1988 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 34th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY JUNE 22, 1988

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

5287 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Family Relations Amendment Act, 1988 (Bill 48). Hon. B.R. Smith

Introduction and first reading –– 5287

South Moresby Implementation Account Act (Bill 57). Hon. Mr. Parker

Introduction and first reading –– 5287

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 1), 1988 (Bill 36). Hon. B.R. Smith

Introduction and first reading –– 5287

Dual Elected Office Prohibition Act (Bill M208). Mr. R. Fraser

Introduction and first reading –– 5287

Oral Questions

Conflict-of- interest guidelines. Mr. Clark –– 5287

Mr. Sihota

Mr. Harcourt

School Canadiana. Mr. Harcourt –– 5289

Nissi Technologies Inc. Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 5290

Military research. Hon. Mr. Dueck –– 5291

Motions on Notice

Motion 74. Hon. Mr. Veitch –– 5291

Mr. G. Hanson

Mr. Rabbitt

Mr. Rose

Premier's Advisory Council for Persons with Disabilities Act (Bill 42). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Veitch) –– 5293

Mr. Lovick

Mr. Mowat

Ms. Marzari

Transportation and Highways Statutes Amendment Act, 1988 (Bill 34). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Rogers) –– 5296

Mr. Lovick

Liquor Control and Licensing Amendment Act, 1988 (Bill 38). Committee stage.

(Hon. L. Hanson) –– 5297

Ms. A. Hagen

Mr. Blencoe

Mr. Barnes

Credit Union Amendment Act (No. 2), 1988 (Bill 47). Committee stage.

(Hon. Mr. Couvelier) –– 5303

Small Business Venture Capital Amendment Act, 1988 (Bill 51). Committee stage.

(Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) –– 5304

Ms. Edwards

Mr. Rose

Municipal Amendment Act, 1988 (Bill 32). Committee stage. (Hon. Mrs. Johnston) –– 5306

Mr. Blencoe

Municipal Finance Authority Amendment Act, 1988 (Bill 41). Committee stage.

(Hon. Mrs. Johnston) –– 5307

Mr. Blencoe

Resort Municipality of Whistler Amendment Act, 1988 (Bill 49). Committee stage.

(Hon. Mrs. Johnston) –– 5307

Mr. Blencoe

Law Reform Amendment Act, 1988 (Bill 27). Committee stage. (Hon. B.R. Smith) –– 5308

Mr. Sihota

Municipalities Enabling and Validating Amendment Act (No. 2), 1988 (Bill 54).

Hon. Mrs. Johnston

Introduction and first reading –– 5309

Victims' Rights and Services Act (Bill 31). Committee stage. (Hon. B.R.

Smith) –– 5309

Hydro and Power Authority Privatization Act (Bill 45). Second reading

Mr. Harcourt –– 5309

Appendix –– 5312

The House met at 2:08 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. LONG :

Mr. Speaker, in the House today we have a previous member for the

Mackenzie riding who is now the mayor of Powell River, Don Lockstead.

I'd like to make him welcome.

MR. VANT : Today is a

special day. Seventy-two years ago today, on June 22, 1916, John A.

Fraser was MLA for Cariboo. Seventy-two years ago today Alexander

Vaughan Fraser, the hon. first member for Cariboo, was born right here

in Victoria. He is in the precincts but is unable to be in his seat. I

know both sides of the House will join me in expressing best wishes to

Alex Fraser on his seventy-second birthday.

HON. S. HAGEN :

We have in the House with us today the mayor of Parksville, Paul

Reitsma. Would the House please make him welcome. He, of course, was

the recent host for the western Premiers when they had their conference

in Parksville.

MR. PELTON : Hon. members, visiting

with us today in the galleries is Eric Ustad, who is with Wang Canada

working out of Vancouver, and Mr. Jared Clark of the Wang Laboratories

in Lowell, Massachusetts. Would we please offer both these gentlemen a

warm welcome.

MR. CLARK : I have the honour and

privilege today to introduce to the House my wife, Dale, and my son,

Reid, who is visiting for the day. I ask the House to make them welcome.

Introduction of Bills

FAMILY RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT, 1988

Hon. B.R Smith presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled Family Relations Amendment Act, 1988.

HON. B.R. SMITH :

In moving that this bill be introduced and read a first time, I would

just say that it is a bill that expresses the strong intention of this

government that unmarried mothers be treated with dignity and that they

have the same rights as all parents have before the law who are

married. It removes those elements of child paternity and support

legislation that were both protective and paternalistic, which

established support for mothers on the basis that they were unmarried.

It is now this government's intention that support should be based on

need and not on marital status. All the support protections that were

in that old act will be brought into the Family Relations Act, but the

stigma and the status of going with cap in hand to the courts in an

unmarried status against some putative father will be eliminated.

It's with great pleasure, then, that I move first reading of this bill, Mr. Speaker.

Bill 48 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.

SOUTH MORESBY

IMPLEMENTATION ACCOUNT ACT

Hon. Mr. Parker presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled South Moresby Implementation Account Act.

HON. MR. PARKER :

Mr. Speaker, this establishes the South Moresby implementation account

and two sub accounts, the forestry compensation account and the forest

replacement account.

I move the bill be introduced and read a first time.

Bill

57 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.

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT (No. 1), 1988

Hon. B.R. Smith presented a message from his Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 1), 1988.

HON. B.R. SMITH :

This bill contains long-awaited far-reaching housekeeping amendments to

some 20 statutes. Every member in this House will read this bill

closely and will see how progressive it is. It is so varied, so

wide-sweeping and so progressive that to enumerate it would take away

from the intent of the legislation, so I will introduce it and move

first reading.

[2:15]

Bill 36

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.

DUAL ELECTED OFFICE PROHIBITION ACT

Mr. R. Fraser presented a bill intituled Dual Elected Office Prohibition Act.

MR. R. FRASER :

The purpose of this bill is quite simple. I think we should make it

very clear that while historically it has not been unrealistic to hold

one office and overlap for a short period of time, we should make it

definitely out of order, and I move the bill be introduced and read a

first time now.

On a motion by Mr. Fraser, Bill M208, Dual

Elected Office Prohibition Act, 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

CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST GUIDELINES

MR. CLARK :

A question to the Premier. The Minister of Energy (Hon. Mr. Davis) has

clearly violated

section 7(

b) of your conflict-of-interest guidelines.

What action have you decided to take in this regard?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

As the member said, these are my guidelines with respect to members of

cabinet. As they are my guidelines, I will certainly review the

[ Page

5288 ]

situation to determine what the impact of whatever

it is the member has suggested was done and determine later what, if

anything, needs to be coming forth out of my office with respect to

this.

MR. CLARK : A supplementary to the Premier.

These are your guidelines. You are the sole judge, jury and

executioner, so to speak. Can you give us some assurance that these

guidelines are being followed and are not being broken on a regular

basis?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : Guidelines are there to

provide guidance to members, and it is not a matter of law or anything

that is dealt with by the Legislature per se, but I am satisfied that

the guidelines are a help in guiding members of cabinet with respect to

their activities.

MR. SIHOTA : A supplementary to the

Premier. The Premier says that he is satisfied that the guidelines are

a help in guiding ministers. He is not indicating whether or not the

guidelines are being complied with.

It has come to my

attention that the Attorney-General's ministry has announced that

Thernis Program Management and Consulting Ltd. was a successful bidder

with respect to the contract in relation to family maintenance

enforcement programs. Is the Premier aware that one of the principals,

Mr. Brian Pollick, was formerly a director of services for the ministry

and was also formerly the director for the maintenance pilot project?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : I will defer the question to the Attorney-General.

HON. B.R. SMITH :

In that case, the considerations were all met, as far as I understand,

in relation to the bidding, and it was done fairly, competitively and

openly. I don't think there was any problem.

MR. SIHOTA :

There is indeed a problem. I want to tell the Premier this, and my

question is to the Premier. I quote

section 7(

b) of the Premier's own

guidelines:

"Ministers shall not, and shall

ensure that officials in the departments and agencies for which they

are responsible do not, conduct official business with a former

minister, member of the Legislative Assembly or senior public official,

hereinafter referred to as a former public officeholder, acting on

behalf of himself or another person or entity, where the former public

officeholder has had within the preceding six-month period access to

information not available to the general public which could be used for

the personal gain of the former public officeholder or person or entity

which he represents."

This is the same situation as my

learned friend, the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Clark),

raised with respect to the Ministry of Energy. We are seeing a repeat

of the situation again with respect to the Ministry of the

Attorney-General. Mr. Premier, this is now the second example of an

apparent violation of

section 7(

b) of your guidelines. What actions

does the Premier intend to take to ensure that his ministers are

complying with those guidelines?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : Firstly, they are guidelines, and that's been

said a number of times. We certainly consider all matters that might be brought

to our attention.

do not, however, act simply on appearances. I think the

Attorney-General explained the situation with respect to the suggestion

that you made as it affected one of the employees from the

Attorney-General's ministry.

Also, with respect to the

matter referred to by the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Clark)

as it affected the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources,

it should be pointed out that the information that apparently might

have been used by the employee making the bid on behalf of a client was

public information. All of these things are considered, and we do not

act simply on the basis of appearance.

MR. HARCOURT :

I have a question to the Premier about the Premier's conflict of

interest guidelines. It's very clear they're guidelines that the

Premier can ignore at his whim, guidelines that do not protect the

public interest from a Premier who cannot distinguish between public

responsibility and private interest. They are a sham.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER : I think the Leader of the Opposition should withdraw that comment.

MR. HARCOURT :

I will withdraw, but I repeat that these guidelines, as the Premier has

said, are simply that. They are simply guidelines, and they have not

been very effective.

That brings me to the central point

that we've been trying to get at: is the Premier finally prepared to

introduce into this House what the people of British Columbia want,

which is conflict-of-interest laws, with an independent arbiter to make

the adjudication, not the Premier of this province?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

Legislation is future policy, and I don't need to comment on that. I

will say, however, that the legislation in place now is the legislation

that was in effect in '72, '73, '74, '75, '76 and beyond. I believe the

legislation has served the people of the province well.

am very pleased to see that the Leader of the Opposition was able to

deduce that guidelines are in fact guidelines. That was certainly a

wise observation.

MR. CLARK : A supplementary to the

Premier. Could the Premier inform the House who in his office conducts

the investigation regarding alleged breaches of the conflict of

interest guidelines?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : If the

Premier requires certain information with respect to a particular

matter that might be brought forth here or elsewhere, then obviously

the Premier will get such information initially from the minister in

whose ministry there is perhaps the suggestion that some breach of the

guidelines might have occurred. If further information is required, we

can certainly turn to the Attorney....

MR. BLENCOE : Answer the question.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : He is answering the question.

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please. Would the member let the Premier complete his answer.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : Keep going. It's all right by me. It's your question period.

[ Page

5289 ]

I'll start all over again. Obviously that member didn't hear, so I'll

repeat what I said. If something is brought to the attention of the Premier,

from the House or elsewhere, that requires to be looked at as it applies to

the conflict-of-interest guidelines established for the benefit of cabinet members,

then the Premier will obviously go to the minister in whose ministry the suggested

breach, or whatever, has occurred and will consult with that minister. We'll

certainly obtain whatever information is necessary, or as much as might be obtained.

If further information is required, of course, we can obtain it from the Attorney-General's

ministry as well.

There

is a process in place, and a pretty effective process. I think it's

more effective than what we've seen previously in this province. I

appreciate that there are those who would perhaps like to see all

things legislated; but that really isn't always possible. I think we've

got a good situation and I'm happy with it.

MR. BLENCOE : Are the people happy with that?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

The people are happy with it. If that's a question, I would like to

elaborate on how happy the people are. The member was not standing, but

I understand the question is: are the people happy with it? In response

to the suggestion about the happiness of the people, yesterday I was in

Port Alberni, and....

SOME HON. MEMBERS : Order!

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : Oh, I'm sorry. You asked whether the people were happy.

MR. CLARK :

A supplementary to the Premier. The Premier has indicated a process for

the first time. When he brought in these conflict-of-interest

guidelines, the Premier said that the auditor-general would assume

responsibility for conflict of interest by acting as an independent

official to adjudicate these matters. Is this wrong? Or is this the new

policy? What has changed between the time you introduced them and

announced that the auditor-general would do it and now, when you're

saying it's your own office and you yourself will do the investigations?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

I think that's a fair question. The auditor-general was in fact asked

whether he would do the adjudication on such matters as might be

referred to him in order to advise the Premier further. The auditor

general certainly was concerned about the independence of office and

declined - rightly, I think - that opportunity. So the Premier will

certainly now have to make decisions with respect to guidelines without

the benefit of advice from the auditor-general. But I don't fault the

auditor-general for taking the position he did, and I'm able to get the

advice in any event.

MR. SIHOTA : The Premier seems

to be developing excuses with respect to his conflict-of-interest

guidelines. The Premier doesn't understand that those guidelines which

make him the judge, jury and executioner invite the obvious question:

what happens when the Premier himself is in a conflict of interest?

That's why we need independent legislation, and that's why this side of

the House tabled legislation on the matter.

My question to the Premier: this is, by my recollection, the fifth incident

involving conflict-of-interest violations with respect to your government since

you were elected. Your answer to my question did not deal with the matter of

an investigation with respect to issues that I raised. Is the Premier prepared

to investigate forthwith the matter that I raised with respect to the Attorney-General's

ministry and to report back to this House with his findings?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

The Premier is prepared to investigate all things, but not necessarily

because they've been referred to by that particular member. He himself

said a few moments ago that we ought to proceed on the basis of

appearance. In response to that, I said we can't always act simply on

the basis of appearance. I think there needs to be a little more

substance than the sort of innuendo that we continue to hear. I think

we can't always act on the basis of simple innuendo. I believe there

needs to be some considerable substance before we run off and declare

all sorts of investigations.

[2:30]

I think the hon. member, if he were to investigate it

carefully, would have to agree that we're acting responsibly in all

these matters, and that yes, generally the people are satisfied. These

guidelines are certainly better than what we see in most other places

in the country. I believe the guidelines are definitely an assist to

the process, and they were brought in by this Premier. They were not in

place previously during any other administration. I'm thankful for

them, as are the people.

SCHOOL CANADIANA

MR. HARCOURT :

I have a question for the Premier. Over the last week it's become quite

obvious that the government has created a situation at the Vancouver

Community College where the college has been forced to cut the funding

to School Canadiana. As the Premier knows, School Canadiana provides

intensive and extensive ESL training for new British Columbians. Will

the Premier acknowledge that it's a mistake to cut this successful

program and agree to restore the funding to the Vancouver Community

College to save this school?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : I

believe that we should all.... Certainly on this side we do respect the

need for these college boards, other councils or boards. They ought to

have the opportunity to make decisions for themselves. They should

certainly responsibly decide where the priorities ought to be, or how

they would like to provide a particular service to the public. In

fairness, I suppose they must have given it a lot of fair

consideration. I really haven't been party to any of those discussions.

I have not been present, nor do I assume was the Leader of the

Opposition present at the board meetings where this was fully

discussed. Why they decided to do what they did I have not been able to

determine, but this certainly is a decision for the board. I know that

suggestions have been made.... I hear it across the floor: "Money,

money."

You know, when you give to education, as we've seen

it in this province, an increase of 8.3 percent, which is twice the

rate of inflation; when you see universities and colleges, when all is

said and done, with an increase of 5 percent, and you have to weigh

this against what it is that businesses might get by way of an increase

in order to do the business, to raise the taxes, to pay the cost of

government or government services; when you consider, too, in fairness,

what it is that

[ Page 5290 ]

might

be available to a household annually for an increase to pay for the

cost of housekeeping or providing for the family the food and shelter,

the everyday things, then I think in light of all of that and in light

of the ability of people to pay and how much we can, because we're in

government, dictate to people what it is they should do or must do or

how it is they ought to do it, or when it is or how it is they pay for

it.... I think when we consider all of that, we've done very well,

extremely well, by our schools, our colleges and our universities. But

we do need to leave them some of the decision-making process. However,

if you want further specifics, I am sure that the Minister of Advanced

Education (Hon. S. Hagen) would be delighted to add to what I have

already said.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : Mr. Speaker, I rise

on a point of order. I'd like to address standing order 47A, which

deals with oral question period. Standing order 47A(

e) says that points

of order arising during oral question period may at the discretion of

Mr. Speaker be deferred until question period has been completed. The

reason that that's in there, Mr. Speaker — and the hon. House Leader

opposite and I are both aware of this, because we were part of the

committee that wrote that — was not to have question period bogged down

with points of order. We wrote that in deference to Her Majesty's

opposition, because they only have 15 minutes in the province of

British Columbia for question period, and to have question period

bogged down in endless points of order could in fact defeat all of

question period.

During this session there have been

lengthy

preambles — and all members are aware of that. The government

response has been lengthy answers, which I think is only appropriate.

However, there has also been from time to time — and particularly today

— a reference that really wasn't all that honourable made from a

questioner to another member being questioned.

I think, Mr.

Speaker, that it would commend all of us to in fact not do that, to

maintain that the

preambles are brief and that the questions themselves

are in order. During any other debate, if that type of language or

imputation were used, a member on this side would immediately rise to

his feet and demand a withdrawal or rise on a point of order. We avoid

that during question period for the purpose of letting question period

continue. However, Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that if we're going to

continue with long

preambles, if we're going to impugn the motives of

other members during a question, we are going to have to rise on points

of order, in which case question period could in fact just end in a

point-of-order session. I'm sure that would not serve the best purposes

of those wishing to have questions answered.

MR. ROSE :

Well, I recall, Mr. Speaker, that it was you, sir, who called the

member to order and asked him to withdraw the remarks. I hope that

nothing has been said by the government House Leader that casts any

reflections on the Speaker. I know he wouldn't want to do that, because

we know he's doing his job to the best of his ability. I agree that

sometimes there are sins on both sides. I would just like to close by

saying that, yes, we would like to have an orderly question period. We

don't need unduly long questions, and we don't need long, tedious

repetitive answers as well. There are lots of clock-eaters over there;

we all know them, and we try not to direct questions to them if we can

avoid it.

The point needs to be made that to be in order,

we do not rise on points of order during question period, because that

would be against the standing orders. I wouldn't think for one moment

the government House Leader would ever offend that, because it says be

deferred "at the discretion of Mr. Speaker." I know Mr. Speaker is very

discreet; I have full confidence in him, and I think this is a

wonderful way to end the session — except that it isn't ending.

MR. SPEAKER :

I would like to suggest that I agree with both the government and

opposition House Leaders with regard to questions and answers. I think

we have had some

preambles and some answers that are too long. I would

ask that all members listen to their House Leaders, and maybe we can

get a few more questions into question period.

The one

thing I would like to discuss is the attack on the integrity of

members. I think we've had this discussion in the press and in this

House, and I would hope that all members of this House would

respect.... This House cannot function unless all members of this House

respect the integrity of each other as members of this House. I would

hope that all members would take that into account not only in question

period, but in committee and during their speeches.

NISSI TECHNOLOGIES INC.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY :

Yesterday I took a question as notice and, in the interests of not

taking up time in question period, I would be pleased to answer it at

this time.

I wish to respond to the question asked

yesterday by the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew. The member was

quite misinformed about the facts of an agreement between my ministry

and a British Columbia software firm, Nissi Technologies Inc. This

agreement was signed very recently and has had, as its objective, the

express intent of assisting this company to vigorously pursue export

marketing of its product in the United States. The expected result —

and it is stated in the agreement with Nissi Technologies — is the

creation of 20 new jobs in Nissi's British Columbia office.

The

agreement negotiated by the Purchasing Commission provides for the

purchase of government management software developed by Nissi. This

purchase is in no way a subsidy to Nissi Technologies, nor is it an

allowance to municipalities or to anyone else wishing to install this

management software. Municipalities — and I think my colleague, the

Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mrs. Johnston) will agree with me —

are free to choose and buy from any computer software or hardware

manufacturer they wish.

We hope that they will choose from

the very many excellent firms in British Columbia, but the choice

remains theirs. There are no exclusivity rights implied or given in

this sale, nor is my ministry subsidizing Nissi Technologies through

the purchase of their software. The transaction of this contract will

enable them — in fact, it already has enabled them — to conclude an

agreement with the city of San Jose, California, the fourteenth-largest

in the United States, which very substantially expands Nissi's

international presence and will bring them revenues of more than $1

million, I am given to understand. The agreement with San Jose was

concluded as a direct result of the confidence shown in them by the

government of their home province of British Columbia. We acted as a

reference account, as we intended to do. They have since concluded

another agreement with La Mesa, California, for $150,000.

We confidently expect Nissi to proceed to other successful sales agreements in the U.S. Their success in the international

[ Page 5291 ]

market

has a direct bearing on the strengthening of their business operations

here in British Columbia with a consequent trend to better service,

lower prices and more intensive research facilities offered to

municipalities and other public agencies here in British Columbia.

Nissi

is bound by terms of our agreement with them to retain its head office

here in British Columbia, as it is our Purchasing Commission policy to

deal with British Columbia firms wherever possible. Right now it is

located in North Vancouver.

Staff of the Purchasing

Commission who negotiated this agreement have made innovative use of

the province's purchasing power as a means of creating new jobs,

increasing export development in an important high tech industry, and

strengthening the economic base in British Columbia. These and other

initiatives have earned my ministry's Purchasing Commission a

reputation for being the very best in Canada. I give credit to Steve

Hutchings and his colleagues in my ministry for gaining that reputation

and for the innovative ways in which they use the Purchasing Commission

to create jobs.

My ministry invites any British Columbia firm which can offer a quality product and competitive pricing to approach us.

want to point out that the Nissi agreement was negotiated with the full

support and cooperation of the Union of B.C. Municipalities.

is not the first time the Purchasing Commission has negotiated

successfully with a British Columbia high technology company to achieve

these results. Last year's agreement with the Victoria firm of

Softwords parallels this agreement with Nissi, and it continues to

produce results which will benefit our economy and at the same time

assist the industry. Agreements with local software firms such as OGMA

Consulting of Victoria have resulted in the successful sale and

marketing rights to government software, which has now been sold to the

governments of four other provinces; and on it goes. It has been a good

business agreement, and it has benefited British Columbians through our

Purchasing Commission's policies.

The government's

agreement with Nissi Technologies will result in benefits to B.C.'s

economic base and its profile in the international marketplace, which

is the underlying initiative here. As a result, it will benefit the

taxpayers of our province.

MILITARY RESEARCH

HON. MR. DUECK :

I would also like to answer a question taken as notice yesterday, in

respect to a concern expressed about "the deadly bacterial experiments

at the University of Victoria." The Capital Regional District medical

health officer, Dr. Perry Kendall, was informed late yesterday that the

university staff has decided not to perform this tularaemia research.

The university also expressed a willingness to cooperate with health

authorities in jointly reviewing future research proposals. The staff

in my ministry will support Dr. Kendall in any capacity that is

required to ensure protection of the public's health.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : May I have leave to make an introduction?

Leave granted.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

We have just had arrive in the House 53 grade 7 students from the

Walter Lee Elementary School in Richmond with their teachers, Mr. Adams

and Mr. Bussey. On behalf of my colleague the MLA for the constituency

of Richmond (Mr. Loenen) and all members of the House, I would ask that

you extend them a big welcome.

[2:45]

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

I'd like to ask leave for the Select Standing Committee on Standing

Orders, Private Bills and Members' Services to sit later today while

the House is sitting to discuss the Northwest Baptist Theological

College Amendment Act, 1988.

Leave granted.

Orders of the Day

Motions on Notice

HON. MR. STRACHAN : I call Motion 74. [See appendix.]

HON. MR. VEITCH :

There are few tasks this Legislature is called upon to perform that are

more significant than the determination of electoral district

boundaries. The integrity of the democratic process depends to a large

degree upon the public perception that there is a fair and equitable

distribution of representation in this assembly.

One of the

first initiatives of this government was to appoint a commission under

the Inquiry Act to review the electoral map of the province and to

recommend both the appropriate number of representatives and the

proposed boundaries of the particular electoral districts in the

province. On May 27 of this year, Judge Thomas Fisher released his

preliminary report. His findings were the result of an extensive series

of public meetings, and many British Columbians and organizations

availed themselves of the opportunity to attend and to address the hon.

judge. I can't stress too strongly the importance of public input into

the question which is at the very heart of the democratic process in

this province or any other jurisdiction. Under the terms of the

inquiry, the commissioner's preliminary report is to be given the

widest possible distribution. Once the citizens of the province have

had an opportunity to study his recommendations, Mr. Judge Fisher will

hold another round of public hearings.

The motion before

this House, Mr. Speaker, is to provide a mechanism for injecting into

the inquiry process the reaction of the elected representatives —

elected in a fair and representative way in this province — of all

British Columbians. A little bit of history. I have ascertained from

the Journals of British Columbia that five such special committees have

been struck in the past. The first was in 1938. The second was in 1953;

in fact, there were two in 1953. In 1954 there was another one for a

similar purpose, and another in 1955.

It is the duty of

members of this House to decide upon things which affect the citizens

of this province, and it's a duty they ought not to shirk. I believe

that Judge Fisher has done an admirable job in balancing the

statistical requirements with the geographic and social realities in

British Columbia. I don't think there's any question about that. But

what the process needs now — and it's a process that I believe we

should never shrink from in this House — and what only a bipartisan

committee of this House can really provide is the political element. We

shouldn't recoil, I believe, from discussing

[ Page 5292 ]

politics

along with electoral boundaries; not for a moment. That's what it's all

about. We're not looking at the partisan perspective of this thing, but

at the impact of the commissioner's recommendations on the very

political process that exists in this province. That's why the

committee's requirement for unanimity is so vitally important, in my

estimation.

Members of this House are most affected by the

commissioner's recommendations, and as people who live daily with the

intricacies of the representative process, the input of this House is,

I believe, an invaluable source and resource to the commissioner in

making final determinations. Who understands better than the members of

this House the political realities in defining electoral boundaries?

Who better understands the interpersonal realities that exist between

members and their elected officials? With the requirement for

unanimity, the committee can provide a non-partisan input to the

commissioner's final report. No further report, in my estimation — and

I want to underscore this — ought to be forthcoming until the committee

has reported to the House and that report been forwarded to the hon.

Mr. Judge Fisher by the Provincial Secretary.

Last June the

first member for Victoria (Mr. G. Hanson) recommended that the interim

report of the commissioner be referred to a committee of this House. In

his motion to the House, the hon. member pointed out the importance of

unanimity to the integrity and the full confidence in the boundary

determination process. I accept that principle. The government has

taken careful consideration of the suggestion of the hon. first member

for Victoria and proposes a motion before the House — which is Motion

74 standing on the order paper today — that a special committee

examine, inquire into and make recommendations to the House unanimously

respecting the preliminary report of the Royal Commission on Electoral

Boundaries. I think this is important; it's a historic step. It's the

sixth such committee in all of the history of the democratic process in

British Columbia. I take great pleasure in moving Motion 74 standing in

my name on the order paper.

MR. G. HANSON : Mr.

Speaker, we on this side of the House support this resolution. We have

spoken on many occasions in this chamber of the need for an independent

electoral commission on a permanent basis.

Justice Fisher

has undertaken a most important task for all citizens of British

Columbia: namely, the drawing of a fair electoral map for this

province. We see on this side of the House that it's incumbent on both

sides that the parties and members here do everything in their power to

safeguard the independence and integrity of the commissioner's work.

Justice Fisher will commence his second round of hearings, as the

Provincial Secretary indicated, on July 19. We urge that a

representation be made to that in the second round.

have participated fully, as the other side has, in the interim. We see

the primary role of the committee, as I say, to safeguard the

independence and the integrity of the commissioner's work. We sincerely

hope that it's not the government's intention to see the committee

involved in altering or drawing boundaries that have been drawn by

Justice Fisher, because we don't see that as the role of the committee.

We would certainly have difficulties reaching unanimity if the

government saw that as the role of the committee. We are acting in good

faith; we welcome the committee. We feel Justice Fisher is doing

vitally important work for all British Columbians. As I say, we are

acting in good faith. We look forward to participating in the committee

and assisting the judge in any way we can.

MR. RABBITT :

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the motion moved by the hon.

Provincial Secretary that a special committee of the Legislature be

appointed to examine, inquire into, and make recommendations to the

House unanimously respecting the preliminary report of the Fisher Royal

Commission on Electoral Boundaries.

Today we have visiting

with us two classes, and I don't think they realize that they are

seeing history in the making, because this is something which has not

happened in British Columbia for many years.

The

establishment of such a committee is but one more example of this

government's commitment to an open, honest and democratic process, and

I'm proud to be part of it.

Last year the government

commissioned a respected county court judge to undertake a

comprehensive, wide-open examination of electoral boundaries within the

province. This House has now received Judge Fisher's preliminary report

and it is now our responsibility as the elected representatives of the

people of this province to review the recommendations contained in this

report. It is also our responsibility as Members of the Legislative

Assembly to contribute in a meaningful way to the process of redefining

electoral boundaries across our province.

The opposition

has called for an all-party committee of the House to study the

recommendations and to provide input to the final report. Comments from

the first member for Victoria were referred from Hansard on June 19. I must say that on that particular item I stood in this House, as Hansard will show, and supported that hon. member on his position. I supported it then and I support it now.

a responsible government, we have listened to our hon. colleagues

across the floor and have proposed that such a committee be appointed

for that very purpose. This committee will be the first of its kind

since 1955. Indeed, as pointed out by the Provincial Secretary earlier,

in the history of this Legislative Assembly there have only been five

special committees struck to consider redefining the electoral

boundaries of British Columbia: the first in 1938; the next in 1953,

both in the first and second session; again in 1954-55; and now in 1988.

I note,

Mr. Speaker, that in the case of each of these special committees, the

membership was representative of a distribution of seats within the

Legislature at that time. Such a composition of members on a special

committee is in keeping with parliamentary practice. It is a guiding

principle that in the selection of committee members, a party should

have representation proportional to their membership in the House.

any case, the recommendations of the committee must be unanimous.

Therefore, I would agree with the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr.

Veitch) that all matters, no matter what they might be, must be

unanimously agreed to. Unanimity is required.

I mentioned

the fact that this will be the first time in some 33 years that a

special committee of the Legislature will examine a report on electoral

boundary readjustment. It is interesting to note that under the NDP

administration no special committees were struck for this purpose. When

the NDP appointed the Norris commission in 1975, it was reported:

"...considered the idea of allowing one representative

[ Page

5293 ]

from

each party to sit on the commission, but abandoned it as unworkable."

That was quoted and attributed to Ernest Hall, who was the Provincial

Secretary.

[3:00]

On our part, we welcome the input of our colleagues opposite. We

welcome their active participation, and the membership on this

committee is very important. The fact that the special committee being

appointed is made up of representatives of both government and

opposition and that any recommendations must be unanimous represents

not only a fair and open process, but one which, using the words of the

hon. Leader of the Opposition, will "ensure that electoral reform would

not favour one party over the other." I am only sorry that the NDP the

other day voted against the addition of the hon. member from Omineca

(Mr. Kempf) to that committee.

In conclusion, I look

forward to participating with all members of the committee, and I look

forward to hearing the recommendations of the report. After a thorough

study, I hope that the open process that we are going through now will

prove its merit and that we will be able to bring back a solid

recommendation to this House.

MR. ROSE : I don't wish

to speak very long on this because everything I would say has been

covered by my colleague the first member for Victoria. But I would like

to give a little fatherly advice to the member for Yale-Lillooet (Mr.

Rabbitt), who is to be the convener of this committee, I am told — if

he gets enough votes — that if this is to truly be a non-partisan

committee, it is a rather poor way to start by making constant

references to things that did or did not happen in earlier times. I

think that your role, sir, is to be as objective and non-partisan as

possible, and if you do that, I think this will be a very successful

committee. If you do not do that, sir, you are in for a lot of trouble,

and there's going to be, I would say, less chance for a unanimous

report than might otherwise prevail. I would like to suggest to you,

sir, that you follow that tremendously objective stance you take when

you occupy the chair. Should you do that in future, as the head of this

committee, I think you will do well and come out as part of history —

you described this as a historic moment — but if you don't, sir, you

are history.

MR. SPEAKER : Pursuant to standing orders, I advise the House that the minister will close debate.

HON. MR. VEITCH :

Thank you very much, and fatherly advice is always welcome in this

chamber from the hon. opposition House Leader. I want to thank the hon.

proposed convener of this committee for his observations. They were

quite cogent. I also want to thank the hon. first member for Victoria

for his observations and, indeed, for being part of this committee by a

suggestion earlier on in the House.

He spoke of the role of

the committee, and for a moment I just want to read the first part of

motion 74. It says: "That a special committee of the Legislature be

appointed to examine" — I want to underscore that for you, hon. member;

these are fairly carefully structured words — "inquire into and make

recommendations to the House unanimously respecting the preliminary

report of the British Columbia Royal Commission on Electoral

Boundaries: May, 1988, so as to assist the commissioner of electoral

boundaries in making his final report."

You cannot, I suggest, be so meek — and I am again not lecturing the House

or telling the committee how to operate in any way, proposing that this will

be passed — as to be afraid to make changes. As I said in my opening remarks,

the political perspective must come from members of this House. We can have

a rep by pop and all of these good things, and you wouldn't have representation

in places like Atlin. There are other things in the electoral process that go

far beyond that. Don't be meek: don't be afraid to let your mind soar

a little bit, hon. member, and to make changes and recommendations, because

that's specifically what this motion says.

With

that little caution and with advising you that the final buck for any

of our decisions stops here in this Legislature.... Judge Fisher can't

vote; he doesn't have a vote. Somebody told me that judges and idiots

can't vote. Now sometimes I get those mixed up. In this case, we don't.

MR. LOVICK : Fisher can read; be careful.

HON. MR. VEITCH :

He doesn't have a vote in this particular Legislature, and the

decisions must come back to this Legislature for final resolution.

Don't be afraid; don't be timid. Look at the motion and bear the

opening words in mind when you carry out your duties. With that, I move

motion 74 standing in my name on the order paper.

MR. ROSE :

On a point of order. All of us get carried away in attempts at our own

humour from time to time, but I am sure the hon. Provincial Secretary

didn't mean to link Judge Fisher with idiots. Perhaps he would care to

withdraw that part of his remarks.

HON. MR. VEITCH :

I withdraw it, but I never would link the judge.... I simply said that

neither judges nor.... It's an old statement, and I believe I heard

that from one of the hon. members on the other side. Certainly, not at

all. I have the greatest respect for the hon. judge and for the

judiciary itself.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : Committee on Bill 42, Mr. Speaker.

PREMIER'S ADVISORY COUNCIL FOR

PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES ACT

The House in committee on Bill 42: Mr. Weisgerber in the chair.

section 1.

MR. LOVICK :

As we said last night when we discussed this bill in second reading

debate, we on this side of the House are certainly going to support it.

We applaud the measure as far as it goes. I will have some questions to

ask when we get to

section 3, but we can certainly deal with 1 and 2

right now.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

section 3.

MR. LOVICK :

As we mentioned last night in discussion of this bill, my colleague the

member for Rossland-Trail (Mr. D Arcy) and I both had some concerns

that what we seemed to be doing was engaging in symbolism, to all

intents and purposes, more than action. I notice in looking at the

mandate

[ Page 5294 ]

the council and the approximately seven particular items — things that

the council may do — that there are really relatively few in there that

have concrete steps implicit in them.

To review, to advise

and to make recommendations, for example — which is the first category

— doesn't necessarily mean that there is going to be any concrete or

specific action resulting therefrom. That process, as we all know from

bitter experience, can go on forever. Similarly, with the second clause

in that list of things, simply to bring before the Premier and members

of cabinet and government matters of interest and concern to the

disabled persons' community doesn't have any concrete action intrinsic

to it, if you will, and that causes us some concern. Indeed, we have to

go all the way down, I think, to number (

c) and some of the specific

ones there — and they are relatively few in number — to find that

specificity and concreteness. For example, the achievement of equitable

access is something that the council is mandated to promote. My

concern, Mr. Chairman — it's one I know my colleague shares, and I

would again invite the minister to give us some edification or

enlightenment, if he can — is whether we can anticipate some specific,

solid recommendations, actions or policies resulting from that process.

note two other parts there that also invite that kind of concrete

action — and I'll put those in the same grouping, and then defer to the

minister, who may indeed want to talk about those a little bit.

The

second one, of course, is the matter of education and training; and the

third, employment for persons with disabilities. Each of those, it

seems to me, clearly is desirable, necessary and good. I'm hoping,

though, that we aren't simply going to promote that; we aren't simply

going to make some rather vague recommendations without any concrete

and specific plans attached to them. I'm wondering if the minister

might like to clarify or respond.

MR. MOWAT : I heard

what the second member for Nanaimo said regarding the mandate of the

council, and I think under

section (

b) he forgot one very important

word, where it said: "bring before the Premier, the government and the

public...." "Public" is a word that has a very significant meaning in

that the public will know what the council has reviewed and the advice

and recommendations it makes to government.

Also, in regard

to the other parts under

section (

c) of the bill, I feel very confident

and assured that the

section where they will be promoting those seven

items.... They are all-encompassing items. The steering committee that

traveled the province took into review all the presentations that were

made, and the bill could go on for pages if we listed every item. But

in the wisdom of the committee and the people who drew up the

legislation, it does give broad scope to the council to look at all

activities that are involved with persons with disability, and to bring

forward recommendations to the Premier, to the government and to the

public.

I feel very strongly that the committee gave a

strong message to the government about the wishes of the people that

they heard from.

HON. MR. VEITCH : The second member for Vancouver-Little Mountain said it all, Mr. Speaker.

There

is a report which has been distributed to each and every member of the

Legislature which clearly spells out the terms of reference that we

will expect the committee to abide by. I might add that this

legislation is as a result of a direct interface between a committee

under the chairmanship of the hon. second member for Vancouver-Little

Mountain and representatives of the disabled community — all sectors of

them — as they traveled throughout the province. I don't remember, but

I think you had 34 such meetings.

I believe that these

sections are broad enough to be enabling, and I think that that's what

ought to be in the legislation. We could be more specific, but that

isn't really what the disabled community wanted. They wanted an

enabling piece of legislation. I expect that the information that flows

back to the Premier, to the government, from the committee will be as a

result of the information that is contained in the report; and that

report will serve as almost the rules of the game.

I think that

section 3 is as specific as we dare make it, given the circumstances.

[3:15]

MR. LOVICK :

I'm certainly not about to belabour the point, nor am I about to

castigate the minister and the program for not doing things it wasn't

intended to do. Fair enough. What I want to suggest, though, is that to

be absolutely frank.... Of course, I accept the proposition that

knowledge is power, and that's a good start in itself — I'm enough of a

Platonist to accept that argument. My concern, however, is that it is

quite possible that we have here simply a marvellous declaration of

intent. I don't see enough, if anything, to lead me to the conclusion

that there are going to be some dollars attached and some programs

resulting from this. Again, I know it's unfair of me to ask the

minister to change the legislation — he can't do that. My point — and I

can't resist making it — is that if indeed there isn't anything more

than this declaration, if there is nothing more to this legislation

than saying we are promoting awareness and inviting opinion with a view

to changing policy, then I have to question whether we in fact need the

legislation in the first place.

I wonder if the minister

might be good enough to give us some kind of assurance — or at least

give me some confidence, if I can put it that way — that it is indeed

envisaged that programs will result from a report from this council

which talks about specific employment opportunities for disabled

persons and putting up dollars to do something about the large access

problem we have throughout communities in the province. I guess all I'm

asking the minister to do is tell me that it is indeed his intention to

press and lobby for that. Given that kind of assurance, I certainly

won't say anything further about

section 3.

HON. MR. VEITCH :

I appreciate the comments from the hon. member. Mr. Chairman, British

Columbia leads the way at the present time in services for the

handicapped. There is no question about that whatsoever. Not only does

it lead the way in services for the handicapped; it has in the last

decade produced three magnificent leaders. I'd say it has produced more

than that — it has one right down here. These are people who lead the

world in awareness for handicapped people, their problems and the

opportunities that ought to come to them. Really, that's what this bill

is: an opportunity bill. Sure it's a declaration of intent. However,

this government hardly needs to declare its intent, because it has

already done that through many successive years of Social Credit

government in this province, and it will continue to do that and will

continue to look after the disabled.

[ Page

5295 ]

But we are doing one more thing here. We are going out and saying:

"Look, we don't know everything there is to know here in this

Legislature, and we're asking you people out there who are confronted

on a daily-living basis with these disabilities to interface with us

and give us input in a most direct manner." That's what this bill is

all about. It's historic in that respect. It's very different.

don't think any government could go out to a community as organized as

the disabled community and put anything over on them. You wouldn't get

away with that for one moment, I can tell you that right now. No, those

people know what they are doing, and they are not going to be told what

to do by governments or anybody else. They are going to send back to

government the kind of information they want to send back, not what

government wants to hear. So I give you that assurance, and I have

faith in the disabled community and in the wonderful leadership that

they have shown to date.

MR. LOVICK : One point very

quickly, arising from this particular list of aims and objectives — all

of which, of course, are perfectly worthy and supportable. I raise this

point because the minister talked at some length last night on the same

theme. I am referring to the theme of looking at the great successes

within the disabled community and, dare I say, becoming fixated on that

model. To be sure, we have examples in British Columbia that all of us

take considerable pride in; not just Rick Hansen and Terry Fox, but

also persons like my colleague the second member for Vancouver-Little

Mountain (Mr. Mowat), who has obviously accomplished a great deal

despite what most people regard as a disability.

The

caution I feel honour-bound to offer at this point is that we must not

forget that large numbers of people in the community do not have those

special skills and abilities — those things approaching heroism. The

reality, of course, is that the great majority of disabled persons,

just like the great majority of so-called able-bodied persons, are not

extraordinary. They are not heroic, and I sincerely hope that we won't

fall into the trap of continuing to hold up the model of the super

achievers, these wonderfully successful individuals who provide an

inspiration to many, but who can also be demoralizing to some who know

they can't aspire to quite those heights. I hope we will be guided by

that principle as well when we talk about providing better services to

the disabled community. I hope that is also embedded in that list of

principles under

section 3.

MS. MARZARI : I rise to

speak to the needs of disabled people in British Columbia, partly

because I have worked with the disabled community for many years of my

own life and partly because I think the disabled community has very

nicely and very neatly come up with its own package of desires and

resolutions in the most recent brief presented to all members of the

legislative assembly by the B.C. Coalition of the Disabled. I believe

just in the last week that brief has been presented to members of this

House after a meeting two Fridays ago, at which the coalition unveiled

its assessment of its problems and its solutions. A representative of

my office attended that meeting, as did the member for

Maillardville-Coquitlam.

Basically, I have to say that for

twenty years now I have watched reports come out of various committees

— committees of city council in Vancouver, committees of the Canadian

Paraplegic Association that the second member for Vancouver-Little

Mountain (Mr. Mowat) has sat on, committees of SPARC of B.C.,

committees of the Greater Vancouver Regional District on housing for

the handicapped — a committee that I happened to chair. And for twenty

years I have never seen a package of resolutions and recommendations

put together as well and as cogently and as comprehensively as I have

seen in this most recent brief put together by the B.C. Coalition of

the Disabled.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

would say, then, moving on from those comments, that reading through

the terms of reference or the mandate of this council, I would hope

that government would see fit to ensure that representatives from the

B.C. Coalition of the Disabled are on this council and that one of the

first mandates and one of the first tasks of this council would be to

sit down with the B.C. Coalition of the Disabled and go over their

package. They are recommending real changes in real legislation. They

are saying that disabled people cannot afford to live on less than $550

a month, which is what they are receiving in disabled benefits. That

amount for a disabled person does not even begin to bring them to a

subsistence level of living. They cannot live at that level, and yet

that's what we are providing them.

They are talking very

realistically about additional costs they have, that the disabled

benefits do not even begin to make up, such as over-the-counter drugs.

Prescription drugs may be covered by disabled benefits, but

over-the-counter drugs are not. They are talking very realistically

about retrofitting the buses with special stairs that enable disabled

or older people who are not as mobile as others to get on and off buses

with greater ease. This in fact is a decision which the transit

authority is making right now. In fact, I gather at its meeting

tomorrow afternoon this might be a major item on the agenda.

All

the way through this package I see very real needs and very real

resolutions, and I would encourage the government side to do more than

studies and more than receive reports. My goodness, the reports would

stack from the floor to the ceiling and around and around again. To use

the Provincial Secretary's analogy about our public documents: if we

stretched those reports end to end, or even sold them for scrap, we'd

probably be able to retro-fit five buses. I'm saying, enough of the

reports. If you're going to do this advisory council, please sit down

with the B.C. Coalition of the Disabled, put a member or two of that

coalition on your council and pay close heed, because it would be a

tragedy to once again sit here a year from now and read a rehashing of

those recommendations that have been coming forward from the disabled

community for the last twenty years.

Section 3 approved.

section 4.

MR. CHAIRMAN :

Hon. members, we do have an amendment to

section 4. This amendment is

not on the order paper, but if any hon. members would like, we can have

it printed. I'm sure the minister will explain it.

HON. MR. VEITCH :

Yes, I provided a copy of the amendment to the opposition. The

section

says: "The council shall report its findings and recommendations to the

Premier as and when advisable." The government felt and the drafters

felt that we didn't want to confine it to — taking

[ Page 5296 ]

into

consideration what the hon. member said — one report a year or one bit

of advisement in a year, but to do it as often as they felt was

advisable. However, two hon. members, the second member for Nanaimo

(Mr. Lovick) but more specifically the second member for

Vancouver-Little Mountain (Mr. Mowat) suggested that we be very

specific and ensure that a report comes in at least once in every

calendar year. The government agrees with that, and it was never the

intent to lessen that. If we can get more information back, then we'll

be able to respond more readily.

I move the amendment by adding the words: "but in any event not less than once in each calendar year" after "advisable."

On the amendment.

MR. LOVICK :

I congratulate the minister. I was delighted to see the amendment in

response, obviously, to the discussion we had last night, and obviously

to other inputs and requests he had, as he just outlined.

guess my original question still obtains: whether what we are going to

be looking at is an ongoing series of recommendations or whether we

might look, I think more advantageously, to a report that is given a

particular time-line and will come down with a series of

recommendations that ought to be acted on right now — analogous more,

Mr. Minister, to a task force report. In other words, we have a group

of people who have been given this set of principles, this mandate to

go by, and those individuals do their deliberations, do their

examination and then, ideally, it seems to me, should come forward with

a report that instantly becomes newsworthy, important and significant

and therefore the heat is also instantly on government — if I might put

it in those terms — to take action in response to the report. That's

the assurance I was looking for, and I would simply ask the minister if

that is what is intended by this amendment.

[3:30]

HON. MR. VEITCH :

Yes, that's what the original

section — I think it's a fine

section in

this bill — was all about. It says: "The council shall report its

findings and recommendations to the Premier as and when advisable" — as

and when the council deems it to be advisable, not when the government

thinks it's advisable. But it's further strengthened now by saying:

"But you've got to do it at least once every calendar year." So the

assurance is yes. As and when advisable means that you can act on

things more quickly, and that was the original intent of that section.

It's now been strengthened further, and I agree with the hon. member by

saying you can't just let it slide past a calendar year; you've got to

get your ducks in a row and report back to the Premier.

MR. MOWAT :

I commend the Provincial Secretary for bringing this amendment forward.

As we know, the minister was responsible for piloting this legislation

and piloting the steering committee through the province, and I think

this amendment to

section 4 of having the committee bring forward a

report at least once a year really makes the findings and

recommendations they will come up with very valid when it has to come

to the Premier.

I heard what the second member for Vancouver-Point Grey (Ms. Marzari) stated.

When the steering committee was traveling the province it had over 300 submissions.

The member spoke about the B.C. Coalition for the Disabled, and I think that's

a starting point with all the submissions that were given to the steering committee.

When the council is in action, it will take a great deal of time to go through

all those very well thought out presentations. Some were tailored specifically

to areas of certain disabilities that that report dealt with and were brought

forward by a very positive and motivated group of people dealing with a specific

type of disability. There is much to be looked at and reviewed through all the

oral presentations as well as the written ones.

again commend the government for bringing forward this amendment. It

will certainly make the council responsible and give them the added

dimension of bringing forward a report that will specifically discuss

the recommendations and needs they have found through their

deliberations in the year. I commend the government and the minister

again.

Amendment approved.

Section 4 as amended approved.

Section 5 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. VEITCH : I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 42, Premier's Advisory Council for Persons with Disabilities Act, reported complete with amendment.

MR. SPEAKER : When shall the bill be read a third time?

HON. MR. VEITCH : By leave now.

Leave granted.

Bill

42, Premier's Advisory Council for Persons with Disabilities Act,

reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : Mr. Speaker, I call committee on Bill 34.

TRANSPORTATION AND HIGHWAYS

STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1988

The House in committee on Bill 34; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

section 1.

MR. LOVICK :

I have a very quick question on this one. Certainly, as we know, it's

merely definition, and as I said the other night when we talked about

this, we on this side of the House were certainly happy and prepared to

support this bill. My question concerns the change in definition of

gross vehicle weight. This is purely an academic interest. All these

years we have had a particular definition of gross vehicle weight, and

now it is being redefined. I have no difficulty with the redefinition,

but I'm intrigued, I guess. I would love to know why the redefinition.

HON. MR. ROGERS : While it's very important for us to know the gross vehicle weight of the truck, it's just as

[ Page

5297 ]

important to know the individual axle weight, because there may be six axles.

If one of those axles is grossly overloaded, yet the vehicle is under gross

weight, that one axle will do more damage to the pavement than anything else.

That's the reason for it. It's important that the load be stressed evenly

among the axles.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

MR. LOVICK :

section 2, I note that this is called the consequential amendment

that has the effect of repealing sections 7, 8 and 12 of the existing

act. Again, there's no difficulty with the consequential amendment.

However, I would just like a clarification, if I could. I note that

section 7 of the existing Commercial Transport Act deals with weigh

stations, and the first clause in that

section sets up the mechanism

whereby the minister establishes weigh stations. I quote the existing

act,

section 7(l): "The minister shall establish and operate weighing

stations at those places he considers necessary." My question is simply

this: where in the new amended act is the provision that establishes

weighing stations? I couldn't find it, and I'm wondering if the

minister would tell me where we can locate that.

HON. MR. ROGERS :

It is in another act under my jurisdiction called the Ministry of

Transportation and Highways Act, under which we have been establishing

weigh stations. In any event, that's the reason it has been removed

from this section.

Sections 2 to 5 inclusive approved.

section 6.

MR. LOVICK : I assume that the effect of

section 6 is to repeal the existing

section

15(

l) and apparently to do so by tightening up and being much more

specific in terms of what constitutes overweight and oversize vehicles.

I assume that is the

section of this bill that has most to do with

modifying the existing Commercial Transport Act to meet national

standards. Is it the case that this is simply to do that?

HON. MR. ROGERS : Yes.

Sections 6 to 10 inclusive approved.

section 11.

MR. LOVICK :

The purpose of this particular

section under the Motor Vehicle Act has

something to do with parking places being specifically allocated for

disabled persons. This now gives that power under the Motor Vehicle Act

to the ministry. Would the minister explain to me whether that kind of

designation is currently done entirely by municipal authority? Is that

the existing situation?

HON. MR. ROGERS : In some jurisdictions it's done under municipal

authority. In other areas, of course, they are outside of municipal authority,

and while we have indicated designations for disabled parking, we have not had

the authority to do so; therefore we could be challenged on that. We would like

to have the authority to do so. Then having the authority to do so, we can catch

those people who park vehicles which don't really look like they belong

to disabled persons and are parked in disabled zones — such as motorcycles.

I saw that the other day, and I was having difficulty understanding how that

really qualified.

Section 11 approved.

section 12.

MR. LOVICK :

Section 12 again is one of those clauses in which we see considerable

elaboration and clarification. That would seem to be its purpose. What

I wanted to ask is simply why that clarification. Why that elaboration?

Where did this particular recommendation come from? Is this also part

of that national standards deliberation, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. ROGERS :

It is part of our consolidation out of the Motor Carrier Act into the

Motor Vehicle Act, in terms of names and addresses of vehicle owners.

MR. LOVICK :

Subsection (

b) under

section 12. For a moment I thought I had gone too

far. I now want to get to subsection (

b) and ask whether identification

cards as stipulated there refer to (a)? In other words, is what we

have in (

q) the description? I am a little confused then. I would ask

for clarification.

HON. MR. ROGERS : Sorry, it is a

different

section of that section. Subsections (

b) and (

c) provide for

the provision and the regulation and establishment in issuance of

control of B.C. identity cards. These are for people who are 17, 18 or

19 and for whatever reason don't have a driver's licence. They perhaps

wish to establish their credibility in order to purchase alcohol or

cash a cheque. There is quite a substantial proliferation of not very

authentic looking — but nonetheless somewhat plausible — ID cards which

proliferate from teenagers, as I have frequently seen.

think this is a good section. For people who don't have a driver's

licence or don't have any identification, they don't need to go through

the difficulty of getting a passport. We can establish their identity

with a photograph and a $10 fee. It is strictly voluntary, but it

allows some measure of control. This ministry just became the agency of

government.... We already have the plant and equipment in place for

drivers' licences, so we can do it this way.

Sections 12 and 13 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. ROGERS : Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill

34, Transportation and Highways Statutes Amendment Act, 1988, reported

complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : Mr. Speaker, I call committee on Bill 38.

LIQUOR CONTROL AND LICENSING

AMENDMENT ACT, 1988

The House in committee on Bill 38; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

[ Page

5298 ]

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

section 4.

MS. A. HAGEN :

Briefly on this amendment regarding the peace officer, I would like to

ask the minister if this amendment is intended to provide the means for

a response to a special occasion licence immediately on the problem

arising? Presently with the legislation, if there's a problem with the

special occasion licence.... In fact, the problem is gone; it's

history by the time any action can be taken, and the only action might

be to deny a licence presumably to a similar applicant on a future

occasion. This would enable the police or peace officers to act in the

context of the situation.

HON. L. HANSON : Yes,

that's correct. It would allow our police or inspectors the opportunity

of dealing with a violation at the time, as opposed to a later time.

[3:45]

Sections 4 to 6 inclusive approved.

section 7.

MS. A. HAGEN :

I would like to begin to canvass this section, which is a fairly

lengthy one and which provides some very specific guidelines —

particularly discretionary guidelines — around licensing, by referring

to a previous

section which in the earlier act was a part of

section

Section 11 as it exists says: "Subject to

section 10 and the

regulations...." The amendment that we are looking at excludes any

reference to

section 10, which is the

section that deals specifically

with some of the processes of licensing: resolution of municipal

council being considered by the general manager; public response;

petitions signed by residents; referendum.

I'd like to ask the minister, first of all, why the reference to

section 10 in the amended clause has been dropped.

HON. L. HANSON :

The reference was dropped because the specific reference to

section 10

is not considered to be necessary. All of that

section is subject to

the other sections of the act.

MS. A. HAGEN : Just to

pursue that for a moment, Mr. Chairman: because

section 10 — which is

not specifically in the amendment but is encompassed — is no longer

referred to in this clause, the matters relating to how a licence

should go through a consultative process with municipalities and with

the residents in an area that may be affected by the establishment of a

licensed facility in their community are all seen to stand in their own

right. And then under

section 11 we have some of the discretionary

power that is available to the general manager. That's fine, then, Mr.

Chairman. The minister is nodding his head. So let me proceed.

would presume here that in the new language, "having regard for the

public interest" may encompass the intent of

section 10, because

section 10 deals with some of the means by which the general manager

would canvass the public interest in the procedures that go into the

establishment of a licence.

I'd like to move on to (2),

which is a very much more specific clause than we have in the present

act. It covers a large number of exemptions — or modifications,

revisions — that are at the discretion of the general manager. I'm

mindful that there has been considerable discussion, particularly in

the report of the ombudsman on fair practices in licensing, around the

use of legislation, policy, regulation, discretion, appeal. That is the

subject, in fact, of that very excellent discussion that the ombudsman

provided in his review of licensing practices. So first I'd like to ask

the minister if he could just discuss briefly how the clauses of

section 11 relate to existing regulations and existing discretionary

powers. I think they're codified here for the first time. Could he give

us just a little background on how this codification relates to what

exists and is now, as I perceive it, being placed in legislation?

HON. L. HANSON :

In fact, it does codify some of the discretionary abilities of the

general manager. I should point out, though, that later in this bill we

are putting in place an appeal process that is, we think, fairer and

subject to the fair rules of justice. There is a separate appeal

process by a separate, independent chairman and independent members

against the decisions of the general manager. Many of these things that

are in the act as we see them here were in it before but were maybe not

quite as clearly defined as they are here. As an example, under special

circumstances he can exempt a class of licence from requirements with

respect to a marine facility where liquor is sold. In a special

circumstance a marine licence may be.... There is a requirement to

have some marine facilities available in a marine licence. Moorage is

specified in the regulations, and in unique circumstances he may have

the ability to reach an arrangement with mooring facilities that

actually don't belong to the licensee but are performing the same

service. So he could make a discretionary decision that that would be

allowable under those circumstances.

He could exempt a

class of licensee from requirements with respect to serving food and

non-alcoholic beverages in an establishment — as an example, a

dining-room that has a private room facility. Under special

circumstances he may allow them to have a wine and cheese arrangement

which wouldn't be in the original licence; that would be allowed only

under special circumstances.

MS. A. HAGEN : Perhaps

we could pursue a couple of these items, because I would like to get

some clarification. If we could look at the one that the minister was

just mentioning, which is (

h) on exempting a class of licensee, am I to

understand, pursuant to the minister's comment, that that would be the

ongoing status of that room, or on a specific instance basis?

Could

I ask too if that clause would allow a variance on what I think is a

regulation? I'm not sure about this, and the minister could help me

with that. There has been discussion about what percentage of a

licensed restaurant should be food and what percentage alcohol. I think

a 60-40 balance was recommended by the Jansen committee. What is the

status of that particular balance between food and liquor, and what

effect might this clause have on any change in that balance? Does it

give the general manager the right of discretion to alter that balance,

or is that firmly stated in regulation with no discretionary exemption

allowed?

HON. L. HANSON : First of all, the

recommendation in the report was very specific that it be a 60-40

ratio. With the difficulties in policing that and in establishing that

60-40 ratio, it was not adopted in that detail. This

section of the act

wouldn't give the general manager the discretion to say that

[ Page

5299 ]

you can serve liquor without food on an ongoing basis, because that

would be contrary to the licence. It could, under special

circumstances, allow him to say that.

Predominantly, what

he would use is his discretion that a restaurant's main business is the

serving of food without restricting it to as narrow a percentage as 60

and 40. If a restaurant was obviously operating as a bar and the ratio

was totally out of reason, he would be able to police that; but it

wouldn't give him the discretion to exempt the licensee from that

requirement.

MS. A. HAGEN : I think one of the things

we're going to be discussing is that because this is legislation, we

will be looking to where regulation comes into play. Clearly, we're

dealing too with the general manager's discretion. I just want to be

clear that there is no firm guideline around the ratio for food and

alcohol in regulation. There is an exemption, which we have now

canvassed, and I think I understand that it would be an exemption on a

one-time or specific-request basis. There is then nothing either in the

act or in the regulation, other than that a restaurant clearly is there

to serve food and liquor, to define how the licensee interprets the

carrying out of the requirements of his licence. Only if there were a

complaint would the general manager deal with any problems that might

occur with that, possibly around its becoming more like a liquor

establishment than a restaurant. Is that the situation, Mr. Minister?

HON. L. HANSON :

That would be correct. Although this

section does give the general

manager some discretionary rights to deal with a licence, it's very

difficult to deal with a restaurant licence in a global sense — that

food should be this and liquor should be that — because of the various

costs of liquor: in extreme circumstances the cost of a bottle of wine

in a dining-room could far exceed that of the food. But the purpose of

a restaurant licence is to serve food, and that is spelled out in the

regulations — although they don't spell out the specifics of 60-40.

MS. A. HAGEN :

I wonder if the minister would care to comment on further work

happening in terms of regulation, once we have this particular clause

which deals with discretion in place. As I said before, it's my sense

that what the minister has been doing with this legislation is looking

at all aspects of licensing, and that involves the legislation we're

amending at this time. It clearly involves policies which have been

suggested through the Jansen liquor policy report. There are tons of

regulations I don't even pretend to have knowledge of, and then we have

that discretionary power.

Let me phrase it just a little more specifically if I may, Mr. Chairman. In

my community of New Westminster there are at this time an inordinately large

number of liquor seats. My city council has recently passed some guidelines

for handling some of their responses to requests for further liquor seats — something

that I know the minister is also discussing with municipalities, through a special

committee. Although I don't have those guidelines in front of me this afternoon,

one of the stipulations they have is that they will no longer forward a recommendation

for approval of seats that are specifically for the serving of liquor. That

means that if a new hotel opens in town and is going to have restaurant facilities

and all of those kinds of things, if there are other things in the establishment

than just the sale of liquor, then clearly those things we all know are a part

of that business and how that business is carried out.... But I'm sure

they are going to be really concerned that there not be, on the part of the

minister or the general manager, a great deal of discretion about how those

seats are used.

[4:00]

How would the general manager deal with some discussion between the

municipality, if you like, and the licensee and himself, to ensure that

the intent of those guidelines can be realized, that discretion doesn't

allow the general manager to move around the guidelines that the

municipality has in place regarding additional liquor seats? I just

want to be really sure that discretion here is a very limited power. I

recognize the need for that discretion, but I want to have assurance

that by virtue of this discretion being defined and described, it's in

fact discretion and not licence to have a very broad interpretative

power about how a licence will evolve and what may be available to the

licensee — possibly in conflict with some of the aspirations of the

municipality that wants to constrain additional liquor seats as much as

possible without compromising a business's ability to do business.

HON. L. HANSON :

I think we have demonstrated, certainly in the last year or so, a

consultative process with the various local governments. But I assure

you that it is not the intention of the liquor licensing branch or the

general manager's discretion to allow him to go beyond the desires and

wishes of a particular municipality or regional district. Regional

districts and municipalities have, I think everyone would accept,

complete control over land use as it relates to all of the locations in

their communities, and through that they have a very definite control

over what happens within the municipality.

But we in the

ministry have as a policy that licences or changes in licences are

always done in consultation with the municipality before those changes

happen. In some licensing cases, we require resolution of the

municipality before a licence application is even given pre-clearance,

which doesn't grant a licence, but just says that at this point we have

no difficulty with it.

As you know, licensed premises are

subject to floor plans, seating arrangements and all those things; they

are very strictly controlled. A request for a change in a liquor

licensee's premises, if it required alterations, would require a

building permit from the municipality, but for minor renovations to

licensed premises, we may not consult a municipality, because the

licensee has already been established.

I assure you that

through the joint committee that we have with the UBCM and members of

my staff, consultation between municipalities and regional districts is

ongoing. We are now working on some understandings that we may arrive

at between those entities and ourselves on what we would expect from

them and what they would like us to inquire of them prior to a licence

being granted. I think we are very aware of and sensitive to the needs

of a municipality and are working towards that end through the

committee of UBCM and my staff members.

MS. A. HAGEN :

From discussions with the minister's officials regarding these clauses,

we have a question about the current classification of the various

licences that exist now. I want to ask whether this particular

section

would enable the minister to alter the present classification of

licences without bringing it forward again for discussion. Is this

enabling to the ministry to change the current classification of

licences as they presently exist?

[ Page 5300 ]

Would

the ministry be able to...? I don't know the number of licences

right now; I think there are eight or nine classes of licence. Would it

be possible for the ministry to collapse that into, say, four classes

of licence, without having further public discussion? Is that one of

the intents of this clause?

HON. L. HANSON : I have

to answer that question as yes. It isn't the motivation, but yes, that

could happen. I would also point out that that is also possible under

the existing legislation, in that those licence classifications are

established by regulation, and as we see the need for variations in the

current classifications, they can be changed by regulation. That has

always been the case. There really isn't any difference here.

This

deals with some discretionary authority of the general manager, in that

under exceptional circumstances, he can vary some clauses or conditions

of an existing licence as opposed to really changing the licence, if

you will. But yes, the licence categories could be changed by

regulation, and they could have been changed before.

MR. BLENCOE :

I just thought I'd get into this debate of the politics of issuing

liquor licences in British Columbia. I notice in this

section that if

the general manager, following application, refuses to issue a licence,

he must give the applicant reasons for his decision. Could the minister

outline the appeal procedure for the case when the general manager

turns down an application?

HON. L. HANSON : The

appeal is handled technically, I guess, much as it was before, by a

request coming forward for the decision of the general manager to be

appealed. There is a fee included, and then a hearing is scheduled. The

process now is that if it is a licensing appeal, it is heard by me, or

I can deputize my deputy to hear it.

the case of the

general manager having a hearing and imposing a penalty of some kind

because of infractions of a liquor regulation, the appeal to that goes

to the Commercial Appeals Commission. Under the new legislation, it

would all go to the appeal board that we are forming, as opposed to....

It's possible that that may still be handled by the Commercial

Appeals Commission, but not necessarily.

MR. BLENCOE : The Commercial Appeals Commission, I gather, hears all appeals, despite which community the request....

HON. L. HANSON :

No, the Commercial Appeals Commission doesn't hear all of the appeals

now. The appeals from licensing decisions as they relate to

applications for licences are to the minister, or I can deputize my

deputy to hear them.

MR. BLENCOE : As you know, this

issue of issuing licences can certainly enter the political sphere, and

there has always been a feeling in the province that liquor licensing

is highly political. There is a feeling, maybe rightly or wrongly, that

the issuing of licences is done in a certain way, depending on

communication or contacts or whatever — unfairly, I am sure, in some

cases. I wonder if the minister has considered, say in my community, a

hearing process which would have a community-based board of some sort,

outside of the political process, rather than a political decision;

that there be a community-based appeal procedure.

The

reason I say that is that sometimes organizations come forward to ask

for licences that may, shall we say, not fit the normal category of

people applying for licences, and may have.... Within the

bureaucracy some people may feel they don't particularly wish to

license them because they do things differently or they wish to have a

special club or whatever for whatever purpose. There is a feeling that

politics enters the situation. They are denied a licence because they

want a particular club, and it may not necessarily be acceptable to the

politicians of the day in terms of what they want to have that club for.

wonder if we need an appeal procedure that is separate from politics,

that is community-based, and if we should remove some of these

difficult decisions from the political arena.

HON. L. HANSON :

I'm not sure if the member is referring to special occasion licences.

There is a suggestion, although it hasn't been completely worked out

yet, that the municipalities would play a much larger

part in the

issuance of special occasion licences. If that is what the member is

referring to, that's what we are working towards. If he is referring to

the general issuance of liquor licences, the purpose of forming the

appeal board, along with members, is to attempt to do that. There will

be, in our philosophy as to this appeal board, members appointed from

various segments of the province, hopefully to be able to deal locally

with the....

MR. BLENCOE : Would the minister

consider, say, having a community-based appeal board in the greater

Victoria area that would specifically know the community for which it

is making decisions?

HON. L. HANSON : You're not dealing with SOLs — special occasion licences?

Interjection.

HON. L. HANSON :

The Victoria city police now deal with special occasion licences; the

general manager has delegated that responsibility to them. Yes, we have

considered representation in the appeal process of people who do know

the community, and that is part of our thinking.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Just before we continue, hon. members, the first member for Nanaimo has asked leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. STUPICH :

There is a group of 22 grade 5 students from Pauline Haarer School in

Nanaimo, led by Mrs. D. Ravelo. They wanted the tour to be all in

French; they are on that curriculum now. I welcome them this afternoon,

and I'd like the members to welcome them to the precincts.

MS. A. HAGEN :

I think we have moved to some extent into the appeal process. I want to

just follow, though, in connection with this particular clause, (5),

where there is a requirement that the general manager, on refusing to

issue, amend, renew or transfer a licence, shall give the applicant or

licensee written reasons for his decision. Can the minister advise us

if this is current practice? Can he advise us if there are some

preliminary processes that the general manager follows that may avoid

the necessity of an appeal, if it's looking as if he's not going to

grant a licence but wants to

[ Page

5301 ]

allow for the prospective licensee to perhaps provide some

additional information, something that might have him look a second

time at the issue?

Thirdly, does this clause accord with

some of the recommendations that the ombudsman made around some of the

fairness and due process that would assist with the licensee having a

sense and in fact the reality of a very careful consideration? We're

looking here at a tremendous amount of discretion that is now being

codified in legislation for the general manager, and with discretion

clearly have to go lots of processes that ensure that the licensee,

prospective or with his licence being changed, is afforded every

opportunity to have treatment which, as the ombudsman said, is fair and

perceived to be fair.

[4:15]

HON. L. HANSON :

First of all, for the benefit of the member opposite, when an

application comes in for a licence for a particular location, there are

a number of reports that are generated by that application: reports by

the liquor inspector and so on. The licensing officer in the liquor

control and licensing branch looks at that application and may go back

to the applicant for some further information, or may go back to the

applicant and say: "The difficulty I am having with this is this. Do

you have any further information that you should give me?" As a result

of that — and sometimes that goes on two or three times — he may

eventually come to the conclusion that, no, a preclearance in the case

of a neighbourhood pub, or a licence in some of the other categories,

is not going to be issued, and it would require a letter being issued

for that purpose. We have always had the ability for that individual

who is unsuccessful in the licence application to appeal the decision

to the general manager, who really hadn't directly at that point dealt

with it. He would peruse it again, maybe ask some further questions,

and give his reasons. Failing all of that, then the appeal process

would come into effect.

MS. A. HAGEN : A quick

follow-up. The general manager will now give written reasons for his

decision. The other question that was also on the table, Mr. Chairman,

was the ombudsman's recommendations about both the formal appeal

procedures — which we'll come to, I know, in another clause — and the

process items, which he speaks of at considerable length, around that

whole issue of discretionary power. It's that I'm trying to get at with

the discussion at this stage.

HON. L. HANSON : There

always had been in the old act a requirement for the licensee or

applicant to have written reasons if he required them. This, I guess,

just changes the wording slightly. It says: "Where the general manager,

following application, refuses to issue, amend the terms of, renew or

transfer a licence, he shall give to the applicant or licensee written

reasons for his decision." I guess in the old one it says "where

requested" — and I'm not sure that's a large difference. But we have in

all cases given that reason.

Yes, the ombudsman did

request, as I remember — although I don't have the complete report in

front of me — that there be a separate appeal process from the general

manager's decision. That's what we are looking at in the appeal process

that we're suggesting in this legislation..

Sections 7 to 13 inclusive approved.

section 14.

MS. A. HAGEN :

Mr. Chairman, this is the

section that deals with the establishment of

a new appeals procedure through the formation of a liquor appeal board.

I'd

like to open up our discussion of this

section by asking the minister

to describe — not in great detail, but in some detail — how he sees the

board working. Is it going to have a chair and a vice-chair? I gather

the minister sees it as having representation through appointed people

in various communities. If you would give us some description in your

own words of how this might work, then I think I have relatively few

questions to come after that.

HON. L. HANSON : We see

the appeal board being made up of a chairman and a number of members

who would serve on an as-needed basis representing the various

interests and areas of the province. The chairman would have the

ability to hear an appeal in isolation or by himself; he would have the

ability to appoint a temporary vice-chairman in an area to hear an

appeal , depending on the significance of it; he would have the ability

to appoint a three-person panel, of which he could be one, or he could

designate one of those members as the chairman to hear an appeal in a

specific area. We are emphasizing the representation from the various

parts of the province to ensure that the interests of the local

community are heard in the appeal process and therefore are appointing

members from various parts of the province.

There will be a

fee involved. As a matter of fact, that appeal board could assess or

award costs to either the appellant or the defendant. If it was just an

appeal from the general manager's licensing denial, and if in his

opinion that appeal was frivolous. I suppose, he does have the ability

to award costs to either party. As I'm sure you are aware, appeals can

vary from great complexity down to very simple ones. The general

manager may issue a licence that has a condition attached to it, and

the condition may be the only part of the appeal. They would have

similar abilities to the Commercial Appeals Commission.

MS. A. HAGEN :

Picking up on the last comment that they would have similar abilities

to the Commercial Appeals Commission, what qualities will the minister

be looking for in the people who sit on this commission? The ombudsman,

for example, suggests quite strongly that the Commercial Appeals

Commission have a specialist group to deal with those elements of

liquor enforcement issues that come to them. One of the things I would

be very concerned about with the Liquor Appeal Board — which I support

— is that the board be a professional body, a group of people who have

the skills. When you talk about the kinds of responsibilities that this

legislation places upon them, including the right to award costs, it's

a very significant responsibility and one that requires some special

skills.

[Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.]

I want to

pick up on the comment of my colleague from Victoria on the community

perspective which I think it would be important to have in place here.

Heaven knows, every community has very specific kinds of perspectives

on liquor licences. It's a very sensitive issue and subject to all

kinds of difficulties in making decisions.

So those two

issues: the professional or skilled qualifications of the committee,

and the ability to have some regional or local perspective that people

will respect and know is in touch with issues that have a local spin,

if you like, on them.

[ Page

5302 ]

HON. L. HANSON : It's obvious that we would be looking for

some considerable expertise and fairness in the people we choose to sit

on the appeal panel. We have even considered, and may still consider,

that the chairman may be a member of the Commercial Appeals Commission

and have the responsibility for liquor appeals as a responsibility

within the commission. We would look to the various communities for

recommendations on who should be the area representatives, and we would

consider those in our efforts to appoint fair and reasonable people.

am not sure that whoever is appointed would agree with everyone in

every circumstance, because from time to time there seem to be

differences of opinion on the qualifications of individuals, but we

will attempt to the best of our ability to ensure that the people on

these appeal boards are fair and reasonable minded. I agree that liquor

is a very sensitive issue and that it requires a lot of consideration

and concern when we are dealing with it. That has been amply

demonstrated to me on a number of occasions. I suppose that until there

are actual appointments to the board, no one will make an assessment of

that, but we will do our best to get the most appropriate people named

to those positions.

I am not sure that we want to make the

appeal process a very legalistic one. That is costly to everyone. We

would like to try to keep it fair and reasonable without getting into

the costs of a very legalistic process.

MS. A. HAGEN :

Just another couple of comments on this clause. If the minister is

giving the right to accord costs and so on, clearly the skill level,

experience and background of people suggests a level of

professionalism. I must say that I have some concerns about

quasi-judicial boards, the powers they have and the skills manifest in

the appointments, and I think we will watch that with interest.

Could

I ask you if you know how many you anticipate might be appointed and

what the term of an appointment to the appeal board might be?

[4:30]

HON. L. HANSON :

It's very difficult to give exact numbers, because it certainly would

depend on the workload. Initially, maybe we're looking at eight members

and a chairman. There is no particular formula contemplated at this

point. I suppose that certain parts of the province — as an example,

the Vancouver area — may require two or three panel members, because

there may be a number of appeals because of the density,

whereas other

parts of the province may require only one. There will be a certain

amount of experimenting as it relates to the volume of work involved.

Section 14 approved.

section 15.

MS. A. HAGEN :

I want to ask if clause 2.1, which says, "A person having a relevant

interest in and being aggrieved by an action, order or decision of the

general manager may appeal to the appeal board," would have provided

an avenue for the people in the Knight Street Pub issue to have had an

appeal heard?

HON. L. HANSON : Yes, it would. We are

going to be putting some time limits on those in the regulations,

because once a licence is issued or a process is gone through, there

has to be some limit to the time that an appeal can go on. Provided

that they are within the time limit, that would be an appealable issue.

Sections 15 to 22 inclusive approved.

section 23.

MS. A. HAGEN :

This

section and the following one deal with an issue that I know has

been of very great concern to both licensees and police in various

communities, but very specifically in some Vancouver communities. They

have to do with the banning of knives and giving to the licensee the

right to take action in respect to this. We very much welcome this

clause, and I know that my colleague from Vancouver Centre is anxious

to have some opportunity to discuss this with the minister.

Before

we deal with that, Mr. Chairman — because I know my colleague from

Vancouver Centre is wont to wax eloquent on issues that are important

to him — because we are working under some time constraints, I wonder

if I might have some latitude at this time to ask a question under

section 29, because I may not necessarily be here to ask that question.

It's a very simple one. I know that once we have completed this

particular clause, we have very few other questions to ask. Okay?

Interjection.

MS. A. HAGEN :

Thank you very much. The clause we will eventually be discussing has to

do with on-site brewers. Is there some retroactivity in handling the

business of putting into place more stringent licensing and regulation

for on-site brewers? I'm sure you've had communications, as I have,

with people who have set up businesses in consultation with your liquor

officials and acted in good faith in developing their businesses. I

don't want to get into a lot of discussion about whether they were

right or wrong, but is there some consideration around people acting in

good faith in terms of the establishment of businesses, as you

implement a more stringent licensing and regulatory regimen in respect

to these small business operators?

HON. L. HANSON : I

guess you're referring to whether there is any grandfathering of the

existing.... It's not our intention. We will certainly work very

closely with and consult those people before we finalize the amounts

and the restrictions that may be placed on it. I believe there are

about 35 now in operation in the province. Most of them haven't been

here very long — I guess less than two years. Even the Association of

On-Premise Brewers supports the need for some regulation within the

industry. We are not considering grandfathering them, but we will be in

consultation with them before we apply any tariffs or taxes.

MR. BARNES :

Just to get it on the record, really, I'm very pleased that the

minister has come forward with the appropriate remedy for the carrying

of knives in licensed premises. I hope he will comment with respect to

the effect of the amendments. It appears as though he has made it

incumbent upon the licensee to be aware of — or if not, to assume some

responsibility for — people with knives. How that comes about, I

suppose, is a case of attention being brought to the problem. Maybe if

you could explain to me how the law will be carried out, before I

comment much further, it would facilitate matters.

[ Page

5303 ]

I'm just wondering: now that you've got this law, are you going to

be posting signs or promoting this? Is it going to be publicized — advising

of the changes and making it known what the penalties are, and this kind of

thing? Could you clarify your initiative with respect to carrying out this new

regulation?

HON. L. HANSON :

There are a number of initiatives. The Vancouver police have one, the

Hotel Association has one, and so on. They are looking at various ways

of posting and making notices in the licensed premises. Our ministry

will provide a properly printed notice of the rules and regulations

which they may want to enlarge or whatever to use in the licensed

premises. The Vancouver Hotel Association, I've been advised, has

adopted or is suggesting that it adopt as a house policy a notice form

in their premises. It's fair, I think, that the responsibility for — or

at least the preliminary responsibility for — the policing of knives

and firearms within licensed premises lies with the management people

in the operation. Our act says that they will not knowingly allow that

to happen. It has to be treated with common sense; they are not

expected to have a metal detector in the doorway or to physically

search people. I think we and the operators will use the common sense

that they should not go to that length.

My response — or at

least the reaction that I have been getting — is that most operators

welcome the legislation because they really felt they would like to

control that within their premises, but they didn't have the authority

to do it in the past. In the case of patrons who after proper warning

still refuse, the operator has the resource of the police force to call

to help them enforce infractions that are not easily resolved between

the staff and the patron.

We look to it as enabling

legislation for the owners to police their own premises and to have the

force of the law behind them in policing their own premises, and that

they will use some common sense, and that also they have the resource

of our police to help them enforce it.

MR. BARNES : I

really neglected to indicate that this is a very special occasion. In

fact, the people who should be here to help talk about the issue are

the people in downtown east side, like Sue Harris, for instance, and

others who have campaigned for years to stop the carnage that has been

happening on the streets, in the lanes, in the downtown east side

hotels and generally in the community.

A knife — which is

really quite a revelation to many of us — is even more popular than

firearms when it comes to violent crimes. Banning knives in public

places is something that should have happened a long time ago. To think

that in this day and age there are people who still believe that they

need weapons in public places to protect themselves shows how far

behind we lag in any sane regulation with respect to protecting the

safety of the public.

I think you can be commended for this

and your receptiveness. I commend the Attorney-General (Hon. B.R.

Smith) as well, because we've talked to him about this issue in the

past. I don't think it's been a question of indifference on the part of

the government or anyone else; it's just been a case of enforcement and

how to go about solving the problem.

Perhaps you want to indicate if anything has been done with respect to amending

the Criminal Code and talking to the federal people. That was one of the other

concerns that you mentioned in your correspondence in the past. Although there

may be some changes made provincially, what changes could be made as well at

the federal level?

could expand on this issue in terms of hoping that it will be

effective, but I will conclude by saying that I am very pleased that we

have taken this first step. I believe that the patrons will be more

comfortable and have some reassurance that they can go in and have a

drink without having that drink turn into a fight, or where they are

ambushed by the person they were befriending just a few minutes before.

This quite often happens in these public places.

Two

friends go in, start drinking and talking, and before the evening is

over, somebody has pulled a knife for whatever reason. It's just too

convenient; it's too easy. We know that when you're drinking, you are

not as responsible for your behaviour as when you are not. It's

incredible that people in the past have been able to have their drinks

and their weapons in the same place.

I think this is a step

forward which is long overdue. If you could just respond in closing to

the federal side of it, that should suffice for now.

HON. L. HANSON :

The Attorney-General has been in contact with the federal government on

this issue, and we have their promise that they are studying it. I'm

afraid I have nothing more concrete than that to report, but I would

give you my undertaking to continue to follow that up as we have said

before. But the Attorney-General has been doing so, as it would be his

proper relationship with the federal government to pursue that. He has

elicited the promise that they will study the issue.

Sections 23 to 39 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 38. Liquor Control and Licensing Amendment Act, 1988, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

[4:45]

HON. MR. STRACHAN : Committee on Bill 47.

CREDIT UNION AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 1988

The House in committee on Bill 47; Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.

Sections 1 to 17 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. COUVELIER : I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 47, Credit Union Amendment Act (No. 2), 1988, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

[ Page

5304 ]

HON. MR. COUVELIER : Committee on Bill 51.

SMALL BUSINESS VENTURE CAPITAL

AMENDMENT ACT, 1988

The House in committee on Bill 51; Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.

section 1.

MS. EDWARDS :

I have a couple of questions on this. Probably it would be best if I

asked the first one now and asked the second one later. Would the

minister explain to me why the definition of "equity capital" is

changed? The only change that I can see under it is that where it says

"venture capital corporation for its issued shares" is a change from

"for its issued equity shares." This happens all through the bill. It

may be partly because we haven't had very much time to examine this,

but I am not quite sure why the act is being changed so that the

wording "equity shares" is nearly always replaced with "shares" without

the adjective "equity."

HON. MRS. McCARTHY : On point

one — and it is throughout — this is a technical amendment which

clarifies the distinction between equity capital of a venture capital

corporation and equity capital of a small business, as those terms are

used throughout the act.

MS. EDWARDS : That means

that when we read "shares" without the prefix "equity," we are talking

about the shares in the venture capital corporation instead of the

shares in the small business. Is that correct? The minister is nodding

yes, so I assume.... All right.

My next question is: in

subsection 1(d), small business is now defined without the limitation

of "together with its affiliates." This was the definition of how many

employees had to be where. No longer do 75 percent of the employees

have to be in British Columbia, I understand. Could you explain the

change in this section, which excludes the phrase "together with its

affiliates"?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY : These are technical

amendments. Let me just refer to another section, to give this to you.

As I understand it, all the criteria used to determine what is an

eligible small business or eligible investment in a small business are

brought together, if you refer to

section 10. The definition of small

business is a technical amendment only, to explain the criteria used to

determine an eligible small business. It allows program-users to more

readily understand their program requirements.

I'm sorry, I

don't think I'm quite getting your question as I should. Maybe you

should repeat it. Perhaps I'm not giving you the correct understanding,

or perhaps I'm not understanding your question.

MS. EDWARDS :

As I understand it, previously the largest size of company that could

be defined as a small business would be a one with 75 employees,

period, and that would include any affiliates of that company. Now the

definition is such that any affiliates of that company are now

excluded, so the company could have any number of affiliates, with any

number of employees. Previously that was considered important, I

believe, and now I'm presuming that there's a difference in the profile

of a small business that can go to a venture capital corporation to

offer equity.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY : Does it help if I say that I believe your assumption is correct, that they cannot go to affiliates? Was that your question?

MS. EDWARDS :

I think it means that now the type of small business that we're talking

about could be a whole different small business; it could be quite

huge, in fact. We're talking about a business with no more than 75

employees, but in fact it could be affiliated with any number of other

companies and that won't matter. In other words, this could be one of a

conglomerate, if you like, affiliated with any number of other

companies. Previously that was excluded; now a small business can be

affiliated with any number, any size.... Why has the minister

decided to allow companies that could be affiliated with very large

groups to be defined this way in this act?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY :

Perhaps if you'd look back to

section 1(1), where the major

shareholder is explained, the definition now applies to shareholders of

all corporations referred to in the act and not just venture capital

corporations. The amendment also expands the concept of major

shareholder to include groups which may control a corporation by some

method other than their shareholding. We're trying to broaden the

opportunities.

If you wish to leave this "affiliates"

question, and with the authority of the Chair, we could go on to the

other amendments, and I will have someone here who was responsible for

drafting the act originally and then came with this amendment. I'd be

very glad to return to it, if that's all right with the Chair.

MR. ROSE :

I wondered if there was a problem with it, and I didn't hear it; I

wasn't listening. It's quite permissible. I think the House would, by

leave, stand the clause and go on to another one while your official is

coming. That would be fine.

Section 2 approved.

section 3.

MS. EDWARDS :

I just have a question of the minister. I'm not sure why this is

repealed. Under this the registrar need not know any longer the total

authorized and issued equity capital. It seems to me that's information

that is important for the registrar to know, and I don't know why it is

removed.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY : This act is filled with

quite a few technical amendments. This is one where similar

requirements are found within the regulations; those in the regulations

are the same as those found in the act. We felt they should stay in the

regulations and not in the act.

Section 3 approved.

section 4.

MS. EDWARDS :

This is a new section. The substitution and the addition of number

(4) is new. It says: "Where he considers it to be in the public interest,

the Lieutenant Governor in Council may . . . exempt a venture capital

corporation from the limits of equity capital set out in subsection 3(

a) or (

b) and specify other limits...." I'm not

[ Page 5305 ]

sure

why the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council would want to do that. What are

the particular cases in which the minister foresees that you would want

to go beyond the limits laid out in the legislation?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY :

What we're aiming for in this act is to have enough flexibility in it

that we will, in unique situations, be able to broaden the capability

to take care of those unique situations. You'll recall last year there

were amendments to the act by which we broadened it to take care of

aquaculture and so on, and we would have that same flexibility without

being specific. It would allow for flexibility which we would be very

pleased to have.

MS. EDWARDS : This doesn't deal with

the actual kind of business. As I understand it, it deals with the

amount. It says there would no longer be limits of the capital to be

set out. I wonder if the minister could explain what kind of unique

situation would require that the amounts be extended.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY :

It's for the same reason. Later on you'll see a different definition is

given more flexibility, but also the same amount; the amounts can be

changed as well. The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council will have the

right.... If there is something that's a little greater than is in

section 3, they have the flexibility to encompass that as well.

[5:00]

Section 4 approved.

section 5.

MS. EDWARDS :

I might suggest that we take two along the way. In

section 5 there's

more discretion again given to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council under

what would be (4.1)(b). That's new, and it's more discretion.

Section

6 is a revision of

section 10 in the act, and under 10(l)(

b) it says

again: "unless otherwise provided by regulation...." In other words,

the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council and so on has more and more power as

we go along, and all I hear is: "Well, we might need it." But it seems

to me that the minister is asking for more discretion for the

Lieutenant Governor-in-Council as to amounts, as to who's there and

even as to the regulations that are put in place and certainly can be

changed more easily than the act itself. There's discretion there, and

I would like to know why. What are the probable situations? Why is it

that