DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (Hansard)
TUESDAY, JUNE 2, 1998
Afternoon
Volume 10, Number 8
[ Page 8255 ]
The House met at 2:05 p.m.
G. Wilson: I have the great privilege today to introduce a rare and somewhat endangered species into our Legislative Assembly. We have a former MLA, hon. Speaker. In the province of Quebec, where a Liberal is really a Tory, and in the province of British Columbia, where a Liberal is, well, maybe Reform -- possibly Conservative; maybe Social Credit -- it's a delight to introduce to the House Bob Chisholm, the former MLA from Chilliwack, where a Liberal is a Liberal is a Liberal, and his wife Janet.
Hon. C. McGregor: I'd like to remind members in the House that this week is Environment Week. In that regard, I'm pleased to have the opportunity to introduce the winners of this year's 1998 Minister's Environmental Awards, who are here with us today in the House. I promised them that we would be on our best behaviour during QP. Let me introduce them all: Bill Turner of Victoria, with his wife Gerie; Wayne Sawchuk of Chetwynd, with his partner Marce Fofonoff; Ray Lutz from Woss, in the Nimpkish Valley, accompanied by John Bulcock; Ken Lyotier from Vancouver; George Smith; and Merrily Corder.
Award recipients in the youth category are represented by two young people from Chilliwack: Angela Knopp and Jessica Kennedy. They are accompanied on their trip by Lee Larkin and Gloria Beshara. The award recipients for the city of Surrey parks and recreation and engineering departments are represented by Eric Emery and Greg Ward. We also have Ellen Zimmerman and John Bergenske from the East Kootenay Environmental Society in Kimberley; the Delkatla Sanctuary Society of Masset, represented by Peter Hamel and Margo Hearne; Tim Arnold and Henry Sundquist, here to represent award recipient Construction Aggregates Ltd. of Sechelt; Bill Darling, an environmental educator, and his wife Joan; and Judie Steeves, an environmental reporter from the Kelowna Daily Courier. Would the House please make them welcome.
Hon. M. Farnworth: Visiting in the House today is Vanessa Geary, the coordinator of the Tenants Rights Action Coalition, which is situated in my colleague Joy MacPhail's riding of Vancouver-Hastings. Would the House please make her welcome.
The Speaker: Hon. members, remember -- we don't name names in this chamber. I'm sure everyone remembers that.
Hon. L. Boone: In the gallery today is an employee of the Ministry for Children and Families in the Prince George region -- a good friend and a political and union activist. Would the House please welcome David Gibbs.
J. Sawicki: I'd like to add my personal congratulations, by the way, to the recipients of the Minister's Environmental Awards.
Jointly, with my colleague the member for Burnaby-Edmonds, I have four guests in the gallery. They are Tom DuFresne, who is the president of the ILWU, Canadian area; Doug Sigurdson, the president of the ILWU, Local 514, and a past riding president in Burnaby-Willingdon; and Dave White, president of the ILWU, Local 519. With those guests is Leslie Roosa, who works for Local 514 now; but she was my former constituency assistant. It's kind of fitting that, during Environment Week, these trade union brothers came down to talk about an environmental issue on a bulk terminal up in Stewart. Would the House please make them welcome.
Hon. I. Waddell: I have 28 guests in the gallery. They're all grade 5 students from Corpus Christi School, along with their teacher, Ms. Francis. Would the House please make them welcome.
B. McKinnon: I too would like to welcome Eric Emery and Greg Ward from the city of Surrey parks and recreation and engineering departments. When I was on city council I worked with these gentlemen, and I want to congratulate them on getting this award. Please make them welcome.
J. Wilson: Today I have three visitors from the community of Nazko: Jenifer Beaton and Megan Lehman, who are grade 7 students at the Nazko Elementary School, along with their teacher, Susan Cruikshank. I ask that the House make them welcome.
Hon. J. Kwan: I'm delighted today to welcome Ken Lyotier, who is a constituent of mine in the Vancouver-Mount Pleasant area, who also happens to be a Minister's Environmental Award recipient today. Ken is a community leader in many ways and is the founder of a group called Save Our Living Environment: United We Can. I know that he received the award not just in recognition of his great work but also in recognition of all the people in the downtown eastside community, and particularly the dumpster divers of the downtown east side. Would the House please make him feel welcome.
G. Robertson: Joining us in the precincts today are two good friends of mine from the IWA. Raymond Lutz is here to receive the Minister's Environmental Award. Raymond has worked tirelessly for many years to enhance fisheries stocks throughout the North Island, and his work is well appreciated. With Raymond is John Bullcock, also from Woss Lake. John has for many years been a tireless advocate for worker safety and training on the North Island, and his enthusiasm and energy have been instrumental in creating a well-trained, safe workforce throughout the Nimpkish Valley. I would ask that the members of the House please make them welcome.
M. Coell: On behalf of the Liberal opposition, we would like to join the minister in congratulating the winners of the Minister's Environmental Awards. We greatly appreciate the work you do on our behalf. Would the House please make them welcome.
S. Hawkins: I know she probably won't like it very much, but I'm going to add my congratulations to Judie Steeves from the Kelowna Daily Courier. Would the House please join me in congratulating her.
I. Chong: I'd like the House to help me welcome someone who is important to all of us. One of our constituency assistants, Mr. Charles Keast, is joining us in the gallery today, and I hope the House would make him very welcome.
The Speaker: I recognize now the hon. member for Columbia River-Revelstoke.
Interjections.
J. Doyle: Hon. Speaker, I feel that that group over there is so sick they should go see a mortician.
[ Page 8256 ]
Interjections.J. Doyle: Don't give that crew any more sugar for lunch.
The Speaker: Order, hon. members. Hon. member, you're up to make an introduction.
J. Doyle: Hon. Speaker, if somebody brought the place to order, maybe I could make an introduction.
I've got two friends who were introduced by the minister. I'm pleased to have them here today: Ellen Zimmerman and John Bergenske -- very good friends and constituents of mine. I would like to thank them personally for the work that they do on behalf of the East Kootenay Environmental Society and congratulate them on the award that they're receiving today. Please make them welcome.
L. Reid: I too would like to lend my welcome to Bob Chisholm and his wife Janet, who I believe served this House extremely well from 1991 to 1996. On behalf of the official opposition, I offer congratulations on their visit today.
TOBACCO SALES AMENDMENT ACT, 1998
Hon. P. Priddy presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Tobacco Sales Amendment Act, 1998.Hon. P. Priddy: I move that Bill 28 be introduced and read a first time.
Motion approved.
Hon. P. Priddy: Hon. Speaker, these amendments significantly strengthen the government's ability to fight tobacco use among young people. Since the Tobacco Sales Act was last amended in 1995, the government has increased its efforts to reduce tobacco consumption and prevent tobacco addiction among youth.
As part of our expanded tobacco reduction strategy, we are making these amendments to the Tobacco Sales Act. They will (1) clarify and reinforce the authority of the government to make regulations requiring public disclosure of information about the ingredients, additives, toxic emissions and health hazards of tobacco products sold in B.C.; (2) double the maximum length of sentences for persons who sell tobacco to minors; (3) increase by a factor of five the maximum fine levels for offences under the act; (4) make convictions under the federal Tobacco Act count as convictions for the purpose of suspensions under this act; and lastly, (5) require that persons whose licence to sell tobacco is suspended must post a sign announcing that suspension to the public.
All of these amendments demonstrate this government's continuing commitment to take tough measures and do whatever is necessary to reduce tobacco use, especially among young people. Hon. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to table this legislation today, and I move that this bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
Motion approved.
Bill 28 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.
VICTORIA FOUNDATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1998
M. Sihota presented a bill intituled Victoria Foundation Amendment Act, 1998.M. Sihota: Hon. Speaker, the bill does exactly what the Vancouver Foundation Amendment Act, which we introduced the other day, does, as well as generate some administrative changes with regard to the constitution and structure of the Victoria Foundation.
I move that the bill be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills.
Bill Pr402 introduced, read a first time and referred to the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills.
LOG THEFT AND FOREST REVENUE FRAUD
G. Abbott: Last year, in the auditor general's report on the public accounts, he reviewed the serious problem of forest crime -- namely, log theft and revenue fraud. To the Minister of Forests: how many millions have been lost from B.C. forests in the past year through theft and fraud?Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Since the member is asking for a specific answer, I'll take that question on notice.
The Speaker: I recognize the member for Shuswap on a first supplementary. You recognize the kind of question you can't ask.
G. Abbott: Yes, thank you, hon. Speaker.
The Speaker: New question, same area -- all right?
G. Abbott: The minister is obviously unable to attach a dollar figure to this problem, so I want to try a different approach. To the minister again: how many jobs have been lost in B.C.'s forests as a result of theft and fraud?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Well, I'll endeavour to get an answer to that question.
The Speaker: Question taken on notice.
I recognize the Leader of the Official Opposition.
G. Campbell: Hon. Speaker, the B.C. Liberals have a copy of a document entitled the "RCMP Forest Crimes Unit's Annual Report, 1997-98," by the RCMP. The RCMP states very clearly that theft, fraud and criminal activity are costing British Columbians and B.C.'s forests millions and millions of dollars. In fact, the RCMP estimates a total loss of $350 million to $500 million a year. Can the Minister of Forests tell us why he has not taken any action to reduce this $500 million-a-year problem in the forests of British Columbia?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: This sounds like an estimates discussion. I have not seen that report. When the auditor general reported last year, we took actions which are fully reported
[ Page 8257 ]
on. We took actions to try to implement the auditor general's report. I'm not familiar with this report. I'd be happy to review it and respond.The Speaker: On a first supplementary, the Leader of the Opposition.
G. Campbell: You know, the Minister of Forests should be aware of this kind of report. Last year the alarm bells were rung on this problem. Criminal activity is taking place in our forests. The RCMP is involved, and the minister's own staff people are involved. The concern I have is that when you read the RCMP report -- and I'd be glad to give the minister a copy -- it says: "
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: This is the opposition that would slash the public service -- the very people that would be able to police it. This is the opposition that would cut taxes and cut the public service that does the administration. We recognize that there's a theft problem. Within the means we have, we're dealing with the problem. If more can be done, I give the assurance to this House that we will do it.
The Speaker: On a second supplementary, the Leader of the Official Opposition.
G. Campbell: The problem is that we raised this issue for the minister last year. Last year the minister gave us the same answer. The problem is that we face $350 million to $500 million of theft and criminal activities in the forests of British Columbia. The problem is that his ministry is one of the obstacles to solving these crimes. When will the minister act to make sure that we reduce the amount of forest crime in British Columbia instead of watching it skyrocket?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Hon. Speaker, as I say, it's a legitimate line of questioning for estimates. I'll be prepared to give full answers during estimates.
IMPLEMENTATION OF DOBBIN REPORT
J. Weisgerber: My question is for the Minister of Health. My constituents in Mackenzie and many other northerners have been without on-call physician services in hospitals for more than four months. This minister rejected appeals for negotiations before this issue came to a head in January. She rejected the option of arbitration, which would have allowed a settlement months ago. Will the minister commit today to fully implementing all of the recommendations in the Dobbin report and to do so immediately?
Hon. P. Priddy: I think the member is giving me credit for work that happened before I became the minister, but so be it. I will take that along with
But secondly, more importantly, is the issue of health services to people in the north. In Ms. Dobbin's report, some of the recommendations are short-term recommendations and some are longer-term recommendations. But yes, I commit to implementing all of them.
The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for Peace River South.
J. Weisgerber: To give credit for what happened prior to January is to damn with faint praise, let me tell you.
Can the minister assure this House, and particularly the people of northern British Columbia, that the Lucy Dobbin report has not been and will not be subjected to the kind of tampering that we saw in the Gove report. Will the minister agree today to table both the interim report and the final recommendations in their original form, without any changes or without any pressure on Ms. Dobbin to change her report to make it more suitable to the government?
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, hon. members.
Hon. P. Priddy: As I said yesterday, Ms. Dobbin did not present to me interim recommendations that would get people back to work. Clearly, Ms. Dobbin talked with me throughout the time of the report. Actually, I think her work has been consistent on behalf of doctors and patients in the north and on behalf of the north and other isolated areas. So there is not an interim report to table. If, in point of fact, we're talking about recommendations that she was thinking about then and actually put into her final report, I think most people in the north who look at the report will prefer the final report.
LOG THEFT AND FOREST REVENUE FRAUD
J. Weisbeck: Last year in the House during estimates I asked the Minister of Forests how much money forest crime was costing B.C. The minister said that he didn't know. We know now. The RCMP report says that theft is costing us up to half a billion dollars a year. Can the Minister of Forests tell us why the problem of theft in our forests is getting worse and not better?Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I don't know that it's getting worse. The members obviously have a report that says it's getting worse. I said that if more can be done, we will do it. I do know that you can spend a lot more on policing and getting revenues than you get in revenues. But having said that, we have been following the recommendations of the auditor general with respect to theft.
The Speaker: I recognize, for his first supplementary, the member for Okanagan East.
J. Weisbeck: The RCMP's report says that no forest crime prevention is done, as a result of scarce resources available. Considering that this could be a half-a-billion-dollar problem costing taxpayers millions in forgone taxes and stumpage, why is the minister ignoring the fact that forest crime prevention activities could save taxpayers millions of dollars each year?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: This is not a new issue. Anything that we undertook to do or explained last year, we've been acting on. There is a log theft squad that the RCMP have. We've devoted resources to working with the RCMP to get a better handle on log theft. We have been working on DNA testing, species by species, so that we have an easier, technologically modern way of tracking theft and being able to bring people to justice with respect to that. We don't like any loss of revenue; we don't like people stealing the people's trees. We will do everything we can within our power and with the resources that we have to bring log theft people to justice.
G. Plant: I suppose it's nice to hear that the minister doesn't like the problem. But the fact is that it's a serious
[ Page 8258 ]
problem and it's getting worse, and the government's not devoting any resources to solving the problem. The crime unit we're speaking of that has written this report has only four RCMP officers in it. The report says that one of the reasons why there's a problem in getting a hold on this enormous criminal activity is the lack of sufficient RCMP resources. So maybe the Minister of Forests can tell me this. He is in a government that can put 100 RCMP officers in photo radar vans. Why can't he get more than four RCMP officers to deal with the problem of the theft of a half-a-billion-dollars' worth of Crown assets?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Over the last two years there have been 120 additional police officers in British Columbia, in addition to the 100
Interjections.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Speaker, in addition to the 100
Interjections.
The Speaker: Easy, hon. members. Take it easy.
Hon. U. Dosanjh:
The Speaker: I recognize, for his first supplementary, the member for Richmond-Steveston.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, hon. members.
[2:30]
G. Plant: We asked the question last year, and nothing seems to have been done about it. The auditor general has talked about it, and nothing seems to have been done about it. How many times do we have to raise the question before the government realizes that there's a problem?There is an aspect of this problem that I want to bring to the attention of the Minister of Forests. Part of the problem here is cross-border log theft. In fact, this crime unit has been talking to the American authorities about the problem of cross-border log theft. I'll give the minister a chance. Maybe he could tell us: what has he been doing over the last year to combat the problem of cross-border log theft?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Anything that is cross-border is undoubtedly a federal issue, but because it is our resources, we do have an interest in it. What we have done is set up the crime unit by diverting resources, specializing resources, onto that. If the RCMP say they can't deal with the problem, we'll have to sit down with them, as the Attorney General said, and find ways of dealing with theft within British Columbia and theft that originates across the border.
C. Clark: This has become a sadly familiar ritual for the government side of the House. The opposition asks the minister a question, and he doesn't have the answer. Then the opposition points to a document, and the minister has never seen the document. The minister should go back to his officials and ask them to keep him in the loop about what's going on in his department. That's what the minister should do.
Hon. Speaker, the reason the minister should do that is because one of the things this report points out is that competing rivalries in his ministry -- turf wars within his ministry -- is one of the reasons that they can't resolve this problem. His ministry is named as one of the biggest obstacles to solving this problem. When will the minister start to pay attention to what's going on in his ministry, solve the turf war and figure out how we can solve this very, very serious problem?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It would be interesting to know how the opposition got the report. In fact, does it say "draft" on it or anything? It may be that my officials will have some responses ready, having examined the report.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Hon. members, order. Let the minister finish.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: As recently as last week this opposition was concerned about the state of the forest economy. As the highest priority, we have devoted resources in the ministry to deal with the crisis in the forest industry. As a result of that, we have delivered significant code changes and significant stumpage relief. So the industry itself is poised for a response
The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain.
C. Clark: You have to assume that the Minister of Forests is consulting with the Minister of Environment, when they sit across the House together. What we have here is a document that the minister hasn't seen. We have costs to the economy of over $1 billion that the minister's not paying attention to, and we have officials that apparently don't speak to the minister about the problems that are going on. Will the minister commit today to talk to his officials and get them working to solve this problem so that we can stop costing the economy of British Columbia up to $1 billion in crime? When will he start paying attention to getting his officials to act to enforce against this terrible economic cost to British Columbia?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: That's such an obvious question. Of course
Interjections.
The Speaker: Thank you, members.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, hon. members, for a ministerial statement.
TRANSPORTATION ISSUES
Hon. H. Lali: I rise this afternoon to recognize three important events in the field of transportation. First, May 31 to June 5 is National Transportation Week. I hope all members[ Page 8259 ]
and the general public will take time to consider the enormous contribution that men and women in the transportation industry make to our standard of living in British Columbia. Without the transportation industry, B.C. would stop. It is also a time to recognize the importance of transportation to the past and future economic development of this province.Second, I would like to point out that this week is Bike to Work Week. Our government is joining with community groups to sponsor numerous events recognizing the importance of cycling as a means of transportation and of staying fit. I hope my colleagues will join me in pedalling to the office on Wednesday.
Third, we are making a significant effort this week to engage the public in a discussion of transportation issues. Tomorrow evening at 7 p.m. on VTV, the first of two half-hour programs on the history and future of transportation in the lower mainland will go on the air. I invite members and the general public to tune in, watch the program and then provide us with your thoughts by calling me and members of my staff on a toll-free line that will be advertised during that show.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, hon. members.
I recognize, in response, the member for Richmond Centre.
D. Symons: I am pleased to respond to the ministerial statement. I thank the minister for that statement, because we on this side also recognize the importance of transportation, particularly in this province, where we have the topography that we have. We are terribly dependent upon our roads and our rail, and upon boat and air transportation within the province. It's important to our economy, it's important to the goods and services moving about the province, and it's important for the convenience of its citizens.
In supporting the minister's words on National Transportation Week, I am also somewhat disappointed in the lack of federal support. We have a federal government that does not take part in the national transportation and highway system that we really have to have. We have a federal government that does not really share the amount of taxation it takes from fuel taxes in British Columbia, in returning that to paying for infrastructure in British Columbia. We feel that is incorrect.
The U.S. government is going to spend somewhere in the neighbourhood of $200 billion over the next six years in transportation infrastructure improvements within the United States. A good portion of that is coming to the Pacific Northwest. It's really important to us in British Columbia that we further improve our infrastructure in order to maintain the Pacific gateway status that we currently have. I would encourage all of us to consider that.
I add my words of support for the minister's suggestion that we bike to work. A good number of us haven't brought our bikes to Victoria. But bike, walk or don't come in a single-occupant vehicle tomorrow and for the rest of this week -- both to the members of this Legislature and, I would suggest, to anybody listening. I might also suggest that maybe we carry that on for the rest of the year, rather than for just the one week.
I'd also like to thank the minister for the invitation that he's giving people to participate in public involvement in transportation issues. It is important to the future of this province that we all take a vital interest in what's going on in transportation in British Columbia.
G. Wilson: I seek leave to respond to the ministerial statement.
Leave granted.
G. Wilson: Transportation is indeed a very important -- in fact, I would say the most important -- lifeline to many communities. In looking at this statement, I think there are a number of issues I would like to raise for the minister. First, we'll watch with interest on Wednesday to see whether or not this minister does pedal to work. The only thing we're used to this minister peddling is NDP policy, and most of it isn't very good.
Secondly, in the estimates debate I made a deal with this minister that if I could find a way to save $60,000 in the Transportation budget, he would commit to put it to building the necessary ramp on Gambier Island so we can have services to and from that island. When I look at the cost of a VTV program that is restricted to the lower mainland -- only the lower mainland, because that is the only area in which that is -- what I could suggest is that that $60,000 is already found and we should put it more to work for people who live in rural British Columbia, who will not take benefit from that program.
It is a shame that this minister, when talking about transportation, would select to have his 1-800 callback program on a network, VTV, that has such a limited range, when my colleague from the Peace has consistently tried to get this minister to understand that the main areas of transportation difficulties are in the north, the interior and the rural communities, hon. Speaker. It's a shame that we have restricted this only to the lower mainland. Transportation is an important issue. It's unfortunate that this minister has restricted it only to the lower mainland.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Hon. members, order, please. We want to move on to the next order of business.
ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT ACT, 1998
(second reading)
I'm pleased to be able to present Bill 21 for second reading. The current appeal process is outdated and frustrating for all parties involved. It forces participants into adversarial positions, leads to lengthy hearings and contributes to the growing backlog of appeals. Changes are long overdue. This legislation will create a modern, efficient appeal system for all British Columbians. This bill will make the appeal process more accessible and cut red tape, which will help reduce the current backlog of cases and provide better services to appellants.
The current courts of revision will be renamed property assessment review panels. The new name better reflects the
[ Page 8260 ]
lay nature of this appeal body and clarifies the process for appellants, including requirements for notice and enforcement mechanisms for information requests. The second appeal stage, the current Assessment Appeal Board, will now be known as the Property Assessment Appeal Board.A new bypass mechanism will allow certain more complex appeals to go directly to the board. This will make the process more efficient and save time and money for appellants and the taxpayers. The board will be empowered to customize hearing processes to the particular circumstances of each case and use alternatives to formal adversarial hearings, where appropriate, to aid in resolution. This will result in speedier resolution of cases and will increase efficiency and effectiveness. Bill 21 will allow greater openness and transparency while protecting personal or sensitive information related to assessments, as recommended by the privacy commissioner. Bill 21 will modernize our assessment system, help reduce the backlog of appeals and provide better value for taxpayers. I ask all members to lend their support to this very important piece of legislation.
[2:45]
L. Reid: I thank the minister for her comments. She indicated that she anticipates that this will somehow modernize the current Assessment Act. Certainly that's a decent intention, and it's one worthy of debate this afternoon. She spoke earlier, in first reading, about modifying the process so that indeed some red tape is eliminated. That certainly seems to be a commitment of this government. We will wait to see if that is the case. This minister talked about moving away from an adversarial position when it comes to assessment appeals to a situation that includes some levels of arbitration. We believe those things are to the good and could in fact do some good things when it comes to improving this act.I have a number of concerns I wish to put on the table this afternoon, hon. Speaker, and I trust that the minister will respond to these concerns when she makes her closing remarks on second reading debate.
One of the issues I wish to canvass fairly extensively this afternoon is the Semmens and Adams report of May 9, 1996, "Review of the Property Assessment Appeal System." This report is two years old, so I'm not clear that this is the first opportunity this government has had to amend the Assessment Act. Their amendments, in some cases, are reflected in this act, and in other cases, they are not. I would simply put my concerns on the record today and have the minister, I trust, respond in some detail.
The executive summary of the report talks about quality decisions, timeliness, affordability and client satisfaction, yet never have clients been properly canvassed on this question. I believe they have now asked 2,000 British Columbians how they believe the assessment process has been undertaken, but those results will not be available until the end of this year. The recommendation is two years old. We are now, hopefully, going to see some recommendations flowing from the client -- what the consumer believes to be important. This looks at how best to value property and how best to have taxpayers in this province provide property tax back to government for disbursement. Asking them how they believe the system unfolds is useful; frankly, it's critical.
It brings us to the discussion about affordability and accountability, which is something we have often talked about in this Legislature when we talk about an accountability framework. It makes good sense to ask people if the service available is meeting their needs. Those recommendations are reflected in a report that is two years old. But I am alarmed; I don't believe they've been acted on until very, very recently. Again, that information apparently will not be available until the end of 1998. So I have some concerns and some thoughts around the quality of decision-making. The intention that the minister stated -- to improve the quality of decision-making -- is admirable. The bottom line is that we won't know that for probably 12 to 18 months. There is nothing in this act or in this ministry that allows for assessment of practice. The accountability framework is missing today. I think it's the minister's hope that these areas will be improved, but there's nothing in here that allows us to measure whether or not that actually happens. So I put that on the record for the minister, because I believe that's a serious concern.
We have moved beyond debate in this Legislature where it's appropriate not to indicate to constituents, to British Columbians, how this process works. As of last session I believed that we actually had some understanding, each of us, and some agreement that benchmarking, accountability, was important. So the minister will hear me come back to that numerous times as we proceed through this debate. Certainly the report -- again, two years old -- talks about timeliness, that the unresolved cases
Another discussion that I've had with this minister's staff during the briefing, and as reflected in this bill
One of the major issues the report talks about is changes to the assessment calendar. I don't believe that's reflected in the bill today. That seems to be an opportunity for the government to move forward to a solution, as opposed to acknowledging the obstacle but not making a difference, a change. So it seems to me that there are some other issues the government could address, and I trust that they will be open to commentary as we proceed.
Certainly we talked in some detail at our briefings about the number of complaints that come forward to the courts of revision on an annual basis. There are many thousands -- upwards of 60,000 to 80,000 complaints. The points made by the minister that indeed it's time to modernize the act are valid. But again, there needs to be some research in terms of how best to proceed. There seems to be much division, when it comes to the reports that are available, in deciding how best to proceed. There seems to be limited agreement, hon. Speaker.
The report talks about superb management being required: the management of individual appeals, the management of individual agencies and the management of the overall assessment and appeal system. We would agree, but what we don't see in the act are the steps that would clarify how that would unfold.
[ Page 8261 ]
There's the underlying part of this act that talks about valuation. I appreciate that this doesn't change that determination. But if this new way of assessing people is going to be considered credible, people have to believe in the valuation process, so that when they choose to appeal an assessment -- when they disagree with the value that has been assigned their property -- there is some credibility in the process and they believe that the system has some integrity. Again, that's a question, and it has been problematic. Certainly individuals do have the right to take their issues before the courts. But we know that this is a very expensive and very time-consuming process, and frankly, it is unaffordable for the majority of British Columbians.I began my remarks this afternoon talking about timeliness and accountability. This report and other documents, which I will reference in my remarks today, talk about what is not currently measured. It's my understanding that these issues today are not currently measured by the Assessment Authority: the time required to get to a first hearing once an appeal has been lodged, the length of an actual hearing, the time to reach and communicate a decision once the hearing is complete, and the impact of delays in any of the above on the size of the backlog. These are the kinds of things that individuals who are coming forward in terms of lodging a complaint wish to know the answer to. Frankly, I believe they are entitled to that information. The question they will often put is: how long will it be for this process to move through the steps? Today the answer is sometimes seven, eight or nine months, and sometimes two, three or four years.
It's not an act that reflects timeliness. If the minister is convinced that these changes will improve that situation, we as the opposition will be prepared to look at that -- but only if it contains and includes some accountability mechanisms, some measurement tools, because the reports
In terms of responding to constituents' concerns, this process or this system is becoming increasingly expensive. There's no doubt about that. These are costs that are borne by the taxpayer. These are costs that will be built into the regulations for this act and the policy for this act, which I believe is yet to be decided or yet to be communicated with the stakeholders. Frankly, hon. Speaker, the stakeholders are taxpayers. It's interesting to receive notice that you can now appeal your assessment, but with that will come a bill. Individuals need to know that this process will become more expensive as time unfolds. As this process becomes more complex, it will indeed become more expensive.
In 1994 the Assessment Authority spent $9.3 million on the appeal process. That's not pocket change but a very, very large sum of money. As the minister indicates, she trusts that this process will become more streamlined. I believe that as more individuals are brought on, the costs will grow. Whether or not those costs will be offset by increasing levels of efficiency is yet to be proven.
This report actually breaks it down. It's $3,720 per case to take an appeal to the appeal board. That is a 20 percent increase over the cost for 1993, and now that it's 1998, we can only assume that those costs have indeed grown beyond that number. The minister will know that a number of these issues certainly include tax agents and lawyers, whose fees are very costly when it comes to ensuring that the cases are put before the Assessment Appeal Board with some efficiency. This is not an inexpensive exercise in which to participate.
That is something I think this Legislature must always keep in mind, particularly because this government has repeatedly said that it's an important time in the growth of this province to perhaps be a little kinder to the taxpayer. This Minister of Finance talks about tax cuts. That's all well and good, but not if they are confounded by increasing fees and licences and regulation costs. This will be an increased cost to the taxpayer. There's no question about that.
I will talk about recommendations. Certainly this report looks at organizational structure and, I believe, at some of the issues the minister mentioned -- and in terms of recordkeeping, of having someone at the Assessment Authority who is probably going to act as a form of registrar so that communication is improved. When someone phones up to discover where they are in the queue, whether or not their information has been received, whether or not the evidence has been sought or what their appeal date might be, that kind of information must be more readily available.
There is mention in some of these documents that this system grinds to a halt during times of postal disruption. This process is far too important to allow that to happen. Some staffing has to be in place so that people can be contacted by telephone to ensure that they don't miss a very small window of opportunity. There are some issues around performance -- performance accountability and performance appraisal -- that I believe need some clarification by this minister. I believe that this act will put some significant powers in the hands of political appointments that I have some question about.
I know that my hon. colleague from Delta South will talk about the independence of this board. Those concerns are valid when we're talking about people who are beholden for their jobs and who serve at the pleasure of the government. That is an issue, and it is one of the underlying principles of this debate this afternoon when we talk about whether the lives of British Columbians will be improved because this government has chosen to clarify the Assessment Act.
We don't know the answer to that question, but certainly there are issues of fairness and of justice when it comes to placing a valuation on someone's personal property and determining dollars that are owed to the government as a result of that valuation. That's a significant issue, because for most individuals in this province, home purchase is the most significant purchase they will make, and having some recognition that the process is sound -- having a belief system that tells them they can trust in the process -- is the only reason these processes have some success at their doorstep. Otherwise, it's very problematic.
Another issue I would ask the minister to respond to is around privacy and information. I know that David Flaherty, the information and privacy commissioner, has very recently -- April 3 -- made some recommendations about who could have access to the assessment rolls in the province and whether or not those rolls would continue to carry the homeowner's name. That's a significant issue for many, many British Columbians.
A number of individuals have indicated that it has been a concern -- in fact, I think in the city of Victoria -- as to whether or not they have the right to put that information on the Internet and whether you can search by name for the
[ Page 8262 ]
owner of a property. That is an issue about which Mr. Flaherty has made recommendations, and certainly that is an issue of sensitivity when we talk about privacy and information issues.
[3:00]
There are agencies in this province that do have access to that information by contract, and I believe those contracts are in place for at least another year. Whether or not this legislation addresses that, I think, has yet to be determined.
I will also make mention that upon checking the web site for the Assessment Act
There are some issues that I support around the kinds of information people can access. I think there are some issues that people can very readily avail themselves of in terms of needing background information, but the information has to be current. Again, I would ask the minister in her closing remarks to perhaps comment on the future of that web site. Who is responsible for ensuring that it is maintained in a timely fashion?
There are a number of comments that we have talked about during the briefings and the discussion, and I did talk a little bit earlier about market value. Indeed, that's a trust, integrity and credibility issue when it comes to any act that purports to take more or fewer dollars out of a taxpayer's pocket. The process will have to be communicated very effectively on behalf of this government and this minister for this minister to convince British Columbians that this is not about changing the valuation process. Certainly that is the belief system of many individuals today. It was stated very clearly to us that that is not the case, and I accept that; but indeed that possibility alarms many British Columbians today.
Another issue that I'm not clear that this set of amendments responds to is the issue of those individuals who don't choose to appear when it comes time for them to be part of an assessment appeal process. They have launched the appeal; they have not formally withdrawn it; but indeed they don't appear. The dollars have already been expended. Again I would ask the minister, in her closing remarks, to touch on who is responsible for that expenditure for individuals who don't take the process through.
Earlier I mentioned single-person panels. This report states very clearly: "The board chair believes that the use of single-person panels is already at a maximum, that the level of expertise contained within single individuals is already at a maximum and that it is not something that should be used extensively." I would appreciate the minister's comments. It will probably be less expensive to send out a single individual as opposed to two or three. But if that person does not have the skill set to exercise reasonable judgment -- and for the taxpayer to believe that reasonable judgment has been exercised -- that will indeed be a significant concern.
We've had lots of discussion in this report and in others that I will reference about advisers. Who gets to advise government about tax issues, authority issues, valuation issues? It would be interesting for the minister to perhaps publish, at some point, the advisory group who is responsible for making a number of these recommendations. That will either lend some credibility to those individuals or discredit them.
One of the other issues that I am always interested in pursuing when we talk about legislation in this House is a cost-benefit analysis. Could the minister give us some sense of the cost saving as a result of these amendments? Or are these additional costs that will continue to be borne by the taxpayers in the province? The agency has not done well in the past in terms of tracking its costs. In the past it has not been able to give very detailed information. Certainly I will have some questions for the minister in committee stage, and we will talk about the Expropriation Compensation Board and how that fits with her sense of the new set of changes in Bill 21.
I referenced earlier also date changes and whether the assessment calendar might change in British Columbia. That's a question that I believe deserves a response. It will determine some of the success of some of these changes that are being described under this set of amendments. Certainly I did touch on the level of independence and how important it is for this authority to be seen to be an independent entity. I will be delighted to participate in committee stage of this bill, because I believe second reading debate has been about the principles that underlie basically taking more dollars out of taxpayers' pockets -- not just through increasing or decreasing their assessment, but by the costs that these new processes will bring to bear upon the taxpayer.
This is not necessarily a gift to taxpayers in British Columbia. If a year from now this has resulted in a more streamlined process that is indeed less expensive, I will be the first one to get to my feet and congratulate the minister. I'm concerned that adequate research has not been presented to suggest that the homework has been done around whether or not there will be a cost saving to the system. I would be delighted if, before this debate concludes, the minister stands up and tables a cost-benefit analysis of new legislation. I think that's the responsibility of any minister in the British Columbia Legislature. It's incumbent upon them to tell taxpayers what this will cost. New legislation has a cost -- no question about that.
I have touched on the items in the Semmens report. As it was explained to us, it was intended to address the mechanics around backlog. It made a number of recommendations that I have referenced. Again, some of them are reflected in this amendment act and, frankly, some are not.
We talked a little bit about the justice and effectiveness and fairness of the act. Some of the definition name-change issues that we will talk about in committee stage may indeed ease the concerns of individuals who don't truly understand how the process works today. There are individuals who believe that it's very convoluted -- that having two or three levels of appeal is bureaucratic, costly and defies logic in some instances. This may indeed be true, hon. Speaker.
One of the issues that I want to put on the table -- and perhaps to give the minister a heads-up on for when it comes to committee stage -- is the discussion around whether or not strata-commercial will be a designation under the Assessment Act. The Assessment Authority has considered that topic in the past number of months. There have been many, many submissions on it, and it's of particular interest to individual owners of shopping malls. I know that the minister has correspondence from individuals in my riding who have talked about a tenant situation, a strata situation and a lease situa-
[ Page 8263 ]
tion. Each of those tended to be defined a little bit differently, depending on the landlord of the day. So if the minister could make some comment on that during committee stage of the bill, that would be very helpful to me.I certainly appreciate the opportunity to respond to this bill in second reading, and I look forward to committee stage.
F. Gingell: I'm pleased to rise to speak to the issues surrounding Bill 21, the Assessment Amendment Act, 1998.
There is a possibility or a probability of dealing with basically three issues when we deal with appeals of assessments. The first is how assessments are determined, and that has been left untouched. I am really pleased that when the previous amendments were going through, the opposition managed to get the minister to agree to a change that was critically important in ensuring that there is equity. One could almost say that your assessment value doesn't matter; it's how your assessment compares to all the other assessments around you. A standard has been set that it is actual value applied on a consistent basis, and that seems to be working well.
The second exercise is how the appeal process works. We know that to this point the process hasn't worked very well. The Assessment Appeal Board has gotten further and further behind, and we all know that justice delayed is justice denied.
The third issue, if I can just finish off on that subject
Whether the final recipe produces something that is tasty, something that is acceptable, something that the persons using this process believe to be a fair and open process
So what are the kinds of things that need to be done to bring a vision to the public that the appeal process is fair? I would like to suggest that there are probably three issues. The first issue is the independence of members of the Assessment Appeal Board. I believe they will serve better and the process will work better if they have tenure, rather than serving at the pleasure of the minister through order-in-council. It would be better if they were appointed for a definitive term of six years, five years or eight years, or to a certain age -- until age 70; or 75, because people of 70 are just mere children.
Because their remuneration is also set by order-in-council, and because it is in the hands of and at the pleasure of the minister to set that and adjust it from time to time, I think that it would be good and worthwhile to have their remuneration set by some independent process. We have a whole series of officers of the Legislature who are paid the same as a Provincial Court judge or a percentage of a Provincial Court judge's fees. I'm sure there are lots of firm arrangements under which the remuneration for members of the Assessment Appeal Board could be determined without being left in the hands of the minister.
[3:15]
I think we have to recognize that the Minister of Municipal Affairs's responsibilities and interests -- as they should properly be; in no way would I argue with that -- are to the municipalities. It is within her interest and her responsibility to ensure that the interests of municipalities are looked after. So it is the taxer whose interest the minister is concerned with, and the taxed -- the owner of the property -- doesn't have that opportunity. How could we solve that? It would seem to me that where you have an Assessment Appeal Board and an assessment process that is all under the jurisdiction, responsibility and control of the minister, you want to have the appeal process outside the minister's ken. Perhaps for administration and reporting purposes, the Property Assessment Appeal Board could report to the Attorney General or some other minister -- but some minister who is concerned with justice issues rather than the interests of municipalities.The Property Assessment Appeal Board will be given a lot of powers; it already has them under the current title, Assessment Appeal Board. They have the ability to both increase and decrease assessments of appellants. Let's recognize that what's happening at the point that an appeal comes to the Property Assessment Appeal Board is that it has already been through a preliminary process. It has already appeared in front of the review board. Assessors who, in the process of preparing themselves for the review panel hearing, discover that they have made some mistake can well bring that mistake forward and request a reassessment -- either up or down -- at the review panel level.
My knowledge is secondhand because I have not been involved, but I understand that it is not unknown for assessors to suggest to property owners -- to the appellants -- that if they move forward with the appeal
Interjection.
F. Gingell: Thank you.
When the appellants move forward with the appeal, suggestions are made that they will apply for increases in the amount of the assessment if the appeal proceeds. Now, that's a pretty grave accusation to make, but I haven't received it just from one source. I have heard it from more than one source and, I must admit that after I heard it the first time, I tried to chase it down.
The proposal has been put to both property owners and to lawyers and agents representing people appealing at the old Assessment Appeal Board level -- now the Property Assessment Appeal Board level -- that if they proceed with the appeal, the assessor will apply for an increased assessment. Well, that's no way for us to ensure that justice is done. That's no way for us to ensure that the people of British Columbia believe they will be treated fairly by this quasi-judicial body. This is no way to have our citizens have trust in government that they're getting a fair shake.
It can be solved very easily. Just restrict appeals by the assessor to increase the amount of the assessment to the review panel level. That's the first level of appeal. I'm sure there are occasions when the assessor, in reviewing the information to prepare for the hearing, realizes that they've made a mistake. For all the other taxpayers within the assessment area, that mistake should be rectified. The opportunity should
[ Page 8264 ]
be there, but the opportunity should be restricted, I believe, to the review panel level. Make them ultra vires or banned or prohibited -- whatever word is appropriate -- at the appeal board level.
I think that those changes -- to appoint appeal board members with a definitive tenure for a number of years or to a certain age, and to pay them in accordance with some independently determined sum; to have the appeal board report for administrative purposes to the Ministry of Attorney General or some other ministry
As we know, getting amendments to these various acts that are in force in the province of British Columbia is a lengthy exercise. The minister, I'm sure, has worked long and hard to get this particular one brought forward. I think it would be a shame if we missed this opportunity, while amendments to the Assessment Act are in front of the House, to make some changes. So I will, if I may, bring some amendments forward, which I will deliver to the minister in good time, in the hope that by cooperation and working together in the interests of all British Columbians we can make this a better piece of legislation than I believe it presently is.
G. Wilson: I am pleased to be able to rise and speak to Bill 21, the Assessment Amendment Act, 1998. I would say at the outset for the record that I will not be supporting this piece of legislation for several reasons, both in principle and also because of the changes in language in sections 4 through 8 as they now appear in this act, which have deleted a number of safeguards and protection which I believe are necessary, particularly with respect to farmland.
Let me say that in principle
[W. Hartley in the chair.]
The idea that the real value
In fact, in practice -- and there are many examples of this -- that does not occur. What we find in this prospect, the proposition of land taxation
Similarly, I would say that the difficulty here is that capital improvement is included in the land tax that's in this bill. Bill 21 does nothing at all to remove, as a value on property, the capital improvement that somebody does to their land. Now, it seems to me that this puts us in a proposition of double jeopardy, because anybody who builds a room, improves the roof, does an extension, in some way puts a second dwelling on a property if the zoning permits, or whatever that land improvement may be
For the assessor to come along and say: "As your reward, we now look at this improvement, and we're now going to say that the net worth of your property potentially" -- and it's based upon a potential sale or comparative market value -- "is this much more. We're now going to penalize you for the industry that you put into the improvement of your property by increasing your property tax
The third thing, and by way of omission
Hon. Speaker, let me give you just one example, and there are many examples of this. This is the reason that I cannot, nor will I, support this bill. Section 32(1) says essentially: "
In the original act that this is amending, there is a section (f). What is (f)? Well, (f) says: "
With this deletion in this act, people who have that classification of farm now
[ Page 8265 ]
says, "No longer will you be a farm class," the appeal cannot now be heard under section 32 on complaints respecting the assessment value, which it could in the previous act. You're going to have to go through a very much more expensive and difficult legal appeal process to try to maintain and protect your farm status.
[3:30]
One of the reasons why the government, I suggest, wants to do this is because there are many people who live on marginal farms or farms which are considered "hobby farms," or they are on farms that are supplementary to the primary income of a person who is working as whatever -- a trucker, a teacher, a lawyer or whatever else they happen to be doing. I know there have been assessors who have tried very hard for many years to close what they see or they deem to be a loophole, and this effectively does it through that simple deletion. It allows for a whole host of people who right now have farm-class exemptions to lose that exemption -- potentially, at least.That is an insidious way to once again hammer people who are living in rural areas and who find that they have no services to those properties. Many of them have no sewer; they have no water; they have no sidewalks; they have no streetlights; they have no capital improvement upon which their land assessment should in fact be pushing up land values -- or what you would say is a fair assessment. These people who live in the rural areas and who receive absolutely no benefit whatsoever from their assessed land tax are now going to face one more tax grab from this government, which is going to come in and tax away their right to hold farm status. This is an insidious way to move in and try to grab more money from people who can least afford it: rural British Columbians.
The second point I would make with respect to omission, hon. Speaker
But with respect to the duties and powers of the review panels, what is interesting is that there is an amendment here that changes, with respect to this panel
There are a bunch more like that -- omissions that have come forward in this act, in those sections -- and they are going to have profound effect on British Columbians who are going to be faced with having to pay tax. What they will do is put up both the costs of appeal
Secondly, it will eliminate opportunities that people, especially rural British Columbians, have right now with respect to the protection of land, either through the hobby farm classification or because they have property that is undeveloped or maybe even deemed to be "forest" in their application. Those little exemptions are gone, and that's going to capture a huge bunch of British Columbians who right now have been able to shelter a portion of their property tax. They will no longer find that shelter available to them.
So I cannot support Bill 21. I think this is a very slick sleight of hand, in a way, to try to dress up as housekeeping an assessment amendment act that in fact has some profound implications for British Columbians -- especially rural British Columbians, who, if this act passes, are going to find that they will become even more indebted with respect to their land tax obligations. Therefore I think that this bill should be defeated, and I will vote against it.
J. Wilson: I seek leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
J. Wilson: Today we have, from my riding of Cariboo North and from the community of Wells, a contingent of students and parents from Wells Barkerville Elementary School. We have 13 students and two parents, and they're accompanied by the principal, Mr. Den Otter. I ask that the House make them welcome.
Deputy Speaker: I recognize the minister, to close debate.
Hon. J. Kwan: I'm delighted to have the opportunity to close debate on Bill 21. Many questions have been raised by the members opposite -- some of which I will have the opportunity to respond to in more detail when we enter committee stage.
Generally speaking, with respect to some of the issues that the hon. member for Richmond East identified out of the Semmens report
In part, the amendments to the Assessment Amendment Act, Bill 21, are precisely to put some of those strategic ideas in place in an attempt to reduce the backlog, to address the issue of access by the public to information and to more effectively go through the resolution process with a less adversarial approach. I also want to say that while the reform package today is legislative, there are also non-legislative elements to the reform package that was introduced in January of 1998. The concerns of various participants in the appeal process have been identified through different mechanisms, and an
[ Page 8266 ]
attempt to reduce that backlog and to address some of those concerns is being looked into through Bill 21, as well as through non-legislative means.Major structural reforms to the board, which were announced in January of 1998, included the appointment of a new chair and five full-time vice-chairs. The vice-chair positions are being filled by open competition, and this process is actually nearing completion. I just spoke with my staff yesterday, and I know that four of the five full-time vice-chairs have now been selected and will be on stream very shortly. This reflects a shift toward a case management approach which will increase efficiency and help reduce the backlog of appeals.
When we think about the appeal procedure within British Columbia and the statistics in general, I'm advised that out of all the appeals that do come through the appeal procedure, it was about 2 percent of the owners in 1997. In comparison to other jurisdictions
What I'm saying is that while I acknowledge that there are a lot of issues within the appeal procedure, which is why we brought in Bill 21: to address some of those procedural issues that have been identified throughout the last number of years
[The Speaker in the chair.]
Second reading of Bill 21 approved on the following division:
| YEAS -- 36 | ||
| Evans | Zirnhelt | McGregor |
| Kwan | Hammell | Boone |
| Streifel | Pullinger | Lali |
| Orcherton | Stevenson | Calendino |
| Goodacre | Walsh | Randall |
| Gillespie | Robertson | Cashore |
| Conroy | Priddy | Petter |
| Miller | Dosanjh | Lovick |
| Ramsey | Farnworth | Waddell |
| Hartley | Sihota | Smallwood |
| Sawicki | Bowbrick | Kasper |
| Doyle | Giesbrecht | Janssen |
| NAYS -- 31 | ||
| Sanders | C. Clark | Farrell-Collins |
| de Jong | Plant | Abbott |
| Reid | Neufeld | Coell |
| Chong | Whittred | Jarvis |
| Anderson | Nettleton | G. Wilson |
| Weisgerber | Weisbeck | Nebbeling |
| Hogg | Hawkins | Coleman |
| Stephens | Hansen | Thorpe |
| Symons | Barisoff | Dalton |
| Masi | Krueger | McKinnon |
| J. Wilson | ||
Bill 21, Assessment Amendment Act, 1998, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.
[3:45]
Hon. D. Lovick: In Committee A, we will resume the estimates debate for the Ministry of Small Business, Tourism and Culture. In this House, I call second reading of Bill 23.PARK AMENDMENT ACT, 1998
(second reading)
Throughout this government's administration, we have taken significant steps to protect some of the most beautiful and precious areas of our province. Through the success of the protected-areas strategy and innovative land use planning processes, 10.6 percent of the province is now dedicated to protected-area status. Since January 1992, more than 280 protected areas or additions to existing sites have been announced, encompassing about 400 million hectares. This expansion of our outstanding system of protected areas is unprecedented in our province's history. It has made British Columbia a recognized leader in environmental protection and conservation -- not only here in Canada but also globally. And we will continue to add to this natural legacy as future land use planning processes conclude. This bill contributes to the government's environmental stewardship goals by ensuring that the areas which make up our outstanding parks system are properly protected.
As members noted last year, the current written descriptions for park boundaries are often very lengthy. This leads to difficulty in interpreting and understanding them. This bill begins the process of replacing the written metes and bounds descriptions with legally mapped boundaries which are more accurate, understandable and practical. These maps will be referenced in the schedules to the act and kept on file at the Crown land registry to ensure their accessibility. I have provided a set of maps to the office of the Clerk and to each party for members' review. I am confident that all members will share my view that these map descriptions are much easier to understand.
Most of the legal descriptions being replaced by this bill are in the Kamloops area. The reason for this is that the Kamloops LRMP was the first subregional plan completed in the province. It was completed in 1995. Some difficulties were encountered in translating the planning table's intended boundaries to written metes and bounds legal descriptions. The difficulties they encountered included the varying map scales and standards; the difficulty in locating the point of commencement; different understandings as to where the
[ Page 8267 ]
boundary was actually located; and difficulty in checking the actual location of a metes and bounds description. Provincial land management agencies have learned a lot through this process. As a result, a new way to designate protected areas has been devised.This bill would have originally replaced the written metes and bounds descriptions for 30 of the new parks resulting from this planning process with the new map descriptions. However, with some recent hard work we've been able to complete an additional 11 mapped boundaries. Amendments to incorporate these new legal descriptions are now standing in Orders of the Day. The 41 new map descriptions use consistent mapping standards and are more accurate, more understandable and easier to locate on the ground. They more closely reflect the intent of the planning tables' recommendations, which were accepted by government. Indeed, the maps themselves have been signed off by the planning tables and represent their consensus on the boundaries of the parks. We expect to use this new process for future parks and protected areas identified through strategic land use plans. We also expect to update all existing park boundaries using the maps over the next five or six years.
As such, this bill is the first step in a multi-year process to clarify park boundaries and make them more understandable. This bill also incorporates corrections to the legal descriptions and area figures of some parks in schedules C and D. The changes to the legal descriptions are the result of improved surveys and checking of parks since they were established. Making these changes will clarify the boundaries of these parks.
In summary, this bill ensures that the boundaries of 47 parks are correctly described and therefore adequately protected. A new process which is more accurate and understandable is being adopted. This bill is a further step in ensuring the protection of our outstanding park resources.
M. Coell: Hon. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to offer some comments on Bill 23. The opposition will support this bill. It is very much a housekeeping bill. It is very helpful, I think, for all people of British Columbia to know exactly where their parks are and exactly what the government is going to attempt to -- and, hopefully, successfully -- protect on their behalf.
We have 650 parks in the province, all of which are going to have to go through this process and come before the House -- probably an estimated five years to complete this project. In the meantime you'll see members of the opposition pressing the government to move ahead with this new, more accurate way of describing parks in British Columbia. I think it's important -- in that, as I said, we have 650 parks -- that we know where they are, what exactly their boundaries are, in order to protect and preserve them. The idea that this alone will protect and preserve parks isn't really going to happen. A lot more than this will be needed to protect and preserve parks in British Columbia in the future.
On this side of the House we reaffirm our support for the 12 percent figure for parks, green spaces and ecosystems within this province, and we'll work to see that completed in the next years. I believe this is a positive start in that it will allow forestry, mining and tourism to know exactly where park boundaries are much easier than in the past, and there will be fewer conflicts within those sectors. I think the ministry and government can't rest knowing that this new way of delineating parks is in place; there is a lot more that will need to be done. We will be looking to make sure that staff, protection of the present parks, the development of parks and the development of management plans for the parks are all put into place in a timely fashion. But I think this is simply a positive step in the delineation and description of park boundaries. I look forward to a number of questions during committee stage.
J. Weisgerber: I certainly want to support the concept and the notion of mapping as opposed to a description of metes and bounds. The GPS technology and the other things that the ministry has been working on for years have made it absolutely essential that we change the way we describe parks.
[4:00]
My purpose in rising today, however, is to talk about something that I believe is a peripheral or related issue. In the minister's opening remarks, she noted that now in excess of 10 percent of British Columbia is described as protected areas. It was not long ago that this government, particularly under the former leader Mike Harcourt, was talking about 12 percent of British Columbia in parks.My concern here is to recognize that there is, and must be, a significant difference between a park and a protected area. The establishment of the Northern Rockies wilderness area, the Muskwa-Kechika area, brought that into very sharp focus for me. The LRMP tables both in the North Peace and in Fort Nelson came up with truly innovative ways of recommending to government uses for that marvellous area that would meet the needs of all of players. I observed at the time, and I continue to believe, that we need legislation to reinforce the various goals that were laid out by those LRMP tables.
My purpose in rising today is more to talk about the need for legislation that goes beyond simply spelling out the metes and bounds of parks. We need legislation that defines protected area, defines the consensus that has been reached around multi-use areas. It's troubling to me that we are now starting to talk about these so-called protected areas as parks. I see a subtle shift, and I have a great fear that within a very short period of time -- with the very best intentions of the original proposers of some of these areas -- they are simply going to become parks.
I want to urge the minister, as I've done before, to move forward and to bring in legislation that truly reflects the intention of the communities and of the people who worked in recommending these parks. It's fine for the government to allow consensus-building in the community, in the region; it's fine for government and for the Premier to say: "Yes, we welcome these innovative new recommendations." But if there's no action taken beyond that, then it becomes bureaucratic interpretation as to the original intent of these land use decisions.
While what we're doing in terms of metes and bounds and boundaries is important, it's far more critical for the ministry -- for Parks generally -- to wrap their minds around the need to adequately define land uses within these protected areas, before the boundaries and the distinctions between land use recommendations become so blurred that five years or a decade from now we will have someone saying: "Oh, indeed, we set a goal of 12 percent. Now we've reached the 12 percent; we have 12 percent parks." You have the bureaucrats within the ministry saying: "A park is a park is a park." Legislation defines what activities can take place in parks and what can't.
I'm going to close, because I realize that I'm getting very near to relevancy on this issue. But I want to take this issue --
[ Page 8268 ]
and I'm going to take every opportunity to remind the ministerThe Speaker: The minister closes debate.
Hon. C. McGregor: I'd like to thank the members opposite for their succinct and, I would say, totally relevant comments on many questions related to parks in the province. While the Park Amendment Act is not specifically about many of the matters that were raised by the critic and the member opposite for Peace River South, I too agree with what the member is saying about the need for new tools to be able to manage what we've really evolved in British Columbia through communities and the land use planning process: a way to create parks and protected areas and to think about how we manage our provincial resources in a different way; a way that respects multiple users -- people who use and extract resources from regions of the province as well as those who value conservation and wish to have areas preserved for all time. The tools that we've got through the Park Act, I would agree, need some change and amendment. That's one of the reasons why this government, and this ministry in particular, put such a huge commitment into the Parks Legacy process and review.
I think the member may want to take the opportunity, if he hasn't already, to make a submission on that question to the Parks Legacy panel, because they will have the opportunity to recommend to government potential changes through which we can best manage our park system. That might well be the route that the member may wish to pursue. I'd also say that I am aware of the Premier's commitment, as well, around Muskwa-Kechika in particular. I take those commitments very seriously, and I think the member should stay tuned.
Finally, I would like to thank the members opposite for their support for the new method of mapping our parks. I think, as the critic opposite noted in particular, that it will indeed make it simpler for all of us to understand exactly where the boundaries of the parks are. It's going to be a useful tool at land use planning tables in any context. From the forestry side, any of us who need to clearly understand boundaries in order to avoid conflict will appreciate this new technology and the efforts needed to bring all of our parks into this new description model so that we will avoid potential concerns and conflicts of uses in the future.
Hon. Speaker, I move second reading of the bill.
Motion approved.
Bill 23, Park Amendment Act, 1998, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.
W. Hartley: Hon. Speaker, I seek leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
W. Hartley: Today we have in the precincts some 75 grade 6 students with their accompanying adults and their teacher, Mr. Moffitt, from Cathcart Elementary School in Snohomish, Washington. They're here for comparative government and local history. Please welcome them.
Hon. D. Lovick: Hon. Speaker, I would now like to call second reading of Bill 24.
MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 1998
(second reading)
The House recessed from 4:09 p.m. to 4:14 p.m.
[W. Hartley in the chair.]
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I move that Bill 24 now be read a second time.
This bill contains amendments to a number of statutes. I will provide a brief description of each amendment. Bill 24 amends the Court Rules Act and the Evidence Act. These amendments represent another step in government's strategic reforms of the justice system. They will ensure quality standards are met in the protection of Supreme Court transcripts. The changes will streamline and consolidate under the Evidence Act authority governing court reporting and the transcription process. They will allow the province to develop regulations which will establish quality standards for transcriptions, register reporters and transcribers, and approve transcription firms which can access Provincial and Supreme Court audio tapes.
The legislation will also enable the province to audit court reporting and transcription firms. Overall, these amendments will provide a comprehensive solution to the court reporting and transcription process and will ensure that the public and other justice system users receive the highest quality of transcription services available.
[4:15]
The bill also amends the Crown Proceeding Act to clarify and reconfirm the application of a provision in the Crown Proceeding Act in the light of a recent court decision. The Crown Proceeding Act, enacted in 1974, makes the Crown civilly liable as if it were a person and sets out the scope and limits of that liability. There are equivalent statutes in other common-law provinces of Canada. Prior to 1974, suits against the Crown required the permission of the government.The amendment will clarify the purpose of section 3(2)(a) to provide protection to the Crown respecting government employees' responsibilities of a judicial nature or in connection with the execution of a judicial process. The protection provided in this section is limited to actions and decisions of a special character -- that is, those which are judicial in nature and which are carried out properly according to established principles of administrative law. This section embodies a long-established principle of common law and is also present in the equivalent statutes of the other common-law provinces of Canada.
The amendments to the Employment Standards Act will reduce by two years the time period that employers must keep payroll and flexible work schedule records. This change will reduce the paper burden for business while still maintain-
[ Page 8269 ]
ing current protection for workers. The bill also amends two definitions in the Evidence Act relating to the peer review process for monitoring quality assurance and initiating disciplinary proceedings.The definition of "health care professional" will be amended to include members of an organization designated by regulation. Under the Hospital Act, to permit other practitioners to practise within hospitals, designation by regulation will ensure that those practitioners are eligible for membership on the hospital committees referred to in section 51. The current definition of "organization of health care professions" will be replaced with one that allows the list of organizations to be revised from time to time by regulation as new organizations are formed or current ones renamed. It is anticipated that all the organizations currently listed in the act and the College of Midwives will be included in the new regulation.
Section 17 of the Health Professions Act deals with the boards of health profession colleges. In this bill, section 17(3) is amended to clarify that it is only after the first election that the board must consist of at least three persons elected in accordance with the bylaws and at least two person appointed by the minister. This will provide the flexibility to enlarge a first board, fill vacancies on it or make other necessary changes in composition during the period that a college is being established and before the first board election is held. This change will be retroactive to March 14, 1991, the date on which the Health Professions Act came into effect. The bill also expressly validates any appointments to and actions of all first boards so that such appointments or actions cannot be challenged.
Section 26(1) of the Hospital Act is amended to eliminate the requirement that some positions on the board of the Hospitals Foundation of British Columbia be filled by appointees selected from a list of British Columbia Health Association nominees. This reflects the fact that the British Columbia Health Association was dissolved as a result of regionalization in 1997 and is no longer able to provide nominees for the board. The amendment will allow the foundation to continue its work of encouraging and facilitating activities that increase the financial support of hospitals.
The final amendments in this bill are made to the Tobacco Tax Act to counteract the effects of an adverse Court of Appeal decision in October 1997, in which the province was unable to recover $6.5 million in unremitted taxes.
In addition, the proposed amendments add a new provision to authorize the province to assess a tobacco dealer for failure to pay a security on tobacco acquired for resale. It is critical that the province address this weakness in the legislation. All tobacco taxes are collected by 60 wholesalers, who then remit the tax to the province. As individual wholesalers remit up to $10 million a month in tax, an inability to recover unremitted taxes poses substantial risk to the $480 million in annual tobacco tax revenue. Without these amendments, the province remains unable to enforce the tax remittance from wholesalers. That concludes my remarks.
G. Plant: I recognize that this is a miscellaneous statutes amendment act and that the opportunity for more extensive debate on particular provisions will present itself at the committee stage of debate. There are some provisions here that I think will be the subject of debate when we get to committee stage. Because some of these provisions raise a few questions that might take the bill as a whole beyond the category of being a purely housekeeping statute, I thought I would spend a few minutes canvassing, relatively briefly, some of the issues that are raised by the various parts of this bill.
The Attorney General spoke about the changes to the Evidence Act and the Court Rules Act around court transcriptions. Essentially, what these do in part is create or reorganize regulation-making powers in respect of what constitutes the official record of a court proceeding, the regulation of the preparation of official transcripts and things like that -- all important parts of the process of ensuring that in our courts we have the ability to keep an accurate record of what is happening.
The Attorney General spoke about these amendments in the context of what the government calls its strategic reform of the justice system. Mr. Speaker, you and the hon. members may recall that one element of that so-called reform was the decision which the government made, in about February of 1997, to do away with the use of court reporters in Supreme Court trials and to replace court reporters with tape recorders. What now happens in, I think, probably the vast majority of Supreme Court trials is that there's a recording apparatus that records the proceedings. If there is a need for some transcript or official record of the proceeding, then the process is that the services of a transcription agency are retained, and some arrangements are made to transcribe the proceedings from the tape.
This decision by government had a significant impact on a group of very dedicated professionals in British Columbia, who are the court reporters. Over time, governments have made decisions which have circumscribed the work that court reporters do, and when that happens, there is a threat of loss of employment. Of course, in the case of court reporters, these are people who have spent years of their lives acquiring the necessary skill and who sometimes have spent lots of money buying the equipment that they need to do their job. So the impact of the decision that the government made, in respect of bringing traditional court-reporting services to an end in the Supreme Court, was to jeopardize the livelihood of many court reporters.
What these amendments do is create a new regulatory framework for the transcription of proceedings in court. They extend to, for example, examinations for discovery. I think that it may well be that the government's intentions here are more in the interest of ensuring that there is regulatory efficiency, quality standards and quality control, as the Attorney General indicated in his remarks.
If that is the ambit of the government's intention here, then these provisions will not be opposed by us. But there will be questions raised during the committee stage debate, I think, about whether the government intends here, for example, to make further changes or impose further limitations on the role of court reporters in our legal system. If that's not the government's intention, then I think there'll be a fairly short debate on those provisions. We'll discover that in committee stage debate.
Another change made in this bill is an amendment to the Crown Proceeding Act. I believe I understand a little bit of the context of the government's intentions here in terms of clarifying an issue raised by a judicial decision: ensuring that the Crown Proceeding Act achieves its intended purposes in respect of making the Crown -- the government -- liable when the circumstances are right.
I just want to make the comment that the Attorney General referred to the fact that the Crown Proceeding Act in British Columbia dates from 1974. We don't have an endless history in our system of laws and government of the Crown admitting that it will be liable in the courts of British Columbia in the same way that other citizens are liable. The interesting
[ Page 8270 ]
thing is that the government tends to define for itself the circumstances in which it will be liable. I think that every time we speak about whether the government should be liable as a matter of law for some tort or for some civil wrong -- or for the kind of action that was talked about in the court case that I think is part of the context for this amendment -- I think it's useful for us to remember that the government is always in a position different from ordinary civil litigants. The government can say: "We choose not to be liable for these kinds of things."In this respect, it's interesting that in the particular provision we're looking at here -- with respect to the immunity which the government says it needs to have in respect of those people who perform judicial proceedings -- the immunity is not quite the same, in my view, as the immunity as described in other provinces in Canada. It may not be much of a distinction, but if anything, I think the provisions of the Crown Proceeding Act which are being amended here, even after the amendment, will be more generous in terms of the Crown's liability to citizens than are the provisions in similar statutes across Canada. I think it's useful to be aware of that distinction, because it's not something that happens automatically or necessarily. It doesn't happen just because it happens; it happens because the Legislature chooses to make it happen by passing the Crown Proceeding Act.
Changes to the Employment Standards Act raise an issue or two which I think will be discussed in committee stage.
I want to talk for a moment about the changes to the Tobacco Tax Act, which I expect will be discussed in committee. One of the issues raised here is the issue of retroactivity; that is, when it is discovered that a law of the province does not have the effect which the government wants it to have, there's a temptation for government to fix the problem not just for all of the cases that will arise from this point forward but also retroactively to kind of undo the problem back in time.
That is a tendency which I think, generally speaking, needs to be resisted. I don't think, generally speaking, that governments should enact retroactive legislation, because the citizens of the province have a right to depend on the laws of the province with some certainty and stability as they order their lives, regulate their affairs, conduct their business and so on. If government is constantly changing the law in a way that operates retroactively, then people have to go back and revisit the transactions that took place three, four or five years ago, in some cases, depending on how far back the retroactivity goes. If we allow government to do that too often, then we lose some of the stability and the certainty which I think is essential to the proper conduct of a free and democratic society likely to create economic prosperity.
[4:30]
The whole idea of retroactivity has special twists and turns, I think, when you look at taxation law. I think it's fair to observe that people often plan their business affairs around certain expectations about what the tax laws are. Their expectations include an expectation that government is not going to change the rules and make new rules in respect of things that happened three or four years ago.On the other hand, of course, we all want to make sure that taxpayers don't enjoy an unfair advantage or conduct themselves in a way that looks illegal, only to escape liability because of some extraordinarily technical decision by a court that creates unfairness not just for the parties to it but also for all taxpayers. In this case, the changes to the Tobacco Tax Act are made retroactive to March 31, 1992. Well, that's six years. We'll find out some more about this when we discuss these issues in committee stage debate, but if that's six years of people regulating their lives in a way that most of us would consider fair and reasonable, then I think there will be some problems. I think that if the government failed to express itself clearly when it drafted a tax statute, then it's not always an open-and-shut question in my mind that the government should be allowed to fix its own error at the expense of taxpayers five or six years later.
This is a part of this bill that I actually think will probably excite some debate when we get to committee stage. Those are, I think, perhaps the most important issues that arise in what is, generally speaking, properly a miscellaneous statutes amendment act. I look forward to committee stage debate, when we can explore these issues more thoroughly.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Without making any further remarks, I move second reading of the bill.
Motion approved.
Bill 24, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1998, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 25.
FAMILY RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT, 1998
(second reading)
The wording of the act is broad enough now to allow the court to grant custody or access to anyone, including grandparents, where it's in the child's best interests to do so. However, by specifying that the people who can apply for custody or access include a child's parents, grandparents, relatives and other people who have a close relationship with the child, the amendments clearly acknowledge the important role that these people may play in the child's life. Grandparents and others with whom a child has a close relationship can make important contributions to the child's growth and development. Where it is in the child's best interests it is important to preserve these relationships.
There was an argument made that we didn't need to specify these relationships in the legislation; however, I believe that with this specification in the legislation once these amendments are passed, the courts will know that the overriding principle in determining child custody and access arrangements is the best interests of the child. The best interests of the children are always paramount; however, once that
[ Page 8271 ]
is taken into account, no one has a superior right to anyone else with respect to child custody and access. It is always the best interests of the children that are paramount. If it is in the best interests of the children that grandparents have custody and/or access as opposed to the parent or parents, the court will decide that. This simply gives explicit recognition to the fact that grandparents, like anyone else, are entitled to have a close relationship. It is not just the entitlement of the grandparents or the parents; it is the entitlement of the children to have a close relationship with those individuals who are part of their lives: grandparents, parents, aunts, uncles or anyone else.With those remarks, I will sit down and hear what's to be said.
Deputy Speaker: Perhaps I could ask the Attorney to move second reading of the bill.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: With those words, hon. Speaker, I will obey your order and move second reading.
Deputy Speaker: Thank you. I recognize the member for Richmond East.
L. Reid: I am delighted to rise this afternoon and debate the Family Relations Amendment Act, Bill 25. I would commend the Attorney General on his wisdom on this question. His bill bears a remarkable resemblance to mine, Bill M207. I believe that this is an opportunity for both of us to pay tribute to the Canadian Grandparents Rights Association, which has lobbied both of us extensively over the last two years. Certainly in my case it's been two years. I believe that their passion and their commitment deserve the recognition of this Legislature. I would take this opportunity to thank the Attorney General for his wisdom on this question.
Certainly we talk about the relationship that grandparents enjoy with their grandchildren, but the reverse is absolutely true: we need to honour, as well, the relationship that grandchildren enjoy with their grandparents. This is about the right of access. That is understood equally, I believe, by both parties -- both by the Attorney General and I today, but certainly by the Canadian Grandparents Rights Association and grandchildren in this province who truly wish, who truly desire, an ongoing relationship with their grandparents.
The Attorney General will know that I've spoken many times in this chamber regarding the constancy of nurturing children. It's vitally important to their well-being and to the well-being of families in this province. Many, many issues have come to pass regarding foster care and the care of children in this province that could be assisted by the inclusion of grandparents and extended family members, because I believe they have an opportunity -- and, frankly, an obligation in many instances -- to come forward.
I fully acknowledge the Attorney's comments when he talks about the best interests of the child. I too come to this debate from that perspective. I was a teacher in this province for ten years, and nothing is more alarming to children than family separation. The anguish that they experience, the dilemmas that prevent them from succeeding in school or from having useful peer relationships
I believe that this amendment will improve the situation for many families in this province and will at least raise the spectre of awareness around the necessity for families to stay involved in children's lives. They should be there when these issues first come before the courts. They should be there at times of family disruption so that they are aware of the placements and the decisions that will affect their grandchildren, because it affects the relationship that they have with those youngsters. That is the honour I wish to pay today to the essence of the relationship. It's important that we do our best as legislators, and I've asked the House on many occasions to advance this issue in our ridings, because it's the essence of the relationship that's vitally important.
We all stand at home in our constituencies, talking about how we believe in family, so we have to honour that commitment by putting in place the mechanisms that allow people easier access to grandchildren. I have many grandparents who have lobbied me over the years, who have said that there's nothing more exciting in their lives than the birth of a grandchild. We all know that grandparents are living a lot longer. They will be active and vital and able to participate in those relationships for far greater periods of time than ever before. To honour that and to say upfront that it's indeed important not to discount grandparents
I continue to admire the individuals who are members of the Canadian Grandparents Rights Association, because they have fought this battle far longer than I. They believe fundamentally in what they're doing. They lobbied extensively and assisted individuals in Alberta when legislation came down on May 29 of last year. They worked extensively with individuals in the province of Quebec, which has had this legislation for more than a decade. They know full well that what they are asking is about increased responsibility for them. They accept that. They acknowledge that. They believe in it because they believe in family. I think that this Legislature can pay no greater tribute than what the Attorney General has brought forward today, and again I thank him most sincerely.
We talk often about children. I would like to see us, when we talk about United Nations discussions around children, expand our thinking to include grandchildren. They are all children, and they are all individuals who require some sensitivity, some delicacy on these questions about who might be there for them -- to mediate their lives, to nurture them as, hopefully, they go through into adulthood and make some reasonable decisions. At the end of the day, all of us want better citizenry for this province and this country. We want young people who appreciate the benefits that they have and who are prepared to give something back to the communities in which they live. Those are things that we all believe in as parliamentarians. Those are issues that we will continue to advance as parliamentarians.
[ Page 8272 ]
I believe it's vitally important that we acknowledge that the essence of the debate today is about what type of society we might like in five, ten or 15 years from now and about who gets to participate in the upbringing of children. We've tended to very selectively decide over the years who is excluded. I welcome the Attorney General's comments, when he talks about making this discussion more inclusive. There will be parameters that decide the best interests of the child, but more people will be able to participate in that discussion and participate in that decision. That is all to the good, and again I would thank the Attorney General most sincerely for bringing forward this issue. At some point both he and I, hopefully, will be grandparents, and we will want to participate in the upbringing of children who will make some contribution as we go forward.G. Plant: I'm pleased to be able to rise and join in the debate on Bill 25, the Family Relations Amendment Act, and to first of all say that I think that the possibility presented by this bill is a possibility we should pause and think about for a moment -- the fact that from time to time we on both sides of the House can agree on issues. There is a role for members of the opposition, as my colleague the member for Richmond East has shown over the months and years she has pursued this initiative, and there's a role for the Attorney's colleagues on the back bench, who have pursued him on this issue -- a role that speaks to the possibility of working together for constructive change. Even if the change is a modest one, it's a constructive, positive change, and I for one wish that there were more opportunities where we as a House could come together on issues that don't, I think, raise partisan or ideological questions, but rather simply speak to issues of common concern to British Columbians on all sides of the House. So I want to rise partly to express my respect for my colleague for Richmond East and for the minister's colleagues who have pursued the minister on this issue, and to express my delight that the minister has yielded on this occasion, has seen the wisdom of the idea and brought it forward for our consideration in the House.
[4:45]
The other thing I want to say is that I recognize that this bill does not, of course, answer all of the questions about the role of grandparents or anybody else in family breakups. I find almost every aspect of the way the law regulates and deals with the consequences of failed relationships, including failed marriages, to be a source of distress to me. It was a source of distress to me in my life as a practitioner of law and continues to be a source of distress to me now that I respond to concerns from constituents who don't find that the legal system serves their interests very well when they are living through the hell of a broken marriage or a broken relationship.What's important, I think, is that the legal system not erect artificial or unnecessary barriers to ensure that those who are in charge of making the decisions about the consequences of broken marriages can do so in the best interests of the parties -- free from arbitrary or artificial constraints. I think what this bill does most of all is reduce or eliminate a potentially artificial constraint on the decisions that need to be made about the best interests of children. It says to the courts that when they are looking at what the best interests of the child are, grandparents, aunts, uncles -- almost anyone -- are entitled to be considered in that equation.
There is of course a certain element of, I suppose, almost circularity, in that the fundamental question is: what is the best interest of the child? Some may argue that it will always be in the better interest of the child to have a certain bias in favour of parents or relatives, as opposed to others. I don't think that this bill resolves that debate. What this bill says is that the debate around who has the right of access or custody is a debate that has everybody on the playing field, more or less in terms of equality, as the Attorney General has said. It still leaves it to the courts to make the decision, as I think we must do for now in those cases where there is no agreement and where there is a dispute. But it ensures that people who, judged by any commonsense perspective, may and in most cases will have common, important ties of affection to members of the family, including the children of a broken marriage -- people like grandparents, aunts and uncles, siblings, other relatives and sometimes friends, neighbours, people from down the street who have had a long, close relationship with the child
D. Jarvis: I rise as well to speak to Bill 25, the Family Relations Amendment Act, 1998, which basically deals with the best interests of children in one aspect. I have to compliment the government for bringing this forward. This is probably the first time since I was elected in 1991 that I have felt that every aspect of a bill has no flaw in it. It's an agreeable bill
Interjection.
D. Jarvis:
I first entered politics back in '91, as I said. I can recall that at that time, during the first couple of days after the writ was dropped, I was asked to attend the Elder College up at Capilano College to discuss some aspects of grandparents. Actually, at the time I had
When I saw this bill come out, I was very pleased to see that this government is now going to recognize grandparents under the Family Relations Act, by the legalization of continuing access in the event of a marriage breakup, as I said, or a change of parental relationships. Over the years, my office has received numerous calls with regards to incidents such as I have just been discussing, where grandparents are in danger of losing contact with their grandchildren.
As I said before, until such a thing happens to you or there is the opportunity of such a thing happening to you, you do not appreciate the phenomenon of being a grandparent. Grandparents are special people, in the sense that they have spent a good part of their working life -- and in most cases, lately a great deal of their retired life -- trying to provide secure, loving, constant, stable relationships for their families or in that family network. This relationship has meant to them
[ Page 8273 ]
endless hours of contact with these children who were bornWell, I don't know where my wife or I would be if such a situation should happen to us. It would be a very difficult situation for us to comprehend -- along with all the other grandparents in this province -- and the same for Bev and Ron, the opposites to my wife and me in our family network. It's a choice that would cause great hardship and heartache. As I said, often the children are moved to another area, as the custodial parent is starting a new life somewhere else. That itself creates a problem. There's a wrenching loss of attachment. To never see the child again or only occasionally, maybe years apart, is devastating to all of those who have that happen to them. I personally have friends who have had this situation occur to them. Through no fault of their own, they have lost contact with their grandchildren. It is a devastating situation. This legislation helps to prevent the loss of the relationship for both grandparents and grandchildren. Access is essential, whether it be full or partial. It's not only for the child's future but also for the grandparents' present. This is good legislation for those who find themselves in this heart-wrenching situation. I wholeheartedly give my support to this bill.
B. McKinnon: I'm pleased to rise and speak to Bill 25, the Family Relations Amendment Act, 1998. As the member for Richmond East has said, we are delighted to see this bill come forward. I would like to thank the Attorney General and the member for Richmond East for the work that they have done on this bill. As a grandparent, I am very pleased to see that we finally have the right to continue to bond with our grandchildren in what I feel is their greatest hour of need. Grandparents have been ignored for too long when the custody of their grandchild becomes an issue. The terror and fear that happens to children when taken from parents into an unknown environment is painful to watch. To put them in a safe place with family members that they know is a far better alternative than an unknown environment.
The number of children that are taken from their families by the Ministry for Children and Families has escalated, and the availability of foster homes is in short supply. It is time that extended families are given the opportunity to try and bring some stability into the lives of these terrified children. I know that if the custody of my grandchildren were ever an issue, I would be the first in line to want to care for them. I hope that the ministry, when apprehending children, will move quickly to make sure, if it's at all possible, that these children will go to extended families that are willing to love and comfort them. The case of Baby Molly is a sad and tragic case that would not have happened if her extended family had been given custody.
I support this bill enthusiastically, hon. Speaker, and I thank you for the opportunity to talk about it.
Hon. D. Miller: I had not planned to join the debate. In the short while that I've been in the House and listening to all members, it's clear that this bill is one that enjoys very strong support. I think the sentiments expressed by all members are
I suppose I'm encouraged to stand because I am a grandparent and had the benefit this past weekend of having my daughter and her two children stay with us for a couple of days. You know, you get a little rusty. You forget -- it's interesting how much you forget, actually, from the time your own children were small -- the enormous amount of energy and work that's required to care for young children and the attention that they really need. I was up in Prince George; I flew up early Saturday morning. I think the member from North Peace was there as well. I flew back and arrived around dinner time. I ended up having dinner and then taking my 13-month-old granddaughter and my five-and-a-half-year-old grandson and giving them a bath and all of that. I was exhausted at the end of it -- I really was. I must confess that I, along with my spouse, am smitten by these delightful grandchildren that we have. I guess I've got a soft spot, because the young girl is really, really sweet.
I think it is important
Having grandchildren of my own has made me more aware than ever of the kind of role that a grandparent can play in terms of a child's development -- a role that the parent, quite frankly, can't play. Children will listen to grandparents and will sometimes ignore their parents. We're often accused of spoiling them a bit, but sometimes that's not bad. Because they've got someone they know who loves them, and they can go to them and talk to them in ways that maybe they can't talk to their parents all the time. I guess I'm just overwhelmed with the emerging awareness that I have as a grandparent about these kinds of things. Certainly my wife and I hope that we'll always be
[5:00]
In my experience, children do respond to a loving environment. They obviously need discipline -- there's nothing wrong with that -- and they need guidance. But above all, they need to know that they're cared for. When they do, and they have that security, I think you produce fine adults. It's pretty simple.While I guess, in a strictly legal sense, these benefits have been available prior to this legislation, the fact that this legislation -- refreshingly, in plain language -- outlines the rights that grandparents and others may have with respect to grandchildren is important, in that it sends a message to the courts. It has an impact on the courts, I suppose, in that respect. Grandparents can see that their rights are defined in this legislation. I think it is very important.
The member from Surrey talked about what is really a very unfortunate trend in our society, where children are not
I think that the broader issue is one that we occasionally canvass in this House -- Children and Families and those kinds of questions. I hold the very, very strong view that ultimately the state can't fix that problem. The state, the gov-
[ Page 8274 ]
ernment, has a legitimate role to play in terms of intervention. There's a paradox with respect to those issues, because, quite frankly, you're sometimes damned if you do and damned if you don't. You're either accused of not intervening when there has been a traumatic incident and a child may have been injured or died, or if you do intervene, you're accused of overusing the power of the state. There is absolutely no happy medium in that; quite frankly, there never will be.My own personal bias is that I would rather be accused of intervening too much, in terms of protection of the child, than be accused of not being there when they might have needed that public support. That's just a personal view; I don't reflect government policy on that question. I think that at the end of the day, children have a right to be safe in our society and that if they're threatened, someone ought to intervene. But I do believe that the responsibility is a larger one for societies. I think it's a responsibility in communities, and I don't know that communities necessarily, in this modern time, have the ability to deal with that question.
Hillary Clinton talks about communitarianism. I haven't followed that in much detail, but she talks about the responsibility that you have within communities to deal with those kinds of issues. The old-fashioned notion was that if I went out as a little kid and got into trouble, some neighbour would tell my mother pretty quick. When I got home, I would get whacked on the ear or something. So often, we don't do that now. We don't take a collective responsibility for others, and society only works when we do. That's maybe a little aside from the direct issues in the bill, but it does suggest that all of us have a responsibility to care for young people and to nurture them in this society. That is not only a basic human instinct; it's a basic animal instinct. We tend to lose sight of some of those fundamentals while we're looking for solutions.
I am happy to rise
V. Anderson: I too rise to speak to the Family Relations Amendment Act, 1998, which is, in brackets, talked about as the grandparents' rights act. I too would like to thank the Attorney General and the member for Richmond East for the impetus they have given this bill and for coming forward. I've had the opportunity, like them, to meet with grandparents' associations and also, like others here today, cannot help but think of our own grandchildren in our family. As a United Church minister I've had many experiences over the years with families struggling with decisions in which the children needed care, where the grandparents were not allowed to be part of that care. I remember one gentleman in a congregation who, some years ago, was one of the first to get a kind of legal representation in this regard.
It's very important that we come forward to affirm what's happening here today, in cooperation between all sides of the House. I'd just like to read into the record the words that are so significant. The words which are being added are "parents, grandparents, other relatives of the child and persons who are not relatives of the child."
In celebrating the opportunity for grandparents to be recognized today, I think we also need to celebrate a wider recognition that is being put forward at this time. When we're looking out for the well-being of children -- what's in their best interests for now, in the present and in the future -- what we're saying is that the contribution of all of the people who have something to contribute to that child should be considered and given an opportunity, so that the child is not deprived of that care and concern. That group of people is fairly broad. It's the parents; it's the grandparents; it's other relatives of the child. It's even persons who are not relatives of the child but who have had care and keeping, and a contribution to make to those children.
It indicates a whole new process of thinking that's coming to the fore. That process is led, if you like, not only locally but by the United Nations convention on the rights of the child, to which Canada and British Columbia are signatories. When we think of the best interests of the child, different things could come to mind. So often when we think of protection of the child, we're thinking of protection from harm. That certainly is a very important element. But there is also, in the best interests of the child, the support from the very time that they are conceived -- if not before -- and in their mother's womb; financial support; health support; education support; loving support which every child needs to develop and become a whole and complete human being -- not only to receive love but also to give love and to be in relationships with various kinds of people.
This is acknowledged, I think. There are just two parts of the articles of the convention that I'd like to highlight, because I think they're very relevant here. Article 5 says: "States parties shall respect the responsibilities, rights and duties of parents, or where applicable, the members of the extended family or community as provided for by local custom, legal guardians or other persons legally responsible for the child
What we have done in this particular bill, which we're discussing today, is bring ourselves into line with one more section of the articles of the convention to which we have committed ourselves. We still have a way to go, but at least we're moving into a broader perspective of putting the child's opportunities first and taking advantage of the many resources that are available to them, which in times past they have been taken away from them.
Another article, article 8, says: "States parties undertake to respect the rights of the child to preserve his or her identity, including nationality, name and family relations as recognized by law without unlawful interference."
When a child is deprived of their parents, it may be because of a car accident or for many other reasons -- sickness, as well as the breakdown of family relationships. Of necessity, the child is moved into another caring situation. It may be that they have lost their heritage and their culture and their background, and there's that nagging awareness in them that there's something missing. Here we're stating that their future is dependent on them also having some understanding of their past and knowing their heritage. If some of that heritage is not too positive, it's still important that we know it and deal with it, because in that heritage there are many positive things that the child must have.
So when we come to talk about this act and broadening the scope of those who could be recognized as contributing to the well-being of the child in the child's best interests, it's a very positive step for the community as a whole. The word "protection" is not just a negative concern -- protecting from. Protection means a caring, positive relationship enabling us to give fullness to a child's well-being in their life.
There are many parents who substitute not only for their own children but who are active in substituting as foster parents for other children. In some ways, their contribution to
[ Page 8275 ]
the child has been neglected over the years, when the child for one reason or another leaves their home. As I understand this act, this will also give them another opportunity to contribute to the child in a very positive way, even after the original caring situation has passed from them.So not only have we said that grandparents are significant -- and that is extremely important, for as a grandparent I'll vouch for that and argue that very personally, as will others here -- but also we have broadened the understanding to say that the whole community is responsible for the children. We take on a responsibility by accepting them into ourselves. As has been our custom in baptism within the fellowship of the church, the whole congregation accepts that responsibility to support the parents in the well-being of children.
[The Speaker in the chair.]
Today we're talking about the well-being of children. I think we've done a very historic thing in British Columbia by extending this opportunity for others to offer their care and, in many cases, for courts or governments to seek their care and make it available to the children. The children's blessings will be many because of what seems a very simple act -- which makes us wonder how come it didn't happen long before. But it's never too late. We're delighted that it has happened today, and we affirm the steps that have been taken by the member for Richmond East and the Attorney General and those who support it.
L. Stephens: I'm pleased to rise today to speak to Bill 25, the Family Relations Amendment Act, 1998. Like a few other members in the House, I did not plan to speak to this bill today, but the debate has quickly turned into a love-in. I think that's to be expected when you have a group of grandparents that talk about the pleasures of being grandparents and of having grandchildren.
[5:15]
I would like to congratulate the member for Richmond East on her private member's bill that has been submitted for the last couple of years, also the Attorney General for bringing forward this amendment, and the government members who I know have been concerned about this issue and have lobbied the government to make the necessary changes too. I think everyone in the House today can be grateful and can take pleasure in this piece of legislation.As we know, there are some grandchildren who require some special care. The Minister of Energy and Mines and Northern Development talked about the loving homes that most of us enjoyed and that most of our children enjoyed. But there are some children who didn't enjoy those loving homes. I think a couple of members have talked a little bit about that today.
There was a group of grandparents that came to see me about a year ago. These were grandparents who were raising their grandchildren under very difficult circumstances. These were grandchildren who had been born to their children, and their children were either addicted -- substance abusers -- or living on the street. They were children who had a great deal of difficulties in their personal lives and had children. These grandparents were struggling very hard to care for these grandchildren, and many of them had been seeking custody in the courts. As many of us know, that is a very difficult and long process to engage in.
For this group of grandparents who have struggled long and hard to try to provide homes for their grandchildren, I think this is going to be a bill that is going to make their lives much easier as well. The costs of obtaining custody are very high, and the wheels of justice grind very slowly. As we know, stability and the consistency for children are extremely important. So I would like to commend all members of the House for this piece of legislation, and I'm very pleased to support this amendment.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Speaker, I was sitting here and thinking that you might be tempted to say a few words, but I'm sure you will assume that all of us have spoken on your behalf.
It is obviously a very good day when all of us can speak with one voice and say that what we're doing here is essentially clarifying at least, if not expanding, the rights of grandparents to have custody and access to children. As I was explaining this to the media the other day after introducing this bill, it dawned on me that if in fact -- and I'll stand corrected if my interpretation is wrong, because I haven't looked at the legislation for some days -- grandparents are being denied access to grandchildren even though the parents haven't separated, those grandparents are entitled to apply for access to those children under the legislation as well. I think that point needs to be made.
With that, I move second reading of the bill.
Motion approved.
Bill 25, Family Relations Amendment Act, 1998, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 27.
NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT ACT
(second reading)
Members may be aware that last October we hosted the Premier's Summit on Northern Jobs and Development; we recently held a summit in Kamloops, looking at another region. In fact, one of the unintended consequences was that in initially putting together the northern summit, people in other regions of the province started to contact the government and say: "We think it's a good idea. We'd like you to replicate that in our region." I'll leave that aside, because other members may wish to talk at some point in the future with respect to that approach.
In looking at organizing the summit, I really started talking to northerners in a variety of ways, asking a very simple question: would it be possible to bring together people from a broad cross-section of our northern communities -- business, aboriginal, labour, local government, etc. -- in a focused forum for a couple of days to talk in broad terms about developing an economic blueprint or vision for northern British Columbia? To my delight, the response I got from virtually
[ Page 8276 ]
every individual I talked to was: absolutely, yes. People were enthusiastic about the prospect. We worked very hard; we held our conference. By all accounts it was a success for the participants, which is really the only thing that matters. In fact, we did some questioning of all the delegates who went to the conference, and we asked them what they thought of it, what their expectations were going in, what they thought of the results. Again, there was a very high percentage -- well over 80 percent -- who were very happy about having the conference and pleased that they had an opportunity to talk to government and government ministers directly, and to engage each other in discussing topics around the broad question of northern development.At the conclusion of that conference, the Premier wrapped the session up and indicated that his view was that northerners were receptive to having a small, focused agency that could work with them to represent the ideas of northerners in terms of, again, that broad question of northern development. He stressed in that summation the people didn't want a huge bureaucracy; they didn't want another level of government. They wanted an agency that worked on their behalf. Following the summit, I asked the advisory committee that I had initially put together to advise on putting the summit together, to go back out on the road in northern B.C. and test the waters with respect to a couple of models that might be used to fulfil what people said they would like to see.
A couple of members of that advisory committee, including my colleague the member for Skeena, travelled across northern British Columbia from the Queen Charlotte Islands up to the Peace River region. They met with municipal councils, chambers and others, and the result was a report that they delivered to me recommending that we develop a northern commissioner's office. That is, as I say, the substance of the bill before us today.
There have been attempts in the past to look at the concept of regional development. To date, I don't think
The Bennett government -- and the Vander Zalm government to some degree -- tried the regional development approach: dividing the province up into specific regions and assigning a minister to be de facto for that region. Again, I think it was an attempt to try to engage people in the regions of our province, to see what kinds of issues were important to them. I don't want to level any political critique on that; I think it was an attempt to do something and, for a variety of reasons, it did not succeed.
So what makes us think that now we can achieve some progress with respect to this question, given that there have been some attempts in the past that have failed? I think the bill -- and members will obviously read the various sections -- has been constructed to give the northern commissioner, and to some degree the commission staff, some independence from government. They're not part of my ministry; if you like, they're not part of my line ministry. They have an independence that's written into the bill. They have obligations that go along with that. For example, they must submit an annual report, not to the minister but to the executive council. We think there's some strength in that.
In my view, the real test will be once we pass the bill and get the commission up and running. The central office of the commission, by the way, will be located in Prince George. There is a provision for satellite offices. At this point my own personal view is that I wouldn't like to see a rush to set up satellite offices, because to me that is, to some degree, heading down the road of building a bureaucracy. That's not something I want to see, and I don't think it's something anybody wants to see. Because the north is a very large region, I know there have been some comments like: "Why does it have to be in Prince George?" My answer to that is very simple: it is central. If you're setting up an office like this, it makes sense that it be located centrally, and Prince George is clearly that community. But I've also said that I expect the commissioner -- he or she -- to get around to the regions, not to sit on his or her backside in Prince George, but to literally live out of a suitcase in northern B.C.
But we're still left with the fundamental issue of how the commissioner can be successful. I've said that this is an economic initiative. It is an economic development initiative. But I think that too often in the past, we have been too narrow in our focus. We tend to chase initiatives. Communities have had economic development officers for years and years. You try to present your community as friendly to business; you try to follow up leads. But in my view, we have not done a particularly good job of looking at the north, as someone suggested, from 30,000 feet as opposed to on the ground.
What strategic initiatives need to be pursued to ensure that there is in fact an expansion of the northern economy? Well, we haven't been sitting waiting for this bill and this commissioner to act on some of those questions. One of the direct results of the northern summit was the announcement some months ago by the Minister of Transportation and Highways that fully half of the Transportation and Highways budget this year would be allocated to northern British Columbia. That was greeted very, very well. While it's not going to solve all of those transportation infrastructure problems overnight, at least it's a commitment -- a solid commitment -- and it was greeted very enthusiastically by people right across the north.
We've announced a mining initiative. In fact, if you look at the geology of northern B.C. -- there's geology all over this province, and we don't suggest for a moment that all of our focus is going to be on the north -- clearly, with the mining initiative, the opportunity for more projects to proceed in the north is there, I think. In that vein, we have announced two major projects that have cleared the environmental assessment process and now, really, rest with the proponents to secure the necessary financing and commitment for sales before those projects can proceed. These are the Willow Creek coal project near Chetwynd and the Tulsequa Chief copper project up in the northwest corridor. So we've got some action going.
[5:30]
Last year, in late September or October, I think it was, we also had the opening of the Huckleberry mine south of Smithers. In recent weeks the Kemess mine north of Mackenzie has been going into production. I think they're mining ore at that project now. There are 350 direct jobs in that project.[ Page 8277 ]
The owner has certainly had her difficulties in the marketplace, but notwithstanding that, we see the value of that kind of project in northern B.C.The oil and gas initiative -- again, a major regional initiative -- was announced by the Premier a short while ago. It ought to see an increased level of investment in British Columbia, to the tune of about $25 billion over the next decade. We've also moved in a very concrete way to resolve the issues around municipal taxation, the so-called Fair Share issues. Again, the fact that we are addressing that question was greeted with a great deal of enthusiasm. We are also in negotiations with the Treaty 8 first nations to secure long-term agreements in terms of the oil and gas industry and questions around access, permitting and those kinds of things.
As well, an area that I've worked directly on is the B.C. Rail agreements that we concluded with CN Rail, first of all last October in Prince George -- the interchange agreements -- and most recently in Dawson Creek. I've certainly outlined -- as have other northern members, like the member for Peace River South -- our view that Dawson Creek ought to be kind of the centre for grain handling in northern B.C. and Alberta. We intend to pursue that issue aggressively, because we think it makes sense. We've got a significant northern transportation corridor, rail capacity that's underutilized and port capacity that's underutilized. We want to try our best to increase the utilization of that capacity. One of the benefits may be, over time, a reduction in rail rates that will invite even more traffic.
I've also announced that there will be a major tourism conference in the fall in Prince Rupert, my hometown, that will look at the emerging opportunities in circle tourism, with B.C. Ferries now looking at the economic issues around the second vessel on the northern service trying to get more tourists up into the north, and B.C. Rail indicating some interest in rail tourism -- sort of Great Canadian Railtour-type developments.
There are many other areas that I think ought to be examined. I think the whole electronic infrastructure question in the north is a significant one that ought to be looked at. There ought to be a plan that sees the completion of some of those strategic linkages over time, because it's clear that you don't have to always be located in downtown Vancouver in order to do business and to flourish in certain kinds of businesses, if you have access to that electronic highway.
The other issues that are important, it seems to me
Having met with mayors and councillors and having addressed the North Central Municipal Association in Smithers a number of weeks ago, presenting some strategic opportunities that I thought existed, I know now that people are generally gaining some excitement about these questions. With some more work, particularly work that I am engaged in internally in my ministry in terms of oil and gas linkages from the Peace to the coast, perhaps the commissioner will have a bit of an agenda to pick up and run with.
Just to close, it's my view
Interjection.
Hon. D. Miller: Madam Speaker, I should learn not to rise to the bait, but I don't think I ever will. The member for Peace River North talked about Skeena, and to me, to some degree, that illustrates one of the difficulties. It's appalling to me that now I've seen evidence of a number of Liberals
I know that the member for Peace River North was in attendance when I spoke in Prince George last Saturday morning on the question of Skeena, and I did outline in a very rational way why the government took certain actions there. I was delighted when the delegates said, at least in my impression, that they supported the role of government. I was delighted when the reporter for a Terrace newspaper and the economic development officer for the city of Terrace supported government's actions, and when other individuals who represent communities around this province -- the economic development officer for Golden, for example, a young woman -- advised me that they were very supportive of government efforts to save Evans Forest Products and retain jobs in Golden, a single-industry town.
I know I was delighted when a woman economic development officer from the Elk Valley stood up at the session and said that she really wanted to pass on the message that she appreciated the support from the government. My colleague from Esquimalt-Port Renfrew was involved at that point in assisting the communities in the Elk Valley, which were devastated by the economic consequences of mine closures.
So there is a role for government. Perhaps I diverge somewhat in terms of my second reading comments on this bill, but surely, as northerners, all of us could agree that to the degree that we can fight to save jobs in northern B.C. and stabilize the economy of regions in northern B.C., that's something we ought to do. Those may be largely political questions that we'll face in other forums -- which I'll be delighted to do, Madam Speaker.
So getting back to it -- and I've just been partisan, but I'll try to switch -- to the degree that we can work in a cooperative way and a bipartisan way for the benefit of northern B.C. on this sort of strategic planning, then I think the north has great opportunities to expand its economy, to provide more opportunities for its citizens, particularly young people. In northern B.C., I'd like to see more capacity-building in the
[ Page 8278 ]
aboriginal community. I'm satisfied that this bill presents a new beginning, if you like, with considerable work yet to be done by the commissioner and his or her staff, and government, in order to achieve some of the objectives that we'd all like to see. With that, Madam Speaker, I'll take my place. I move second reading of the bill.R. Neufeld: I rise to speak to Bill 27, the Northern Development Act, to lay out some of the concerns and criticisms and also some of the accolades to the minister for what they've accomplished with the creation of the Ministry Responsible for Northern Development.
When I rise to speak to this bill, it gives me the opportunity to talk a little bit about the north, and it's always something that I love to do. It's a part of the province that I live in and have lived in for a good part of my life, and I intend to live there a lot longer. The north is an integral and very important part of British Columbia. If we look at some of the statistics in regards to the north
The north is home to only about 8 percent of the province's population, but northern B.C. is an economic powerhouse, generating approximately 10 percent of the total provincial economy -- 10 percent of the whole provincial economy. In fact, the GDP per capita in the north -- and a problem we always have in the north is getting people and government to listen, to respect some wishes, to react to some issues that we have in the north that we'd like to be dealt with -- is 37 percent higher than in the rest of British Columbia. The 10 percent may not sound like much -- it's about $10 billion in about $100 billion -- but if you look at the GDP per capital being 37 percent higher, that is significant. It demonstrates
Interjections.
The Speaker: Hon. members, there's too much conversation happening, particularly on the government side, and it's hard to hear the member for Peace River North speaking.
R. Neufeld: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I appreciate that.
In fact, if you look a little further across northern Alberta and northern British Columbia, forecasters predict that the combined GDP for the northern regions of British Columbia and Alberta will increase from $18 billion in 1995 to $24 billion in the year 2005. It's obvious there is some huge growth anticipated not just in northern British Columbia but in northern Alberta. Those are significant numbers that are always hard for such a huge part of the province to be able to relay and get to a government, to get them to understand some of the needs that we have in the north.
The north, of course, has vast forestry, oil and gas. There's the northeast oil and gas and also the northwest oil and gas that we could soon, hopefully, be looking at in a serious way. There's tourism, mining, the seafood industry, major ports and agriculture in both the northeast and the northwest. There's tremendous opportunity. In fact, I listened carefully to the minister speaking, and when he says there is great opportunity in the north for entrepreneurship and jobs, I agree totally with that statement. There is great opportunity for young people to be able to get ahead and create jobs and be entrepreneurs in the north.
But there are some serious roadblocks in the way -- some very serious roadblocks. I'm going to talk about those just a little bit later on.
The idea of a northern development commissioner and the creation of this act to facilitate that are a result of the Premier's summit in Prince George in the fall of 1997, in October. I attended that summit along with the members for Peace River South and Prince George-Omineca. Actually, the Premier's summit was more designed at the end of the day than most people realized. I should probably put it on the record in the House here.
[5:45]
When we broke off into our discussion groups, it was interesting to note that when the facilitators took the notes and went back to the main hall to present what we had discussed, it came as a surprise to many of us that what the facilitators were saying was really not what was discussed during those meetings. In fact, it was such a surprise -- not just in the group I worked with, but also in the other groups -- that people stood up and took note of it. And that was disturbing to me.When the Deputy Premier talks about listening to northerners and trying to get northern input, I appreciate that. But we shouldn't dilute what those people are saying with what the government of the day specifically wants to hear. It may sound partisan from me, but it was interesting to note that in some of the other committees on both days, when the reporting took place, other individuals who were not elected people -- people who had been asked to come there and talk about issues that they were knowledgable about -- did stand up on the floor of that hall and say: "That's not what we talked about."
In fact, from that hatched the commissioner model. I don't recall a commissioner model being talked about there, but it was obvious that the government of the day had in mind that we were going to have a commissioner model in northern British Columbia, and that's all there was to it.
To support that further, we had the member for Skeena and a previous mayor of the city of Prince George, John Backhouse, make a trip through the northwest and through the northeast; in fact, he attended Fort St. John. I attended that meeting, along with a few others who had been invited to attend. One thing that I read in some of the news reports that came about as a result of those meetings across the northwest
When that was said, I thought: "Yes, that should be something that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Northern Development should be able to do totally out of his own office, with a deputy minister responsible for that, and not need a commissioner that people would first have to convince that they had a good idea."
Whether it's a community, a regional district, an individual, a company or whatever, they have to first convince that commissioner and his or her staff as to the viability of their project. If they fail there, they then have to
I come back to my original thought about the fact that we should have something that is just out of the minister's office.
[ Page 8279 ]
In fact, that comes from a broad spectrum of people that I talked to in my recent visit to the northwest. I was surprised when the member for Skeena was in Fort St. John and toldIn fact, I have some letters from the Northern Forest Products Association backing up exactly what I say today -- very strong words saying: "No, we should not have a commission." I'm going to read one paragraph into the record. It says: "Your advisory committee has asked for my input on the northern commissioner model. I'm not sure my views will make much difference, since your committee has already decided to support the model concept, but for the record I want you to know that I am opposed to the proposal." That's from a significant organization in Prince George, the Northern Forest Products Association. They say: "I fear the commission will be nothing more than: another layer of unnecessary bureaucracy between those who need government help and those elected to provide it; and taxpayers' money wasted on another ineffective government structure." So it was not just me that was saying we should not have the commissioner model; it was people from across the north -- the northwest and the northeast, in fact.
I talked a bit earlier about the roadblocks in the north in relation to economic development and job creation. There are many things that a commission or a commissioner -- whoever that person may be -- cannot deal with. This government knows -- they've been told by many people -- that overtaxation, overregulation, a government hostile to business, the plan for some more labour legislation and a deteriorating infrastructure in the north are all total impediments to anyone wanting to invest in the north. These folks just don't get it for some reason. They talk the good talk about reducing red tape, cutting red tape, doing all those things, yet there's no action. You can talk all you want, but you have to do it; you have to really do what you say you're going to do. So far that hasn't happened.
You know, it's amazing. When I talk about terrible infrastructure
It had to get far enough along that a road, Highway 37, which is not in his constituency but is in the member for Bulkley Valley-Stikine's constituency
I think that it's absolutely unforgivable that we would have the Deputy Premier -- who is, I must say, a very strong minister in cabinet -- and two other ministers from Prince George, all elected in 1991, bringing a bill to the House on June 2, 1998, that says we have to get serious about looking at the north, about economic development and jobs, when they've let the whole north totally die. They haven't looked at it seriously. In fact, the minister talked about the fact that they're putting fully half of the rehabilitation budget into the northeast, but he doesn't say
Interjection.
R. Neufeld: The Transportation and Highways minister should listen a bit. He doesn't say that the budget for rehabilitation is less than half of what it actually should be in the first place. It's absolutely unbelievable that they would stand up and brag and tell us about all the infrastructure money they're putting into the northeast. Obviously the money that's going into the northeast and the northwest is a significant amount. But it's 1998. We have totally destroyed the infrastructure, in some cases that I'm aware of in the northeast and the northwest, because of the inaction of that government.
Hon. Speaker, noting the time, I would like to move adjournment of this debate and reserve my place.
Motion approved.
Committee of Supply A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
The Speaker: Now, hon. members, I have a statement apropos of the motion under standing order 35 that I would like to read. It's not long.
On June 1, 1998, the member for Matsqui sought to move adjournment of the House pursuant to standing order 35, to discuss a definite matter of urgent public importance -- namely, the threatened closure of the medical clinic in Golden on June 19, 1998, some 19 days hence.
On a number of occasions speakers have ruled that the test of urgency relates to urgency of debate, not to the subject matter of debate. In this case, the member has raised the question of a possible closing some 19 days away. The House is currently embarked on the estimates debates in the Committee of Supply and has yet to consider the estimates of the Ministry of Health, during which the member will have an ordinary parliamentary opportunity to raise and debate the issue at hand. Standing order 35 does not apply where an ordinary parliamentary opportunity to consider the matter exists -- see the third edition of Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia, pages 61 and 62.
I wish to comment on two other matters arising out of the presentation of the matter. I allowed the member to raise the matter before question period. Applications under standing order 35 are to be made "after the ordinary daily routine
[ Page 8280 ]
business (standing order 25) has been concluded and before Orders of the Day are entered on." Oral question period is one of the items of business provided for in standing order 25, and accordingly, these applications should be made after question period and before orders of the day are called from the table.Secondly, while making his application, the member used the opportunity to make comments about other members of the House. Such comments are inappropriate on an application under standing order 35.
Hon. D. Lovick: I wish to advise the House that we shall indeed sit tomorrow, and with that, I would move adjournment.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 5:59 p.m.
The committee met at 2:46 p.m.
The Chair: I call the committee to order, but prior to recognizing any members of the committee, I would just like to mention that this morning there was a lot of cross-room talk. So this afternoon during the debate, I would ask all members to please refrain from cross-room talking, as Hansard has a very difficult time picking up any conversations. Questions and answers are very important for everyone to hear. So I would ask the members to please wait until they have been recognized upon standing, and then they may question and answer.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
SMALL BUSINESS, TOURISM AND CULTURE
(continued)
G. Abbott: As our discussion was winding down this morning, I think we were getting relatively closer to an understanding of the situation in the community grants branch -- namely, some of the confusion here is likely due to the minister responding to the backlog of unresolved applications which he had when he took his position as minister.
Just to review that so we have it right, it would appear from the minister's comments that in the last fiscal year there were 58 new applications received. There was also a backlog -- a portion of which may or may not have been resolved previously -- of 215 in 1996-97, 518 in 1995-96 and a little larger number in 1994-95. Presumably some of the earlier ones had been resolved prior to this minister. But in any event, there were a lot of applications that had not been dealt with in a timely manner, for whatever reasons, and the minister can comment on that if he wishes. But clearly they had not been dealt with on a timely basis. As MLAs we had been confronted on numerous occasions by constituent groups who were interested in the status of their applications. So the consequence, I think, is probably some of the confusion here.
At any rate, we had 58 applications received in the last fiscal year and 33 approved. Can the minister tell me the total value of the 58 applications? Had we been able to provide a total for all 58, what would that total have been?
Hon. I. Waddell: I want to thank the member. I agree with his summary at the beginning of his question. I don't have a total. That was the total figure the member wanted for all the applications that came forward in that particular period. We'll get that for him. Thirty-three applications were approved, and that took up the entire budget of $485,000. I have a list of those approved community grants for the '97-98 fiscal year. I don't know if the member has a copy, but he can have one. I have a copy right here. I'll give it to the hon. member.
G. Abbott: The minister anticipated my next question, which was the total value of the approvals -- 33 projects taking up the $485,000, which was actually the figure we had discussed with the previous minister in estimates last year. Of that $485,000, can the minister advise what the largest amount approved was and for what purpose?
Hon. I. Waddell: On the list I have, the largest was the Cranbrook Archives, Museum and Landmark Foundation: "
G. Abbott: Can the minister advise us of the amount for the Cache Creek community hall, please?
Hon. I. Waddell: Sixty thousand dollars.
G. Abbott: Where I would like to go next with the minister is the distribution of approvals by riding. Now, I guess when you take off $150,000-plus from the $485,000, it doesn't leave a lot for the remaining 73 ridings in the province. I presume that in no case did a riding receive more than one successful application in the last fiscal year. Is that correct? Could the minister provide some indication of what the distribution of approvals by riding has been in the province?
Hon. I. Waddell: I think I answered earlier that I don't do things by riding. I'll give the member
G. Abbott: Perhaps the minister is consulting with respect to the distribution by riding, but in the interim, I'll ask him whether there were any projects approved in the riding of Shuswap. If there's a broader list, perhaps the minister could advise us of that now.
Hon. I. Waddell: I'll make the list available to the member; he can check for himself. I can't see anything that says Shuswap on it. I don't know
The Chair: Through the Chair, members.
[ Page 8281 ]
Hon. I. Waddell: Could the hon. member indicate to me -- I know I'm supposed to answer the question, but I want to ask him a little question of clarification -- where Mara is?G. Abbott: Mara would be approximately 15 to 20 miles south of Sicamous, in the riding of Shuswap.
Hon. I. Waddell: I could tell the hon. member that the Mara Musical and Athletic Association got $2,667 for reroofing the community hall.
G. Abbott: Just for the sake of convenience and interest, obviously, on this side, would the minister make available that comprehensive list of the grant approvals for last year?
Hon. I. Waddell: Yes, I'll make it available to the member.
G. Abbott: Could the minister advise of the dollar figure which has been provided in the current fiscal year for the community projects grants program?
Hon. I. Waddell: I can tell the hon. member that this isn't in my budget; it's in Employment and Immigration's budget. But I am told that there is $1.5 million available to deal with previously committed projects. Did I say Employment and Immigration? I'm sorry. The past haunts me. It's employment and Investment. But the money's in there. You see, this is part of the problem. It's in another ministry, and my ministry administers it. I think we've had pretty capable administration. We do these sports grants; we do these other grants; we're doing the Canada-British Columbia Infrastructure Works grants. So we're doing B.C. 21 grants, Canada-B.C. infrastructure grants and the in-province grants in B.C. -- we're doing all those. Money for the in-province grants comes from our ministry. Money for Canada-B.C. infrastructure mostly comes from the federal government; some is from Employment and Investment. Money for B.C. 21 came from Employment and Investment. That's the setup.
G. Abbott: Frankly, the organizational structure around these programs is, it seems to me, unnecessarily complex and confusing. Last year we had a very thorough discussion with the former minister about this. I thought I understood clearly the delineation between the Ministry of Employment and Investment, where the B.C. 21 decisions are made, and the community grants branch, under the Ministry of Small Business, Tourism and Culture, which had a $485,000 budget for community grants projects. They made the decisions around that. Am I to understand that in some kind of shuffling process here, the administration of community grants has been left with the Ministry of Small Business, Tourism and Culture but that in fact it has no budget? Or is there a figure equivalent to the $485,000 which appeared in this budget last year?
Hon. I. Waddell: I can tell the hon. member that the $485,000 is in E&I. We just administer it.
G. Abbott: The $485,000 was not in the Ministry of Employment and Investment. Unless the minister last year was completely confused -- and I presume that as minister she was getting advice that would suggest that she understood where the $485,000
Hon. I. Waddell: This ministry hasn't had money in the account for that since it ran GO B.C. in 1992. It's structured in this way perhaps for historical reasons and also for the fact that we have good administration here in the department. There is one particular civil servant, who is behind me, who has been doing this for a long time and does it very well. I think that is why it has continued in this department.
[3:00]
G. Abbott: I'll try to clarify, for the minister, the reason for my confusion around the organization of these funds. Last year I asked the minister of the day: "The term 'minuscule' has been used a couple of times now. Could the minister advise what kind of scope that would be? What kind of dollars are we talking about when we use the term 'minuscule'?" The minister responded: "I believe there is $486,000 this year, which obviously is a minuscule amount. The Ministry of Employment and Investment has also negotiated an arrangement with the federal government, wherebyInterjection.
G. Abbott: That is the case -- E&I has the money, but you administer it? Tell me the reason for that. That would be a useful contribution.
Hon. I. Waddell: These are useful questions, on the member's behalf. I asked the same questions myself. It's partly historical. The history is that we've administered these matters, and we are a good administrator. It's more efficient for us to do it, because we administer other grants -- a lot of support grants and so on -- so we're able to do the administration. We've just continued to do that. We're basically administrating decisions that are made elsewhere. There are some frustrations on the part of the minister in doing that, but currently that's what we do.
G. Abbott: So it's very clear in my mind: when the Falkland Historical Society puts in an application for assistance to move an old log house onto the site of the Falkland museum, they will be submitting an application to the community projects branch -- if that's the correct phrase. Will the ministry be reviewing and vetting that application in respect to others? Will this ministry be making the decision about whether the Falkland and district historical society will get their funds?
Hon. I. Waddell: The application comes in. It does come to our official here, who does due diligence on the thing -- gets the application together, makes sure it's in order -- and then submits it to a committee that is chaired by the hon. Minister of Employment and Investment. I'm not on that committee. The committee makes the decisions and sends it back to us. We notify and we administer.
[ Page 8282 ]
G. Abbott: Could the minister then advise: what is the amount for the community projects grants purpose, which resides in the budget of the Ministry of Employment and Investment but which this ministry administers? What is the size of that pot of funds? I presume it is the equivalent of the $485,000 in the last fiscal year. What is the dollar amount which, hypothetically, this ministry is going to be distributing in the current fiscal year?Hon. I. Waddell: The member should put that question to the Minister of Employment and Investment. However, I don't want to be shuffling things off. I understand -- and I think I said this before -- that it's $1.5 million.
G. Abbott: The amount equivalent to the $485,000 that was distributed last year is now $1.5 million. That is a pot of funds residing in the Ministry of Employment and Investment. If the Falkland Historical Society wants to put in an application, then after applying to this ministry, they have some prospect of accessing up to $1.5 million from the funds that are in the budget of Employment and Investment.
I appreciate that it's his budget, but it's your program. This is a curious administrative arrangement we have here, which hopefully justifies me asking you if that's the case.
Hon. I. Waddell: Yes, the member's question is proper. I understand -- and now I'm doing this secondhand because it's not directly mine
G. Abbott: Frankly, the minister's response astonishes me. As I understand it, we have a community grants branch with, as I think the minister noted earlier
Hon. I. Waddell: I think there are justifications. There are a couple of reasons. One is that the commitments are multi-year responses, and we have to monitor, allocate and work with them on that. The second is the whole infrastructure program that has been added. That's about $8.1 million. It's an $8.1 million infrastructure program. And third, there are the in-province travel grants, which have 2,700 applicants to whom we give $860,000 per year. So there's lots of work for them to do. On the community projects, we've gone from seven FTEs to one FTE. We're reducing our staff quite dramatically. The budget has been reduced by $15,000 from the 1997-98 level, down to a projected $108,000 for next year. That's the administrative budget; it's not grants.
G. Abbott: I guess the one FTE is justified to those folks who may continue to nurse the illusion that the community grants program is something that has to do with community grants and who are foolish enough to submit an application for funds that are not there. I guess that's what the one position would do. This does astonish me.
Let me take a moment to just vent my frustrations with respect to this. In British Columbia we've got a system of lotteries and other fundraising devices which grossed $867.5 million in sales in 1997, of which there was a net income to the province of $272.9 million. I was astonished last year when there was going to be $485,000 distributed across 75 ridings. Now I understand that there will be no dollars administered or awarded across this province through the community grants budget. I think it is terrible. I think it's pathetic that a system of lotteries and so on, which was sold to the people of British Columbia as a pain-free, tax-free way for the government to provide grants to communities for a variety of recreational and other purposes, has been reduced to nothing. I think this is pathetic. I guess there is no point in criticizing the cost of the administration of the branch, because there doesn't seem to be anything left. On the community projects side of it, it is done. There is still the in-province travel, and there is still the administration of B.C. 21. But frankly, I'm just astonished and appalled that of the hundreds of millions of dollars we bring in from lottery revenues in this province, in the future there is not going to be a penny going back to worthwhile community projects.
The minister talked about the $2,000-some that went to reroof the Mara hall. That is a typical kind of community project that ought to be benefiting from lottery revenue. I can't understand the wholesale elimination of those kinds of small grants to communities.
Just near the end of the current fiscal year, I got a raft, all at once, of copies of rejection letters from the ministry: the construction of a cultural performing arts centre for the Little Shuswap Indian band; the construction of a facility for senior mentally challenged people in Salmon Arm -- rejected; playground equipment at Ranchero Elementary School -- rejected; Falkland Heritage Park improvements -- rejected; the upgrading and development of Barnes Park and Lions Pool in Enderby -- rejected; the construction of Main Street at the R.J. Haney Heritage Park -- rejected; playground equipment for Finlayson Park in Sicamous -- rejected
Here's a letter from the Eagle Valley Rescue Society that's just been handed to me. It says: "In any event, you can appreciate that we found it quite ludicrous that three years after our request for a B.C. 21 grant, it was regretfully turned down." I hope the minister can appreciate my frustration, and the frustration must be far more enormous amongst the hundreds of community groups in British Columbia that rightfully think they ought to be able to access $5,000 or $10,000 or $15,000 for a community project that they have undoubtedly contributed hours and hours of volunteer labour to. They want to get back some of the lottery funds that they put in, and here we have a situation where obviously there's going to be no money in the future. I think that's terrible.
Perhaps the minister would like to leap to the defence of this decision or at least try to explain it. Last year we heard, in defence of the $485,000, that while health care and education
Hon. I. Waddell: That last letter you read was very interesting, because I had to deal with that. As I said before, I
[ Page 8283 ]
believe people need answers from government, and I dealt with it. It was not very pleasant for me to do, but I did it, and at least they got an answer and know where they stand.I appreciate it if the member is advocating more money for these projects. I'll take that as noted and go to bat for more money, as the members have previously suggested, in sports and culture and other matters.
[3:15]
We should remember that last year we were talking $3 million, plus $485,000 in the B.C. 21 project. There was really no infrastructure program. This year there's $1.5 million left for continuing projects in B.C. 21. That's continuing. There's now $8.1 million in infrastructure. Some of those small projects will roll into, hopefully, some of the infrastructure matters. I'm sure the member can, in the estimates for Employment and Investment, ask the minister about the allocation of the budget for those particular amounts. We do the administration, and I think we do it well. That's what's in our estimates, and I'm answering for that.R. Thorpe: Once again the minister has tried to -- perhaps in error; I'm sure it's an error -- paraphrase some of the comments of opposition members. We have not been advocating for more money on sports and culture. We're talking about priorities in this government, stopping the waste. You know, it's amazing that we had $485,000 for this program last year and that now, this year, we have nothing to give back to the small communities that so rightly deserve it, because that money has been extracted -- although we noticed yesterday that we had $400,000 for a how-to brochure on photo radar. So it comes down to priorities on spending.
My colleague from Shuswap has indicated in a letter
Hon. I. Waddell: Member, under my direction in the ministry we're dealing with letters immediately. I wasn't there, but I understand that in the past there was some question about whether there would be more money available: "Let's see if we can squeeze in more grants; let's see if we can find things," and so on. You know, everybody wants to be
R. Thorpe: So now, if we could, because obviously this is a very distressing subject for British Columbians, and we happen to be the carriers of that message that these moneys that have been extracted from their communities are not even going to come back in a small way
Hon. I. Waddell: The answer is yes.
R. Thorpe: Will the ministry continue the practice of advising members of this House, when applications do come in
Hon. I. Waddell: I believe we currently do that.
G. Abbott: I want to have it very clear in my mind just what's happening here. When we started this, we talked about how the ministry -- in this particular area, at least -- had been reorganized. There was a division, or whatever, called the community grants branch. Effectively, are we discussing today how that has been eliminated? There's one FTE left there, but presumably what they are doing -- as my colleague has just suggested -- is responding to letters and saying that the program doesn't exist anymore. Are we talking about the elimination of community projects and about them being rolled into B.C. 21 or something else? Is that what we're doing here? Or is this just a temporary hiatus for the community grants branch?
Hon. I. Waddell: The money was downsized, so we downsized the administration. We put them in this sport and community development branch to keep the expertise there, because we're giving grants out for other projects. There may be. Who knows? Look at the money the feds have got. They may kick in some more. There may be better infrastructure programs in the future -- and more. There may be, hopefully, a big upturn in the B.C. economy, and there would be more money available for lots of things. So that's why we've taken, I think, the best administrative solution possible here. We're not hiding anything; we're being quite frank with the hon. member.
G. Abbott: And there may be a Porsche under the Christmas tree for me on Christmas morning too, but I ain't holding my breath for that, and I'm not holding my breath that the federal government is going to be kicking in moneys for small community projects.
I'm utterly perplexed at what's going on here. The minister is saying: "You know, we've still got money for the big projects in the B.C. 21 program, and maybe there'll be some money there for the little community projects too." He says to ask the Minister of Employment and Investment about that, and we certainly will be doing that. I want to put this very bluntly to the minister: frankly, the B.C. 21 folks are not going to be jumping up and down about putting a new roof on a building or adding an adventure playground to somebody's park. These are the little community projects that are $5,000, $10,000 or $15,000 -- or $2,000, if that happens to be the case -- that have been administered through the community grants branch for the past several years.
When this government took office, the budget of the community grants branch was $10 million. That was ten million bucks that was going out for the little community projects around the province. Again, this wasn't money that was raised by taxes; this was $10 million that the province received through the sale of lottery tickets. It seems entirely appropriate to me that $10 million or at least a few million ought to be going back to the 75 ridings in this province for the little community grants projects. I want to put this very bluntly to the minister: Employment and Investment and B.C. 21 are not going to be terribly interested in those little community projects. Do they want to be giving out hundreds of $2,000, $3,000, $4,000 or $5,000 grants every year? I don't think so. They are looking at assisting sewer projects and major projects of that sort around the province.
[ Page 8284 ]
Frankly, I think what's being lost here is the concern and the attention that these small community projects need. I'll put the proposition to the minister that that's going to be lost here. What is he going to do, as a minister, to ensure that those hundreds of little community projects around the province don't get lost and don't fail to get a penny out of the lottery revenues received by this province in the years ahead?Hon. I. Waddell: I note the hon. member's comments. I'm sympathetic to small community projects.
G. Abbott: Would this minister commit to taking the proposition to his cabinet colleagues that in the distribution of B.C. lottery funds there ought to be an allocation for small community projects. Will he take that proposition to his cabinet colleagues?
Hon. I. Waddell: I'm a little concerned about the aspect of tying it in with the lottery funds, because it goes back
Interjection.
Hon. I. Waddell: They may have been originally.
What I will take to my cabinet colleagues is the proposition that there's a demand for community projects and that it's good to put money into community projects. As the hon. member said, sometimes if you have the bigger infrastructure programs, like Canada-B.C. Infrastructure Works, while theoretically you can have money for small projects, it tends to get lost in the big projects. I've seen that. So I'll take those comments back that the hon. member has made.
K. Krueger: Just to try and clarify this
It's terribly frustrating for people there, because, as one of my colleagues has pointed out, people see community money siphoned away through gaming year after year after year. In fact this government, of course, increased gaming in British Columbia dramatically last year. They increased the allowable bets in casinos by 2,000 percent and expanded the hours very substantially. I had a pub owner tell me just two days ago that eight men who regularly eat dinner together in his pub, and who used to do other things as well, now go to the casino and spend $400 each there every time they go out together. That's money that just disappears from the community. The operator gets a cut and, of course, the rest comes down here to Victoria. People that I represent in those small communities feel that none of it ever comes back to them.
This is not only frustrating to people; it's tremendously damaging. Those are huge social costs. The pub owners are reporting dramatic decreases in their revenue, and so are other businesses. These are social consequences that were anticipated when gambling expansion was discussed for British Columbia. They have been experienced and documented in other jurisdictions around North America before British Columbia ever did this last year. We said at the time -- and we still do -- that it was a very rash and ill-advised thing to do, especially at a time when other Canadian jurisdictions are trying to cut back on the expansions that they've allowed. That's one aspect, of course.
Another aspect is that the kinds of communities I represent up and down the North Thompson Valley see their resource revenues hauled down to Victoria year after year after year, and they have to go cap in hand to try and get any of it back for anything. For the last two years I've been trying to help people who are advancing very worthwhile-looking community projects to the government and copying me. The types of projects that I've seen turned down are fire halls in the communities of Little Fort and Sun Peaks and improvements to the facilities at the North Thompson Fall Fair.
I know that the minister had an application brought to his attention at the Kamloops economic development conference, which we just finished last week, with regard to a Clearwater school of the arts and crafts. I understand the minister was interested, and I think it's a tremendously worthwhile-looking project. But it seems to be the case that this ministry either has no money or very little money to deal with such applications, even though tremendous wealth is hauled out of our constituencies and our rural communities year after year.
[3:30]
I appreciate what the minister just said: that he will take those concerns back to cabinet. I ask him, when he does that, to make it clear that it's not the Liberals urging the government to squander money. It's a matter of allowing communities to have a share of the money that's generated from them to get things done. I'm having to go back and tell people in these communities: "You have to work through the regional district; you have to have a local referendum; you have to raise money; and you have to build these things yourselves -- pay for your own rescue trucks, and so on." That's really galling to these people, and I think I see some empathy on the minister's part. We'd appreciate it if he would make that distinction to cabinet. It's not that we're begging for money to be spent. We're saying that this money belonged to those communities in the first place; the money came from those communities. There ought to be a way for them to have a share in the revenues to get things done locally. There simply seems to be no way presently for them to even apply to the provincial government for a share.When we look at the supplement to the estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1999, on pages 90 and 91, under this ministry's budget -- the title is "Community Development," STOB 80 -- there appears to be a budget allocation of $8.471 million for the coming year for community development. Perhaps the minister would explain to us what fund that is and how communities access it.
Hon. I. Waddell: First of all, I've already told the hon. member, with respect to those other grant applications, that I ordered that answers be given and the backlog be dealt with, and that I made sure that there weren't staff sitting around; they were downsized to deal with the amount of money that we had. Again, we administer. We don't have the money in a big pot. Of the amount that the member is referring to --
[ Page 8285 ]
$8.846 million, I think -- the in-province travel program is $806,000. There's $150,000 left from GO B.C. It goes back some way. There's $7.836 million for sports and recreation.
K. Krueger: When I look down through the list of what was spent under B.C. 21 community project grants last year and see things like lawn bowling in several communities, various cultural societies, the Cowichan Wooden Boat Society, some musical and athletic associations, one Boy Scouts organization, Port Alberni Black Sheep Rugby, Bulkley Valley Cross Country Ski
Hon. I. Waddell: I just administer the program; I don't grant them. I might say to the hon. member that I share his concerns about small things. The previous member, the member for Shuswap, put it very well and asked questions. I believe, too, that what government thinks are little things are big things to people. But I caution the member about playing one against the other. I don't grant these, but I wouldn't say: "You gave money for this thing, but you didn't give it to the fire hall in your riding." Maybe the people in that other community who got it might think that's important. It's a little bit of a fool's game to do that. One has to be careful with that.
I'm listening to what the member says, as I did with the previous member. But I also want to point out that my department is just administering this. I'm not even on the committee that grants these things, so I can't tell you what the criteria are.
K. Krueger: I think that "fool's game" might be an adequate description. It's a good name that the minister chose for the way things have been done in the past. I'm not trying to play one off against the other. I simply asked, and I ask again
I'm saying that the communities I represent have to dig deep and come up with this money out of their own pockets to do these things every time they try to get something done. I feel sheepish to have to provide them with application forms, knowing that they're going to get stacked up on a desk somewhere, and especially with the knowledge that projects don't have any prioritization that the minister or I know about or understand. So I'd like the minister's commitment that he will get more involved if a budget is forthcoming to him for the coming year or any future year.
Hon. I. Waddell: I can assure the hon. member that if they give me a pot of money, I will get very involved.
K. Krueger: To wrap up my questions, I want to clarify that this minister has absolutely no funds in his budget or at his disposal, then, for community grants, other than the ones that he just broke down for me in the budget of under $9 million, which we discussed.
Hon. I. Waddell: I administer what I'm given. The Heritage Trust may have some money in its limited budget for a small heritage-related project.
G. Abbott: I have a straightforward request. Would it be possible to get a list of the components of the $485,000 distribution of the last fiscal year today, so it can be reviewed prior to us getting too far away from the community grants estimates?
Hon. I. Waddell: The answer is yes.
R. Thorpe: In an effort to build better communication and understanding of this very, very complex administrative allocation and approval system that this government has developed
Hon. I. Waddell: I will consider that, and I will discuss it with the Minister of Employment and Investment. I can't make that particular commitment today, but I'll look at it.
R. Thorpe: As we finish this area, I would like to say that, perhaps for the benefit of all members of this House, with where the money lies, I would advise the minister that it would be very, very important to get his title down correctly so that we're in favour -- not in disfavour -- with that minister who apparently has the money. We'll finish now with this section on the moneys that Employment and Investment from time to time releases for distribution. I'd like to thank the staff, and if that staff could give us that comprehensive list that we had talked about, that would be most appreciated.
I wonder if we could ask the minister to clarify how much money the Heritage Trust and the heritage branch have in grants. Do they have any, or do they just administer also?
Hon. I. Waddell: The budget for the provincial heritage program is in the estimates. It's $971,000 for heritage programs, $750,000 for the British Columbia Heritage Trust and $3.744 million for heritage properties, for a total of $5.465 million for the branch.
The Chair: A division has been called in the main chamber, so we will recess until after the division.
The committee recessed from 3:42 p.m. to 3:54 p.m.
[E. Walsh in the chair.]
R. Thorpe: I'm wondering if the minister could advise us what the working relationship is between the heritage folks and the Heritage Society of British Columbia?
Hon. I. Waddell: They have a good working relationship. The Heritage Society's job, of course, is to press the government for more resources. One would expect that. They seem to have a good working relationship. The Heritage Society is
[ Page 8286 ]
independent; it's individuals outside of government. I believe that the trust does give some money to help them -- to have that outside body there, so we can expand the interest in heritage.R. Thorpe: Could the minister advise what funding is available from the ministry to the society? What was given last year, and what is anticipated to be given this fiscal year?
Hon. I. Waddell: I was also going to point out that the society is chaired by a very dynamic man, George Atamanenko -- I met with him -- who is really committed to heritage issues. The trust gave the society $80,000 last year, I believe, and I think that in their meeting next week, the trust is determining what they will give this year.
R. Thorpe: Do we have any idea what the grant will be this year -- the '98-99 grant?
Hon. I. Waddell: No, I don't.
R. Thorpe: Does this area of the ministry have a business plan? If so, what are the three or four key strategic issues facing the branch this year?
Hon. I. Waddell: The issues, as I understand them
With respect to the first part of the member's question, three regions have developed a very detailed plan. Here is a particular draft plan for the Coastal-Okanagan region -- B.C. heritage. It's very detailed. We'll share it with the hon. member.
R. Thorpe: The minister mentioned that three regions are doing this. How many regions are there?
Hon. I. Waddell: Three.
R. Thorpe: So all heritage regions have in fact developed draft plans. Is that correct?
Hon. I. Waddell: The plans are for the properties administered by us for the branch.
R. Thorpe: So the plans that we were talking about pertain to the 28 or 29 historical sites throughout the province.
Getting back to heritage and the development of partnerships with communities
[S. Orcherton in the chair.]
[4:00]
Hon. I. Waddell: I see it working together with the small communities, telling them that we're interested in heritage, and that it's a priority that hasn't been lost in the shuffle of things. We're telling them that in these tight economic times, it's important to us, that this link with tourism is really important, as is working with local communities generally in building conservation. Historic sites, archaeology, heritage interpretation, oral histories and doing research: there are a whole bunch of areas in which to work with them.R. Thorpe: I just want to make sure that I haven't lost what's going on here. We've got $750,000 going to the Heritage Trust. I thought that's what we were talking about with respect to the business plan. Then the minister throws in developing the heritage properties. I thought perhaps that was another area of the branch. Can we focus again on the trust and the $750,000? I thought that was where you were going to try to develop some things with the communities. My sense is that the two aren't necessarily linked. Is that correct?
[E. Walsh in the chair.]
Hon. I. Waddell: That's correct. Getting back to the trust, it has awarded 69 projects under 14 programs. They awarded $728,827. These amounts vary in programs. For example, the British Columbia Aviation Museum received $3,000. I said that these 69 projects, during '97-98, received $729,000. They leveraged over $4.9 million in total project values. So that's sort of putting some money in and then working with the community to get more money so they can leverage into these projects. That's a fairly impressive figure.R. Thorpe: How many FTEs are assigned to this area within the ministry?
Hon. I. Waddell: There are 57 FTEs. Now, the member should recall that this includes the Fort Steele and Barkerville operations.
R. Thorpe: So if we excluded the employees that are allocated to Fort Steele and Barkerville, what would be the net in the nucleus of the ministry?
Hon. I. Waddell: You'll forgive me if I put
R. Thorpe: When I look at these figures, and at the facts that the minister has shared with this House today, it once again demonstrates how hard it is for this government to create full-time jobs, because we've got three-quarters here, three-quarters there and a half there. We would encourage this government to strive to create permanent, full-time jobs and not part-time jobs.
I just want to
J. Wilson: It's my understanding that the contract at the Hat Creek Ranch heritage site is up for review or has been abandoned by the person that it was awarded to. Is this correct?
[ Page 8287 ]
Hon. I. Waddell: There was someone who was contracted to provide the services at Hat Creek. By mutual consent, this permitteeJ. Wilson: Since the ministry is now running the site rather than having it contracted to an individual, what is that cost going to be to the ministry for this year?
Hon. I. Waddell: I'm informed that it's not going to cost any more money, because you'd have to pay for the contracting out anyway. We hope to get another contract and continue it in the following year. So we're trying to go back to the way it was, just with a different permittee.
J. Wilson: My understanding of these contracts is that they are private and that the government does get some revenue from the contractor they lease these heritage sites to. Would this not be the case with Hat Creek, as it is with other heritage sites in the province?
Hon. I. Waddell: We're administrating a number of contracts in that area. Revenue will be received through those contracts which we will use to offset our costs, so we don't expect that it's going to cost us more. Just to further clarify, it's not going to cost us any more than the previous years. But I don't believe we make money off that site; we do subsidize that site.
J. Wilson: Since this site is subsidized -- which is rather unusual, I believe, because most sites are no longer subsidized by the government -- could the minister tell me how much subsidy has been paid into this site?
Hon. I. Waddell: I'm informed that there are many sites that are subsidized. I don't have the exact figure on this site, but I'll get the figures for the hon. member within a reasonable period of time.
J. Wilson: I'd like to ask the minister what a reasonable period means, but
With respect to this contract at Hat Creek, it is my understanding that this was a signed contract -- like most other contracts in the province -- where the individual bears the cost of operating the site. But then it was found that additional money was required, which is the figure I would like to get the minister to confirm. I'd also like to know when I can expect these numbers.
Hon. I. Waddell: I'll try to get the member those figures within a week.
J. Wilson: Hat Creek is a fair-sized piece of real estate in the south Cariboo, and they have a sizeable acreage that is in hay production. Was the crop there left to the disposal of the person who had the contract without having to pay the government any lease fees on this ground, or was the government involved in the production of the crop? What happened to the crop? Was it donated to the contractor, or was it sold to generate government revenue?
Hon. I. Waddell: So the question is: what happened to the hay? Well, I'm informed that
Interjection.
Hon. I. Waddell: Hey, sometimes you have to deal with a lot of different questions.
I'm informed that the former permittee had rights to that. He planted it, seeded it and dealt with it. Ministry officials are up there this week as we speak, trying to finalize details about how it's going to operate for next year. So we'll get the member that information. That's why I said a week.
J. Wilson: Since the ministry was kind enough to donate the hay crop to the contractor last year and the year before, what dollar value would the minister put on this gift?
Hon. I. Waddell: I don't accept that we donated it to the permittee. I think that was part of the contractual arrangement. The hon. member has a lot of experience in this area. He comes from the area and has an agricultural background. Perhaps he can tell me what he thinks the hay crop is worth.
J. Wilson: Well, what I'd like to know is this. Since the minister has subsidized this project through taxpayers' dollars, and I believe they have also given the contractor the right to farm something like 300 acres of hay land
I also see a fair amount of activity there with irrigation when I drive by, and I would like to know if the ministry has put up funds to put in a pivot system, an irrigation system, in the last year or two on this land.
Hon. I. Waddell: I'll have to look into that issue and get exact details on it. I appreciate the member bringing it to my attention.
[4:15]
J. Wilson: I would be quite interested in getting this information because pivots are not cheap. You're looking at a quarter of a million dollars for a good pivot setup. There has been a lot of development going on around there. If this is the case, if the ministry has supplied the money to develop an irrigation system there and has donated the hay crop that is going to be produced to the contractor
Hon. I. Waddell: I was going to make a comment on the financial status of the former permittee, but I'm advised, perhaps
But let me say that I am listening to the member and taking that on notice. I will get a report next week from the ministry officials who are dealing with this, and I'll be asking them about hay crops, watering irrigation and so on. The member can rest assured about that.
J. Wilson: I've been told by certain people that this is not the first time that this has happened at this site. The contractor prior to the present contractor who was there was given a large sum of money by the government to operate this site,
[ Page 8288 ]
and then they did the same thing -- they pulled out and left. I'm just wondering if the minister would be able to come up with a dollar figure as to what it cost the government in an attempt -- that didn't work -- to operate a site.Hon. I. Waddell: I thank the member for bringing this to my attention, and I will look into it.
R. Thorpe: Going back to the British Columbia Heritage Trust, is the $750,000 in funding for the '98-99 fiscal year -- and I'm sorry to repeat this -- the same amount that was there for '97-98?
Hon. I. Waddell: The answer is yes.
R. Thorpe: So in fact, over the last couple of years we've seen it decrease from just under $1 million to $750,000.
People throughout British Columbia -- individuals, associations, societies or whatever -- make applications to this trust for community activities. Can the minister advise if that is a process similar to the community grants process? Do we have a speedy and timely process that advises people whether there are funds available? Or does this process also entail delay year after year?
Hon. I. Waddell: This money is administered by a committee of the Heritage Trust. There are no problems that I'm aware of. If there are, perhaps the member could bring them to the attention of the trust and/or myself.
I don't accept the preliminary to the member's question about the other program. I've acted quickly on the other program and informed people, and I hope people will be informed. Now, I know there was delay and I don't dispute that, but as far as I'm concerned, under my stewardship of the department, there isn't a delay in replying to people. I'm informed, too, that the Heritage Trust reviews applications two to three times per year. Quite frankly, I wish there was more money for this. It hasn't been cut back this year; it's been cut back in the past as part of government cutbacks to funnel more money into education and health care and other matters. I would hope that the member would help advocate on behalf of getting more funds for this particular area, especially when we work together to work it in with tourism.
R. Thorpe: I'm not questioning for a second what this minister has done. As he's reminded us several times, he's very new in this job, and there are lots of things that he's not yet had the opportunity to examine, review or learn. It's admirable that someone is candid and frank and tells us those things. What I'm suggesting to the minister is
With respect to the criteria for the selection of these programs
Hon. I. Waddell: Apparently there are printed guidelines from the trust, with criteria in them. I'd be pleased to share them with him rather than go through, on the record, every program.
G. Abbott: I want to apologize. I was out of the room for a little while after we had our vote in the other House. I just want to follow up, and I apologize if you've already done this. You listed the three components in the heritage branch. The first one was the provincial something or other, and I believe the figure attached to it was $971,000. Could you give me the name of the program again and, while you're at it, give us a breakdown of what that $971,000 will do?
Hon. I. Waddell: I'd like to tell the hon. member that we've already dealt with it -- while he was out of the room. No, I'm only kidding. I'll deal with it.
On the heritage programs, I think the three figures that I gave
G. Abbott: The latter part of my question was: what will that $971,000 do? Perhaps, in particular, the minister could address the distinction between the B.C. Heritage Trust and the provincial heritage program. Again, one of the things that we are periodically asked to do as MLAs is direct people to the right programs if they want to create or add to some historical facility or program that exists in a community or in a region. Perhaps the minister could outline for me, for example, when the Falkland Historical Society should be looking to the provincial heritage program and when they should be looking to the B.C. Heritage Trust.
Hon. I. Waddell: To answer the member's question, this program really is headquarters advice to staff, first of all, and to the Heritage Trust to help the Heritage Trust. It's also to give advice on heritage matters throughout the province. It advises clients on heritage legislation and appropriate conservation practices to enable effective community heritage planning and management. It monitors changes in program environments, conducts research and issues analysis to assist in the development of legislation and programs about conserving and promoting heritage. It exercises regulatory authority under the Heritage Conservation Act regarding the protection or alteration of designated heritage sites.
Here are some examples. They gave advisory and information services to the heritage community and core support to the trust and advice to Vancouver, New Westminster and Kelowna. There were over 1,000 inquiries from heritage groups, property owners, local governments, and they supported the Heritage Trust. So it's not a grant-giving organization; it's got 12 people in it, and it's more advisory. It monitored, for example, the regulation pursuant to the Heritage Conservation Act for McLean Mill, St. Ann's Academy, Gastown, Atlin Globe Theatre, and so on.
G. Abbott: That's clear enough. Obviously the heritage programs branch is a regulatory and advice-giving branch as opposed to a grant-providing function. That seems clear enough, and that answers my question.
R. Thorpe: Just as we get close to wrapping this section up
[ Page 8289 ]
Hon. I. Waddell: I had to pause a little bit, because I wasn't the minister last year. A couple of things had to fall into place. Let me try and explain it fairly simply, if I can.What the member said was true. Last year we looked at options for governance of the heritage structure. That was talk in the business plan. For example, what do we mean by that? Well, you could sell off the heritage properties; you could privatize them or sell them off. Or you could set up a special operating agency which would be responsible for them -- a sort of hands-off government, maybe like the Arts Council or something like that.
After meeting with the board, the then minister determined that it basically would not tackle those kinds of big issues at the moment. Instead, it would focus on marketing what we already have, which I think is a wise choice. A new board is in place; it's staffed. I've asked the chair to look at linking with Tourism B.C. and marketing our heritage properties. When tourists come, we find they want Super, Natural B.C., but even more, they want culture, heritage and so on -- and, hopefully, first nations tourism and all sorts of things like that. We've got these sites, and we could use them that way, and perhaps even better. So that's where we are at, at the moment, if I can put it that way.
[4:30]
R. Thorpe: If I understand, we're sort of in a -- for lack of better words -- time-out consolidation phase to see what we can do best with what we have, what infrastructure we have around it, and how we can maximize our exposure and our attendance to those facilities. Would that be a reasonable summary?Hon. I. Waddell: I think the member put it better than I did. I agree with him.
R. Thorpe: I guess that when we get to the Tourism B.C. plan, perhaps later today or tomorrow, we will see an integration of activities from the heritage side that complement this. Would that be correct?
Hon. I. Waddell: The chair of the heritage board and the chair of Tourism B.C. are having lunch tomorrow in Vancouver to start doing exactly what the member is talking about. I'm unable to tell you either (a) what they're having or (b) what it's going to cost.
R. Thorpe: But in fact, since they'd probably eat lunch if they were at home, it's probably going to cost the taxpayers of British Columbia nothing, because they'd pay for their own food at home.
If we could just leave this area now, could the minister advise: is this the area of the ministry where we would talk about the Hedley Mascot mine?
Hon. I. Waddell: The answer is yes. If I could find one of the previous Tourism ministers, we could talk even better about it.
R. Thorpe: Well, if the minister needs any assistance, I know where all the former ministers are located. If he would like us to send out a heritage posse to bring them back in, we could probably do that. That in itself could probably be a very good fundraising activity for the ministry.
But what I want to know here
Hon. I. Waddell: I wasn't minister then, and I don't know whether it had a business plan or not. I do know that there was a demand out there to help a site in a rural area, an area outside of the lower mainland, that had a possible tourist attraction -- a heritage site. I guess the folks in that area felt that here was something that could be done to help some area, maybe a region that government doesn't help all the time -- namely, that area in the South Okanagan.
R. Thorpe: The question is a very, very easy question. Was a business plan developed prior to the ongoing commitment of funds to this project? The answer is yes or no.
Hon. I. Waddell: I don't have access to the decisions that were made at that time. I wasn't in the government; indeed, I wasn't even an MLA. I assume that there was a submission made to cabinet which would contain -- as they do when I make submissions to cabinet -- a business element, a plan. I assume that that was done, but I don't have any direct evidence of that.
R. Thorpe: Would it be fair for me to assume that for direct government expenditures of three quarters of a million dollars, the ministry may
Hon. I. Waddell: In answer to that, in 1994 the historic Hedley Mascot goldmine -- that wonderful site near Hedley that you can see from the highway when you go through there; and many of us have -- was under a demolition order from the regional mines inspector. A decision was taken to stabilize the mine and make it publicly accessible. There had to be foundation stabilization. I think that up to about $750,000 was spent to stabilize the foundation and to construct stairways and windows. In October 1997 the ministry issued a request for proposals, an RFP, for the completion of the site development and the future operation. Under that plan of the ministry, the proponents were expected to finance the development and operation through on-site earned revenues -- in other words, to be self-financing. Preference was to be given to proposals that enhanced tourism in the area and that created jobs. We know that the Upper Similkameen Indian band has shown some interest in this project. The merchants of Hedley have shown some enthusiastic support for development of the site.
I know sometimes we people who represent the lower mainland don't listen to those folks in small towns in, you know, areas like the South Okanagan. Do you consider Hedley to still be in the Okanagan, or do you
[ Page 8290 ]
I do believe that the RFP hasn't closed yet. When that closes, hopefully there will be a proposal that will look at the options of how it can operate.R. Thorpe: I'm sure the minister's office has a copy of this freedom-of-information request dated March 5, 1998, reference 292-30(226). If I can just quote: "We have conducted a search for records and have been unable to locate a business plan per se." This did pertain to the Mascot mine project. Assuming then that the ministry staff did go through their files and that they did confirm this in this letter of March 5, 1998, I guess we conclude that there never was a business plan for this $750,000 expenditure.
Hon. I. Waddell: I don't understand the member's
R. Thorpe: Actually, we haven't been able to establish government's position yet. That's why we're going through this exercise. I think what we're finding here is that the government is trying to cover up the expenditure of $750,000 of taxpayers' money without a legitimate business plan. I think that's what we are trying to do. We've now confirmed that there's not a business plan, and there never was a business plan. And for whatever reason, we can decide to go out and spend $750,000 of taxpayers' money, at a time when we're cutting back all these other worthwhile things that we talked about -- sports and heritage programs.
Let us move to the RFP. Could the minister advise how many groups have expressed a serious interest in coming onside with this RFP at this point in time?
Hon. I. Waddell: I take it then that the member opposes expenditures on this project. I can answer his question by saying that 35 people attended the mandatory site viewing on October 22, 1997. Until it closes, we can't predict how many proposals will be received or what they will include.
R. Thorpe: Could the minister explain why the RFP was extended from March 15, 1998, to June 10, 1998, if, in fact, there is so much excitement and positiveness about this project?
Hon. I. Waddell: I'm informed more time was requested by the proponents themselves and the extension was approved by the Purchasing Commission.
R. Thorpe: Who is the lead group on this project? Who has been leading this project and driving this RFP?
Hon. I. Waddell: From the department's point of view, it's the regional manager from the southern area. Is that what the member's asking? Or are you asking who the proponents are out there? Who are the people who may be want to take this up?
R. Thorpe: I was asking who actually asked for the extension from March 15 to June 10. Was there a particular group that asked, or does the possibility exist that we haven't had anyone come forward that wants to take up this project? I've taken the time to read the RFP with respect to this project, and it's an extremely cumbersome and detailed package that someone's trying to lay off on proponents.
Hon. I. Waddell: We're not sure who requested it, because we didn't handle it directly. It was done through the Purchasing Commission.
R. Thorpe: For the record, the minister tries to put words in one's mouth -- or alludes, on the record, to who's for and who's against things. Let me clearly state once again that time and time again this minister has said that there's a shortage of funds for projects in British Columbia. Over and over again we've suggested that perhaps $400,000 for a photo radar manual isn't appropriate. Perhaps $3 million a month for propaganda advertising by this government is not appropriate. I believe British Columbians in Hedley, which happens to be in the riding of Okanagan-Boundary
Interjection.
R. Thorpe: The member is for Okanagan-Boundary; that's who the member is -- because we can't use names here.
I believe that the members of that riding and that community want to ensure that their hard-earned tax dollars, which are sent down to Victoria, are spent and committed with a plan and measurable goals in mind. I don't think people want money just thrown to the wind, with the hope that something may or may not happen.
Moving off
[4:45]
Hon. I. Waddell: Could I reply to that?R. Thorpe: I didn't ask a question.
The Chair: I was going to say that the member for Okanagan-Penticton has the floor.
R. Thorpe: Moving off this issue, is this also the area where we would talk briefly about the Kettle Valley Railway?
Hon. I. Waddell: Is that a question? If the member would like to, please feel free.
R. Thorpe: I'm sure
Hon. I. Waddell: Before I get to Kettle Valley
[ Page 8291 ]
to tell the hon. member that I've listened carefully to what he said about the need for dollars and the competing priorities for those scarce dollars. I've listened to what he said, and I will use what he said when and if I have to make some tough decisions about those particular projects -- as we all must do from time to time.Now, with respect to Kettle Valley, the previous -- and I appreciate the member's help -- board and the society were not working. I'm happy to see that we've got a new board that has community support. My officials have gone up there. I met with my officials and told them to meet with this board and to work with this, and they have. The board has a good plan. We anticipate that very shortly, perhaps within a week, we'll be in a position to advance some money based on that plan, so that we can continue to have some startup funds so it can continue to operate.
R. Thorpe: I appreciate what the ministry staff, both direct and indirect staff, have dedicated to attempting to rescue this project, hand in hand with a new community group that has a very strongly vested interest in the success of this project, to help promote the community and work together and to use the synergies -- one of the words that the minister used earlier today -- for the benefit of the entire community, including the railway.
It is important, though, that we get this concluded a.s.a.p., because if not, the summer
Hon. I. Waddell: Thank you. I appreciate that; that's everyone's goal. We're looking at a June 15 date, I believe. I hope we can get moving on that. On these projects -- this, the Hedley project and a number of other projects -- we appreciate the community support.
I also note, however, that there are scarce dollars. If we can't get these projects working
R. Thorpe: I'm encouraged by those words. I trust, then, that as future projects are considered, the minister will understand and accept the importance of having all new or current projects complemented by sound business plans which have measurable goals and are reviewed in a timely way, so that we can maximize our potential for success. Without the business plans done in advance, you're only playing catch-up. Let me assure the minister that it is a recipe for disaster to not have business plans in place, with measurable goals and timely reviews to ensure success, because there's a lot of competition out there. Just because governments tend to throw money at projects
I'd like to thank the minister's staff who have helped us through this part on heritage, and I look forward to continuing to work with these folks.
Hon. I. Waddell: I thank you for that; that's very good.
I've got some museum staff. Could we proceed on that? Perhaps they could come in.
Interjection.
Hon. I. Waddell: Yeah, let's take five.
The Chair: If it's the will of the committee, we'll take a five-minute recess.
The committee recessed from 4:54 p.m. to 5:01 p.m.
[E. Walsh in the chair.]
R. Thorpe: So what are the three or four key issues facing the Royal British Columbia Museum not only in the coming year but in the coming five years?
Hon. I. Waddell: There are three more immediate priorities. One is the opening of the IMAX theatre, and we're looking forward to that. We invite the hon. members to come to that, although somebody said they'd already seen the film.
The second is the Leonardo da Vinci exhibition, which is coming in October -- one of the only two in North America. I don't know if the member had a chance to read the article in the Times Colonist today by Lawrie
R. Thorpe: Lorne White?
Hon. I. Waddell: It will come to me in a moment.
The Chair: Through the Chair, members.
Hon. I. Waddell: The head of the chamber of commerce wrote an article saying it's wonderful how things are going so well in Victoria. I'll get a copy of that article for the hon. member; he'll like it. I'll bring it in tomorrow. The president of the chamber mentions in the article, of course, the Leonardo da Vinci opening and that the museum is projecting at least 200,000 visitors during the five-month exhibition. This is -- already -- going to increase a booming tourist industry in Victoria.
The third area is the Living Landscapes series that is being promoted by the museum.
R. Thorpe: With the opening of IMAX with the movie Whales
Hon. I. Waddell: The member is referring to something other than the choice of the opening film. The answer is no. Things seem to be going very well, and we have more advance bookings as a result of the publicity.
R. Thorpe: With respect to the Leonardo da Vinci project, what kind of dollars does the Royal B.C. Museum have on the line?
[ Page 8292 ]
Hon. I. Waddell: Conservative figures are that the museum would make a net profit of over a quarter of a million dollars.R. Thorpe: What kind of attendance figures do we have to achieve to make that quarter-of-a-million-dollar profit?
Hon. I. Waddell: Normal attendance during the period in which Leonardo will be on is 100,000. They're hoping they will double it and get 200,000. The Genghis Khan exhibit -- I know that the hon. members will be familiar with Genghis Khan -- had 400,000, but that was during the summer season, and this other one's during the shoulder season.
Interjection.
Hon. I. Waddell: I said Genghis Khan, not Attila.
R. Thorpe: As disappointing as it may be to the minister, we conveniently don't hear all of the comments he makes.
With respect to the need to have a substantial volume of additional people go through the museum on this exciting venture, what work is being done by the Royal British Columbia Museum with Tourism Victoria and Tourism British Columbia to make sure that all the synergies are working together for this project?
Hon. I. Waddell: Let me congratulate the member for that question. That's a good question, because that's exactly what I've been trying to tell people: there are synergies here among Tourism and Culture and provincial institutions and creative thinking and so on. I think it can all come together, and it should all come together with Leonardo. That's why I attended the opening gala: to thank the people who helped there. I gave my speech partly in Italian. I'm working hard to promote this at every place I can. Tourism Victoria and Tourism B.C. are working with the museum. They've already raised close to $1 million for marketing this, so there's a lot of interest. I'm confident that it's going to do very well.
R. Thorpe: Just quickly, when does it start? Is it October? Yeah, I was just thinking out loud. Since I now know the answer, we'll just carry on in the interests of time.
Is that $1 million new marketing dollars, or are we moving that from program to program? Is that new marketing dollars designated to this project?
Hon. I. Waddell: I can tell the hon. member that it's all new marketing dollars, but it's done from outside. We're not putting the money in; the museum's not putting the money in. It's coming from corporate sponsors and people who have an interest, like the airlines and other companies -- CP Rail and so on. They hope they can profit from the number of additional visitors coming.
R. Thorpe: It's great to see that the corporate community is so friendly and so generous in helping these programs. I know that we've been experiencing some significant traffic declines to Victoria because of the rate increases on ferries. I think the minister is also aware of that. What I want to know is for British Columbians who live in the interior or perhaps in the Okanagan
Hon. I. Waddell: The answer to the hon. member is yes. B.C. Ferries have just concluded an agreement with Tourism Victoria and the museum to work out a package deal. I don't have the details with me now, but when I get them, I'll give them to the hon. member.
R. Thorpe: I would just like to share some experience. B.C. Ferries, in trying to develop a marketing program for the shoulder season of January, February and March in this past year, took months -- weeks -- to make a decision. There was so much delay that they missed the market. Therefore I would ask the minister that we collectively hold B.C. Ferries management's feet to the fire on this issue so that timely decisions are made, so that marketing programs can be committed and so that British Columbians have the opportunity to come and support this excellent event that the Royal B.C. Museum's management has undertaken.
Hon. I. Waddell: I believe this is a done deal with B.C. Ferries. I've found, quite frankly, that if you approach B.C. Ferries and deal with them straight up and show them that you've got concerns in tourism or culture or whatever, they will respond.
R. Thorpe: I realize that the minister, because of the newness of his job perhaps, didn't have the opportunity to experience it early in the year when the delays were going on. But if the deal is completed, that's good. Let's get the program moving forward.
With respect to this exciting program, I would just ask if the museum is in fact going to use 75 locations throughout the province of British Columbia -- known as MLAs' offices and facilities -- to have posters and/or pamphlets available. If they haven't thought of that
[5:15]
Hon. I. Waddell: I think it's a great idea, and we'll pursue that. MLAs should have an interest. After all, we do give the museum $10.6 million to operate, and it's in all our interests for the exhibition to be very successful.
R. Thorpe: Well, there is $10 million or $11 million committed. But as the minister always tries to paint, I am more concerned with dollars and cents
With respect to the $10.6 million, it's my understanding that the three-year funding agreement is about to expire or has expired. Could we please have an update on that?
Hon. I. Waddell: The answer is that the agreement expires at the end of this fiscal year; that would be March 1999.
R. Thorpe: Based on the $10.6 million that's funded now, what percentage of the overall museum budget is that?
[ Page 8293 ]
Hon. I. Waddell: Since projected revenues are about $4.6 million, the government allocation would be approximately 75 percent of the budget.R. Thorpe: This is the last year of a three-year agreement. Has that percentage of funding versus operating costs been diminishing? Or has it been running constantly at 75 percent?
Hon. I. Waddell: It has been pretty constant at 75 percent.
R. Thorpe: As we move forward -- and I'm assuming negotiations will be starting shortly on the renewal of the funding agreement for this special operating agency -- what term of agreement are we aiming at finalizing? Is it a three-year, a five-year or a ten-year agreement? Or is it something in between?
Hon. I. Waddell: I'm a little hesitant to answer that. I'm meeting with the museum's board next week, and I'd like to get their views as to how long they think it should be -- should it be three years or should it be five years? -- and how that would be facilitated in a realistic plan.
R. Thorpe: Is the minister prepared to discuss the level of funding? Will it remain at around 75 percent as you move forward, or do you see it diminishing or, conversely, increasing?
Hon. I. Waddell: I want to discuss this with the board. It's also a question for Treasury Board -- the future funding and so on. There are also other issues with the board: their ability to carry over revenue, their business plans, their ability to raise funds and so on. I want to give them as much flexibility as I can in operating this great institution -- without raising fees.
R. Thorpe: The issue of the carryover of funds shouldn't be a big roadblock or stumbling block for the ministry to get over, because in fact you already have that at Tourism B.C. Perhaps you could apply that model, and then they could get on with operating their business at the museum.
It is interesting and noteworthy and important in this particular case that we see some form of secure funding moving forward, because in earlier groups we talked about, we weren't sure about that. As the minister knows, I do support the concept of organizations knowing multi-year funding availability.
When I look at the issue here of a couple of financial measures
Hon. I. Waddell: I'm informed that those matters are related to projects like Leonardo and film, where they'll get increased revenues.
I just want to correct the member. Using the Tourism B.C. model is not so easy. Tourism B.C. funds are allocated from the hotel tax, and they flow directly to Tourism B.C. The museum funds come through the ministry. That presents problems, because things are done in a different way. You have to go through Treasury Board, you have estimates, and you have all sorts of things like that. Technically, Tourism B.C. is not even subject to the estimates.
R. Thorpe: I don't want to get into that debate right now. What I was referring to about Tourism B.C. and the Royal B.C. Museum is the carryover aspect of funds. That's what I was caring about in particular.
The increase in the number of guests in '97-98 went from 700,000 to 1.2 million. That's a substantial increase. Do we have any concerns -- and I hope they never materialize -- about those attendance figures? We've talked, I think, about a couple of hundred thousand people. How many people do we think are going to go to the da Vinci exhibition?
Hon. I. Waddell: I'm informed that they don't have a concern about the projections. And they want to point out that they're client-served; it's not just visitors.
R. Thorpe: Could the minister give us a couple of highlights on the Living Landscapes program? Where is it at, and where are we going in the coming year?
Hon. I. Waddell: I almost had the temerity to suggest that you put the question to our hon. Chair here, who knows something about the Columbia Basin Trust, but I won't.
Living Landscapes celebrates the human and natural history of the southern interior of British Columbia. The museum, as the member knows, has a provincewide mandate to improve the understanding of our human and natural heritage. The Living Landscapes program formalizes the museum's regional programs by focusing on one region every two years. The Thompson-Okanagan region was completed in 1994-96, and the Kootenay-Columbia region, '97 to '99, is underway.
The Living Landscapes program does a number of things. It provides a web site that guides 180,000 visitors per year to made-in-B.C. educational information about the Thompson-Okanagan. The museum has partnered with the Columbia Basin Trust -- so they're partners in this -- to generate $330,000 to support research and education about human and natural history in the Columbia-Kootenay region. There's a local advisory committee. We hope that the results will include research, educational programs and the expansion of the World Wide Web site to include the special nature of the Columbia-Kootenay region.
We are very pleased with this. We think this is a wonderful provincial institution that, through Living Landscapes, is reaching out to the entire province and to a particular area. I am personally very pleased that the Columbia Basin Trust has seen fit to partner in this. I think this is a good use of its money.
I. Chong: I apologize to the minister if I ask some questions which have already been answered in regard to the museum. Unfortunately, I was tied up in a meeting.
I am just curious about the da Vinci exhibit, as well -- whether or not a separate business plan or budget has been prepared for that, and if it has been, whether that would be available to us.
Hon. I. Waddell: I was going to say, "Yes, it's been answered," and then sit down, but I won't.
[ Page 8294 ]
There is a separate business plan that's been prepared. I'll make it available to the member. This exhibit has been well planned, and I think it's going to be well executed; I think that will show.I. Chong: I can appreciate the fact that the museum is working towards ensuring that it is a successful exhibit, as they did with the Genghis Khan exhibit. I mentioned last year in the estimates debate that I am very fond of the Royal B.C. Museum. I have personally contributed towards its success in other small ways and given it support. So I am not questioning that, except for the fact -- which I learned after the Genghis Khan exhibit had left -- that the expectation for the number of attendees and the dollars that it would generate at the turnstiles was at a certain level and subsequently that number didn't materialize. Thankfully, other things came into play that ensured that it in fact generated a profit. That's why I am curious as to the business plan -- whether it would show the expectation for attendees, what levels of pricing would be offered, etc. I was hoping for that information. If that's in the business plan, then I will await that and look into it further.
The other concern that I have is that what occurred with the Genghis Khan exhibit
Has consideration been given to altering the pricing so that outsiders -- not school children or B.C. residents -- who are using the services of a tour operator would in fact have to pay a market price, as opposed to a subsidized price for this exhibit? As I said, the Genghis Khan exhibit was a new initiative in terms of being a world-class event. If we have learned anything from that, are we going to be implementing any changes to the da Vinci exhibit?
[5:30]
Hon. I. Waddell: Let me tell the member, first of all, with respect to Genghis Khan, that the museum exceeded its attendance and revenue targets. Secondly, there is a special lift for the Leonardo da Vinci exhibit. And thirdly, this time the museum is involved. Given what you've said about the past with the tour operators, I think that the museum has maybe learned something here. They are involved in packaging with the tour operators, so that the museum gets the benefits rather than the tour operators.I. Chong: One quick question regarding the curatorial division of the museum. Can the minister advise whether there are any major acquisitions or major plans in place for the curatorial division?
Hon. I. Waddell: Let me say that I don't see any new acquisitions here. I see business as usual. The curators are quite involved in conserving the present exhibits, documenting them, accessing them, reaching out to schools, performing research based on living landscapes, and so on. I think there will be a new exhibit involving first nations that we hope they'll begin to work on in 1999.
I. Chong: My final question in this area. A number of years ago -- I can't remember if it was two years ago -- I believe there was a fire at the museum that caused structural damage. That's why I can't remember, because I know they spent extensive time in repairing it. As a result of that, have there been any changes in terms of the insurability of the property and of the exhibits? Are we covered in terms of risk of loss? Has that changed? If there have been any changes, can the minister advise us as to what they may be?
Hon. I. Waddell: I can tell the member that we're insured, up to date and complete, and that the fire involved some construction and didn't affect the insurance premiums.
R. Thorpe: That concludes our questioning with respect to the museum. I want to thank the staff very much for taking the time to come out. We wish them very well with the opening of the new IMAX and with the Leonardo da Vinci exhibition in the fall. As the critic for the official opposition, whatever we can do in working with your folks and your team over there
Can the minister advise whether the province of British Columbia has a vision of what and where we want the film industry to be in this province?
Hon. I. Waddell: You are darned right we have a vision: we want it to be a billion-dollar industry by the turn of the century. We've taken dramatic steps to do that -- dramatic steps.
R. Thorpe: This drama could turn into a comedy. It's always nice to have enthusiasm, but sometimes we'll just dig a little bit under that enthusiasm and see what's really there.
If we want to grow this into a billion-dollar industry in the next couple of years, can the minister agree or disagree that this is a globally competitive industry?
Hon. I. Waddell: I agree.
R. Thorpe: Can the minister agree, then, that we as a province, as a jurisdiction, have to ensure that we are competitive in all areas in which costs impact on this industry?
Hon. I. Waddell: I agree, and that's why the Premier and I announced yesterday in Vancouver, on the set of "Viper," a program to give a labour-tax credit to foreign films to make us competitive with Ontario. When you add the fact that we have the same time zone, good labour relations, a skilled workforce and a variation in landscapes, we are more competitive than Ontario. Indeed, perhaps next to Los Angeles and New York, we are one of the leading areas in the world.
R. Thorpe: I have this quote here. It says: "This industry can evaporate overnight. It can move anywhere in the world." Could the minister advise us what contingency plans this government has to safeguard against that evaporation?
Hon. I. Waddell: The way you try to safeguard
[ Page 8295 ]
tax credits, but also by trying to encourage Canadian film itself. That's why we brought in Film Incentive British Columbia, which gives Canadian film-makers a tax incentive. It gives a further tax incentive if you locate outside Vancouver and a further tax incentive if you get into training local talent. We're also moving the work in post-production phases. I visited the post-production houses in Vancouver. That's adding to our ability to keep the industry here and to add to the industry. We're moving in animation and encouraging that.I released a study. I was at the Lions Gate studios in North Vancouver and released a study, the Ellis Foster report, which projected the future growth of the industry and showed the past growth. There was a 300 percent growth over the last decade. It's a $671 million industry providing 25,000 jobs. So we've moved dramatically to try to keep this industry going in British Columbia.
R. Thorpe: Since we now know that it's a globally competitive business that can move quickly and that we have to be sensitive to the costs, I think we can all conclude that we would have to act in a very quick manner whenever things jump up in front of us that could cause this evaporation to take place. Can the minister advise us what percentage of our film industry here in British Columbia is, if you will, homegrown versus foreign-controlled?
Hon. I. Waddell: It's about 80 percent foreign-controlled.
R. Thorpe: In growing the industry to a billion dollars in a couple of years, how do we see that? Do we see that in market share staying at 80-20? Do we see it going to 90-10? What is our vision? We have the vision and we have the plan. How do we see that unfolding?
Hon. I. Waddell: We're dealing with a globally competitive industry. We recognize that and we've said that. What we're trying to do is to provide ways in which we can grow our own industry here in British Columbia. That's the challenge, and we're responding to that challenge by helping our own film-makers. And we have a lot of successes.
R. Thorpe: So we are going to grow our homegrown content over the next few years. Is that the vision? In our strategic plan and in our vision, can we look ahead five years and say what our target is for the homegrown aspect of this total industry?
Hon. I. Waddell: We've set a goal. We'd like to grow 10 percent a year in the industry. That's an ambitious goal, but the Ellis Foster report said that that goal could be achieved. It's hard to predict what percentage our own homegrown industry would be. We don't have control over that, either, because we have a lot of federal funding for Canadian film. Sometimes that can go off the rails by bad administration federally, as it did a month or so ago with Telefilm. So we don't have complete control over that, but the aim is to encourage our homegrown people as much as possible.
There are a couple of problems there. One of the big problems is getting their films shown. That's a real challenge to try and face.
R. Thorpe: Can the minister advise us what lead times the industry requires for making decisions with respect to commitments to production?
The Chair: Noting the time, minister.
Hon. I. Waddell: Yes, I'll try and make it brief. It depends what the production is. There are three kinds of productions: movies of the week that come to B.C., features and television productions. They all have different planning modules.
R. Thorpe: Does the announcement that was made yesterday have any retroactive clauses in it?
Hon. I. Waddell: No, it was effective immediately; namely, yesterday, June 1.
[5:45]
R. Thorpe: In talking to some sources that I have in the industryNoting the time, I would like to suggest that we rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Hon. I. Waddell: I'd like to
The Chair: We have a motion on the floor. You've heard the motion.
Hon. I. Waddell: Just for
The Chair: Minister, we have a motion on the floor.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 5:46 p.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]
Copyright © 1998: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada