[ Page 8365 ]

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

Hon. C. Evans: Hon. Speaker, I would like to make a generic recognition of all the producers, farmers and processors of B.C. that are here for B.C. Agriculture Day. Members may wish to introduce the individuals from their constituency, but I want to say welcome to the 100 or more people here in the precincts who feed all of us.

Hon. D. Miller: Visiting us today in the House is the new Ambassador of Mexico to Canada, His Excellency Ezequiel Pabilla Couttollenc. Accompanying the ambassador is the consul general for Mexico in Vancouver, well known to many members of this House: Gabriel Rosales Vega. I would ask the House to make them most welcome.

B. Barisoff: This side of the House would also like to welcome the people from the agricultural community who are here today. Would the House please make them welcome.

T. Nebbeling: In the gallery we have three very courageous people. They are parents of children with autism. They're here today to present, via me, a petition to the Legislature. They are Beverly Sharpe, Dr. Sabrina Freeman and Mr. Avery Raskin. I hope the House will make them welcome.

W. Hartley: Hon. Speaker, as part of the agricultural delegation here today, I'd like to, on your behalf, welcome Marg Crowley from Victoria, Kevin Davison from Maple Ridge and Albert Van Marrewyck from Pitt Meadows. Please make them welcome.

R. Kasper: Visiting us in the gallery today are representatives from the Cowichan Valley 4-H Goat and Fodder Club: Ali Frederick, Geraldine Smith, Lindsey Kusche, Bruce Frederick and Sharon Kusche. There is also a representative from the agricultural industry visiting us: Claude Bilodeau. Would you all please make them welcome.

L. Reid: I'm delighted today to welcome to the gallery, to the precincts of this building, Mr. Steve Wallace, who is the president of the Union of British Columbia Municipalities. I think we would all agree that he's a unique individual, and I would ask the House to please make him welcome.

Hon. J. Kwan: I too would like to join the member opposite in welcoming this person with whom I've only worked a short time. Despite all the rumours I hear about him, we are working with extreme cooperation. That person is Mayor Steve Wallace of Quesnel, the president of UBCM. Along with him are Richard Taylor, the executive director of UBCM, and Doug Ruttan, the city administrator of Quesnel. They join us today, as I will be introducing the Municipal Act amendments bill later this afternoon. I ask the House to please make them feel welcome.

Hon. D. Streifel: It is my pleasure to introduce three folks that are touring the precincts today; they're very important to my office. They are Angela, James and Faye Burgess -- the mother, father and sister of my special assistant Chloe Burgess. I bid the House make them welcome.

F. Gingell: I would like to welcome to the Legislature a farmer from Ladner, Val Roddick, who is an active volunteer and a contributor to our community. I ask all members to make her most welcome.

M. de Jong: Two very special friends are here, travelling with the agricultural contingent; Fred Kraun and Parm Baines are from the Abbotsford area. I hope the House will make them welcome.

Hon. J. Pullinger: I'm delighted to introduce three people from my riding who are here as part of the agriculture delegation: Ben Cuthbert from Ladysmith, Wally Smith from Chemainus and David Wiebe from Duncan. They are all visiting today. I ask the House to make them welcome.

E. Gillespie: I have two introductions to make as part of the agriculture delegation today. George Hamilton is visiting from the Comox Valley, and Andrew Rycroft is visiting from Parksville. Would the House please join me in making them welcome.

G. Abbott: It is my pleasure today to introduce to the House Mr. Lorne Hunter, who is with the B.C. dairymen's association. Mr. Hunter has been generous enough to educate me about some of the issues facing their industry during flights down to Victoria on Shuswap Air. I'd like the House to make him welcome.

B. Penner: I too have the privilege today of meeting with a number of people from the agricultural community. Joining me at lunch were Ms. Myrna Hunt, Mr. Dan Wiebe, Corry Spitters and Lorne Hunter. In addition, I was joined by my colleague the member for Abbotsford and by Mr. Henry Wiens, who at one time was my boss when I worked at the East Chilliwack co-op. He is now the president of the Promontory Ratepayers Association, which represents the neighbourhood in which I live. Would the House please make these people welcome.

J. Sawicki: I think it's absolutely tremendous to have all the representatives of the agricultural community introduced today. My only regret is that I don't have any food producers left in Burnaby-Willingdon to introduce. But on behalf of the sustainable economic development committee of the NDP caucus, I do have three guests to introduce today. They are representing the Office and Professional Employees International Union. We have the president, Ron Tuckwood; the vice-president, Jerri New; and the executive director, Joe Smeets. Would the House please make them welcome.

E. Walsh: I am pleased today to introduce to the House Thalbinder Poonian, who is also here from the agricultural industry of B.C. Thal is from Kelowna, and he's involved in the tree fruit -- or is it the fruit tree? -- industry here in B.C. I would ask the House to please make him welcome.

T. Stevenson: I know that Vancouver-Burrard isn't automatically thought of as an agricultural community; however, we do have an individual living in the riding who is with the agricultural community. That's Jim Ranta, and I'm very pleased to have him here today. I hope the House will make him welcome.

Hon. P. Priddy: In the precincts today are students from Panorama Park Elementary School in my riding with their

[ Page 8366 ]

J. van Dongen: I am pleased to welcome to the Legislature 14 grade 5 students from Ten Broeck Elementary School. They are accompanied by Nancy Barkman and Bonnie Goosney. I'd also like to welcome all of our friends from the agricultural industry here today. I'd ask the House to make them all welcome.

M. Sihota: Hon. Speaker, as you may be aware, for some time now the government has been endeavouring to increase its trade relationships with India. Visiting us from India today are a number of senior government officials: Mr. S.K. Tuteja, who is the principal secretary in the department of finance in the government of Punjab; Mr. R.K. Bhandari, who is with the Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation; Mr. S.S. Brar, who is with PSIDC; and Mr. J.M. Uppal, who is with the consul general of India. Would all the members please make them welcome.

[2:15]

The Speaker: The minister continues.

Hon. H. Lali: I see the member for Matsqui is laughing. I could have had him come and take a look in your riding, but. . . .

The Speaker: Minister, this is introduction time, not debate time.

Hon. H. Lali: Following the other members who have introduced the agricultural delegation, Ernie Willis of Princeton is here from my riding. I also want to join the previous member in welcoming Thal Poonian from Kelowna. Would the House please make all of these people from the agricultural delegation welcome.

F. Randall: In the gallery today there are also two people from the constituency of Burnaby-Edmonds who are with the agriculture group: Dawood Alibhai and Dan Wong. Would the House please make them welcome.

Introduction of Bills

LOCAL GOVERNMENT
STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1998

Hon. J. Kwan: Hon. Speaker, I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. J. Kwan: I am pleased to present the Local Government Statutes Amendment Act, 1998. With Bill 31 we are enshrining in the British Columbia provincial Legislature, for the first time ever, recognition of local government as an independent, responsible and accountable order of government within its jurisdiction. This legislation will empower local governments with broader corporate powers than they currently enjoy and will provide greater autonomy for decision-making at the local levels in many areas. Local governments will have more flexibility to undertake public-private partnerships, and under this legislation they will have the authority to engage in these public-private partnerships without intervention by the provincial government.

This will support local economic development, but of course we also recognize that we have to build in safeguards to balance this new authority with accountability measures to encourage openness around these agreements. Bill 31 is a significant phase in the multi-year Municipal Act reform initiative that will establish a new legislative foundation for local governments.

I want to thank Mayor Steve Wallace, the president of UBCM and other local government representatives -- some of whom are with us today in the gallery and were introduced earlier -- who have worked with us to develop these proposals over the last years. I also want to pay tribute to my predecessor the previous Minister of Municipal Affairs, who is the current Minister of Employment and Investment. He was a strong advocate within the government for Municipal Act reform and worked very hard to bring about the legislation that I'm introducing today. This legislation, as part of the broader Municipal Act. . . .

The Speaker: Minister, your two minutes are up. Would you like to move the motion, please.

Hon. J. Kwan: Thank you, hon. Speaker. This legislation would move the Municipal Act into the twenty-first century, and. . . .

The Speaker: Minister, we need the motion.

Hon. J. Kwan: I move that Bill 31 be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 31 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.

PREVENTION OF
CHILD SEXUAL EXPLOITATION ACT

L. Stephens: I move the bill be introduced and now read a first time.

Motion approved.

L. Stephens: Over the past two years a number of factors have developed regarding children and youth in British Columbia. There's been a substantial increase in the number

[ Page 8367 ]

This bill is modelled on the Alberta legislation that provides for a police office or director, if they believe on reasonable or probable grounds that a person is a child under the age of 16 and in need of protection. . . . The police office or director may apply to a judge of the court or to a justice of the peace for an order to apprehend the child and return them to their guardian or a responsible adult who has the care and control of the child; apprehend and convey to a safe house for up to 72 hours to ensure the child's safety and to assess the child's needs; and to enter, by force if necessary, that place or premises in search of the child and apprehend the child if the court or justice of the peace is satisfied that the child may be found there.

I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill M208 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.

Oral Questions

FUNDING FOR SPECIAL NEEDS
DAY CARE IN SURREY

Hon. L. Boone: Hon. Speaker, as you will remember, the hon. member across the way is talking about supported child care, and actually she demanded that I stop supported child care and the move to that. I said at that time that I would in fact review the whole issue around supported child care, that we would make sure that those areas that had concerns about supported child care would receive existing funding for the remainder of the year and that we would put in place some review to look at the supported child care efforts and see how we can move towards that while keeping in place the necessary services to the children.

I'm not aware of the situation that the member talks about, but if she would like to get me the information, I'd be happy to look into it.

The Speaker: For her first supplementary, the member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain.

C. Clark: I believe the minister does have the information. The letter I have was copied to her office. But you know, I don't think she needs to have a letter to remind her that she made a promise, and her promise was that there would be "no interruption of current preschool and day care services to children with special needs." Now 20 children are left with nowhere to go. When those parents are standing here in this gallery, she'll look them in the eye and tell them she's not going to cut services, but when they're across the water in Vancouver, that's when the cuts begin.

Will she do what's right: stand behind her promise, keep her commitment and restore the funding to this program today?

Hon. L. Boone: There have been no cuts to any of the programs for child care. There has been no cut at all. As I said, if she would like to give me the information with regards to this particular case, I'll look into it, but I think she'll find that there has been no cut in that particular case.

B. McKinnon: Well, I think the minister should read her mail.

I'd like to read to the minister a letter we received from Heather Leech, a parent of a special needs child, who came all the way to Victoria in April: "I am truly appalled that the hon. Minister for Children and Families has the audacity to stand before me in the House and guarantee that there will be funding. . .and then, behind the backs of our parents, break that promise. . . . How can she do this to our children?" Will the minister stand up now and tell Heather Leech why she broke the promise she made to her only six weeks ago?

Hon. L. Boone: As I said earlier, there have been no cuts to any of these programs. The programs that were to be moved into. . . . As the member well knows, there was a move towards supported child care. In many parts of this province they have in fact moved towards supported child care and have done so in a manner that is very supportive in their communities. Those areas are proceeding. In those particular areas where there was a difficulty, I have given the assurance that we would keep their funding in place until the end of the year and that we would continue to work with them to move towards supported child care. That is the commitment that I gave to them, and that is the commitment that I believe my staff are still working towards.

If you have a particular case in mind, where you know this is not happening. . .

The Speaker: Through the Chair, minister.

Hon. L. Boone: . . .I'd appreciate it if you'd get that information to me, so I can. . .

The Speaker: Minister, through the Chair. Would you wind up your remarks, please.

Hon. L. Boone: . . .deal with it.

The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for Surrey-Cloverdale.

[ Page 8368 ]

Hon. L. Boone: I'll repeat again. I have assured those people that in those areas where there was difficulty in terms of moving towards supported child care, the funding would remain in place for those areas. We would work with them to move towards supported child care, which is what the child care committee wants and what those areas are looking for. In those areas where there are difficulties, we worked with them and we may find some alternatives. But the funding remains in place until the end of this year.

If you know of a particular case -- through you, hon. Speaker -- where this is not happening, then would you please contact me. I will ask the region why that is not happening, but my directions have been quite clear to the regions.

MINISTER'S ROLE IN
RATIFICATION OF EDUCATION AGREEMENT

Hon. Speaker, on the same day the minister sent a letter to the school board chairs, which had enclosed an attached summary of major elements and financial consequences of the agreement, stating that only if the agreement is ratified will it mean approximately $200 million of additional funding, above and beyond core grants, that will be added to the school district grants to support improved services.

The Speaker: And your question?

[2:30]

The Speaker: Member. . . .

G. Wilson: . . .that I requested your superintendents to meet with me in Victoria."

The Speaker: . . .you're stretching it.

G. Wilson: So will the minister now tell us that he summoned the superintendents to Victoria to increase the intimidation on duly elected school board representatives to ratify an agreement that was cut in the back rooms between this government and the president of the BCTF?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Hon. Speaker, I'm very pleased to hear this. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members. Minister -- just half a minute, please. I'd like to restore some order so we can hear the answer.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I thank the member opposite for outlining this government's commitment to a truly groundbreaking agreement with the teachers of this province.

Yes, hon. Speaker, the member is quite accurate. We are committed to spending $200 million -- $150 million to improve services to make sure that class size in kindergarten-to-grade-3 is reduced in school districts across our province. And yes, we are committed to spending $307 million to build 1,000 new classrooms to accommodate those smaller classes. And yes, I have both spoken and written to school trustees to inform them of this agreement and why I believe it is a good agreement for children in our schools. And yes, I spent yesterday and today and the day before meeting with superintendents to talk to them about how we move forward on implementing these exciting initiatives for our children.

The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast.

G. Wilson: What is groundbreaking is this labour government's complete violation of the principles of free collective bargaining. That's what is groundbreaking. Will the minister confirm that in discussions with the superintendents he discussed measures for implementing this agreement by a legislative settlement, given that the trustees vote it down. . . ? Will the minister confirm that he discussed with the superintendents implementation through legislation?

Hon. P. Ramsey: No.

THREAT OF COMMERCIAL FISHING PROTEST
TO TOURISM INDUSTRY

Hon. D. Streifel: I don't recall discussing this issue with the member for Richmond-Steveston in the past. You know, it's a pleasure to stand in this House and address some legitimate fisheries issues. The members opposite don't understand the desperate situation that exists in British Columbia. British Columbia has been absolutely abandoned by the federal government in the area of the need to get a Pacific Salmon Treaty and the need to represent British Columbia's interests. The shipyard workers have been abandoned, and the fishermen on the coast have been abandoned. We won't accept that. We would like support from the members opposite, not criticism.

G. Plant: Well, what the Minister of Fisheries doesn't seem to get is that there is an $8.3 billion-a-year tourism industry that is the present and the future of this province.

[ Page 8369 ]

The Speaker: Hon. members, order, please.

G. Plant: It is the only sector of the economy of British Columbia that hasn't been strangled to death by the NDP.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members, order, please, so we can hear the question.

G. Plant: When there is a threat of illegal action that could cripple that industry, the only response of the Minister of Fisheries, a minister of the Crown, is to say: "Well, I don't really care. Whatever happens, happens." How dare he say that! How dare he tell the people of British Columbia that he has no respect for the rule of law!

Hon. D. Streifel: Again, I don't recall discussing this in the past with any of the members opposite. What's important here is that the issue in front of us is the need to get a fair and equitable Pacific Salmon Treaty and the need to conserve the coho that are in desperate straits in the Skeena system and the Thompson system. But what's been left out of the equation so far is the workers and their families. I have asked Minister Anderson and the federal government to step forward with a comprehensive and inclusive plan that will support the coast, the fishermen and the shipyard workers -- that will get beyond all of this political sniping and support British Columbians and their families.

The Speaker: Thank you, minister. Wind up, please.

Hon. D. Streifel: I suppose the rumour of the split in the federal and provincial Liberals doesn't exist with this individual.

G. Farrell-Collins: What the Minister of Fisheries fails to remember is that the cruise ship industry in British Columbia injects over $200 million worth of revenue. There are literally hundreds and thousands of people -- single mothers, I might add -- in the restaurant and hotel industry who rely on the income generated by that industry.

The Minister of Fisheries, when confronted with an illegal blockade that could very well gut that industry not just this year but next year and the year after, says: "Whatever happens, happens. Que sera, sera." He's the Doris Day of B.C. politics, hon. Speaker. How can a minister of the Crown stand up and say, "Whatever happens, happens," when a $200 million industry is at stake in the province of British Columbia today?

Hon. D. Streifel: What a bizarre circumstance. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, come to order, please.

Hon. D. Streifel: You know, I haven't once heard in this House from the members opposite a concern for coastal communities -- some 20,000 fishermen who are facing a bleak future. I haven't once heard. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members.

Hon. D. Streifel: It's really their question period. If they don't want an answer. . . . But hon. Speaker, what we're asking of the members opposite is to stand up for the coast of British Columbia, to help support the workers and their families who are facing a bleak future. There is no. . . .

Interjections.

Hon. D. Streifel: I don't know what blockade they're referencing; there isn't one. But what there is, is desperation -- families out of work, families without food, families without support to pay their mortgages. That's what the issue is here; that's who I stand in this House to support. The members opposite stand in this House to support an incompetent Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

LOG THEFT AND FOREST REVENUE FRAUD

While I cannot quantify a figure for the member, I can assure this House that the anecdotal evidence presented by the member is not a true reflection of the level of this problem. I can, however, tell this House that my ministry has 440 compliance and enforcement officers, in addition to 1,000 field staff who are in the woods every working day. In addition, there are nine environmental Crown counsel who work closely with the Forest Service to deal with forest crime, including unauthorized timber harvesting. In the last year, 266 investigations of unauthorized harvesting were undertaken. This is in addition to the 47 involved in the RCMP's forest crimes unit.

Just to put the allegations of the member opposite into some perspective, if the anecdotal evidence presented in the reported cited were true, that would mean 100,000 truckloads of logs were moved illegally. It would mean the equivalent of 335-hectare clearcuts going unnoticed in the province. I would suggest to the House that theft of this magnitude could not go unnoticed.

Last year the auditor general made 11 recommendations to my ministry to improve control over revenues, including the risks of theft. My ministry has acted on those recommendations and continues to take all the necessary steps to reduce the level of theft in the forests. The Forest Service intends to build upon its effective working relationships with the RCMP -- the local detachments and the forest crimes unit. To this end, I am able to tell the House that on Tuesday of this week an MOU was entered into with the RCMP to have one of their staff members working. . . .

Interjections.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The report was dated. . . . The MOU was there for the signing of the deputy, and he signed it that day. It had to have been there to be signed that day. On a full-time basis, we will now put. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Minister, are you nearly finished?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Clearly they don't want to hear the answer, hon. Speaker.

[ Page 8370 ]

Petitions

The Speaker: The member tables a petition.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members, order, please. I have a ministerial statement from the Minister of Agriculture and Food.

Interjections.

Hon. C. Evans: Okay?

The Speaker: Hon. minister, I think we can proceed. I think we have order, and you may now proceed.

Ministerial Statement

AGRICULTURE DAY

More than 30,000 people work on farms in B.C. producing food. By the time that food gets to you in a store or restaurant, a quarter of a million people will have been employed in its production, processing, distribution, preparation and sale. If 30,000 people worked for any single private employer, that company would be the biggest economic engine in the province. The CEO of that company would be a regular visitor to our chambers, and legions of his or her advisers would constantly be monitoring our every move and deliberation to protect their interests. In other provinces or countries, such companies actually exist and are called Cargill or McCain or Green Giant or Maple Leaf Foods.

No such vertically integrated giant predominates in B.C. The nature of our geography and our market has mitigated against the concentration of our production into corporate control. We are the only province in Canada where the number of family farms and the number of commodities produced by those small businesses has continued to increase throughout the buyout and merger phenomena of the 1980s and nineties. We pay a price, though, for that diversity. The family farm in the 1990s is invisible. Rather than one giant company that gets our attention, farming in B.C. is made up of 21,000 small businesses.

The industry that we are discussing here today cannot continue to exist in its present form -- full stop. Urbanization has shifted our population away from the land and our political focus away from the people of the land. Now we need to initiate an agriculture day at the Legislature to perceive the secret that exists in plain sight all around us every day. No longer do agrarian politics drive political life in this building as it once did in both the CCF and Social Credit parties. No longer do MLAs go home in the fall to participate in the harvest.

No part of our economy has been so stressed by global changes to the economy as has the food business: stress by freer trade, increasing competition, higher costs and changing consumer demands; stress by cheaper labour and land costs, bigger parcels of land, more readily available and cheaper water in other countries, and less restrictive environmental regulations in Alberta, Washington, Mexico and Chile; stress by the changing rules of the global economy in terms of both opportunities and challenges; stress by the ending of the tariffs that used to allow us to define the borders of our country; and stress, too, because we don't have a migrant labour system in B.C., because we have tough environmental protection and on and on. The challenges are many. The rate of change is tremendous, and the world targets our market for the dumping of their subsidized products.

There is stress by the ending of feed-freight assistance that had made Canadian agriculture work since 1941 and is now dead. That radically alters the operating environment for turkey, hog, chicken, dairy and egg producers, where the cost of grain can be as much as 60 percent of the input cost of the business. Stress, too, comes by the fact that while our primary producers continue to diversify at the level of the family farm, the retail sector of the food business is heading in exactly the opposite direction: towards consolidation and concentration of ownership, purchasing and distribution in centres like Saskatoon, Winnipeg, Calgary and Oakland, California, in order to capture economies of scale.

[2:45]

We also have the oldest and the best farmland protection system in Canada, the agricultural land reserve: the model for some and the envy of most American states and Canadian provinces. We essentially farm half the land in the ALR, and we produce the equivalent of 50 percent of the total food purchases of our population. That means that we have a 100 percent growth potential in both land availability and domestic market potential.

Imagine the huge optimism and the investment climate that would exist if the forest industry had a 100 percent increase available in their annual allowable cut. Imagine how coal or hydro or high-tech sectors would grow if they were

[ Page 8371 ]

Of course, it isn't simple. The challenges are many, the rate of change is tremendous, and the world targets our markets for the dumping of their products. But there is no denying that the potential exists.

We have two jobs immediately to meet that potential. One is to tell your story and end the secret. The old pastoral myth of the days of subsidized agriculture is dead. It is over; it is gone. This industry is a big-time employer with a farm-gate value of $1.6 billion and subsidies of zero. It deserves the respect and exposure and political will that it has come to ask for exerted in this room on its behalf. Second, we need a long-term plan, a vision, a post-GATT strategy of agriculture and food in the global marketplace.

You can tell just by looking at the public gallery today that the first of these jobs has started. Industry is here today telling their stories to MLAs and ministers and caucuses on all sides of the House. They are being invisible no longer. They will keep getting their word out about what they face and what they need and why they deserve our interest. The second job, however -- determining the post-GATT strategy for agriculture -- is less clear. For some time now the farm, the food-processing and retail sectors and their unions have embarked on the creation of an agrifood policy here in British Columbia that will provide direction and clarity for both the industry and the government. Over the next few months we will hold six regional consultations and then a provincial meeting to hammer out this direction precisely. The first is in Nanaimo this weekend, and I invite members who live there to go.

At our first meeting in Richmond there were more than 40 farmers, processors, distributors and retail sectors and unions from across the province. The basic issue was: how do we compete and thrive in a world where everyone else has higher subsidies, cheaper labour and transportation, and lower standards? At that meeting we recognized that if we engage in a race to the bottom, where will it end, and who will buy the product that it produces? If we don't engage in that race, how do we compete, what do we produce, who will buy it and how much will they pay?

I'll be done in a second, you guys.

Every MLA in this room will be affected by the answer to those questions. Every ministry in government needs to help us answer them and then help us implement our vision. Nothing is sustainable in isolation any more -- not jobs, not the economy, not the family farm. It will take all of us.

I want to say thanks to those of you who organized this day to begin to tell the story and end the secret. I want to invite members of this House to join me in a commitment to build a vibrant future for agriculture and the food industry -- one that is seen to grow and to contribute to the provincial economy; one that meets the food choices of the consumers out there in our communities; and one that's strong enough, ultimately, to contribute to the broad social and community development of every town in this province, to continue to compete successfully with every state and every other country in the world in terms of the safety and the quality of the food we have for sale, and to make sure that British Columbia's food and beverage industry never again becomes invisible.

The Speaker: Thank you, minister. That was a bit long, but on the other hand. . . . I recognize now the hon. member for Okanagan-Boundary, in response.

B. Barisoff: Even though we think of farming as much on this side of the House as they do on that side of the House, my speech won't be quite as long as the minister's.

The Speaker: That's to be appreciated.

B. Barisoff: Agriculture in B.C. is the third largest primary industry, behind forestry and mining. Agriculture contributes $2.2 billion to the economy and directly employs 62,000 people. The B.C. food industry employs 277,000 people, both directly and indirectly. This figure surpasses mining in B.C.

Recent polls have shown that 90 percent of British Columbians agree that the provincial government should limit urban development to protect farmers and farmland. Eighty percent believe that agriculture and the food industry are important as a way of life for rural B.C. Sixty-six percent believe that the best way to keep food prices affordable is to make sure B.C. has a thriving agriculture industry. British Columbia farmers receive the lowest government financial support compared to every other province in Canada. Excessive taxation, overregulation and failed agriculture policies have resulted in B.C. turning in the poorest performance, in terms of food exports, in Canada between 1993 and 1996.

Agriculture is facing many critical issues. There is a great deal of pressure on the agricultural land reserve, as we've seen in this House in the last month or so. Farmers need a stable land resource to operate on. Farmers need good drainage for that agricultural land. They need government's help to ensure sensible ditch cleaning rules. Farmers have a historic right to water for irrigation purposes. In the face of increased demands from fishing interests, those rights to water for agriculture need to be protected. They need labour standards that are reasonable and competitive in a global market. They need Workers Compensation Board rules and costs that are competitive and realistic.

The minister is doing a review of marketing systems right now. Farmers want the government's assurance that there is no hidden agenda to further undermine the authority of boards to achieve fair prices for farmers. Farmers need to have sensible environmental standards so that agriculture is not choked by a hopeless bureaucracy of rules and regulations written by people who know nothing about the industry.

A critical component is the food processing sector. On this side of the House we have repeatedly called for a comprehensive study of why B.C. food processors are leaving the province. I listed a page full of them in estimates, of how many agrifood processors are leaving the province. When they leave, there is nothing for the farmers.

Hon. Speaker, farmers are here every day producing food for British Columbia -- seven days a week, 52 weeks of the year. Farming is the backbone of rural British Columbia. Agriculture needs strong advocates on both sides of the House to allow it to grow and prosper in the face of the many serious

[ Page 8372 ]

G. Wilson: I seek leave to respond to the ministerial statement.

Leave granted.

G. Wilson: My remarks will be brief and hopefully direct. Having been elected and having sat in this Legislative Assembly for over seven years, I want to say that I think that not only is agriculture an important aspect of our economy, it has had no better champion than the current Minister of Agriculture. I say that with some trepidation, because I know that when one compliments a member of the opposite side in this game, you are often misinterpreted. But I think this minister does have at his heart the well-being of this industry, and without taking anything away from the member for Okanagan-Boundary, I would say that the member for Abbotsford has been one of the most outstanding critics of Agriculture and Food that I've witnessed in my time in this House. Having said that, it strikes me as passing strange -- when you have had such a strong advocate on the government side and such a competent critic on the opposition side -- that agriculture still continues to fail to get the attention it needs.

I would offer three issues that we might want to pursue. First and foremost is the development of product development moneys. I see that in Alberta their commitment to this well exceeds British Columbia's. Even as a proportion of agricultural farm receipts, they're looking at about 4.8 percent return -- almost 5 percent -- to our 3 percent; I think that that in itself speaks volumes.

Secondly, I think we now have to take one step beyond the agricultural land reserve to establish an agricultural land bank, so that we do not financially punish farmers and so that we allow farmers to be able to get equity out of property that is now caught up in the agricultural land reserve.

Thirdly, I think it's time that this government used its purchasing power to assist B.C. producers. We can set up a Purchasing Commission that will put B.C. product into institutions the government runs: our hospitals, schools and institutes of incarceration. All of these are ideas that would give direct benefit to farmers; they're doable. I would hope that all sides of the House might cooperate to make agriculture what it should be: the number one industry earner in British Columbia.

J. Weisgerber: Madam Speaker, I too seek leave to respond to the minister's statement.

Leave granted.

J. Weisgerber: Agriculture, for my constituency, my part of the world, is a big, important industry. It's something that I spend a lot of my time involved with. I think it's tragic that it took the Minister of Agriculture as long as it did to lay out all of the problems facing the industry. And that was really what the ministerial statement did: it simply catalogued all of the difficulties, all of the problems, all of the roadblocks that agriculture and agribusiness face in this province. Tragically, there were very few solutions and very few resolutions.

I too believe we need to raise the profile of agriculture. We need to capitalize on events -- everything from agricultural fairs to research, product development and marketing assistance. The minister noted that processing industries are leaving British Columbia, and he recognized cheaper labour, land costs and environmental concerns as being some of the problems faced by industry in this province. I want to take just a minute or two to provide an example.

In Dawson Creek a number of investors, many of them seed producers, got together and formed a company with the idea of using straw products -- fescue straw -- to produce wallboard as a replacement for medium-density board or oriented strand board. They got some assistance locally for research money. They did the research and were prepared to go ahead with the construction of a plant. Having decided that they could use this agricultural waste to manufacture a wood replacement product, they found that there was a market, an opportunity to make a profit and an opportunity for farm investors to be involved.

They also found that in British Columbia they couldn't get a straight answer on environmental issues. They found labour costs and workers compensation costs to be higher. They examined taxation and compared it with Alberta. The net effect was that this idea, hatched in British Columbia by British Columbian farmer-investors, is now operating very effectively, profitably and efficiently. Tragically, it's operating in Alberta instead of in British Columbia. It seems to me, in a nutshell, that those are the problems that face us here in British Columbia.

[3:00]

Orders of the Day

ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT ACT, 1998
(continued)

On section 12, section 31 (continued).

F. Gingell: Mr. Chairman, you will remember that immediately before we broke for lunch, we'd had a long, long discussion on the issues surrounding the appointment of the review panel. We made some suggestions to the minister. I would just like, if I may, to take this opportunity to try and express to the minister the concerns we're hearing.

It is interesting, to use that term, because for all that the minister and her officials tell us -- that this bill has a lot of

[ Page 8373 ]

So just in the process of ending the discussion on section 31 -- I don't see that anyone else will want to raise issues -- it is critically important for the process to be seen as independent and seen to be a fair shake. Anything that the minister can do to ensure that the process of the appointment of review panel members -- and I agree with the changes that you're making -- is as open as possible. . . . We made the suggestion that you could use local media to advertise -- in lots of time. I was thinking that the other thing the minister might consider doing is that when you make a press release -- and the government is very fond of press releases -- you could give a short CV of each member of the review panel that you intend to appoint.

I think that gets rid of the issue. I don't want to leave the impression that I believe that all the appointments to the review panel are not good ones. I appeared in front of the review panel, and I won my case, so they were obviously fair-minded, sensible and thoughtful. But it's important that people do see it in that form. Anything the minister can do to open up the process and make it as public as is reasonable, I think, will pay dividends. I strongly urge the minister to take whatever action is possible.

Hon. J. Kwan: I appreciate the comments of the member for Delta South; we certainly will keep his comments in mind. Perhaps I can encourage the member to share his experiences with his colleague the member for Richmond East to perhaps alleviate some of the concerns she had, which we discussed earlier today.

F. Gingell: If you're going to call section 12, we've got a lot of discussion. But I have no further debate on section 31 of the amended act. I don't know how you want to handle this. Do we just move along?

Section 12, section 31 approved.

Hon. H. Lali: Hon. Chair, I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Hon. H. Lali: I have the pleasure to introduce 74 grade 7 students from Hope. They are from C. E. Barry Intermediate School in Hope. They are here with their teacher, Mrs. Warner. There are also a number of parents here. I want to ask the House to please make all of these students welcome.

On section 12, section 32.

The Chair: Shall section 32 pass?

An Hon. Member: Aye.

The Chair: Carried and so ordered.

Interjection.

The Chair: Oh, I'm sorry. I see the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast. On section 32.

G. Wilson: Thank you, hon. Chair. I know it's tough to see this far down. . . . I am inconspicuous from time to time, and it gets a lot of work done that way. The member opposite might take a page out of that book.

Let me come down to section 32. With respect to subsection (1) in the existing act, we notice that there is a sub-subsection (f). In sub-subsection (f), it includes farmland. This has been deleted from this act. Under the existing act, sub-subsection (f) says: ". . .the assessor has failed to approve an application for classification of land as a farm under section 23(1), or has revoked a classification of land as a farm under the regulations." Now, if you look at section 23(1), the question of farm classification is not discretionary on the assessor. You've effectively removed the opportunity for this avenue of appeal, essentially, if the farm is removed from the rolls in this section. If the minister is shaking her head, maybe she could explain why she didn't do that.

Hon. J. Kwan: For clarification for the member opposite, sub-subsection (f), in terms of the authorities or rights that are granted from within, is essentially covered off by sub-subsection (d). Where there is farmland -- or any other land, for that matter -- land is simply land. So the right that is afforded under sub-subsection (f) is already enshrined in sub-subsection (d), and to eliminate sub-subsection (f) is simply to eliminate a duplication.

G. Wilson: With great respect to the minister, I don't think that's true for two reasons. Firstly, the language that the minister has just read is exactly as it is written in the existing act. Secondly, sub-subsection (f) in the existing act makes specific reference to section 23(1) and the rules that apply to the assessor under section 23(1). By simply allowing the language to sit as "land or improvements, or both land and improvements, have been improperly classified," which already exists in the act. . . . That language exists as read. What you've done is delete sub-subsection (f), which makes very specific reference to section 23(1) of the act. In section 23(1) there are obligations provided which will no longer be covered in this act.

Hon. J. Kwan: Section 23(1) really just refers to the classification of farmlands to be referenced under section 32(1)(f). But the point really is that whether it's farmland or any other classification, the rights that are afforded to an individual are really encompassed by the referenced land in general. You don't necessarily have to specify farmland, or otherwise. So by eliminating sub-subsection (f), it does not exclude farmland owners from having the same rights that are afforded to other land owners, because it is really covered off in section 32(1)(d), and this interpretation has also been offered by legal counsel.

[3:15]

[ Page 8374 ]

Remember what we're doing here. Maybe for those who are trying to follow this discussion, it might even help us to go back and remind ourselves. These are appeals to courts of revision. This says: "If a person is of the opinion that an error or omission exists in the completed assessment roll in that. . . ." Then it lists a whole bunch. . . . One of them would read: ". . .in that (f) the assessor has failed to approve an application for classification of land as a farm under section 23(1)" -- and this is the important part -- "or has revoked a classification of land as a farm under the regulations. . . ."

Now, we know that in this province there are assessors who believe that there are people who are using the farm land classification inappropriately. They see it as a loophole. We also know that there have been many challenges to farmland on the basis of portions of land being used for processing and other kinds of activities.

What this does -- and I'm told by people who are more knowledgable in the legal language than I am. . . . If you remove that direct reference with respect to an opportunity or avenue of appeal, you will open the door for an assessor to deny a farm that is agricultural land where portions of that land are used for processing or other kinds of commercial activity -- something that they've been trying to do for a long time.

I fail to understand why we would have that protection in the existing act, whereas in this amendment we would remove that protection -- if indeed the minister believes that there is no substantive change. If there's no substantive change, let's put section 32(1)(f) back in, and my objection would be taken away.

Hon. J. Kwan: I want to assure the member opposite that eliminating section 32(1)(f) does not in any way eliminate the rights that would be afforded to farm owners. As an example, if farmland has been improperly classified or the parcel of farmland has been improperly revoked, they still have the same authorities to appeal under sub-subsection (d). So you don't need to specify kinds of classification of land in order to exercise the right to appeal. Everybody who owns land and feels that their classification has been improperly applied or revoked in this reverse manner would have the same rights that are afforded to them to appeal those decisions.

G. Wilson: There is a distinction with respect to assessment on land that is classified as agricultural land within the agricultural land reserve and therefore is agricultural land, be it classified category 1, 2, 3 or whatever it may be -- rural land that an owner is running as a farm but that would ordinarily be classified as farm, rural, undeveloped or whatever -- because it does not fit the criteria by which we would ordinarily assign it as farmland. They may be small hobby farms, or they may be larger enterprises. The people who run these farms run them in a manner that allows them the opportunity to be able to demonstrate revenue and, through the demonstration of revenue, get an exemption on taxes because they are classified as a farm.

Now, what I am told, from people who are far more knowledgable in this assessment law than I am. . . . It says that if you take and try to capture that under section 32(1)(d) -- "land or improvements, or both land and improvements, have been improperly classified. . . ." That refers specifically to the nature of land classification, whereas section 32(1)(f), because it talks about section 23(1) of the act, which talks about an owner who wants all or part of the land classified as a farm -- right? -- using the application form. . . . Within the application form, they talk about revenue and income. What I'm told is that the reason this bill was written initially to include both sub-subsections 32(1)(d) and (f) was to provide protection for those people who believe that an assessor has unjustly, improperly or unwisely denied them the right to classify what they're doing on their land as farming and therefore to have the exemption, as opposed to classifying their land as farmland. There is a distinction.

So with all due respect to the minister, when the minister says this is simply duplication, it is not. There are rural assessors who would like nothing more than to knock out every hobby farmer from land classification. There are others who would like to see that gone, so that they can increase the taxes levied against people who currently have some modicum of protection because they're actually trying to farm it.

Hon. J. Kwan: Let me try this one more time. Section 32(1)(f) stipulates: ". . .the assessor has failed to approve an application for classification of land as a farm under section 23(1), or has revoked a classification of land as a farm under the regulations." The key operative word here is "classification." So when we turn to section 23(1), it is headlined "Classification of land as a farm." Section 23(1) clearly stipulates: "An owner of land who wants all or part of the land classified as a farm must apply to the assessor using the application form, and following the procedure, prescribed by the commissioner."

If in the instance, with respect to classification of farmland, the issue of classification is being appealed, they have every authority to do so under section 32(1)(d), which states: ". . .land or improvements, or both land and improvements, have been improperly classified." So whether it's farmland or industrial land that has been improperly classified, or any other classification, the authority to appeal is still there. The right is still there, protected for those individual owners. So from that perspective, we have received clear legal advice that section 32(1)(f) is simply a redundant clause or section and that any of those rights that are afforded within section 32(1)(f) are also protected under section (d).

G. Wilson: It would appear as though we're quickly coming to a difference of opinion. I mean, I'm assuming that the legal advice the minister was given is founded in some law -- as is the advice that I'm given and that I have to seek when I go through these bills to try and get an opinion. The difficulty is. . . . Perhaps the minister might once again try to clarify, because this is what I am told, and that certainly is my reading of this.

There is a distinction between general land classification through the B.C. Assessment Authority on how lands are assessed -- and how people may go in and may, by application under sections 23(1) and 23(2), which says, "Subject to this Act, the assessor must classify as a farm any land, or any part of a parcel of land, that meets the standards prescribed under subsection (3)," which talks about the commissioner prescribing "standards for classification of land as a farm. . . ." All of that is protected in the current act as it stands now, because under section 32(1)(f) it is clearly stipulated by cross-referencing that protection to section 23. It does not do that. If it was redundant, why would it have been put in in the first place?

[ Page 8375 ]

But for the moment, if you follow the logic or the concerns that the member opposite raised in terms of the different kinds of classification -- his sense, really, that we need to highlight or identify them specifically within section 32(1) -- then one could also say that the same principle ought to apply to railway properties, forest lands, etc. The fact is that we don't list them all. It is as perplexing to me as it is to the member opposite why section 32(1)(f) was there to begin with. When staff looked at this act, they found that section 32(1)(f) was indeed redundant, as the rights within 32(1)(f) are protected under section 32(1)(d). Therefore our legal advisers feel very comfortable that we can eliminate section 32(1)(f) without impairing any of the rights that would otherwise be prescribed under that section.

G. Wilson: I take it, hon. Chair, that we're not likely to get the minister to agree that we should just leave section 32(1)(f) in this bill. Even though, as the minister said, it's a bit of a redundancy, everybody thinks that by cleaning it up they're getting rid of it. It reminds me of tinkering with a rather complex computer program and you come across a file and you think: "Jeez, I don't know what this file is; it's kind of redundant, so let's just delete it." You delete it, and the next thing you know is that you can't run your computer, because it was one of those critical files: "Oh no, I wish I'd known. . . ."

It's the same kind of thing. It's getting more and more difficult in this province to get clarification with respect to application for farmland that is not a commercially acknowledged farm. Mostly, people are involved in farming as a part-time enterprise, because a whole lot of farmers can't make a living running a full-time farm. They have to do other things, and they frequently will use a portion of their land for other things. I'm thinking specifically of those people who are truckers, who will use part of their land as a repair shop or who are involved in mechanical repair or whatever, and then they have a portion that's set aside as farm. What this is going to do is make it much more difficult for those people to continue to have that portion of land assigned and designated as farm, because there is no specific reference now allowed to the very section of the act that protects it.

The minister says it's the same as railway land or forest land or industrial land. That's just not true. It's a far more complicated issue of assessment, because often you will find that the product coming off that farm is seasonal or rotational. Many times it's out of a production that can be done on land that would otherwise be deemed to be non-farmland. If it's hothouse and greenhouse, you don't have to have arable soils -- and yet you're farming. I'm telling you that if we delete this, it's like deleting that little, crucial program. The first instance you delete it, you might think: "This cleans it up; we've now cleaned up our little computer." The next time you try to fire it up, you're going to find that that was a critical file.

If the minister thinks it's redundant and has no value, then I think we're safer to leave it in, because there's a whole bunch of people who do think it has value. I would ask the minister -- if the minister believes it is strictly a question of redundancy -- to leave in section 32(1)(f). If she'll entertain that, I'll write up the amendment, and we can pass it and move on.

[3:30]

G. Wilson: Let me just take one more kick at this. I guess we have a difference of approach to what we're doing in legislation. It's nice to clean up legislation to make it read easily and to meet the test of those legal minds that love this kind of stuff where they go through and pick out the words and. . . . But my approach to legislation is that we're attempting to enact laws that are fair and that protect British Columbians in an appropriate way. If it means that we have to write a somewhat complex and possibly even redundant clause to make sure that there is protection for British Columbians who wish to have a farm other than a commercial farm -- a hobby farm or some other kind of farm operation -- which is a portion of their income. . . . If we have to be just somewhat redundant in the language to make sure that that protection is there, then we should err on the side of the people, not on the side of lawyers -- with all due respect to the lawyers, who might think it reads a whole lot better if we can just sweep this one out.

There are people who have read this and who believe, as I believe, that this is going to further erode the opportunity for rural landowners to be able to get farm classification and use farm classification as a means of making sure that their property taxes are affordable. If the minister is not prepared to move on it, then in the first instance that this is the case -- and it will happen -- it will land on this minister's doorstep. Then let her defend to that landowner what this government has just done through the implementation of that: once again eroding the opportunity for rural landowners to be able to afford to live on the land that they own.

So I ask the minister one more time: if it's redundant, if it has no value, if it has no meaning -- which makes it passing strange to understand why it was in the act in the first place. . . . But if that's true, then there is no harm in leaving it in there. Let's leave it in there, and let's err on the side of caution. If the minister would allow us to do that, we could move on.

Hon. J. Kwan: I will once again assure the member opposite that eliminating section 32(1)(f) does not in any way erode the rights that are afforded to an individual with a parcel of farmland, because those rights are protected within the amended act as it is prescribed. It would be useful, actually, if the member opposite wishes, to work with the ministry on behalf of those farmland owners who may fear that their rights have somehow been eliminated because section 32(1)(f) has been deleted from this act. We can work together to ensure

[ Page 8376 ]

The Chair: Member, I believe the minister has clearly responded. Unless you have something to bring up. . . .

G. Wilson: I do, actually. I thought that what I heard the minister offering was a chance to stand this section down so we could have some consultation with rural landowners to decide whether or not they have a comfort level. If that's the case, I'd be delighted to stand the section down, and we will go out and consult with rural British Columbians. If I'm wrong or if the minister can assure them, then we can proceed. That sounds to me like a very intelligent way to proceed. So if that was the offer the minister was making -- let's stand it down and let's go talk to British Columbians -- I'm 100 percent in favour.

Hon. J. Kwan: Nice try, member opposite. Let me say this very slowly for you, and maybe you'll understand what I'm saying this time. I'm advised by our legal advisers that the elimination of section 32(1)(f) does not in any way, shape or form erode the rights of the individuals that fall under that category: namely, farmland classification. Given that that is the case and that eliminating that clause does not erode anybody's rights, then it is wise for government to streamline and to clear away the confusion that simply doing away with that section has now caused the member opposite.

The Chair: I'll put the question on section 12, section 32. Shall section 32 pass?

G. Wilson: Hon. Chair, we've only just done section 32(1)(f). There's a bunch more sections under section 32 that we should look at.

The Chair: Okay. The member continues, in that case.

G. Wilson: Let's move on to section 32(2). In terms of the amendments, the existing act talks about how the council and municipality -- by its clerk, solicitor, agent, etc. -- or the Ministry of Finance and Corporate Relations or the commissioner or the assessor may make a complaint against the assessment roll or any individual entry in the assessment roll on any ground whatever, and the court of revision must deal with the complaint and either confirm or alter the assessment. That's what the existing act talks about.

What we've done is we've changed that, and once again we've changed that to essentially tie it into section 33. Again, I have real difficulty with the process of doing this, because we're being asked to accept a section of an act that hasn't yet been debated. So it gets to be tricky, except that we are getting to it right away, so perhaps we'll let that go. What it does is change fairly substantially the prospect by which local government may make an appeal of an assessment. So I wonder if the minister might explain why we want to go this route, as opposed to the existing route, with respect to the role of the municipality.

Hon. J. Kwan: It is an issue of fairness. No matter who is making the appeal, they have to undergo the same process.

G. Wilson: Well, I appreciate that. But one assumes that the existing act is fair, in that it is simply more specific with respect to the provisions of how a complaint against the assessment roll may be made. What we've done is change that in terms of notice of complaint, and part of that section is under section 33, which we're going to get to in just a moment. My question is: what prompted the ministry to do this -- for example, to take the current language out of subsection (2) and to change it with respect to the provisions of local government in terms of its challenge of the rolls? Why did we do this? It's working perfectly well now, so what prompted the change?

Hon. J. Kwan: The reason why we've done it this way is for fairness. As I stated earlier, no matter who they are, when they're making an appeal, they have to undergo the same procedures. As well, for the member's information, we have also brought this before the UBCM. Through discussions with them, the UBCM are satisfied with the changes that are being proposed here today.

G. Wilson: I don't doubt the UBCM are satisfied. Because municipalities are beneficiaries of the money they get from the assessment roll, that doesn't surprise me.

Subsection (4) of section 32 talks about how the assessor may make a complaint against all or any part of the assessment roll completed by the assessor, "based on any of the grounds specified in subsection (1) of this section," which was the controversial section we just went through that we've just now removed. One of the compelling requirements of an assessor is to make sure that applications for farmland are classified. So I'd like to have some satisfaction that if the assessor is going to make a complaint against any or part of the assessment roll completed by that assessor, and if we're now limited to the text of subsection (1), that will also include the statutory requirements that are now removed now from this section, which would be under section 23(1).

Hon. J. Kwan: The assessor always had the ability to make a complaint, and according to the current act that is under section 32(2).

G. Wilson: But we're repealing section 32(2) of the current act, so that's not the issue. We're not repealing part 3 of the existing act. In part 3 of the existing act, under section 23(1), where the requirements of the assessor with respect to the application for farmland, which we just went through a long discussion of. . . . I've clearly lost that debate, because the minister refuses to acknowledge that that's an issue.

Now what I'm saying is that under subsection (4), where it says, "an assessor may make a complaint against all or any part of the assessment roll completed by the assessor, based on any of the grounds specified in subsection (1) of this section. . . ." Well, subsection (1) is the section that deals with (a) through (e), from which you've just deleted (f). Because there is no longer any specific reference to section 23(1) in this act, my question is: will that assessor be able to use, as an item of their appeal, whether or not they won or lost on the grounds of what they constitute agricultural land to be? Can they then say: "Well, this is classified as agricultural land. It seems to have passed the board on that, but I'm not going to bring in evidence and information to say that you shouldn't be agricultural land, under section 23(1) or 23(2)"?

[3:45]

[ Page 8377 ]

G. Wilson: I'm cut to the quick -- to think that I'm going back to harp on this issue. I'm shocked that the minister would think that. Perhaps if the minister represented a rural riding, as I do -- as opposed to an urban riding, as she does -- she might understand how difficult it is to maintain protection of agricultural farmland under the Assessment Act now, let alone under this new bill. Having said that, I think the answer was no, there is no specific reference to 23(1). That further underscores my commentary before.

Let me then ask the minister this. Under section 32(5), it says: "Without limiting subsections (2) to (4)" -- which is the proposition with respect to challenging the assessment roll -- complaints under those subsections may be in respect of" -- and then there are a number of items set out -- "a class, category or type of property or interest in land. . . ." What is interesting is that, as I've gone through the act as it currently exists, I find it difficult to match this up. I wonder if the minister might tell us precisely what she understands "class" of land to be, what she understands "category" of land to be, what she understands "type of property" to be, and what she means when she refers to "interest in land."

Hon. J. Kwan: Yes, I don't live in a rural riding; I live in urban Vancouver. But at the same time, I know people who run farmland. In fact, my sister and her husband own a farm out in Burnaby, so issues relating to farmland are something of a topic within our family, because it's the very livelihood in which my niece, my nephews, my sister and my brother-in-law engage in for their day-to-day living.

With respect to these specific terminologies, on the issue around "class" and what it means, "class" is simply a term that has been chosen because it's broad in scope. To perhaps avoid disagreements around the term "class" versus "type" versus "category," the word "class" is the broadest term one could apply, and for that reason it has been chosen for the purposes of this section of the act.

In terms of the phrase "interest in land," it simply means ownership.

G. Wilson: I still don't understand what the difference is. If you're writing an act which says that "complaints under those subsections may be in respect of. . . " and then you list a bunch of things. . . . So each of them must have a definition, a meaning, and they must have some context within which we can understand their distinction and their difference. Otherwise, they are, by nature, redundant. Therefore we should ask ourselves: what is the difference between class. . . ? What does it mean? It's the broadest definition of what -- a type of land as a classification? If so, is it residential? Are we talking about commercial, industrial? If that's the case, how is that different than a category of land or a "type" of property? What do those three words mean?

Hon. J. Kwan: Essentially, those three words really mean one and the same thing. One could say a class could refer to the classification of farmland. The category of farmlands could include -- I don't know -- the tree fruit category. Types of property could include the type in which all kinds of different farmlands. . . . As an example, seeing as "farmland" is such a choice topic here today, you could say that the type of property could be the type that grows rose bushes. All of this is essentially one and the same, in that the intent here is to put in terminology that would broadly encompass the large scope that one could apply with respect to classification, category or type.

G. Wilson: I just took a lesson from the minister in how we should be trying to clean up the language and make much more expeditious our use of terminology. I'm not certain why they're in here if they all mean the same thing. I don't think they do mean the same thing. The minister might want to think about this answer again. I think this is an important question.

There are complaints under those sections, maybe, in respect of. . . . If they're saying "any kind of land," then why not say that? However, if they are saying that there will be different complaints under those sections with respect to classes and categories of land, or types of properties -- given the fact that some of these may fall within municipal jurisdictions -- then we're starting to talk about something quite different. What we are talking about, then, are categories of land which are in fact statutorily defined -- not necessarily in the Assessment Act, but possibly within the Municipal Act or within the bylaws of municipalities. We are talking about something quite different when we talk about types of property, because then we're looking at a definition that has a monetary value with respect to whether or not that property has as its primary value commercial, residential or industrial land uses. Those are very different things.

We can't, on the one hand, throw out section 33(3)(f) just because we're trying to clean house, and on the other hand, leave in this clumsy language that all means the same thing, but we just want to put it in there because it makes it looks better. Surely there is a difference.

Hon. J. Kwan: The three terms that are being looked at -- class, category or type -- for different individuals. . . . They may use those terminologies differently. For the purpose of this act, what we're trying to do, as recommended by legislative counsel, is to use a method that broadly defines and assists our ability to differentiate the property types. Therefore the three types have been identified, which would be class, category or type of property.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

G. Wilson: I've heard the minister. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me, but if the minister is content that legislative counsel thinks it's a sensible thing to do, then I'll take it at face value that it is. Although my guess is that class, category and type clearly have some meaning; otherwise, I don't think they'd be there. We'll get to that a little later on in the act, anyway.

I have one or two more questions on this section. The other one that deals with subsection (32)(5), which deals with. . . . It talks about an "interest in land or improvements, or both land and improvements." This is: ". . .complaints under those subsections may be in respect of. . . ." They're talking about improvements on land. I'm assuming that here we're talking about capital improvements -- construction and those sorts of things.

One of the concerns that we have under the existing act is the really poor -- in fact almost nonexistent -- definition of what constitutes improvements and how one evaluates those

[ Page 8378 ]

There have been a number of instances where people who have made improvements find themselves now facing a situation where there is an assessed value or assessed worth on that improvement that in fact has little or no reflection of the actual cost incurred to make that improvement possible. In other words, you spend $60,000 doing a major renovation to your home, and the assessor comes along and says that a home that's worth $130,000 is now worth $250,000. There's no net connection. So if the minister could talk to me a little bit about that, that would be useful. I would like to know exactly what the minister means when the minister refers to making a complaint with respect to improvement.

Hon. J. Kwan: The term "improvements" is defined in the act. If the member likes, I suppose I could quote the entire definition into the record, or the member could read for himself the definition of improvements as prescribed under the act.

G. Wilson: I acknowledged in the opening comment, hon. Chair, that I was aware that improvements had definition in the act. What I said was that it is not a particularly useful definition when one comes to try to isolate what the net worth or net value of that improvement is to the overall assessment. We're dealing here with an appeal with respect to the rolls in terms of values of property and the assessment on that roll. So what I'm asking the minister is not to get into a little debate around whether I have or haven't read the definition of improvement -- because I have. I'm asking the minister to make a more precise description of what the minister interprets that term improvements to mean in this amended act.

Hon. J. Kwan: Perhaps I can give the member opposite this example. Mr. A owns a parcel of land. On that parcel of land, Mr. B has a mobile home. They're owned by separate and different owners. So for the purposes of interpreting improvements, Mr. B, who owns the mobile home on that land. . . . That mobile home would be determined or classified as improvements for its separate owner, so you're able to distinguish between the owner of the land versus the owner of the improvements on that parcel of land.

[4:00]

How can you do this? The assessment roll is based upon the land. How can you take the improvements and not have them enjoined in some way to the overall value of the property? If you do that, you're going to greatly inflate the assessment on that improvement. I don't think there's any doubt about that.

Hon. J. Kwan: One example where improvements in land would be deemed to be separate would be in the case of industrial properties. The valuing of industrial properties oftentimes is separate from the land base itself versus the improvements.

G. Wilson: That makes sense, and that's what I suspected. So for the purposes of this act, then, under the amendment, if we're looking at industrial land -- particularly if we're looking at a large industrial complex that does capital improvement, through building retaining ponds or whatever they're doing in whatever their particular industry may be -- what we're saying here is that an appeal can be made directly with respect to the improvement without appealing the overall assessment itself. Is that correct? A corporation, a company or an industry may be able to take issue with their invested capital on that one issue without having to appeal the overall assessment. They can now pull it out and deal with that as an independent appeal. Is that right?

Hon. J. Kwan: Yes.

G. Wilson: That's an important distinction and may be in fact a good thing.

Unless somebody else has any other questions on section 32, I only have one more, and it has to do with. . . . If I could just quickly go back to 32(3), it talks about "the completed assessment roll relating to property in the municipality or regional district, as the case may be, based on any of the grounds specified under subsection (1). . . ." What we're suggesting is that local government has the provision for the assessment rolls within their own jurisdiction. It's not implied that the municipality may apply for an appeal within the regional district. Or is it implied that those rolls are now going to be subject to appeal by either jurisdiction?

The Chair: The member wishes to continue?

G. Wilson: I'd like to clarify, hon. Chair, because I get a sense from the puzzled looks over there that I wasn't very clear. Under section 32(3), does the term "as the case may be" isolate the local government to the municipality or the regional district with respect to the complaint? Can one make a complaint against the other, essentially, with respect to the rolls? That's what I'm talking about. In other words, is one jurisdiction able now to formalize its complaint within the broader context of the regional district?

Hon. J. Kwan: The basis of the complaint can only be applied within its own jurisdiction.

G. Wilson: That's the clarification I needed, and so unless anybody else has something on section 32, I'm done.

R. Coleman: Hon. Chair, I request leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

[ Page 8379 ]

Section 12, section 32 approved on division.

On section 12, section 33.

F. Gingell: Section 33 brings in a new series of compulsory requirements that a complaint must contain as it is filed. It's a little more detailed and a little more onerous, as I understand it, than previously. This may surprise the minister, but there have been cases known where the assessor or counsel for the B.C. Assessment Authority has attempted, sometimes with success, to have an appeal thrown out because of a technicality in the completion of the information about the complaint.

This is not an inclusive list. Subsection 33(3) deals with (a), (b), (c), (d), (e) and (f), and then (g) says: ". . .include any other prescribed information." Now, this is for an appeal to the review panel. When we get to the next stage of appeal in front of the assessment board, under the proposed section 50(5) there is the ability for the board, in that case, to allow the appellant to perfect their notice. That ability isn't being given here. It just seems to me that it is in the process for the appeal board; I don't see it in section 33 for the review panel. I'm wondering if that has been omitted by mistake or whether there is some other location within the amendments that will cover this.

C. Clark: While we're waiting for the minister, I wonder if I could seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

C. Clark: We have visiting us today, from my community, Mr. Kore and 30 students from Seaview Elementary School, grades 5 and 6, who assure me they are finding the debate on the Assessment Amendment Act, 1998, scintillating and are looking forward to us continuing the committee stage. I hope the House will make them very welcome.

Hon. J. Kwan: The first place in which a complaint is made. . . . It goes to the assessor. The assessor does not have the authority to not accept a complaint. Where that first authority to reject applies is with the review panel. Under those circumstances, the authority that rests with the appeal procedure to reject a complaint or to schedule a hearing or determine what is the most appropriate course of action does not fall in the first instance -- where the assessor is provided or notified of a complaint.

F. Gingell: I'm sorry, I don't think that I made my position plain. I'm not talking about the complaint being handed to the assessor. It has now gone to the review panel. The assessor is sitting on one side, and the complainant is sitting on the other side. It has been known for the assessor, in front of the review panel or the court of revision, as it was previously called, to try to get the complaint disallowed on the technicality that the complaint was not complete.

When we get to the appeal board, under section 50(5), there's the ability to perfect the notice the court made. When we get to section 50(5), I'm going to make the suggestion to the minister that the court must. . . . But we will deal with that then. It seems to me at the moment that the requirement to allow the complainants to perfect their notice isn't automatically there. It just seems to me that that's a reasonable protection. Perhaps it is there, but in this complicated piece of legislation I haven't been able to find it.

L. Reid: Forgive the interruption. May I have leave to make an introduction?

Leave granted.

L. Reid: In the precincts at the moment -- I was just speaking with them -- is a lovely group of students from William Bridge Elementary in the riding of Richmond East. They are accompanied by their teacher Ms. I. Rantanen. I ask the House to please make them welcome.

[4:15]

F. Gingell: I'm sorry. We're off on the wrong thing.

Just refer, if the minister will, please, to subsection (3): "The notice of appeal must. . . " (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f) and (g). If a complaint is filed and it doesn't have (a), (b), (c), (d), (e) and (f) in it, in the past it has been known that the assessor, now acting in front of the panel as a protagonist, if I may use that term, in this process, has called for the complaint to be dismissed on the technicality that the notice has not been filed in the correct manner.

All I'm asking for is to consider bringing in something similar to subsection 50(5), which allows the appellant to perfect their notice so that their appeal will not fail on the basis that they haven't put in the right legal description of the land or haven't used the right roll number. You know, for agents and lawyers this is all relatively simple. They are experienced and used to it. But for us regular property owners who have no skill in understanding of the law and the assessment process, we need help. You can do it wrong. At the moment, your appeal could fail on the technicality that the notice is not complete. The notice can be not complete because you've put in sub-subsection 33(3)(g), which says: ". . .include any other prescribed information."

So, looking at the bill itself, this is the amendment. But the amended act will not be sufficient. You may have to go to the regulations as well. I think that just the protection of a section 50(5)-type section would give me the comfort of knowing that people who are not as skilled will not be unreasonably disadvantaged.

Hon. J. Kwan: Using the example that the member identified -- the instance where, for some technical reason, the person files an appeal and is wrong, and even if the instance where the assessor goes before the panel and advocates for the

[ Page 8380 ]

Where it moves to the level within the board, if the notice is improperly filed to the board, the board cannot then deal with it, because at their higher level presumably you have gone through their screening process of dealing with these kinds of matters or issues.

F. Gingell: I was listening to some of the other exchanges and wondering why they go on for so long. Now I find myself doing the same thing.

Section 50(5) says: "If a notice of appeal is deficient. . .the chair of the board may in his or her discretion allow a reasonable period of time. . . the notice may be perfected or the fee is to be paid" -- roughly speaking. I don't see that same provision in section 33, which deals with the first stage of an appeal.

I do see the word "must" but don't see the word "must" in section 50(5): "The notice of complaint must (a). . . (b). . . (c). . . (d). . . (e). . . (f). . . (g). . . ." If they haven't fulfilled all these conditions, then the appeal could fail on the technicality that it has not been filed properly. What I would like to. . . .

That's the question I've been asking. Is there someplace in here that says that the review panel must allow the appellant the opportunity to correct their notice? If a transposition of some number, an incorrect legal description or leaving off one of the items listed in (g), which we don't even know about. . . . There should be some provision to ensure that the review panel must let the appellant correct their notice or be advised of the fact that their notice is not complete before it comes in front of the panel.

Hon. J. Kwan: In this instance, where a person files an appeal to the panel improperly, if the question is whether the panel would tell the person that they have filed improperly. . . . Clearly the panel has the authority to do that. But I think the most important piece here is whether or not the panel has the mandate to look at the appeal, even though it has been filed improperly. The mandate that's been given to the panel allows them to deal with a case that has been filed improperly.

F. Gingell: The minister has hit the nub of the problem: it's permissive; it's not obligatory. It should be obligatory, or the appellant should be given 24 hours, 48 hours, 72 hours to perfect their notice. The minister has more faith in the review panel than I have. I think that the review panel has a responsibility to hear that appeal, and the appellant should not have their rights in any way endangered through not perfecting the notice of complaint. I understand that they can do it. I'm suggesting to the minister that they must do it.

Hon. J. Kwan: If in the instance where a person files an improper file because -- I don't know -- they've spelled their names backwards or something, and their appeal is denied, that person has every authority to go to the next level. It does not exempt them or take away their right to the opportunity to be heard. It is highly unlikely, I would suggest, that the panel would reject it on that basis -- because something has been improperly filed. On the contrary, I would suggest that the panel would probably go out of their way to make sure that even if something is improperly filed, they would hear the case.

F. Gingell: I would hope so too. I mean, that's just the way the world should be. But the reason I haven't filed an amendment to this is because it's one of the issues that was brought up in my lunchtime phone calls from someone who is a professional within this industry and deals with assessment issues. There were, I understand, specific instances where assessors went to the court of revision -- at the moment; it has yet to go through a name change -- and applied to the court to reject the appeal on the basis that it was improperly filed.

Now, I appreciate that the property owner can appeal that; they can go forward to the property assessment panel. But that costs money; that takes up more time. That makes this exercise more difficult. You and we on this side wanted to make this smoother and easier. So it would seem to me that to ensure that the appellant has the ability to perfect the notice, removing all danger of their appeal being disallowed on the basis of a technicality, would just make good common sense and would give the minister and this side of the House the comfort that we're looking for to ensure that the process is as fair and open as we wish it to be.

Hon. J. Kwan: At this first stage of the appeal, generally speaking, if a person files an improper notice, the review panel is given the mandate to look at and investigate all of those cases. I would suggest perhaps that in the unlikely eventuality that a person's case is rejected -- maybe the member opposite has a specific example where somebody has been rejected -- there is a safety provision, if you will, that is there to enable that individual to bring it to the next level of appeal. I don't think the member is really talking about an issue that requires legislation per se, but rather better training, better practices between the panel members and the assessors.

[4:30]

I would like to suggest to you that the purpose of legislation is to ensure that citizens' rights are protected in every way. I think that putting in another subsection in section 33 -- I'm sorry I haven't got it drafted -- to bring in the same words as are in section 50(5), which you have in here. . . . I know that the minister doesn't like to accept that there may be occasions when this has happened: that appeals have been rejected on the basis of a technicality in the completion or the fullness of the notice of complaint. I agree with the minister. I wouldn't have thought that would happen either. But the phone call I got at lunchtime today indicated to me that it has happened, and I will follow that matter up and give the minister notice of the particular item, if I'm able to get that.

In the meantime, if I'm not able to set my own mind and the minister's mind at rest that this has happened in the past, can I get an understanding from the minister that she will consider bringing a section into this act that would require -- not be permissive -- the review panel to give 24 or 48 hours' notice for an appellant to perfect their notice of complaint?

Hon. J. Kwan: Under the current system and procedures that we have, we have no compelling evidence that the need identified by the member opposite is required. But if the member brings forward other information that overwhelmingly compels and makes his case and is able to convince me otherwise, I would be happy to take a look at that.

L. Reid: My question, too, is on section 33 (3)(d): ". . .if the complainant has an agent to act on the complainant's

[ Page 8381 ]

Hon. J. Kwan: We don't think so -- at least, not that we're aware of.

Section 12, sections 33 and 34 approved.

On section 12, section 35.

F. Gingell: The issue that I want to raise at this point is not one in which I believe it is possible to change the proposed legislation to deal with the issue. But I understand, again secondhand, that there are a lot of problems related to the scheduling of hearings. They are all held in a relatively short period of time and all have to be heard by a specific date. That's understandable, because otherwise we'd never get these things finished. But agents complain that when they represent multiple owners in different jurisdictions -- one appreciates that there are a hundred different panels scattered throughout the province -- there is not a very sympathetic understanding of the scheduling. They get scheduled to be in two places at the same time. It was even suggested to me that that has been done on an intentional basis. You can appreciate that I was talking to someone who wasn't very happy about the current operations.

I wonder if the ministry has in place, or is planning, any centralized, computerized scheduling program with some software that would allow the scheduling to be done in a manner that would facilitate having the hearings in a reasonable fashion. An agent who hasn't taken on more work than they can handle still has the ability to be in Coquitlam one day and have a Surrey hearing two or three days later, but he or she should not be scheduled for the same time in a different location.

Hon. J. Kwan: Generally speaking, with respect to the scheduling issue, we try to make provision to contact the appellant to schedule a time that is mutually convenient. We try to accommodate that as best we can. From time to time, that is simply not possible or feasible. In order to ensure that everybody has the right to file their appeal and in order to expedite that process, we have a provision within the act to allow for a recipient to file a written submission, which would actually offset the issue of scheduling, should one not be able to resolve that.

F. Gingell: I was wondering if the ministry has given any consideration to computerizing it and having it on the Web, so that someone could check the Web and see when they are scheduled and see when there may be vacancies coming up. I'm sure a lot of the appeals that are filed are settled prior to appearing in front of the review panel, or they are pulled off and the spots are made vacant, so someone else could try to get theirs moved in. It just seems to me that this is really an opportunity for modern technology to be a very useful tool. If the ministry hasn't done that, I would just like to suggest it as a means that they might proceed on.

Hon. J. Kwan: We're always looking at ways of improving the system, whether it be scheduling or otherwise. But the example that the member cites -- utilizing a web site -- is problematic from the point of view of privacy issues. Earlier this morning we went at length through what needs to be done to protect various individuals in terms of privacy components. If we were to throw names and that kind of information onto the web site, we would have some concerns around privacy issues.

F. Gingell: I thought there was a place in the act that required the schedule of hearings to be posted. They are already public.

Hon. J. Kwan: On the day in which the hearings are held, the list is posted in a single location, but it is not on a web site for people to look at anywhere or for them to do that kind of search. The distinction that the privacy commissioner has made is essentially the distinction between, let's say, a web site -- where access is far greater and broader -- and a list at a single location, on the day on which the hearings are to be held, of the folks who are scheduled to be heard.

L. Reid: I concur with my colleague from Delta South when he talks about technology around scheduling. A number of the documents I've read have said that that's a real need within the ministry -- to ensure that these individuals have upgraded computer systems. So I believe that that is a valid point, and I wonder if any progress has been made. My understanding is that at least one of the reports is two years old.

Hon. J. Kwan: We do have a systems review underway, and we're looking at ways to increase efficiency within this system. Of course, I would also ask the member to go easy on the Ministry of Finance when we're going through estimates, and perhaps when we go through the budget process, to ensure that we have loads of dollars to enhance our systems.

L. Reid: I've never been requested to go easy on a Minister of Finance. I'll take that under advisement.

In terms of section 35(2) -- ". . .publication of notice of the hearing in 2 current issues of a newspaper circulating in the municipality or rural area in which the property that is the subject of the complaint is located" -- my question is around cost. I understand that's a new initiative and that it will be reflected somewhere in the estimates process, as the minister indicated. But I'm wondering what the parameters are. What is the likely amount of money that will be expended by that new requirement?

Hon. J. Kwan: Essentially, notice can be provided for in two ways: (1) through mailings; (2) through advertisements. In terms of the cost, it very much depends on which option is chosen. In the instance of ads, it depends on the cost of the ads that are required for that particular community or that particular local paper.

[4:45]

Hon. J. Kwan: The spending of the appeal board's budget is part of the ministry's budget, so we have to absorb the cost.

[ Page 8382 ]

On section 12, section 38.

L. Reid: I have a number of questions regarding 38(3), basically. Subsection 38(3)(a) says: ". . .the review panel may (a) refuse to adjudicate a matter set for its consideration if the notice of complaint was not filed in accordance with section 33(2). . . ."

My questions will pertain directly to the leaky-condo question in the province of British Columbia, because a number of these individuals will not have met the time lines that are in place for a reduction in property assessment. In fact, a number of these instances have come to light since those time lines have been exceeded. Certainly it is my view and, frankly, concern that the Dave Barrett commission has received an extension, because it further complicates the recommendations that will, hopefully, flow from this. We're now again having to debate prior to receiving any sense of how that commission might react.

In terms of putting in place some provisions that do not deny condominium homeowners who are suffering significant financial hardship today as a result of leaks in their properties, I'm asking for the opportunity to make appeals outside of those time lines and for some flexibility to be incorporated into the process. It is my contention that these individuals are now residing in properties that have been significantly devalued, and in some cases completely devalued. These properties are not habitable, and human beings have chosen not to reside in those places for health and safety concerns. Indeed, in a month's time they will be asked to pay an assessment on the value of that property based on a decision that was reached some months back, may have been reached prior to those problems coming to light. So as a first question, I am wondering how much attention the minister has given to some flexibility around the question and some ability to return to the previous assessments, so that for properties that have been genuinely devalued, those individuals will have the option to pay a reduced property assessment in less than a month's time.

Hon. J. Kwan: The deadline for appeals is January 31. The extension of the Barrett commission really doesn't even come close to impacting the deadline in any way, shape or form. But with respect to leaky condos, I think the issue really. . . . Perhaps things will change with the Barrett commission. Once the recommendations are tabled and perhaps once action is taken by government, people may have a different perspective. But generally speaking, my understanding is that people who live in or own a leaky condo are particularly reluctant to go and ask for the assessed value of their property to be lower, for a number of different reasons.

L. Reid: The minister will also have on record -- I know because many of the letters have been copied to me -- individuals who have attempted to make contact to have their assessments reduced and, frankly, have been told that they've missed the deadline. So what I asked the minister originally was whether or not there would be some flexibility around that. The minister has resided in British Columbia and Vancouver long enough to know that February, March and April are very, very rainy months. Indeed, the fact that January 31 has come and gone. . . . Some of these problems certainly came to light in the rainiest months of our calendar year, if you will.

Will there be some flexibility for individuals to have those property assessments reduced, whether or not the Barrett commission makes that recommendation? My reference to the Barrett commission is that people are waiting for some guidance on those questions and as a result of the minister's deferral, they are indeed waiting longer. So today the minister can provide some guidance to these individuals. Will there be flexibility on the question? I appreciate the minister's comment that some people may not wish to exercise that option; I respect that. But the choice must be in place. The minister knows full well that the choice is currently not in place.

Hon. J. Kwan: Section 12(4) actually allows for, I guess, unique circumstances in which a person may wish to appeal when the deadline has expired. Actually, that section has always been there.

L. Reid: I appreciate the minister's response. However, she will know, as I know, that individuals have been turned down. The leaky-condo question has not qualified, in the eyes of the authorities, as a unique circumstance. So the minister needs to define "unique" and "circumstance." I believe that a leaking condominium would certainly qualify. But I have instances today, as the minister does, because she has also received the correspondence where they were told that they had no access at this time and perhaps they could come back next year.

Hon. J. Kwan: The act stipulates that if an assessment is wrong, based on misinformation or errors that have been presented, then there is provision within the act to allow for reconsideration. So if, in the instance of a leaky condo. . . . Let's say that prior to January 31, the condo didn't leak, and then, come March 1, lo and behold, you discover that there are mushrooms growing in your living room. Therefore, perhaps in that instance, it would be misinformation or lack of information at the time, and they can utilize that clause to bring forward the case and file for an appeal.

L. Reid: If I'm hearing this correctly, the minister herself would define "unique circumstance" as a leaking condominium.

Hon. J. Kwan: Really, in these instances it is not for me to define what is unique or what needs to be considered; rather, it is for the commissioner to consider under what circumstances or in what situations he might make a reassessment. The wording stipulated in the act is really. . . . The words that are used are. . . . The authority is given for the commissioner to "correct errors" that have been found. Because of the independent nature of the commissioner's role, it really is not for me to define for them what is unique and what is not, or what constitutes an error or otherwise.

The Chair: The Chair should caution members that perhaps the relevance of this line of questioning has been canvassed.

L. Reid: I thank the hon. Chair.

I think the minister can appreciate the predicament of taxpayers in the province who have been turned down because, frankly, there was no error. When their property was assessed, it has X value; the fact that their property has deteriorated was not an error in the initial assessment. So I think that this section does not provide assistance -- the section that the minister has put forward as a possible remedy. I think it probably does exclude them, which is why they have received the information they have.

[ Page 8383 ]

Because this situation is unique to British Columbia, there has to be some flexibility allowed to remedy the situation. I know that the minister agrees with that context, because she crafted a commission to look at remedying the situation. This is another opportunity, I believe, for the minister to make a goodwill gesture that says that individuals who do wish to come forward and publicly disclose that their properties have been devalued have that opportunity.

My colleague from Delta South is very clear: once you put up a huge blue tarpaulin, you have publicly disclosed that your property has been devalued. The issue is whether or not this portion of this discussion reflects access. I'm not convinced that the minister's remedy responded to my question. I think it does truly exclude individuals, as opposed to including individuals.

Hon. J. Kwan: The issue of leaky condos is really not an issue that falls under the Assessment Amendment Act. If the member wishes to discuss leaky-condo issues. . . .

I'm advised that Committee A has just risen, and they're ready for me to go in there to do my estimates for Municipal Affairs. Perhaps we can discuss leaky-condo issues over in Committee A.

I move we rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

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

[5:00]

PARK AMENDMENT ACT, 1998

On section 1.

M. Coell: I am pleased to participate in committee stage of Bill 23. I wonder, first off, about the changes to the way of referencing maps. I wonder if the minister could outline the process changes for me. I think I understand them, but I would like, for the record and for Hansard, an explanation of the difference between the old metes and bounds and the process and technique that's now going to be used. If the minister could just compare those two for us, I would appreciate that.

Hon. C. McGregor: Basically what the old metes and bounds descriptions were designed to do was just. . . . They looked at a map, and then they tried to use words to describe the map. So that is how they tried to chart it: with a written description. Whereas now, with the new mapping techniques, we're using an actual visual representation -- using the map itself -- and we're standardizing it with the new, standardized mapping conventions. We have a visual image of the actual boundary of the park, instead of a written description.

M. Coell: In doing this, are we aided by new technology that wasn't there? I suspect that when the old metes and bounds were done, we didn't have satellite photographs or, for that matter, air photographs, either. Is the technology helpful in doing these boundaries?

Hon. C. McGregor: Yes, there's no doubt that satellite mapping has assisted us in this regard. We have much more accurate information, and the new GIS information systems that we have available to us are also a valuable tool in ensuring that we have greater accuracy in how we record park boundaries.

M. Coell: Some of the questions I have with regard to the technology and the techniques used in the maps would probably be more appropriate during estimates, so I won't get into that line of questions. I'm sure the minister would agree with me and save that for estimates.

On section 1(1)(7.2), the requirement for publication of cabinet orders establishing and modifying boundaries of the protected areas, I would be interested in a description of how the minister sees those cabinet orders being published, where they'd be published and how often those changes would be expected. In doing that, I realize that this is the first part of probably a four- or five-year process of redoing the park boundaries and maps in the province.

Hon. C. McGregor: The section is designed to deal with those parks that are created through the OIC process in cabinet. As are other OIC orders, they would be gazetted, so that serves as public notice. But obviously there would be a lot of work done prior to that stage, particularly with the LRMP tables that were involved in determining the boundaries. There would be a lot, and we would have the same kind of sign-off, as we did in this case, from representatives of the LRMP table on the actual map that was being described. There would be the pre-process, where those who were actively involved in the design and selection and the boundary descriptions, through the LRMP table, would be directly involved. Then the OIC, once passed by cabinet, would be gazetted for public notice.

M. Coell: A little clarification: would we see these continue to come to the Legislature? Or would order-in-council, for the next four or five years, be all that's needed to change from metes and bounds to the new technology?

Hon. C. McGregor: There are two ways in which parks are designated in British Columbia: one is through the Environment and Land Use Act, and the other is through the Park Act. Oftentimes the reason we use. . . . If we use the Environment and Land Use Act, then those are OIC, cabinet-approved parks and do not come forward under the Park Act to be amended legislatively through a Park Act amendment.

The Environment and Land Use Act is an important tool for us to use, because the Park Act -- as you may recall from an earlier discussion we had in second reading related to the Park Act -- does not necessarily give us the kind of flexibility

[ Page 8384 ]

But it points to the next point, which is really answering your question: if the protected area was to be covered under the Park Act, then yes, it would come to this chamber eventually to be an amendment to the Park Act. But if it was created under the Environment and Land Use Act, it would not come to this chamber.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

M. Coell: In section 2, you're correcting an error and I would just. . . . The error is quite large, in that you're either going 200 metres to the west in the old or 200 metres to the east in the new. How is something like that picked up? That sort of mistake, I guess, could happen in any park. I would be interested in knowing how you're going to go about picking up those mistakes in the other parks. Or is a method of accommodating that change contemplated by your ministry?

Hon. C. McGregor: We'll be reviewing each of these parks, really on a case-by-case basis. By replacing them with this more accurate mapping system, it will take some time, there's no doubt. But it will avoid those kinds of inaccuracies in the future.

Sections 2 to 7 inclusive approved.

On section 8.

M. Coell: Just a short question with regard to the surveyor general. It would be my understanding that for all of these parks, he or she would have the final sign-off before they came to the Legislature in this form.

Hon. C. McGregor: That is correct.

Sections 8 to 38 inclusive approved.

Hon. C. McGregor: I move an amendment, section 38.1, standing in my name in Orders of the Day.

[SECTION 38.1, by adding the following section:

38.1 Schedule E is amended

(a) by repealing the description of Adams Lake Park and substituting the following:

1 ADAMS LAKE PARK

All those parcels or tracts of Crown land, together with all that foreshore or land covered by water, situated in the Kamloops Division of Yale District and contained within the described boundaries as shown on the Official Plan deposited in the Crown Land Registry as Plan 10 Tube 1784; except thereout the Crown land that is the subject of the Steep 3 Mineral Claim (Record #217738).

The whole containing approximately 102 hectares. ,

(b) by repealing the description of Bedard Aspen Park and substituting the following:

5 BEDARD ASPEN PARK

All those parcels or tracts of Crown land, together with all that foreshore or land covered by water, situated in the Kamloops Division of Yale District and contained within the described boundaries as shown on the Official Plan deposited in the Crown Land Registry as Plan 26 Tube 1779.

The whole containing approximately 182 hectares. ,

(c) by repealing the description of Deadman Hoodoos Park-Skookum Site and substituting the following:

20 DEADMAN HOODOOS PARK -- SKOOKUM SITE

All those parcels or tracts of Crown land, together with all that foreshore or land covered by water, situated in the Lillooet District and contained within the described boundaries as shown on the Official Plan deposited in the Crown Land Registry as Plan 21 Tube 1780.

The whole containing approximately 16 hectares. ,

(d) by repealing the description of Epsom Park and substituting the following:

27 EPSOM PARK

All those parcels or tracts of Crown land, together with all that foreshore or land covered by water, situated in the Kamloops Division of Yale District and contained within the described boundaries as shown on the Official Plan deposited in the Crown Land Registry as Plan 27 Tube 1779; except thereout the Canadian National Railway right of way, as shown on Plan A462, on deposit in the Kamloops Land Title Office.

The whole containing approximately 74 hectares. ,

(e) by repealing the description of Lac Le Jeune Park and substituting the following:

39 LAC LE JEUNE PARK

All those parcels or tracts of Crown land, together with all that foreshore or land covered by water, situated in the Kamloops Division of Yale District and contained within the described boundaries as shown on the Official Plan deposited in the Crown Land Registry as Plan 28 Tube 1779; except thereout the road right of way, as shown on Ministry of Transportation and Highways Drawing Number 358-0-2 dated March 27, 1990.

The whole containing approximately 180 hectares. ,

(f) by repealing the description of Monte Creek Park and substituting the following:

45 MONTE CREEK PARK

All those parcels or tracts of Crown land, together with all that foreshore or land covered by water, situated in the Kamloops Division of Yale District and contained within the described boundaries as shown on the Official Plan deposited in the Crown Land Registry as Plan 16 Tube 1789.

The whole containing approximately 3 hectares. ,

(g) by repealing the description of North Thompson Oxbows East Park and substituting the following:

50 NORTH THOMPSON OXBOWS EAST PARK

All those parcels or tracts of Crown land, together with all that foreshore or land covered by water, situated in the Kamloops Division of Yale District and contained within the described boundaries as shown on the Official Plan deposited in the Crown Land Registry as Plan 9 Tube 1784; except thereout the Crown land that is the subject of Timber Licence Number T0713, Block 12, CP "F" and Timber Licence Number T0713, Block 12 B.

The whole containing approximately 288 hectares. ,

(h) by repealing the description of North Thompson Oxbows Manteau Park and substituting the following:

52 NORTH THOMPSON OXBOWS MANTEAU PARK

All those parcels or tracts of Crown land, together with all that foreshore or land covered by water, situated in the Kamloops Division of Yale District and contained within the described boundaries as shown on the Official Plan deposited in the Crown Land Registry as Plan 8 Tube 1784; except thereout the Crown land that is the subject of Timber Licence Numbers T0713, Block 12 A.

The whole containing approximately 516 hectares. ,

(i) by repealing the description of Pritchard Park and substituting the following:

60 PRITCHARD PARK

All those parcels or tracts of Crown land, together with all that foreshore or land covered by water, situated in the Kamloops

[ Page 8385 ]

The whole containing approximately 43 hectares. ,

(j) by repealing the description of Roderick Haig-Brown Park and substituting the following:

65 RODERICK HAIG-BROWN PARK (HIUIHILL CREEK)

All those parcels or tracts of Crown land, together with all that foreshore or land covered by water, situated in the Kamloops Division of Yale District and contained within the described boundaries as shown on the Official Plan deposited in the Crown Land Registry as Plan 11 Tube 1778.

The whole containing approximately 88 hectares. , and

(k) by repealing the description of Wire Cache Park and substituting the following:

84 WIRE CACHE PARK

All those parcels or tracts of Crown land, together with all that foreshore or land covered by water, situated in the Kamloops Division of Yale District and contained within the described boundaries as shown on the Official Plan deposited in the Crown Land Registry as Plan 14 Tube 1789; except thereout Forest Service Road, Project 564-02.

The whole containing approximately 57 hectares.]

On the amendment.

M. Coell: I wonder if the minister could just outline it for the record. I am aware of what the amendment is, but I think that it would be helpful in Hansard to just have an outline of what that amendment is.

Hon. C. McGregor: Section 38.1 outlines 11 additional parks under the Kamloops LRMP that we were able to get ready with the new mapping description, so we've added them as an amendment. They include the Adams Lake Park, Bedard-Aspen Park, Deadman Hoodoos Park - Skookum Site, Epsom Park, Lac Le Jeune Park, Monte Creek Park, North Thompson Oxbows-East Park, North Thompson Oxbows-Manteau Park, Pritchard Park, Roderick Haig-Brown Park and Wire Cache Park.

R. Neufeld: Just a quick question. Will the Northern Rockies be mapped using this new process?

Hon. C. McGregor: At the current time we are going to designate it through the OIC process, which I described earlier. But we are working on the mapping, and it will eventually be reflected in this type of a mapping boundary.

R. Neufeld: I'm sorry. I came in a little bit late, and I don't want to belabour it. But there was a great sense of agreement amongst all the proponents of the Northern Rockies park, and it also borders on -- the minister is quite well aware of it -- some very good oil and gas and forestry land. With this new type of mapping, I would encourage us to use it to the best of our abilities if we could, so that those people who agreed to all the metes and bounds. . . . There's still some discussion and some uneasiness about the Northern Rockies. Maybe it won't quite come out on the map the same as what the people in the process agreed to to start with. I would encourage the minister to, if it is at all possible, use this kind of mapping. I hope that she really confers with those people on all three LRMP processes that were used in the creation of the Northern Rockies park. I'm always afraid of a hiccup and of losing in the long run what we've gained. It would behoove us all to be just a little more careful in those areas, rather than just trying to push something through.

[5:15]

Section 38.1 approved.

On section 39.

M. Coell: I would be interested in knowing what the changes in fees for obtaining copies of these new maps will be. Is there an increase in fees at this point, or is there one scheduled in this year's budget?

Hon. C. McGregor: There are currently no charges for these maps. It's an enabling provision, given that the surveyor general has the ability to charge for such maps.

M. Coell: I don't know whether the minister can answer what I'm looking for. Is there anticipation that with the new map. . . ? I suspect that there is probably an increased cost. Is there now going to be a charge for individuals and companies who would be using these maps? Is that anticipated?

Hon. C. McGregor: Not at this time, although in the future, for the creation of perhaps an official legal copy, there may be some charges attached.

Sections 39 and 40 approved.

On section 41.

M. Coell: I think that the retroactive date on the areas of interest in the Park Amendment Act is probably positive. Is there an explanation for why 1995 and 1997 are used as those dates for exclusion?

Hon. C. McGregor: Those dates were used because those are the dates that the parks were brought into the Legislature. Then subsequently we became aware of those errors, so that's why we reference those dates.

M. Coell: Can we expect that when future parks are brought in and updated, those dates would be used? Or would we be using different dates that the parks are established?

Hon. C. McGregor: The date will reflect the date at which the parks are introduced into the Legislature. So in this case it was '95 and '97, because those were the last amendments to the Park Act. If there is a subsequent amendment in '98, then it would make reference to that.

M. Coell: I thank the minister for that.

I don't have any further questions. I wish the ministry good luck with this new technology and technique. I think it will be beneficial, and I look forward next year to having a look at more of the parks that are brought forward.

Section 41 approved.

[ Page 8386 ]

Hon. C. McGregor: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Bill 23, Park Amendment Act, 1998, reported complete with amendment.

The Speaker: When shall the bill be read a third time?

Hon. D. Lovick: By leave now, hon. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Bill 23, Park Amendment Act, 1998, read a third time and passed.

Hon. D. Lovick: I call committee on Bill 24.

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 1998

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

G. Plant: Section 2 makes a change to the Crown Proceeding Act. I understand that the intention of this amendment is to clarify a provision of the Crown Proceeding Act, and that that clarification is made necessary as a result of an interpretation given to the former section in a recent court case. I want to see if I can perhaps express both the problem and what I understand to be the solution, and the Attorney General can correct me if I get it wrong.

The subsection deals with the immunity that the Crown has where persons -- I suppose agents or servants of the Crown, and other people who are related to government -- are discharging judicial functions or duties that they have in connection with the execution of a judicial process. The section as it now reads creates that immunity in cases where the defendant acted in good faith and reasonably; that is, both the element of good faith and the element of reasonableness appear in the language of the statute as it now reads. The intention of the amendment is to remove the test of reasonableness and to leave intact the test of good faith.

I think the problem is that the Court of Appeal, in a recent decision, noted the difficulty of giving certain kinds of officials immunity for acting reasonably in circumstances where the whole issue before the court -- because it was a negligence case -- was the issue of reasonableness or otherwise. There's a sort of incongruity in the two concepts -- probably an entirely unfortunate and unnecessary incongruity. The real issue, I think, and the more important requirement is the requirement of good faith. This amendment will take out the language that imports the requirement of reasonableness and leave intact the test of good faith. Presumably that will achieve, with some greater certainty, the public policy purposes around this immunity in terms of Crown servants discharging judicial and related functions. Is that correct, roughly speaking?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The hon. member is correct. The actions of the judicial officer would still have to be reasonable, though. It's a different standard, a different duty of care. The court imported the private duty of care, rather than the administrative duty of care, in the decision that it brought down.

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

G. Plant: This section makes a modest but commendable change to the Employment Standards Act. What it does is reduce the requirement for employers to keep records from seven years to five years. I expect that the result of enacting this provision will be to lighten the recordkeeping burden of employers.

The government has, over the last few months, repeatedly stated its commitment to reducing the burden of red tape that citizens and businesses feel. One area that I know is frequently the subject of concern by people in the employer community is the whole area of the Employment Standards Act. I guess, from the perspective of wanting to understand the public policy rationale behind this amendment, I'm driven to ask the question of whether it is the government's view that this is the only change which needs to be made to the Employment Standards Act at the present time in order to give effect to the government's public policy commitments around employment standards issues.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: This is the only change I'm dealing with.

C. Hansen: I'd like to ask the minister where the. . . . I appreciate the fact that miscellaneous statutes always are a compilation of initiatives that come from a variety of sources. I was just wondering if the minister could tell us where this particular amendment came from -- from what initiative.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: This is essentially to reduce the workload of the employers. They won't have to keep the records that long. It makes it easier. It's to reduce the regulatory overload.

C. Hansen: Actually, I'm not sure of the process in terms of miscellaneous statutes, hon. Chair, but I think it may be appropriate to direct a question to another minister. Do I have to direct it to the minister shepherding the bill? These are questions that I know the Minister of Labour might be able to address, if that's appropriate. But certainly I will put those forward.

I think that what the Attorney General just stated, that this is to reduce the paper burden imposed on small businesses, is simply not the case. You know, if you start looking at the numerous requests that are coming in from small business to do something about the regulatory burden that is imposed by the Workers Compensation Board. . . . What this changes means, essentially, is that you've got boxes of documents that are required under the Employment Standards Act -- the paperwork that was imposed as a result of the changes that came into effect 18 months ago. Now, as a result of this

[ Page 8387 ]

[5:30]

I think that what we've seen since the start of this session is a government that got messages from the private sector that said: "Wait a second; we've got to do something about red tape in this province and the regulatory burden if we're going to kick-start the economy, get it going again and invite people into this province to create jobs." One of the complaints that came forward, in all of the consultations that the Premier and other ministers of the Crown did, in all of the consultations with the private sector. . . . They came back with the message that there have to be cuts in red tape. There has to be a reduction in regulation. The reaction that has come in response to that is some fine words in the throne speech and some fine words in the budget, and then we set up a committee to cut red tape.

Then finally we start to see tangible evidence of legislative change to address this major problem of regulatory overload in this province. The huge change is: instead of keeping your bankers boxes for seven years, you only have to store them for five years. The small business community in British Columbia is upset when they see that this is the extent of the changes that are happening at this point.

We have a long, long way to go when it comes to cutting red tape in this province. I hope that the Attorney General will communicate the message back to the Minister of Labour that there is a lot more yet to come if we're going to do anything to have any significant impact in terms of deregulation in this province.

Section 3 approved.

On section 4.

G. Plant: When I first saw this provision, I had some concerns about its ambit. I contacted some representatives of the court reporters community, the Shorthand Reporters Association and the like. These amendments have to be read in conjunction with section 1, which makes a change to the Court Rules Act.

I don't ordinarily like to do this, but I will on this occasion. I have a letter dated June 3, 1998, addressed to Deborah Collos, the treasurer of the British Columbia Shorthand Reporters Association, from Marg Sorenson, the executive director of court management services. I gave the Attorney a copy of it only a few minutes ago; I'm sorry I forgot to do it earlier. I think this letter is an adequate response to the concerns raised. Because it does contain a statement of the government's intentions around these amendments, I want to go through it and essentially read much of it into the record. I hope that the Attorney General will confirm that this does, in fact, represent his and his government's intentions.

The first theme addressed in this letter is that these amendments are intended, in part, to consolidate under one act legislation and regulations governing court reporting. Part of the objective here is to bring together in one place the authority that now exists in the Court Rules Act, in the Evidence Act, in the sound-recording regulations and in the official reporter regulations, so that there is some clarity around where to look in the law for these issues. Am I right that that is one reason? One of the things that's going on here is simply the exercise of consolidation.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Correct.

G. Plant: The amendment which talks about the power to make regulations for court reporting and transcription services will become section 19 of the Evidence Act. One of the concerns raised by court reporters was around the regulation of examinations for discovery. As the Attorney General knows -- because he's the one that made the decision -- recently court reporters in British Columbia essentially lost their employment as official court reporters in Supreme Court trials, at least insofar as the Crown was prepared to pay the expense for their attendance. Court reporters are still in a bit of shock, I suppose, as individuals try to adjust to new conditions of work. There's a bit of apprehension around whether or not the import of these regulations is to change the way in which the government regulates, among other things, the examination for discovery business. In particular, this concern was raised in relation to section 19(1)(a), (g), (i) and (k). The letter which I referred to very clearly says: "I want to state that court services branch does not intend to regulate the examination-for-discovery business." Am I right that that statement represents the position of the Attorney General and his ministry?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes, it does. If I might assist, obviously the hon. member has already referenced this letter in the debate, and it is a letter of public record. This letter correctly represents the understanding and the intention of the Ministry of Attorney General.

G. Plant: I thank the Attorney General for that statement. There are two other issues, then. The first is to ask the Attorney General to explain a little bit about what he means -- and I think he said this in second reading debate -- about quality standards around court reporting and what may happen in that respect as a result of these changes. I'm not sure that that issue is addressed directly in the letter -- it's another issue.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: It is intended that in the regulations -- which we would now be able to do, after these amendments are law. . . . We want to make sure that we put transcription standards in place in a manual for transcriptions and the like, so that there are uniform standards throughout court services in terms of how they're produced and what's done. That's the kind of thing that we refer to when we talk about quality control and maintaining certain standards.

G. Plant: This is quality control related to the service of transcription, transcribing what's on tape into a formal record, as opposed to quality control around what court reporters do: sit and use shorthand and real time and those things. Is that a reasonable distinction, or am I missing something?

[ Page 8388 ]

G. Plant: The other thing that these amendments do is essentially allow cabinet to define what constitutes the official record of a proceeding. There are already, I suppose, a number of ways in which a record can be created that lawyers or parties or judges would look to as being part of the official record of a proceeding. Does the government intend to change the way in which it defines the official record of a proceeding? Or is this more a question of simply ensuring that those existing concepts of a court record do, in fact, enjoy in law the status of being an official court record?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: First of all, if there were any regulations to be made defining what the court record is and putting those definitions in place, the courts would have to be consulted. Cabinet never acts without consulting with the courts and getting the courts' approval. This would essentially define that audiotape is the record.

Section 4 approved.

On section 5.

G. Plant: I see that this is the provision which allows cabinet to make regulations about what constitutes the official record of a court proceeding. It's probably the case that the question I asked a moment ago really belongs under this section, so the Attorney General's explanation of just a moment ago applies with respect to the intention of section 5. Is that right?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Correct.

Section 5 approved.

On section 6.

G. Plant: I'll try to make sure I understand this. I think it's in the Evidence Act that you will see the terms "health care professionals" and "organizations of health care professionals." I must admit that I didn't get out the Evidence Act, but my recollection is that there's a specific list of various health care organizations -- that is, various organizations of health care professionals. The intention here is to enlarge the list by giving cabinet the power to designate, by regulation, any additional organization of health care professionals that it chooses to for the purposes of section 51. Is that right?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Correct.

G. Plant: It's not a big deal, but I wonder if there's a potential for some confusion. If there's a list of certain professions and then a kind of basket phrase that requires people to look at regulations, I wonder if that's the appropriate way to deal with that issue. More importantly, I suppose, what are the intentions of government with respect to additional organizations? What other organizations are intended to be designated by regulation at this stage?

[5:45]

G. Plant: In addition to midwives, are there any other health care professional organizations that we need to look forward to at this point?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Not at this time, no.

Section 6 approved.

On section 7.

G. Plant: I take it that the intention here is simply to clarify the original intent of this part of the Health Professions Act, which was that a first board -- which I believe is to be appointed either by the minister or by cabinet -- can essentially do all of the things that a board can do, even though the general expectation is that there will be an election, presumably at the earliest practical date, and that there will then be an elected board that will carry out its functions. Nonetheless, until such time as there is an elected board, members originally appointed may resign and may need to be reappointed. It's really a sort of "for greater certainty" provision to ensure that these boards can perform their functions as they need to, pending the first election. Is that right?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Correct.

Sections 7 and 8 approved.

On section 9.

G. Farrell-Collins: Perhaps the minister can give me a bit of an explanation of the changes in this amendment and what the intent behind them is.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: If I remember correctly, during the second reading debate on this issue I said something similar to what I'm going to say. These amendments clarify the existing tax collection and remittance requirements under the act and explicitly impose a tax collection obligation on registered tobacco wholesalers who are appointed collectors under the act. These will counteract the effects of a 1997 Court of Appeal decision -- which I think the hon. member for Richmond-Steveston got my ministry to pull for him the other day, if I remember correctly -- in which the lack of such an explicit provision resulted in the province being unable to recover $6.5 million in unpaid tax remittances.

Counteracting this court decision is critical, because all tobacco tax revenue is collected by 60 wholesalers in the province, some of whom remit up to $10 million in tax each month. An inability to enforce tax collection and remittance obviously poses a substantial risk to the $480 million in annual tobacco tax revenue. These amendments are retroactive to March 31, 1992, to coincide with the audit assessment period.

G. Farrell-Collins: I was just reading the court decision that was forwarded to the Attorney General critic, my colleague from Richmond-Steveston, as the minister was speaking. My understanding is that the problem with the collection was that it dealt with wholesalers who had then gone bankrupt. Is that correct?

[ Page 8389 ]

G. Farrell-Collins: Are there any other individuals or companies that would be captured by this? Or is it just wholesalers that had gone bankrupt and then the province found itself holding the bag for the amount of tax?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I think this would apply to all wholesalers, imposing an obligation to remit the taxes in a timely manner. So it doesn't really catch anybody by surprise. It makes that obligation very clear and explicit.

G. Farrell-Collins: I guess this will all hinge on the retroactivity of the implementation, in that this goes back a certain period of time. I guess what I'm looking for is: are there individual companies -- wholesalers, retailers, etc. -- that will have to pay tax that they would not have had to pay, other than those companies that had gone bankrupt and were unable to pay whatever reason?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: My understanding is that if you were obliged to remit the taxes and haven't remitted them, whether or not you've gone bankrupt, you're obliged to pay the taxes. This simply makes that obligation clearer, retroactively.

G. Farrell-Collins: That's the question I'm asking, though. Are there companies or wholesalers or retailers out there who were required to remit the tax but haven't remitted the proper amount of tax, and this bill is going to retroactively require them to do what they were already required to do?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I'm advised that the ministry doesn't know at this time of any companies that might be in a position of not having paid the taxes or having gone bankrupt after not having paid the taxes.

G. Farrell-Collins: So my understanding, or the minister's understanding, is this. Let me see if I'm clear. The only companies the ministry is aware of at this point in time that will be required to pay these taxes retroactively are companies that may have gone bankrupt some time in that period and, as a result, did not remit the due tax to the ministry as a result of that bankruptcy.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I think it would be a difficult question to answer with the staff present, without the full knowledge of any audit or audits that may be taking place or may have taken place. With the staff present in the room, I'm able to tell the hon. member that the staff isn't aware of any particular cases where taxes have not been paid. These are obviously not additional taxes, as the hon. member recognizes; these are taxes that should have been paid and may not have been paid. As to how many companies are in that position, the staff currently in the House can't advise me about that issue. The staff is not aware of any. The audits go on all the time, and we may not get that information.

The Chair: Member, noting the time. . . .

G. Farrell-Collins: It's probably good that we are out of time, because I would like to find that information. I'll just let the minister know what I'm looking for. I'd like to know if this is rectifying one case where the bankruptcy occurred or if it's three or five or ten that the ministry is currently aware of. Does this affect a whole range of businesses or, for that matter, any business that hasn't gone through a bankruptcy and resulted in tax not due?

What I'm trying to find out is: are there companies that have not gone bankrupt but, as a result of the changes in this act, will find themselves owing additional taxes that they weren't required to pay prior to the retroactive introduction of this bill? If the minister can find that information for me overnight or by the next time we'll be doing this legislation -- I suppose Monday would probably be the earliest -- I'll be glad to wait until then.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

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

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

Hon. D. Lovick moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:58 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

The House in Committee of Supply A; E. Walsh in the chair.

The committee met at 3:08 p.m.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
SMALL BUSINESS, TOURISM AND CULTURE
(continued)

R. Thorpe: Just before we get back to red tape. . . . Yesterday, as the critic for Small Business, Tourism and Culture, I had the opportunity to commit to the Kaleidoscope Theatre -- the new kids' auction that's coming up. . . . I know the minister gets lots of requests, but I've committed to that organization, which is a Victoria organization, the opportunity to come to the Legislature and have lunch and sit in the gallery -- to help them raise funds for the For the Kid in You program. I would challenge the minister to also support this organization here in Victoria.

Hon. I. Waddell: Far be it from me to back down. The challenge is accepted.

R. Thorpe: Thank you.

With respect to red tape, we were talking -- just before we broke at noon -- about what leadership role the minister and his ministry are taking to demonstrate to other ministries what actions can be done, even in a small, lean, efficient

[ Page 8390 ]

Hon. I. Waddell: We'll keep working on the one-stop business registration, because I think that's so useful. We don't have a lot of acts. One of the acts is the Small Business Venture Capital Act, and I've already spoken about that. Within the ministry, one area I can think of, which has come out of the estimates, is that the archaeology area perhaps needs more work. I've already asked for some of that work to be done -- to streamline that and the approaches -- and it's underway. And we'll continue to act as an advocate in other departments of government, to consistently tackle red tape. Finally, we are reviewing with Tourism B.C. regulations for the tourism industry.

R. Thorpe: I also see customer service as part of red tape. Orientation to the taxpayer and the customer is the primary focus of big government internally. First of all, does the minister agree with that? And secondly, has the ministry established in its various branches and departments service standards by which they respond to taxpayers and individuals inquiring about service? Have they established benchmark service standards which they are measuring themselves against?

Hon. I. Waddell: Well, there are a number of questions there, I would point out to the member. To answer the first question, yes, I think that the government dealing with people is very important. I'd like the government to put a happy face on dealing with people, whether they're employees in the liquor store or government agents throughout the province. The government agents now provide a one-stop service to the public, delivering 50 programs on behalf of 30 different agencies. I've had some letters. . . . You know, I've been reading from letters about how people love British Columbia, but I'll stop for a minute. I'm sure he's got letters too. I've had letters where people said they'd been helped out by a government agent and so on, so I think putting a happy face on matters is important.

R. Thorpe: I realize I asked several questions, so perhaps the minister couldn't recall the question about establishing inside the ministry service standards with respect to dealing with inquiries. Can the minister advise what service standards are in place in which branches and which branches don't have them but you're moving forward to put them in?

Hon. I. Waddell: I'll give you an example of performance standards in the government agents branch. Here are performance measures we'd like to see. We'd like to process more than 2.7 million revenue transactions. We'd like to collect $1.7 billion in government revenues; so would the Minister of Finance. We'd like to handle more than 1.2 million customer inquiries next year on behalf of client ministries and agencies. We'd like to achieve a customer satisfaction rating of 95 percent or better. We'd like to implement new and expanded public and private sector delivery partnerships, and we'd like to improve service delivery, co-location and increased integration of government services to provide efficiency gains and cost savings.

I told the hon. member yesterday. . . . He referred to it this morning: the fact that I said I'd like to have red tape for breakfast. Well, I had eggs for breakfast this morning, I have to tell the hon. member. But I put some of that Mexican red sauce on it, thinking that that would kind of get me going on tackling red tape.

R. Thorpe: Perhaps the minister should also start taking some ginkgo, because this morning he couldn't remember what he said he had for breakfast yesterday. Perhaps with a combination of all of those things, you'll be able to stay focused. I'm just here to help you; you know that.

With respect to the government agents' offices -- which I must say we're very fortunate to have in Penticton, unlike some other Okanagan cities. . . . I believe that I can go into the government agent's office and get my birth certificate, and the standard practice is about a ten-day turnaround. Is that correct?

[3:15]

It's four or five days. . . . Five days.

R. Thorpe: In the interest of red tape. . . . I don't know this to be fact, but I do have a report that I can currently get a birth certificate if I want -- God forbid that someone has to get a death certificate -- and you can get marriage certificates at the government agent's office. That's what I now understand. But I want to ask this question: will British Columbians continue to be able to receive those in the future in the same manner in which they receive them today?

Hon. I. Waddell: I can't project into the far future. The government could change, and then maybe they wouldn't get things. For the next year we expect that they will be able to get these things. But I come back to this -- you'll recall that I've said this in many cases. We've got a society that's moving to electronic filings, higher technology, better technology. So we're also exploring the use of better electronics to have better service.

R. Thorpe: Then can the minister confirm or deny that currently the system is about to change in government agents' offices and that in fact there is an incompatibility between the government agents' offices and Vital Statistics? What applications are now going to have to be taken in hand and faxed to somewhere -- I assume Victoria? They will not be issued in the government agents' offices any longer; they're now going to be put in the mail in Victoria, and then people are going to receive them in the mail. Can the minister confirm that that's the situation?

Hon. I. Waddell: This is not a concern. They're updating some electronic matters, but I'm not aware of this particular situation.

R. Thorpe: Then I take it that the minister and staff will take this as an item: that some areas of British Columbia have advised me that this could be a concern. If in fact this is happening, we're moving to more red tape as opposed to being more efficient. I think we should all be concerned about that.

[ Page 8391 ]

Hon. I. Waddell: This is not technically in my estimates. But I will tell the member that as I understand it, there were different tables set up outside the working group I'm involved in on red tape. They include forestry and other areas, and I think labour was one -- to avoid duplication.

R. Thorpe: I guess that would also be the reason that the WCB has been excluded from the government's review, as well as employment standards.

The part that's puzzling to me, though, is that this is the committee that the minister is on, and these are some of the very top concerns of small business and tourism operators in British Columbia. I'm just trying to get a picture here. If the government and this minister are committed to cutting red tape, is the minister on another red tape-cutting committee that is dealing with these issues?

Hon. I. Waddell: I have a list of people who are on that committee with me: the board of trade, the roadbuilders, the stock exchange, the automobile dealers, the hotel associations, the Agriculture Council and so on. Mark Kingsbury of the Council of Tourism Associations is on that. His main concern so far has been red tape in back-country leases, which we've talked about, and he's made some substantial progress, as announced last week in Kamloops.

No, I'm not on any other committees. This is the committee I'm on.

R. Thorpe: It's amazing to me that this minister says that he's concerned with helping small business and tourism operators in British Columbia, that he's for cutting red tape, that he's for giving better service, that he's an advocate of those industries, that he's only on one red-tape-cutting committee, and yet the Labour Code, employment standards and the WCB are in the top five concerns of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the British Columbia Chamber of Commerce, the Business Council of British Columbia, the B.C. Agriculture Council and the Council of Tourism Associations. Yet they're not being addressed. Does the minister not find this to be an incomplete review? Since he's such a strong advocate for these people, why has he not fought to have those issues included?

Hon. I. Waddell: The answer to the member's first question is no.

The answer to the second question is that the Minister of Finance has indicated that she is open to receiving any comments on anything and would refer them to the other tables if the comments were related to policy. If they were related to process, paper burden and so on, they would be dealt with at the red-tape committee.

R. Thorpe: So what the minister is really saying is that his government is choosing not to address the issues that are now appearing in the Wall Street Journal. It talks here about British Columbia's socialistic government. It talks about the Business Council of British Columbia. . .noting that the province's economy began underperforming well before Asian problems surfaced late last year. It talks about barriers to business by increasing labour costs and the cost of complying with regulations. Yet these factors are not being addressed. I need some help from the minister on clarifying for me why these key issues about British Columbia from these organizations, which are now being echoed in one of the world's leading papers. . . . Why is the government not addressing these issues?

Hon. I. Waddell: The member doesn't really need help. He's partly making a political speech. That's for debate; that's fine. These are estimates.

Let me try and clarify for him what's happening. If you have a red-tape committee in which you get into policy debates on whether or not we should have minimum wage and whether or not we should have working wages -- in the Tourism ministry, for example; that's a debate out there -- then your whole committee could spend its time doing that. Remember what I said before: what we wanted to do was get specific. We got specific about where the overlapping process was -- where the red-tape process was -- and we started making progress. That's what this red-tape committee is about. We've said to the industry: "We hear you. You want to get rid of red tape. Come, let's get together. Let's get concrete examples that we can work on."

R. Thorpe: But what this government is refusing to do is understand. Perhaps they don't understand because most of them have never been in business and have never had to deal on a day-to-day basis with the WCB. They've never had to deal, day in and day out, with employment standards; they've never had to deal every day with the Labour Code. Perhaps that's the problem.

I don't understand why you folks are not addressing the real problems. What I further don't understand is that the first report of this committee, according to the release. . . . We've sometimes seen before that things that are released by the government don't necessarily materialize or change, or whatever -- wriggle room comes to mind. The first report from this committee is due out on July 15. Yet we've had indications, yesterday and again this morning, that this government's going to introduce a red-tape bill that has "vision." What is that vision based on, since the first report from this committee will not be released until July 15?

Hon. I. Waddell: I really can't talk about proposed legislation. But let me make just two points in reply to what the member said. First of all, some of us have had experience in running small businesses. Secondly, the government was re-elected.

R. Thorpe: It was elected by a minority of the population and by not telling the truth. That's how the government was re-elected.

You know, the minister talks about wanting industry to give specifics. Yet when I ask the minister for specifics and picked up on his own example about PST, he says that's really not a specific. I would like two or three specific details -- the same things you're asking industry and other groups to do. I would like the minister to give me two or three direct, specific items on which his ministry is going to cut red tape -- not the programs that are in place right now, but new things that they are bringing to the table.

Hon. I. Waddell: This is why I'm on the task force. They're coming up through the task force.

R. Thorpe: What the minister is saying is that neither he nor his ministry is bringing forward any good ideas; they're

[ Page 8392 ]

Hon. I. Waddell: I think I've already answered those questions.

R. Thorpe: Well, the record obviously shows that the minister has not answered the question with respect to specific examples coming from his ministry, although now we've given him one that he can look at with respect to the government agents' offices. With respect to government agents' offices, since we have staff here, I have just a couple of very, very quick questions. Do you anticipate the closure of any government agents' offices this year?

Hon. I. Waddell: The answer is no.

R. Thorpe: Do we anticipate the downsizing of any government agents' offices in the province of British Columbia this year?

[3:30]

R. Thorpe: I want to be very clear here. You're into your new operational year. You're operating; things are happening. There is no downsizing of government agents' offices anywhere in the province of British Columbia for this coming operating year. Is that correct?

Hon. I. Waddell: The answer is yes, it's correct; we're not planning that. But I have to be straightforward with the member. You know, if there's a downturn in the economy and there are difficulties with money, there can be cutbacks in any area. My ministry's had cutbacks in the past. But we're not planning any closures. Indeed, as soon as I get out of this Legislature, I want to get out and visit some of those government agents and talk to them.

R. Thorpe: The minister mentioned closings, and I asked about downsizing. Apparently the minister doesn't want to deal directly with it. Let me ask this, because the minister talked about a downturn in the economy, and we may have to make contingent plans. Actually, I had forgotten that question. A couple of weeks ago the Minister of Finance said in a public speech in Vancouver that if the economy did not turn around, her government was committed to achieving the stated deficit of $949 million from the blue books and that she would do whatever she had to do to achieve that. She went on to say that there'd be cuts in various ministries. Can this minister advise if they have a contingency plan for reducing costs on an emergency basis?

Hon. I. Waddell: I'm informed that they're constantly developing plans. I don't know how to treat that. Well, the answer is that I have an excellent deputy who could certainly handle anything that's thrown her way. If that means cutbacks, she could handle that. Of course, if we listened to the opposition, with the list I have here of all the extra things they want. . . . If the Minister of Finance listened to that, we'd have a lot of extra money and extra programs in our ministry. She could also handle that.

R. Thorpe: That must be a very, very short list of extras you have over there.

A Voice: No, it's a long list.

R. Thorpe: If the minister would like to produce that list and at the same time produce the list of all the credits we've given him, he would find that his government would be well ahead -- I project $30 million or $35 million ahead. Then we could alleviate some of the deteriorating health care conditions that are taking place in British Columbia today.

With respect, perhaps one of the reasons the deputy has to be such a good tap dancer is because this government doesn't have a plan. It doesn't have a vision of where it's going, and the plan is developed on the run on a day-to-day basis. Perhaps that is why the deputy and her staff have become so efficient at dealing with curve balls and change-ups and fastballs.

The question I asked is a very, very simple question, and it's a very, very basic business discipline. In business, you do your business plan. In government, it appears on those blue sheets; you have a business plan -- at least a financial plan. Also in business, you do a contingency plan: what if -- and you have it ready. When panic sets in, it's better to have the plan than try to figure it out. My question is: do you have a "what if" plan ready to go?

Hon. I. Waddell: Again, I reply that we're always planning, no matter what the contingencies are. It is like a small business in many ways, and you can have things that hit you from other aspects. You can have cutbacks, and you have to deal with them. Now, I'm very lucky that in this ministry, the areas I'm responsible for are rather booming. Film and tourism are good examples, so it's rather a good-news ministry compared to some of the natural resource industries which are having their difficulties.

R. Thorpe: So once again, by the lack of a direct answer, we can conclude that there's not a contingency plan -- but I'm sure one will be developed shortly.

With respect to red tape, I just want to read into the record because. . . . Often the government tries to paint the opposition as people who do not want to cooperate, and that cannot be further from the truth. On April 27 the government announced a business task force to cut red tape. On May 4, on behalf of the official opposition, I wrote to the hon. Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations.

"Dear Minister:

"Re: business task force to cut red tape

"I note with interest your announcement of April 27, 1998, regarding the establishment of a 16-person business task force. As you are well aware, the B.C. Liberals, the official opposition, have been suggesting for some time that red tape is strangling business of all sizes in British Columbia. The official opposition is committed to cutting red tape in a very timely manner. In the spirit of working together and on behalf of my caucus, I'm

[ Page 8393 ]

writing you today to request that you appoint me to the task force. If your government is serious about cutting red tape now, the official opposition is prepared to work with the task force to make it happen for all British Columbians.

"I look forward to your timely reply.

"Yours truly,

Member for Okanagan-Penticton"

Hon. I. Waddell: I can respond. I'm tempted to say: "Well, do you know this is Agriculture Day, and one of the basic principles of the agricultural system is that you keep the fox outside the hen house?" But I won't say that. I will take the member's request to the Minister of Finance, whose decision it is.

R. Thorpe: Hon. Chair, even when we have a positive request, even when we have a positive gesture, this minister continues to want to go down into the gutter. Just by the way he makes his comments that he doesn't want to get something on the record so he can get it on the record, he must get great satisfaction out of being such a low player.

The province of British Columbia is in serious trouble. It's about time that you took the problem seriously. Let me tell you that when the Wall Street Journal starts writing the articles that it's writing about British Columbia, this is not going to be good for the tourism industry. It's not going to be good for the bond ratings of this province, and it's going to cause further hardship for those people that are working in British Columbia and that are going to have to pay the bills. I suggest that the minister start taking some of these concerns very, very seriously and stop making light of them and stop throwing in cheap shots, when the province has very serious problems -- caused, I might add, by his government and his government's socialistic policies.

The Chair: Shall the vote pass? I recognize the member for Okanagan-Penticton.

R. Thorpe: I would like to move on to the You-BET program -- youth. Could the minister confirm the budget for the You-BET program -- we talked about that yesterday -- at approximately $1.56 million? Is that correct?

Hon. I. Waddell: The budget for You-BET is projected at $1.562 million. That's an increase of $348,000 from last year.

R. Thorpe: How many FTEs are associated directly with that program, please?

Hon. I. Waddell: There was one last year; there's 2.5 this year.

R. Thorpe: What is the $300,000 or so increase focused on?

Hon. I. Waddell: It's an enhancement to the existing program and a transfer from the Ministry of Employment and Investment of the Youth Mentorship program.

R. Thorpe: Could the minister be a little bit more specific than saying it's an enhancement? What does that mean?

Hon. I. Waddell: There was money put into the increased FTEs so that they could monitor, evaluate and follow up the program.

R. Thorpe: Could the minister advise what kind of programs or processes there are for monitoring and tracking the participants in this program?

Hon. I. Waddell: I believe there's been an evaluation of the program -- looking at the statistics and the follow-ups and so on. I believe a report exists; if it does, I will get it for the member.

R. Thorpe: Well, there's quite a difference between believing that a report may exist and a report existing. Does an assessment of this program exist -- yes or no?

Hon. I. Waddell: The answer is yes.

R. Thorpe: When was that report completed?

Hon. I. Waddell: It was completed last month.

R. Thorpe: What were the key recommendations of that report, as we move forward?

[3:45]

R. Thorpe: Question number one is: how many young people participated in the program last year? Question number two is: how many people do we envisage participating this year?

Hon. I. Waddell: There are a number. You know, the program is divided into stages. In 1997-98 an estimated 1,455 youth attended, and I can break that down into the different stages if you want.

R. Thorpe: Let's say that I'm a young person who is going to take this course -- take advantage of this opportunity at Westminster Quay -- on June 20. What kind of tracking process do you take with me as I move through this program? How far do you track me? Do you just see me that day -- the day of the seminar? Or do you see me and keep track of me for some period of time?

Hon. I. Waddell: What happens, as the member probably knows, is that people come into the first seminar of the program, and then a lot don't continue. Gradually, as those who are more serious and committed do continue and as you get to the end of the chain, there are some real success stories. . . . The question was: are we tracking those people that didn't come back? The answer is that we've tracked a sample, and that's what this evaluation was about. Some of the indications were that they liked the program generally, and we said: "Here are some areas for improvement." But I'm not sure that we can tell why individuals come back or why they don't.

R. Thorpe: Actually, you can. For those who don't come back, you can try to conduct exit surveys. For those who do

[ Page 8394 ]

The people who succeed in the first stage and carry on -- do we track those folks in detail? Or do we just use general statistical sampling techniques?

Hon. I. Waddell: The 324 people that would come to the second stage, of course, continue through the program. If they drop out, we continue to send them information and so on.

R. Thorpe: Does that mean that 324 continued on out of 1,400 or so? So we have 23 percent. . . . I don't know what the percentage is; maybe you have it there. It's less than 25 percent, I think. Does that meet the criteria that you established when you were setting up this program, or did you establish what you thought would be an acceptable success rate?

Hon. I. Waddell: These are self-selecting individuals, so they go through the program that way. I want to say that on the additional information based on the program evaluation, 90 percent of stage 1 respondents indicated that their workshops had either provided valuable information about entrepreneurship or caused them to positively consider being an entrepreneur. As a result of the workshop, 43 percent of the survey respondents decided to take more education, 27 percent of the survey respondents decided to obtain specific training and 39 percent of the survey respondents decided to acquire more business experience. Then people, of course, worked through to the end, where we've got about 100 businesses started by You-BET participants.

R. Thorpe: How do we select young people to go to this program? Do they just walk through the door?

Hon. I. Waddell: The ads run in the papers.

R. Thorpe: Basically, then, you're responding to the ad. There's no working through another government agency to recruit people -- through Human Resources Development Canada or B.C. Human Resources or. . . . None of that. It's just people who look at the newspaper or on a web site. Is that how people are funnelled into this program?

Hon. I. Waddell: No, it goes further than just the ads. There are contacts with other government departments and the whole Youth Options B.C. mechanism. There are posters. I don't know if you've seen the posters for the program that are put up in various areas where young people frequent -- in educational institutions and so on.

D. Jarvis: Just as the minister was talking, I had a few questions that I want to ask about this program -- not that I'm against the program or anything, because I understand from some people that it's a very good program.

When we were talking, you mentioned posters and ads and all the rest of it. I think that probably one of the biggest concerns I've ever had since I got involved in government in '91 is the waste by government in producing brochures, posters, ads and all the rest of it. There's tons of it. They run into my constituency association office, and it's. . . . For example, there's this last letter that came through here addressed to me. I received it on June 2 with posters to put up in my office.

There's actually no date on the letter that came out of your office. It shows that the following location -- for North Vancouver -- will be on May 30. Now, to me that's basically a waste. When it was sent to me, I phoned my constituency assistant and asked her what this was all about, etc. I see it's back on May 30, and yet. . . . She read it to me. I haven't seen it myself, but I sort of trust her in a way. I shouldn't say "in a way," because she may be listening -- who knows? I do trust her, and she says there are not even any dates on the posters. To me that's a superfluous waste of money.

Hon. I. Waddell: I hope I didn't write you in June and say to get ready for something that was happening in May. I hope I didn't do that.

D. Jarvis: That's what happened here.

Hon. I. Waddell: That looks bad. Well, the answer is that it's ongoing. Also, you can get information from on-line sources. And thirdly, I don't want that to happen again.

D. Jarvis: In one of the paragraphs you just finished mentioning, about 100 youth-launched businesses -- which is about 3 percent, I guess. . . . What kind of businesses are they? Do you attract them? Do you keep in touch with them? Did they respond to a letter that you sent out saying: "Did you start a business?" They said yes, and that's it? Do you follow them along?

Hon. I. Waddell: In the lower mainland, Dave Tanchah opened Resonant Communications, and Stacey Venables started Skiboard Alpine Advertising. In the Okanagan, Paul and Angela de Burger started The Edge goaltending school; that was a pretty amazing idea. In Dawson Creek, Leonard Wiebe has opened a music store, and in Nelson, Stefan Fournier has started a holistic health clinic. I visited a couple of these programs. In Vancouver I visited Nicole Page, a young entrepreneur, and -- I can never pronounce it -- Ecotropolis, her store on Main Street. I was a little reluctant; I didn't know what the Wall Street Journal was going to say if I visited a young entrepreneur that had started up in a program in my ministry, but I managed to go there in spite of that paper.

Anyway, here's a letter from someone in Peachland:

"My wife Angela and I are graduates of your 1997 You-BET training program. . .we decided to attend a one-day workshop held in Penticton. We found the facilitators. . .to be both knowledgeable and inspiring. Having gone to the session with a tentative business plan, we came out of the session with a sense of reality regarding entrepreneurship but were thoroughly inspired to pursue our idea further.

"Session 2 was facilitated by. . ." -- and they mention the people, someone from the Kelowna branch of the Business Development Bank -- "[and she] did an excellent job in helping us frame our idea and test out our concept for viability. Introductory finance was introduced, and we were required to present our ideas to the group. At the conclusion of session 2 our idea was clearly defined, and we had certainly found it to be viable. This encouraged us to continue.

"The third and final session of the You BET program consisted of a 12-day business planning course. It was considerably more intensive than the previous two. The facilitators. . .were fantastic and did a fine job in aiding the production of our business plan.

"At the conclusion of the final session, we were required to present our business to Michael Izen from the ministry responsible for the You-BET program" -- that's my ministry. "Michael's suggestions and resources were much appreciated.

"In September of 1997 we launched our business, a training program dedicated to contracting to minor hockey associations, ringette teams and other groups. Our small business, The Edge -- Complete Goaltender Training Programs, has been in opera

[ Page 8395 ]

tion for seven months now and we have built a solid reputation throughout the Okanagan Valley as a quality goaltender training program. This summer we will be offering camps in four cities: Victoria, Westbank, Kelowna and Merritt.

"The You-BET program aided us in taking our idea, which may have gone unrealized, to the point where it became a well-researched, viable business opportunity. The program also helped us become aware of other programs on local, provincial and national levels that have aided us in our business operations. Without You-BET, we may not have been inspired to take action and start our business. If we had managed to start it without You-BET, we would have done so without much valuable information, support and contacts.

"I strongly recommend the You-BET program to any aspiring young entrepreneur, and I feel prepared to succeed in the world of small business in large part due to the business planning seminars provided by You-BET. If ever we can be of service to you in order to help promote this fantastic program, please do not hesitate to contact us."

D. Jarvis: Yes, it is a very good letter, and quite long and detailed. The only problem I can see with it is that next thing you know we'll probably be hearing from the millionaire NHL goalies that their business is being taken away from them.

Nevertheless, I'd like to ask a series of questions. Has this been going on for approximately two years, and do you follow them? I mean, I think they've been going for two years. You followed them for one year, and now, in the second year, are you going to continue to follow them or keep in touch with them? Or are these businesses basically one-year shots that go on. . . ?

Hon. I. Waddell: If I might say to the member for North Vancouver-Seymour, I think that's a good question. I'm not totally familiar. . . . I'd like to follow up a bit more on the follow-up of this, because I think it's important. You introduce them to the idea of business plans. You take their idea, and they develop it, as was said in the letter. But they may need follow-up. Someone once told me that what happens in small business is that it can go okay, then bang -- you hit a real problem. When you're young and just starting, that can be hard to handle. I think that's an area that we have to look at.

[4:00]

It's very commendable, and I think we should follow them up on it. I wonder if the minister could supply us with a list -- not a detailed list -- of those who have indicated that they have started up a successful business. Can you provide that?

Hon. I. Waddell: Yes, I'd be pleased to.

R. Thorpe: In supplying that list. . . . I think we've read somewhere that 100 new businesses were started, so if we could get the list of the 100 businesses, that would be great. We too would like to learn from these young entrepreneurs. I gathered from the minister's comments earlier that they are not tracking these extensively now, but that he's going to be instructing his staff that maybe this is an area we should be looking at.

Can the minister answer the question: are there any federal programs that offer similar services?

Hon. I. Waddell: There are such federal programs, but I'm told that they're restricted to people who are on unemployment insurance. This program is all-inclusive and not so restricted.

R. Thorpe: Have we looked. . . ? Are there any possibilities of working with the feds and taking some of the reported successes we've had here with this program. . . ? Have we thought of trying to work with the feds so that we in fact have fewer dollars being spent in administration and duplication and more resources out of the same budget to reach the young people? Have we investigated that?

Hon. I. Waddell: The answer is yes. I'm particularly interested, because of my own background in federal politics, in working with the feds and getting British Columbia's fair share, for once, from the federal government. A good example of cooperation is the joint Canada-B.C. Business Service Centre, which seems to be working okay. When I visited, I was actually dealing at one point with some seconded federal civil servants. I was quite amazed and pleased.

R. Thorpe: We too in the official opposition believe that British Columbians should get an equal and fair share from the federal government. In that particular area, once again, if we can work with the government on this issue to ensure that there are more resources in a program that reaches British Columbians who need help, then we offer our assistance.

Have you found that your one-day workshop is perhaps too short to get some of the young people's attention?

Hon. I. Waddell: To answer the question, they didn't find that in their evaluation. They found that it gave the young people a broad view of business, and those who were really interested in it would move on to the three-day workshop.

R. Thorpe: This program, the $1.562 million -- is it administered by the 2.5 FTEs in its entirety?

Hon. I. Waddell: The answer is yes.

R. Thorpe: With respect to the measurement for degree of success, based on history it looks like it's between 23 and 25 percent success rate or conversion rate, from start to finish -- 324 out of 1,455. What kind of benchmark have we established as a target for this current year -- for a success rate?

Hon. I. Waddell: I didn't want to mislead the member on the other figures. It's true. You get a lot of people coming in, and then you get a select group for the three-day workshop, stage 2. The member should remember that the evaluation showed that some people realized that they needed more education, and other people wanted to go to other areas, so that influenced them too. I don't consider that a failure. As I said before, 43 percent decided to take more education -- this is the group that didn't go to another stage -- 27 seven percent decided to obtain specific training, and 39 percent decided to acquire more business experience. So they were moving there.

With respect to the second part of the question, whether we've set any standards or any percentage. . . . Of course we're trying to do better, but I don't know of any specific numbers.

D. Jarvis: When we were talking about the North Vancouver area. . . . The last workshop was on May 30, which we

[ Page 8396 ]

Hon. I. Waddell: Yes, I will definitely send a list. I'm told we try to work with local MLAs who can help, like the member suggested. I apologize for the lateness of that. It won't happen again.

R. Thorpe: What is the advertising portion of the budget for this advertising and communications project?

Hon. I. Waddell: We expect, for media buys, the figure of $40,000 for next year.

R. Thorpe: Could the minister advise: is that the media buy for the entire province? Do you just use print, or do you also use radio?

Hon. I. Waddell: I'm advised that we've used print and radio.

R. Thorpe: Those funds are in your budget; you're responsible for this $40,000. Are there any other funds taken from other areas of government and put together with this as part of the Youth Options program, to lever it up so that the program gets more exposure?

Hon. I. Waddell: We don't get any additional money. There is promotion of all the youth programs, like Youth Options B.C. There are Visions for the Future, You-BET, environmental youth teams, First Job in Science and Technology, Crown youth employment initiative, Job Start, Student Summer Works '98, Youth Works, Youth @ B.C. and Bladerunners. Obviously the programs under my ministry, Visions for the Future and You-BET, will no doubt benefit from part of the overall advertising of the excellent programs developed by the Minister Responsible for Youth and this government.

R. Thorpe: So are these ads placed through your ministry, or is it handled by CPCS?

Hon. I. Waddell: The answer is: we do our media for our programs.

R. Thorpe: I would certainly never want to break the rules of this House -- and my intentions would be to help build a better program. . . . This program is targeted at youth 15 to 25 years of age. I think it's important, if we're going to place print advertisements, that we understand that we would want to do it strategically. We'd want to place it in a newspaper -- in the Vancouver Sun, for example -- in an area where young people may be looking. They may be looking in the entertainment section or the movies section. I just wanted to pass this on. I noticed in the clips -- and I'm sure the minister did, too, and no doubt asked the same question I did: "I'd like to see this ad in the paper." So I went and got the paper. . .

The Chair: I'll just inform the member. . . . The member does know the rules of the House. Members are not to use any kind of props in the House.

R. Thorpe: I just want to pass this to the minister to show that perhaps some additional work is required on where we place our ads so that students can actually see them.

The Chair: Member, I will caution you on using other props in the House.

R. Thorpe: Hon. Chair, thank you very much for your advice, but I think it's important when we have things -- and I'm certainly not arguing with your ruling. . . . I think it's important that we share with the minister, because so often he has told us how hard it is to get money. We want to make sure that the money they have is used very efficiently. That positioning in the newspaper is at best questionable, and quite frankly, that money is almost wasted. I would ask that the minister take that. . . . I'm sure he's not overly pleased with it, either, especially the headline at the top of the page. But I'm not going to mention the headline at the top of the page, because I'm driving on the top line. I told the minister that at the beginning, but I'm sure the minister will want to talk about that later.

We want to be supportive of young people. But what we need to do if we're going to help in MLAs' offices is not be advertising programs that happened a month ago. We want to be advertising programs that are happening now and next month. That ad advertises programs that happened a month ago, which is fundamentally wrong. What I would ask the minister is: do we have a program laid out for the You-BET program, which rolls it out across the province? One of the objectives that was said earlier is that we want to reach outlying areas. So do we have a schedule of programs outside the lower mainland? Do we know those schedules and dates now, or do we know them roughly now?

Hon. I. Waddell: I'd like to say that this is not the first time that I've been dissatisfied with the Vancouver Sun. It's hard to get placement on media buys. You can try. I'm not happy with that, and I will make sure that it's better and that the time lines are better as well.

R. Thorpe: Hon. Chair, I asked a question about future programs in outlying areas of British Columbia. I would like to know if in fact those program locations have been picked. I realize that specific locations can't be known right now. But do we have a general outline of when and where, and would the minister be prepared to share that with us?

[4:15]

Hon. I. Waddell: We will get the members the information. Together we share the task of finding jobs as our economy changes from hewers of wood and drawers of water to a high-tech economy and the new service economy -- one that's less reliant on resources and less resource-industry-based. We'll make sure the member has all that information.

R. Thorpe: Once I have all that information -- and no doubt it will be in a very timely manner -- I will share it with our caucus members, and we'll all work together to solve this.

[ Page 8397 ]

My final question in this area: with respect to the overall program, are we applying the accountability framework principles in measuring this program?

Hon. I. Waddell: In all ministry programs.

R. Thorpe: That may be a stretch, but we'll leave that, because. . . . I certainly would appreciate a copy. The minister, hon. Chair, has been most cooperative in providing this information -- or a commitment to provide the information; maybe that's a better way to say it. If I could get the key accountability framework points for this program, that would be appreciated.

With that, I would like to conclude questioning on this program. I'd like to thank the staff for coming. I'd like to do just a little bit, if I can, on the banks. I'll just take a minute, if I may, and get reorganized.

I note that on May 26 the minister will be leading a government task force or team -- maybe it's a solo effort -- to review what's happening and to form the position of the government of British Columbia with respect to the potential upcoming bank mergers in Canada. I'm just wondering how many staff members from the ministry have been allocated to this project.

Hon. I. Waddell: One person, part-time.

R. Thorpe: What is the cost envisaged to manage this project?

Hon. I. Waddell: There's no direct cost in my estimates except the cost of the part-time person. In terms of my ministry, I can't quantify what the cost would be for the part-time person.

R. Thorpe: Could the minister share with us whether there is a plan for how he is going to solicit the views of British Columbians on this issue?

Hon. I. Waddell: I've already talked to a number of people who have expressed concern in this area. I'm trying to get a list of the people I've met with already. I've got my own notes on that. I met with a group of people from small business. I'll get you a list of the people I met with -- for example, the Alliance of Manufacturers and Exporters, Suromitra Sanatani's group the Coalition of B.C. Businesses, the economic development associations, the B.C. Chamber of Commerce and the retail merchants. I also met with the Downtown Eastside Residents Association. I met with a group called End Legislated Poverty and with a number of consumer associations. So I've begun to talk to people.

My job is to solicit the opinions of British Columbians and to research the impacts of bank mergers on consumers, on business -- particularly small business -- access to capital and rural access to all services, jobs and investment in British Columbia. British Columbians, especially in small business, are really concerned about the projected bank mergers. This is already becoming a huge national debate and will be culminating in the fall, when the federal Finance minister, Paul Martin, has to make some decisions on this. It's basically a federal issue, but it is of deep concern to small business in British Columbia.

Pretty well all the studies that have been done so far have been done by banks and people associated with banks or with brokerage houses which are controlled by banks. So I've authorized some studies to come forward. I have a study -- and I'll make it available to the hon. member -- on current issues in banking. The first study was prepared by Informetrica. If the member has a look at that, he will see that this is very much a live issue. For example, in Australia, the government stopped the bank mergers there. You will also see in this study, which was of particular interest to me and might interest the hon. member, that in the United Kingdom the banks really work together with small business. But in other jurisdictions there is increased consolidation and lack of competition. This is what people in British Columbia are worried about.

If you're in a small town and you've only got one branch and the bank manager doesn't like you, are you going to get a loan? Second, if information is centralized -- say, your loan is approved in Texas via computer -- what does that mean for a small business person? Sometimes you have to see that person to know that they're going to be a success with their idea to create a small business.

We're interested in this, and we want to hear from British Columbians about their views on this and about some suggestions that they might have that I can take back to the federal Finance minister on behalf of small business and consumers in British Columbia.

Access to capital is something that's absolutely crucial for small business. There may be some suggestions or helpful ideas that we can advance so that small business can get better access to capital. The small business community is very supportive of this initiative, I can tell the hon. member. Before I came in here, I did an interview with one of the papers that I'm sure the hon. member would enjoy, the British Columbia Report. They have run articles and editorials expressing their concern about bank mergers. I think this is a vibrant issue. I am leading on it, and I have some assistance in my department from a part-time person.

R. Thorpe: Has the minister formulated his position on this issue at this point in time?

Hon. I. Waddell: No.

R. Thorpe: Just for the record, minister, you already did send me a copy of it, and I would be prepared to share with you. . . . There's a recent C.D. Howe Institute study that's just been done, too, so you may have a copy of that. I'm sure you're. . . .

The Chair: Through the Chair.

R. Thorpe: Certainly, Chair. Through the Chair. -- on the six points you're going to do research on, how much is that research estimated to cost us?

Hon. I. Waddell: See, here's the problem. "There's a C.D. Howe study." You know, C.D. Howe is an institute that represents some pretty big business interests in Canada. They don't represent the little guy, the little person; they represent the big shots. Somebody's got to stand up here and represent the little people, the ordinary people -- people who could be hurt by this bank merger. After all, these banks are protected by law in

[ Page 8398 ]

D. Jarvis: Well, Mr. Minister, after that last statement you made, I'm just wondering if you could clarify a point for me. This is the provincial government's responsibility with regard to banks and credit unions and. . . .

A Voice: No, it's federal.

D. Jarvis: No, I think under the Insurance Act, the banks and the credit unions wanting to be able to sell insurance through their branches throughout B.C. is a direct cut into the small business insurance brokers throughout the province. Does your government support that?

Hon. I. Waddell: Banks are generally a federal jurisdiction, but of course there are credit unions, and there is insurance. These are incidental issues that may get caught up in the inquiry.

D. Jarvis: But would the minister support a larger credit union group coming in and virtually being licensed to sell insurance across the counter -- household insurance and car insurance and all the rest of it -- and therefore be in direct competition with those hundreds and hundreds of small insurance brokers that are going to be directly affected? These banks and credit unions are getting. . . . They're big companies, and they're wanting to be all-encompassing and handle your whole life inside there. I was just wondering if he is in favour of it, and is his government in favour of that?

Hon. I. Waddell: I haven't formulated opinions.

Interjections.

The Chair: Order, members.

Hon. I. Waddell: The member has some points. It's not technically within my ministry or my estimates, but I am answering some questions on this. I've not formulated an opinion of this. We're just fact-finding. But there is a world movement to consolidate. It seems to be kind of like: "Let's get bigger and bigger." People are beginning to ask if we're going to get institutions getting bigger and bigger. Are they just getting bigger and bigger to serve fewer and fewer people, or do they have an obligation to service their communities and the ordinary people of the province?

[4:30]

Hon. I. Waddell: I'm in the process of looking at commissioning research. We have one report so far, and I'll have another announcement shortly.

R. Thorpe: So this project by Informetrica Ltd. research from, of all places, Ottawa, Canada -- which is interesting. . . . How much did this study cost?

Hon. I. Waddell: It didn't come out of my budget, so I don't know the exact cost.

R. Thorpe: Do we know which ministry it did come from, so that we can ask those questions at the appropriate time? Since your ministry has received the document, one would think you might know.

Hon. I. Waddell: I'm not sure. I'll try and find out for the member.

R. Thorpe: Does the minister envisage, with respect to this project, going out of the lower mainland -- going out around the province -- and talking to people on this issue?

Hon. I. Waddell: Yes.

R. Thorpe: So the minister will be developing a plan in which he will be advising people in advance as he goes around the province to solicit their views. Is that correct?

Hon. I. Waddell: That's correct.

R. Thorpe: When do we anticipate that that plan and those locations. . . ? When will those plans be finalized as to when and where they will be, so that we can also participate and invite British Columbians?

Hon. I. Waddell: I'm working on it now. As soon as I can.

R. Thorpe: Unlike the community consultation process, will this be an open, not-behind-closed-doors consultation process with the public throughout British Columbia?

Hon. I. Waddell: I consider that the community consultation process was open. It gave us a lot of ideas, and we've started acting on the ideas. A lot of things emerged: the back-country leasing policy change and the red-tape initiative.

Interjection.

Hon. I. Waddell: Well, I think that a lot of things came forward from the consultations by the former minister and from our consultation with small business in the run-up to the budget. We're also working on a web site.

R. Thorpe: We've got the ministry going to make some more announcements. They've given some indication that they're going to announce some more research; they're going to have a visitation around the province; they're going to advertise to people that this is taking place. Yet when I asked the question, "What's the budget to do this?" I was told there wasn't a budget. So where are these funds coming from, and how much is allocated to this venture?

Hon. I. Waddell: There's not a budget in this ministry, except for the part-time employee that's helping us from the ministry. The budget is developed by Treasury Board.

R. Thorpe: I thought Treasury Board approved spending. Generally, funds come out of the ministry that wants to spend them or they come out of the Premier's Office or some other ministry. Is the minister saying, then, that this is a project in coordination with other ministries? If that is the case, would

[ Page 8399 ]

Hon. I. Waddell: I quite understand that. You'll notice that this involves small business as well as consumers, and that's the Attorney General ministry. If youth are involved, that's the Premier's Office, because he's the Minister Responsible for Youth, and of course, there's always the hand of the Finance ministry everywhere in government.

R. Thorpe: That concludes my questions on banking consultations. I do look forward to receiving a briefing and/or a document outlining the comprehensive program that the minister has alluded to here today.

I'm just wondering if I could just do a couple of miscellaneous items before we wrap up here. Can the minister. . . ? Tourism B.C. folks aren't here, but I don't think the minister needs them to be here to answer this question. There are some concerns with respect to the fishing situation and the allegations that perhaps the cruise ship area could be a target to go after. My question is to the minister -- and it's really a question to the minister. I'd obviously like him to answer it as the minister but also to look at it from his professional background and his training as a lawyer. Do you believe that we should be upholding the law and order of British Columbia on this issue with respect to some of the allegations made of possible actions with respect to our $200 million tourism cruise ship industry in Vancouver?

Hon. I. Waddell: I always believe that we should uphold the law of British Columbia in every aspect. Let me just say something with respect to that, and I'm glad the hon. member raised it. The Vancouver Sun ran an article yesterday with respect to John Radosevic, the head of the UFAWU, the fishermen's union. Basically, the article said that that gentleman had said that they would consider targeting the cruise ship industry. The article's wrong. On CKNW today Mr. Radosevic corrected that. I have the transcript. I'm sorry, I gave it to the Premier, so I don't have it with me. It's pretty clear. He indicated that he had not meant that. He meant that while there are targets -- and yeah, there could be all kinds of targets -- he said specifically that they were not targeting the cruise ship industry. I'm very pleased that he said that; I'm very relieved that that's there. I think we should clear that up and say that very strongly. I was looking forward to the member asking me a question in the House about that, and I was going to reply to that.

R. Thorpe: I do appreciate the minister's answer, and I'm glad he has the tape that says that people are not going to do that, because that is not what we need in British Columbia today. That is not what the cruise ship industry and tourism in British Columbia need today. With respect to some of the other issues we talked about. . . . I'm not even going to mention the names with respect to impacts on tourism, because if we don't say it. . . . I'm glad to hear the minister's position on law and order. The minister, then, would disagree with other statements that desperate people do desperate things; whatever happens, happens. The minister would not condone "whatever happens, happens."

Hon. I. Waddell: The hon. member is referring to remarks made by the Minister of Fisheries in this government. The member should listen carefully -- and we should all listen carefully -- to what the Minister of Fisheries was saying. He has done extensive tours and has been in very close contact with these people up the coast, who have lost substantially. If the hon. member had lost what these people have lost and if all of us were losing what they are losing, we'd be pretty angry. The minister was reflecting that anger. The minister was also reflecting, as the Premier has reflected, the anger of the citizens of British Columbia: first, at the attitude of the Alaskans; and second, at the inability of the federal government -- which is supposed to have some backbone and spine -- to show some backbone and spine in the negotiations with the Americans. The Minister of Fisheries was reflecting that, and well he should.

R. Thorpe: I'm sure the member is not contradicting himself. I'm sure his law and order message is the message that he wants to leave with British Columbians.

Leaving that subject, has the ministry had any direct dealings with Mr. Bill Warren, from San Diego, California, with respect to a tourism development project?

Hon. I. Waddell: I haven't personally seen this file yet. I am informed that this is an American citizen who wants to take a plane out of a lake. That's all I know.

R. Thorpe: As much as the minister would like to take a lake out of a plane, it would be better to take the plane out of the lake.

Hon. I. Waddell: What did I say -- a plane out of the lake?

R. Thorpe: So the ministry has seen this. I talked to this gentleman. He contacted me today. I don't know how people find you out, but they do find you out. He has sent me a fax which I am prepared to share with the minister. Here is an example, I believe -- without knowing all the details -- where his own ministry. . . . It goes back to my red-tape examples. It appears that you're locked up in process and bureaucracy. Surely we are not saying that an airplane at the bottom of a lake is to be treated the same way as aboriginal artifacts. Surely we're not saying that. Surely we're not saying that a plane from the 1940s or fifties is an artifact. Surely we're not saying that. My responsibility is to get. . . .

Interjection.

R. Thorpe: We got a message from "Goodacre Air."

I am going to pass this in good faith to the minister's office this afternoon and ask that they please put some priority on this -- whether it be a maybe, a yes or a no. This gentleman is very disappointed trying to do business in British Columbia. He makes some comments concerning the minister: a man who refuses to return his calls or answer his letters. Now, that is not the message that the minister has been trying to give us throughout these estimates. That's why I think it's important for me to share this.

So I'm going to get a copy of this when I go back to my office. I will get it immediately over to the minister's office. I would ask that the minister's office please commit to dealing with this and keeping me informed on the developments of this issue.

Hon. I. Waddell: Yes, we will; we'll keep him informed. And I'll try not to take any more lakes out of planes -- planes out of lakes, maybe; we'll see.

[ Page 8400 ]

In my final section, I would just like to ask a few questions on job creation and the tourism industry in British Columbia. I would like to ask the minister what mechanisms are in place within the ministry to track, on a regular basis, the development of job creation in British Columbia. What detailed plans do you have to monitor your goal of creating 25,000 jobs?

Hon. I. Waddell: I think we have Statistics Canada.

R. Thorpe: Then is it just Statistics Canada? Within the ministry there is no designed, comprehensive business plan that says: "This is what we're going to do to try to create jobs in the tourism industry in British Columbia." Is that correct?

[4:45]

R. Thorpe: Then is it the responsibility of Tourism B.C. to develop the plan for job creation in tourism in British Columbia? Is that what the minister is saying here today?

Hon. I. Waddell: I'm saying it's joint -- you know? I also caution the member. If the member wants I could go out and get some consultants and add additional expense and get an even further, huge plan on job creation. It certainly would create some jobs for consultants. You know, Tourism B.C. went from -- what? -- $8.3 billion to $8.5 billion. It created jobs. In fact, it has made incredible progress and is doing fine. I don't want to stand in the way of it doing so well. I'm pretty proud of what it's doing. It's creating jobs in British Columbia. It's the second-biggest industry now, and it's moving. Is the member advocating that I put some red tape in the way of that?

R. Thorpe: Well, you know, here we go again. We must be getting near the end, because he's ramping up the rhetoric again. Perhaps he can get some of the red tape strategically placed so it'll get a little quieter in here. The government announced a goal to create 25,000 new full-time jobs in the tourism industry in British Columbia. Is the minister saying to me today that they just made an idle announcement to create 25,000 new full-time jobs in British Columbia, or did they in fact have a plan? That's the question.

Hon. I. Waddell: I don't want to have to repeat all the things I've said under Tourism. With the executive officer of Tourism B.C. here, I outlined one of the most aggressive marketing plans for tourism in the country. We went through it; we answered a number of questions on it. They're doing very well. The member congratulated them. I think it's there. The member can come back next year and ask me. . . .

I don't know what business 1-A teaches now in community colleges, but I guess they teach that you've got to have a plan, you've got to follow this up and so on. I've always done that naturally. I never took business 1-A at a community college, so I don't think that way. I think in a different way.

R. Thorpe: That is actually fairly obvious. The minister is now saying that this government, with respect to tourism jobs, did not have a plan to create the 25,000 new jobs. That's real simple. Did you or did you not have a plan to create the jobs?

Hon. I. Waddell: Let me tell the member: we have the most aggressive marketing plan in Canada to attract tourists. We've added money to it -- $2.5 million. We've told them that they've got to go out to the regions. We're dealing with the sport fishing crisis. We're trying to get money into the pockets of small business and tourism operators. We made it easy on their signage. We helped them out; we're working with the red tape. We've worked on the back-country leases to open a whole new area of ecotourism. We're working with the first nations people to do aboriginal tourism. We're moving on a whole bunch of fronts. I think this is to be applauded. I don't think I can say much more about that.

R. Thorpe: It's pretty hard to keep winding out the rhetoric when obviously you don't have a plan. Obviously, if you had a plan you'd say: "We do this; this may happen. We do this; this will happen." You're not able to say that today. Just tell us you did not have a comprehensive plan to support the creation of the 25,000 new full-time jobs.

Hon. I. Waddell: We most certainly did, and we're creating the jobs. I always think the proof of a pudding is in the eating. It's tasting pretty good right now, and we're halfway to our target.

R. Thorpe: Since you did have a plan, would it be possible to get a copy of that plan? When we FOIed it, we couldn't get one. Is there one or isn't there one?

Hon. I. Waddell: I think I've already committed that I would get all the documents from Tourism B.C. to the hon. member.

R. Thorpe: Now Tourism B.C. has the plan that creates the 25,000 new jobs. Is that correct?

Hon. I. Waddell: Yes.

R. Thorpe: We look forward to receiving from Tourism B.C. the plan that creates the 25,000 jobs. With respect to those 25,000 new jobs -- that was the goal -- the announcement you made not too long ago was that we had created 11,600 new jobs and that we're more than halfway to our goal. Can the minister advise how many of those jobs were full-time? Are those all full-time-equivalent jobs, or is it a variety of different jobs? Does the minister have the answer to that question?

Hon. I. Waddell: Perhaps if the member could clarify what he is asking.

R. Thorpe: I'm pleased to help the minister. On April 29, 1998, you issued a release. You, together with the chair of Tourism B.C., commented that 11,600 new jobs were created in tourism and tourism-related businesses. Can the minister advise how many of those. . . ? Were they all full-time jobs in British Columbia?

Hon. I. Waddell: That was released in conjunction with Tourism British Columbia, and as I've said before, it is basically the industry getting together with the government. That was total jobs, so it's a combination.

R. Thorpe: Does the minister know -- or have a rough idea -- how many of those 11,600 jobs were full-time and how many were part-time?

Hon. I. Waddell: We have those figures -- Tourism B.C. and. . . . I don't have it right at my fingertips. I was just trying

[ Page 8401 ]

R. Thorpe: I would appreciate receiving that as quickly as possible, because I think that one of the things that we have. . . .

I'm going to conclude my comments now. I'm looking forward to receiving the business plan from Tourism B.C. on this issue, and I'm looking forward to getting the details on that. Before we move along too quickly, let's just make sure that we've got all the votes covered off. We've done the museum. We've done the special accounts, and I think that's it.

I'd like to thank the minister and his staff for all of their cooperation. I look forward to receiving the information that has been committed.

Hon. I. Waddell: Before I make my motion, I want to thank the critic and the members who took part in the estimates. It's very useful. I haven't done estimates. . . . When I did estimates in Ottawa as a member of the opposition and the chief critic, I had 40 minutes.

I will get back to the member with matters that have been promised. No doubt, we'll continue the debate on some of these issues that came up. I think we all share the fact that we're very lucky to be living in a province that perhaps makes it -- although you've got to make the effort -- easy for doing tourism.

Vote 57 approved.

Vote 58: ministry operations, $72,601,000 -- approved.

Vote 59: Royal British Columbia Museum, $10,794,000 -- approved.

The Chair: If the committee wishes, we'll declare a short recess for about 15 minutes and return at 5:15 p.m.

The committee recessed from 4:56 p.m. to 5:06 p.m.

[E. Gillespie in the chair.]

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS
(continued)

G. Wilson: I know the minister is keen to have me up first this evening. I want to ask some questions specifically with respect to municipal restructuring. I have some fairly general questions, and then I have some very specific questions with respect to the restructuring studies that have been underway in my own riding.

First of all, I know the minister is familiar with this because of her time on council in Vancouver, and I know that she's also well aware of how contentious the issue of restructuring can be in certain communities. A number of propositions are coming forward now with respect to municipal restructuring, particularly in light of the proposed amendments to the Municipal Act, some of which were tabled today, and the extended powers that will be granted to the municipalities. That is going to provide new impetus, a new drive for certain areas to seek to have municipal boundaries redistributed and realigned.

I wonder if the minister might tell me whether or not, in her ministry today, there is any discussion with respect to guidelines on restructuring and whether or not we are to trying to find a new and more consistent set of guidelines that might be applied municipally, and if so, what they are. Perhaps she might tell me who in her ministry is overseeing municipal restructuring at this point.

Hon. J. Kwan: The staff person within the ministry who heads up restructuring is Derek Trimmer. With respect to the question on guidelines, yes, we do have guidelines in place now. The ministry is always undergoing reviews of those guidelines to see how changes could be made to better enhance these guidelines, especially in light of the Municipal Act changes. We may well be looking at how changes might be applied to these guidelines in relation to the Municipal Act.

Generally speaking, I know that the member well appreciates local issues, the local emphasis and the importance of the local community being involved in having their voice heard on issues around restructuring.

G. Wilson: I must confess, by way of digression, that as I look at the members from the official opposition present, I have a certain amount of melancholy here from. . . .

Interjection.

G. Wilson: Indeed.

Interjection.

G. Wilson: The class of '91 indeed -- when Liberals were really Liberals. However, I am not going to digress that far.

I want to come back to restructuring. Previous ministers have taken the position that municipal restructuring is by and large a positive, if not desirable, event -- that the more we can have clarification with respect to boundaries and the more we can be inclusive within either district municipalities or amended municipal boundaries, the better. The difficulty with that is that increasingly now there are regional districts that are exercising authorities and powers that become more closely tied to district municipalities than to regional districts. Often industry is locating in regional districts, and the industrial tax base which is regionally shared is not going to be if restructuring is in place. I wonder if the ministry, with respect to the triple P that's coming out now. . . . It's going to be very important when we get into public-private partnerships. The expanded powers that municipalities are going to have, the regional districts. . . . I can see that there's going to be a considerable amount of competition with respect to these tax bases that will be established, given the expanded powers that the Municipal Act changes will bring about. I wonder if the minister has given thought to that, particularly in light of restructuring propositions.

Just so the minister is aware of where I'd like to lead to in these questions, we in the southern portion of the Sunshine Coast -- and this is where I'm going to end my discussions -- currently have a very significant movement toward a one-government proposition. However, we do have a large corporate tax base in Port Mellon, and some considerable industrial taxes are generated out of area A because of corporate lands -- mostly from gravel extraction and some of the privately held timberlands.

[ Page 8402 ]

Hon. J. Kwan: Yes, we are taking some of those issues into consideration, particularly through the reform of the Municipal Act next year. The taxation issue is something that we're going to be looking at for the year 1999.

G. Wilson: At the last AVIM the president of UBCM made a representation to the delegates who were there, talking about the need to try and coordinate these amendments with the Municipal Act. One of the problems we face when we're introducing amendments in small parts, rather than doing a whole act. . . . Quite frankly, hon. Chair, my preference would be to actually set aside time in either this session or in a fall session or at some time to deal specifically with Municipal Act amendments, but I'm not sure we're going to get that. In fact, I'm sure we're not going to get that.

[5:15]

The Chair: I'd just like to remind members that the content of current legislation is not for debate in estimates.

Hon. J. Kwan: In terms of a restructuring application, whenever any community is ready to go and puts forward an application to the ministry, we're more than prepared to review the application and to proceed with it. So we're not stopping per se and not processing restructuring applications. In fact, very recently we processed one for Vernon. So from that perspective, we're not putting anything on hold.

G. Wilson: Well, that's good news.

Maybe I could move more specifically, then, to what's going on on the Sunshine Coast. There was a study commissioned and funded through the Ministry of Municipal Affairs for electoral area A, which is Pender Harbour and surrounds. I wonder if the minister might tell us now -- because that study is completed, and I understand that the ministry has a copy of the report -- what the status is of that report and when we can expect to have that for review.

Hon. J. Kwan: The report that the member cites is, I believe, still in draft. It is still going through some community debate. When that report is finalized and submitted to the ministry as a final report, staff will assess it and analyze it and bring forward recommendations for my consideration.

G. Wilson: When the minister says it's still in draft and still undergoing debate, surely that's not within the regional district? I mean, the regional district has, I think, passed it. My understanding is that it's within the ministry, and there's some anticipation that we'll be able to get that report back.

Hon. J. Kwan: It is our understanding that the report is still being debated within the local community -- that is, the local restructuring committee. The report has not yet been finalized. As soon as it is submitted to the ministry as a final report, then staff can do the work that they need to do from our end.

G. Wilson: That's a little puzzling, but I'll leave it there and make some inquiries, because that was not my understanding as recently as a couple of days ago. Okay, let me leave that there.

Let me come, then, to another question in relation to that. With respect to the restructuring proposition on area A, there will be an area that is generally defined or known as Middle Point, which is really not the middle of any point, except that I guess it's midway. . . .

Interjection.

G. Wilson: I didn't catch that; it might be just as well.

It is midway on the peninsula, essentially. My understanding is that it will not be included in the area A distinction because it's not technically in Pender Harbour. It also will not technically be part of area B, which is the regional district. The reason I raise this matter is not so much to try and get the definition of where the boundaries will be; the reason I raise this is because the residents in that area have some serious concerns with respect to two issues. One is fire protection; the second is the matter of water. Regional water does not extend into Middle Point, and there is a very high natural incidence of arsenic in the wells that are drilled in that area. That is now posing both a health hazard and a health consideration. Secondly, it is obviously causing devaluation of properties for people who have had to drill wells.

The difficulty with this is that the longer we delay in making decisions with respect to how we're going to look at a redefined region or a restructuring, the longer we're going to have uncertainty as to whether or not regional water is going to extend through that area. I think that most people would concede -- and certainly Dayton and Knight and others who have done this work would concede -- that that is the solution to the arsenic problem. We are going to have to at some point provide water services into those communities.

I wonder if the minister might tell me if she is aware or her ministry is aware of what happened with respect to the health review that was done and submitted through the regional district to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs with respect to an emergency requisition for funds to be able to extend that water service into Middle Point. Has anything happened with that? Are we likely to see that come about? This is an issue that's obviously of pressing and serious concern to the residents of that community.

Hon. J. Kwan: I will ask staff to check into that situation and perhaps have staff contact the member directly and work through some of the questions the member has on this particular matter.

G. Wilson: I appreciate that, and I look forward to hearing from staff on that matter, because it is an ongoing issue. It's one that is troubling to people who live in that area. Just for the record, I don't anymore. I'm free from my concerns about arsenic, but others aren't. They say it's residual and may catch up with you at any time and that it causes dementia, which may be part of my problem from time to time -- you never know.

[ Page 8403 ]

There are two issues of concern, and I wonder if the minister might just discuss them. One is if that district municipality were to occur, it would cause sort of a doughnut effect with respect to the Sechelt Indian government district. The finalization of the treaty, which I certainly hope can happen soon, will set their traditional territories right in the middle of what might become a larger district municipality. We know the problems associated with the difficulty with the city of Vancouver and the larger district municipality of North Vancouver, and I know there have been a number of commitments made by previous ministers that in the restructuring process, we would not doughnut these kinds of services.

I wonder if the ministry is doing any work in this regard. I know that this is an issue of concern for people who are trying to set up the one-government proposition. I wonder if the minister might tell me whether or not the ministry is prepared to entertain discussions of a restructuring process that would effectively cause that sort of jurisdictional doughnutting.

Hon. J. Kwan: I am sensitive to the issue in terms of the doughnutting effect that the member has identified, but at the same time we don't have a restructuring proposal before us. So it would be difficult for me to comment on the basis of a hypothetical situation that may or may not arise.

G. Wilson: The reason I ask it is not to wade into the area of hypothetical, because I agree that we could spend all day and get nowhere at the end -- which wouldn't be terribly unusual. We've done that in other venues from time to time. However, we should try to avoid that, obviously.

The reason I ask it more specifically is because when the proposals come forward, the proponents are going to want to know whether or not there is policy set down that puts in prohibitions on certain kinds of municipal structures. It has been suggested that there might be a policy that would be detrimental to this restructuring proceeding. The minister might want to think about that and perhaps answer that.

Secondly, I want to know whether or not there is a policy that the Ministry of Municipal Affairs would maintain and protect the major industrial tax base for the region, given that one portion of the Sunshine Coast restructures.

So there are two issues that I'm asking about. Firstly, is there a policy that would prohibit this restructuring from taking place because of the jurisdiction of the Sechelt Indian government district, which is now a bona fide self-government? Secondly, is the ministry prepared to go on the record to say that in any restructuring, Port Mellon -- which is the major industrial tax base -- would have to be regionally shared and would not be isolated into a municipal restructuring in the south?

Hon. J. Kwan: The answer to the first question is no; we currently don't have a prohibitive policy in place. The answer to the second question is that in terms of the taxation base with industrial land in relation to restructuring, we always take into consideration the sensitivity of the issues that arise with it.

G. Wilson: Perhaps the minister doesn't want to get pinned down on this question, and that's fair enough. But one of the major issues for consideration prior to applications coming in for the restructuring of what effectively would be the town of Gibsons, areas F, E, D and B -- C is already gone -- and excluding A, which is Pender Harbour. . . . One of the major considerations is what happens to that tax base, which is now a regional tax base.

[5:30]

So what the vast majority of residents on the Sunshine Coast would like to hear from the minister is that the ministry will not approve and will not allow a restructuring of jurisdictions on the Sunshine Coast that will remove the regional tax base from the area as a whole.

Hon. J. Kwan: I think the member has raised, really, the most difficult issue that needs to be resolved when we're dealing with issues of restructuring, especially when it relates to financing and sharing a tax base. We don't have a policy that says that this is how it's going to be and this is how it would apply for every instance, recognizing that different communities have different needs and that we must engage with the different communities so that we can come up with a formula that would best meet the needs of all the different parties. That's the kind of commitment that I've made, through and through, to different associations when the question of restructuring has been raised. Some of the issues that you have raised are precisely the kind of things that the ministry will need to do in terms of the financial analysis with respect to the issue of restructuring. We have to do a lot of work around that to try to resolve the ability to share that tax base.

G. Wilson: I only have two more questions, then, depending on the answer of the minister. I appreciate what the minister's saying, but under the existing rules. . . . I'm trying to stretch my mind here, to see whether or not they're actually. . . . I don't think it's in the act. I think that they're just the regulations with respect to the rules by which the vote will be taken -- who gets to vote and how the vote is counted. Under the current rules the problem is that where a tax base is in a rural area and that rural area may be part of the overall restructuring process, if you go to a one-person, unweighted vote, those people in the urban area -- where the densities obviously are -- are clearly going to see it to their financial advantage to be able to pull that tax base into their community. That's a given.

The difficulty is that if the study for restructuring says yes, we should go ahead, and if everybody seems to think that there's a proposition for that to occur, but you've got a rather dispersed population -- by virtue, in our case, of this long,

[ Page 8404 ]

Hon. J. Kwan: Would you?

G. Wilson: The minister asks: would I? Probably not, because in my case, I think that it's important that the tax base remain regional. I don't know how you're going to do that through democratic process. As much as I'm a strong democrat and believe in one person, one vote and all of those sorts of things, I can tell you that if you go that route, that tax base is not going to be shared. I wonder how the minister handles that.

Hon. J. Kwan: Within the powers of the minister I have a lot of discretion in terms of exercising the authority on how to count the votes -- or, under different circumstances, how I would deem that the democratic rights of the individuals are best protected. From that perspective, as an example, if you know that a smaller community is going to be outvoted by another area of a community through the restructuring, and if you take the majority vote, that smaller community is going to lose no matter what, then perhaps that's not a fair way of counting the votes. Maybe the requirement would be that each of those smaller communities would also have to have a majority, notwithstanding what the larger majority may say. That's one option that we can look at. Those are the kinds of things that I would take into consideration in each of the individual cases when we deal with restructuring, to ensure that the voices of the individual communities are best protected and are also heard, knowing that there might be imbalances just by the very nature of the population base.

G. Wilson: I have a very brief comment and then one last question. The comment is this: I would strongly urge the minister, when considering the restructuring proposals on the Sunshine Coast, to set the ground rules very early -- that the ministry, in the interest of all the people on the Sunshine Coast, will not entertain a restructuring proposal that does not have as a component of that proposal a regional share of the industrial tax base. If we don't set those ground rules early, I can tell you it's going to become a very bitter, very divisive fight. I know that because I've been there before. In the previous attempt by Gibsons to restructure, it became a very, very ugly, divisive fight in the community. We really don't need that. We've got enough other things to fight about. So my comment would be that.

Secondly is to advise that with respect to the restructuring propositions on the Sunshine Coast, because of the Pender Harbour study -- which is funded by this ministry and which, hopefully, I'm going to hear something from your ministry on fairly shortly as to where we're at, and I'll check out what's going on from my end -- the people of Pender Harbour won't even have a vote. So it's not even counting and waiting and distributing the vote by majority, or whatever; the fact is that there's going to be one whole portion of the region that currently benefits from that regional tax base that won't even vote. I don't know that all of them fully comprehend. Some of them might, but I don't think they all fully comprehend what it means if they lose that tax base. Frankly, this is an area that has limited services. It has a water system, but there are some significant long-term problems in that area because of its terrain, the distribution of its population and all sorts of things.

My final question on this matter is: could I get a commitment from the minister that prior to the entertaining of any restructuring propositions, the matter of the regional tax base be thoroughly canvassed and discussed and an agreement reached by all elected representatives at the local level and not simply by those people who are advocating for the restructuring?

Hon. J. Kwan: Yes, I will take into consideration the issues that the member has raised. It is an important issue when we talk about the financing tax base of a particular area as it relates to restructuring. Keeping in mind that we may not always get agreement, those are important issues for consideration when we deal with the restructuring matter.

J. Dalton: I just have a few questions on the audiobook program. I think we can get those in before the very important adjournment. Of course, it's press gallery night, as we all know.

The minister released on April 22 an announcement for the audiobook funding for the '98 budget year. She says she has allocated $300,000 to the audiobook program in the '98-99 budget. Can the minister advise us as to the breakdown of where this $300,000 is spent?

Hon. J. Kwan: Generally speaking, the breakdown goes into three different categories. There are the professional contractors who do the audiobooks work. There are the supplies in terms of the tapes, the cassettes, etc. Then there's a small component that goes to salaries for the people who package the audiobook materials.

J. Dalton: I don't think we're going to have time before the adjournment to get into some of the breakout of the details -- where the figures lie in each of those three -- but maybe the minister and her officials can note that for tomorrow. We can follow that up.

Specifically, I know the minister has had correspondence from people like Pat Barlow. Certainly I and my colleagues have. Soon after the minister's release of April 22, I received a letter from Pat Barlow, who resides in North Vancouver and is a very passionate advocate for the audiobook program, as I know the minister and her officials are aware -- particularly for those such as one of my constituents, Elizabeth Nash, who is blind. I had a very pleasant visit from her one day in my constituency office. She came in, and she had her guide dog with her. We sat down and had a chat. Of course, she and many others expressed concern about the cut to the funding.

Now, on April 28, just six days after the release, after Pat Barlow saw this release from the ministry, she said: "Well, wait a minute. This isn't quite accurate." In fact, she was talking about the narrators. That, of course, as the minister has said, is part of the professional contracts -- part of this $300,000

[ Page 8405 ]

[5:45]

Hon. J. Kwan: I don't have the letter before me, but I do recall some of the issues that have been identified with respect to the audiobook program. A lot of people were concerned when, through last year's budget, the narrator component of the budget was reduced, essentially, by half. Last year the dollars that were taken out of the narrators component were supplemented by donations. Specifically, there was one significant donation that came through, and all of those dollars were designated for the narrators program.

This is my commitment with respect to the audiobook program. Generally, each year and for the last -- I don't know -- five or six years or so, the output of audiobooks has been maintained at around 200 each year, I believe. What I've committed is that we will maintain the same number of outputs in terms of newly produced audiobooks. In other words, if we're able to find savings within the budget, out of the narrators program or otherwise, I would be happy to do that, provided that we maintain the same number in output in terms of newly recorded audiobooks.

Within the ministry, for the member's information as well -- and a lot of people actually don't know this -- we embark on a number of activities in trying to enhance the audiobook program. One is that we produce these books in British Columbia and then sell them elsewhere. All the revenue that comes back into the program actually goes back into the production of audiobooks. There are some other mechanisms, possibly, by which we can perhaps produce audiobooks at a cheaper rate, therefore reducing costs and at the same time maintaining the audiobook output.

Noting the time, hon. Chair, unless the member opposite has one other quick question on the issues of audiobooks. . . .

Interjection.

Hon. J. Kwan: You're fine? Okay.

Noting the time, I move that the committee rise, report progress and. . . .

Interjection.

Hon. J. Kwan: Oh, sorry. That's right. You finished earlier today, and you actually had a resolution. Pardon me.

I move that the committee rise, report resolution and completion of the Ministry of Small Business, Tourism and Culture, report progress on the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:49 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1998: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada