1993 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 35th 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)

THURSDAY, JULY 29, 1993

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 12, Number 23

[ Page 9381 ]

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

B. Copping: In the gallery today are two visitors from Calgary, Alberta: my sister and brother-in-law, Joan and Keith Hillaby. Would the House please make them welcome.

G. Wilson: In the gallery today is an individual who is a fine campaigner and a key part of the strategy to renew and redevelop my mandate as leader of the party. I'd like everybody to make welcome my son Matthew.

Hon. G. Clark: I want to just rise to pay a brief tribute to the Leader of the Opposition, who may not be Leader of the Opposition when we come back, although I suspect he might well be. I noticed today that the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and a member from Richmond are both emulating his dress code in deference to him. I'd like to just say that he obviously carried himself with distinction and dignity, and I hope he's back as Leader of the Opposition when we reconvene.

Hon. D. Miller: In the gallery is the mayor of Ucluelet, His Worship Bill Irving, who is down with a delegation from the region to discuss the very serious issues that they are dealing with these days. I would ask the House to make him welcome.

Hon. L. Boone tabled the annual report of the Public Service Commission for the year 1992-93.

Hon. G. Clark tabled the annual report of the business done under the Public Service Benefit Plan Act during the fiscal year ending March 31, 1992.

Oral Questions

SUGGESTED SUMMER ACTIVITIES FOR CABINET MEMBERS

F. Gingell: I feel a little nonplussed, after those kind words, about standing up and asking some scathing and penetrating questions. Although it hasn't been the start of the summer for the rest of the province because of the weather, perhaps today will be the start of the summer for all of us.

Recognizing that during the past six months this government has trampled on freedom of speech, favoured the unions once again, thrust CORE into disrepute, started the process of demolishing health care and put the cost on all of the taxpayers, will the Premier please promise us that he will stay out of Victoria for the rest of the year?

Hon. M. Harcourt: If that's scathing, I really feel scorched. I might say that the Leader of the Opposition read that question about as well as it was written. It is not going to deter me from coming to the magnificent city of Victoria, where I went to elementary school, junior high school and high school. It's a wonderful city and a great part of British Columbia, and I intend to come here many times.

F. Gingell: Carrying on with the question of what we plan to do this summer, I'd like to start off by thanking the Attorney General for his consistently attentive and courteous responses to us. But I was listening to him the other evening on the freedom-of-information act. He was talking about B.C. Rail. B.C. Rail does have preferred shares and capital leases that are guaranteed by the province of British Columbia. Will the Attorney General please promise to take the financial statements of B.C. Rail home this summer and read them all, including the notes to the financial statements?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I've been looking forward to some leisure reading this summer, and I'll add that to my list.

F. Gingell: In line with the recommendations of the Seaton report, I would appreciate a promise from the Minister of Finance that he won't speculate with the taxpayers' money this summer the way he has in the last few months.

Hon. G. Clark: Obviously, hon. Speaker, it's the last question period. I would like to say for the record that the investment branch of British Columbia never speculates with the people's money. We have an outstanding track record -- it's among the best in the country -- for minimizing risk and maximizing returns for the taxpayers. I can give members of the House comfort that it will continue to operate without political interference to do just that, which is the job it's been doing for the last several years.

ENERGY SUPPLY

J. Weisgerber: My question is to the Premier as well. In just 20 months, this government has managed to reduce British Columbia to being a net importer of electricity for the first time in its history. Not only are we importing electricity from Alberta, we're also importing it from the United States. How in the world could the Premier allow this mess to occur?

Hon. M. Sihota: There are a lot of things that this government can influence and control, but one thing it can't is the amount of rain and snow that falls during the winter in British Columbia. I want to assure the hon. member that we're working on that problem as well.

More seriously, because of the low snow pack and level of rain this year -- as the hon. member knows, given concerns in the Williston Lake area in the constituency he represents -- there have been problems with generating enough electricity within the confines of our system. It's important that we keep the lights on in Vancouver and in Kamloops, and it's important that our industries remain competitive and produce the products that the world demands. This year we've had an aberration in the weather patterns. As a

[ Page 9382 ]

consequence, it's true that we've had to acquire electricity from elsewhere.

J. Weisgerber: For 18 months this government sat on its hands and ignored the fact that demand in British Columbia was outstripping our ability to generate electricity. Will either the Premier, the minister responsible for Hydro or the Minister of Energy reinstate the policies of the former government, which encouraged the development of independent power producers, wood waste generation, waste heat generation, waste coal generation and thermal generation? All of those policies were put on hold while that silly Energy Council traipsed around British Columbia for 18 months. Will you make a decision and reinstate those policies today?

Hon. M. Sihota: First, this government inherited the sad legacy of the previous administration. It's a consequence of the fiscal mismanagement of that previous administration that we found this province in the economic difficulties it is in. We've turned around the economic situation of this province. Of the 90,000 jobs created in this country during the last six months, 32,000 were created right here in British Columbia. We have said that there is a place in British Columbia for investors from all over the world to invest. We welcome people from the Pacific Rim and the rest of this country to invest, be it in projects....

[2:15]

Interjections.

The Speaker: I call the House to order and ask the minister to immediately conclude his reply.

Hon. M. Sihota: I want the hon. member to be assured that, whether it be policies such as the social-costing framework we've announced through IPPs or expansion of Hydro's facilities....

The Speaker: Thank you, hon. minister.

J. Weisgerber: I have this final question to the Premier: who does the Premier hold responsible for this mess? Is it the Energy Council?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please, hon. members.

J. Weisgerber: Again to the Premier: who does he hold responsible? Does he hold responsible those political patronage hacks he appointed to the Energy Council? Is it people like Gathercole? Are they the people responsible? Or is it the Minister of Energy? Or the minister responsible for Hydro? Or is it the responsibility of the government and the Premier himself for failing to deal with this problem, which was completely avoidable? This problem with energy supply is the direct responsibility of this government. Will the Premier do the honourable thing and accept responsibility on behalf of his government?

Hon. M. Harcourt: I hold the previous government responsible for the mess, and I take responsibility for cleaning it up. [Applause.]

The Speaker: Order, please, hon. members. The Premier will continue his reply.

Hon. M. Harcourt: This is the last question period, and we have many questions that the members opposite have been dying to get out. I will sit down.

MOTOR VEHICLE SALES LEVELS

L. Stephens: My question is for the Minister of Finance. Twice in this House the Minister of Finance has used misleading numbers to justify his punitive tax on the car industry. He claimed that sales have actually increased, but he failed to tell us that he was not using retail sales figures but rather vehicle factory orders, which include trucks, buses, recreational vehicles, and commercial and government fleet sales. Will the minister now admit that consumer car sales have actually dropped by up to 15 percent since he introduced his punitive and poorly planned budget?

Hon. G. Clark: It is true that we have been using total sales in British Columbia, including light trucks, vans and fleet sales. Those are the same apples-and-apples numbers that we have been using each and every year. Total sales -- all those sales the member referred to -- are up 13 percent in May and 4.6 percent in June over May, the highest sales of any province in Canada.

MOTOR VEHICLE SALES FRAUD

L. Stephens: My second question is to the Attorney General. A new vehicle transfer document has been designed and is at the printers. The Coordinated Law Enforcement Unit's report to the minister's joint committee is said to have shown the Attorney General that there is massive fraud going on in reporting vehicle sales. Simply changing a piece of paper will not eliminate fraud. What is this minister doing to ensure that enforcement and compliance with a new form will be more effective than with the old form?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Since taking a question on notice today might not be particularly appropriate, I will undertake to get an answer to the member in writing.

SALE OF USED GOVERNMENT VEHICLES

L. Stephens: My question is to the Minister of Government Services. It has come to the attention of people in the automotive industry -- through audits of vehicle transfer forms -- that the provincial disposal lot is selling most of its used cars to back-yard, unlicensed dealers and not filling in or declaring the odometer readings on those vehicles. The minister must know that odometer fraud is rampant, and that her ministry is helping it. What is the minister prepared to do to bring her ministry into compliance with the law and stop

[ Page 9383 ]

making it easy for the back-yard dealers to have a ready supply of poorly documented vehicles?

Hon. L. Boone: I don't know about selling to back-yard dealers, but I know that vehicle management services sells their vehicles through a number of different areas, such as auctions and disposals. So I don't think that there are a lot going out through back-yard dealers. As to the odometers, I will look into that and get back to the member with regard to what we are doing to control anything that may be done which is not in accordance with our policies.

B.C. RAIL LABOUR DISPUTE

D. Symons: My question is to the minister responsible for B.C. Rail. Yesterday the mediator for the B.C. Rail dispute stated: "This negotiation is abnormal, because somebody could not keep their damned mouth shut." Having potentially damaged any hope of a negotiated settlement, will the minister admit he hasn't the faintest idea what's going on in his ministry, and let the bureaucrats get on with their job?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: Of course I don't have a faint idea -- I have a very good idea of what's going on in my ministry. On Monday I said that I expected the parties would be back at the table Tuesday or Wednesday. As it turned out, they are with the mediator today. Missing by half a day isn't too bad. Can you imagine what sort of a mess I would be in if I had taken any of the advice from the opposite side of the floor?

D. Symons: That's hard to follow.

I have a quote from Monday's Hansard where the minister answered my question by saying: "I am pleased to inform members opposite the union has requested, through the mediator...." That seems to be incorrect. Either the minister knew this to be untrue or he did not. I hazard no guess as to which it is, but either way, his comments were in the poorest judgment. Why did the minister make statements that were totally inaccurate and which have made a very serious situation even worse?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: As I've said already, I was out by approximately half a day on when the negotiations or the mediation would resume. With respect to misleading the House, I would suggest that the parties opposite have been ably misled by their own misleaders over the past year and a half; they don't need any help from this side.

The Speaker: Final supplemental, hon. member.

D. Symons: Well, the union disagrees with your statement that they were asking the mediator to resume negotiations; it seems the mediator was the one who was trying to get both parties back to the table. We've been requesting you to take competent action, not to make inaccurate or inappropriate statements. So realizing the damage that he's done to the negotiations, I would ask that the minister...

An Hon. Member: Butt out!

D. Symons: ...simply stay out of the negotiations and leave it up to the people who are capable of doing the job.

Presenting Petitions

G. Wilson: I seek leave to table a petition of over 5,000 names of residents from Powell River who would like fairness in their ferry system between Little River and Powell River.

Leave granted.

Motion Without Notice

Hon. G. Clark: I ask leave to move a motion regarding the appointment of an auditor general.

Leave granted.

Hon. G. Clark: I move:

"That a special committee be appointed to select and unanimously recommend to the Legislative Assembly the appointment of an auditor general, pursuant to the Auditor General Act, and that the special committee so appointed shall have the powers of a select standing committee, and is also empowered:

a) to appoint of their number, one or more sub-committees and to refer to such subcommittees any of the matters referred to the committee;

b) to sit during any period in which the House is adjourned, during the recess after prorogation until the next following session and during any sitting of the House;

c) to adjourn from place to place as may be convenient; and

d) to retain such personnel as required to assist the committee;

and shall report to the House as soon as possible, or following any adjournment of the House, or at the next following session, as the case may be; to deposit the original of its reports with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly during a period of adjournment; and upon the resumption of the sittings of the House, the Chairperson shall present all reports to the Legislative Assembly.

"The said special committee is to be composed of Mr. Kasper (Convener), Ms. Brewin, Ms. Hammell and Ms. Pullinger; Messrs. Krog, Schreck and Janssen; Ms. Reid; Messrs. Gingell and Farrell-Collins; and Mr. Weisgerber."

Motion approved.

The Speaker: I have the honour to present the Legislative Assembly Management Committee annual report.

Presenting Reports

F. Gingell: I have the honour to present the second report of the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts for the second session of the thirty-fifth

[ Page 9384 ]

Parliament. I move that the report be taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

F. Gingell: I ask leave of the House to move that the report of the committee be adopted.

Leave granted.

F. Gingell: I move that the report be adopted.

During this session the Public Accounts Committee has worked hard and very well. Our report, which was unanimously adopted by our committee, contains eight recommendations. The first deals with issues to do with the Financial Administration Act for the purpose of improving the reporting of government actions in the public accounts. The second recommendation deals with Crown societies, with recommendations to improve their effectiveness and their reporting on the achievement of their objectives, and to make them more financially accountable.

The third recommendation deals with British Columbia Gaming Commission issues under licensing, use of proceeds and control of gaming activities. The fourth one deals with the Financial Information Act, and has recommendations to improve remuneration disclosure and to bring in clearer guidelines. The fifth one deals with the Financial Disclosure Act and is designed to clarify, simplify and improve those disclosures. There's a recommendation under the

Interpretation Act that calls for more consistency and clarity in remuneration reporting.

We also have two recommendations under the British Columbia archives and records service. The first one gives the government encouragement to preserve non-governmental records of significance to the history of the province. The second one deals with the issues of physical security and preservation techniques.

The committee also dealt with the issues of effectiveness measurement and reporting. The committee is most pleased that it has started in this government and encourage its continuation. It is a most useful tool.

That is the end of the report, hon. Speaker, and before it is called for a vote, I would like to, if I may, bring to the attention of members the motion on the order paper under my name, Motion 67. I ask if there is any means that the government might consider for allowing that issue to be dealt with at this time.

Some Hon. Members: Order, order!

The Speaker: Hon. member....

F. Gingell: It deals with permission for the Public Accounts Committee to meet out of session. We are the only province that doesn't do it, and we should be doing it. If they believe in open and honest government, I know they will support it. I ask for all members of the House to move us in the Public Accounts Committee slowly but inexorably into the twentieth century.

[2:30]

Motion approved.

M. Farnworth: I have the honour to present the second report of the Select Standing Committee on Economic Development, Science, Labour, Training and Technology for the second session of the thirty-fifth Parliament.

I'd like to thank the committee and the witnesses. Although we could not achieve consensus, this is still a majority report. House rules do not allow the tabling of minority reports, so the written submission of the Liberal opposition, for example, could not be....

The Speaker: The hon. member for Okanagan West on a point of order.

C. Serwa: There is a process that the hon. member has to follow. According to

section 48, he must make the appropriate motions. He has not done so.

The Speaker: I thank the hon. member for the point of order. It is quite correct, and I must ask the Chair of the committee to move the appropriate motion. I will caution the hon. member that while it is the practice of the House to have brief congratulatory comments, there is no debate permitted upon moving the first appropriate motion.

M. Farnworth: No attempt to debate was intended.

Anyway, with that, I move that the report be taken and read as received.

Motion approved.

L. Stephens: I ask leave to respond to the tabling of the report.

The Speaker: Unfortunately, hon. member, the motion that we have voted on is to be taken as read and received. We do not presently have a motion on the floor that would allow any debate.

The hon. member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi on a point of order.

D. Mitchell: There is some procedural confusion here, hon. Speaker. I think the Chair of the committee, in tabling the report, was seeking to speak to it. Perhaps the Chair would like to consider asking for leave to adopt the report, unless, of course, he doesn't want to because of some other reason -- embarrassment perhaps; I'm not sure why.

The Speaker: I thank the member for the point of order, but the Chair has no jurisdiction over the business of the House. A motion has been moved and adopted. I can only ask for the next order of business.

M. Farnworth: I ask leave of the House to permit the moving of a motion to adopt the report.

Leave not granted.

[ Page 9385 ]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Sihota: Report on Bill 35, hon. Speaker.

LOCAL ELECTIONS REFORM ACT, 1993

Bill 35 read a third time and passed.

Hon. M. Sihota: Report on Bill 80, hon. Speaker.

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 1993

Bill 80 read a third time and passed.

Hon. M. Sihota: I call committee on Bill 58.

MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS, RECREATION AND HOUSING STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 1993

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 58; M. Lord in the chair.

Sections 11 to 15 inclusive approved.

section 16.

L. Fox: I would like some clarification. This is something brand-new. Municipalities will be able to enter into an agreement with the provincial government with respect to offering services to assist victims of crime. I think that aspect deserves some discussion. Further to that, in (2)(

a) there is something brand-new in terms of authority, where the municipality can offer that both inside and outside the boundaries of a municipality. This is a departure from any services that have been offered before by a municipality. Perhaps before I go into further questioning, I'll allow the minister to clarify those two clauses.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I'll try to clarify as best I can. It's my understanding that the Ministry of Attorney General wants to continue to enter into victim assistance agreements with municipalities. The difficulty was that question of entering into agreements outside the municipality. This basically rectifies the situation for some municipalities that are already in such agreements, and it allows the Attorney General to continue to have agreements, even if they go outside the boundaries of the municipality.

L. Fox: As it stands in the existing legislation, in order to provide a service outside the municipality it has to be done in cooperation with the regional district on a specified-area basis, if there are any dollars involved in terms of the municipality's spending authority. Is the minister suggesting that this is a flowthrough service and that there wouldn't be any cost to the municipalities in terms of taxpayers' dollars? If there is, I think this is a precedent, and it may have ramifications throughout the Municipal Act.

Hon. R. Blencoe: There is no contribution from outside. Obviously there is a voluntary contribution from inside, from those municipalities that have these contracts and want to continue them. There is the contribution of the Attorney General in terms of partnership, but my understanding is that nothing is contributed from the outside in terms of those areas that it covers.

L. Fox: I'll try to rephrase my question. Would this new service demand that taxpayers' dollars within the municipality be spent on a management function for these initiatives in order to deliver the services outside the community? In other words, would there be any municipal tax dollars involved in the delivery of this program outside the municipal boundaries?

Hon. R. Blencoe: Yes, there would, but it's entirely voluntary. It's at their behest.

L. Fox: I understand that it's only if the municipality wishes to opt into the program, but there have been other initiatives. I'm sure the minister and his staff are aware of times when municipalities wouldn't mind going beyond their boundaries to offer fire protection to prevent a house from burning, for instance. But they are limited in doing that by the act because they expose themselves to liability in having the truck outside the boundaries. Is there any exposure in terms of liability for a municipality delivering a product -- although this is a service -- outside its boundaries?

Hon. R. Blencoe: In 1992, approximately 39 municipalities were party to such an agreement. There are a number of municipalities, though, that had already started their own agreements prior to joining the Attorney General's program. Our advice from legal counsel is that there may be some risk if we do not cover them in this amendment and ensure that there is protection of those municipalities that started agreements before.

L. Fox: I have one very brief follow-up question. Given that this is a new initiative, obviously not a lot of local tax dollars are being spent on it at this time. I know some areas later deal with regional district authorities. But should this program expand so that more of the liability falls on the municipality to pay a higher percentage of this service, would it still require a specified-area function if it was going to spend tax dollars outside the municipality and if it wanted to share that responsibility with the rural area surrounding the municipality?

[2:45]

Hon. R. Blencoe: Those are good questions. If they want to cost-share outside the area, or if the regional district wants to participate, there could very well be a requirement for a specified area. Again, those would be voluntary decisions, of course.

J. Beattie: I wonder if I might have leave of the House to make an introduction.

[ Page 9386 ]

Leave granted.

J. Beattie: In the gallery today is a friend of mine, Lakhmer Klar from Summerland. Lakhmer is a constituent and an entrepreneur who has a very successful truck canopy company. He is also a member of the board of directors of the Okanagan Valley Tree Fruit Authority. He is accompanied today by members of his family, Harminder Klar, Mandy Klar and Andrew Klar, and his friend Surjit Grewal. I would ask the House to make them welcome.

Sections 16 to 18 inclusive approved.

section 19.

L. Fox:

Section 780(2)(c)(iv) provides remuneration for a regional district director when attending a meeting of the board or of any committee of which that person is a member. That's not new. The reason I speak on it is that during the discussions of Bill 45 -- which was the setting up of the community health councils and the regional health boards -- when the minister suggested that those board members would not receive any remuneration, I pointed out that there was a disparity in the system.

Presently, members of regional district boards who happen to be on a hospital board -- or will be and could be on a community health council or a regional health board -- under this and the previous legislation, were eligible for remuneration to attend those meetings.

If it is the intent of Bill 45 that no board member should be remunerated at either the community health council or regional health board level.... This legislation provides and has provided for a regional district member to receive pay from the regional district. In the absence of the Minister of Health I don't like to mention what she stated, but she confirmed that that was a concern, and that because of the disparity in the existing legislation it would be looked into.

You can't have one regional district member on a board receiving remuneration from his regional district and the other eight or ten members not receiving it. Has the minister had any discussions with the Minister of Health about this concern?

Hon. R. Blencoe: I haven't had any discussion with the Minister of Health, and I don't think my staff have had any discussions with the staff of the Ministry of Health. The member has already pointed out that this is an existing section, and our statement is that reference to a committee is reference to a committee of the board. I don't know if that's your misunderstanding.

L. Fox: It may be the minister's thought that it's a committee of the board, but it doesn't suggest that. It says: "...attending a meeting of the board or of any committee of which that person is a member." He is currently representing the board on the hospital board and would soon be on a community health council. The

interpretation of that by the regional districts is that he can be paid because he is the member who has been charged with the responsibility by the board. The

interpretation is certainly different, at least in practice, than what the minister has suggested.

Hon. R. Blencoe: You may have had some problems with my

interpretation because we have some differences of opinion. If we could go back,

section 780(2)(

c) says: "...all or part of the expenditures made or expenses incurred by a director or committee member when the director or committee member is...." We have faith in our

interpretation, but we will check it out to make sure our

interpretation is taken the way we intend it. We have not had any sense of there being problems before, but we will take your comments under advisement.

L. Fox: One final comment on this

section helps to justify it. I have the right

interpretation, with all due respect to the minister, because it says in (2)(c)(ii): "...engaging in regional district business...." When you've been appointed by the regional district to attend a committee meeting on behalf of that regional district, you are engaging in regional district business because you are the liaison on behalf of the regional district.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I refer to 780(2)(

b) in the amendment: "...remuneration to members of committees of the board for each regularly constituted committee meeting attended...." I then look at

section 780(1) of the act, "Remuneration and expenses," which says: "The board may, by bylaw, provide for remuneration of (

a) the chairperson, vice chairperson, directors and alternate directors, and (

b) members of committees of the board for each regularly constituted committee meeting attended, and the bylaw may limit the number of meetings for which remuneration may be paid." There is clearly a tie-in between what we're doing here and the current wording of

section 780.

L. Fox: I'm not arguing that it's the same. I have said that. What I'm pointing out is the concern that both the Health minister and I shared during discussion of Bill 45.

The next clarification I want to get concerns (4)(a). It says: "...provide different remuneration for different directors and different classes of directors...." Before I deal with any assumptions, perhaps I will have the minister point out to me what the intent of that clause is.

Hon. R. Blencoe: Just as I had thought, it is as you have it now. You have directors from different areas -- electoral or urban areas -- and it allows for differences in that kind of situation, which is currently part of the act.

Sections 19 to 21 inclusive approved.

section 22.

L. Fox:

Section 789(1) is amended with (a)(f.2), "the promotion of economic development." Is this a change from previous wording? I know that, to get into

[ Page 9387 ]

economic development, regional districts in the past have had to amend their letters patent or their bylaws, and pass a function which would allow them to promote economic development. An opting-in process and an opting-out process were available to different regions within the regional district, to be part of or not part of that function. Is that still a requirement under this particular section?

Hon. R. Blencoe: This basically regularizes what has been done thus far on an individual basis. Regional districts have come to us on an individual basis for a regulation from the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council under

section 790, so all this does is regularize it and make it a standard procedure. I understand that there was some concern -- I'm not sure if it was from this member or others -- that this might be perceived as a bit of downloading. On the contrary, this is essentially a procedural amendment to make the local government's extended services more easily available to the regional districts that wish to use them.

Many of the services are already being provided now by a number of regional districts -- for example, 14 are providing 9-1-1 service, ten are doing transit, and five are doing cemeteries. In general, these districts have had to apply individually under

section 790, and from regulation. It's a lot of paperwork and takes a lot of time. With this amendment, regional districts that may wish to provide all these kinds of services can establish those as they would any other service. They still have the freedom to do that if they so desire. These authorities are permissive, as are all other service authorities already in sections 788 and 789. A regional district may or may not choose to provide them.

Any concern that this is downloading.... It is all basically being asked for by the regional districts or local government. They are asking us to go to the minister and then on to cabinet for a regulation or an OIC -- that's what they have been doing individually.

L. Fox: I asked no questions about downloading. At present, when a regional district enters into an economic development function, areas of that regional district can opt out of that function if they so wish, and therefore opt out of the taxation powers of that function. I specifically asked: does that provision still exist, or is this particular initiative regional-district-wide without the option of opting out?

Hon. R. Blencoe: No, they can design the boundaries any way they see fit.

Sections 22 to 25 inclusive approved.

section 26.

L. Fox:

Section 816.1(1)(

b) says: "...with another regional district to provide to that regional district a service that is a work or service within the powers of the other regional district." I assume that this allows the situation that we have between the Cariboo Regional District and the Thompson-Nicola Regional District to join together into a library function. Is that what (

b) represents, where it allows two regional districts to join together to provide a service or share a service?

Hon. R. Blencoe: It's similar, but not quite the same. The issue you refer to is done through letters patent. Let me go through again for you, just to let you know what we're trying to do here.

[3:00]

It's a provision to provide services to other governments. Its purpose is to authorize regional districts to enter into agreements with Canada or the province to provide services of those governments within that regional district. It amends the existing

section 816.1 of the act, which currently only authorizes such agreements with another regional district or a municipality. This is significant because it will enable the regional district to assist the senior government as a conduit for a service that the government wishes to provide in the region, while ensuring that the entire cost of that service is borne by the senior government.

L. Fox: Perhaps I didn't understand what the minister was saying. The minister suggested that two regional districts could enter into a contract with the provincial government where the entire cost was paid for by the provincial government. Was that what I understood the minister to say? If so, what kind of agreement would that be and on what type of issue?

Hon. R. Blencoe: One of my staff just mentioned to me that it could be where the Ministry of Transportation and Highways wants to build helicopter pads in the Queen Charlottes. The

section does refer to an agreement under

section 2, where it must provide the entire cost of the service. I think that's your major concern.

Regional-district-to-regional-district contracts have basically the same powers as we have now. There is no change in that area. The bottom line is that the senior government picks up the tab.

Sections 26 and 27 approved.

section 28.

A. Cowie: I require some explanation. Does this mean that a regional district is back doing community or regional plans and that this undoubtedly covers the area around the municipality that belongs under the regional district? Is that the purpose of this change?

Hon. R. Blencoe: No. It doesn't change the nature of the planning process, but it does remove the minister's interference in determining which areas they should plan or in limiting the area to which a regional district or official community plan applies. There are still standards for the planning, but in terms of which areas they apply to, it is an antiquated approach to them doing their own planning.

A. Cowie: It's in these edge areas in regional districts next to municipalities where a lot of problems occur and where municipalities quite often don't agree

[ Page 9388 ]

with the regional district. What happens if there isn't agreement at the regional level? Does the minister have any say at all? Would a review take place or would one of his staff try to negotiate? How does that work?

Hon. R. Blencoe: There may be some room for concern, but I think it's an area that municipalities have had for some time. In terms of the areas they're referring to, I suspect that we will have to bring back the tools under the regional planning of growth management strategies, which I think is a far more advantageous way to deal with some of the issues you're concerned about.

A. Cowie: Is the minister saying that we're bringing back regional planning in these areas? Are we going to put more emphasis on regional planning in these areas throughout the province? Is that what I heard the minister say?

Hon. R. Blencoe: I was probably off the topic of this section, but I'm saying that this is dealing with something that is basically standard now. The minister does not try to determine the little areas that a regional district should apply their community plan to. We obviously require them to do a community plan. I was saying that the issues the member is concerned about -- those periphery areas that may get left off or whatever -- are probably better dealt with when we get into our regional planning strategies, legislation and tools dealing with those issues.

Sections 28 to 33 inclusive approved.

section 34.

L. Fox: This

section "eliminates an appeal to the minister from the refusal of a Board of Variance to alter the application of a bylaw that has the effect of permitting no use of land." I recognize that we have seen consistently from this government where it has removed the appeal to a cabinet member in legislation.

But given the fact that the board of variance is made up of a local appointee from the local authority, an appointee from the provincial government and a third person appointed by those two, one might feel a little less comfortable that the board of variance may in fact be totally objective and fair.

Although I don't believe it was ever used that often, one opportunity people had when they went before the board of variance was knowing -- and the board of variance knowing -- that if it did not appear that they treated that particular application totally fairly, the individual, corporation, business or whatever it was always had the opportunity to appeal it through the minister. Now this legislation has removed that. Perhaps the minister might want to comment on it.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I'll just quickly go through this. As the member knows, it removes the authority of the minister to hear an appeal and grants any relief the minister considers proper where a board of variance refuses to alter the application of a rural land use bylaw. I think you should have some comfort that it eliminates basically unnecessary and unused provincial involvements in local government planning processes. It has never been used -- or the minister's never been asked to apply this

section -- and it's been in place for many years. We're simply trying to remove parts of the act that clearly are just encumbrances.

Section 34 approved.

section 35.

L. Fox: This is one area I have some real concern with. I know my knowledge of a rural regional district is somewhat different than it is of an urban regional district, although I think the principles are very much the same.

Section 973(3)(

b) suggests to me that the zoning bylaw has to be "consistent with the official community plan." Does that mean that if a community plan and a property are identified, let's say as a commercial piece of property over a long-term plan, it must immediately be zoned to comply with that plan?

Hon. R. Blencoe: No, hon. member. I think it says in subsection (3)(

b) that it has to be "consistent with the official community plan." But if it's ever rezoned, it obviously has to have some consistency with the community plan.

L. Fox: Just so I understand this, we can have a community plan in a small unincorporated area of a regional district, for instance, which recognizes the growth potential for highway commercial zoning or highway business zoning -- it's worded differently depending on which regional district you're in -- but there could be homes within that area that would stay zoned as residential until such time as their owners are required to upgrade them to comply with the community plan. Is the minister suggesting that this is in fact the intent?

Hon. R. Blencoe: I would say that it's an existing requirement, consistent with the official community plan.

L. Fox: I'm still trying to get this clear in my mind. If a plan is redone and identifies an area as commercial which presently has some residential zoning in it, can a residential property retain the residential classification until the property owner wishes to rezone it to comply with the plan?

Hon. R. Blencoe: As always, municipalities have the freedom to make their zoning changes when they see fit. The timing is for them to decide. But the caveat, of course, is that they have to be consistent with their official community plan. Unless there's something else you're trying to get at, hon. member, I think it's quite clear.

L. Fox: I will try to explain it one more time. When you redo an official community plan, you identify in a ten-year scenario that this particular property should

[ Page 9389 ]

eventually develop into a commercial area -- a highway strip, let's say, in an unincorporated community. So you plan it as highway commercial, but there are homes that have residential zoning in that area that you've planned eventually to go into commercial. Does that residential property owner have his property rezoned at the time the plan is accepted? Or can he do it on his own initiative when in fact there's a need for that property to be zoned to comply with the plan?

Hon. R. Blencoe: The zoning is timed by the municipality or by the individual, but it's not tied to the timing of the official community plan.

A. Cowie: Originally, in the early 1980s, the Socred government had a provision requiring zoning to conform with their OCPs, and municipalities were instructed to bring their zoning into conformity. The Socred government of the day unfortunately didn't follow through with that or we'd have a more meaningful OCP process than we have today. Many OCPs are completely meaningless because that provision wasn't done. I hope this minister does something about it.

My question is on subsection (1). It says here that the board shall forward the zoning to the minister for approval after it's gone through third reading. Are there any time constraints on when the minister has to get back, or can it sit on his desk for 18 months?

[3:15]

Hon. R. Blencoe: There are no time constraints, and no bylaw has sat on my desk for 18 months, hon. member.

L. Fox: I'm still going over the minister's answer in my mind, because either I'm not suggesting it correctly, or I don't understand the minister's answer. Let me relate to it in another way. I think it's an important question, because if a residential property had to zone immediately to legally conform with the plan, then you have a situation where that residential property would immediately be classified as a business property and therefore not subject to the homeowner grant. And if in fact the house were to burn down, it couldn't be replaced. So the timing of the zoning is extremely important.

I understand the need for planning; I've been part of it for a number of years. But prior to 1980, when you did an official community plan and drew out your respective boundaries for the respective classifications of land, you also had to rezone to comply with the plan immediately so that the two were in sync. That was changed in about 1980, and then you were allowed to phase in that zoning to comply with the plan, based on need and initiative by the landowner.

My question now is: do we still allow zoning to be phased in based on the need and will of the owner of that land, where they can phase in the rezoning request based on their timing to eventually comply with the official community plan? Or does the zoning have to come part and parcel with the community plan so it reflects the community plan at the same time that the community plan is accepted or shortly thereafter?

Hon. R. Blencoe: There's no change in terms of consistency with the official plan. Phasing and timing or triggering of rezoning either by the individual or by the council is at the instigation of the individuals or the municipality.

H. De Jong: I have a further question on the designation process and the rezoning in relation to taxation. I know from experience that when an area is designated under a community plan and has been approved by council, there usually is a substantial change in the value of those lands because of the designation. This can cause some hardships for people who are incapable of paying the taxes on those lands, although they can defer the tax on those properties.

When a designation is put on a certain area, it creates expectations. An area may be designated as residential and then later, after a proposal for a single-family or some other kind of housing development, the municipal council may come along and say that it should be designated as a special development permit area because it has some environmental or other limitations that may have an impact on the density that the area can accommodate.

My question is: when a plan is amended and an area is designated, perhaps because it clearly could not carry the density under a particular designation due to topographical constraints or a water course going through the property, should the council not be bound at the time of designation to put a development permit area constraint on that land, so that people know about the constraints when they purchase in that area?

Furthermore, shouldn't the landowners or people in general know the limitations on a piece of property, in terms of the expectations of what they can do with the land? Shouldn't they know immediately that there are limitations that will have an effect on property value, and that relate to taxation?

Hon. R. Blencoe: It's really a stretch to get this issue into this section, but I'll give a very quick and general response. The member may well be making sense about the effect that official community plans have on costs and other issues. There is some provincial interest and guidance in regional planning and in changes to an official community plan or bylaws. This ministry and other ministries are still involved and look at the provincial interest.

On the whole, the tradition in B.C. is that land use planning, zoning and official community plans are local decisions and local processes within the framework and parameters that the province expects. There may be some room for increasing the provincial perspective by asking for certain requirements for good planning at the local level. But if you go too far, what happens is that you get the provincial government starting to determine local interests and local self-determination in the key issues of zoning and planning. There is always a fine line there.

I happen to have the perspective that there is a greater role for the provincial government to play in providing tools for regional planning and growth management strategies. We're working on that diligently, because we think there is a provincial interest in

[ Page 9390 ]

dealing with growth or lack of growth in some regions of the province. Generally, hon. member, the tradition in this province is that the OCP process is a local decision, with the guidance of the provincial government and with certain parameters for regional districts, etc., which I've already gone over. It's for the citizens themselves and their elected officials to determine the future of land use planning in a region.

H. De Jong: Just a short comment. Simple, broad designations of land use under a community plan can be very misleading if the topography of the land or other constraints do not allow that type of development in its fullest sense. I believe there should be an onus on the council to declare such an area a development permit area at the time of designation.

Sections 35 and 36 approved.

section 37.

A. Cowie: I have just a short question. I take it that under section (1)(a), this really means that land within the area must not be further subdivided. There could be areas that are already subdivided. I just take that for granted.

I have another question. Supposing some of the parcels within an area designated for open space, an environmental area or agriculture are 200 acres. Surely that's unreasonable. There must be some minimal size where one can subdivide. Before a municipality can designate an area as an environmental area -- if they don't want to go all the way to designate as a park because they don't have the funds -- wouldn't they have to do some environmental assessment in the same way a private developer has to if they are preparing for a development?

Hon. R. Blencoe: As far as I know, there is nothing in our legislation that says that developers have to do environmental assessment. The municipality could require that, of course, if they so desire. I believe that would be acceptable.

A. Cowie: I don't know of one municipality where someone who wants to develop in a sensitive environmental area can get away without doing an environmental assessment in a development. That is required.

Maybe I'll ask this specific question: is there any minimal size that a parcel within an area which is designated under this

section can be subdivided to? Given that an area can be designated as rural or whatever, surely there must be some minimal size.

Hon. R. Blencoe: We didn't get into numbers in terms of designating certain sizes. It's certainly not in the legislation. Obviously, if the municipality wishes to do that, so be it; that's within their purview. Subsection (1) is quite clear: "If an official community plan designates areas under

section 945(4), the following prohibitions apply unless an exemption under

section 945(4.1) applies or the owner first obtains a development permit under this section: (

a) land within the area must not be subdivided." We don't lay out specific numbers, as you request, though.

A. Cowie: If these provisions say that it can't be subdivided, prior to about two or three years ago, there was a rule -- at least with agricultural zoning -- that you could subdivide down to 20 acres. I recognize the municipality is the one to regulate that, but at least there were some guidelines. This doesn't give any guidelines at all. I can see a municipality wanting to hold an owner who has a large parcel for ransom and refusing to allow him to subdivide it into agricultural or farm areas so that he could have two or three farms rather than one.

Hon. R. Blencoe: Currently,

section 976 only applies the provision against altering land without a permit to heritage sites and areas designated for commercial revitalization. We'll check again, but we've not been told.... This is not new, by the way. There have not been any, but if you have some evidence of concerns, please provide them to us.

[3:30]

A. Cowie: I can certainly do that. There are lots of them around the province.

Section 976(1)(

c) says that "a building or structure on a Provincial or designated municipal heritage site must not be altered." Vancouver, for example -- at least with a class A building -- only does that if the owner agrees. The municipality eventually would have to give them permission to alter the building; otherwise, surely compensation would have to be paid.

Hon. R. Blencoe: The member is aware, of course, that Vancouver has different provisions. The issue of compensation is in the new heritage legislation, which is currently on the order paper for exposure reasons and for further comment.

L. Fox: I have a couple questions, but before I ask them, I want to clarify this. It's my understanding that

section 37 deals with the regional districts. Is that correct?

Hon. R. Blencoe: It's both municipal and regional.

L. Fox: I thought so, but I wanted to clarify that before I waded into the pond without knowing how deep it gets. Presently many rural regional districts don't even have building inspection. It now appears that it will be mandatory that a development permit be obtained throughout the regional district. Is this going to be an optional process, or is this development permit designation going to be a mandatory process that regional districts have to accept?

Hon. R. Blencoe: No, it's not automatic. It's only if they designate areas under

section 945(4) and then subsections (

a) to (

e) kick in.

[ Page 9391 ]

Sections 37 and 38 approved.

section 39.

A. Cowie: I have a really short question. When they are talking about acquiring parkland and using development cost charges for that, are they dealing at market value, and would there be a requirement for an independent evaluation?

Hon. R. Blencoe: We fully expect that kind of due diligence to be carried out. Subsection (

a) says, "pay the capital costs," and we fully expect due process to carry that out. Maybe I should clarify for the members exactly what we are trying to do here, because it is a very important section.

It will authorize local government to use development cost charges to pay for reclaiming land as parkland. It will amend

section 985(3)(

a) of the act, which currently limits the use of the development cost charges to acquiring parkland. In many dictionaries it may look like semantics, but we have had a number of requests and suggestions from local government that they need it on the reclaim portion.

In response to the concerns of local governments in low-lying areas of the province, the development cost charges could not currently be used in relation to parks where the land for the park has been reclaimed from the ocean. It seemed to make sense that we should look at this.

L. Fox: Presently in the Municipal Act, the municipality -- upon subdividing three or more lots -- can take 5 percent of the land base, or cash in lieu thereof, for the purposes of building and creating parks or recreational facilities within the community. I am trying to understand how

section 39 would add to that process. Is this suggesting that if the municipality were to pay for the upgrading of off-site costs, identified through a development cost charge bylaw, they could trade that for equal land or value of land within a subdivision?

Hon. R. Blencoe: I am assured that it does not change DCCs or subdivision requirements. We are adding the ability to use development cost charges to pay for reclaiming land for parkland.

L. Fox: I am trying to understand how that would work, because normally the development cost charge bylaw is set up to reflect what the municipal costs would be to upgrade the infrastructure network off-site in order to service that lot or subdivision. I don't see where there would be excess cash there. I am trying to understand how one would trade, and where you would get.... It says: "...allows development cost charges...." Unless you are suggesting that now a municipality can put a development cost charge on a region that's going to be developed in order to generate money to reclaim land as parkland, I don't understand how it's going to work.

Hon. R. Blencoe: We are not changing anything in the development cost charge system. We have that under review -- and I think I indicated that in estimates -- because a lot of people are asking for some changes. We have been advised that to be able to apply development cost charges to pay for reclaiming land.... There is a question about

section 985(3)(

a) of the act, which is about use of development cost charges -- it says: "...and park land acquisition." The

interpretation is land, and acquisition in that sense cannot refer to reclamation. That's all we're trying to do: add that within the context of

section 985 of the act.

Section 39 approved.

section 40.

L. Fox: For the purpose of expediency, just to advise the Chair.... Most of the following sections are repetitive, and we've discussed the intent in earlier sections. Unless the Liberal critic has questions, I don't have any questions throughout the rest of the sections.

A. Cowie: I have one final question, and then nothing in the rest of the bill would be debatable from our point of view. I think

section 39, the requirement that allows for the money to be spent to reclaim land for park purposes, is a good idea.

section 40, which I stood to speak to, I just want to be assured that while these bills.... While government always assumes that government itself is always acting in the best interests of the community, and that all developers of course have to be guided, that's not always the case. There are municipalities that demand open space and parkland without having an idea of where they want to put it; or they don't have a proper park plan. I assume that in

section 40(1.1) it also should apply. Or there should be some assurance that local government should be responsible, too, and have a proper park strategy plan to guide them in any of their demands. Of course, a lot of municipalities don't.

Hon. R. Blencoe: The development cost charge bylaws still do require provincial approval, so there is some degree of what you might construe as quality control, if you will. This amendment basically follows up 39, for those who are not quite sure; that

section took care of 985 on development cost charges.

Section 986 relates to acquisition and development of parkland, and all we are doing is putting the word "reclaim" into that

section as well.

A. Cowie: I really appreciate the minister clarifying that he still has some control over planning and legislation, and is not giving it all up as he has done in most of these sections. It's good to see that he at least is looking into and has to review the development permit process.

Sections 40 to 56 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

[ Page 9392 ]

Hon. R. Blencoe: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved on division.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Bill 58, Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Housing Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1993, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I call committee on Bill 74.

PACIFIC RACING ASSOCIATION ACT

The House in committee on Bill 74; M. Lord in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

A. Warnke: As we explored this in second reading, the question of why we should establish the Pacific Racing Association arose. We on this side of the House paid close attention to the remarks by the Attorney General, and the minister during second reading was very gracious in his comments responding to the remarks made on this side of the House. We had some very serious questions, and it was gracious of the minister to acknowledge that there were and are some very serious questions.

What I would like to pursue in

section 2 is something that came up during second reading, and that is that the Pacific Racing Association is now succeeding the role of the British Columbia Jockey Club. I am wondering if the minister could elaborate on what was wrong with the British Columbia Jockey Club that it was not encouraged to continue its role in the racing profession.

[3:45]

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I don't think it's so much a question of what is wrong. What is required, and what people in the industry have suggested to me, is a structure that can more effectively help manage thoroughbred racing in the province. The structure that is proposed, the Pacific Racing Association, had its genesis in the Jawl report, the report that was commissioned by the former government in 1988. It is designed to allow the industry itself to play a significant role in managing its own affairs so that it can be a more successful industry and ensure not only its survival but its enhancement. That's the purpose of the association.

The arrangements historically have been that a private operator has operated and managed the affairs of the track, and that has worked very well for many years, as I said in second reading. But it became clear over the course of the last decade that this structure was no longer working for the industry -- or for the province, for that matter -- given the public need to have a successful thoroughbred racing industry in the province. Therefore this model was adopted.

The Pacific Racing Association does more than simply replace the role of the operators at Exhibition Park, and theoretically it is possible for the association to contract out to someone in the private sector all of those operational matters that are now handled by the B.C. Jockey Club. I have made it very clear that if the Pacific Racing Association chooses to do that, the Jockey Club, like anyone else, would be able to participate in the bidding process that would ensue. So what we are doing is changing the structure. This does not replace the Jockey Club itself; this puts a structure in place which will enable the industry to participate in its future.

A. Warnke: By setting up the Pacific Racing Association, is it the minister's impression that in fact this continues what the previous provincial government began?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I think it's fair to say that this continues what a former Attorney General in the previous government was attempting to bring about. For a variety of reasons, both in the Vander Zalm and Bennett administrations, there was an inability to conclude the processes -- and I don't want to canvass the reasons for that. Having gone through this experience myself in the last year and a half, I certainly understand why it was difficult for both administrations to conclude the processes that they began to try to resolve the issues.

In fact, the Jawl report was very much part of an effort by Brian Smith, the Attorney General at the time, to try to do the things that we are now trying to do by way of this legislation.

A. Warnke: I noted at second reading that the minister's remarks were quite sympathetic to the proposal for the one-mile track and that the government actually did contemplate other proposals for a one-mile track. I am now wondering, with the establishment of the Pacific Racing Association, whether down the road there will be any further proposals. I don't want to embark on future policy or anything like that, but maybe there's a whole rethinking needed about what's going to happen with Exhibition Park.

It's not altogether hypothetical, especially given the minister's remarks and the acknowledgement that there are problems with the track and the facilities. Indeed, if we already experience some difficulty getting animals between training grounds and Exhibition Park and so forth, one can imagine very easily that there may be the need to establish a brand-new facility, a one-mile track complete with training facilities and stables and all the rest of it.

If that were to be located, let's say, in another locale -- whether it's Delta, Surrey or Langley down the road, or some other place -- at that point would the Pacific Racing Association not have some sort of exclusivity in those kinds of proposals?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: First of all, I think it's entirely conceivable that in the years to come the

[ Page 9393 ]

economics of the industry will be in such health that it will be sufficient to support a one-mile track.

[D. Streifel in the chair.]

You never can see into the future, but I think we're a decade away from that kind of proposal being viable. But at some point in our future, depending on public attitudes toward racing, it may be possible -- but it may not be -- that we'll be looking at that. If that were to come about, the Pacific Racing Association would be the instrument by which such a facility would be developed. That's clear in

section 3, where we're saying that the horse-racing facilities are maintained, improved and operated. I think there's sufficient scope in that provision to allow for that to happen.

That doesn't mean, however -- and this is an important point that I think has escaped a lot of people -- that the Pacific Racing Association would necessarily be the operator. They would be enabled to contract out various parts of the operation. They may choose to do that in the short term, or they may not, as they try to pull together the Exhibition Park problems. But that opportunity for contracting out of the operation is available to them. I don't expect that I'll be the minister responsible that far down the road, but certainly in terms of my approach to it, it wouldn't be my intention to direct them as to how to do it. We would expect the association to provide the leadership.

A. Warnke: I have three technical questions I want to ask, and then perhaps others might want to address this section.

I notice that in

section 2(3), "The Lieutenant Governor in Council may appoint at least 7 but not more than 11 individuals as directors of the association." I would like to have some clarification as to the flexibility of this number. Why not a more flexible number rather than a specific number?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: In general terms, the range is not a large number because an executive group needs to be relatively small to be effective. The number 7 seems to be the minimum that is required to provide a broadly based decision-making group, and it's not so large that it's cumbersome. The number 11 is chosen to give us flexibility in the event that various interests need to have a perspective expressed by membership on the board. It's our intention to begin by establishing a seven-person board so that it can function effectively in this transition period and in the early going.

But if it becomes clear that other interests need to be represented on the board, then we have the flexibility to add up to an additional four members.

A. Warnke: I appreciate the answer given by the minister. I'm anticipating that there may be a particular issue or problem that would come before the association, and the directors would face that situation. Admittedly, this is sort of looking down the road a little. But at some point, perhaps the seven who had initially been appointed will break down over an important issue or problem -- in terms of a vote, 5 to 2. In that case, this might, as the clause states here, generate a perception that if it breaks down at 5 to 2, the best way to overcome that is to quickly appoint four more directors under this particular

section to make the outcome 5 to 6. That was actually the impetus behind that kind of concern. A quick comment would suffice.

[4:00]

Hon. C. Gabelmann: That's not contemplated. In fact, before that thought was expressed here, it hadn't occurred to me; I hadn't ever thought that we would be in this kind of situation. This endeavour will not be successful unless there is an ability to develop consensus on the board for the most part. There may be particular issues on which the vote breaks down.

If there is a fundamental disagreement on the board about the future direction of the industry, to try to fix it by stacking a board -- by adding enough votes to win one side or the other -- is not going to solve the problem: it will more likely exacerbate the tensions and differences. What's required then isn't stacking; what's required then is resolution and an attempt to sort out what's at stake by discussion among the industry, the government and the board, and go from there. I'm fully confident that the board will understand that their role is to improve and enhance the industry.

On major issues I anticipate that there will be consensus. The numbers are not designed for that purpose at all.

A. Warnke: I have another technical question about

section 2(4) regarding the appointments made under

section 2(3). I want to address it in this particular way: we note that there are not any really fixed terms mentioned here. There is no indication as to the term of the appointments, and it was our feeling that this should be indicated in the bill. I am quite prepared to propose a very friendly amendment which would add that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may fix the terms of office of the directors of the association. But before I propose that amendment, I would like to draw that to the attention of the minister, because I certainly would not propose it if the issue is addressed.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: In the discussions with the industry people and others who were involved in trying to come up with solutions, I think the agreement was that in the early going we needed to ensure that persons were appointed to the board and given time enough to resolve the issues. To have a fixed term didn't seem appropriate at this particular time. They are at pleasure -- in practical terms, all appointments are. If government has a real need to change an individual on a board, it gets it done anyway, one way or another. We've avoided having a fixed term.

At some point in the future, when we're through the transition period, it may be advantageous to have fixed terms. At this stage it was determined -- and there was no disagreement -- by all the parties that an at-pleasure appointment was appropriate.

A. Warnke: I would just like to follow up on that. Once the Pacific Racing Association and its directorship are in place, essentially would it be up to the

[ Page 9394 ]

directorship, or to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council? I'm assuming that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council would determine a fixed term later, when it comes to that. However, that needs to be defined. There is also the second problem that by not having any mention of a fixed term right now, might one who is appointed to this particular position present a very strong case that it's for an indefinite or even lifetime period? We really want to nail down that it isn't.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Any changes to make it a fixed term would be by the Legislature, so it's a cabinet-originated initiative, whoever the cabinet of the day is. These appointments are indefinite, but I don't think anyone would want to have to suffer a lifetime sentence to do this work. I anticipate that the work involved for the board in the first going will be tough, difficult and time-consuming, and people will want to give it their best to get the thing up and running.

Some people will then consider whether they want to continue at that stage, and I suspect that there will be a change of board members once the early going has been completed. At this stage it is open so that people can complete the task that we are going to ask them to do.

A. Warnke: Before I go to the next technical point, the third one I want to mention, I guess the answer that the minister has provided is that at some point someone might want to make up their mind whether or not they want to continue on. This still doesn't satisfy what I was really after, because it sounds like the onus is on the individual to make up their mind. We can easily think of individuals who might just stick it out on this commission, and who might not want to resign at all.

By the same token, they're on the commission and they are not necessarily -- in the eyes of the public or, for that matter, the Legislature or the cabinet -- really doing it in the best interests of the commission. What do we do about removing such an individual?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: If the minister responsible, following consultations with the associations involved in the industry, came to a conclusion that a particular individual had served as well as they could and had nothing further to contribute, the individual would be replaced at that stage. I need to emphasize that it's my conviction that none of this is going to work if games are being played. It is only going to work if the industry and the government work together in a cooperative way with the association that's established.

The determinations about replacements need to be made consensually and in the interests of the industry, not politically or in the interests of some other agenda that doesn't help the industry.

A. Warnke: One last point I want to pick up on is in

section 2(5): "The Lieutenant Governor in Council may appoint one of the directors as chair of the board of directors." There are different ways to appoint the chair of the directors. To make it simple: why has the ministry chosen this particular method, rather than the board of directors getting together and choosing their own chair?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: That was a decision we took to ensure that in this difficult early period, there would be a chair who was chosen by the cabinet. One of the things we will be doing through this legislation is providing a government guarantee of a loan to enable some of the changes that have to be made. Given that, I want to be sure that the chair of the commission is someone who has the government's confidence as well as industry's confidence. While I am not able today -- I wish I were -- to indicate whose name will likely be taken to cabinet for this position, I can undertake to assure members that it will be an individual who has the confidence of both the government and the industry.

A. Warnke: From the answer that has been given by the minister there seems to be an assumption that we're in a transitory phase. Given that, the government still wants to have some direct input or linkage to ensure that everything is -- I can't resist the temptation to say it -- on the right track.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: There is nothing we want more than to be on the right track.

C. Serwa: I have a couple of questions on

section 2(3). I note that the Pacific Racing Association may consist of seven but not more than 11 individuals. The 1988 Jawl report recommended approximately 25 individuals because, I guess, of the complexity and variety of elements to be represented in this particularly major issue. Why did the hon. Attorney General make a determination to reduce the size rather than following the recommendation?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I hope Mr. Jawl doesn't mind me saying this, but he and I had discussions about this very point. It was his firm view that at this stage a small number was appropriate. I don't think he would mind me saying that he feels the appropriate number at this stage is seven.

C. Serwa: The second question was with respect to the selection. Subsection (4) indicates that there must be consultation with the directors of both the Horsemen's Benevolent and Protective Association of British Columbia and the British Columbia division of the Canadian Thoroughbred Horse Society. Two other associations, the B.C. Standardbred Association and the Horse Council of B.C., have been left out. Why have they been left out of the original recommendations?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: In respect of the Standardbred Association, this legislation is not designed to deal with standardbred issues. We have no intention of interfering in any way with the activities at Cloverdale. In fact, I've met with Mr. Keeling and his legal counsel to give them that assurance. The standardbred industry would not want to be involved in the issues at Exhibition Park and the related issues in the lower mainland. It was the recommendation from the industry that, in general terms, these two associations

[ Page 9395 ]

could best represent the interests that were required on this particular board.

C. Tanner: Could the minister indicate whether or not there will be any geographic reference to the appointment to these directors? I'm thinking particularly of the southern end of Vancouver Island.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm very conscious of that issue. I can't assure the member that southern Vancouver Island will be represented, because I don't know what cabinet will do with my recommendations. All I can say is that I think the member will be satisfied with the board once it's appointed.

The Chair: Before I recognize the hon. member, I beg the indulgence of the committee. The Chair has an introduction. I notice in the gallery, observing the proceedings this afternoon, intrepid reporter Rick Froese from the Agassiz-Harrison Observer. I bid the House make him welcome.

C. Tanner: The Chair has some privileges. But the Chair might ask for leave before he does things like that in the future, particularly while I'm in the House.

The Chair: Hon. member, the Chair took no chances. Thank you.

C. Tanner: The answer that you gave to my colleague on my right here was that the government wants to retain unto itself the power to appoint the chairman of the board. But you didn't preclude the likelihood, or even the probability, that the board could make the recommendation, which the minister could accept.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: After a few years have gone by and this is up and running, it may well be appropriate for the Legislature to consider changing it so the board could select a chair from within its membership. I think there's a lot of merit to that approach. At this stage, in its initial incarnation, that doesn't seem appropriate. The board members won't have worked together. It's very difficult at the first meeting to look around the room and decide who the chair should be, so for a variety of reasons it seemed appropriate to take that responsibility onto our shoulders. But I don't discount an amendment to accomplish that in the future; I think it would be appropriate.

K. Jones: I'd like to move the amendment in my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 2, to amend

section 2, subsection (3), by inserting after the word "individuals" the following: "from the lists supplied by the Horsemen's Benevolent and Protective Association of British Columbia and the Canadian Thoroughbred Horse Society -- British Columbia Division".

to amend

section 2, subsection (4), by deleting subsection (4).]

On the amendment.

K. Jones: This is intended as a friendly amendment. It's intended to follow in light of the direction that the minister has previously stated, that he's going to take the advice of the Horsemen's Benevolent and Protective Association of British Columbia and the input of the British Columbia division of the Canadian Thoroughbred Horse Society in the decisions of who will be the directors and meet with the desires of those organizations. I understand that they have submitted lists of people who have had experience in the industry to be members of that board. The reason that we bring forward this amendment is to have that type of appointment recognized.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The effect of the amendment, as I read it, would result in the entire board being chosen from the lists supplied by the two associations. I'm not in favour of that at this stage. The reason for that is that I think it's important to leave some room on the board -- not a majority -- for government interests, given the government's role particularly in this transition period, to ensure that the board has other competence represented on it, given the important financial and business decisions it needs to make.

The member's amendment would mean that we would be restricted to the lists of the two associations. Inevitably, the associations' lists contain members of their respective associations.

It's my intention to ask cabinet to ensure that a majority of the board is drawn from the lists provided, but I want to have the flexibility to ensure other interests that are needed to ensure the transition and management of this operation are successful. Therefore I reject the amendment.

[4:15]

K. Jones: The associations recognize the need for that expertise, and the association has people who definitely meet all those qualifications, otherwise they wouldn't be in the business. The business does require all of those special attributes in order to run a successful business. So among those people, the associations are quite capable of choosing very competent people. Their greatest concern is that there be competent people on the board who are experienced in the industry, not outsiders who are brought in and may not be able to contribute to the extent that is necessary to make this a successful operation. That is the reason that this has been brought forward.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The lists submitted by both organizations -- which I understand the member has seen -- are of outstanding, well-qualified people. The government has an interest at this stage, however. There are a numnber of difficult issues in and around the Hastings Park area on the PNE grounds. There are obviously financial considerations, given the decision to enable loan guarantees made by the Crown. The Crown therefore needs its own direct representation. Frankly, I believe I need to have representation on the board as well, representing public interests that go beyond the interests of the two associations at this time in the development of the industry.

[ Page 9396 ]

I've had these discussions directly and indirectly with the associations. They understand and, I think it's fair to say, have no problem with the way in which we're proceeding. It won't work unless we do it with their cooperation. I've indicated that a majority of this board will be chosen from the lists provided, and I think they are happy with that. All our interests are thereby protected.

W. Hurd: I wonder if the Attorney General could describe the nature of the consultation which will go on. Are we dealing with a formal process here? I think the member for Surrey-Cloverdale had outlined a process in his amendment, and given the fact that the Attorney General has not accepted that process, perhaps he could describe the nature of the consultation here. Obviously he'll be aware that that particular definition would be an important consideration for some of the members of the Horsemen's Benevolent and Protective Association who are not directors of the association.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The discussions that go on are difficult to characterize, and I don't think I would be able to do that effectively here, other than to say that the discussions are extensive, friendly, comprehensive and leading to a mutually agreeable conclusion. I don't think I can say much more than that, other than that my involvement is often, in a sense, by proxy. But if there are any difficulties and anxieties, I certainly will be available to talk to aggrieved parties -- if there are any. There aren't so far -- as we continue these discussions, in any event.

There are always in any organization, even in political party caucuses, minority groups who don't agree with the majority. Sometimes those views are expressed loudly, sometimes not so loudly. We are hearing some concern expressed now, and I suppose the member is referring to that concern. I expect that and don't have any difficulty understanding why that minority view is present. But I think it would be inappropriate for me to deal with the minority groups in the associations. I deal with the people elected by the associations to run their affairs, and we're working very cooperatively at the moment.

W. Hurd: There was a reason for the question, because the Attorney General will be aware that the Horsemen's Benevolent and Protective Association is representative of the breeding industry in the province -- the people who raise the animals. Of course, as the Attorney General knows, they are deeply concerned about the track surface and the decision to spend a considerable amount of money on lengthening and improving the track at that location.

Would it be the opinion of the Attorney General that the representative from the Horsemen's Benevolent and Protective Association would reflect that concern on the Pacific Racing Association? Indeed, would they be able to influence the ultimate decision to spend that money on the track? Or is that a decision the Pacific Racing Association cannot influence or change in any way?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The association's board will be very much involved in determining how best to improve the facility. I would think that they would conclude that the first and most important issue is the running surface, both the quality of the surface itself and the configuration or the length. Those decisions cannot be made entirely by the association, because we're talking here about public land that is, in a sense, trust land. There are issues between the province and the city, which I think we are working to an amicable conclusion on, but those issues are nonetheless there.

So the decisions that the racing association makes in respect of the configuration have to be made in concert with the city, the PNE and the government. I think it's clear that there is very much a consensus developing -- certainly an agreement -- about the need to do something. There is a consensus developing among all of us in respect of what kind of footprint the track could and should leave at the Hastings Park site. The association will advance its arguments and will no doubt be talking with the city and the PNE and ourselves about how to do all of this.

The main concern at the moment is the running surface, and that's why a lot of owners and breeders do not want their horses on that track. I expect the association will view that as a priority. I don't know of a single person in the industry who doesn't see it as a priority.

W. Hurd: I have an additional question with respect to

section 2. It's just a general question, for my edification, about the Horsemen's Benevolent and Protective Association and the Canadian Thoroughbred Horse Society. I assume that these are arm's length organizations that have no linkage in any way to the government in terms of how their membership elects their board of directors. These are interest groups within the industry that are totally independent in terms of who they elect to represent them on their own boards and then potentially on the Pacific Racing Association. Is that a fair assessment of these two organizations?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Both of the organizations are completely and entirely independent from any government connection. One represents breeders, and one represents the owners of the animals which race. The only connection with the government is that we are asking them to provide names of people who can sit on the association.

C. Serwa: I am in favour of the amendment put forward by the hon. member for Surrey-Cloverdale. The reason I do this is that we have the expressed intent of the minister, whom I have confidence in. We have the intent of the legislation and then we have the letter of legislation. I hope the minister is amenable to accepting an amendment in conjunction with the recommendation of the Jawl report that two members from the Horsemen's Benevolent and Protective Association and two representatives from the Canadian Thoroughbred Horse Society be on the board. It seems to me that if you indicated in the legislation that there would be a

[ Page 9397 ]

minimum of two individuals selected from each, it would provide a certain degree of comfort that this is not only the intent but that it is expressed in the legislation and allows the minister the discretion to appoint people with a background in the horse-racing industry to fill the number of positions on the board. You would then have four positions out of seven on the board.

But still, I think that the credibility of the Pacific Racing Association would be enhanced with the recognition that there was a certainty of getting two members from each of the major segments represented directly on the board from their list. That assurance would give them comfort and should not be difficult for the minister to accept.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I think that that proposal, or even more, may well be appropriate in the future. But at this stage, given the necessarily high degree of public involvement and commitment to assist in this transition, the amendment is not something I can accept. I certainly don't have any difficulty in the longer term with the principle implicit in the amendment from the member for Surrey-Cloverdale, but I can't accept it at this stage.

Amendment negatived.

D. Mitchell: Just while we're on

section 2, which establishes the Pacific Racing Association, I have a question for the Attorney General with respect to the relationship between this new corporation and Exhibition Park in particular. I understand that the association is going to be operating and maintaining the facilities at the Pacific National Exhibition's Hastings Park, which is the racetrack there.

I wonder if the Attorney General could elaborate any further on what he has already obliquely referred to as the nature of the ownership of the land at the racetrack at the Pacific National Exhibition, which I understand is part of a trust agreement between the province and the city of Vancouver -- much the way Stanley Park, for instance, was once created as a special trust for the province. I wonder if the hon. Attorney General could tell us who owns the land that the track is based on at Hastings Park, at which this new corporation is of course going to be operating the facility.

I also wonder whether there's any potential conflict, or whether the Attorney General has sought a legal opinion as to any potential conflict in the government now owning a corporation that is operating land which at the same time is held in trust by the province.

The Chair: Hon. Attorney General, please keep in mind standing order 61 and questions strictly relevant to

section 2.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I think the member and I agree that this is not particularly in order under

section 2, but I think it's an interesting question. I'm sure the member will find one way or another to ask it in some section, so we may as well do it now and keep a good mood in the House.

The member asked if I had sought any legal opinions about who owns the land. There are many legal opinions about who owns it, so I think it would be inopportune and inappropriate for me to try to conclude what the status is. I think it's well known that last September or October I met with the mayor of Vancouver. The Minister of Finance and I put a proposal to the mayor that would have enabled a resolution of the land question by transferring the title to the city in exchange for commitments to enable the province to continue some of its traditional activities at the site, including racing.

The discussions around that question continue. Who owns the land? All of the people of British Columbia own the land. Whose name is on the title is a question that I think will be resolved in the near future.

[4:30]

The Chair: Hon. member, I repeat the caution regarding relevancy under standing order 61.

D. Mitchell: I think this is related to

section 2(1), which establishes this new corporation, the Pacific Racing Association. The second part of my question dealt with any potential conflict. He indicated that the people of British Columbia ultimately own the land, in one form or another. There was a trust agreement, I believe, going back some hundred years for Hastings Park, the site where the track is now established. The Pacific Racing Association is now going to operate and maintain that facility. This is something that perhaps would come up in the future, depending on any determination of legal ownership.

Is there a potential conflict in the government of British Columbia owning the land, perhaps in trust, and the province operating and maintaining the facility through a Crown corporation? Have any special considerations been given to alleviating concerns that might arise as a result of potential conflict of interest?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: First of all, I'm not sure "conflict of interest" would be the appropriate term. There may be different perspectives on appropriate activities on a site. That's not so much a conflict of interest as it is a debate between levels of government or perhaps even within this House. It's my intention, and the government's intention, to try to resolve all of the matters that may be outstanding in respect of the development at Hastings Park by way of discussions between the PNE, the city and ourselves. I think the member knows that those discussions have been going very well.

The city has publicly responded to that effect, and I can say that those reports are accurate from our perspective as well. I don't anticipate any difficulties. Saying this may leave the wrong impression, but I think it is always important to remember that the Legislature has the ultimate ability to remedy problems with respect to that. But I see no reason to expect that that would ever be necessary, because, as I say, the city and ourselves are in agreement. The city has agreed the track should be operated at that site, and apparently there are no difficulties in our way.

[ Page 9398 ]

D. Mitchell: I only have one further question on

section 2, which establishes the association as a corporation -- even though its name is that of an association, it's a Crown corporation. Could the Attorney General inform the committee whether or not, as a Crown corporation, it will come under the Crown corporations secretariat, which looks at all Crown corporations in the province and, of course, is run by Bob Williams? Will this Crown corporation, as well, come under the purview of Mr. Williams and the Crown corporations secretariat?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I don't know the answer to that question; I've not given it any consideration. I expect the association will have its relationship with government through the minister responsible.

C. Serwa: I just have a short question with respect to conflict, because there is another element under

section 2. At the moment we have the government as the owner, operator, regulator and enforcement agent of racing in British Columbia. When you use the term "conflict of interest," perhaps it isn't one in the traditional sense, but certainly there will be a perception of conflict of interest. The government will control racing and racing days in British Columbia, which will affect other tracks in the province as well. That's where I have some concern, and all I want to do is express it to the Attorney General.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The debate would go more quickly if I didn't keep answering, but I think it's important to answer on that point. The government itself, through cabinet, has had control over racing days; racing days have been established by order-in-council. We are devolving that power to the Racing Commission, which, without question, is appointed by government but is a regulatory agency independent of government. The decisions it makes are independent of government direction.

We are having less government control and involvement by the combination of these two bills -- on the one hand, by giving the Racing Commission more authority to regulate the activities; on the other hand, by establishing an association to manage and operate -- either directly or indirectly -- the affairs of the industry. I think we are getting away from government involvement in a very clear way.

A. Warnke: On a point of order, I believe there is an amendment on the floor. Therefore a vote has to be taken on that.

The Chair: For clarification, we have voted on the amendment. The amendment was defeated, and we are now debating

section 2.

C. Serwa: On a point of order. I think the reason the vote was not clarified was that the Chair asked a question, but didn't ask for the yeas and nays. In that case, the amendment was called. The Chair just listened to the sprinkling of yeas and nays, and indicated the amendment was passed. I don't think the correct form was followed.

The Chair: For clarification, we did have a vote and the amendment was defeated.

Section 2 approved.

section 3.

A. Warnke: As it states, the purpose of this

section is to make it clear that horse-racing facilities are maintained, improved and operated in British Columbia. It prompts us to ask: by whom? We understand that it's maintained, improved and operated in British Columbia. As it reads, where else would it be operated? Would the ministry guarantee that all opportunities for maintaining, improving and operating racing facilities be tendered?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: In general terms, if the association is going to contract out....

Interjection.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I think that's because I don't talk loudly enough; it's not that people are interrupting.

In general terms, if the association is going to contract out significant elements of what is has to do, then it would be tendered. The policy that applies to Crown corporations would apply here as well. As I said earlier, it may well be that in some elements of its operation the association determines that it should run them directly, and in that sense would not tender. I want to be clear about that. The general policies that apply would apply to them as well.

A. Warnke: Just as a clarification, I'll try to raise my voice, too.

From our vantage point, a number of people have expressed that. Let me put it bluntly: the government sometimes expresses a political bias in favour of trade unions. Given the nature of some of the legislation, it has been expressed to us generally that there might be select unionized sectors in which these racing facilities might be maintained, improved and operated. People want some reassurance that bias of that nature would not be injected here. The wording in

section 3(1) is pretty loose and general, and perhaps it would be constructive for the minister to alleviate those fears and respond to the question.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm sorry, I'm not sure what the concerns might be. Could the member clarify what concerns he is referring to?

A. Warnke: Simply put, the concern that has been expressed to us is about union bias in granting contracts.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Contracts would be rendered to the successful bidder, and if the successful bidder has employees, the employees have rights under the Labour Relations Code. I really don't see how that leads us anywhere. If the member is talking about

[ Page 9399 ]

contracts under the fair wage policy, then the policy that applies to Crown corporations would no doubt apply. I really don't see where that's going.

C. Tanner: In

section 3, the word "facilities" is in plural. Is that more than one facility in British Columbia?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: "Facilities" generally does mean more than one -- plurals do. The member is properly concerned about southern Vancouver Island. The issue here is to allow the association to operate a training track in the Fraser Valley as a facility. That's the thinking. If, when determining how to improve thoroughbred racing in the province, issues arise that relate to southern Vancouver Island and it becomes apparent that some assistance can be provided by the association, then they will provide it.

I don't think this means that there's any direct concern or connection with Sandown -- not at this stage, anyway. I don't know where that's going to go in the longer term. There are a lot of issues around that. We would all like to find a way of making that facility more a part of the industry, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it has to be operated by the association. We're not talking here about aggrandizement on the part of the association at all. The plural "facilities" is designed to allow the training facility in the valley.

C. Tanner: I'm interested to hear that there's a probability of a facility in the Fraser Valley. Is the minister saying that the park in Vancouver and what might happen in the Fraser Valley is the limit of possibilities here? Is there any likelihood in the Okanagan and on Vancouver Island of keeping those facilities going?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I have no doubt that if there are horses available to race, the Racing Commission will very carefully consider awarding racing dates to the tracks in Osoyoos, Vernon, Kamloops, Princeton and at Sandown in Saanich, where and when the Racing Commission feels it's appropriate to award them. That's an issue that is separate from the Pacific Racing Association. There's no desire at all for the Racing Association to take over the facilities in any of those communities; they are well run locally. That's not where we have the problem in the industry at the moment.

A. Warnke: Under

section 3 there is another aspect I want to address here. The funding for the improving of Exhibition Park is reputed to be done through a $30 million loan or something of that nature, or it may even be up to $50 million, based on racing revenue. The loan will be paid back through wagers. This was brought to the attention of the minister during second reading, but we would like some clarification. Where will the funding come from for acquiring land?

[4:45]

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The funding will come from money borrowed by the association in its role as a Crown corporation -- this is one of the reasons it needs to be a Crown corporation -- and will be guaranteed by the provincial government. But the money will not be able to exceed the ability to service the debt that is generated internally from that portion of the handle which is available for those purposes. Numbers have been thrown around. The number $30 million has been generated through work that the Racing Commission has had commissioned.

It may well be that in the early going $30 million is too high a number to be sustained by the revenue, and a more modest improvement program will have to be developed. The number $50 million has been bandied about -- I don't know where that number comes from, but these numbers tend to grow. It's like rumours: they change from day to day, and the opposition sometimes -- not often -- has a tendency to exaggerate as well. But I can give the assurance that the borrowing will not exceed the ability to service the debt.

C. Serwa: I have two questions. The first one follows the questions of the hon. member. In earlier statements the hon. Attorney General indicated that we're probably a decade away from requiring the one-mile track and the expanded or enhanced type of development in the western portion of Delta. It seems to me that when you look at amortizing, say, $30 million over an anticipated lifetime of ten years, it doesn't appear to be a very wise type of investment. The reality is that if the Western Delta proposal went ahead, it would probably be two years before it could come on-line.

It must be a massive construction project. But it seems that when you're looking at amortizing $30 million over a ten-year period, and then we're faced with something else that will nullify this type of an investment, it doesn't appear to be a prudent or wise decision from a fiscal point of view. Perhaps the minister would comment on that.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The moneys involved that we're talking about would certainly not all be invested at Exhibition Park. The acquisition and development of a training track would take a chunk of the money, and I'm fairly confident that in the next couple of years $30 million is on the top end, outside of any real possibilities. But it's not all at Exhibition Park, and it will be done in a way that ensures that appropriate amortization is considered. There's no sense at all in pouring money into a facility and then have it sit idle at some point in the future. So all of those issues will be under consideration.

One of the reasons it's very important that the board of the association be carefully chosen is to ensure that they have the kind of business sense and ability to understand and deal with those kinds of issues.

C. Serwa: The second question has to do with wording in the Jawl report with respect to

section 3. The Jawl report recommended that the mandate of the racing association should, in addition to the development and efficient operation of horse-racing facilities, include protecting and promoting the interests of the industry in general.

[ Page 9400 ]

Instead of development and efficient operation, the government is using the phrase "maintained, improved and operated." Why is "maintained" used instead of "development" and why is "efficient operation" dropped in favour of "improved and operated"? There seems to be some difference there. I would like to know why there is the change in words, because they're significantly different from the recommendations in the report.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The words were chosen to reflect the reality of what we intend to do. If the members look at the words, "maintained" is to ensure that there's continuity of racing. The next is "improved," which we've talked about often -- the need to improve -- and "operated" is to make sure that they get operated one way or another. Again, despite Mr. Jawl's report, at this stage we have a very clear and tight focus on what we're doing.

I have no doubt whatsoever that the association will, as a matter of course, be involved in the general goals that are articulated by Mr. Jawl, but we are not mandating those specifically at this time. The job they have in front of them is immense, and because we are specifying that they have these responsibilities, that doesn't mean they can't do other things beyond that.

K. Jones: I'd like the minister to give us some idea of how the finances in regard to this would be considered. I understand that probably a settlement will be made with the Jockey Club, which will take about two to three years of track facility's profits to pay off. Beyond that, you're talking about $30 million, which is going to be spread over more than 30 years -- amortization on the payments plus interest accumulated.

Have there been economic projections done? Is there a revenue expense stream established for the next ten years? Does the minister know where the profits are going to come from for the contracted operator? He says he's going to offer the operation of the track to a contractor. If the profits are being used to pay off the capital, where are the profits going to be for the operator to have any interest in operating it?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Given the absence of any organization out there, other than the Racing Commission, to help prepare this kind of project, I asked the Racing Commission to look into all these questions -- including the ones the member raises -- last year. They commissioned several studies that looked at the economics and all the technical issues as well as the financial issues. Everything we are doing and proposing is consistent with the information given to the Racing Commission by the consultants that were retained.

As for the question of a contractor receiving profits and where those profits would come from if all the profits are being diverted to debt retirement, part of the equation is that it may be a reason for the association to run the track directly by hiring people to actually do it, rather than on a contract basis. It may be; that's a question that they will determine and I won't direct.

There is at the moment in the handle -- I think everybody's familiar with the term -- 5 1/2 cents that goes to the operator. There's money within that for operational purposes. For development purposes, there is also another 1/2 cent that has been going into a fund for some time.

As far as the arrangements with the Jockey Club are concerned, I would feel far more comfortable not talking about that in any real way at this stage, given that discussions are currently ongoing between the government and the Jockey Club, as members will know from reading the sports pages in the daily newspapers on occasion.

K. Jones: Would the profitability of the track be enhanced by increasing the racing days? Is it possible that we would have both standardbred and thoroughbred racing at Exhibition Park to increase that return, and is it possible that it even could be operated successfully? Have those factors been looked at?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Decisions about increased numbers of racing days, if that's what the member's question is, would be made by the Racing Commission. Those decisions would be based more on availability of horses than on any other question. One day this year, they couldn't even run on a particular day they had assigned because there weren't sufficient horses available. That is really one of the major determining factors. Another, of course, is public participation in betting and all that. The Racing Commission makes those decisions independent of government and independent of the Pacific Racing Association.

K. Jones: Could the minister give us assurance that the standardbred operations at Cloverdale raceway, which are fairly successful operations, are not going to be affected by this legislation?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Yes. I gave that assurance earlier this afternoon in this debate, and I'll give it again now. As I said earlier, I also gave it to Mr. Keeling and his lawyer some three, four or five weeks ago.

Sections 3 and 4 approved.

section 5.

A. Warnke: I have a very quick question -- it was raised at second reading -- about some of the financial aspects of this. Could the minister quickly describe the criterion for turning down the borrowing request? This seems to get at the heart of the argument that was put forward on why governments should not be involved. I would like some sort of clarification on the criterion for turning down borrowing requests. It revolves around

section 5(3): "The association may not borrow without the approval of the Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations."

Hon. C. Gabelmann: All borrowing would have to be approved by the Minister of Finance, and the ministry clearly has its own rules, policies and

ques-

[ Page 9401 ]

tions it would ask that would have to be answered satisfactorily. The Financial Administration Act also provides the opportunity for cabinet to set policies around borrowing as well.

K. Jones: I move the amendment that is on the order paper in my name.

[SECTION 5, to amend

section 5, subsection (6), by replacing "30 days" with "15 days".]

On the amendment.

K. Jones: The reason I moved this amendment to change the 30 days listed here to 15 days is that the statutory requirement for bringing reports to the Legislature is 15 days, and I would like to see it kept in line with the statutory requirements.

[5:00]

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The member talks about statutory reporting time. The statutory reporting time is contained within each statute -- the member shakes his head -- and most statutory reporting times are in fact 30 days. Reports given to government are determined by the context in which the report itself is developed. To my knowledge, there is no general statutory requirement for any number of days. Thirty is a standard provision in most statutes.

K. Jones: I believe it's in the

Interpretation Act. It is one that was identified with reference to the reporting of the Korbin commission and was confirmed on several occasions when I requested copies of it.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The member has mentioned the

Interpretation Act. I wonder if he means the Inquiry Act.

K. Jones: Perhaps it is.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Under the Inquiry Act, of course, we're talking about inquiries that are established without a statutory framework. Where there is no statute and a report is being done by somebody under the Inquiry Act, yes, it is 15 days. Most reports to the Legislature, the routine ones that get introduced here -- not every day, but frequently -- are produced in accordance with the statute that the report relates to. For the most part, that provision is 30 days.

K. Jones: In view of the minister's statement, I will withdraw the amendment.

Section 5 approved.

section 6.

C. Serwa: A question for my information. Subsection (2) exempts the association from the Company Act and the Company Clauses Act, and then subsection (3) allows cabinet to order some provisions of the Company Act to apply to the association. Why is this? I know it's a Crown corporation, but why do you exempt it and then give the cabinet the opportunity to come back in?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm glad the member asked the question, because I didn't know the answer myself. I hadn't asked that question....

This is a standard provision contained within statutes that establish Crown corporations. The ability of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to order specified provisions of the Company Act to apply is in order to enable a winding up of the corporation's affairs should that ever be necessary. So the Company Act would not apply, as it does not to Crown corps; but for winding-up purposes the Company Act could apply.

Sections 6 and 7 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Bill 74, Pacific Racing Association Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I call committee on Bill 72.

HORSE RACING ACT

The House in committee on Bill 72; D. Streifel in the chair.

section 1.

A. Warnke: I want to explore a couple of the

definitions. What should be clarified within the definition of horse racing is the distinction between conduct or presentation of all types of racing in which horses participate. The existing legislation stipulates that horse racing includes all types of racing in which horses participate. The question is: does this definition of "horse racing" permit the commission to authorize and license offtrack betting parlours?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The answer is yes.

A. Warnke: Would this include current owner-operated training farms?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Is the member still talking about the word "presentation," or is he talking about the definition immediately above?

A. Warnke: No, I'm not talking about those two; it's "designated race horse training centre."

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The purpose of this is for cabinet to be able designate the training centre in the

[ Page 9402 ]

Fraser Valley. Conceivably, of course, cabinet could make other designations, but none are on the horizon. There are none that I can think of at the moment, other than the need to have a training

centre.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

section 3.

A. Warnke: Although

section 21 specifies that the commission must make an annual report to the minister and must report on specific matters at the request of the minister, it would seem that the commission is rather autonomous in conducting its affairs.

Section 3(2) indicates that the commission may adopt procedures for conducting its affairs. Are there any other checks on the commission itself?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The limitations that could be placed on the commission are contained in

section 22(1), where it says, "Subject to any limitations the Lieutenant Governor in Council may prescribe," and then again in

section 24, "The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations," and in subsection (2)(b): "...prescribing limits on any of the powers of the commission under this Act."

Section 3 approved.

section 4.

C. Serwa: I'd like an explanation or clarification on

section 4(3), where the reference is to some decision-making capacity: "...any one or more members of the commission or to any one or more persons or classes of persons appointed or employed by the commission." What does the minister envision with the "classes of persons appointed"? What is that in relation to? How does that fit in?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The purpose here is for officials at the track, such as the stewards and judges.

Section 4 approved.

section 5.

A. Warnke: This is very exciting to be part of the daily double.

One point is with subsection (2). What might "race meetings or horse racing of a prescribed type" or "other race meetings or horse racing exempted by the Lieutenant Governor in Council" include? Why would such events be exempt from being licensed?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The Horse Racing Act now in place talks, in

part 2,

section 8(3), about trotting. For example, I'll just read this section, and I think members will see what we're trying to do in a moment: "...race meetings held under the auspices of an agricultural or exhibition association at which there are trotting or pacing races of horses in harness exclusively...."

The kind of detail contained in the previous legislation is deliberately not included in this legislation to allow the commission and/or the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to make particular regulations so that either the commission or the government can deal with particular situations as they arise, rather than being constrained by legislation that may soon be out of date.

Section 5 approved.

section 6.

A. Warnke: Subsection (1) indicates: "...the commission may, in its absolute discretion...issue or renew or refuse to issue or renew any licence required under this Act." The commission may adopt this as its own procedures for conducting its own affairs, as stated in

section 3. Therefore appeals of the decisions of the commission must be made to an appeal board --

section 17 -- made up of commissioners not involved in the initial decision. It would seem, therefore, that the commission has the last word on licence issuance. Could there not be some other kind of arm's-length appeal body or an appeal to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The appeal provision would be governed in

section 17 and in

section 18, where there's an appeal to the Court of Appeal. The general principle involved here is that the Racing Commission has the expertise to know whether or not a particular licence should be issued or renewed. One wouldn't expect a court to know that. The court should properly concern itself with procedural fairness and those kinds of questions, and not try to second-guess whether next Tuesday should be a race day, or whatever other decision is envisioned under

section 6.

Sections 6 to 10 inclusive approved.

section 11.

C. Serwa: In my mind this is perhaps one of the most contentious sections of this proposed legislation: the absolute discretion to assign race days. It ties in with my earlier question with respect to the perception of conflict of interest. My concern is that because of the structure of the Racing Commission, it would have some predisposition to assign race days to certain courses on certain days, and there apparently is no provision for an appeal. This seems very wrong indeed.

[5:15]

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The member and I have had this discussion before in several contexts, regarding the question of appeals of decisions of commissions or quasi-judicial bodies. The first thing the member needs to think about, when considering his own perspective on this issue, is that when cabinet has the power to set racing days -- as it has had for many years -- the decision is virtually unappealable. Only in very rare and unusual circumstances would cabinet

[ Page 9403 ]

decisions ever go before a court for review, and courts would be very loath to exercise a decision-making function. We've transferred the power from the cabinet, where it was virtually unappealable, to the Racing Commission, where there is