That would certainly be the case with cooperatives. So we're looking at risk capital here. We're looking at a clear set of rules.

Other businesses also have differing kinds of investment, such as convertibles, subordinated debt, warrants, royalties, partnership units, etc. Cooperatives are another variation. They would simply have to be adjudicated on a case-by-case basis to make sure they met the test and to ensure that the credit was given for the appropriate kind of investment. So there isn't a one-size-fits-all in this. All we're doing is expanding the investment so they can apply. If they meet the criteria, then they would be granted the benefits under the legislation.

F. Gingell: Let's move on, then, from cooperative associations to partnerships. First of all, partnerships don't need to be registered. You don't need to go and register a partnership with an office in Victoria, with the registrar of anybody. You don't even need a written agreement, although most partnership arrangements do have quite complex partnership agreements. But partnerships can be agreed to on verbal arrangements, and there are laws which determine the rules around partnerships -- if my memory is correct -- when these have not been determined in the agreement.

So then, the first question is: will the regulations require partnerships to have partnership agreements and to be registered? At the same time, perhaps we could deal with this issue: will it differentiate between limited partnerships and normal partnerships?

Hon. J. Pullinger: For the second question, the answer is no, we will not differentiate.

For the first question that the member asked, in an employee share ownership plan, there needs to be a plan that's agreed to by the employees and those administering the program ahead of time. Therefore that would, in effect, be a partnership agreement.

The answer to the first one is yes, and the answer to the second one is no.

F. Gingell: In a partnership set of accounts, each partner has their own balance at the beginning of the year. You add to that contributions that they may make in the form of additional capital or assumed interest on capital accounts -- their share of the profits -- and you deduct from their capital account the amount of withdrawals that they've made. It's a relatively simple process. For income tax purposes, they're not taxed on their withdrawals; they're taxed on their share of the profits and the other means by which profit has been distributed.

So you can have -- and many do -- dispositions of a partnership interest by accident. A partner has a drawing account and he takes out. . . . In my day it was $325 a month; it might be a little bit more than that now. But if your share of the income at the end of the year isn't greater than your withdrawals, your partnership capital reduces. That is, in effect, a disposition of a partnership interest. Now, a disposition of a share has consequences in the Employee Investment Act.

[12:30]

Hon. J. Pullinger: I don't argue with the member that it's complicated, but I would say this: that a partnership, like a cooperative, like any other form of business, has to meet the test and the intent of the legislation. The current restriction against partnerships doesn't exist most elsewhere in Canada, so while it may be complicated for an accountant on the other end -- recognizing the member's profession -- nevertheless, it does occur in other provinces that partnerships have access to this kind of capital, and we don't want to have that restriction here in British Columbia.

One of the examples I would give the House would be that the film industry in British Columbia is very different from the film industry of its major competitors, such as Ontario, where it tends to be big, incorporated companies -- and few of them. In British Columbia, which is typical of our excellent business community here, the film industry tends to be small businesses. Many of them are in fact partnerships. It wouldn't surprise me to see some cooperatives develop. They should not be excluded from access to this kind of capital because of their corporate structure.

It does happen in other provinces. Any difficulties that may occur from that, in terms of accounting procedures and so on, clearly have precedent. I'm sure that we can deal with those quite effectively here in British Columbia.

F. Gingell: I presume you will differentiate between a cooperative association and a partnership. A cooperative asso-

[ Page 5630 ]

ciation is something that is registered under the Cooperative Association Act, and a partnership is a similar organization that isn't registered under the Partnership Act. And it really doesn't matter, does it?

Hon. J. Pullinger: I just want to clarify that we're talking about the Working Opportunity Fund here, not employee share ownerships and the definition for partnerships. You have to still be incorporated or registered to be in the employee share ownership program -- that's my understanding. To access capital in the Working Opportunity Fund, you can just be a partnership, which is my reference to the film industry.

F. Gingell: The member stands up and wonders. . . . I'm not sure I've got time to go back to the act.

What has the Working Opportunity Fund got to do with this? Isn't this the normal set of circumstances, where an employee of an organization -- or we're saying an employee of a partnership, who becomes a partner by investing -- gets the tax treatment of the investment that they make under the Employee Investment Act? That's not the case, then?

Hon. J. Pullinger: Part 1 of the act is the employee share ownership program, and part 2 of the act is the Working Opportunity Fund. The definitions would apply to the entire act.

F. Gingell: Are you saying that this change in definition does not apply to any individual person; it will only apply to investments made by the Working Opportunity Fund? The Working Opportunity Fund is a corporation. Are we talking about investments made by WOF to keep WOF eligible?

Hon. J. Pullinger: Perhaps I can clarify it for the member this way. The tax credit goes to individual investors in the Working Opportunity Fund, but the fund makes investment decisions. All we're saying here is that a partnership can be one of those investments. The fund can look at a partnership to invest in. With the example of the film industry, there may be a partnership in the film industry. It's the new economy, it's leading edge, and it's a wonderful job creator, etc. It meets all the tests of the legislation, but it's a partnership. Now the Working Opportunity Fund can look at that partnership to invest some of its venture capital. That's the intent of this change.

F. Gingell: So this "eligible business" definition that we have been discussing deals only with investments made by the Working Opportunity Fund and nobody else, not an EVCC or an individual person.

Hon. J. Pullinger: For partnerships that's correct.

F. Gingell: The description of an eligible business was relatively short prior to this. In addition to including a cooperative and a partnership, subsections (c), (d) and (e) bring in other definitions, which I presume were prescribed before by regulation. Have these descriptions, now that they've been brought into the legislation, changed in any way what was prescribed by regulation previously?

Hon. J. Pullinger: For the clarification of the member, subsections (a) and (b) simply avoid discrimination against businesses, as we have discussed, that meet the test of the legislation but have been discriminated against because of their structure -- i.e., partnership or cooperative. Subsection (c) is no change; we're just simply moving it from one place to the other in the act for housekeeping reasons. Subsection (d) increases the asset-size test, partly to bring it in line with other Canadian jurisdictions and partly to deal with the fact of inflation and such factors requiring a higher limit.

F. Gingell: So these descriptions were in the act in other places; they've been brought into here. The $50 million limit is an increase over a previously prescribed one. The "other prescribed criteria" simply carries on the ability that you had in the previous description of eligible business. Fine, thank you.

Then we move on to section (c): " 'eligible security' means a share of any kind. . . ." Are we still dealing here only with descriptions of a security, to keep the Working Opportunity Fund eligible for investments that it may make? Or could these also apply to individuals?

Hon. J. Pullinger: This applies to the Working Opportunity Fund only.

F. Gingell: I must admit that when I read this and compared it to the act, I didn't appreciate that -- as the minister has probably discovered. So some of my notes and questions are no longer relevant. I'm quite happy for section 11 to. . . .

Sections 11 to 13 inclusive approved.

On section 14.

F. Gingell: This section and the next section change the wording from "must" to "may" and give the administrator the discretion to allow or to not allow a registration. Can the minister advise the committee what parameters are going to be used by the administrator to make these decisions?

Hon. J. Pullinger: The policy, as I understand it, is essentially first come, first served -- assuming that they meet all other tests.

F. Gingell: I'm a little confused. First come, first served, relative to what?

Hon. J. Pullinger: The goal is. . . . If those who apply are requesting a reasonable amount, if they have demonstrated that they can raise what they need, they would then be accepted. There's no reason not to. The purpose of the fund or the intent of the administrator is to spread it around as much as possible. For instance, there isn't a deadline of a particular date when you then weigh all applications; you simply weigh applications as they come in.

I want to clarify for the member that the only change in this section is that in the past -- or presently, until we pass this -- the administrator was forced to approve a follow-up investment. Now they can weigh a follow-up investment in the same company against the value of putting that same amount of money in another company. So it's simply a discretionary management change to enable us to weigh those two things more effectively.

Sections 14 and 15 approved.

On section 16.

[ Page 5631 ]

[12:45]

Hon. J. Pullinger: My understanding is that employees under this section can come together and form their own venture capital corporation -- a small one -- and then invest in their employer. As such, it's the workers; so as such, it's labour-sponsored in the understanding that those are the workers. Whether they're unionized or not is not a factor. They are still labour; they are still workers. I understand there are two of those in British Columbia at present. In other words, they have the option to weigh whether they want a direct ESOP or whether they want to form their own small VCC. Only two groups of employees have determined to do the latter.

F. Gingell: I understand that the provisions in section 15(1)(a)(iv) now include an ability to purchase out the interests of a retiring shareholder. I must admit that I haven't gone back to the act to check that, but I understand from the description on the other side of the page -- where it says: "allows for greater flexibility if an owner of an eligible business is retiring" -- that this starts to look after an issue that I kept talking about with your officials long before I became an MLA.

Am I correct in jumping to the conclusion that the ability to buy shares of a retiring employee is restricted to doing it through an EVCC, rather than allowing the transaction to take place directly between one employee and another?

Hon. J. Pullinger: The member, as I understand it, is talking about successorships of different kinds. There is a change to that, but it's later in the legislation; it's not covered by this section. If I may, with respect, I would propose that we defer that discussion to that time.

F. Gingell: I just have to gather my thoughts here for a moment. Many of the provisions that were in section 15, which deals with an employee venture capital corporation, were pulled out and put into the definitions, so the two sections are somewhat different now. Previously, these eligible business definitions -- which have now been put into the definition section, rather than in section 15 -- only applied to EVCC investments. Now, I presume, they apply to all investments. But didn't they apply to all investments previously?

Hon. J. Pullinger: This section refers to EVCCs, and all it does is simply allow investment to continue where it makes sense to continue. In other words, if we've got a winner, why penalize them because they change? Sometimes it just makes really bad business sense. Under the way it is currently, you have to pull the money when they become ineligible. It makes more sense if it's a good investment and if it's working to not do that. This simply allows for that to happen.

F. Gingell: Seeing that the other committee is here. . . . I'm sorry. We should allow section 16 to pass.

Section 16 approved.

F. Gingell: I would move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; W. Hartley in the chair.

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

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

Hon. J. Pullinger: I wish everybody a good weekend and move that the House do now adjourn.

Hon. J. Pullinger moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:54 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

The committee met at 11:17 a.m.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
ENVIRONMENT, LANDS AND PARKS
(continued)

J. Weisgerber: I'd like to spend a little bit of time on some wildlife issues, and I want to thank both the opposition critic and the minister for accommodating this. I know it's not exactly in the order that was planned; however, I'm going to be away for a couple of days. Eat your hearts out, those of you who have to sit here because of the Whip's discipline.

I also want to start out by commending the minister and the ministry in a couple of areas -- which I'm sure will make her nervous about what's to follow. Nevertheless, last year in estimates we talked around limited-entry hunting, and at that time the limited-entry hunt on antlerless elk in the Peace region was held very late in the season and was restricted to private land. I thought that was very positive, in so much as it helped farmers who were suffering with predation by wildlife on haystacks and other things.

I encouraged the former minister to look at doing the same thing with mule deer, so I was pleased to see this year that when the limited-entry draws came out on antlerless mule deer, they too are being held in December rather than in September, as had been traditionally the case. So thank you. I think it was a good move, and I know the farmers appreciate it.

[ Page 5632 ]

The other area where I think there was good change with respect to limited-entry hunting is with bison and the staggered hunting dates. I know from experience that those who were drawn early had a bonanza out hunting, and those who came later found that the bison all of a sudden were much more difficult to hunt after they'd been subjected to some hunting pressure. I think that spreading this season out, as has been done this time around, is a very positive step.

A couple of areas with respect to limited-entry hunting where I'm not quite so comfortable. . . . First of all, I'd like to get some information. The press release that was put out on May 1 with respect to limited-entry hunting regulations dealt with the changes with respect to bison hunting. The last paragraph in the press release dealt with first nations people who wish to hunt wildlife covered by limited-entry hunting. As I understand from reading this, an aboriginal person does not require limited-entry hunting authorization if they are hunting in their traditional territories and if they are hunting for sustenance. However, I further believe that if a first nations person comes in from outside of their traditional territory, they require a limited-entry authorization but are not required to buy a hunting licence. I wonder if perhaps I can just have the minister confirm that that is in fact the situation.

Hon. C. McGregor: To begin with, I'd like to thank the member for his comments about the changes that were made in limited-entry hunting in the Peace, as I understand it. I think it points to the very consultative role that staff play in addressing wildlife concerns on an ongoing basis. And it's not just the member's concerns that are dealt with, but those of hunters and those who use the wildlife resource around the province.

Before I answer the question, though, I'd like to take a moment to introduce Nancy Bircher, who is the director of the wildlife branch. She's here with us today to help answer questions. The answer to the member's question is yes.

J. Weisgerber: Assuming that the reason for limited-entry hunts is because of conservation concerns -- concerns around the number of animals available -- how does the ministry, then, judge the amount of aboriginal sustenance hunting that it anticipates, and how is that factored into the number of limited-entry draws that are permitted? It seems to me that there could be a great deal of variation and a lack of very precise information as to the number of animals taken as sustenance by aboriginal people in the area.

Hon. C. McGregor: Generally, the way in which those calculations are made is a result of asking the first nations directly involved for information about how much they have taken. There is also the opportunity to examine previous years' information and use that calculation. Then they take that amount and subtract it from the total number available. That is what drives the limited-entry numbers.

J. Weisgerber: Given the fact that aboriginal hunters are not required to have a hunting licence or to report their hunts, how does the ministry go about gathering the information? We talked about an area that is significant in size. We have people coming in to hunt from heaven knows where.

In a minute I want to get into the issue, for example, with Treaty 8. I disagree fundamentally with the belief that simply because you happen to have signed a treaty that has the same number in British Columbia as in Saskatchewan, that somehow gives you a right to come to British Columbia and hunt without a hunting licence.

But before we get into that, how do you gather information on how many. . . ? Let's talk about bison, for example. There have been organized hunts by Treaty 8 members from as far away as Saskatchewan, who come in and hunt bison. How do you have any sense of control? How do you have any sense of numbers? Perhaps we could talk about that. I understand, perhaps to anticipate the minister's answer, that some of those folks may be required to get a limited-entry authorization. Maybe the minister could clarify.

[S. Orcherton in the chair.]

Hon. C. McGregor: To begin the discussion, let's talk a little bit about how we do gather information from first nations. It isn't always as much information as we would like. We do generally meet with them, and there are probably series of phone calls from time to time. We gather the best information we can in terms of how much has been taken. We are making this really a part of our ongoing work at the treaty table to try to get agreements with first nations to provide us with the kind of information we need to make good conservation decisions. In the meantime, we make good judgments on the basis of the information we have, and if we need to, because we're concerned with the degree and the accuracy of our data, then we manage more conservatively as a result. That's more or less how we determine how much has been taken by first nations.

[11:30]

We have recommended and will continue to recommend charges against first nations hunters, unless there is documented evidence of a traditional exchange of wildlife between those first nations groups.

J. Weisgerber: The problem of illegal hunting is a very real one. The bigger problem, though, is the lack of certainty that exists around the movement of aboriginal people in their hunting activities, particularly in the northeast, in a treaty area where treaties have all been signed a hundred years ago, where the entitlements to hunt exist.

I go back to the problem of people coming from as far away as Saskatchewan to hunt, claiming an aboriginal right, and we seem willing to accept that. The only rationale that I can see is we believe that because they are signatories to a treaty that has the same number as the treaties that exist in the northeast, somehow that confers upon them a right to hunt there.

If it's more sophisticated than that, I'd be willing to listen to the argument, but I seriously doubt the traditional activity. I seriously doubt that historically, those Saskatchewan bands came to British Columbia to hunt in the northeast -- first of all, because the bison that are there are not indigenous to the area. They came by way of a buffalo ranch, where the buffalo broke down the fences. That's a story that the ministry, I'm sure, is rich in anecdotes around. Nevertheless, those bison 

[ Page 5633 ]

haven't been there as long as the treaty has been there, so for us to be drawn into this belief that somehow there exists an aboriginal right. . . .

I think we have to become more proactive in defining exactly where those rights are and where they exist. We have to be willing, once in a while, to take a chance. If we can't reach a satisfactory solution by way of negotiation, we should be prepared to go to court. We should be prepared to let the courts examine the evidence, make a decision and give us a ruling. If we don't, then I think we provide a disservice to our own citizens and to the aboriginal people who live in the area. Perhaps the minister would respond.

Hon. C. McGregor: Obviously the work that we do within the ministry and the wildlife branch has to be consistent with government direction and legal precedent. That information is generally given to us through the Attorney General's office.

However, having said that, I would like to acknowledge that what the member says is correct. We do need to do more work in this area. If there's a way that we can offer an opportunity to discuss this more fully with the member in another setting, rather than estimates, there might be opportunity for us to flesh out this issue a bit more broadly and do some work together on it.

J. Weisgerber: Certainly I'd be happy to do that. It's a longstanding interest.

Just to finish the debate on this issue with respect to limited-entry hunting by aboriginal people, in the case of the bison hunt specifically -- or with respect to the references that are made in the press release that I've been drawing information from -- could the minister tell me outside of what geographic area in the Peace an aboriginal person would be required to seek a limited-entry hunting authorization for hunting bison in the Peace?

Hon. C. McGregor: In areas outside that person's traditional territory.

J. Weisgerber: Then I would assume that any aboriginal person living west of the Rocky Mountains would fall into that category. Possibly the McLeod Lake band might make an argument about traditional hunting activity, some of the people from the Northwest Territories. What I want to know is: is someone living in Saskatchewan as a Treaty 8 status Indian. . . ? Will the ministry accept the argument that British Columbia is part of their traditional territory?

Hon. C. McGregor: As I stated earlier, it is really a function of them being able to provide proof that it is a traditional area for hunting. If they cannot provide that proof, then we would recommend charges.

J. Weisgerber: How would a person stopped in the Pink Mountain area -- driving a Saskatchewan vehicle, having a Saskatchewan driver's licence and a Treaty 8 status card -- go about proving that this was a traditional territory for them? It seems to me that the automatic response would be, "We're going to lay a charge, and if you can come to court or bring us documentation, we'll accept it" -- and, just on the basis of the evidence, to suggest: "Hey, this isn't your traditional territory, and we're going to proceed from that assumption."

Hon. C. McGregor: The member raises a good point on what would constitute appropriate evidence. Obviously there needs to be some work done with our ministry, the Ministry of Attorney General and the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs to determine what that appropriate evidence might be. In terms of how it's handled in the field. . . . In a scenario where there was a Treaty 8 aboriginal person from Saskatchewan who was stopped by a conservation officer, they never issue charges on the spot. The information is taken down, and then it is taken to the Attorney General's office for investigation prior to charges officially being laid.

J. Weisgerber: Would I assume, then, that if I'm stopped in the field, charges are not going to be laid? They're going to be taken to the Attorney General and considered before any action is taken. Or can I anticipate the usual: seize my gun, seize my truck and have me prove that I'm in fact obeying the law?

Hon. C. McGregor: It would depend on the nature of the offence. If it was a ticketable offence, you would be ticketed immediately. If it was a more serious offence, it would likely be preceded by an investigation with charges following. But the policy with aboriginal people is that all hunting charges go through the Attorney General's office first.

J. Weisgerber: I guess you start to understand why people in the wildlife fraternity -- hunting, fishing -- feel so passionately about these aboriginal issues. It's just the lack of equity: the fact that because of ethnic background, racial background, aboriginal status, you're treated fundamentally differently in the field. I think that causes us to have some of the very hard positions that are taken and that both the minister and I observed when we were travelling around on the issue of aboriginal affairs.

I think that if I'm breaking the law -- if I'm carrying a loaded gun in a truck; if I'm shooting an animal off the side of the road; if I'm shooting an animal that's obviously illegal -- I expect to be ticketed, I expect to lose my gun, and I'll feel lucky if I get to keep my truck to drive home with. I don't argue with that; I don't have any argument with that at all. But I'll tell you, I really believe that everybody who falls into that same category, who falls into that same area of offence, should be treated in the same way. Perhaps we're moving away from an area that I intended to deal with today, but it's the sort of thing that is really causing a lot of the tensions that all of us deplore. I genuinely urge the minister to talk to her colleagues about the government's approach to these things.

Finally, on this issue of aboriginal people with respect to limited-entry hunting, could the minister tell me this: if it were determined that an aboriginal person needed a limited-entry authorization and they were successful in getting one, would they then be bound by all of the same regulations as those non-aboriginal people who succeeded in getting an LEH would be bound by?

[11:45]

J. Weisgerber: So then I would expect that the hunting days, the seasons, the regulations would be the same. But if an aboriginal person broke those regulations, then I understand that the CO wouldn't issue a ticket but would instead go back to the Attorney General to decide whether or not charges should be laid.

[ Page 5634 ]

Hon. C. McGregor: Yes.

J. Weisgerber: Let me finish this by saying, on a more positive note, that I think the decision taken by the ministry -- and I expect in cooperation with some of the bands on Vancouver Island -- to have limited entry that applies to separate limited-entry allocations for Roosevelt elk is a model that perhaps bears some further consideration in other parts of the province.

On the issue of limited-entry draws, but getting away from the aboriginal elements of it, can the minister tell me what steps have been taken to implement progressive limited-entry draws? In other words, if you enter consistently for a limited-entry draw and you fail to succeed, some jurisdictions have mechanisms whereby your chances improve significantly as you were unsuccessful in previous years. Could the minister give me an update on where that's at?

Hon. C. McGregor: Yes, member, we are piloting a similar model right now in the Kootenays for the limited-entry elk hunt. It's a little different than the member described. In this method, if you did get access to a limited-entry hunt one year, then your odds are reduced in a subsequent year, in a subsequent draw. So it's a little bit more of a flip of the example, I think, that the member gave. But it is an example of a progressive limited-entry draw that we're trying out.

J. Weisgerber: I'm encouraged that we're moving in that direction. There are some hunts -- sheep, goats, bison -- where the odds of being drawn are very low. I think the problem with the model that I see for the Kootenay elk applied to those with very low odds is that if you continue to enter and continue to be unsuccessful, your odds are no better in any given year than some person simply deciding to jump into the draw. For example, if you live in the area and you have a passion for hunting and you really want to do it once in your lifetime, the model used in other jurisdictions almost guarantees that if you enter long enough and faithfully enough, eventually you'll be rewarded with success. All the other model does is say: "Hey, if you succeed one year, you're out for one or two years, and you're back in again."

I really would encourage you to look at other jurisdictions. Alberta runs a very successful, very efficient draw system on antelope. It's something that I believe provides more equitable access to hunting. It gives people the confidence that, unlike drawing for 6/49, some sort of odds are working to suggest that the longer you play, the better the chance of success you may have. I don't expect the minister to do anything other than perhaps consider that information as she moves forward.

I'd also like to touch on the question of regulations for moose hunting in the Peace, particularly with respect to the regulations around the spike horn or -- what is it now? -- tripalm. They were in operation last year. The regulation was successful in reducing the harvest. It quite dramatically reduced the harvest, and if that's the objective, then I would only suggest that there are a number of other models -- shorter seasons, limited entry -- that might serve the same purpose.

I raise it because, while I believe that the new regulation was successful in reducing the hunt, I believe the minister will confirm that the number of animals shot and left in the bush increased quite dramatically as a result.

I know for a fact that while I was moose hunting, I found a bull moose that had been shot. I got close enough to be able to touch the animal, and I was still unsure whether or not it was legal. That large bull moose had a bit of an abnormal horn development. It had a rather large set of horns, but the tripalm was unclear. It was more like a large blade without a palm. I'm absolutely convinced that the hunter shot it, walked over and had a look at it and said: "Gee, the hassle I'm going to have to go through with this moose simply makes it wise for me to pick up and leave." I know that there were reports of a significant number of incidents.

The regulations came from Alaska. I don't think anybody will argue that this is an idea borrowed from Alaska, where the habitat is such -- low bushy areas, large open mountainsides -- that normally hunters with guides have an opportunity to glass an animal, consider it and make a decision on whether or not to stalk and harvest it.

That's not the way moose are hunted in the Peace area. They're hunted in big aspen forests. The animals are moving quickly. It's important to be able to see the horns. I think they're quite different than. . . . I always get the argument that well, yes, they're the same regulations that we apply to our mule deer or our elk. But with some years of hunting experience, I would argue that the animals are different, the habitat is different and that as long as we pursue this, we're going to have a large incidental kill and animals left in the bush. I think that's a tragedy.

Hon. C. McGregor: I have had the tripalm issue raised with me by others. I am familiar with the member's concerns, and I must say that I do share them. We are looking at other models that we might use in the Peace region to reduce the kill in that area, so a shortened season or a limited-entry hunt are other possibilities that I think we should very actively pursue. Like the member, I don't want inadvertent kill left in the bush. It's not in anyone's best interest for that to happen.

In the instance, though, of an inadvertent kill, we are encouraging hunters to report that to us. Charges will not be laid if there's clearly, as in the example you gave, a case that could be made for not being able to distinguish whether it was a tripalm. So I hope that gives the member some comfort on the matter. We are going to continue to look at it. It's an issue that's been flagged to me on a number of occasions, and I do plan on following up.

J. Weisgerber: I certainly would encourage anyone, as the minister has, to report those incidents. I raised the point as much to make the point that if you can touch a horn on an animal and still have trouble distinguishing it, you then have to think of what happens if you're looking at an animal at 100 or even 50 yards in August moving through a forest that's heavily leafed. It's often a challenge to make sure that an animal has a horn, and obviously hunters have responsibilities for that. But in that locale, I just don't think expecting or anticipating that people will be able to accurately gauge whether or not an animal has, for example, a spike horn and perhaps three points on the other side or, in fact, has three points on both sides. I mean, you really have to look. At a hundred yards, to see three points that probably aren't much larger than my fingers on a 1,500-pound animal that's often moving rather rapidly through the woods is almost impossible to do. But enough said. I'm not going to resolve this issue this morning. It's an important issue, and I'm encouraged that the minister is looking at some alternatives.

I wonder if the minister. . . . I'm going to move away from wildlife, although into a related area, and that is the issue of the Muskwa-Kechika area of the northern Rockies. I understand that debates are continuing and activity is continuing. 

[ Page 5635 ]

I wonder if the minister could give me a status report on where we're at in terms of possible designation as a park or a wildlife or wilderness area.

Hon. C. McGregor: We've had reports from the tables in those areas of the province, and the government is actively considering those.

J. Weisgerber: Perhaps the minister could give me a sense of whether or not there's any process that precedes a decision by government, or whether government now has all of the information it needs to make a decision -- the timing of those various activities.

[12:00]

J. Weisgerber: I gather from that answer that there's no more public activity anticipated before a decision.

In the Muskwa-Kechika area, the ministry has put in very, very stringent regulations around access by motorized vehicles, whether they be ATVs, four-wheelers, skidoos or others. And that's been met with mixed reaction in the area. There are people who use ATVs; there are people who rely on them, because of physical handicaps, who feel very strongly that they, too, should be entitled to some access to the area.

Often in conjunction with those arguments are concerns around an apparent lack of regulation for guides and outfitters and the horse herds that they leave in the area. I don't think anybody argues with people hauling horses in and using horses for hunting. I happen to think it's a rather nice and pristine way to access areas. But the concerns are that these guides and outfitters have large herds of horses that they simply leave in the area over winter, and those animals not only compete with wildlife for grazing, but some of the horses really are not even used in hunting. You start to have an industry that says there's some profit in raising horses for other purposes and letting them graze in an area that is low in snow and is a marvellous area. I wonder if the minister could tell me what steps have been taken to control the year-round grazing of horses in that area.

Hon. C. McGregor: The guide-outfitters get grazing leases for this purpose from the Ministry of Forests, so it is meant to be limited to those areas for which they have a lease for that use. If the member is aware of a situation where that's not being done, that should be reported to the Ministry of Forests so that it can be looked into.

J. Weisgerber: Can the minister tell us what role the minister plays in deciding where it's appropriate for the Ministry of Forests to issue grazing licences? First of all, I question whether or not there is a need to leave horse herds in the area year-round. There are lots of areas in the Peace where guides and outfitters could truck their horses to and find pasture or hay for them over winter.

I wonder what role the ministry plays in advising the Ministry of Forests with respect to competition with other ungulates for the grass.

Hon. C. McGregor: There is a referral process. When the application comes in to the Ministry of Forests, then it's referred to our ministry, and we provide comments on, for instance, whether it would have impacts on other wildlife. The Ministry of Forests considers that information before they issue the licence. They have the statutory obligation, however, to issue the licence.

J. Weisgerber: Is it fair to assume then that the policing of that is done by the Ministry of Forests? Do conservation officers routinely check the area and make observations, provide reports? This is a problem that's been going on for many years. Many government agencies in the area have many reports of concerns with respect to trails that the horses make -- deep, deep trails along riverbanks; grazed-off areas; wildlife being pushed up into higher ground. This isn't new; it's a longstanding concern, and it's been intensified by the elimination of motorized vehicles. Those people who felt that their hunting opportunities were being prejudiced by the horses now feel doubly prejudiced. They feel that if you're a horse owner or a guide-outfitter, you've got all of the advantages. As a person who depends on motorized vehicles, you're not only denied access, but you see those horses competing. So I'm wondering what kinds of work the ministry does in that specific area to assess -- or whether that's the ministry responsibility -- the damage being done by horses, not only to grass but to river banks and other things.

Hon. C. McGregor: We might have some wildlife habitat people in the region who would be able to do that kind of investigation. It is a matter of priorities and resources, and it isn't routinely done by that staff. However, compliance is the responsibility of the Ministry of Forests, and they have a compliance force that would be the appropriate agency to contact in terms of lack of compliance.

J. Weisgerber: Okay. I'll take that advice. It's an issue that needs to be looked at.

If I can, I'd like to change gears entirely, move away from wildlife and finish up this morning by asking a couple of questions around the production of ethanol from wood waste. There have been a number of initiatives across the country, I guess, and across the Peace with respect to ethanol from grain. But there is a group in Chetwynd that has for a number of years now been pursuing the notion of using wood waste -- bark, tree limbs and other things -- as fuel for an ethanol plant.

I know that these folks have been in contact with the ministry on a reasonably regular basis. I know, because I've been provided with copies of letters from the minister in response. I wonder if the minister could tell me where the ministry sits with respect to the subject and where the ministry is in terms of some of the specific requests that have been made by the proponents in the area of taxation.

Hon. C. McGregor: We have met with the proponents of this project, and we are generally supportive of the initiative. Commercial viability of the project seems to be of some concern. As recently as last week our staff met with Natural Resources Canada, and there is the possibility of some funding for a B.C.-based research project related to this matter. So it 

[ Page 5636 ]

is a matter we're trying to explore. We don't have any indicators yet that we'll be able to get it, but it is something we're working on.

J. Weisgerber: That's interesting news. Thank you. One of the concerns, obviously, with any of these projects is viability, and often the question of road tax becomes the key issue as to whether or not ethanol as a fuel can or cannot succeed, although I recognize that suppliers from outside of British Columbia now provide ethanol-based fuel, or fuel that is about 10 percent ethanol. Is the ministry -- or any of the committees that the minister sits on -- at all active in considering whether or not tax relief might be an appropriate mechanism to promote the use or particularly the production of ethanol in the province?

Hon. C. McGregor: Motor fuel tax is covered by the Ministry of Finance, and so probably you're better to direct your questions to the Minister of Finance in that regard. Currently if you have ethanol content of 85 percent or better, there is an exemption under the current motor vehicle fuel tax.

C. Clark: I was quite hopeful that we would be able to wrap up all the water issues today. I'm not sure we will be able to, but I would like to tie up a few loose ends and cover very quickly a couple of the outstanding areas where I have some questions.

In the loose end department, I want to finish some questions about the review process that's going on with B.C. Hydro. I want to confirm with the minister that it is indeed a five-year time line looking at ten facilities so far. Is that correct?

[12:15]

C. Clark: The outcome of that process is a water use plan for each of the facilities, and I know the minister said that yesterday. I remain concerned that there doesn't appear to be clear terms of reference, set criteria and set expectations that the ministry has for the outcomes of each of these reviews.

If the time line is five years for all of them and three years for the ten that the ministry has mentioned, I wonder what the ministry intends to do in the meantime. By B.C. Hydro's own standards, in their safety and environment report on fish flow, they identify what I think are very significant and urgent problems at many of their facilities. For example, at the Mica Dam, there's one endangered stock. At the Revelstoke Dam, there are three endangered stocks in the different parts of the. . . . At the Hardman Dam, there's one. At the Whatshan Dam, there's one. At the Cheakamus, there are three. At the Coquitlam, there's one; and at the Keenleyside Dam, there are two endangered stocks.

Some of the facilities I've mentioned are on the list of those due to have their reviews completed or at least undertaken in the next three years. Some of them aren't even due to be looked at until after that; they're sort of on the five-year plan. If the ministry does indeed think that fish issues are very important to British Columbia and that it's important to preserve these runs, build up our fish stocks and take care of the fish habitat, what is the ministry going to do in the meantime to ensure that these endangered stocks don't become extinct?

Hon. C. McGregor: In the meantime, we're ensuring compliance with the existing licences. Certainly I think there's an opportunity to amend the list and put right to the top those that have significant concerns related to the fishery. That would certainly be consistent with the approach we're taking with fisheries issues.

C. Clark: Then can the minister tell us why some of the facilities where there are clearly endangered stocks -- B.C. Hydro lists them -- are not on the shortlist for having something done three years from now, as opposed to five years from now?

Hon. C. McGregor: The list was generated directly from the Ward review. It listed those as being the areas where we could get the best early results. So that's where the list has been generated from. There are also opportunities to take intermediate steps as a result of interim orders, so that is a mechanism that we can use if there are threatened streams or stocks.

C. Clark: It's not an if; there are threatened streams and stocks. I don't know if the ministry thinks so, but B.C. Hydro thinks there are threatened streams and stocks. What interim orders, then, is the ministry considering to address this issue? After all, the Ward report looked at 13 sites. It was limited, and the authors of the report -- Dr. Ward, in particular -- say that the report isn't complete. He didn't get to do all the work that he wanted to do, and he didn't get to look at all the sites that he wanted to look at.

The B.C. Hydro report -- which, I suggest, would naturally be a little less unbiased than Dr. Ward would be, as an independent auditor -- was prepared in March 1996. This information has been available to the ministry for well over a year now. If the ministry hasn't updated its information, based on the studies that are available to it, I would say shame. But I'm hopeful that the ministry has planned some interim orders and made some plans to address the situation, based on the most recent information that's been provided. Can the minister tell us?

Hon. C. McGregor: Interim orders are designed to make changes to operational requirements, and some of those -- and these are really priority ones -- are to improve flows. We talked about mimicking the natural hydrology of the river, improving fish habitat productive capacity, and restoring spawning and rearing habitats. Flow-ramping rates will be changed to minimize large fluctuations in water levels, resulting in fewer impacts on spawning and rearing, with flushing flows mimicking natural high-flow events of rivers, resulting in sediment removal and cleaner spawning and rearing areas. That will result in increased habitat productive capability and fish production. So those are priorities in terms of operational changes.

Currently we are discussing with B.C. Hydro the following facilities: at the Alouette, the fish stocks that are benefiting are the coho, steelhead, chinook and pink; at Stave-Ruskin, the fish that are at risk and are benefiting are the chum, coho and chinook; in the Coquitlam, coho, steelhead, chum and pink; at Campbell River, chinook, steelhead, coho, chum and pink; at the Puntledge, coho, steelhead, chinook and chum; at the Heber, steelhead, coho and chinook; and in the Salmon, steelhead, coho and chinook. Those are the interim orders that we're currently working with Hydro to develop.

C. Clark: In my original question, I referred to the fact that there are some facilities included in this priority review, which is a three-year time line, that have endangered species 

[ Page 5637 ]

and endangered stocks running in them, and there are some facilities that are not on that list for the three-year review. They're even farther down the road; they're at the five-year review. Three years, five years -- I suppose one is better than the other, but still, three years is. . . . It's quite possible that these threatened stocks could be extinct by the time this review process is complete for these facilities, whether they're on the three-year time line or the five-year time line.

Can the minister tell me if her ministry is willing to implement any interim orders against B.C. Hydro facilities that would demand a natural hydrological cycle -- would demand that the flows mimic the natural cycle in advance of these reviews being completed? That would ensure that in the interim we know that those stocks are going to be protected, and at the end of this long process, we won't end up farther behind than we were when it was actually begun.

Hon. C. McGregor: We have two strategies that we're using to deal with this issue. We have the interim order strategy on the rivers, which I outlined to the member. We have the water use planning strategy, which I've outlined for the member. Those are the priorities that the ministry has set.

C. Clark: I appreciate the minister's response. I know that there is a water use planning process. I know that it's three years for some rivers or for some facilities, and it's five years for other facilities. I know that some of the ones where there are threatened species are on the five-year plan, and some of the ones where there are threatened species are on the three-year plan.

What I don't know yet is whether the ministry is prepared or is planning to issue any interim orders on those rivers where there are threatened species -- interim orders that would address the flow regime in those rivers. The minister talks about interim orders. There's a whole number of different kinds of orders that can be issued. I'm not asking about spawning bed restoration. I'm not asking about any of those other interim orders that can be issued by the ministry.

I'm asking specifically whether the ministry would be prepared to pre-empt the water use planning process -- somewhere between now and five years from now -- and issue interim orders that would demand that there be minimum flows which mimic the natural hydrological cycle at those sites where there are threatened species -- stocks, rather.

Hon. C. McGregor: If we believe that there are threatened species in locations other than the ones that I've outlined with the member, then we would proceed to do so.

C. Clark: I will leave this issue for now, with just a few very brief comments about where I think the ministry should be going. I think that in their water use planning process, the ministry must certainly ensure that this review process is a multi-stakeholder process and that there is access for affected citizens and citizens groups to that review process so that we can ensure that it is a balanced, fair and open process and that the outcome reflects the views of a wide variety of people in our province. I think that's absolutely essential, and I haven't heard any commitment to a multi-stakeholder. . . . There certainly isn't a multi-stakeholder process in the Cheakamus, and the only one that's underway so far. . . . I think that there should be a tighter fixed time line for this process -- there is no question about that. The ministry has a very, very long time line and doesn't appear to be prepared to take care of the threatened species in the interim.

There should be clear terms of reference for the review -- no question about it. It's loose; it appears to be unfocused. I don't think that a process that doesn't have clear terms of reference at the beginning is necessarily going to come out with a very good product at the end -- certainly not a product that reflects a broad range of views.

The Ministry of Environment must be prepared to bite the bullet, do its job, go in and use its powers and its ability to ensure that fish stocks are protected in British Columbia. That's well within the Ministry of Environment's ability, and the ministry appears to be avoiding doing that.

[12:30]

So I will move on to another topic with regard to water. Something that I'm sure the minister will probably be much happier talking about is the urban salmon habitat program. I have a few brief questions about its budget. First, its budget appears to me to have decreased this year from last year. I wonder if the minister could give us a brief outline of why.

Hon. C. McGregor: In 1996-97 total spending was $1.2 million between community stewardship groups and local governments. I could give the breakout of those amounts to the member if she wants. There was $0.54 million to local governments and $0.7 million to local community stewardship groups. In the 1997-98 budget, the total budget is $1.257 million, of which $1.2 million is targeted to local government and stewardship projects.

C. Clark: Can the minister explain for us how her ministry assesses the effectiveness of its spending on this program? I assume that there must be some method by which the ministry determines whether that money is being spent properly, whether they're getting value for money for every dollar that's granted to a local group or to local government.

Hon. C. McGregor: The staff that supports this program engages in ongoing work with the communities and local governments, so there's ongoing assessment. But there is also a formal evaluation mechanism, and those reports are filed with the regional office.

C. Clark: As the result of the evaluation process, have any groups or any projects been cancelled year to year as a result of failing the evaluation?

Hon. C. McGregor: This is only the second year of the program. To our knowledge, there aren't any projects that have been turned back because they've been inadequate. In fact, I would say the exact opposite is true. The work that's been done in communities and in partnership with local government has really been of significant benefit to fish stocks.

[ Page 5638 ]

C. Clark: Can the minister tell us how many applications were received for the program last year?

Hon. C. McGregor: Last year there were 67 applications, and 66 were approved.

C. Clark: From the numbers the minister has given me, it looks as though the vast majority of those applications come from municipal governments, because that appears to be where most of the money goes. Could the minister tell me what the average size of the grant is? Or are they so different in size that it wouldn't give us an accurate picture of how much money is given out?

Hon. C. McGregor: I don't know that we can produce an average, but a lot of them are in the $10,000-to-$20,000 range.

C. Clark: Does the urban salmon habitat program have a Forest Renewal aspect to it? Is there any funding that comes to this program from Forest Renewal B.C.? Or is there any place where staff on the program interface with Forests or FRBC staff?

Hon. C. McGregor: No.

C. Clark: Before I leave this topic, I want to ask a specific local constituency question, and that is: how much from the urban salmon habitat program was received by the Port Moody Ecological Society?

Hon. C. McGregor: The number we can find for the city of Port Moody is that it was given a grant of $50,000.

C. Clark: That's because there are so many great ecologically minded people in Port Moody.

I think I'm getting to the end of my questions. I appreciate the fact that the minister had this information on hand. I want to just finish off. It is my understanding that the expected budget for the next five years -- or for five years from when it was announced in 1995 -- is $12.5 million. Is the spending, as it stands, currently on track? Or does it appear that they're ahead of schedule and that the money may need to be topped up at the end? Or does it appear that we're getting behind and actually saving some money in the program?

Hon. C. McGregor: We're actually probably a little behind in terms of how much we've spent, if one were to divide it over the five-year period. However, we are continuing to look for other funding partners. As a result of Fisheries Renewal, which was introduced into the legislative session this year, there is certainly an additional opportunity to be able to enhance the work we do with urban salmon habitat.

C. Clark: Could the minister be a little bit more specific about why the funding commitment is behind?

Hon. C. McGregor: It's part of the general reduction within the ministry.

C. Clark: So does that reflect a cut -- an anticipated cut, I guess -- to the program over the long term, then? Is that worked into the budget?

Hon. C. McGregor: The spending is the same from this year to last, so we believe that we've put a high priority on it. Obviously our government has put a high priority on fisheries issues generally. We've actually increased our expenditures across government in a variety of categories on fisheries issues. But it is a matter of budgetary concern, and it has to be dealt with on a year-to-year basis.

C. Clark: I just want to confirm that the ministry is behind in the amount that it spends, based on the commitment that it made in 1995. Is that what they're trying to do? The ministry is trying to be behind on its budgetary commitment for this program because they're trying to save money over the next few years, and they're trying to find it in this program. Is that correct?

Hon. C. McGregor: We intentionally protected this program.

C. Clark: It doesn't sound like the minister is intentionally protecting the program if they're intentionally behind where they're supposed to be in terms of spending on the program. It sounds to me like the ministry has cut the program, and it sounds to me like the ministry has cut the program because it wanted to save money. And I suspect they wanted to save money because there's a big budget deficit that the government didn't admit to before the election. It looks to me like that's what's happening here. The five-year commitment. . . . I appreciate that the minister can't talk about five years down the road in this year's estimates, but I'm interested that the program is so far off track at this point.

Noting the time, though, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 12:43 p.m.

Copyright © 1997: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada