2000 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 36th Parliament
HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes
only.
The printed version remains the official version.
(Hansard)
MONDAY, JUNE 12, 2000
Afternoon Sitting
Volume 20, Number 9
[ Page 16421 ]
The House met at 2:08 p.m.
Prayers.
Hon. S. Hammell: June 11 to 17 has been proclaimed Public Service Week in British Columbia and in Canada. It's an opportunity for all of us to recognize and celebrate the hard work and dedication of our employees. To mark this occasion, it is my pleasure today to introduce Valerie Mitchell, the new commissioner of the Public Service Employees Relations Commission. Val, who has a master's degree in public administration, joined the B.C. public service in 1975. It will be my great pleasure later this year to present her with a 25-year pin. Val has served as Deputy Minister of Education, Women's Equality, and Community Development, Cooperatives and Volunteers, and she is also currently Deputy Minister of Multiculturalism and Immigration. Would the House please make her welcome.
L. Reid: I have two guests in the gallery today. First, we have Lynne Dyson. Lynne is the director of child and family services for the Developmental Disabilities Association. She is joined by Karen Larson, the assistant director for preschool day care. I would ask the House to please make them very, very welcome.
[1410]
V. Anderson: I'd like, on behalf of myself and the member for Alberni, to advise the House that tomorrow at a quarter to two -- 1:45 -- the players and the 1947 Hayes logging truck will be out in front of the Legislature for them to learn about the historical McLean Mill. If they want to see it earlier, they can go to the museum between 12 and one. I'd be delighted if the House would welcome them as they come here.
Hon. I. Waddell: I have two groups to welcome. Visiting the House today is Kelly Mann, the president and CEO of B.C. Games Society. B.C. Games is responsible for coordinating with the host communities the events that showcase the athletes of the province: the Northern B.C. Winter Games, the Summer Games, the Winter Games, the Disability Games and the Seniors Games. The Summer Games this year will open right here in Victoria on July 27, and I know we're all looking forward to them. Would the House please make Kelly Mann welcome.
Also visiting in the gallery are two of my ministerial assistant's relatives: Anna Russell from Vancouver and Samuel Russell from a great place -- that small dusty village, Glasgow, Scotland. Would the House please make them welcome.
K. Whittred: In the gallery today are 56 grades 5 and 6 students from Mulgrave School. With them is their teacher, Ms. Neil, and several parents. Would the House join me in making them welcome.
K. Krueger: Visiting the House for the first time today is a friend of one of our highly prized interns, Jennifer Erickson. He's a young man named Mr. Joshua Weiss, a Kamloops resident and UBC theatre student. I think most of us who know and love this chamber would agree that if the young man wants to see some theatre, he has come to the right place. I ask that the House make him welcome.
G. Hogg: Visiting the Legislature today are 75 grades 6 and 7 students from H.T. Thrift Elementary School in South Surrey, along with their principal, Graham Mulligan; teacher, Lewis McKim; and legendary student, Whitney Buhlin. Would the House please make them all welcome.
L. Boone: You know, hon. Speaker, I've never been one to spread a rumour, and I really don't like to do that. But I did hear a rumour going around the corridors of this building that it's your birthday today. I think that for a man of 32, you look incredibly good, but you have gained a few grey hairs since taking over this chair. I'm sure that everybody in this House would join me in wishing our Speaker a very happy birthday.
R. Thorpe: If one's birthday is today, your horoscope states: "You are optimistic and like to assume that life will serve you well."
Well, hon. Speaker, besides yourself there is someone else in this House today who is celebrating a birthday. That individual has served British Columbians and his constituents well for 15 years. So with pleasure, I extend very best wishes to the member for Peace River South for a very happy sixtieth birthday. May good health and happiness be yours.
The Speaker: Thank you, members. I can safely say it's been a great day so far.
Introduction of Bills
DEFINITION OF SPOUSE
AMENDMENT ACT, 2000
Hon. A. Petter presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Definition of Spouse Amendment Act, 2000.
Hon. A. Petter: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.
Motion approved.
[1415]
Hon. A. Petter: I'm pleased to introduce the Definition of Spouse Amendment Act, 2000. This bill amends a number of British Columbia statutes to extend the rights and obligations of common-law couples to same-sex couples. In particular, the bill amends the definition of spouse in those statutes that already apply to common-law relationships, so that same-sex relationships are also included, and builds on earlier legislative enactments that were brought forward to achieve the same objective.
For example, amendments to several statutes will permit same-sex spouses to own shares in professional corporations, where previously they were unable to do so. These changes affect land surveyors, chiropractors, health professionals, notaries and others. Similar changes enhance the rights of same-sex spouses regarding the transfer of licences under the Range Act.
[ Page 16422 ]
The bill also amends statutes with conflict-of-interest provisions to ensure that they apply equally to common-law and same-sex relationships. The amendments represent an initial step in extending the conflict-of-interest prohibitions to same-sex couples as they now apply to common-law couples.
Finally, the bill amends the wording of statutes that already refer to all three types of spouse to ensure that a consistent definition is used throughout British Columbia legislation.
I am pleased to introduce this bill, which continues this government's policy of updating British Columbia's laws to provide for equality without regard to sexual orientation. I move the bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
Bill 21 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
DRAAYERS FOSTER CARE CASE
L. Reid: Last Monday the Minister for Children and Families told us that today we would have an answer on the Draayers case. In fact, she assured us over five times and in fact pleaded with us to be patient. Then the Premier told us we would have a decision today. Would the minister tell us today why she has promised that a decision would be available, and as of 2 o'clock, we have heard nothing?
Hon. G. Mann Brewin: I appreciate the question from the hon. member,
and of course it's a totally legitimate question. My response is that the
director is finalizing his report. I understand it will be released this
afternoon, and I understand that he is likely to also make a media statement
this afternoon, after he has released it to
The Speaker: The hon. member for Richmond East with a supplemental question.
L. Reid: The minister gave us her assurance that these little girls would know today where they are going to live. The girls probably woke up today thinking, "Today's the day" -- that they'd finally waited long enough. Will this minister assure us today that by the close of business, those two little girls will know where they will live?
Hon. G. Mann Brewin: I would have to say that I cannot give that
response, other than
C. Clark: A week ago the minister stood up in this House, and she was able to tell us when those girls were going to know when they were going to go home. A week ago she could stand up and make the promise that today those girls would know when they were going to go home or where they were going to go -- today. So if it was good enough a week ago for the minister to stand up and tell this House that, why can't she stand up today and keep her commitment and tell us if those little girls are going to know what their future holds for them tomorrow?
[1420]
Hon. G. Mann Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I can only repeat the point that I made just two seconds ago, and that is that the report will be sent to the commissioner this afternoon. As members know, that is the process -- to the commissioner this afternoon. A statement will be made, and the girls are going to be having a conversation with representatives from the ministry this afternoon about that report.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain has a supplemental question.
C. Clark: This minister stood up in the House a week ago, and she has stood up repeatedly and promised that she would have an answer for those girls today. She said she would let those girls know what was happening with their future today. And if that report comes out and it has no answer for those little girls' future, what good is it? This minister stood up, and she said she would let those girls know what was happening with their future today. So why can't she stand up and keep her promise to those little girls and tell them what's going to be happening when this minister's report comes out this afternoon?
Hon. G. Mann Brewin: The last time I looked, today isn't over yet. It's regrettable that it's not here for now, because I'd have been happy to have responded with it and about it in this chamber at this time. But that's not to be the case. That is unfortunate, but this is the situation. It will be out this afternoon, and that's still part of today when last I looked.
EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS BRANCH
COMPLAINTS BACKLOG
K. Krueger: Last year in estimates the then Labour minister admitted that the employment standards branch was taking up to 13 weeks just to open a new file for new complaints -- not to start working on it but just to get it open -- 13 weeks. And he said that was a worst-case scenario at the time.
We now have a document from the Labour ministry showing that one year later, the wait time is getting much worse. It has now increased to 30 weeks in the Vancouver area -- 30 weeks just to open the file. Can the Labour minister explain why the backlog of employment standards complaints is increasing throughout the province?
Hon. J. MacPhail: I hope that my critic opposite is joining to say that this is unacceptable, as do I find it unacceptable. But we will be able to discuss this in estimates, because this year the budget for the employment standards branch was raised by $1 million in order to deal with the backlog. There will be a report out during estimates for the member opposite about how the backlog is decreasing.
We've also
[ Page 16423 ]
standards legislation advising people of what action is available to both employers and employees. But this budget brought in in the year 2000 has increased the budget, and that's specifically to deal with the backlog in employment standards complaints.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Kamloops-North Thompson has a supplemental question.
K. Krueger: You bet, hon. Speaker. The opposition agrees that this is totally unacceptable. Thirteen weeks was unacceptable last year; 30 weeks as an NDP accomplishment for this year is totally unacceptable as well. And we wonder why workers aren't a priority with this government and why they weren't a priority prior to this budget.
Interjections.
K. Krueger: Let me provide the minister with an example of the kind of frustration that employees are facing all over B.C., including the areas of the many members opposite that are heckling. This is a serious matter. The backlog to begin investigating employment standards complaints in Nanaimo is 27 weeks; the backlog in Prince George is 27 weeks; the backlog in Victoria is 23 weeks. So can the Labour minister tell us what on earth workers are supposed to do for seven to eight months while they're waiting to get a return phone call from the employment standards branch?
[1425]
Hon. J. MacPhail: Well, hon. Speaker, I actually thought the first question meant that we weren't going to engage in silly partisan politics; but clearly we're wrong. It is unbelievable that this particular member, the member for Kamloops-North Thompson, would stand up here under the guise of supporting the rights of workers when he is clearly on record, as are the rest of the members opposite, for not caring a whit about workers' rights. In fact, they would do away with employment standards. They would prefer to have no waiting period, because they would prefer to not have any rights or protections for workers under that. That's how they'd get rid of the waiting period, hon. Speaker.
And further to that, even if they did have some diluted form of employment standards -- on which they campaign regularly and often with the business community in their giveaways to the business community -- they would not have any enforcement of it either. On this side of the House, we've invested more money in employment standards. We've made administrative changes so that there's quicker and easier processing of the claims. Employment standards have also been greatly strengthened under this government -- one more reason to keep the new government in office.
COST OF USING CFI MARKETING ARM
TO SELL FAST FERRIES
M. de Jong: Well, having obviously solved all of the problems over at the Labour ministry, let's have a look at the other aspect of the minister's responsibilities. Let's go back to fast ferries, shall we? From day one, when this whole ferry fiasco began, the NDP touted the business development arm of Catamaran Ferries International as the agency that was going to sell fast ferries all over the world. Well, now we hear that Oksana Exell and her marketing experts are out looking for work while the government hires its own outside consultants to sell the ferries.
So the first question to the minister is: will she confirm that the government, the NDP, spent $3 million -- wasted $3 million -- on the failed marketing arm of CFI?
Hon. J. MacPhail: I don't know the exact figure, but I'm not going to deny the exact figure that the hon. member says. But I'll make sure that it gets accurate.
But let me just say that the wind-down of Catamaran Ferries International was announced when the Minister of Finance and I announced putting the Ferry Corporation in a solvent position and also announced the sale of the fast ferries.
Interjections.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Oksana Exell represented the marketing strategy for the technology of fast ferries, of the Pacificats. Given the decision by this government to not build any more fast ferries, it made sense to wind down CFI. We have since chosen a marketing company with worldwide experience not only in building fast ferries but in selling them -- a perfect combination.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Matsqui has a supplemental question.
M. de Jong: I'm sure the minister and the government would like to turn the page on this unseemly chapter in their history as government.
But you know, the glossy brochures are quite something, and they were all
produced by CFI. It's really not surprising, when you look at them, why there
weren't any sales, because they're full of misinformation. The brochures state
that the light-load speed was 44 knots -- it didn't quite get there -- and that
wake and wash were going to be less than expected. Well, the opposite was true.
And on one of the smaller design models, the capacity for the vehicle -- wait
for it, Mr. Speaker -- was listed as 10,000 passengers. Now, what would that do
for
An Hon. Member: Wait lines.
M. de Jong:
Look, I actually thought about going to the Ministry of consumer and corporate affairs to ask about false advertising, but let's go to the minister and ask her to explain and confirm that it's no wonder that CFI's marketing arm didn't sell any ferries. Just like the entire project, they weren't telling the truth. They couldn't even get their sales brochures correct.
HELICOPTER TOURISM
LICENCE APPLICATIONS
T. Nebbeling: Six years ago, Mr. Speaker, Blackcomb Helicopters, a small helicopter operation in the Sea to Sky corridor, applied for a licence to enter onto BCAL lands to bring sightseers and hikers into remote areas in this province. Well, during those six years Blackcomb Helicopters has seen nothing but requests for studies, moratoriums and policy
[ Page 16424 ]
reviews, but no licence. So my question is to the minister responsible for BCAL. The question is this: how many more studies are going to be necessary before this small helicopter operator is going to get a licence that will finally grant him access to Crown land?
[1430]
Hon. C. Evans: I don't know the answer to that particular application. I'll take it on notice and get back to you.
The Speaker: The member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi has a new question.
T. Nebbeling: Yes. This is a different company. This is a company that has been in operation for 25 years in the Sea to Sky corridor also providing helicopter service for tourists. With the introduction of the new back-country policies, the ministry decided that this company had to cease and desist, lay off all their employees -- regardless of the millions of dollars of investment they had in helicopters -- until such time that an application could be considered for doing exactly what this company has done for 25 years. Can the minister responsible for BCAL explain to me how, first of all, an operation of 25 years is basically told to cease and desist and then has to wait two years before they even get the response for further consideration?
Hon. C. Evans: I find it somewhat amazing. I went to estimates, and I brought the CEO of BCAL. We went through applications one by one. Hon. Speaker, it may not surprise you to know that this hon. gentleman never stood up and asked those questions when we had the staff in the room, when we could have got him a specific answer. I actually don't think the hon. member cares about the answer to that specific question, or he'd have gone to estimates and asked.
I am incredibly proud of BCAL's actions in the last 60 days. For the first time, the Ministry of Environment and the B.C. Assets and Land Corporation are working from the same page. We signed an agreement that there will be helicopter skiing and helicopter tourism where the Ministry of Environment says there is no damage to grizzly bears, mountain goats or mountain caribou. That's responsible action. If the hon. member even cared, he'd have gone to the meeting, where he could have asked the question and got the answer.
The Speaker: The bell ends question period.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, members.
Orders of the Day
Hon. D. Lovick: I guess I should wait for the opposition to chill out after a stressful weekend or something.
In this House, I want to call second reading on Bill 20. In the small chamber, I want to call Committee of Supply. We are debating the estimates of the Ministry of Small Business, Tourism and Culture.
[1435]
MOTOR VEHICLE AMENDMENT ACT, 2000
Hon. J. MacPhail: I move second reading of Bill 20, the Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2000 to allow for the introduction of motor-assisted cycles. As you know, June is Bike Month. Last week people celebrated Bike to Work Week. For a few days of the year, anyway, people who normally take their cars to work experience for themselves the joy of biking to work. It meant an easier pace and less frustration for hundreds of commuters who so often must navigate streets and roads clogged with larger passenger vehicles.
We believe that encouraging people to use motor-assisted cycles will add to the pleasure that people experience while riding ordinary bicycles. It encourages more people to get fit by offering them a reprieve from the fatigue of pedalling. It also provides a potential benefit to B.C.'s cycling retail industry. What this legislation provides for is the elimination of registration requirements for motor-assisted cycles. We hope that will encourage more people to take advantage of a new mode of transportation. That, in turn, promotes growth for bicycle retailers. The amendment also makes it easier for people to take advantage of an increasingly popular mode of transportation while maintaining strict safety standards.
While I would like to say that we're the first jurisdiction to introduce motor-assisted cycles as being classified as a bicycle rather than a motorcycle, unfortunately, I can't claim this. It will please the opposition to know that the bastion of Alberta already allows motor-assisted cycles to be on the road as bicycles, as do the states of Washington and California. The legislation provides for regulation which will restrict the type of motor and the power of the motor in order for a bicycle to be classified as a motor-assisted cycle and therefore be exempt from the licensing registration of it being a motor vehicle.
This is good news for people, particularly older people, who want to ride a bicycle but, unfortunately, due to the geography or the terrain of a certain area, can't make the commute to work. This will allow, on the basis of human power, for a motor to kick in on a bicycle and allow that person then to revert to human power. The cycle has to have pedals on it so that there won't be any question about what is a bicycle, etc. Pretty much everything has been covered off. It's wonderful news in this month of Bike Month, and last week was Environment Week. The combination really is good news. It's a step forward for people in British Columbia, and I look forward to all members of the House taking this issue up in support.
D. Jarvis: In response to the minister, I hope she wasn't making that face at me. In any event, we are not too concerned with this bill and the way it's been presented. We all enjoy biking; I bike as much as I can. However, I don't seem to be propelled forward; I usually sit on it in my basement, pedalling my bike; it's the same type of vehicle, having a pedal and a crank. And if I do hit anyone, I won't be affected by the $250 CRC, the crash charge that the minister's ICBC has.
However, there are a couple of small concerns that aren't really of too much
importance -- I hope not, anyway -- and that is to deal with the fact that this
bill pertains to cycles that can be motorized. One that was brought to my
attention by one of my colleagues was the fact that it was
[ Page 16425 ]
motor, then we're looking forward to seeing a situation where they have, you know, talked about environmentally unfriendly vehicles, because they discharge a lot of smoke and all the rest of it, and we'd be like another one of the Third World countries.
Other than that, I assume that it does not apply to motorized scooters. There was another question brought up which I think this does not include, and that is with regards to the present problem that's coming up in the future with motorized skateboards. If you weren't aware of it, that is the latest rage right now. That is ostensibly some type of a cycle.
[1440]
The last thing I had to question of the minister was the fact that the
requirements of licensing under this
So having said that, unless the minister can confirm that my concerns wouldn't be any problem, then we are more in favour of accepting this bill as presented.
Hon. J. Sawicki: I want to say that I rise to speak in support of this bill with a very personal interest in it as well, since this was something that I have been trying to get before this Legislature for several years now. I want to just talk a little bit. I will address in my comments some of the hon. member's questions.
As the minister has said, this is simply removing a barrier that has existed in the Motor Vehicle Act for people who choose to ride their bicycles and may wish to strap on one of those velcro battery packs that are freely available, certainly across the line in the United States. They are even available in some of the bike stores in Victoria and the lower mainland. But as is often the case, there are unintended barriers to buying these packages. Theoretically, until this House passes the bill, it would be illegal to put one of those on your bicycle without then going and getting a licence, and taillights, insurance, etc.
I want to tell hon. members just how I came to be a great fan of this small but, I think, very significant change. I want to mention someone by name, who called me, I guess, about three or four years ago. His name is Brian Dietrich. He works as a staff person for B.C. Hydro. He knew about my environment bent, and he said -- my name, of course, which I can't repeat in this House right now -- "surely, with all of the legislation that we pass in this province, we can find a way to fix this."
Hon. Speaker, I thought it would be a matter of a month or two when I could find a way through a policy or a regulation change to remove this barrier to a motor-assisted cycle. Well, here it is four years later. I think several cabinet ministers who have had responsibility for ICBC have been badgered by me many, many times. I am very pleased to see that it's here in front of us.
The thing is, however -- and the hon. minister has mentioned -- that we are acting ahead of other provinces. But I do want to say that the technology around transportation, the alternative to the private automobile, is changing so quickly that I have no doubt that by the time we actually consult on the regulations that will go with this piece of legislation, there will be several more small technology kits on the market, and we will have to decide just how far we want to extend the regulation that goes with this legislation. I can assure the hon. member for North Vancouver-Seymour that there is no intent in this piece of legislation to allow two-stroke engines or to go into the whole internal combustion kind of moped or anything else.
[1445]
One of the goals, one of the benefits, of this piece of legislation is to clean up the air, avoid the use of fossil fuels and provide a viable, alternate transportation form not only for recreational purposes but for the growing number of people who actually would commute to work -- except that, perhaps from either a physical perspective or a fitness perspective or an age perspective, they just feel that they can't quite handle the bicycle on their own.
I include myself in that category. Just this weekend I was very pleased to open another section of the north-south bike route in my own community of Burnaby. It happens to be the one that connects my house, and I could ride it up to my community office. However, there is a rather steep hill. I just have sort of a 10-year-old, 10-speed bicycle, and I find that I can't quite handle that. But with this piece of legislation, attaching that small Velcro battery pack on that bicycle would actually make it viable for me to commute to my constituency office, which I would be very, very happy to do.
Some of the other benefits that this small innovative change would bring
about -- and the hon. minister mentioned this
So I think that there are many opportunities here. This is only one of the first kinds of innovation changes that we need to make to the Motor Vehicle Act. I know Transport Canada is working very hard on how they're going to accommodate the new technologies, whether hybrid-fuel vehicles or Ballard fuel cell vehicles. The fact is that with the growing awareness of greenhouse gases and climate change, we need -- especially in urban areas -- to reduce traffic congestion and to find much more environmentally friendly ways to move people. The step we are discussing this afternoon, today, in this Legislature is one small step, but it is an indication of a direction that we need to go to make sure that we remove the barriers to doing that.
With that, I hope that hon. members in the House will support this small amendment. I know that when we get through this bill and it receives royal assent -- which I dearly hope it will -- I have a file this thick in my office. I'm going to be able to contact people, and there are going to be a lot of people who are going to be very happy about this small but very practical change that government can make to accommodate environmentally friendly transportation.
Thank you. I'm pleased to support this bill.
D. Symons: I rise to speak on second reading of this particular bill as well. I just have a few questions, more than
[ Page 16426 ]
comments, relating to the bill. I hear some terms used, and I would gather that there is a distinction between "motor" and "engine." The previous speaker indicated that we were dealing with battery packs. I assume that when you say "motor," then, that means it is electric power only. So I will be looking and probably asking these questions throughout the committee stage of the bill.
My concern also, however, is liability. I have concerns now with bicyclists and also with this particular one that's going to have motorized cycles on the roadway. In the event that somebody sideswipes your car or scratches along it, the expense can be considerable to have a car painted nowadays. Where is the liability going to come from and how are we going to manage to cover that?
I'm sure that if you go into ICBC and just say, "Somebody went along the side of my car," they'll say, "Have you any witnesses? Have you a licence plate number, some way we can identify the person who damaged your car?" And there is some way of then following through on that claim. Indeed, in this case that may not be the case.
So I think these are issues that will have to be addressed. They're going to come up sometime in the future if not when we discuss the bill. When the bill becomes law, certainly it's going to come up in the public domain as the consequences of these particular circumstances may occur. So it's something I just want us to be aware of, to consider. Maybe you'll have some answers for us during the committee stage.
[1450]
Hon. A. Petter: Well, I can't possible allow legislation affecting bicycles to pass without offering a few supportive comments. The minister responsible for ICBC referenced in introducing the bill that last week was Bike to Work Week. It was also a very proud week for us in Greater Victoria, because we were declared the bicycle capital of Canada -- by official provincial proclamation, no less -- based on the fact that 5 percent of all residents in Greater Victoria cycle to and from work, more than 2.5 times our nearest competitor, which is that other capital city back east known as Ottawa.
I've just heard today that the numbers of people who participated in Bike to Work Week in Victoria was higher than it has ever been in the past, and that, in this community at least, there is a huge commitment to alternative transportation -- in particular, bicycle transportation -- that has started to materialize in recent years and is building. And that rate of usage of bicycle commuters in Victoria almost matches -- not quite, but close -- the number of people who use public transit, so it's a very significant alternative form of transportation.
The whole mission of Bike to Work Week is to try to broaden that circle and try to encourage more people, more individuals, to use bicycles as an alternative -- either to commute to work or for recreational opportunities -- and by doing that enhance a cleaner environment and cleaner air, encourage people to become healthier through the exercise and get more people to enjoy the experience of cycling to and from work and cycling for recreation.
What this legislation does is enable that circle to broaden further. I must say, when I first heard about the legislation, I was a little concerned. It refers to motor-assisted bicycles, and one worries, under those circumstances: "What is this going to mean? Are these going to be large, noisy or intrusive motors that assist these cycles?" I've been reassured that in fact they are not. They're quiet; they're small. But they can make the difference for people who are elderly, for people who may have a disability, for people who are frail for one reason or another. It can make the difference between being able to bicycle and not being able to bicycle.
It seems to me that if we can -- in an environmentally friendly, non-intrusive way -- broaden the opportunities for cycling to a whole new category of users, then that is a very positive step indeed, and I expect that one of the results here in Greater Victoria is that we will see those numbers rise beyond the extraordinary level of cycling that already occurs.
Beyond that, cycling is becoming more and more an alternative right across
the province. So if I could speak a little less parochially
An Hon. Member: He didn't actually bike, but he was wearing a shirt.
Hon. A. Petter: No, I think he actually got on his bicycle too -- perhaps just to justify getting the T-shirt, but nonetheless, he actually got on his bicycle as well. He, I think, epitomizes a change in the whole mentality of transportation in this province within the provincial government and beyond.
Those grants have gone a long way to add bicycle infrastructure and bicycle lanes on roadways throughout the province. In addition, the Transportation Financing Authority has committed $5 million to the Trans Canada Trail development right across southern British Columbia -- a magnificent project from sea to sea, right across Canada, that unites this country. That investment will assist in the development of that trail.
Recently advisory committees have been set up by the Minister of Transportation and Highways to give advice on how to integrate bicycle infrastructure into highway design. Just a few years ago, I had to fight, along with other local MLAs, to convince Transportation and Highways to have a bicycle lane in the McKenzie interchange and along the Trans Canada Trail. Now not only are they willing to do that, but they have an advisory committee made up of cyclists to assist them in doing that.
Last week a new brochure on bicycle safety was put out, sponsored in part by the provincial government. Through the B.C. 2000 program, a number of projects to enhance bicycle infrastructure have been supported.
[1455]
So this legislation is a small but significant part of a much larger development not only in greater Victoria, where I have the pleasure of pursuing my own bicycle interests, but right across the province. I hope it will send a signal that bicycling is an alternative for people of all ages and all walks of life and even people who may suffer from disabilities and others, for whom these motor-assisted cycles can provide the opportunity to enjoy the experience that so many are starting to enjoy more and more each day.
[ Page 16427 ]
For that reason, I am delighted to say that I will be supporting this legislation, and I encourage all other members to do so as well.
Hon. G. Wilson: I had originally not intended to speak to Bill 20, although I certainly am very supportive and pleased with it. Listening to the debate, I think there is one aspect of this bill that we need to reflect on. It deals with more than just the provision of motor-assisted cycling for those who may need some assistance in moving their bicycle because of whatever, as the Attorney General has just mentioned. It speaks more to what I think we, as British Columbians and Canadians, need to start to focus on in a broader context. Often a small and somewhat insignificant bill such as this may go by unnoticed. Some might even smile and think it's humorous that it should in fact enjoy a bill all of its own, when issues far more fundamental and perhaps far more important are covered in miscellaneous bills.
What is interesting about this particular bill is that it sends a signal, I think, with respect to the commitment that this government is making to try wherever possible, to remove the obstacles toward a general shift in local -- and I stress local -- transportation.
One of the things in this ministry, the Ministry of Employment and Investment, that we are facing -- and it's something that I think is interesting -- is the extent to which, on the global marketplace now, this notion of the amount of carbon emissions into the atmosphere is becoming a more fundamental part of, or component, with respect to trade and trade agreements. The single greatest contributor, more so in the developing world than in our own country, is local transportation, particularly the use of two-stroke engines.
The member for North Vancouver-Seymour asked the question as to whether or not we were dealing with two-stroke engines here. In fact, we're not -- quite the contrary. We're moving to small, environmentally friendly, unobtrusive, often electric engines, which are electrically charged through the actual pedalling of the bike itself. Although the bill isn't clear on that, that in effect is what we're doing. Much as people will remember, who remember the old generators bicycles had that ran the little electric lights so that as you ran it, it would generate enough to be able to run the electric light, so you could see if you were pedalling in the dark.
The interesting thing about this is that when we start to look at trade
agreements now, the whole notion of carbon balance is becoming a very important
consideration. It is interesting when we look at the shift, or the attempted
shift, to get people out of their cars in the lower mainland and into transit.
If we look at the amount of money that we are starting to put into the
renovation of facilities such as the first crossing of the Lions Gate Bridge and
the controversy that surrounds local neighbourhoods around whether we should
have three or four lanes in Stanley Park and whether we should have cycle lanes
and so on
Just to show you how important this is, we start to look at new and expanding technologies beyond the technology that allows for motor-assisted bicycles, and that is in the development of fuel cell technology in particular. I had the occasion the other evening to have dinner with the individual, Mr. Tsang, who is the senior administrator of Hong Kong. He talked about the issues they had associated with air pollution in that small community. Anybody who has ever been to Singapore -- or if you've been to Thailand or Indonesia generally -- will know that in the urban areas, one of the single greatest difficulties is breathing the air. The reason is because of the high use of diesel, two-stroke engines and automobile and gasoline engines.
[1500]
In British Columbia we tend to find that less a problem, because we don't see it. But that doesn't mean that we're not becoming contributors. It is interesting that when we start to talk about our trade agreements, more and more of the discussion that is taking place at the international level now is: what is Canada doing on the national level and what are we doing on the provincial level to try to mitigate net increases in carbon emission? What we do find is that Canada is in fact becoming a world leader with respect to initiatives, and most of that is actually coming out of the province of British Columbia.
Just to put it into perspective, again, I don't want to overstate the importance of this particular bill in finding a solution, but I think it does speak to an issue that all British Columbians are going to have to address in future years, regardless of who may form government and be governing. The fact is that the government of the day in the next five to ten years is going to have to make a decision around what we are going to do in the net balance, in terms of credit and debit on the carbon side. Our forests are deemed to be carbon sinks and therefore give us huge credits because they are able to absorb carbon from the atmosphere, as opposed to the industrial heartland which in fact is a net carbon contributor. It is therefore going to become, on the national level, far more attractive for them to suggest that we in British Columbia take the lead and in taking the lead, not only that we look to reduce our emissions through initiatives such as we see in this bill here, in Bill 20, but that we also, in trying to take those initiatives, take the lead on the broader scale with respect to the carbon sink initiative.
That has its benefits, but it also has it costs. The costs associated
obviously will impact on smaller rural communities. It is interesting that while
this is in itself a bill that largely, I think, can go by -- and it can go by
with little fanfare -- it points the way to a shift away from the use of private
automobiles, a shift away from two-stroke engines and the movement toward
voluntary
We know that in some jurisdictions those actions are no longer voluntary, but in fact those actions have been legislated. It provides us a tremendous opportunity for people who want to get into the business side of motorized bicycles or other kinds of shifting in terms of local transportation. It provides a huge business opportunity for us to be able to take advantage of those new markets. I can tell you that in an economy such as Hong Kong, where we have a large number of people who in fact travel on bicycles as on other modes of transportation which create, through the automotive industry, the difficulty in the air pollution, this kind of a bill is something, obviously, that they look to for leadership, because they do understand that it does move people toward that shift.
In looking at Bill 20
[ Page 16428 ]
much time talking about in this Legislative Assembly. There probably are not likely to be opportunities in the next few weeks to be able to do so. But I caution -- and I put out a very strong caution to those of us who are now in a position to provide leadership with respect to a direction -- that we in British Columbia have to take seriously the notion of clean air, the need to move away from a high dependency on carbon-based fuels. We need to take the initiatives that are necessary to get us out of a single-driver automotive commuter pattern, which tells us that we are going to be able to continue to take our vehicles into the city as a mode of transportation to work or to what other activities we may be doing. We have to take that seriously.
Today I notice the debate that is now starting to rage around the issue of the levy on single automobiles, the idea that TransLink is trying to move people into commuter transit. This is just such an initiative, slightly more benign. It's far less expensive to the automotive driver, but nevertheless important, because it does provide an opportunity for more people, who might generally say, "Well, I can't get on a bicycle because I physically can't get to and from where I have to be because of terrain, because of geography, because of distance," or whatever the cases may be. It now allows them that opportunity.
[1505]
It does seem almost cute, in a way, that people say: "Well, this notion of using the bicycle to get to work is something that is only held by those who are the most green of green." But it is an issue that is going to come to the fore. If you look at the ambient air quality of the lower mainland, I would suggest that those members who represent constituents from the Fraser Valley, particularly the upper Fraser Valley, will be quick to tell you that our ambient air quality in the lower mainland is declining -- and declining very, very quickly. That is going to have an impact on the lives and the health of British Columbians in terms of their inability to breathe clean air and their inability to, in the long term, raise their children in an atmosphere and a climate that is going to provide them some security.
So this is an issue. It is a serious issue on the international scale, where the notion of carbon balance is becoming a key indicator with respect to international trade agreements, with industry as well as with local transportation.
It's an issue, secondly, with respect to local transportation and the notion that we are now going to have to start to plan to allow for a different type of local transportation to prevail. It means that we can reduce enormous costs associated with large highway projects. I mentioned the First Narrows bridge and the difficulties we have now with trying to accommodate everybody who wants to drive to work as a single driver in their own automobile.
Thirdly, it does provide an initiative, albeit very small in scope, under Bill 20. It certainly does provide an initiative for British Columbians to demonstrate that where there are obstacles, where there is red tape, where there are problems associated with moving in this direction, the government is prepared to move, and to move fairly quickly, with respect to the elimination of those problems.
I urge all members of the House to support Bill 20. As I say, it's an
initiative that may over time be seen to have far greater importance than
perhaps we might see today, particularly in light of the fact that
J. Cashore: I'm very pleased to rise in support of Bill 20 and this initiative. It may seem like a very small step in a large screen of issues that need to be considered in seeking to achieve a green economy and an environment that is increasingly healthy -- and healthy for future generations. Therefore in considering Bill 20, I want to focus on two aspects. One is how this initiative may relate to that portion of our population which is aging and also how it may relate to people who have the physical ability to ride a bicycle but sometimes -- due to what may in itself be a problem caused by air pollution -- may be suffering from respiratory problems which would have an effect on one's ability to manoeuvre a bicycle on some of the steeper hills.
[1510]
I want to talk about a man I know in Coquitlam by the name of Tim Pollock, who recently turned 75. In a few days Tim will be taking his place along with a few hundred cyclists, and they will be cycling from Seattle, Washington, to Washington, D.C., to raise the concerns that are brought forward by the American Lung Association.
Indeed, as the other members have stated, this is a wide-ranging issue that doesn't only deal with what we might think of as green, but also deals with what we would think of as health. We discover that green initiatives are health initiatives. As the previous speaker has pointed out, often at times when we have the problems that occur in locations such as Los Angeles and the lower Fraser Valley, we will have air inversions, where the pollutants are kept in areas where human beings have to breathe that polluted air. We know the cost to our health system of the increase in respiratory illnesses that show up at emergency wards in hospitals, and the additional cost to the taxpayer.
Tim Pollock, as he embarks on this cycling tour at the age of 75
The thought of a 75-year-old man cycling over the Stevens Pass and onward across the Great Plains and through some of the other hilly areas en route with regard to this adventure is inspiring for someone such as myself who is ten years younger. I think of just a few months ago when I needed to get to my office, which is about five kilometres away. I live up on a hill. It wasn't difficult riding my bike to my office and then wheeling it inside the office and leaving it up against the wall, because it was downhill most of the way. But I can tell you that when I rode the bike home that Saturday afternoon, when I got home I was sweating, and I was beat. It made me think about my conditioning.
But in the context of Bill 20, it also reminds me that for people who might think, "Well, I don't want to go through that again; that's too difficult an experience," here's an opportunity for access that prior to that would not have been available. A person will be out there getting the exercise, which is in itself good for health, by pedalling in the flat areas. I know that the Attorney General a few moments ago was
[ Page 16429 ]
mentioning such things as the Galloping Goose Trail here in Victoria and the Trans Canada Trail. Yet I think that for many British Columbians, the people in Victoria have it rather good, because so many of those cycling trails are on relatively flat ground.
But the thought that people who may be suffering from respiratory illnesses and those who may be just experiencing the aches and pains that come with aging are able to get this kind of assistance and still have access to and participate in a healthy lifestyle and have the independence of knowing that they can get around without that causing them a really serious problem, I think, in a small way adds to what we are trying to achieve in the green initiative.
I want to congratulate the Minister of Environment for the work that she has been undertaking, for quite some time now, in enabling government to have a screen of the various ways in which the green economy and initiatives that are green might be brought to bear. It's quite remarkable to see that the list is indeed a long list. This is one small part of it, but it's a part of it that makes sense. It means that we can take this initiative and recognize that we'll be seeing more people being able to access the kinds of facilities that are being made available in trails -- the Trans Canada Trail -- so that more and more people will be able to make use of this kind of opportunity.
[1515]
The initiative, on a grand scale, is not a huge initiative. But when we look at the part that it plays and not only what it helps to achieve but also what it symbolizes -- and the fact that through this initiative more people can find access to participating in that which is a green initiative -- that, I think, is part of helping to move that drive towards a greener economy and a greener environment in the right direction. So I'm very pleased to take my place in this debate and to encourage all members of the House to enthusiastically support it.
The Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the Deputy Premier to close debate.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Well, it's been a good debate. It's interesting -- the amount of support on this side of the House. It's the commitment that people have towards the whole issue of alternate modes of transportation, particularly cycling, and how this bill supports that. So I'm delighted that so many people joined in to support this legislation.
There have been some questions raised by the opposition around the application of the amendment through regulation. Let me just give a general reassurance to the members opposite that a motor-assisted cycle is to be treated as a bicycle. In terms of the power pack, it is to carry on as if a person were pedalling and nothing beyond that. That's the general principle under which the regulations will be drafted. I'm sure there would be an opportunity, if asked for by the opposition, to have input into those regulations. Or maybe they'll be joining the group in their capacity as bicycle riders themselves. I look forward to that, and I hope that the answers to the opposition's questions can be given in further detail in committee stage. I would now move second reading.
Motion approved.
Bill 20, Motor Vehicle Amendment Act 2000, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I call Committee of the Whole for Bill 15.
TOBACCO DAMAGES AND HEALTH CARE
COSTS RECOVERY ACT
The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 15; T. Stevenson in the chair.
On section 1.
C. Hansen: I don't have a lot of questions to ask, but I will ask them in the context of section 1. If the minister has any suggestions as to where any of these questions should be better directed to another section, I'd certainly take that advice.
When we were in the estimates debate, we had a discussion about the legal fees that were involved in this particular case. I want to go back to the questions that were made in committee stage last year, when amendments to what was then the Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act were brought in. I specifically asked the Attorney General in the area of legal fees: "I would like the Attorney General to undertake to advise us on what the cost of the legal fees are to date in the preparation of this particular court case." The then-Attorney General responded by saying: "I'd be happy to take a look at that issue, as well, and speak to the hon. member."
[1520]
Certainly I didn't have any feedback from that. I know that the minister, when we were in estimates, was talking about solicitor-client privilege. My understanding of solicitor-client privilege, in this case, is that in fact the minister is the client, and the only issue surrounding solicitor-client privilege in this particular case is his own desire to not have these facts come to light at this stage. I wonder if the minister could comment on that.
Hon. M. Farnworth: I'm pleased to respond to that by saying what I said later in the estimates -- I think when the member was away. I would be more than happy to release the figures once the case is concluded.
C. Hansen: No, I was not away; I was very much present at that point. In fact, I think that was in response to questions that I had put to the minister.
But in this case the concern is that we may be racking up a very significant legal bill on this process. The whole pursuit of this legislation, in my opinion, is all about revenue to government. This particular legislation will not have the effect of even one person in British Columbia ceasing smoking; nor will it have the effect of stopping anybody from smoking. It's all about revenue to government. The issue that is of concern is that if we're going to wind up with a court case that's going to drag on for years and years, the public will not have any ability to find out what this case is costing the taxpayers of British Columbia. How many dollars are being diverted away from health care in pursuit of this? Then we have to question what the upside of it is at the end, in terms of any realistic possibility of revenue to government that's going to cover the court case, never mind wind up with more money into the provincial coffers as a result of it. So I'm wondering if the minister can explain why, in his opinion, is that a number he's not prepared to make public until the end of the process.
[ Page 16430 ]
Hon. M. Farnworth: I'll make a couple of points. First, in terms of
not being prepared to release the number at this time, that has a bearing in
terms of the case and how the tobacco companies perceive the movement of the
case and the type of resources that government is prepared to devote to it. So
we really don't want to, in a sense, give away part of our strategy. The second
point that I'd also like to make is that, again
But I also think it's important to note
C. Hansen: I'd like to ask the minister: given that every year this chamber is presented with a wholesale rewrite of this bill in order to get around the constitutional issues that this government is faced with, can the minister tell us whether or not we are going to face yet more amendments to this legislation next year in order to facilitate the government's court case?
Hon. M. Farnworth: In terms of the changes to this bill as opposed to the previous bill, there is some tightening up of language, which I think is a good thing. But it in no way jeopardizes the sections of the legislation. The key issue is that the one section that the court found to be unconstitutional -- that of extraterritoriality -- was removed from the bill, and all the other points upon which the court ruled we were well within our rights remain in the bill. So it is our expectation that the bill is sound, and we'll proceed on that basis.
[1525]
C. Hansen: I'd just like to point out that we had similar kinds of assurances in years gone by. So there is certainly, as we pointed out in second reading debate -- as I noted, and as did my colleague from Richmond-Steveston -- a great deal of cynicism about this particular legislation. But with that, I have no further questions.
Sections 1 to 12 inclusive approved.
Title approved.
Hon. M. Farnworth: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Bill 15, Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I call Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 17.
PROTECTED AREAS OF
BRITISH COLUMBIA ACT
The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 17; T. Stevenson in the chair.
[1530]
On section 1.
M. Coell: Maybe the minister could help me. We have sections 1 through 19, and then there are schedules A, B, C and D. I would propose that we could just ask a few questions that would cover sections 1 through 19, then pass that and then pass each schedule. If that's to her liking, I'll continue that way.
Hon. J. Sawicki: That's fine, hon. Chair, if that's how the hon. member would like to proceed.
M. Coell: As I said during second reading, the opposition is very supportive of this bill. I would have only a few questions to ask. I wonder if the minister can assure me that the park boundaries have not been altered relative to the LRMP process -- the recommendations that came through that process to government -- and whether there have been any additions or subtractions from that process.
Hon. J. Sawicki: I can confirm for the member that that is the case. The boundaries have been codified, and they're the ones that are here before you.
M. Coell: Section 3(2) states: "The Lieutenant Governor in Council may, by order, add to, cancel in its entirety or delete any portion of an ecological reserve established under subsection (1)."
I am just wondering why there would be a need to cancel or delete any portion -- we seem to be adding parks to the system and adding ecological reserves -- and what the necessity of cancelling or deleting a portion would be.
Hon. J. Sawicki: That's exactly the intent of this act: to ensure that once the boundaries are legislated, they are secure, and that areas could only be deleted if it came back to this Legislature.
M. Coell: Thank you for that clarification. The other areas, under
"Offences and penalties" -- and it's my understanding that the
penalties that were in the Park Act are now being
[1535]
Hon. J. Sawicki: That's correct, hon. Speaker. Under the former reserve act, there was no way to mete out penalties for transgressions within ecological reserves. There was a stopgap measure achieved through order-in-council, but with the legislation that's before us now, that would put in place the same kinds of provisions for regulation under the Ecological Reserve Act, as is currently and has always occurred under the Park Act.
M. Coell: I'm not aware of how often those are used in the parks system. That may be something we can cover in
[ Page 16431 ]
estimates. But I am just wondering what the reasoning is for adding it in, it seems logical. Were there a number of areas of concern or problem areas that came up, in order to put this in?
Hon. J. Sawicki: I don't actually have the specific number of times it
would be
And so with the ecological reserves, this was just an opportunity to put in the provision that we need in legislation to handle those situations where some deliberate damage may be occurring within ecological reserves. I am assured that the number of times that we've had to resort to this has been few, but I think we would all recognize that we need that provision for the odd time that it may be appropriate to use.
M. Coell: I realize the minister has a number of amendments. If she would wish to move those at this point, that would be fine with me.
The Chair: The amendments, minister, are on the schedule, so we'll go through that section first, please.
Sections 1 to 19 inclusive approved.
Schedule A approved.
On schedule B.
Hon. J. Sawicki: On here, I would move the amendment to schedule B that is in the possession of the Clerk.
On the amendment.[SCHEDULE B, by adding the following ecological reserve:
90.5 Ram Creek Ecological Reserve, established by Order in Council 2721/71.]
M. Coell: Going through the amendments, if the minister would just briefly outline the reasons for them, then I won't need to question her on each one.
Hon. J. Sawicki: I'd be pleased to do that. The amendment is that schedule B be amended by adding the following ecological reserve: Ram Creek Ecological Reserve, established by order-in-council 2721/71. Quite simply, this one was just forgotten in the drafting of the bill. It was just a mistake pure and simple, so we're adding it now at this opportunity.
Amendment approved.
Schedule B as amended approved.
On schedule C.
Hon. J. Sawicki: I move the amendments to schedule C that are in the possession of the Clerk.
[SCHEDULE C, by adding the following park:
24.5 BEAVER CREEK PARK
All those parcels or tracts of Crown land, together with all that foreshore or land covered by water situated in Kootenay District and contained within the described boundaries as shown on the Official Plan deposited in the Crown Land Registry as Plan 23 Tube 1802; except thereout: (1) the Columbia River Driveway, shown on Nelson Land Title Plan 5179, covered by Mineral Tenure Big Time #3, Tenure Number 370369; (2) the most southerly road which divides Lot 1, of Lot 205A, Nelson Land Title Plan 5179 as shown on said plan covered by Mineral Tenure Big Time #3, Tenure Number 370369; and (3) the foreshore area fronting Lot 1, of Lot 205 and 205A, Nelson Land Title Plan 5179 covered by Mineral Tenure Big Time #3, Tenure Number 370369.
The whole containing approximately 67 hectares (50 hectares upland and 17 hectares foreshore).
SCHEDULE C, by adding the following park:27.5 BIJOUX FALLS PARK
All those parcels or tracts of Crown land, together with all that foreshore or land covered by water, described as:
Lot 11775, Cariboo Land District.
The whole containing approximately 41 hectares.
SCHEDULE C, by deleting the description of Surge Narrows Park and substituting the following:Hon. J. Sawicki: This would amend by adding the following parks: first, Beaver Creek Park. The addition of this park at this time369 SURGE NARROWS PARK
All those parcels or tracts of Crown land together with all that foreshore or land covered by water situated in Sayward District and lying within the following described boundaries: Commencing at the southwest corner of District Lot 1039, being a point on the natural boundary of the channel lying north of Goepel Island; thence southerly on a bearing of 180° a distance of 100 metres from said natural boundary; thence southeasterly on a bearing of 122° a distance of 1.2 kilometres; thence southwesterly on a bearing of 220° a distance of 1 kilometre; thence northwesterly on a bearing of 305° a distance of 350 metres; thence northeasterly a distance of approximately 250 metres to the most easterly point on the natural boundary of Sturt Island; thence northerly, westerly and southerly along the natural boundary of said Sturt Island to the most southerly point thereof; thence southerly on a bearing of 168° to a point due East of the northeast corner of District Lot 259; thence due West to said northeast corner; thence westerly along the northerly boundary of said District Lot 259 to a point being 300 metres easterly of the northwest corner thereof; thence northwesterly in a straight line to a point on the easterly boundary of District Lot 268, said point being 400 metres northerly of the southeast corner thereof; thence northerly along the easterly boundaries of District Lots 268 and 271 to the northeast corner of said District Lot 271; thence due North to a point lying due West of the most southerly southwest corner of District Lot 915; thence due East to said most southerly southwest corner; thence easterly along the southerly boundary of said District Lot 915 to the southeast corner thereof; thence due East to a point on the westerly boundary of said District Lot 1039; thence southerly along said westerly boundary to the southwest corner thereof, being the point of commencement; except thereout District Lots 421 and 423.
The whole containing approximately 480 hectares.]
The second amendment under schedule C
M. Coell: No, no need for that.
[ Page 16432 ]
Hon. J. Sawicki: All right. Schedule C is also proposed to be amended by adding the following park, Bijoux Falls Park, to the schedule. I'm very pleased to say that we have been able to complete the decisions around Bijoux Falls and the facilities at that small park. Having done that just in time, we are able now to add that Class A park to schedule C in this instance.
[1540]
Thirdly, schedule C would be amended by deleting the description of Surge Narrows Park and substituting a different description for Surge Narrows Park. Again, this was a wrong legal description that was used. It was a simple error, and we are correcting it through this amendment.
Amendments approved.
Schedule C as amended approved.
Schedule D approved.
M. Coell: Through the Chair, just before you call the question, I'd like to thank the minister's staff for the briefings that were given on this bill. I found them to be very good, and they were very helpful to me. So thank you.
Title approved.
Hon. J. Sawicki: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Bill 17, Protected Areas of British Columbia Act, reported complete with amendments.
The Speaker: When shall the bill be considered as reported?
Hon. J. Sawicki: With leave now, hon. Speaker.
Leave granted.
Bill 17, Protected Areas of British Columbia Act, read a third time and passed.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I call Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 11.
FORESTS STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2000
The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 11; T. Stevenson in the chair.
[1545]
The committee recessed from 3:46 to 3:52 p.m.
[T. Stevenson in the chair.]
The Chair: I want to let the members know that we have a number of visitors this afternoon. One group is from the Hoffman Estates Secondary School in Exeter, Ontario. There are approximately 40 students and five adults here to visit the Legislature. Would members please make them welcome.
I call the committee to order on Bill 11.
Sections 1 to 14 inclusive approved.
On section 15.
G. Abbott: I have a few questions on section 15, which amends section 169 of the Forest Act. That section, unamended, reads: "Until January 1, 2001 the Lieutenant Governor in Council, by regulation, may specify an area of Crown land as a designated area if the Lieutenant Governor in Council believes it is in the public interest to do so." Of course, this bill amends that by striking out January 1, 2001, and substituting January 1, 2006. I'll begin by inviting the Minister of Forests to outline what public purposes generally are served by this specification of a designated area.
Hon. J. Doyle: Part 13 provides the means for the government to designate an area so it can be temporarily set aside from development while a land use decision in the area is made. It also allows the government to protect the area surrounding the designated area by reducing the annual allowable cut of licensees that are affected by the designation, so that the harvest is not shifted from the designated area to the surrounding area. For the member's information, part 13 has been used three times by government. This is the third time since 1992, when this legislation was brought into being.
G. Abbott: The minister anticipated one of the questions I had, which was how often it had been used -- which is three times. Could the minister enumerate, for the information of the House, the three occasions on which it has been used?
The Chair: Also, members, we have another large group: 64 visitors, all of them grade 6, from the Covington Elementary School in Kent, Washington. They are also here to visit the parliament buildings and the Legislature. Would all members please make them welcome.
[1555]
Hon. J. Doyle: The member asked how many times it has been used and just where it was used: first, in 1993 to designate the Brooks-Klaskish area in the west coast study area; again in 1994 to designate the Clayoquot Sound designated area No. 2; and again, more recently, in October 1999 to designate the Duu Guusd area in the Queen Charlotte Islands.
The Chair: Also, members, I'll inform you that there are approximately 45 visitors, mostly seniors, from the United States and Canada with the Elderhostel. They are accompanied by Mr. Blackhall. They are also here to visit the parliament buildings and our Legislature. Would all members please make them welcome.
G. Abbott: I thank the minister for that response. I'm assuming, therefore, from the minister's response that the designated areas of the '93 and '94 processes would have evolved to a point now where they would not, in effect, be caught, so to speak, by this amendment to January 1, 2006. It would only be the Husby Forest Products or Duu Guusd area that would be affected by this change. Is that correct?
[ Page 16433 ]
Hon. J. Doyle: The member is right. The 1993 use of part 13
G. Abbott: Section 169 uses the expression: "
Hon. J. Doyle: I'm sure the member agrees with me. The fact that it
has only been used now for the third time in the roughly eight years that it's
been in place
G. Abbott: I was looking for perhaps a little bit more specific answer with respect to the issue of designating an area, but perhaps the answer I received kind of answered it anyway. The point is that it is up to cabinet to decide what's in the public interest, and it's a judgment that cabinet makes. The minister argues that it's only been made on three occasions. That's a fair observation, certainly. Is that correct, though, that for the purposes of this section of the act, cabinet makes a judgment, effectively, with respect to whether something should be a designated area or not? There is not another body of law or statute that constrains cabinet with respect to that. Is that correct?
[1600]
Hon. J. Doyle: The member's assumptions are correct.
G. Abbott: I want to thank the minister's staff for their excellent briefing on this bill. Certainly one of the reasons why we can move fairly readily through the bill today is that we were, I think, well briefed with respect to the impact of the changes that are proposed in this bill.
I just want to ask one more question with respect to this issue. This moves
us on
Section 15 approved.
On section 16.
G. Abbott: The minister's staff laid out for us, as effectively as can
be done, what the impact of this section will be on a designated area and on a
licensee whose cutting rights are affected by the designation of a designated
area. I do want to ask, though
Hon. J. Doyle: The only impact of the passing of this legislation,
presuming the House goes that way
G. Abbott: Again, perhaps I was looking for more detail than that in my question. My understanding from the briefing we had was that the changes contained in section 16 will permit, for example, the chief forester to go back and change the annual allowable cut in an area, where this power was not available to the chief forester to go back and change the annual allowable cut in an area where this power was not available to the chief forester previously. Is that correct? I wanted to essentially get a summary of what real-world changes would be visited on, for example, Husby Forest Products as a consequence of the passage of section 16. In what ways will their position be altered, if indeed it is altered at all?
Hon. J. Doyle: This will have no effect on Husby in this case that we're discussing because there have already been adjustments made in the AAC in that area.
G. Abbott: We can move on to move sections 16 through 40.
Sections 16 through 40 inclusive approved.
On section 41.
G. Abbott: I'm just seeking clarification with respect to this
section. The description of the bill suggests that the change here is that debts
due under section 118 will now go into the environmental remediation subaccount
of the forest stand management fund special account, whereas previously, I
guess, those debts due under section 118
[1605]
Is it correct, as the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act sets out,
that if a senior official carries out remediation work -- presumably because the
licensee declines to do it for whatever reason -- the debt of that under section
118
Hon. J. Doyle: That is correct. That is what will happen if this amendment goes through.
G. Abbott: Under section 118, if a senior official had to undertake such remediation work, would he or she draw on the environmental remediation subaccount in order to do that work, or would the funds be drawn from elsewhere?
Hon. J. Doyle: The moneys would come from the fund.
G. Abbott: The change in the real-world operation of the Ministry of Forests and the operation of this particular account is that up until the passage of this bill, a senior official, if they were obliged to undertake some remediation work, would still be drawing in either case from the same source -- the remediation fund. Or does that change? Does that stay the same all the way?
Hon. J. Doyle: If I could just read out for the member from section 41
[ Page 16434 ]
be imposed when a Forest Act or Range Act agreement holder has contravened the code and has failed to remedy or repair any damage to the land caused by the contravention. This includes a penalty that may be levied to recover the costs of remediation work when a licensee fails to comply with the remediation order. The amendment that we're speaking about today to section 118, to be brought into force shortly, will replace this penalty provision with one that allows the government to collect the cost of carrying out the remediation work as a debt due to the government. However, section 11.2 only allows penalty money to be paid into the subaccount. It does not authorize debts to be paid into the subaccount.
G. Abbott: I want to get this right. I appreciate that there's detail here that's not entirely exciting. Just so we're all clear what happens, previously if there was a debt under section 118, where did the funds go at that point of time before the passage of this bill? Where would a repaid debt go to -- into general revenue or elsewhere?
[1610]
Hon. J. Doyle: To clear this up, currently it's listed as being a penalty. With the changes to the legislation, it will be listed as a debt due to the government, and the amendment will allow the money collected as a debt under section 118 to be paid into the environmental remediation subaccount rather than to the revenue fund. This ensures that all moneys assessed under section 118 are still paid into the subaccount.
G. Abbott: That was the answer to the question that I was looking for. If the Chair wishes, you may wish to move sections 41 through 58.
Sections 41 to 58 inclusive approved.
Title approved.
Hon. J. Doyle: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Bill 11, Forests Statutes Amendment Act, 2000, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.
Hon. G. Mann Brewin: I call committee stage on Bill 2.
BUDGET TRANSPARENCY AND
ACCOUNTABILITY ACT
(continued)
The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 2; T. Stevenson in the chair.
On section 13 (continued).
R. Thorpe: Section 13 lays out performance plans for ministries and government organizations. It talks about a number of issues here. When we, the official opposition, were reading it, we were concerned about performance plans and having those audited. I'm wondering if the minister could tell me his intention. Does he expect, once performance plans and performance measures are put in place, that those should be audited?
[1615]
Hon. P. Ramsey: I would point out to the member that the use of the term audit here, as the member has used it in auditing performance plans, goes considerably beyond what the general public thinks of when they hear the term audit, which is an accounting of finances -- income, revenues, balance sheets and reporting on how well your plans in those areas met the results. Of course, it is obvious that all government operations are audited on an annual basis.
With respect to the specific performance measures, which are both financial
and in many cases non-financial and are included in performance plans, what the
act provides for is that subsequent year's plans have to report on what has
happened in the past. So this is not a one-time
Having said that, there are always a variety of other organizations and officers that have the ability to go beyond the specific financial information of a performance plan -- not least of which is, of course, the auditor general, who has the ability to look at a wide range of government programs and offer his opinion on how well those programs are working.
R. Thorpe: I gather from that answer
Hon. P. Ramsey: We will be debating section 16 in the not too distant future. I would point out to the member that section 16 calls for annual reports for ministries and other government organizations. It says that these annual reports must "compare actual results for the preceding fiscal year with the expected results identified in the performance plan under section 13." They lay out the performance plan; they report on it. That's the mechanism that is incorporated in this act.
R. Thorpe: I'm glad to see that the minister thinks it's now important, and therefore I wish to move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper with respect to section 13. It's simply stated, hon. Chair. It would become subsection 5. That stands in my name, and I move that motion.
Amendment negatived on division.[SECTION 13, by adding a sub-section (5) as follows:
(5) Performance Plans and Performance Measures must be audited each year and these audited results must be included and form part of the Annual Report of the ministry or government organization.]
Section 13 approved.
[ Page 16435 ]
On section 14.
G. Farrell-Collins: I have some questions about section 14.
Section 14, the opening sentence of it says, "Subject to section 19 (5)
[exception if disclosure would be harmful], within one month after commitments
have been made such that statements of cost under section 8 [major capital
project information to be presented with the estimates] are required with the
next main estimates
Section 14 refers to section 19(5), as I mentioned. Section 19(5) is the FOI provision that says unless something is required to be disclosed under the Freedom of Information Act, it need not be disclosed, and if something is prohibited from being disclosed under the Freedom of Information Act, then it shall not be disclosed.
Basically what it's saying is the Freedom of Information Act applies to all disclosures relative to this legislation -- or rather with the capital projects plan. However -- and I know it's just a drafting provision, and we're not supposed to read that little part inside the brackets -- that first sentence of section 14 has in brackets: "exception if disclosure would be harmful." That characterizes section 19(5) differently than what section 19(5) actually does. I want to know if the minister can just give me some assurances on how that section is going to be viewed.
[1620]
Hon. P. Ramsey: I believe the member has accurately described the intent of the "subject to" phrase in section 14, and that is to ensure that release of plans for major capital projects adhere to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and that is what they do.
Section 14 approved.
On section 15.
R. Thorpe: I'm wondering if the minister could, in layman's language, explain exactly what is the intent here, and when it will start.
Hon. P. Ramsey: This section comes into effect for the 2001-2002 budget, as does the requirement to table a strategic plan in the form that this act contemplates. It comes into effect in the next fiscal year, which means that the ability to compare strategic plan to results will follow the 2001-2002 fiscal year.
Section 15 approved.
On section 16.
R. Thorpe: With respect to section 16 and the filing of annual reports, etc., the minister's well aware that many of the ministries and organizations are well behind schedule on filing annual reports. How and when are they getting up to speed on all the backdated reports that haven't been filed? What is your internal deadline for completing that? How are you going to comply with this, given the record of the government to date?
[1625]
Hon. P. Ramsey: Given that I surely remember tabling a stale-dated plan or two in my time as minister, I recognize the concern about actually making this work. I would only say this: we have had considerable success in animating the production of performance plans.
An Hon. Member: Animating them?
Hon. P. Ramsey: Prodding them. Let me phrase that again, for the benefit of the member opposite: we have had considerable success this year in ensuring that we have performance plans for all ministries and all Crown corporations tabled in a timely way in the House. This act does set a new standard. I expect that all ministries and Crown corporations will recognize and adhere to this new standard.
G. Farrell-Collins: I remember a multitude of annual reports coming in a multitude of years after they were due. The whole point of annual reports and measuring accountability and performance is to report, to measure, to hopefully learn from the mistakes that were made, to have other ministers learn from the successes that were accomplished and, hopefully over the years, to improve the performance of government. That's the whole point.
So when I see ministers stand up in this House as recently as a couple of
weeks ago, for example and have an annual report from 1997 -- from the Ministry
of Attorney General, three years, almost four years, late
Interjection.
G. Farrell-Collins: That's pretty shocking. Perhaps the Minister of Finance, in his zeal for transparency and accountability, might have some idea of exactly how many annual reports are still outstanding for the various ministries of government.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I don't have that information with me in the chamber. What we are setting is, as the member opposite says, a new standard. We believe that this is entirely possible. For the information of those watching the debate here, what it requires is that when the year ends -- on March 31, for ministries -- they are required by the end of June, three months after the end of that year, to table an annual report in the Legislature. The only exceptions are for Crown corporations, which may have a different fiscal year end -- most commonly the end of the calendar year. They have four months from that year end, which would bring it to April 30, to table their annual report.
G. Farrell-Collins: I've looked, and it seems to me that there are a number of pieces of legislation currently in existence that require ministries to table annual reports. Can the minister tell me if that's correct -- if that exists in legislation right now?
Hon. P. Ramsey: Yes, there are annual reports required in a variety of pieces of legislation. Few of them, staff advise, have any reference to a deadline for actually producing the report.
G. Farrell-Collins: One would think when it says annual report that it would be introduced annually, as opposed to at
[ Page 16436 ]
the end of a mandate or whenever you feel like getting around to it or
whenever it's printed or whenever the ministers change offices. I would have
thought that the whole intent of an annual report was to report annually.
Whether it actually puts a deadline in there
Hon. P. Ramsey: I do. This act says they will.
G. Farrell-Collins: The act says they will. I'll wait and see what actually happens, because certainly that isn't the case. I recall the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin, who was the minister responsible for B.C. Hydro, being called into this House by, at that time, the member for Delta South. He raised the fact that the annual report for B.C. Hydro, which is required under statute to be tabled by a specified date, was some six or seven months delayed. That was during question period. About an hour after question period, the minister hustled back into the House with this crumpled mass of paper that was paper-clipped together -- it looked like it had been in the back of the trunk of his car for seven or eight months -- and tabled it in the Legislature. And that minister was required by statute to introduce that annual report by a specified date.
[1630]
I guess I don't take much comfort from the minister telling me that this act is now going to make it happen, because the government has been anything but accountable or anything but interested in promoting accountability over the years. That has happened time after time after time. In fact, it's almost a standing joke in the Legislature that every time a minister of the Crown stands up to introduce an annual report for members of the opposition to guess what year it's for. It could be two years old; it could be three years old; it could be a year old.
Interjection.
G. Farrell-Collins: The Minister of Aboriginal Affairs says not him. I'll go back and check. I take his word for it, but I'm certainly going to go back and check.
Will the Minister of Finance undertake, on behalf of those of us who've been dealing with this issue for a number of years, to speed the process of section 16 through this House to collect an inventory -- as the champion of accountability -- of the status of annual reports for Crown corporations and ministries of the Crown, up to and including today, and forward that information to the opposition?
Hon. P. Ramsey: In the spirit of transparency and accountability, I'd be pleased to.
G. Farrell-Collins: And in the spirit of gratitude, can the minister tell me what day we would get that? Is it going to be a week from now, nine weeks from now or a year from now?
Do you have any idea -- ballpark? Maybe the minister can give himself a fixed time to provide us with that information.
Hon. P. Ramsey: Two weeks today.
G. Farrell-Collins: I look forward to seeing it, and I also look forward to the rush of annual reports that will hit this table within the next two weeks as the ministers scramble to comply.
Section 16 approved.
On section 17.
R. Thorpe: We're going to look forward to the news we get on June 26 with the backlog. I've already written that date down -- June 26, 4:30 p.m.
With respect to non-compliance, I guess this is supposed to be the teeth that make it force the ministers to stand in this House and to make a statement if they do not adhere to the compliance. Is that the intent here, to almost embarrass people into meeting their June 30 deadline?
Hon. P. Ramsey: When the member and I were discussing generally accepted accounting principles, I explained that the principle we've incorporated here was to say in legislation: "Here's the benchmark, and if there's a variation from it, we must report on it." That is the same sort of approach that's taken here.
This act says there are a number of documents that have to be made public. We've talked about performance plans, annual reports, strategic plans. If they are not made public within the required time or don't include the required information or don't present it in the required manner, the responsible minister -- that is, obviously, a minister of a line ministry or responsible for a Crown -- must make public a written statement giving the reasons for that non-compliance. This captures both small and large difficulties.
We haven't gone into, for example, great details about what reasons there might be for a delay in, for example, a performance plan. We have talked about -- for example, in the time line for tabling a budget -- very specific reasons why a delay in budget date might be acceptable. We have not done so here. What we have done is require a public statement by the responsible minister, setting out the reasons for failing to meet a deadline.
[1635]
I am advised that the Lieutenant-Governor is in the precincts, so I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Committee of the Whole (Section B), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor entered the chamber and took his place in the chair.
[ Page 16437 ]
Law Clerk:
Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2000
Cooperative Association Amendment Act, 2000
McLeod Lake Indian Band Treaty No. 8 Adhesion and Settlement Agreement Act
Forest Statutes Amendment Act, 2000
Regulatory Streamlining Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2000
Motor Carrier Amendment Act, 2000
Local Government Statutes Amendment Act, 2000
[1640]
Clerk of the House: In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth assent to these acts.
His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor retired from the chamber.
[The Speaker in the chair.]
Hon. D. Lovick: I call committee on Bill 2.
BUDGET TRANSPARENCY AND
ACCOUNTABILITY ACT
(continued)
The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 2; T. Stevenson in the chair.
On section 17 (continued).
R. Thorpe: The official opposition believes that there have to be more teeth in accountability. We believe that there has to be more accountability by members of government to make sure that they do comply. We believe that actions speak louder than words. All too often governments hide behind words and put that out in front of lack of action.
In that regard, we believe that ministers responsible who can't comply and who continue not to be able to comply with the intent and the spirit of providing this House and the people of British Columbia with information on a timely basis have to be held accountable and that if they can't do that, they should be disqualified from serving as a minister. It should be a significant penalty, and it should be up to five years.
Therefore I would wish to move an amendment standing in my name on the order paper. I'd just like to read that amendment. It would be subsection 17(2):
Hon. Chair, we've put forward a number of amendments over the past few days on this. This is about transparency and it's about accountability. So this is an opportunity. This is an opportunity for this government to show British Columbians that it's serious about compliance and it's serious about dealing with ministers who do not comply. We look forward to their overwhelming support of this well-founded amendment. Thank you.[SECTION 17, by adding a sub-section (2) and renumbering the section accordingly:
(17) A Minister who makes two consecutive non-compliance statements as a Minister of the Crown, immediately shall be removed from the office of the Minister and be disqualified from being appointed a minister for a period of five years.]
[1645]
The Chair: Having examined the member's amendment, the Chair must rule the amendment out of order, as it affects the constitution, a prerogative reserved for a member of the government, pursuant to standing order 76.
R. Thorpe: Hon. Chair, I guess if those are the rules of the game
But you know, I saw with interest how fast the minister jumped to his feet with respect to this motion, and therefore I had hoped that he was going to endorse this. Hon. Chair, what you're saying to me, then, is that as a member of the opposition, I cannot move this. However, if the minister, knowing that it's a good idea, would like to move our amendment in his name, he would be able to do that, and then we could vote on it. Would that be correct, hon. Chair?
The Chair: No, that wouldn't be correct, member. It wouldn't matter. At the moment it's your motion, and it is out of order.
R. Thorpe: Excuse me, hon. Chair -- and I don't want to belabour this too long. The minister could make a motion with the same intent as this if the minister wanted to hold ministers to account for this act -- or not?
G. Farrell-Collins: Perhaps, then, in light of that, the minister can tell us what sort of accountability measures there will be for members and ministers of the Crown who fail to comply with this legislation.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I think I've explained that I believe the
accountability mechanisms under the act are requiring
I do not expect there'll be a great number of these, but I do believe that there are circumstances in which non-compliance will occur. We talked earlier in this chamber about the difficulty of having a fixed date for tabling of budgets, given the possibilities of elections or other things intervening.
[1650]
G. Farrell-Collins: So if a minister fails to introduce a report or some provision under this legislation, he or she is required to, as the section says, issue a statement saying why.
What happens after that? What's the accountability measure that comes after
that, once you've said, "I didn't finish my homework because
Interjection.
[ Page 16438 ]
G. Farrell-Collins: "
Hon. P. Ramsey: What happens is that the minister is required to adhere to the provisions of the act.
The other thing I would say is that I don't consider this
The Chair: Members, just to inform you that in the Legislature this afternoon we have a number of grade 6 students from Covington Elementary School in Kent, Washington, in the United States. They're here for a tour of the Legislature. I hope all members will make them welcome.
G. Farrell-Collins: I would like to welcome them too. I hope all of their homework is done.
We'll now deal with the minister and his colleagues -- whether or not they've got their homework completed. I want to ask this question. I want to pursue this a little bit if I can, because those aren't necessarily the reasons why annual reports currently aren't tabled in a timely fashion. Usually the reason annual reports aren't tabled is because the estimates of the minister responsible are upcoming. Once the estimates are completed, usually within a day or two the annual reports, in the past, have been introduced into the Legislature -- once the debate is complete, which I think is designed to strictly and deliberately avoid accountability and avoid the debate that may surround the annual report.
As I said earlier, the Premier, from his previous role as Attorney General, still has a number of outstanding annual reports. The latest one that was tabled in this House dated from 1997. So he's long overdue on his homework. Perhaps the minister can tell us why he thinks anything is going to be any different with this legislation than it has been in the past. What is going to change so dramatically that's going to stop ministers from just tabling them whenever they want, attaching a little statement saying, "It was incomplete; I received it at this point in time," and therefore introduce it?
Hon. P. Ramsey: I think we could debate back and forth in this way for some time without conclusion. Let me only say this: in second reading the member opposite said that adherence to the principles of transparency and accountability had to be demonstrated in actions as well as words. In my second reading response I said that I agree. I laid out a number of areas in which this government has sought to adhere to the principles of this act even before its consideration and debate in this chamber.
[1655]
Having said that, the member is correct: we'll have to see the fruits of this as it comes into effect. That will take until the deadline next year. I expect we will see different behaviour next year. The member opposite is skeptical; we'll have to wait and see.
Section 17 approved.
On section 18.
R. Thorpe: Just a very quick question. Under 18(2), as soon as that document's tabled with the Clerk, does the public then have access to that, or does this House have to be sitting?
Hon. P. Ramsey: The public has access to it. The House does not have to be sitting. If you refer back to section 1, it says there are two requirements here: laying the document before the Legislative Assembly and making the document available to the general public in a reasonable manner, which may include electronic means. Subsection (2) simply talks about what happens to laying it before the assembly when we're not sitting.
Sections 18 and 19 approved.
On section 20.
G. Farrell-Collins: Section 20 is, in my mind, a very unusual section. I must say I was a bit taken aback when I read it, because essentially it provides all these requirements for government agencies, under law, to be forced to report information to the minister. I was a little bit astounded by that, because I thought that when the ministers asked for information, they got it, and that if they didn't get it, there was another remedy, which was to ask someone else who can do the job better than the person that was asked the first time. Perhaps the minister can tell me why he felt there was a need for section 20, which is very strongly worded, to say the least.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I can only advise the member that, contrary to what may be common public perception, what ministers want may not always be what ministers get.
More seriously, though, what we're doing here is moving from a budgeting structure and accountability structure which focuses on direct ministries to one that has a much broader sweep and includes all Crown corporations and agencies. Those acts, or regulations regarding them, have a variety of provisions, I understand, as far as who they provide information to.
What this section does is say clearly that the ministers responsible for performance plans, for major capital projects and for annual reports have, under this act, the authority to require documents and other information from agencies. It does it right across the board. It does it to ensure that the ministers responsible have the authority to get the information that they need to carry out their responsibilities under this act.
G. Farrell-Collins: It just seems astounding to me that the government would have to go to these lengths to make that clear. It would seem to me that if a minister responsible felt that he or she wasn't getting the information that was there that they had asked for, there would be a very simple remedy -- that is, to find someone who would get it for the minister.
[E. Conroy in the chair.]
[ Page 16439 ]
On first glance I must say I'm surprised that there are people working in the public sector that would be so confused as to think that that wasn't the case. And if that's the case, then I expect we have a much bigger problem than ever I thought. But I'm interested to see it.
I'm particularly interested in this section for another reason, and that is the accountability measures if one does not comply. Previously we talked about what happens when a minister does not provide the public with the information that they're entitled to under the statute. But in this case, when the minister is not provided with the information that he or she is entitled to under this statute, the penalties are pretty significant -- not necessarily the penalties, but the wording. The forceable nature of this section, in order to extract that information, is quite significant. There's even a section, a compliance subsection (6), that states: "A person must not hinder or obstruct the person conducting an examination under subsection (4)." The government can send in an auditor to look at the books, etc., if they don't feel they're getting the information that's forthcoming. Each and every employee must take each and every step to provide the information to that auditor or the person or individual doing the review or conducting that examination.
[1700]
There's also an ability here for the minister to state a date by which that
information must be put in place. And it seems to me that there's no parallel
for the information that's required to be made by a minister. For example, let's
say -- although I'm sure the minister will assure me that it won't happen --
that the annual report for the office of the Premier, which would be due at some
point in the fiscal year
Where is the requirement, in the same wording, that forces the Premier, whether he's the Attorney General or the Premier, to deliver that information on time -- and if he doesn't deliver it on time, to have someone go in and get that information and make it available to the public? There's nothing there for the Premier, but there's sure an awful lot there for these organizations. I'm just intrigued by the contrast in those provisions.
Hon. P. Ramsey: Welcome to the chair, hon. Chair.
I want to say a couple things. First of all, I wouldn't want this assembly or people watching these debates or reading of them to be under the impression that in the great majority of times, there's any difficulty in obtaining requested information from Crown corporations or agencies. That is simply not the case. Cooperation is the rule.
But in drafting legislation, you want to also deal with what might become an exception. I would submit that if the provisions like these were not included in Bill 2, the hon. Opposition House Leader would be on his feet demanding to know what we would do if we were refused information necessary for an annual report or performance plan from an agency. So in drafting this act, we did try to take care of both the rules and the exceptions and to make sure that ministers of the Crown had the ability in law to obtain the information that they required from agencies and government organizations.
Section 20 approved.
On section 21.
R. Thorpe: Perhaps the minister could give us a brief description of what the government is attempting to achieve by section 21 of this bill.
Hon. P. Ramsey: My apologies to the member. I was talking to staff; I didn't hear that question clearly. Could you please repeat it?
R. Thorpe: That's not a problem. I understand that we're trying to keep up to speed here, so no problem. I would just like the minister to explain to us what his intent, what his government's intent, is with section 21 of this bill.
[1705]
Hon. P. Ramsey: The intent of this section is to ensure that the public is informed of the implementation of the recommendations made by the Enns panel in their final report of the budget process review, which it submitted to the Speaker of the Legislature last fall. It is a requirement for ongoing monitoring from now until the year 2009, in which year the minister must -- not may -- appoint a panel to review the budget process, scope of budget and information provided in the budget plan.
In other words, having done the work in 1999 -- as I've said in a variety of forum, both in this chamber and outside -- it changes in some fundamental ways the way we do budgeting and reporting in British Columbia. We think it's important that the public be informed of progress made in implementing that report and that at the end of ten years another panel be struck to do another comprehensive, thorough review such as was done last fall.
R. Thorpe: I was hopeful that was the intent of this section. We've heard many times and from many Finance ministers, with respect to the fine work that the Enns panel did, that the government wholeheartedly endorsed the recommendations of the Enns panel. Taking that into consideration and the comments that the minister just made, could the minister explain to me what 21(2)(b) is all about?
Hon. P. Ramsey: The intent is that once a minister of the Crown has
said, "This is a recommendation of the panel that we are not implementing
R. Thorpe: Well, if the government endorsed all the recommendations of
the Enns report, but now
Hon. P. Ramsey: In debate in committee, I think we identified a number of small differences from what the Enns report recommended. I'll mention only two. One is that we did not incorporate a fixed budget date. He recommended, if memory serves, the third Tuesday in March, which the mem-
[ Page 16440 ]
bers opposite felt was not a workable date. They had their proposal for how to fix that; the government had its proposal for how to fix that. That would be reported on as a way in which we did not implement what the Enns report indeed recommended.
[1710]
There are a number of other small ones. I'm trying to search my memory for ones of considerable significance. We've had a debate here about whether the act should incorporate general accounting principles or whether we should do the approach we have chosen of using that as a benchmark and then reporting government's explicit decision to have different accounting policies. So there are a number of areas where the Enns report has been changed slightly in the presentation of this bill.
I'll mention only one other. The Enns panel said very clearly that he felt that this legislation should incorporate a whole revision of how estimates were dealt with by committees of the House. We chose not to incorporate that in this bill. We chose instead to engage the opposition in discussions, led by our House Leaders, as to how we might best revise the business of this House, including the estimates process.
So there are a number of areas where the bill does not incorporate every bit of the Enns report. I think we've been quite clear about what those are in this debate, and these reports by the minister and by the auditor general will make those variances explicit as well.
R. Thorpe: Well, it leads one to a conclusion. As my hon. colleague from Vancouver-Little Mountain has said many, many times and I think the minister has acknowledged, the trust and confidence of the opposition members and British Columbians in this government to do what it says it's going to do are certainly at an all-time low.
Just to compound my concern and the opposition's concerns, why in subsection (3) are you trying to muzzle the auditor general for implementations in the Enns report not taking place? Why do you want to muzzle the auditor general?
Hon. P. Ramsey: For the benefit of those watching, I might just read
the section, because it does anything but muzzle the auditor general. It says:
The obligations of the Auditor General under subsection (1) -- which are to
report by September 30 on the implementation of the recommendations made by the
Enns panel -- "in relation to a recommendation in the Final Report end
when, in the opinion of the Auditor General, (a) the recommendation has been
implemented" -- in other words, you don't need to keep saying that they did
it, they did it, they did it -- "or (b) a report of minister
This is far from muzzling. It says that the auditor general doesn't have to keep doing that. Those things have been decided. He has every ability, and I think the appropriate ability, to look far and wide within the report and within this legislation to make sure that we have implemented the recommendations of the panel.
G. Farrell-Collins: I think there's a bit of ambiguity. Let me put it this way: I think there are two opinions on how one reads what subsection (3) actually does. Let me try to make clear what I see as the two versions of this; it's really an interpretation of what's there.
I believe this is what the minister thinks, and he can tell me if I'm correct
in my estimation of what it is he thinks
Now, what I believe the minister thinks -- and perhaps he's right -- is that
either one of those can happen. If the recommendation has been implemented in
the opinion of the auditor general, then he need not continue to comment on it,
obviously, because it's done. Or when it's the opinion of the auditor general
that a report of the ministry referred to in subsection (2)(b) makes further
comment by the auditor general unnecessary
I will put it this way. The opposition has a slightly different version of
how this might work, and let me try to explain why. It depends how one reads
that; maybe it's drafting. Perhaps the minister can give us some assurance
Our interpretation, or the worry that we would have, is that the minister can make a report that says, "We're not complying with this." That kicks in subsection (3)(b), which forbids the auditor general, whether he wants to or not, from being able to comment further. It takes it out of his hands; it removes his ability to comment. Now, if the minister can assure me on the record that both (2)(a) and (2)(b) are subject to the opinion of the auditor general -- which I believe is the minister's interpretation -- then I am more assured than I was previously.
[1715]
Hon. P. Ramsey: I'm quite willing to assure the Opposition House
Leader that it was the intent of the drafters of the bill that the phrase
"in the opinion of the auditor general" applies to both the
recommendations that have been implemented and a report of the minister that
would make further comment
R. Thorpe: Obviously, when we read it, we interpreted it differently, as did a number of other people who read it and
[ Page 16441 ]
talked to us about it. As members know, I have an amendment on the order paper to delete the word "or" and section 21(3)(b). But if the minister is saying that at all times the auditor general has the position and can express an opinion, no matter what, on implementation or non-implementation, and that the auditor general is not muzzled, hands tied, etc., then I will withdraw this amendment -- if the minister can give me that assurance.
Hon. P. Ramsey: Yes, I'm prepared to give that assurance.
Section 21 approved.
On section 22.
G. Farrell-Collins: Can the minister tell me why it's felt by government that subsection (2) needed to be in this section, that section 5 of the Offence Act will not apply to this act?
Hon. P. Ramsey: I wish I had some of the people who are working with me on drafting this legislation with us in the chamber.
This was actually a strong recommendation of Crown counsel and others that this be put in here. Actually, both subsection (1) and subsection (2) are moving towards the same goal, and that is to make sure that you don't have legal action for non-compliance with the act, which would potentially bog down government quite incredibly. I mean, can we imagine a situation where failure to include in a subsequent year's annual report, a report on the specific performance measure that they tabled the previous year, resulted in an offence taken to court? One could read it that way. This explicitly says that we're not going to have that sort of process flow from this legislation.
[1720]
G. Farrell-Collins: Heaven forbid that the public should have to take the government to court over the government not following its own laws. Wouldn't that be a catastrophe if that happened? I suspect it happens often. In fact, I know it's happening more often all the time. I happen to know that the government is in the midst of a number of court cases where the government has, in the opinion of many people, failed to follow the laws. Heaven forbid that the public should be uppity enough to want to take the government to court over its obligations to provide information and disclosure and annual reports and be accountable.
I get what the minister is trying to do here. I'm not going to make a big
deal out of it. But I do think that given this government's record for
introducing legislation and then just simply not complying with it -- wilfully
not complying with it in several cases -- and finding themselves in court and
the public having to take the government to court to find out information
So I find it a little self-serving. I get the minister's intention; I know the intent of the drafters. But I find it a little self-serving when you see something like this. I can't imagine that somebody would want to take the government to court because one section of a provision, a performance measure, in one act was not included in the other one. Not many people would be outraged by something like that. They may snicker.
Interjection.
G. Farrell-Collins: However, as my colleague says, nor would a judge likely hear it.
But if a minister or the Premier, for example, ends up being three years behind in his annual reports and the public wants to find out what's going on in the Premier's Office through the annual report or wants to find out what's happening in the Attorney General's office over the last number of years, as is the case now, there's some way to get that, to spring that information from government. Right now there's no way, no option to do that.
So I can understand the government wanting to do this. I find it a little self-serving, and I expect that the public would view it that way as well. As I've said a number of times, I'm not going to belabour the point. I don't think there's much in this legislation that really requires the government, an unwilling government, to comply with its own legislation. And given the government's record over the last nine years, I don't think there's anything that's likely to change in whatever period of time that the party remains in power.
So that's really all I have to say. I was just curious as to why the minister felt the need for that provision in this act.
Hon. P. Ramsey: Here's what the Enns panel said: "The specific recommendations indicate where the panel is recommending that legislation be required. The panel wishes to ensure that these legislative requirements do not generate litigation designed to block policy decisions of the government on the basis that there has been a defect in the budget process."
G. Farrell-Collins: I don't think this would block government policy because there was an annual report that wasn't introduced. If an annual report wasn't introduced on time or a strategic plan wasn't introduced on time, legal action wouldn't stop government policy initiatives. The government would continue to roll along. But it would ensure that there was some accountability at the end of the day for the ministers to be accountable and actually get that information into the hands of the public who are paying for it.
I don't think the minister rolls the whole legislation into that provision. From what I have read and what the minister just mentioned, I think he's interpreted very broadly a fairly narrow recommendation of the Enns panel.
Section 22 approved.
On section 23.
R. Thorpe: We've talked about this issue several times before, so we're not going to rehash that. I think the minister knows what I'm going to say, and I know what the minister is going to say. So let's try to move along here with some efficiency.
[ Page 16442 ]
Therefore, on the order paper pertaining to section 23(a) and (b), I have an amendment. I wish to move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper, and I'd like to read it.
[SECTION 23 (a) and (b), by deleting all the words after "respecting", up to and including the words "section 24" so the section reads as follows:
Without limiting its authority under the Financial Administration Act, for the purposes of this Act, Treasury Board may make regulations or issue directives respecting the form and content of documents required to be made public under this Act.]
[1725]
On the amendment.
Hon. P. Ramsey: And I won't belabour my reply. What the member is seeking to omit from the current proposed section 23 is Treasury Board and government's ability to issue directives setting its own accounting practices and policies. I believe government should have that authority.
Amendment negatived on division.
Section 23 approved.
On section 24.
G. Farrell-Collins: This is the section that I probably have the largest problem with in this entire bill. There are really two parts to it. There's section 24, "Regulation making authority," subsections (1) and (2).
Subsection (1) is a pretty standard clause; it appears in most legislation. It states the following: "The Lieutenant Governor in Council" -- cabinet -- "may make regulations referred to in section 41 of the Interpretation Act." That allows government to make the regulations that allow the government to sort of move the legislation along and make it work in practice.
The problem with it in the government's mind, I suspect, is that section 41
of the Interpretation Act requires the government to make sure that the
regulations live narrowly within the spirit of what's contained in the
legislation, that you can't do anything by regulation that the legislation that
I would say is in opposition to or different from or expands beyond what is
required under the legislation
Now, one would think that if the government is serious about doing the things in here -- the accountability measures that we've talked about, that ministries are going to have to issue those reports, which Crown corporations and agencies of government are going to have to comply -- that would be sufficient. That would be all the government needed -- section 24, which says that they are able to make regulations. But no, there are two fairly significant other sections which follow.
Subsection (2), I think, is the real crux of the matter where the minister and the opposition diverge greatly on this legislation. I suspect that if you were to go out and actually talk to people about it and point out to them what's here, the public would diverge greatly also.
Subsection (2) says that despite subsection (1) -- the motion, the standard
regulation-making power provisions of the legislation -- the Lieutenant-Governor
may make regulations as follows: "
This little subsection here says that the minister can redefine not just the ones that are there but any other word or any other definition that exists in this act to mean whatever the minister wants it to mean.
Then subsection (2), I think, is an interesting one. Subsection (2)(b) says
that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council or cabinet may make regulations as
follows: "
What that means is that if the minister decides that the fast ferry project isn't subject -- they don't want it subject -- to the capital review process, then he just issues a regulation, and it's done. There's no longer any requirement for them to follow that open and accountable new process that's in place.
[1730]
So for me, you know, this is that little card in the house of cards. And if
you reach in and pull out section 24, the whole bill comes collapsing down on
you. It's not worth the paper it's written on when the minister has that kind of
freedom to remove whole capital projects. This is one of the big reasons why
this bill has come forward -- because the public felt they weren't being told
the truth over the years with respect to fast ferries, rapid transit or the West
Coast Express. You know, you almost name it -- the convention centre, Skeena
Cellulose
So the government has built this structure of accountability that it says is going to ensure that we don't end up in that situation ever again. And then they've inserted this little section in here that says the minister can just pull something out. If the minister isn't comfortable with having to make those reports -- doesn't want to -- he can just make a regulation, and they don't apply.
The annual reports. We've been talking here about annual reports for the last
couple of hours, off and on. What this shows is that if the Premier just can't
get around to issuing that annual report or if the Attorney General can't get
around to issuing the 1998 and 1999 annual reports for the Ministry of Attorney
General that the Premier was supposed to issue when he was the Attorney General,
then all the minister has to do is exempt them. Just make a regulation under
section 24 here that excuses -- exempts -- the minister from doing his homework,
from introducing that legislation
[ Page 16443 ]
Perhaps the minister can tell me why he thinks that provision is necessary and why he thinks those provisions need to be written into the act.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I listened with some interest to the opposition's debate on this section, and there are some areas that I disagree with them on. There may be some where I agree. Let's go in a particular order.
We're in agreement that subsection (1) is fairly standard. It simply gives the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council the ability to make regulations.
Contrary to the member opposite, I think subsection (2)(a) is fairly common. It does enable the defining of words or expressions used in this act. This is a fairly common regulation-making ability that we have under the Interpretation Act and other legislation.
The member is right that there are two sections here that we should debate a little bit. First of all, let me try to sort through this, if I could.
Subsection (2)(c) talks about prescribing information that must be included in a performance plan. I submit that there's probably little difference on the two sides of the House in that you should be able to do that and say that this is what must be in a performance plan.
The Enns report talked about a five-year implementation schedule for performance plans, reports and the like. We have said that we're going to shorten that up considerably, but part of this, as government increasingly works its way through to outcome measures, is prescribing information that must be included. And so I submit that subsection (2)(c) is appropriate.
I hear the member opposite with his difficulties about why an organization would be exempt from the application of performance plans, major capital project plans or annual reports or I suppose in subsection (2)(d) -- though I'm not sure we got there -- whether an entity should be in or out of the government reporting entity. The question is how do you go about that?
The drafters of the act, contrary to what the member said -- which I guess was looking at sort of the worst-case scenario and what abuses could be perpetrated under the act -- were looking, as they saw it, at the way of dealing with the small number of cases that might require this sort of exception. They were looking at things where you might have a capital project where you could compromise commercial Crown or commercial interests. They were looking at situations where you might have a suborganization, say of the Okanagan Valley Tree Fruit Authority or something, dealing specifically with a particular subset of their activities and whether or not that a subentity of a tree fruit organization should be required to do a performance plan, an annual report or whether that would be subsumed into a larger one.
So there are a number of cases here where I think it is appropriate to look at exemptions from the application of these sections -- 13, 14 and 16. However, here's where I think I agree with the member opposite. I agree that these are too important to simply have the decision to exempt based on the minister and that there has to be some sort of check on this.
In subsection (2)(d), where it talks about what's in or out of the entity,
the way we've chosen to limit that is by requiring that if there is a desire to
exclude an organization from or include an organization -- a government
reporting entity -- that has to be done
I know it's not perfect; I think it's the best we can do. What I would
propose -- and I'm actually prepared to make an amendment to this effect and
table one here
[1735]
[SECTION 24(a) in subsection (2), by deleting paragraphs (b) to (d) and substituting the following:
(b) prescribing information that must be included in a performance plan under section 13;
(c) on the recommendation of the minister after consultation with the Auditor General, exempting a government organization from the application of one or more of sections 13 [performance plans], 14 [major capital project plans] and 16 [annual reports];
(d) on the recommendation of the minister after consultation with the Auditor General, excluding an organization from or including an organization in the government reporting entity., and
(b) in subsection (3), by deleting "subsection (2) (d)" and substituting "subsection (2) (c) or (d)".]
On the amendment.
G. Farrell-Collins: I would like to take a moment to look at it. My colleague has a comment that he wants to make while we're doing that.
R. Thorpe: As my colleague from Vancouver-Little Mountain has the opportunity to read over this amendment put forward by the minister, let me share and put on the record not only what the official opposition is saying but also one of the highly regarded accounting associations in British Columbia has said. Of course, I'm not going to identify that association. Let me just quote. They're talking here about section 24: "This section makes me, as a member of the general public, suspicious of what the government's intentions are. While it is possible that it's legitimate, I cannot help but be highly suspicious, after all the government has done in the past several years."
I think that when we get through all the political rhetoric on both sides, this is what the public thinks about what's gone on with their finances and what's gone on with the administration of their province. I think it's important that we recognize these concerns. These are, in part, some of the reasons why our caucus is raising these issues, because this certainly
[ Page 16444 ]
does not provide for transparency. I believe that the amendment on the order paper under my colleague's name, from Vancouver-Little Mountain, goes a long, long ways. But my colleague's had an opportunity to review the government's amendment, and perhaps he'd like to chat now.
[1740]
G. Farrell-Collins: I appreciate the amendment by the minister. I think it goes maybe even more than halfway to getting where I think we should shoot for. What it does, of course, is draw the auditor general into the discussion prior to a regulation being made by the minister to exempt a ministry or agency of government from those sections of the act, which we spoke about earlier. It still, however, gives the minister, at the end of the day, that authority. As I said, I think it goes a little more than halfway.
I prefer the amendment that is on the order paper in my name, because I think it's more restrictive, as the minister can probably guess. I know we haven't put it on the table yet, but I'll just talk about it for a second, if I can. Really, all it does is delete the other stuff. It leaves the government standing with the basic regulatory provisions that exist under section 41 of the Interpretation Act.
I pulled it from the cupboard here, and I want to read a little bit of it. I
don't pretend to be an expert in drafting legislation, but I've read a bit of it
in my time here. Section 41 of the Interpretation Act allows the government --
the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, the ministers -- to make regulations on a
whole range of things. It's actually relatively broad: "
"Provide for administrative and procedural matters for which no express,
or only partial, provision has been made." I think the provision that
currently exists under (2)(a)
"Limit the application of a regulation in time or place or both." That's kind of internal.
"Prescribe the amount of a fee
I think there's enough there to get the issues that the minister wants. As I said, my concern really rests with the provisions for the minister at the end of the day to not have to come back to the Legislature and be accountable for exempting a Crown corporation, for example, or a capital project of significant size from this act.
The minister can just think back with me over the last four years under the mandate of the previous Premier how many times that section, as written in this bill, would have been used to exempt capital projects -- all the time. The fast ferries wouldn't have gone through this process. The West Coast Express certainly wouldn't have gone through this process and the three aluminum smelters never would have gone through this process if they ever had a chance of moving forward. None of the variety of capital projects that were put forward by the government under that leadership would have gone through this process, without a doubt -- auditor general or not.
This provision would have been written into whatever provision the government wanted to, and it would have come forward. So I think there are some real problems with this section. I think the loophole is still open. As I said, I thank the minister for his amendment. He's moved it, so I'm assuming it's going to pass. I think it is a marginal improvement, and he goes about 60 percent of the way there. But I just encourage the minister to think back over the last number of years -- if he were the minister responsible for one of those capital projects -- whether or not he and his colleagues and the Premier of the day would have used this section to get around having to disclose the details of those capital projects. And I think the answer, if he's being true to himself, would be a clear yes. So I still have problems with this section. The minister can move his amendment. I'll support the amendment based on its moving partially, but I still don't think it goes far enough.
[1745]
Amendment approved.
On section 24 as amended.
G. Farrell-Collins: I just want to make a couple comments on section 24. The amendment that was standing in my name on the order paper, I believe, if I look at it, still applies, and it is still in order. So with that, I'd like to move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.
Amendment negatived on division.[SECTION 24, to read as follows:
24 (1) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations referred to in section 41 of the Interpretation Act.
(2) If a regulation is made, the minister must make public prior to its implementation the following:
(a) a statement of the reasons for making the regulation;
(b) a "Regulatory Impact Statement"; and
(c) a letter from the Auditor General containing any comments he may wish to make with regards to the regulation.]
Section 24 as amended approved on division.
On section 25.
R. Thorpe: I have an amendment on the order paper. I'm not going to talk to it; we've talked about this enough. It has to do with generally accepted accounting principles as established by the public accounting standards board and the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants. I wish to move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.
[SECTION 25, as it applies to Section 10 (2) (b) (i) of the Auditor General Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 23, by deleting the words in strikeout and substituting therefor the words in underline:
10 (2) (b) (i) present fairly the financial position, results of operations and changes in
[ Page 16445 ]
financial position of the government reporting entity in accordance with
the stated accounting policiesgenerally accepted accounting principles for government accounting policies as established by the Public Accounting Standards Board and the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants; and]
Amendment negatived on division.
Section 25 approved.
Sections 26 to 32 inclusive approved.
On section 33.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I move the amendment to section 33 standing in my name on the order paper.
Amendment approved.[SECTION 33, by deleting "and 11.1" and substituting ", 11.1 and 11.2".]
Section 33 as amended approved.
Sections 34 to 51 inclusive approved.
On section 52.
G. Farrell-Collins: I'd like to move the amendment to section 52 standing in my name on the order paper.
[SECTION 53, to delete the words in strikeout format and substitute therefor the words highlighted by underline:
52 The following sections first apply for the purposes of the
2001-20022000-2001 fiscal year:section 8 [major capital project information];
section 12 [government strategic plan];
section 13 [performance plans for ministries and government organization];
section 15 [annual report on government strategic plan];
section 16 [annual reports for ministries and government organizations].]
On the amendment.
G. Farrell-Collins: This amendment moves up the requirement for a whole bunch of things by the government. It moves up section 8, which is the requirement for major capital project information. It advances by one year the requirement to comply with section 12, government strategic plan; section 13, performance plans for ministries and government organizations; section 15, for the annual report on government strategic plans; and section 16, the annual report for ministries and government organizations.
I know the minister is going to stand up and tell me that we can't do that, because they're not all there. The point I want to make is that they should be there. They should have been there for the last nine years in some form or another. They're not there. I would argue that's part of the problem that this government currently experiences with its significant disconnect with the general public on accountability, financial accountability -- their ability to manage the money of the province, their ability to be respectful of the taxpayer dollars. I would argue that if much of this legislation had been put in place when the government was beginning its mandate as opposed to ending its mandate, perhaps it wouldn't be ending its mandate right now.
[1750]
[T. Stevenson in the chair.]
Hon. P. Ramsey: The member is quite right; I'm going to make the point that several of the things he mentions are not ready to be done this year. The only other point I'd make is that we have in many cases -- I'd say almost in all -- either met or accelerated the implementation schedule that was recommended by the Enns panel. Therefore I must, with respect, decline to support the amendment.
R. Thorpe: This is very, very important material here. I get very angry when I have to listen to a government that says that it's living with the spirit and it's doing this and it's doing that. But when it comes to the very fundamentals of putting a strategic plan in place, having a plan in place for major capital projects, after nine years it can't get an annual report on government strategic plan. We have to listen here to this government say that it's living within the spirit of having an accountable and transparent government. That is absolute hogwash.
If the government was serious, it would make an effort to come clean on these things, the things that are important -- the things that British Columbians deserve -- to run the government efficiently, so that we can have health care there when it's needed by people and have an education system that's there when it's needed.
When you cannot have a strategic plan for your government in place after nine years of being in government, the strategic thing you should be doing is calling an election so British Columbians can voice their concerns on how ineptly this government has been run.
Amendment negatived on division.
On section 53.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I move the amendment to section 53 standing in my name on the order paper.
[SECTION 53, by renumbering the section as section 53 (1) and adding the following subsection:
(2) Sections 41 to 51 [repeal of annual ministry reports under other Acts] come into force on March 31, 2002.]
Amendment approved.
On section 53 as amended.
G. Farrell-Collins: I would like to move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.
Section 53 as amended advances the date for the repeal of annual ministry reports by one year as well -- which just tries to reinforce once again my concern about the way things have been done for the last little while. I know the minister says that they're trying really, really hard to make all this happen. I guess we'll see whether that pays off in the end. My amendment merely advances that date by one calendar year.[SECTION 53 (2), be amended by deleting the words in strikeout format and substituting therefor the words highlighted in underline:
53 (2) Sections 41 to 51 [repeal of annual ministry reports under other Acts] comes into force on
March 31, 2002March 31, 2001.][ Page 16446 ]
Hon. P. Ramsey: Had we changed section 52 as the member proposed, this amendment would make sense: adhering to section 53 would make sense. Adhering to the original dates in section 52, this amendment does not make sense, so I must respectfully decline to support it.
Amendment negatived.
Section 53 as amended approved.
Title approved.
[1755]
Hon. P. Ramsey: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Bill 2, Budget Transparency and Accountability Act, reported complete with amendments to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.
Committee of Supply A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. D. Lovick moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 5:56 p.m.
PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM
The House in Committee of Supply A; D. Streifel in the chair.
The committee met at 2:44 p.m.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
SMALL BUSINESS, TOURISM AND CULTURE
(continued)
On vote 43: ministry operations, $73,324,000 (continued).
I. Chong: When we last left this subject on Thursday afternoon, we were talking of the division of cultural recreation, sports and heritage. I think we canvassed all we can in that area, and in culture, I think, as well.
If there are any additional questions, I know the minister's office and staff will oblige us with answers as they have in the past few months. Once again, I want to state for the record that I do appreciate that. I would like, then, to move into the tourism and corporate policy division, which will also, in particular, include the three divisions of tourism policy and land use, archaeology, and corporate policy and planning.
[1445]
Firstly, I'd like to start with some questions regarding tourism policy and land use. That has to do with the item that was already raised earlier today in question period, actually, to do with BCAL -- B.C. Assets and Land Corporation. I want to first of all state for the record to the minister that not only myself but many members on this side of the House have received a number of concerns from constituents who operate a number of facilities around the province and who have expanded into ecotourism, forest tourism and agritourism, upon which Crown land use is necessary. I was in the briefing where BCAL provided some information, and I understand that the backlog is not as severe as they say it is.
However, the concern that I hear consistently is that there seems to still not be an interministerial collaboration with this ministry and with BCAL -- wherever that moves to, whether it was in the Environment ministry or whether it's now with the Agriculture ministry. There's movement, and all those who are affected by it who are in the tourism side are having to rush around following it to find out what minister is responsible and then bring those concerns to the table time and again.
What the tourism industries that are affected by this corporation are asking of this minister is: where are his efforts in terms of BCAL? What is he specifically doing to aid them in the promotion and expansion of their growth industry?
Hon. I. Waddell: First of all, let me introduce my assistant deputy minister, Brian Dolsen, to my right, who is in charge of this area in the ministry, and Catharine Read, my deputy minister, who of course is with me on the left.
I did meet specifically about this matter with the new minister of BCAL, Corky Evans, the hon. member for Nelson-Creston. My deputy minister is on BCAL now, and so is the Deputy Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks. The point of that is to fast-track applications. So on the BCAL board is an interministry committee of the three ministries. So we're well aware of what the hon. member was saying, and we're taking steps to address the problem.
Now, here's the problem. If you're starting a new business, you've often got to deal with the landlord. You've got to rent premises; you've got to have access to premises. It's no different here, because the landlord's the province. The question is: what should the rent be? What should the access be? What should the terms of the contract be and so on? We're about to have an explosion -- it's starting -- in ecotourism; for example, helicopters in the Squamish corridor, companies that want access to the back country owned by the people.
I like the way the Americans use this -- they talk about "the
people." The people need a fair rent. The people have also got to decide
[ Page 16447 ]
interests as well. There are also animals that need to be protected. You don't want to be taking people up to see animals and then have no animals left.
It's a question of balance, and we're trying to deal with it in two ways: firstly, by making the ministries connect and, secondly, by dealing with red tape. To deal with red tape you've got to make a decision and make it as quickly as you can without having people sit out there to dry for years and years.
That's the policy, and that's the way we're approaching it.
[1450]
I. Chong: A question to the minister, then. I heard him mention that there are three deputy ministers now on BCAL. I just want confirmation. Is he then saying that it's the Deputy Minister of Small Business, Tourism and Culture; the Deputy Minister of Environment; and, of course, the Deputy Minister of Agriculture? Are those the three ministries that are represented through BCAL?
Hon. I. Waddell: The answer is that there are actually more than three deputy ministers on the BCAL board, but the three deputy ministers I mentioned are on the board and have a subcommittee of the board that specifically deals with commercial recreation, and that's to coordinate the response.
I. Chong: I thank the minister for the clarification.
My concern is the fact that we still don't seem to have a strong voice at that discussion table, whether it be through a subcommittee or at the BCAL board, for those who are advocating tourism -- in particular this ministry. Otherwise, we wouldn't see this consistency of complaints coming through to various members throughout the province. The Ministry of Forests, for example, certainly should be represented, if it is not already represented, because forestry issues are now emerging for ecotourism. I also have a letter which I know the minister has received. It was addressed to the assistant deputy minister, Mr. Dolsen, from the West Chilcotin Tourism Association, and they were very much concerned that this ministry seems to have no voice at the table dealing with the forestry land base in British Columbia.
I see that on May 8 the back-country agreement was signed with BCAL and the Ministry of Environment. We're talking about the Ministry of Environment and therefore the Ministry of Agriculture, but there was no mention of the Ministry of Small Business, Tourism and Culture. It's for those reasons that those in the tourism sector are particularly upset, particularly concerned about land use issues. If there is a separate division set up in tourism and corporate policy dealing with tourism policy and land use, you would expect that there would be some strategy or some plans or some objectives that this ministry has towards this area. If the minister can perhaps share that with us and put that on the record, then all those concerned could see firsthand what it is this minister is doing to protect the tourism industries that overlap other ministries in terms of land use policies.
Hon. I. Waddell: The deputy ministers of BCAL, the Ministry of Forests and my ministry meet on these forestry issues all the time now. Also, we were consulted on the MELP-BCAL agreement, and we believe that things are now moving quicker as BCAL deals with environmental issues. The Tourism minister has just been appointed to the Environment and Land Use Committee of cabinet. It was a request by COTA, the tourism industry's representatives, and that's happened. As a matter of fact, there's a meeting tonight of ELUC.
So, as I've said before, it's still happening. I was in Lake Cowichan this weekend on Saturday, opening up the gateway community there, to a very good response. As I frequently say, tourism is like the little sister that's grown up and suddenly become the big sister. People are starting to take notice of her. That's happening throughout government.
[1455]
I. Chong: No doubt tourism certainly has grown up, as the minister phrases it. It's fast becoming the second-largest industry in terms of economic generation in this province, hiring more and more people. And the tourism industry operators are creating more and more new jobs as opposed to recycling jobs, which is one of the reasons why perhaps more and more they are advocating for more protection of their businesses once they've established them. Certainly land use issues keep cropping up because we're moving outside of just strictly hospitality areas; we're moving into viewscapes and such.
I'm still not satisfied that this ministry is doing everything it possibly can. I know staff are working perhaps as hard as they are, but my concern is that the lack of importance placed on this ministry in terms of the other, larger ministries seems to overshadow the voice of this ministry. I'm wanting some assurance that this minister -- through whatever staff appointments he can have to those other interministerial committees that are set up -- ensures that the voice of tourism is heard at the Environment ministries, at BCAL, at the Agriculture ministries, when they're making decisions, and at the Forests ministries as well.
Recently the Wilderness Tourism Association was formed. I know the minister is aware of Mr. Gunn, who has been very vocal on that. These tourism associations form as a result of concern that they are not being heard. Some associations form as a result of their strength in numbers; others form because they aren't being heard. That's what I see happening now more and more. I'll leave it at this point. I just want to put, again, on the record that the concerns out there about this ministry not being heard by the other, so-called larger ministries seem to be very real for those in ecotourism, agritourism and forest tourism enterprises.
Another area of tourism policy I would like to touch on has to do with legislation that affects tourism. The one piece of legislation that I'm particularly concerned about and that I'd like this minister to comment on has to do with a new tourism tax. I suppose the minister would not want to refer to it as a tourism tax, but certainly that's what it's coming to be known as. That is what was introduced recently -- or strengthened, I suppose -- through the Ministry of Environment. That is the sales tax that is going to be collected on recreational vehicles and also on recreational boats that are being moored at marinas whose length of moorage or length of tenure at a recreational park is going to be 12 months in an 18-month period.
This piece of legislation, through the Ministry of Finance, has been in existence. I'm very much aware of that. However, it had not been enforced in the past. It's a tax to specifically go after people who are non-residents -- not residents of B.C. --
[ Page 16448 ]
so I do understand what the implications of this are. But the further implications, or the consequences of this, are that we will be lucky if we can enforce this. We will be even luckier as a province if we even collect any of this sales tax.
What has already happened is that in some areas where there are vessels that have heard of this, they have already taken their boats and moved them to another jurisdiction. So the point is: on the one hand, we are trying to collect a sales tax on non-residents, thinking that these non-residents are trying to circumvent a tax regulation -- which in their minds, they're not -- and secondly, we're never going to get the tax. All we're going to do is scare away these people who have bought their boats here, upon which other small businesses have been created. Marinas are created and then small repair shops are created around them. The fuel stocking system, small restaurants and even small lodgings are all built around these marinas in an effort to capitalize on this new kind of tourism.
[1500]
It's not unlike people to have large boats from other provinces or other countries and bring them up to British Columbia waters, leave them here and then tour around our beautiful supernatural British Columbia, as we say. They then have to go back home and leave their boats for the remainder of the year and then come up the following year to do another tour of the areas that they had missed in the previous year. What they're doing now is pulling out these boats, pulling up their RVs and taking them back home or putting them back into a United States jurisdiction.
In particular, here in the peninsula area, which my colleague the member for Saanich North and the Islands represents, it's no hardship on those people who have moored their vessels in Sidney to take them over to Friday Harbor or to Roche Harbor and not have to pay the sales tax. And that's exactly what they're going to do.
I believe another area in the province has already called upon this minister to try to stop this tourism tax. I believe it is the Columbia-Revelstoke area. And a chamber of commerce there has written and asked all other chambers of commerce to contact this minister and to see what he intends to do to stand up to the Minister of Finance, to see whether we can't find a more workable solution. So I would like to ask the minister, hon. Chair, what he plans on doing about this, if anything.
The Chair: Before I recognize the minister, I'm going to caution the committee on standing order 61 on relevancy. Issues that are directly under the administrative control of the minister whose estimates are before us are the only topics for discussion in committee -- not legislation, not future policy, not another minister's estimates. With that, I'll recognize the minister to see what he could do with this answer.
Hon. I. Waddell: Well, I'll give a short answer to that, because it does concern tourists, and I want to clarify the matter. It's not a new tax; there's no new tourism tax. The tax has been in effect since 1994. It's been amended slightly to close a loophole that allowed a few people to skirt around the tax by taking their boats out of the water or changing their RV spaces for a short time.
It comes in response to small business people in British Columbia who sell boats or who sell trailers, and the people who buy them pay tax on them. These people who buy out of the province don't pay this tax, and so there's an incentive to buy out of the province and then bring the boats here, rather than to buy their goods here in British Columbia from good B.C. retailers. Without the tax, Albertans could purchase and bring into the province, for long-time use, their boats and recreational vehicles, as well as building materials, appliances and other goods for use in their summer cottages. We didn't think this was fair to B.C. retailers who sell the same goods.
Now, the tax is not unique to British Columbia. It happens in other jurisdictions. For example, a non-resident boat owner mooring a boat in Washington State for more than six months would have to pay a 7.8 percent sales tax and a yearly 0.5 percent excise tax on top of that. In Oregon, residents with summer cottages in Washington are required to pay sales tax on building materials, appliances and other goods for their use in cottages in that state. So it applies in other jurisdictions.
This amendment that was passed here recently simply means that the tax now applies to boats and RVs that remain in B.C. for 12 out of 18 months, and it's an attempt to deal with this problem. I would, of course, be open to hear arguments and instances where people have been hurt badly by the change in tax. If there are any problems with that, I'd be glad to hear that. But I draw the hon. member's attention to the similar policies in Washington and Oregon.
I. Chong: I am mindful of the fact that the legislation comes out of
the Ministry of Tourism; however, it's
A Voice: Out of Finance.
[1505]
I. Chong:
I am aware that this tax is imposed in other jurisdictions -- in Washington State and in Oregon State. However, in those states, because of their whole taxation system, they're allowed to write them off. If an American decides to bring their boat up here and they find that they're going to have to pay the tax, they're just going to take it back there anyway. If an Albertan decides to moor down there, I don't believe it has been as significant for them, and I understand they've been able to take their boats back up. I don't believe they have the same criteria, although the six-month rule can be such that they can take their boats out after six months and come back again. But we've specifically altered this to change it to 12 months in an 18-month period, which is much greater.
I'm also mindful of the fact that the minister states that the B.C. retailers are feeling that they have been adversely affected by people purchasing boats and not paying tax. Of course that may well be true, but I haven't heard that complaint by B.C. retailers. If the minister has a whole host of them, then I'd certainly be willing to hear who just started complaining.
What we also have are other B.C. retailers or tourism operators who are going to be adversely affected. So, then,
[ Page 16449 ]
how do we weigh that? How do we balance that? You have the people who are saying that they're building boats and are not able to sell them to Americans because of the taxation issue. Then you have the people who do buy the boats -- in their own provinces, perhaps, or in whatever other jurisdiction -- bring them here to B.C. and find that they have to pay the tax, and they're just going to take them back out. The tax will never be collected on those boats that come here.
I would challenge the minister to tell me how his ministry is going to watch
over the enforcement and monitor the loss of taxation and the loss of tourism
revenues that are going to accumulate as a result of this financial policy. It
is a poor one. I've already heard, last year, when there was the thought of
enforcement to vessels worth a substantial amount of money -- perhaps, I'm sure,
over $250,000
I would like to find out whether the minister intends to speak to the Minister of Finance, whether the minister intends to bring his concerns, as the Tourism minister, to the Minister of Finance about this issue; whether it can be modified; whether or not there is going to be some phasing-in period as opposed to being immediately effective; whether the minister sees that there is some exemption that is available, and what remedies are available. As I say, I cannot imagine that people who own boats worth in excess of $200,000, or RVs, are going to just arbitrarily hand over $7,000, $14,000, $21,000 to this province for no real benefit. No non-resident in their right mind would do that.
The Chair: Before I recognize the minister, I'm going to restate the caution from the Chair. We're getting into an area of administration of a tax and the need to change legislation. Both of those areas are completely out of order in this committee, and I would ask the members to find another way to examine this issue with the Minister of Finance -- perhaps take it to the Minister of Finance. It's out of order in this committee, hon. members.
Hon. I. Waddell: You having said that, I will tell the hon. member that I have and will again take similar comments that the member has made to the Minister of Finance.
[1510]
I. Chong: Along the same lines of tourism policy, corporate policy and planning, I would like to also ask the minister where he sees his role in terms of ensuring that transportation infrastructure and transportation links are reliable throughout this province. In particular, in the region that I represent, we know that B.C. Ferries is very much a necessity for tourism. I would like to know whether there is a staff person or a deputy minister assigned from this ministry to ensure that tourism's voice is heard when B.C. Ferries issues are discussed. I realize stakeholder groups are out there, but the tourism industry in particular is very concerned. Every time there is a threat of a strike or a threat of any potential changes to routes in other areas, the entire tourism industry in those areas is thrown for a loop if there are changes to the scheduling or changes to tariffs.
Hon. I. Waddell: Thank you, hon. member, for the question. B.C. Ferries has changed in terms of tourism mainly through prodding from our ministry and from others. It's become more tourism-favourable, and it's reflected in a lot of ways. It's now in fact open to discussion about, for example, publishing their schedules early for northern routes so that the German tour operators can get them out there to their potential customers; they're doing that.
I was at the Premier's summit. The feedback, they call it, from the Premier's
summit
I might add, on transportation, that you have a wonderful highway here on the Island that is superb; I took it this weekend up to Duncan. Whoever built that certainly has to be congratulated, because that really affects the tourist trade on the Island.
I. Chong: I still didn't hear, in terms of the allocation of resources
in terms of staff resources that he may have from his ministry, what B.C. Ferry
Corporation, to ensure that tourism interests are always upheld when discussions
take place
Some years ago, there were scheduling problems where schedules came out just months before the routes were to take effect, and tours had been sold a year earlier for a number of tourism businesses. They had to go through a substantial lobby effort to change the schedules back as to when the opening of the season was, etc., although I don't see that happening now. That was just one example of what has happened in the past when the Tourism ministry does not work cooperatively, or does not work in conjunction with the minister responsible for B.C. Ferries. If I could find out whether the minister has someone who is linked with B.C. Ferries or whether there is a subcommittee that staff person sits on, I would appreciate knowing that.
Hon. I. Waddell: To answer the question, our staff meets regularly with people connected with the ferries. So does Tourism B.C. You know, we could use more resources, if the hon. member would favour that. I've been advocating that. I know the opposition's position is to cut back government rather dramatically.
A Voice: Stop the waste.
A Voice: Better management.
Hon. I. Waddell: Well, you need some employees, you know. If you have
dramatic tax decreases, you just don't have any money for hiring people. If you
look at the experience of other provinces
[ Page 16450 ]
responsible, balanced way. We have been cutting taxes, but you can't come in and say, "Cut taxes dramatically," and then stand up and demand more civil servants to do things like work with B.C. ferries and so on. It's not logical.
I. Chong: I guess $463 million that we've spent on fast cats isn't
what this minister could have taken advantage of if it wasn't wasted there. I'm
surprised that the minister would suggest that there couldn't be better
management of wasted taxpayers' dollars. Every day I hear that from constituents
that I represent. Perhaps we wouldn't have to be dealing crisis-to-crisis in all
the ministries if that were to take place. In any event, I do want to ask the
minister, still on an issue of tourism and corporate policy -- again on
transportation infrastructure
Recently we saw the mayor of Victoria head off to Ottawa to protest the airline flights and the cutback here. Here we have a mayor, concerned about our local city being one of the three largest or expanding tourism towns in this province, feeling that this issue is important enough that he had to go to Ottawa to ensure that the flights to Victoria would be improved.
I'd like to ask this minister whether he has had conversations with his counterpart in Ottawa or what he intends to -- or what he's able to -- do to ensure that we are able to restore the frequency of flights to Victoria and, in particular, Vancouver. What's happening is that people are finding that these flights are curtailing their efforts to come to Victoria and even into the interior, where flights have been heavily curtailed as well. In fact, I think a number of flights today were cancelled, which has caused some problems with some members rescheduling their attendance here today. I'm wondering if the minister can advise what his efforts have been on behalf of tourism.
[1515]
Hon. I. Waddell: I can tell the hon. member that I was the first in
the province to raise the issue. You will recall that I was on British Columbia
Television some months ago
Interjection.
Hon. I. Waddell: Maybe you don't get it, or don't want to.
I was on BCTV identifying the problem. The problem with the air merger was that there had been cuts in capacity and increased fares both in the province and internationally. I also raised the matter on Philip Yung's radio show, on Chinese radio in Vancouver, from Taiwan. When I was in Taiwan, I did a live show and raised the question of the fact that Canadian and Air Canada would be cutting back. I was worried about international capacity. That's a problem, and it's even more serious than national capacity.
I met with some of the people from
Here are the problems. The problem is that there would be a spillover in
flights, as they would go to Toronto; that is, they would have an excess in
capacity. So when they cut the capacity, cut the seats, they would spill seats;
that is, they just couldn't
In the flights up north, I picked this up in Prince Rupert. I'm quoted in the Prince Rupert paper about a month ago, saying that the problem that I was told in Prince Rupert was that they reduced the capacity and the tour operators couldn't find seats. They had to wait for weeks, sometimes months, to get a seat on the plane for their tour. This is very serious.
I raised the point about airports as well, because some of these airports
That raises the issue of Vancouver airport, which gives about $60 million or $80 million a year to our friends, to the government, in Ottawa. That money, in my view, should not go to Ottawa but should go around British Columbia to help the communities with their airports.
I don't know. I see the hon. member from Penticton here. I don't know how they're going to keep going with the Penticton airport. There's going to have to be some action taken. This is a very, very serious problem. You asked me what I did. The answer is: I identified it first in British Columbia, first from overseas, and dealt with the feds on it. I got the Premier of British Columbia to raise it at the Western Premiers' Conference, and they gave a joint communiqué. I believe -- although I can't say this for sure -- that the Premier has raised it with the Prime Minister.
[1520]
I. Chong: It still sounds as though raising it just as an issue, as opposed to dealing directly with one's counterpart in Ottawa has not done any more than just allow this to sit on the back burner. It is a very serious issue. It's starting to affect tourism and small businesses throughout British Columbia. I understand that even the rental car business, which a number of us have to use in Vancouver or here in Victoria, is down as much as 15 percent as a result of the airline situation. And that translates into small businesses and translates into job losses.
It's important that the minister speaks about it back home here. Perhaps it will be more effective if he were speaking about it here, rather than from Taiwan. In any event, I would implore him to continue to press the Premier, then, if that's the person who is going to be designated to speak to the Prime Minister in Ottawa, to deal with the flight issue. It's seriously going to impact tourism right at the height of when small businesses are going to expect peak travelling times.
I also want to just quickly ask the minister about his efforts or his ministry's efforts regarding a possible seamless Canada-U.S. border crossing. I know this has been raised in the past by other tourism industries. I think Tourism Vancouver, Oceans Blue Foundation and the greater Vancouver regional district have had a symposium or a workshop in this area to find out if there cannot be a better way to have a seamless Canada-U.S. border crossing to encourage more tourism, visitations from the U.S. The idea of every vehicle being stopped or tour buses having to be cleared at the borders and the amount of time that is often wasted through
[ Page 16451 ]
long line-ups is a hindrance to our tourism industry as opposed to a benefit. I'd like to know from this minister what specific policies in his ministry are attempting to deal with this.
Hon. I. Waddell: A former Premier, Michael Harcourt, is on the committee dealing with Washington on this. I met with Judd Buchanan, who is the chair of the CTC -- the Canadian Tourism Commission. I met with Mr. Buchanan and discussed this very matter. We think there's been some progress made in the States over being aware that the Canadian border is different than the Mexican border with them and should be treated differently. I think the hon. member and I would agree that we would want to make it as seamless as possible, except for one of the products from British Columbia that seems to be stopped frequently at the border.
I. Chong: I thank the minister for his answer and his delayed reaction.
There is one other question I would quickly like to canvass, and then I would like to then move on to the archaeological services of this division. The question I would like to pose is regarding the Vancouver-Whistler 2010 Olympic bid. Can the minister advise where we are at this point? We have had a briefing quickly on it, but where are we as of today's date? Where are we with that? Have there been any changes to commitments or changes to any strategy that this minister sees or is anticipating?
Hon. I. Waddell: No, I don't have anything further to add. I think it's going along nicely. As you know, I have done everything I can to get our best and brightest in British Columbia on the board. I think we've succeeded. I've also included her colleague the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi in the board. The business plan is being worked on, I understand, and will be available soon. We have a new CEO, who is first-rate -- the former head of Telus. I will have an announcement shortly with respect to our commitment to the legacies program so that the benefits can be spread across the province. I will let the hon. member know exactly when I'm able to do that. That will be very soon.
[1525]
I. Chong: I thank the minister, and I'm looking forward to receiving a copy of the business plan when it is made available.
The next areas I'd like to move into are archaeological data and heritage sites. I know the two are separate, but they seem to overlap. In some cases, we may be talking about heritage sites or archaeological sites, but at this point, I think I have some of my colleagues here who would like to ask specific questions about heritage sites. So if the minister has the staff available here, I'd like to pursue that area at this point and ask my colleague the member for Okanagan-Penticton to proceed.
R. Thorpe: Maybe the minister could let me know: are you ready minister?
Hon. I. Waddell: Yeah.
R. Thorpe: Okay, good. Thanks. Roughly a year ago, the minister met with a number of heritage site operators. I'm wondering if the minister could brief us on the outcome of that meeting and what progress, if any, has been made as a result of that meeting.
Hon. I. Waddell: Yes. With respect to the Blake MacKenzie case, which was a case that caused some difficulty, we were unable to resolve it, and there was a threat of court action. I asked my staff to try one more time, because court action -- I've been on the other side, you know; I've been there suing big government -- is tough for small people, small operators, small business. I know how tough it is. So I asked Mr. MacKenzie whether he could put this through a kind of mediation process, and that process is going on now. We're trying to see if we can mediate some sort of settlement that we both can live with. I have nothing to report about the other matters.
R. Thorpe: Is this the result after the Grant Thornton study -- that you've gone to another phase now?
Hon. I. Waddell: Yes.
R. Thorpe: How much did the Grant Thornton study cost?
Hon. I. Waddell: I don't have that information at my fingertips. I apologize for that. I'll get it to the member.
R. Thorpe: You said that this -- and interestingly enough, I wasn't going to go there -- historic Yale site, which you refer to Mr. MacKenzie on, has been going on for several years now. What deadline has the ministry established to have this issue resolved? Have you established an internal deadline for closure on this matter?
[1530]
Hon. I. Waddell: We're hoping that we can wind it up within a month. It's been going on for a long time. Now, Mr. MacKenzie has the option, of course, to sue us, which he can do. But that would go on for a long time too, and it would be very costly. This is an attempt, through a mediation process, to come to some amicable settlement. I think it's worth trying, worth taking the time to do.
R. Thorpe: Out of the belief that there are 13 historical heritage sites in British Columbia, approximately, how many of those are operated by independent contractors? How many are operated directly by the government?
Hon. I. Waddell: Forgive me. I have a problem here. The assistant deputy minister who's in charge of this is not here. He left after the first round today, thinking his matter was over. If you want to stand this down, we'll try and get him back here, and we can get the exact answers. Or I can go through and take them on notice if you like.
I. Chong: Yes, if we need to stand that down until we can get a staff
person back
Until we move on to that, perhaps we can ask specifically about some archaeological matters, which I know another
[ Page 16452 ]
colleague of mine, the member for Chilliwack, has some questions on. I presume the correct staff persons are here for that.
The Chair: Just before I recognize the hon. member for Chilliwack, we have a bit of background noise. There seems to be a deep discussion by a couple of members -- for Burnaby North and Prince George-Mount Robson. So I would ask them to lower their voice tones.
B. Penner: Thank you for bringing the room to order. It's always appreciated.
I have a number of questions for the minister, and I hope he's in a position to answer them without the aforementioned assistant deputy minister being present.
I'd like to touch on the issue of matters pertaining to the Heritage Conservation Act, which won't surprise the minister. This has been a matter that's received considerable attention of late. I'd like to preface my remarks by starting with an editorial, which I think summarizes the problem. This is an article which appeared in the Vancouver Sun on Thursday, May 18, headlined "Heritage Designations Make Bizarre Booby Traps." I'll just read this into the record:
"Supporting heritage is akin to liking apple pie: how could one not? Easily, when B.C.'s bureaucrats have their mucky fingers in it. Victoria's mandarins have registered 21,259 locations as archeological sites under the Heritage Act. That is well and good. We should acknowledge and protect our heritage. The trouble is the senseless way the bureaucrats have gone about this business.
"Alice in Wonderland would be right at home as a property owner in B.C. Buyers of land cannot know if it has a heritage designation because the information is not on land title documents. Yet development on such sites, even of something as minor as a sundeck, requires a special permit. Furthermore, owners may have to pay for an archaeological impact study.
"These conditions might be reasonable if land owners knew about them. As it is, a heritage designation serves as a bizarre booby trap for owners of private property. The cultural ministry should promote interest in archaeological sites; instead, it is doing its best to sour us on our heritage."
I just share that by way of a preface.
Two years ago the minister was questioned by my colleague the member for Oak Bay-Gordon Head about this matter and about the lack of registrations and land titles. This is what the minister had to say: "We're open and will listen to suggestions for finding a better means of doing that." And later: "If more needs to be done, then the ministry will do more."
Well, it's now two years later, and there are still only two heritage sites that are registered with land titles, out of 21,259 properties that have been identified by the ministry.
I'm wondering if the minister can tell us why virtually nothing has been done to alleviate the aggravation and frustration that property owners feel upon finding that their property has been designated a heritage site. They haven't been told, and the ultimate result is going to be thousand of dollars in costs to perform archaeological assessments.
[1535]
Hon. I. Waddell: First, let me make some comments about the Vancouver Sun editorial while I can. They, of course, have access to the public through the media -- vast power, virtually unregulated. This is Public Service Week, and when you read cheap-shot editorials like that, it makes you wonder, you know, for our society. We're lucky we get the level of civil service we do, in spite of the cheap shots that the Sun would take, that B.C.'s bureaucrats are mucky-fingered. Well, their job is to protect the heritage sites.
It's done in every province. Alberta's bureaucrats have mucky fingers;
Ontario's bureaucrats have mucky
Interjections.
The Chair: Order, hon. members.
Hon. I. Waddell: There's a Heritage Conservation Act. It goes back a long way. It goes back to the twenties, actually. It was amended in 1977, and it was amended again in 1994. There is similar legislation in every other province. When I first saw it, when I first became minister, I was surprised. I thought it was pretty tough, and I said that last year. I said: "This is incredibly tough, because it put a lot of onus on the private land owner, and it could bring problems."
It's a balancing act at best: the way to preserve the archaeological heritage and at the same time allow private owners to develop their property. I've since learned that we've reviewed in excess of 24,000 developments over the past ten years. There have only been 500 permits for archaeological assessments on private land. So most of it has been on public land, and it has been done without problems.
Of the 500 permits
I got concerned this year about this through the incident in the hon. member's riding. I think it was in his riding -- in Chilliwack, was it? Yeah, close by the riding in Agassiz. That concerned me, when I heard about that incident in which the fellow had bought the land and nothing had been registered. Now, there is an archaeological registry. In the last year the ministry has made a valiant effort to try to list sites on that. They have a web site. They work with the real estate people to encourage that. Any conveyancing lawyer worth their salt checks on that web site. It's in there. If you write your bar exams, you'll see it.
B. Penner: Since when, though? Since when?
Hon. I. Waddell: Well, I don't know. That's what I'm told by conveyancing lawyers. And it's in the bar association thing. When I wrote my bar exams, it said: "Check for archaeological sites. Check all these other matters." That's how we do con-
[ Page 16453 ]
veyancing in B.C. But I don't think it's adequate. A good example is the Chilliwack property. So I myself went to the Law Society and the bar association and said: "Could we work together and see if we could get a proper way of registering any sites on the title? We have a great land title system, and the best way to it would be with a title."
[1540]
Now, it's not easy. This is in answer to the hon. member's question. The bar
association people tell me it's not easy, because
And finally, to conclude, by and large we've been able to solve the problems as they arose -- mainly by civil servants, who the Sun hates, working with the local people to try and find a way around. In the Chilliwack case, we got the guy some gravel from the Ministry of Highways and replaced his gravel -- got things happening. The civil servants have bent over backwards to help landowners who were in this situation. You know, it's a tough law, and so far, the civil servants have done very well in enforcing it to, I think, help this province.
B. Penner: Well, the minister might take some responsibility for his public servants getting a bad reputation. Two years ago, as I quoted earlier, he made a statement in the Legislature that he was going to take some action to correct the problem. Now he says that he's just recently become concerned about it. What about two years ago, when my colleague from Oak Bay-Gordon Head raised it in the Legislature? The minister said he was going to take action; if more needed to be done, more would be done. Now we learn that he's getting concerned about it this year. What about two years ago? I think a lot of the responsibility for any ill feeling towards public servants comes from a lack of political leadership by the minister. That's his job -- to give direction to his staff as to what they need to do. He said two years ago that he was going to do it, but he didn't.
As for the farmer in Agassiz, which is actually in the riding of Mission-Kent, that matter is not yet resolved. I just got off the phone with Melvin Vander-Hoek's wife, who says that contrary to the promises by this ministry that they would have a resolution by the end of May, there's no end in sight yet. Yes, there was a short-term stopgap measure of providing some loads of gravel so that he could get on and construct his barn, but the overall issue of his development of that 80 acres of land has not been resolved. In fact, I was there when a staff person from the Small Business ministry told Melvin that in future, he won't be allowed to drive his tractor on that property for fear that the wheels of the tractor could somehow interfere with or harm archaeological artifacts. Now, that amounts to a virtual freeze of any meaningful agricultural activity on that land, if he's told he can't take his tractor on it. I can't imagine how you'd farm that without the use of a tractor -- unless we're going to go back to an ox and a plow or something like that.
In any event, it's not as isolated as the ministry would like us to believe. I've learned about just about 13 cases on my own where people feel aggrieved and where, in their minds, there has been no agreed-to settlement. Almost on a weekly basis I'm learning about more. I learned of another one last night in the Shuswap. I've learned about them in Lillooet; I've learned about them in Saanich; I've learned about them in Vancouver. I've learned about them up in the interior, in the Cariboo, and now in the Fraser Valley.
A Voice: In Nanaimo.
B. Penner: In Nanaimo, I'm advised. So although I understand it might be the government's political strategy to try and underplay or downplay the public concern about this matter, I don't think it's as isolated as the minister would have us believe. If we know that there are over 21,000 sites that have already been identified but only two that have been listed with land titles, that tells me that we've got more surprises -- more of an issue -- coming in the future.
Now, the minister has repeatedly said: "Well, this act's been around for a long time." Well, I'd like the members present to take a look at this. This is the old act; it's seven-and-a-half pages, hon. Chair. This was the bill brought in, in 1994 by the NDP. It's just short of 110 pages -- like 107 pages of amendments to a seven-and-a-half-page bill. You can't tell me that the law is substantially the same today as it was before 1994 and some 100 pages of amendments.
[1545]
I'd like to know from the minister if he knows if in fact other provinces register known archaeological sites with the land titles office in that particular province.
I wrote a letter to the Law Society earlier this year when I first learned about this issue after meeting with the farmer in Agassiz. The answer I got back on the phone from the Law Society was that they had been concerned about this for some time and hadn't got any action from the government. I suspect that was probably what prompted the Law Society to contact the minister. I spoke with all the solicitors I know in the Fraser Valley from Abbotsford, Chilliwack and Hope. I asked them if they've ever heard of something called the provincial heritage register. I got blank looks. These are seasoned, experienced and well-respected solicitors. None of them, to my knowledge, have ever had any difficulty or serious complaints to the Law Society about their practice. They are people that I would trust, and none of them knew that the Small Business ministry, in somebody's office filing cabinet, is keeping track of these sites but not putting them on land titles.
When I explained to the various lawyers I spoke to about the sweeping provisions in the Heritage Conservation Act, they were shocked. They understand what that means to a person's ability to work the land and derive economic benefit from it. It could, the way the law is written, totally undermine the value of the property, or at least take away from its intended purpose. So I think we've got a huge problem on our hands. I don't disagree with the minister; it's going to be difficult to solve. I know that many private property owners are not going to want to have anything on their title indicating that there is a heritage site there, because it's going to make it almost impossible to sell.
In fact, that's what the Farm Credit Corporation had to say about Melvin Vander-Hoek's property. The Farm Credit Corporation is a lender to many farmers throughout the province, and I think it's worth sharing with the minister what the Farm Credit Corporation had to say in a letter dated
[ Page 16454 ]
March 14, 2000, to Brian Dolsen, the Assistant Deputy Minister of Small Business and Tourism. I'll read one of the paragraphs here:
"On yet another level, this situation poses significant concern to the Farm Credit Corporation, in that it has become apparent that we, as a mortgage lender, may have significant contingent liability of which we are unaware. Because of the province's practice not to register their archaeological heritage sites at land titles offices, there has been no due diligence process in place for vendors, purchasers, realtors, lenders or lawyers to confirm the existence of the province's heritage interests. This is of major importance, in light of the fact that we have been advised that there are in excess of 20,000 such sites across the province."
So it is not an isolated matter. The minister says he's not sure what kind of notation or indication they could put on the land title certificate for individual properties that are affected. Well, I've got a suggestion. We've already dealt with this when it comes to the agricultural land reserve. Properties that are identified as belonging to the agricultural land reserve are noted on legal title with the land title system. Again, in the case of Agassiz farmer Melvin Vander-Hoek, here's what his title certificate says: "Legal notations. This certificate of title may be affected by the Agricultural Land Commission Act. See agricultural land reserve plan number 53, deposited on December 9, 1974."
So that is notice to the world, to any interested purchasers of that property, that they better go see what was deposited at the land titles registry on that date. It's a clear indication that the land could be affected by the Agricultural Land Commission Act. That's notice to the world. I'm at a loss to understand why we couldn't do that, at the very minimum, for properties that the ministry has already decided they are going to, at least in some way, hinder development of due to heritage concerns. If the ministry knows that, I think the public has a right to know it.
Now, I understand that one argument put out there is: "Well, we can't trust people with that knowledge because they might run in there under the cover of darkness and dig up arrowheads or clay pots or something and sell them to unscrupulous buyers." But the same could be said about my house. I'm in the phone book. Does that mean people are going to be more likely now to come and steal things from my house -- because they know where it is? I think that's just a risk that we take for living in society. I think that on the overall balancing of interests, to withhold that information is more damaging than allowing that information out there in the public domain, to lawyers, notaries and interested purchasers of private property.
[1550]
Hon. I. Waddell: I'm listening to what the hon. member said because I don't think this is an easy issue. I agree it's a big issue. For answer, I'd like to know what the hon. member's position is on compensation. If we list, are we to compensate?
B. Penner: Well, I ask the minister a couple of questions. Why did it take more than two years for him to become aware of this issue? The member for Oak Bay-Gordon Head raised it in the Legislature two years ago. The minister said that if more needed to be done, it would be done -- that he was about to take action. Now we're told today that he's recently become concerned about this. I'm wondering what happened in those intervening two years. What was the minister doing? Did he forget about it? You know, it's all well and good to say that other provinces have legislation that protects their heritage sites, but you know what? It doesn't seem to have the same impact. Or at least their staff in those other provinces don't seem to climb down the throats of private land owners the way they do in British Columbia.
I have an article from a book called Harrowsmith Country Life. I guess it's a journal. It's a recent article about the experience of a private property owner in the province of Ontario who found out that he had some old bones on his property. It turned out to be an archaeological site. Well, you know what? The province of Ontario encouraged this person to go out and dig up those bones on his own. And the person wrote a very favourable article about his experience in learning about archaeology and taking their children through this process and how the children are now interested in becoming historians.
That's a much different outcome than what we're seeing in British Columbia, where I've become besieged with calls. I know my colleague the member for Oak Bay-Gordon Head gets calls from people who, quite differently than having a positive outcome, are absolutely aghast at the treatment they're getting here in British Columbia. The Vancouver Sun editorial is certainly correct in one respect: the effect in British Columbia has been that people are being turned off the interest of heritage preservation rather than being encouraged to pursue it as a hobby or an endeavour for their children.
Hon. I. Waddell: I don't know. Perhaps the hon. member wants to ask
his colleague from West Vancouver, who has pursued it to no end on his own
letterhead. But let me just tell the member that we have been doing things. We
have been dealing
A. Sanders: So list them on your web site.
Hon. I. Waddell: Well, there is some concern about a wide listing, in the sense of people coming and taking out artifacts. It's been true in all countries; we're not the only jurisdiction that has done this. Greece and Rome and all the European jurisdictions have exactly the same problem, exactly the same issues in preserving their artifacts. So we have indeed taken steps since last year. We haven't been sitting on this; we've been active. I contacted the people in the Law Society to see if we can't do something on this in terms of listing it on title, and I'm hoping to get a report. When I get a report, I will release the report for public debate and input from the opposition.
Our people have been dealing with
[ Page 16455 ]
could be onerous at some time. And that's why we try to work with them. I think the staff's done very well working with them.
[1555]
B. Penner: Is the minister aware of whether or not other provinces register heritage or archaeological sites on their land title systems?
Hon. I. Waddell: The answer to that is: none of them do. But you've got to be careful, because in Ontario and that, they have a different land title system. We have a registry; they have a little different way of describing it. The hon. member has studied law; he knows the difference.
B. Penner: The minister says that all of the problems have been resolved or get resolved. I wonder if that's going to be the same for the Metro Theatre in Vancouver, for Fran and Gary Hackett, for Melvin Vander-Hoek, for people here on the south end of Vancouver Island, for the people at Shuswap Lake, for the people in the Cariboo and the people in Lillooet.
There are a lot of unresolved problems, and I don't think it does us any justice to delude ourselves into thinking otherwise. I wonder if the minister could commit today to providing a copy of the letter that he sent to the Law Society with respect to this issue.
Hon. I. Waddell: I talked to them personally and asked them personally, and then I met with them in my office. I don't think I have a letter on file.
B. Penner: Can you check?
Hon. I. Waddell: I'll check.
B. Penner: Under the revised Heritage Conservation Act, the province has a choice. When the heritage branch determines that there is something of archaeological value, they can do something besides simply putting a piece of paper or a notation in that dusty filing cabinet in somebody's office in Victoria. They can actually request -- or the government can request, through an order-in-council -- a formal designation of that property as being a heritage site. Under the act, if the government goes to that length of designating, through order-in-council, that a piece of property is a heritage site, then the government must register that property with land titles and must entertain compensation for the affected private property owner. But in British Columbia, it appears that that has not been the practice.
I wonder if the minister can tell me what the public policy view is that has led the government to not take advantage of that provision of the act. I suspect that when most members in the Legislature back in '94 considered this act, they thought: "Well, at least it talks about compensation. So that's fine. And at least it says in there that when the government designates a site, they'll have to register it with land titles." They never for a moment thought that the government wouldn't bother to designate these sites pursuant to the act.
I think that's where everyone got off the rails. They saw those two provisions and thought: "Okay, fine. They'll designate it. Everyone will know. There'll be notice to the world, through land titles, and there'll be compensation to the affected private property owners." But the government has not done that. They are getting at those properties through the back door. The act still applies, whether those properties are designated or not. That's the trick to this legislation.
I think it's highly unfortunate that that wasn't pointed out in the Legislature. And I think it's deceitful on the part of the government not to take advantage of that provision -- to be up front and say: "We are going, through order-in-council, to designate this property. We will put it on land titles, and then we'll sit down with the affected private property owner to consider what the appropriate remedy is going to be." Can the minister tell me why the government does not do that in British Columbia?
Hon. I. Waddell: With respect to heritage, we gave the power to the
municipalities to designate, and they do designate under the Municipal Act. With
respect to the archaeological sites, if you look at the guidelines that are set
out in the act -- and you probably have a copy of this -- the sites before 1846
are automatically
[1600]
B. Penner: Well, it's not my understanding of the act. I've read it quite a number of times. There's nothing to stop the government from designating sites through order-in-council if they deem it to be of important public interest. Evidently the government doesn't think that those sites are so important that they need to designate them through order-in-council. Yet they're going to the private property owners and saying: "You'd better stop everything there. By the way, you'd better pay for an archaeological impact assessment, which could run you $30,000. And at the end of all that, you might not be able to do anything with your land anyway."
If in fact it is the minister's position that the government has been designating sites automatically prior to 1848 -- all sites -- then why is it that only two are registered with land titles? That doesn't hold water. That doesn't make any sense at all, because only two are registered at land titles. The act says very clearly that whenever a site is designated pursuant to this legislation, then it must be registered with land titles.
Again, just for the record: if in fact the minister stands by his position that he had written a letter to the Law Society on this issue, I look forward to receiving a copy.
Hon. I. Waddell: I didn't write a letter to the Law Society. I sought out one of the members from the Law Society meeting and expressed my concern about this matter -- specifically, the Agassiz property. I said: "Why don't we find out some way that we could register this on the title and do it in a way that's satisfactory to everyone concerned?" So that's what we were doing.
I think we disagree on the interpretation of the act. My officials here tell me that pre-1846 it's an automatic protection.
B. Penner: Yes, protection but not designation.
Hon. I. Waddell: Well, it's automatically protected -- whether the government can go around and take different sites and so on. The practice has been to do it the way it's been done. Largely, except for a few cases, it hasn't been a particular problem. There has been, on a case-by-case basis, a work-
[ Page 16456 ]
ing matter. Now, I'm not quite sure what the hon. member is suggesting to me,
and I'm a little worried about the compensation implications of what he's
suggesting. Perhaps he could indicate to me whether
B. Penner: I'm starting to suspect that the minister doesn't know much about this legislation. I have yet to get an answer from him on why the government has not used the provision that allows the government to designate sites through order-in-council. Why is it the practice of this government not to do that? We've heard all about a new era of openness and transparency in government. Why is the government not taking advantage of the provision in section 4 of the Heritage Conservation Act that allows them to designate through order-in-council? You know, if they did, then they would be compelled, by a following section, to register that property with the land titles office in the manner provided in section 32 of the act.
So we've got a couple of issues here. They're not designated through order-in-council, and I submit that they're doing that to avoid having to pay compensation. They're not using their option, where they fail to designate, to register with land titles. Section 32 of the act allows them to register if they want to, where they fail to officially designate them. And they're not doing that either. So I submit that this government simply doesn't have a grip on this legislation. Please tell me why the government hasn't been doing that.
Hon. I. Waddell: We haven't been doing it with respect to heritage
Now, if the hon. member is suggesting we do that, we're going to need more resources. We're going to have to deal with a lot more civil servants to do that. We're going to need to consider the issue of compensation. When you put something on somebody's title, we have to know how much that's going to cost the public purse and so on and so forth. So the present system, with a few glitches -- like the Agassiz matter -- has been working.
B. Penner: So it's due to a lack of resources that the government has decided to withhold information from the public -- that they have decided those particular properties are of an archaeological importance. Is that correct?
[1605]
Hon. I. Waddell: We're not withholding information. We have a heritage registry, which you can check on. We're looking at the possibility of what would be the implications of putting everything on title -- implications for how much work it's going to be, how much red tape it's going to end up with and how much compensation will be involved. So we're looking at that; it's not like we're hiding it.
B. Penner: The member for Okanagan-Penticton suggested a good question to me. How is the public to access this provincial heritage registry in Victoria? I doubt very much whether the staff within a ministry would be able to handle the thousands of property transactions that take place in British Columbia every month, perhaps every week. I don't know how many conveyances take place every week in British Columbia, but even in our depressed economy there's got to be a lot.
The land titles system is all computerized, and they're doing it online. They've got a system in place so that they can handle the volume. I doubt very much whether the minister's comment, "Well, you can check with the provincial heritage registry," is really meaningful to most British Columbians. If most British Columbians try to do that, the system would collapse; they wouldn't be able to handle the volume.
Hon. I. Waddell: The municipalities also have maps, and they're provided with information as well. The economy is not depressed; it's doing very well, thank you. You should read the reports last weekend in the business pages, the reports of the senior economists from the banks talking about the growth across Canada and the growth in British Columbia. You look at the employment figures, in other words, where there were 16,000 new jobs created last month -- 9,000 in the service industry. So it's not a stagnant economy.
V. Anderson: Following up on the same issues, I met with the deputy minister and the assistant deputy minister in charge of these archaeological concerns on May 3, following a briefing that we've had. At the time, I was asking about specific properties on Marine Drive in my riding. There are seven of those properties from Granville Street to Hudson Street, of which Metro Theatre is one; the Hacketts is another. There are other businesses there. One of those is a city property; one of them, I understand, is a federal property. I asked for feedback on more definition about which of those properties are listed as archaeological properties. I also asked if there were other properties in the area that were also designated, so we could deal with them all at one time.
At this point, could the minister tell me: are all of those properties from Granville Street to Hudson Street on the south side of Marine Drive -- there are about seven properties -- designated as archaeological sites?
Hon. I. Waddell: The answer is no.
V. Anderson: Then could the minister tell me which of those are designated as archaeological sites?
Hon. I. Waddell: I'm informed that none are designated.
V. Anderson: Do I have to reword
Hon. I. Waddell: There has been some discussion with the people in that area, through Canadian Heritage and others, that that is an area of possible middens. Nothing has been designated that I know of at the moment. They can change things around on their properties, but if they go into the earth and dig and find bones or artifacts -- and they've been informed that there's a possibility that those things may be there -- then it could be designated.
[ Page 16457 ]
[1610]
V. Anderson: We seem to be playing word games with people's lives and people's properties and people's future and people's past. The reality is that in those areas, people have not been advised. There's been no designation anyplace that that was a midden on their property. So they've gone in there and tried to do things and found that they're in a difficult position.
If the minister says there is no difficulty, perhaps we could clear it up easier. Would the minister be agreeable to setting up a meeting with the people on those properties? We can sit down with the minister and his staff -- if they will come along with him -- to discuss the issue face to face and clear up the words, the meanings, and the future prospects of that particular area.
Hon. I. Waddell: I'll tell the hon. member that nobody's trying to play with people's lives. We have an act that we have to enforce. It's an act that goes back a long way, and it's similar in other provinces. It's a principle that you protect your wonderful artifacts. Greece and Rome have done it; you can see the artifacts. I'm told by people that we've got artifacts equal to those of Greece and Rome in our long history of 10,000 years of habitation on this coast. So we have an act to recognize that -- an act that I inherited as the minister.
Now, in that particular area nobody's designated anything, as far as I know,
in the Marpole area. I'm quite willing to have my staff meet with the people
there and go over any requirements in the act or what may be involved. We'll
share any information that we have, ask the federal government to become
involved if they've got information on there and deal with it that way. I'd be
very pleased to have my officials meet
V. Anderson: Well, we'd be delighted to have the staff, but I think it would be even more important to have the minister in this case. It's a very important situation. There's a lot of area involved. The minister's aware that that area is part of the Marpole midden. Can the minister comment through his staff and clarify for us how much of the Marpole midden is covered by that designation? How much of it is covered by a federal designation? I presume the staff is very aware of where the boundaries are of that federal designation of a national historic site.
Can the minister come with his staff so we meet all together? I'll be happy to arrange a meeting with the people that are concerned in the community, if the minister and his staff would be willing to come. We'll meet together with them and discuss this together in a face-to-face situation, so we can clarify it once and for all. By that time, the minister can do the research and bring the materials and the documents that are involved. We could have it all in front of us instead of this meeting one to one and going around in circles.
Hon. I. Waddell: I'm just looking at some of my notes on that property. I note that that site, located at Granville and South West Marine Drive in Vancouver, really represents the remnants of a once-large shell midden associated with an ancient village right on the river there, occupied between 450 B.C. and 450 A.D. So it's about 900 years of sites, a lot longer
than we've been around here. The site has been subject to a number of archaeological investigations. It was commemorated as a national historic monument in 1938, but the full extent of the site was not documented.
Then of course, we came along -- meaning the people of Vancouver -- and
subdivided it into its private fee simple lots. They've had various developments
over the past century, including the one, I think, that little theatre is on.
Many of the lots are currently zoned commercial by the city of Vancouver. At one
point, they wanted to put some billboards on one of the commercial lots. Before
excavating the footings, they had to
[1615]
The property owners in the area have complained that they should have been
advised as to the presence of the site at the time of their property purchase.
That was 1950 when they got these properties, so this is an old problem. They
felt that the provisions of the Heritage Conservation Act preclude future
developments. Now, they don't really -- only possibly on the subsurface, if
something is found
The B.C. Assessment Authority have somewhat reduced their assessment on the property in recognition of the presence of the site and the fact that it might require additional expense to develop it. So they've already been compensated in some way by having a lower assessment value. They've also talked to the provincial treaty negotiating team for the Vancouver area, requesting the province to consider purchasing the properties to offer the land as part of the treaty selection process. They've been advised that private property is not really on the treaty negotiating table. Right now our staff are meeting with the city of Vancouver to discuss the city's procedures about notifying property owners on archaeological sites.
That's all I can tell the member at the moment. It's thought to be a site,
but there's been no construction or digging that has actually turned up any site
values. I don't know what the hon. member's
V. Anderson: My position is that the people who have these sites need
to have a way, a clear way, to deal with and find out what the situation is and
what the future prospects are. What are the owners' awarenesses
Hon. I. Waddell: The owners can do what any owners can do. They can apply for a building permit, or they can have an impact assessment on their property, and so on.
Let me say this in answering the question. I can answer the black letter of the law that's here in the act. I already said that it's a very tough act. I'm sympathetic to people that have a property on an archaeological site, because society does have obligations. Collectively, if we're trying to protect these
[ Page 16458 ]
sites for the good of all of us, then it's not right to penalize an individual owner. That's why we're trying to get a system in place that's better than what we've got at the moment, and that's why I'm looking at trying to get something on title. Then the land value that you buy the property at will be reflected on the title, and you won't risk, in the future, a drop in value or indeed an impediment to developing your property.
V. Anderson: It seems to me that the function of government that the community assumes is that if there was an act, the minister will find a way to manage that act for the benefit of the people who are concerned. If the act cannot be managed for the benefit of the people concerned, it will find a way to change the act so it is of benefit to them. In order to do that, it is assumed that the minister is willing to meet with the people to work out what the future road and process is so that they can be clarified and can be part of the process and not be left up in the air while the process may or may not be unfolding.
I asked again: is the minister willing to meet? He said that he is willing to have his staff meet collectively -- if I understood right, and I wanted to confirm that -- with the owners in that particular area. What we would need to know is: are these the only properties that are involved? Or, for instance, is the correction facility across the street at Hudson and Marine Drive also involved, which is a provincial property and would have development difficulties in developing itself? Is that why that property has not been able to be sold?
I have two questions -- one, a meeting with the people in the community to clarify what properties are involved. What are the involvements and limitations that are legal and not legal, and how can we resolve them together? We're looking for solutions. We're not trying to put anybody into a box; we're looking for solutions. The only way we can do it is do it together.
[1620]
Hon. I. Waddell: I would agree with the hon. member about looking for solutions. I believe that the department did a study on the corrections centre, and I believe they shared it with some of the homeowners around there.
As far as meeting with the people, I'd be pleased to meet with the people, if that'll help. I'm always accessible to people. Presumably the hon. member can arrange the time and place.
B. Penner: I've been provided with a copy of another letter, again relating to Melvin Vander-Hoek's property in Agassiz. This letter, however, is on behalf of the Stó:lō nation, and it's dated May 11, 2000, addressed to the Minister of Small Business, Tourism and Culture. In the letter the Stó:lō also complain about the lack of registration with land titles and state as follows: "If not corrected, this problem will continue to result in unintentional, unnecessary and costly impacts to archaeological sites and other heritage features in Stó:lō territory and throughout the province -- all potentially avoidable."
Of course, their concern is from a different perspective. Their concern is that with private owners not knowing that they're occupying archaeological sites, they will unintentionally disturb and disrupt and perhaps damage artifacts considered to be of value. Also of interest in this letter is a request to the minister from the Stó:lō, and the request is this: "That these parties expedite the process of protecting the McCallum site" -- that's where Melvin Vander-Hoek lives -- "through the transfer of land title to the site area."
While not crystal-clear in its drafting, this letter seems to suggest that the Stó:lō are asking the minister to assist in transferring legal title to Melvin Vander-Hoek's property to the Stó:lō. I'm wondering, in light of the minister's comments that the Heritage Conservation Act is outside of the treaty process and plays no part, if the minister can comment on what his answer is going to be to this request from the Stó:lō nation.
Hon. I. Waddell: My staff is meeting with the Stó:lō in the next couple of weeks to talk about this issue.
B. Penner: Is it the policy of the government to entertain requests to transfer legal title of private property to first nations outside of the treaty process?
Hon. I. Waddell: No.
B. Penner: Earlier in the debate the minister said that they're not hiding anything from the public. People can go to the provincial heritage registry and see if they can come up with the information. I pointed out that they're probably not in a position to handle the large volume of requests that they would get if it became standard practice for solicitors and notaries throughout the province to do those kinds of checks prior to transferring property.
But the problem is even worse than that. Last week I was contacted by a reporter for the Vancouver Courier, a community newspaper in that community. The reporter told me that after making requests to the ministry for a map showing the location of identified heritage sites or archaeological sites in Vancouver, he was told that he was not allowed to have that information. The ministry would not provide such a map -- so much for making this information available to the public.
[1625]
My colleague the member for Delta South wonders whether she would be entitled, as a member of the Legislature, to a listing or a map of sites of archaeological value in her constituency. I have done some research in the Hansard debates. I know that a number of years ago her predecessor, the late Fred Gingell, went to bat with the previous minister responsible for this act, for a property owner. I think he was putting a swimming pool or a septic tank in the back yard and came across some items that looked to be of heritage value. He contacted the heritage branch out of the goodness of his heart, only to be told: "Now you're going have to hire an individual at a cost of $10,000 to $20,000 to do an impact study." In that debate, the late Fred Gingell took the position that the province should have to pay for the cost of the study, if the province as a whole was going to benefit by preserving whatever artifacts might be located on that property in Delta South.
Now Fred Gingell's successor rightly asks whether she would be entitled, as a member of this Legislature, to a listing or a map of identified heritage sites, of which we know there are at least 21,259 in the province of British Columbia. Can the minister tell us if the ministry is willing to share that kind of information if not with the public or with reporters then certainly with members of the Legislature?
Hon. I. Waddell: I saw the article in the Courier. I thought it was inaccurate in places. Perhaps it's a misunderstanding.
[ Page 16459 ]
Here's what I am instructed. The ministry staff are working with the city of Vancouver to compile an accurate list of street addresses and property owners located on known archaeological sites. They will be directly notifying these property owners of the presence of the site on their respective properties as soon as possible.
Mr. Foster, the manager of the inventory and mapping program from my ministry, has drafted a letter that has gone out on this issue. I'll just read it, if I might:
So that's what has been going out to the parties involved."It has recently been brought to our attention that there is some confusion regarding the interpretation of the third-party access clause on the B.C. Provincial Heritage Register Data Request Form. Occasionally this seems to have been interpreted as suggesting that a recipient of information from the register cannot release that information without first identifying individual third parties on the form. We would like to clarify that the intent of identifying third parties is to safeguard access to archaeological information and site locations, but not to withhold it from those who have a need to know.
"We applaud the effort made by local governments to protect the integrity of archaeological information and apologize if that clause has created some confusion. The branch wishes to have information critical to land use decisions distributed to building permit applicants, property owners, lawyers, realtors and others if there is a known archaeological site on the property proposed for development."
The Chair: Before I recognize the hon. member, I'm going to inform the
committee that the Lieutenant-Governor is in the precincts. He'll be giving
royal assent to some bills in the chamber. We will recess this committee until
the Lieutenant-Governor has exited the precincts and royal assent has been
granted. With that
Interjection.
The Chair: Member, it would be a very brief comment.
B. Penner: Hon. Chair, I appreciate your indulgence.
I wonder if the minister could share with us a copy of the letter that he
says is going out to interested parties, which I presume he means is more than
just to municipalities. But I must say, in closing, that my concern
The Chair: Okay. The committee will stand recessed until the Lieutenant-Governor has exited the precincts. I wish I could be more precise. My guess is that it will be about 15 minutes or so. So we'll reconvene at the end of the royal assent practices, ceremonies, or whatever it's called.
The committee recessed from 4:30 p.m. to 4:51 p.m.
[D. Streifel in the chair.]
I. Chong: Before the recess we were talking about archaeological sites, and a number of my colleagues have already canvassed a number of issues. But I wanted to reiterate some of the comments made by the minister, in particular on the South West Marine Drive site, the Marpole area, about the property taxation issue being decreased. I'm aware that, yes, while the property taxes were decreased by the land value, strangely enough the building value increased. So in essence, there was no decrease to the value of the property for which property taxes are being paid. In essence, it has just been a reallocation. The dollars that are going to be gained as a result of this assessment aren't going to be significantly different -- in other words, not significantly lessened for those property owners along that site. Hopefully the minister is aware of that.
The other area that was brought to the minister's attention was about MLAs having access to information, and I don't believe that was properly answered. The question asked by my colleague the member for Chilliwack, on behalf of the member for Delta South, was whether MLAs would have access to information -- if we asked for that information -- as to what archaeological sites exist in their constituencies, so that they would at least have it in their offices should a constituent come to see them.
Hon. I. Waddell: Let me reply to that by summarizing some matters. I'm pleased to get information about what the property taxes are. It's not within my jurisdiction, and I mentioned it because it was in my briefing notes.
We want to make people aware -- there's nothing secret about this -- of where the sites are and where sites have been found. We're trying to find a way to put this on land titles, which is the best way to make people aware. But let's be cautionary. We've got to figure out what's the best way to do it. What do we want to put on the land title? Let's take these owners on South West Marine Drive. If we put it on their land title, does that mean their property values are going to go down? It might. And if they go down, then who's to compensate them? I ask the hon. members whether they're going to compensate them. Is that the position of the opposition -- that the government should compensate them? If it is, I'll take that into consideration and perhaps put that to my colleagues as a non-partisan position. But I haven't heard that.
So you have to consider all these different matters. Right now I've made the point that we've got what I call a tough act, a strong act. In my view, arising out of the matters with Agassiz, I think it should go onto the land titles, and I'm trying to find a way of doing that that will be fair to everybody concerned. I think that's where we are at the moment.
I. Chong: The minister still hasn't answered the question. I know the public has difficulty gaining information, and certainly I would like to know whether MLAs are going to have that same difficulty. If the minister could answer that, I would appreciate it, because this is the third time we've tried to get that answer.
With respect, when this minister's government changed the Heritage Conservation Act, it should at the time have had the broad public consultation that was necessary to determine just what it wanted to measure as a result of its outcomes -- what specific range of possibilities could have occurred. But that didn't happen, which is perhaps why we're in the state that we're in and why there seems to be such a veil of secrecy out there.
[1655]
Private property owners are not out there maliciously trying to destroy heritage or archaeological artifacts, but they
[ Page 16460 ]
are hit with enormous costs when they've done everything possible in their
means by checking it out when they take out a building permit at their
municipalities and checking to see if there are any restrictive covenants at the
municipality -- checking out land titles and perhaps checking with the previous
owner to find out whether there's anything they should be aware of. I think
private property owners, in fact, are trying to be sensitive and are trying to
do everything possible to ensure that they are doing whatever is required within
the law. But when they are hit with this cost -- when they are told that they're
having to deal with an archaeological impact study which can range into tens of
thousands of dollars -- it certainly would appear, on their part, to be unfair.
When the Heritage Conservation Act was changed to the extent it has been, then
surely
I want to ask the minister: are MLAs going to have difficulty trying to access information about archaeological sites within their constituencies?
Hon. I. Waddell: The changes to the act came through an exercise called Project Pride in 1986, led by an MLA -- one Kim Campbell. That's where it came from -- the basis for the changes to the act. As to MLAs having access, I have no problem with that. They can have as much access as possible.
I. Chong: Can the minister advise what private property owners of archaeological sites were involved in, in that process? A public forum -- is that what happened at the time?
Hon. I. Waddell: I can't go back to 1986, but I'm told they had public forums throughout the province. I don't know what was discussed. There's probably some record somewhere.
I. Chong: It was actually last week that I met with the municipality of Oak Bay. I met with the mayor and council, and the issue of archaeological sites came up once again. As the minister is aware and now as the member for Chilliwack has alluded to, it was two years ago that I first raised this issue with the former Minister of Small Business, Tourism and Culture, the member for Cowichan-Ladysmith, when the case of Mr. Vandermale arose.
He was putting a renovation on his home. He lived in a fairly well-developed part of Oak Bay, where he would not have anticipated that there could have been an archaeological problem. The consequence of that was that he did have to have an archaeological impact study and pay some $6,500 for a minor renovation, thereby adding enormous cost to his retirement home. He has since sold the home because of the distress that he experienced there and the bad memories brought on by it. A stop-work order essentially cut off the water to his home while he was renovating. You can imagine the bad memories that he would have.
He sold the home, and he told the new owners that they were purchasing a property on an archaeological site. At that point, there was still no mechanism in place through land titles or any other means, through a lawyer or through conveyancing, for this notification to be brought about. So it's still by word of mouth, and it's still a problem.
The municipality of Oak Bay -- the mayor and council -- brought to my attention that they're aware that there are maps out there. These are maps that I may ask for, as the MLA. This is one of the questions I have for the minister: am I able to access this information? These maps are such that they're not user-friendly. In fact, it's not possible to identify the various properties throughout the municipality that are on archaeological sites, which is what is causing the problem.
I'd like to know whether the minister has refined that process. Have archaeological maps that he has been changed? Or are they working on it to ensure that properties specifically are able to be listed, so if I do ask for this access to information, I don't have blurred sections of the riding that I'm supposed to earmark with different sites on that?
[1700]
Hon. I. Waddell: I'm informed that we're working on getting legal descriptions so that they are clear. And precisely as the member said, we're not there yet.
I. Chong: I do want to just put on the record, as well, that I'm aware that North Saanich, in fact, was giving out a map of archaeological sites to whomever had asked for them. But as of now, they are no longer allowed to give out that information. I don't know if that's a directive through the ministry's office, but obviously municipalities are having some difficulty with this now as well. If the minister isn't aware of that, then perhaps he needs to have the consultation process with the municipalities tightened up so there is good communicating.
I also want to bring to the minister's attention the fact that two years ago, when I first raised this issue about the problem with archaeological sites, the minister at that time indicated that there were only 178 locations -- which is far from the 21,259 locations of sites -- and that there were 8,500 brochures, I think, mailed out. Now, if there are as many sites as there are, would you not expect that at least 21,000 brochures would be made available to advise? What was the extent of the distribution of these 8,500 brochures that were mentioned two years ago?
Hon. I. Waddell: The brochures were sent to all municipalities, regional districts and libraries. The 21,000 sites would include a lot of possible sites on Crown land; most of them are on Crown land throughout the province.
I. Chong: Just a final question here. As I understand it, there are 2,000 sites being added to the registry each year. Can the minister advise, therefore, what the numbers are now and to what extent we are compiling this list -- how quickly a new list will be made available?
Hon. I. Waddell: I have a list of records submitted to the branch last year, and if the member doesn't have it, I'll endeavour to get it for the member rather than go through it all now.
I. Chong: I would appreciate the minister sending that list over. But again, the question was: what is the current number of sites that are on the list? As I say, we have this number of 21,259. I'm wondering if that's changed substantially.
Hon. I. Waddell: I'm told there are 26,000 on the registry -- on the total. But some of those are heritage sites, so 21,000 are the archaeological sites.
[ Page 16461 ]
I. Chong: I want to thank the minister and staff for providing information thus far. Clearly it's been shown that this issue is a very important and significant issue to private property owners but more importantly, to the resolution that's going to be necessary for all private property owners to have some assurance that they're not sitting on some kind of goldmine or land mine. There are certainly private property owners who are going to be subject to some costs which were unanticipated. The sooner we can work on a solution that allows them to identify that they are sitting on archaeological sites, the better it will be. I think it would be appropriate to respect that private property owners do want to preserve artifacts and are not of the nature to be digging up their lands to find these artifacts.
Two years ago, when this issue was first raised and I spoke to other members of the ministry, that was the answer I had been given. I know other private property owners have been given this answer as well -- that we don't want to tell everybody where all these archaeological sites are because we don't want them going around digging them up. That's painting everybody with the same brush -- suggesting that everybody would do that. I think that's the wrong approach to take. I think we can trust that people, knowing they have a responsibility, will take that under serious consideration. I think it's incumbent upon this minister to ensure that the policies he puts in place not only protect private property owners but also act in the best interests of preservation of heritage and archaeological sites.
Those are my concluding comments on this. I think the member for Richmond-Steveston may have a few questions just to follow up.
[1705]
G. Plant: I don't intend to prolong the debate of that extensively. In order to get an archaeological site registered, I'm certain that someone has to make some sort of application or submit some sort of form to the ministry, which then examines the form and makes some sort of determination about whether or not the information is sufficient to determine that an archaeological site has been found. If the minister could confirm that that's so.
Does the ministry still use Borden designations to identify the location of archaeological sites?
Hon. I. Waddell: I'll have to get back to the hon. member with the precise term that we use for registering it. I have here the recording guide of the sites, and I'll make that available to the members too.
G. Plant: I assume there is some sort of standardized form used by people so that the minister doesn't just take a collection of Post-it notes and napkin scribbles and telephone calls but rather says that if you want a designation of an archaeological site, you've got to have a form; you've got to fill out the form. I would assume that one of the things that somebody has to do in order to engage the minister's attention on whether or not there's an archaeological site in a particular place is describe the location of the potential archaeological site. If I'm wrong in that, I'm certain the minister will correct me.
Hon. I. Waddell: The procedure is that they describe the location, and an archaeologist goes out and checks it. You'll see in the recording guide that it does mention Borden numbers, and those site numbers are assigned by the inventory and mapping program. The sites are set out once they're checked. It sets out the ten ways that they're done.
G. Plant: Excellent. That's very helpful.
Knowing that the ministry is given that information before it decides whether or not to designate a site as an archaeological site, could the minister tell me: of the 26,000 identified archaeological sites, how many are located on land held by either the Crown or Crown land or held by an agency of the Crown, on the one hand, and how many are found on privately owned land? I'm sure the minister must know the answer to that question.
Hon. I. Waddell: I asked that question, and I was informed that the majority were on public land. We don't have precise legal descriptions for them, so it's hard to give you the precise numbers. That's what we're working on.
[1710]
G. Plant: One of the challenges, I suppose, that faces people who might be interested in this debate is wondering how it is that the ministry would record something as an archaeological site with all of the statutory consequences, which I'm sure have been discussed at some length in this debate, without knowing exactly where it is. Yet the minister's answer suggests that on a regular basis the ministry records as archaeological sites places where it's unable to say from its own records whether the archaeological site is located on Crown land or on private land or what the land is. It may be that there are historical reasons for this -- that the ministry has inherited a huge number of archaeological sites from some date in the distant past, when this information wasn't kept.
But I would have thought that the minister, particularly since he's been working with the Law Society for months and months or years about this process that he says he's still working on -- this problem of how to record them -- would know by now how many are on public land and how many are on private land. When the minister says a majority, I'm sure he doesn't want to have a debate on the clarity act -- what constitutes a clear majority and what doesn't. But doesn't the minister think that we're entitled and the public is entitled to know how many of these sites are on private land and how many are on public land, and to get a better answer to that question than simply: "Well, I think a majority of them are on public land"?
Hon. I. Waddell: Well, the hon. member is right in his thrust: the ministry inherited the maps from the old days and is trying to put it into the legal form. I mean, different minds work different ways. My mind works, I think, a little bit like the hon. member's; we're lawyers.
A Voice: Come on, now.
Hon. I. Waddell: Well, maybe in a different space. But in the.
A Voice: Let's not get into a debate about that.
Hon. I. Waddell: Well, maybe I didn't
[ Page 16462 ]
ologists' minds work so that you get general assessment from maps and so on. My mind looks at it, when you get a case like Agassiz, and says: "My God, you can't have just general things happen like that; these affect people's lands." You're in the process where someone can buy land, a private piece of property, and look at the title -- and there's nothing on the title to say he's got an encumbrance -- and suddenly find there's an encumbrance on it. That's not right. That doesn't work in my mind; I don't think it works in the hon. member's mind. That's why I want it cleared up.
Now, we just started with the Law Society. It hasn't been going on for a long time, because I want to get their views as to what we've really got, how we've got to put it on there -- the conveyancing experts, the people that do this with the Bar Association -- and use their expertise. So we're starting that. I hope to get some movement in this, and I can report better next year when you ask me questions in this forum. I think we're just beginning on that.
I take what the hon. member is saying, and I think there's something in it, in that there are two languages here. There are the language and the procedures of the archaeologists, who want to list sites and have them generally listed. Then there are the more legal people who say: "No, you've got to list it specifically with respect to the site, because we have this great land title system." So I think that's where we're at.
G. Plant: Well, that's interesting and partly helpful. I've never met people more concerned with the precise locations of things than archaeologists. That's in fact what they're very concerned about -- finding things and digging them up and noting their locations with extraordinary precision.
But apparently the government is not yet in a position where it's able to even tell people how many of the 26,000 archaeological sites are on public land and how many are on private land. I find it amazing that you could know there were 26,000 of them without knowing how many were on public land and how many were on private land.
But having identified that this is an issue, and I gather the minister
concedes that there is an issue here, how many a month are we going to
But I hope I can just push the minister this further step to say that he apparently agrees there is an issue. We know he's had that sense for some weeks now, because it's been on the floor of the Legislature for some weeks. What is the action plan for being in a position at some point three months, six months or a year from now to say: "Now we know where all the 26,000 archaeological sites are. We also know that there will be more identified in the next year. And now we know how many of them are on private land and how many are on public land"?
[1715]
The reason I want to push the minister this little step further is that if
he's not able to give me that plan, some members of the public may fear that the
reason he's not able to answer those questions is because he and his colleagues
are afraid of what the answer might be; they're afraid that they've opened up
Is the minister in a position to say: "Here is the project; here is the plan. Here's how many we're going to identify per week, per month, over the next little while"? Or is it still a project that's not susceptible to that kind of analysis?
Hon. I. Waddell: It's not quite susceptible to that kind of analysis
right now. The difficulty is
G. Plant: One last question. I appreciate the minister's responses. I don't want anyone reading this to think that we're talking about rocket science. When you find out where an archaeological site is, you get out a map that you get from the government agent's office. The last time I bought one of those maps, they all had district lots marked on them. A district lot is pretty darned good evidence that somebody owns some land on the surface of the earth, on the part of the surface of the earth that we call British Columbia.
It may be that I'm not asking the right question, because of course it's
possible that within district lots some land will be owned by the Crown or by a
Crown corporation, and some lots will be held privately. The vast majority of
British Columbia isn't inside district lots yet. Maybe that's the distinction I
should be asking about -- whether the government has in its possession the
ability to say that 75 percent of the 26,000 sites are outside the surveyed
boundaries of district lots, or whatever the number is. I don't want the moment
to pass without making sure
Hon. I. Waddell: I take what the hon. member said, and I will report out shortly on that.
I. Chong: I wanted to conclude the archaeological questions in general that members had. Now I'd like to pursue an archaeological question in respect of a heritage site. The reason is that the two are not interdependent.
I would like, first of all, to bring up an issue. In 1995 the ministry set out to stabilize the Church of St. John the Divine at historic Yale. This is a B.C. heritage site. During that process the workers encountered some artifacts, as I understand it. The archaeological branch did investigate that. But for some reason they decided that an archaeological permit wasn't necessary, even though as many as 1,300 artifacts were discovered, about 10 percent of which were stone tools from the late prehistoric era. So the first question I'd like to ask the minister is: can he tell us why his ministry determined that in this particular case -- a historic site -- there was no archaeological permit required?
[ Page 16463 ]
[1720]
Hon. I. Waddell: I can tell the member that the branch felt that the site there had been disturbed before. The soil had been disturbed before, and there was no evidence of anything pre-1846 -- artifacts or anything like that. So the branch felt that it was safe to go ahead, that it was not the original soil. That had been gone through; it had already been disturbed. But they asked that the best method of excavation be used -- the most professional methods. That was done, and in doing that, they found some artifacts.
I. Chong: I guess that doesn't make a lot of sense to some private property owners who, in fact, are moving soil on their sites. An example I'll give is Mr. Vandermale in my constituency. A whole house had been built there. The whole street had been developed -- houses and apartment buildings. The soil along that particular roadway had all been disturbed, yet Mr. Vandermale was required to have an archaeological permit and was required as a private property owner to have an archaeological impact study. So I don't understand -- and maybe the minister can explain to me -- why there is such a stringent set of guidelines for public excavation for private property owners but no such stringent guidelines for government excavations.
Hon. I. Waddell: Well, I'm informed that's not true; there is no double standard. The heritage sites have to go through the same standards, and the archaeologists are brought in when there is movement, excavation and so on. I'm told that on this particular site, it was different because soil had drifted in. Soil had already been removed and dealt with, and nothing was found. It wasn't an instance, suddenly, of a double standard. It's probably an instance of people saying: "Well, we have to do this, and look at them. They're kind of getting away with it." That's not true; that's not what happened.
I. Chong: With all due respect, that is what happened, or that's the perception of what happened. It wasn't until four years later -- this started in 1995 -- that a November 1999 report by the ministry's own culture and heritage division admitted that there was a mistake, that in retrospect it would have been better to have hired an archaeologist to do an impact assessment. Again, it begs the question, to the minister: who is it that oversees archaeological permits? And why did it take four years in order for this to be documented -- in order for this to come out in this way?
Hon. I. Waddell: I've asked the civil servant involved about that, and the explanation was: "Yes, in retrospect it might have been better to go the whole full road, because it could give a perception that there's a double standard." But there was no double standard. At the time, it was thought about and rejected for reasonable reasons. Later on, the ministry official said: "If we could have done it again, maybe just for the perception, we should have taken the extra step." But at the time they determined that they didn't have to do the extra step, not because there was a double standard or trying to save money, but because they felt that was the proper decision.
I. Chong: The Yale historic site is considered a historic site by this province. It's registered as such. What I'm hearing this minister saying is that there wasn't a double standard and that in fact a permit wasn't required -- even though the ministry's own regulations required that a permit be taken out -- until four years later, when it was discovered that a report was initiated to document the outcome of what had occurred. The outcome of what had occurred was as a result, I think, of someone having brought this to the attention of the ministry.
[1725]
That's very, very disturbing, because what we're hearing is that a heritage site that this government requires to fall under certain regulations did not and that permits were not taken out until someone mentioned that to the ministry, because the perception was out there that there was in fact a double standard. So when the minister says that there wasn't a double standard, I beg to differ, because only when someone blew the whistle did the ministry have to basically come clean with the goods on what had happened here. The moment an artifact was discovered under the historic Yale church, an archaeological permit should have been obtained immediately. From my understanding, that wasn't done.
Hon. I. Waddell: I don't know if I'm in a point of order or whether
The Chair: It's not permitted under the sessional orders in the
committee. Only a deputy minister or the individual hon. minister that's
appointed or designated as a deputy -- for instance, the head of a Crown
corporation or CEO with the museum or somebody like that
Hon. I. Waddell: Then I'd say to the hon. member that we disagree on the interpretation. If the hon. member would like to get our view in further detail, I'll have my assistant deputy minister talk to her.
I. Chong: Well, then I'll try it this way. If an archaeologist and permits are to be obtained during excavations of all B.C. heritage excavations, and we clearly see that one wasn't obtained for the Yale site, can the minister advise how many other B.C. heritage sites where there were excavations were excluded from a permit?
Hon. I. Waddell: We don't think that there are other instances. We wanted to reiterate again that on the Yale site, the ministry was told that there was no evidence of any pre-1846 material on that site. That's why it was not done. They were told to excavate in a professional manner and, if there was anything found, to notify us.
I. Chong: If we want to talk about dates, then I guess the minister is going to use the prehistoric date 1846 as the criterion as set out, I understand, in the Heritage Conservation Act. But clearly there were over a thousand pieces of artifacts that were discovered, about 10 percent of which were stone tools from the late-prehistoric era. I'd like to ask the minister whether he values those findings and whether they qualify as culturally significant enough to warrant a permit.
Hon. I. Waddell: I'm informed that they never came to the attention of the branch until later.
I. Chong: And how is it that they came to the attention of the branch?
[ Page 16464 ]
Hon. I. Waddell: An amateur archaeologist was brought in by the society, the Heritage Society, to look at all those other artifacts, and he found, apparently, that some of the artifacts were older. Then the branch was notified.
[1730]
I. Chong: So if an amateur archaeologist was not brought in, we would be saying, then, that these artifacts would not have been deemed to be as culturally significant. Is that correct?
Hon. I. Waddell: That's hypothetical.
I. Chong: The minister wasn't able to answer, or I didn't hear his answer to my previous question about other B.C. heritage sites and whether or not permits have been issued. His response, as I recall it, was that he wasn't aware. Is there no tracking mechanism to ensure that for every B.C. heritage site, if there is to be any excavation, a permit is taken out? Does he have a list of those that haven't had permits taken out, because they deem, as it was in this case, that it wasn't necessary? If he has that list, is it possible to get a copy of that?
Hon. I. Waddell: We will send the member a list of any archaeological sites where there have been excavations. We don't have a list of where we don't know if there have been excavations. We don't anticipate that. As a result of this particular case, it's been a policy that where there are excavations in the heritage sites, they use our archaeologists, so there's no perception that we're trying to apply a different policy to ourselves.
I. Chong: As I stated earlier, the perception out there is that there appears to be a double standard. The sooner the matter is dealt with equally and fairly, the less we'll have that out there as a perception. I do understand that as a result of this Yale site, as a result of the unfortunate cover-up that occurred, the development of a comprehensive policy was finally initiated for excavations on B.C. heritage sites. I'd like to ask the minister: has that policy been completed now?
Hon. I. Waddell: There's been consultation amongst all the sites. They anticipate that they will put it out in the summer as official policy.
I. Chong: So I'm to believe that there's a policy being worked on in progress now, not yet completed, which I imagine would have started last year. Or did that begin just this spring? As I say, the incident occurred in 1995, five years ago, and in 1999 there was a realization that there was a problem. When did we start this process? How soon are we expecting a policy to be completed and forwarded to this minister?
Hon. I. Waddell: I just answered that, I should say. We're dealing with archaeology, you know. This is rapid-fire progress when you deal with archaeology.
I. Chong: Not rapid-fire enough. It seems as slow as molasses, as do many other things. More regulations and more red tape seem to get in the way. I'm hoping that when that policy is developed, we're going to see some new requirements for archaeological excavation at sites and that we will also see within them the enforcement that occurs.
I would also like to ask the minister about a number of excavation works that have been conducted on a number of other B.C. heritage sites. I believe a number of sites such as Barkerville, Hat Creek Ranch, Craigflower Manor, Keremeos Grist Mill and a few others have all had excavation work done. I presume that will be in the list that the minister forwards. Again, in each of those cases that I've just indicated, there was an archaeologist that was hired and a permit that was obtained. I'm just wondering whether the criteria in those cases were substantially different than the criteria in the Yale historic site case.
Hon. I. Waddell: The answer is yes, the work done is completely different. It was not done about soil that had drifted in from elsewhere. With all the sites the hon. member just mentioned, it was excavation right on site -- original soil.
I. Chong: So we're talking about, as a result of
Hon. Chair, that is one of the reasons why I suppose some of these rules and regulations need to be tightened up or clarified. The general public is not aware, again, of whether they're sitting on an archaeological site in their own home, whether it's as a result of soil having been shifted or soil that has been there from the very, very beginning. And if they see government using different criteria, then how would a private property owner also know to use different criteria? I'm hoping that when the ministry completes its comprehensive policy, it encompasses those for private property owners as well, so that they know under which set of criteria they could be exempted from an archaeological permit.
[1735]
As I say, it's very frustrating to know that if any member of the public had turned up a few artifacts while they were landscaping their back lawn, the heritage branch would in fact be breathing down their necks to get an archaeological permit. But that didn't happen in the case of a historic site that was in fact registered. It's important that this government introduce one set of rules -- one set for the public that is also followed by government. Otherwise we are going to see additional abuses, or perceived abuses, by this government's own ministry, and that should not be the case.
Those are the only questions I had on this particular site. I think the member for Chilliwack has a follow-up question before we proceed with the heritage branch items.
B. Penner: My question or comment also relates to the historic Yale Museum in the Fraser Canyon. The minister attempted to excuse the government's failure to perform an archaeological assessment or study on the basis that they didn't have reason to believe that there were any artifacts or materials that predated 1846. Well, 1846 is only one criterion by which the legislation determines whether items are deserving of protection under the Heritage Conservation Act and whether or not assessments must be done. In fact, the act makes it very clear in the definition section that a heritage object is anything, whether designated or not, that has heritage value to British Columbia.
Well, here we have a piece of property that's already been explicitly designated as having heritage value to British Columbians. The province embarks on improvements to that property -- excavations and the like -- and yet the ministry
[ Page 16465 ]
doesn't feel that it's appropriate to conduct a study or an assessment to see whether those excavations could threaten artifacts that are deemed to be protected under the Heritage Conservation Act. To me, that is a very clear double standard.
Actually, it's worse than that, because most private property owners, as we've already discussed, don't have the benefit of knowing in advance that they're living on property that's been deemed to be of heritage value. Yet here the province has not only deemed it; they've gone out and designated it. They've registered it, they're in control of that property, and yet they have not seen fit to apply to themselves the standards that they impose on private property owners -- that is, to perform an assessment prior to engaging in excavations.
While it's true that 1846 is one criterion by which we determine whether artifacts are deserving of protection under the act, it is not the only criterion; there are many others. Because the province has seen fit to explicitly designate the Yale Museum as something worthy of protection, that brings it into the act. There's no getting around it, and 1846 has nothing to do with it at all.
[1740]
The act makes it clear that the minister may, under section 14(4), order heritage investigations or heritage inspections where the minister considers that one or more of the following may apply: "(a) land may contain a heritage site or heritage object protected under section 13" -- and I submit that this is clearly such a case -- "(b) land that may have heritage value or that may include a heritage site or heritage object may be subject to subdivision; (c) the property may be subject to alienation from government ownership," etc. The land may have heritage value and may be subject to alteration by natural human causes. Clearly at least some of those are in play here. It seems pretty clear to me that the ministry chose not to apply to themselves the standard that they wished to hold other people to in British Columbia.
Hon. I. Waddell: I'm informed that the reason the work was done was to protect the buildings. The dirt had drifted in. It was all done very professionally by the heritage people to make sure that nothing would be lost when they did that. They already did the heritage value of the area, and I think I've answered the department's position by my previous question.
I. Chong: There is one other issue that I wanted to bring to the minister's attention. This has to do with a prehistoric camp, I guess, or a site. There was construction of a new subdivision along the Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows border. This occurred two years ago, in 1998, and eventually the charges under the Heritage Conservation Act were stayed as a result of lack of evidence. I think the minister is aware of this. Shortly after he became minister, it was written up in the newspaper at the time.
Stephen and Ann Telep of Maple Ridge and David Laird of the company Damax in Vancouver were charged following the construction of several homes north of Dewdney Trunk Road, along the east side of Meadow Gardens Golf Course, off Telep Avenue. These three individuals had been charged under the Heritage Conservation Act with moving or disturbing a designated heritage site.
In the end, there wasn't enough evidence to substantiate that they in fact had moved that site. But what was interesting to note was that this was apparently one of the few charges that have been laid. I'm just wondering what kind of dollars his ministry has allocated toward dealing with the legal costs associated with charges under the Heritage Conservation Act.
Hon. I. Waddell: The answer is none at this point.
I. Chong: At this time I'd like to canvass some areas of the actual B.C. heritage sites. I believe the member for Chilliwack has some questions he's going to ask on behalf of the member for Okanagan-Penticton.
B. Penner: Hon. Chair, I see that you're wistfully looking at the clock, and I will keep the time in mind.
I will attempt to decipher the handwriting of my colleague the member for Okanagan-Penticton. Perhaps it's appropriate that I struggle with these hieroglyphics, given the subject matter we're discussing.
[1745]
That being said, my colleague does have some serious questions on behalf of individuals who have taken on the responsibility to manage historic sites for the province of British Columbia. In many cases, I think these facilities, in years gone by, were operated directly by an arm of the government and staffed with government employees. The government, through various stages of downsizing, saw fit to contract these out, in essence, or at least spin them off so that private individuals were responsible for operating these endeavours.
I as well as my colleague from Okanagan-Penticton, have been contacted by people who took up the challenge in good faith, relying on statistics provided by the heritage branch telling them how many customers they could expect. You see, the way these arrangements were structured, the people in most cases did not receive a direct payment from the province. Rather, they were given the opportunity to operate these facilities, charge a fee and keep the money for themselves. That money was supposed to cover not just the operating costs and pay employees' wages, to help them out, but also to give them something to live on, at the end of the day, in terms of a profit.
Now, it seems like in a number of cases the figures provided by the ministry bore no resemblance to the actual number of paying customers that arrived at the doorstep. I think I can refer to the locations of Hat Creek Ranch, which I dropped by to see last summer; the Yale historic site and church -- and there's an information centre nearby, I think -- and the Cottonwood facility.
All of these operators have contacted the official opposition to say that the numbers they were provided by the ministry bore little or no resemblance to the actual number of people that showed up once they took over. I'd like to know what the minister thinks of the validity of those concerns that have been addressed to us in terms of the attendance figures.
Hon. I. Waddell: I can tell the hon. member that the contractors were given the statistics that had come from previous contractors. They were told where they came from and that there were some difficulties with numbers because there's often no turnstiles, and the numbers could vary. That's the answer.
Having said that, I'd like, if I might, to say something generally about that. I am sympathetic to some of these small
[ Page 16466 ]
business people that came into this to run these heritage sites. Perhaps they had expectations that maybe couldn't be met. I think some of them had great hopes and maybe not a lot of experience in running certain things like this. That's not to put the people down, but just to say the facts.
I think it's an awkward period because of the downsizing of government -- having to have contractors come in and do this. Sometimes people are just inexperienced in how good the sites were and how much money could be made, and I think the expectations might have been quite high. I find it unfortunate that there are dissatisfied contractors. I'm not happy with this situation; I've tried to take some remedies. They have a court remedy, if they want to sue us. Of course I think that would be unfortunate for everybody concerned. I've tried to take steps in a couple of instances to try and make things easier. That's the answer with respect to the statistics.
The Chair: Member for Chilliwack -- minding the time, hon. member.
B. Penner: Minding the time and trying to conclude the questions. I wonder if the minister could tell us specifically what actions or plans he has taken to rectify and put forward more accurate information for operators and how to deal with the complaints that have been presented.
[1750]
Hon. I. Waddell: We're doing some point-of-sale statistics to get better statistics, to collect at the point of sale and to look at that. Secondly, we have expertise in small business in my ministry, and I've brought them in -- that is, the small business branch -- to look at how these things should be run as a small business and what stats should be available and how better to collect them. We're gathering statistics now.
B. Penner: Last question: have other operators been told or encouraged by the ministry to keep silent and not complain? I think I know what the minister's answer is going to be, but it's one of the questions I've been provided with.
Hon. I. Waddell: Not that I know of.
A Voice: Do you want to move the motion?
Hon. I. Waddell: How's the time? Do we want to keep going?
The Chair: The motion would be to rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Hon. I. Waddell: I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 5:51 p.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]
Copyright © 2000: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada