1995 Legislative Session: 4th 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)

TUESDAY, MAY 2, 1995

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 19, Number 13

[ Page 13883 ]

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

D. Symons: I'd just like the House to acknowledge the presence of Mr. Campbell Atkinson in the gallery. I think he's one of our most faithful watchers of events taking place in this Legislature, and it's good to see him again this afternoon.

J. Sawicki: In the gallery today I have some guests from the Polish Combatants, Victoria branch No. 29: the president, Pan Hlycak, and the vice-president, Pan Lukaszewicz. They're here today to acknowledge what is one of the most celebrated of Polish holidays, because on May 3, 1791, the Polish Sejm, or parliament, passed the first codified democratic constitution in Europe. It had as its ideals things that we take for granted today, like the supremacy of parliament and the separation of judiciary powers from legislative and executive.

Regrettably, Poland's neighbours felt threatened by this democratization, and the reforms were destroyed by force one year later. But the fact that Poles all over the world continue to celebrate the constitution act of 1791 is, I think, a reminder to all of us that the institution of parliament is forever fragile and warrants our defence. To my guests today I ask the House to join me in saying witam w parlemencze, welcome.

Hon. A. Petter: Seated on the floor of the Legislature behind me today, I'm pleased to introduce Rev. Peter Rolston, who was MLA for the constituency of Dewdney from 1972 to 1975. I'm very pleased to see Peter here today. I must say that this hair colour is much improved since those days. I think you'll agree with me -- a very handsome white shock of hair there. I'd like the House to make him very, very welcome.

L. Krog: On behalf of my friend and colleague the member for Nanaimo, I would ask the House to welcome a kind of couple we don't often welcome here, and that is newlyweds: Heather Mitchell and Wayne Bell from Nanaimo, who are good friends of the member for Nanaimo. Would the House please make them welcome.

T. Perry: One of the newest and hardest-working constituency assistants in the province is here, and since he can't be introduced in the usual way, I would like to bid him, on your behalf, Mr. Speaker, welcome. I am not sure if his name is of Polish extraction or not, but I'm sure he is also celebrating the victory of Polish democracy today. Please join me in welcoming Norm Gludovatz, the constituency assistant for Vancouver-Burrard.

J. Dalton: I am pleased to introduce three constituents, all from North Vancouver; all live in my neighbourhood, I'm happy to say. Dr. Len Hendriksson of UBC is joining us this afternoon. Two people who live even closer to my home that I'm pleased to see today are Tim and Ina Hollick-Kenyon. Some members may know Mr. Hollick-Kenyon in his better form of Chilcotin Charlie, the former editor -- I say former because, unfortunately, the publication is no longer in print -- of the Big Creek Bugle. Please welcome all of them.

B. Simpson: I am delighted this afternoon to introduce Mr. Hardal Johal, president of the Khalsa Diwan Society, which is a very large society within the Indo-Canadian community -- in fact, it's the largest society. He is also president of the Ross Street Temple. Mr. Johal is one of the leaders of the Indo-Canadian community whose reputation, I can attest to, goes as far back as the Punjab. I was there last month and everybody was recognizing the significant contribution Mr. Johal has made to the preservation of the Sikh culture in British Columbia.

By the way, he was one of our very important advisers on introducing Punjabi into the schools. Mr. Johal is here today as a delegate to the convention of the British Columbia and Yukon Territory Council of the Canadian Federation of Labour. I ask all members of the House to join with me in welcoming Mr. Johal.

H. Lali: I, too, would like to take the opportunity to welcome Mr. Johal to the Legislature. This past weekend I had the occasion to visit the Ross Street Temple, as I do on many other occasions, to see the workings that go on there, and the amount of work that the volunteer committee puts in at the Ross Street Temple. I think all of us as members sometimes brag about the long hours that we have to work on our jobs, but I tell you, I sure wouldn't want to trade my job for Mr. Johal's job. I would like to join my colleague from Vancouver-Fraserview in welcoming Mr. Johal.

W. Hurd: I'm pleased to welcome to the galleries today 47 grade 10 students from Earl Marriott Secondary School in my riding, accompanied by their teacher, Marielle Haack. Would the House please make them welcome.

F. Randall: In the gallery this afternoon, there are some delegates who are attending the Canadian Federation of Labour convention at the Coast Harbourside Hotel here, which, as we're all aware, is a hotel owned by union pension funds. These delegates are from Local 963 of the Operating Engineers: Philip Bitz, who is the business manager, Frank McKenna, who is the president, and delegates Lyle Berg, Ed Maxwell and Tim Chester. Would the House please make them welcome.

Introduction of Bills

MINERAL TENURE AMENDMENT ACT, 1995

Hon. A. Edwards presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Mineral Tenure Amendment Act, 1995.

Hon. A. Edwards: It is certainly my pleasure to put before the Legislature this bill that contains a substantial number of amendments to the Mineral Tenure Act and consequential amendments to the Land Act. These amendments accomplish a moderate change. The amendments to the Mineral Tenure Act and the Land Act clarify jurisdiction for tenuring industrial minerals. Other amendments in the act will allow my ministry the flexibility to deal better with emerging land use issues and to improve its capability to enforce requirements under a mineral tenure system that manages the extent to and rate at which mineral resources are both acquired and developed in our province.

Bill 13 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

[2:15]

[ Page 13884 ]

Oral Questions

ALLEGED SEXUAL HARASSMENT BY CORRECTIONS STAFF

J. Dalton: The NDP's mismanagement of the corrections system is well documented by the recent happenings at the Surrey Pretrial Centre. However, it seems that Surrey is not the only Fraser Valley institution that is suffering such mismanagement. Now there are allegations of sexual harassment between guards as well as between guards and inmates.

To the Attorney General. His government brags that it has instituted large-scale sexual harassment awareness campaigns in the civil service. Did these prison guards receive such training, and if not, why not?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I think that the member is in fact referring to allegations of personal harassment.

J. Dalton: To the Premier.

Interjections.

J. Dalton: There are so many allegations of this nature, hon. members, that we can go to every cabinet minister.

In light of the Premier's recent bungling of sexual harassment allegations, will the Premier ensure that there's a better process in place for the investigation of such allegations than what we've witnessed to date?

Hon. M. Harcourt: The member must have wax in his ears, so I'll just repeat what the Attorney General said.

NUMBER OF PEOPLE ON SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

V. Anderson: More than 370,000 people are on social assistance in British Columbia. Under the NDP, the number of people receiving social assistance is the highest it has ever been in this province. Yet people who are trying to get off and stay off social assistance are being encouraged to stay on. Such was the case of Greg Woodward in Kelowna, with whom we have had personal contact.

Would the Minister of Social Services explain why social workers are encouraging people to stay on social assistance rather than supporting them to get off that assistance?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The Liberal opposition has changed their research techniques by going from the Province newspaper to the British Columbia Report. I'd say that's a real improvement for them.

Let me just say that the information contained in the British Columbia Report is accurate to a certain extent, in that the letter written to the person who applied for income assistance that the hon. member opposite is referring to had the information provided to him and the other person attending, saying that they would indeed not be eligible for benefits. I think it's fair that you do the full reporting on this matter.

The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.

V. Anderson: We have been in personal contact, not just through British Columbia Report or any other report -- personal contact. We have been advised that a social worker in Kelowna advised that if Mr. Woodward moved in with his girlfriend, social assistance would pay him $200 a month more because he would be considered his girlfriend's dependent. Could the minister explain why Social Services workers are encouraging people to get more money from social assistance rather than become independent? Mr. Woodward himself would like to know the answer to that question.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Clearly, the member opposite doesn't have an understanding of the system. Social workers don't provide benefits; financial assistance workers do. I'm allowed to say this because it has been reported publicly by Mr. Woodward; otherwise the member opposite would be in violation of the confidentiality rules. Mr. Woodward was advised in writing that the cheque would be reduced -- he would not be eligible, and his partner's cheque would be reduced. The member opposite knows that.

RICK HANSEN ROLE IN LIFE SKILLS PROGRAM

L. Fox: My question this afternoon is to the Minister of Education. Apparently, other than the Liberals, all other members in this House are tremendously proud of Rick Hansen and the inspiration that he has been to millions of Canadians, young and old. We recognize as well the valuable contribution that he will make in the life skills program. Perhaps the minister can tell us what role Mr. Hansen will play in the ongoing development and promotion of the program?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: Thank you for the question. Indeed, the Liberal opposition has raised an issue where they apparently feel that there is some impropriety with respect to a contract I signed with Mr. Hansen to develop some materials for the career and personal planning course. Mr. Hansen approached the ministry with what I thought was a very good idea: to bring forward a learning resource that dealt with facing challenges, overcoming difficulties and setting goals. I thought: what better person could we possibly have for the youth of British Columbia?

The Liberal opposition apparently believe that I should take Mr. Hansen's excellent idea and turn around and offer it to other potential developers of learning resources. It might even lead to -- who knows? -- somebody from Alberta or from the state of Washington or somewhere else developing this. Entirely inappropriate. There has been an implied criticism of Mr. Hansen and his organization by the Liberals, which I believe is entirely inappropriate. We will be delivering a quality resource package that will be of enormous value to the young men and women of British Columbia, and we will put it in all 1,750 schools in this province.

The Speaker: The hon. member has a supplementary?

L. Fox: One of the six skills taught as part of the life skills program is thinking critically. I'm wondering if the minister could arrange to have Mr. Hansen give a special briefing on this element of life to the official opposition. Could the minister please arrange to have Mr. Hansen, if he is willing, explain to them the difference between critical thinking and unthinking criticism?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: I think it would certainly be in order to have the Liberal opposition take a refresher course in

[ Page 13885 ]

this area. I think, as well, that they could use a great deal of help in overcoming challenges, for example; I could speak to Mr. Hansen about that.

Let me say, seriously, that we bargained hard and ended up with an extremely good partnership arrangement between Rick Hansen Associates and the Ministry of Education, and we have developed and delivered an excellent resource to the system.

NEW DIRECTIONS AND CANCER CARE

L. Reid: British Columbians today enjoy the finest cancer care in the country.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please.

L. Reid: In a decision cancer workers themselves seriously oppose, the NDP government has said that it will totally reorganize the way that cancer care is delivered in this province by placing cancer care centres under the control of regional health boards. The B.C. Cancer Agency says this decision will cause the dissolution of an excellent cancer care and research system, and that it shows the NDP government has contempt for the health care of the people of our province. My question is: will the minister commit to stopping this fragmentation of cancer services which will only hurt the patients of this province?

Hon. P. Ramsey: There will be no fragmentation of services. The B.C. Cancer Agency will be responsible for ensuring that high-quality clinical care is delivered to cancer patients regardless of where they live in British Columbia.

The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.

L. Reid: I trust that the minister will indeed attempt to answer this question. This regionalization of cancer service governance has been conducted in secrecy, is untried and will result in finances being taken away from cancer care. The B.C. Cancer Agency itself says that under an NDP government hell-bent on the New Directions health reform agenda, all provincial health agencies will suffer. How can this minister jeopardize the quality cancer care now received by British Columbia patients with his experimentation in New Directions health care?

Hon. P. Ramsey: There will be no reduction in funding allocated for treatment of cancer modalities in the province. The B.C. Cancer Agency will be responsible for ensuring that high-quality care remains. I would just finally say that our commitment to cancer care, I think, is well demonstrated. I think the member herself was present when the Premier announced last spring $750,000 of new money for cancer research in this province.

VIDEO LOTTERY TERMINALS

D. Mitchell: I have a question for the Minister of Government Services, and it's to do with video lottery terminals, one of the scourges of our modern times. [Laughter.] Video lottery terminals are no laughing matter. This is a machine, a technology, that is encouraging gambling addictions among British Columbians -- young British Columbians, in particular. This new minister's predecessor was encouraging the use and development of legal video lottery terminals and was trying to force them on communities throughout British Columbia.

Is this minister -- who has now had a chance to review the file on his desk, I'm told, and is now ready to answer some serious questions about VLTs -- prepared to encourage, like his predecessor, the spread of video lottery terminals in communities throughout the province?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The hon. member asks an interesting question. Yes, I'm prepared to answer the question. The answer essentially is: I told you I'm new, and you know I'm new, and I'm looking at this issue. This is an important issue for the people of British Columbia. The government made an announcement, and there has been a reaction. There have been hundreds and thousands of letters and telephone calls and many meetings with people across British Columbia. This issue is on the front burner, and in the next few weeks I will be making a decision in terms of the consideration that I've gone through and the deliberations that I'm going through at this time.

D. Mitchell: I know that this minister, when he was a private member of this House, was very, very concerned about the expansion of gaming in our province. Will this minister be able to tell us today whether or not there are any municipalities in British Columbia that have made representations to him in favour of VLTs, and whether the government has conducted any public opinion research to show whether or not British Columbians are in favour of video lottery terminals being in place in municipalities throughout the province?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The hon. member should know that when you do a poll on these kinds of issues, people sit on either side of the fence. There have been polls on this issue. There are people who support the introduction of video lottery terminals; there are people who oppose them. There are charities that have been asking the government of this province to enhance gaming. Would the opposition and the members opposite tell me that they want to take money away from the charities and from the services that are provided to people by the charities?

The important question for us is whether or not the opposition out there has the interests of British Columbians at heart. This is an important issue. A decision will be made after due consideration.

[2:30]

DECISION RE CT SCANNER FOR NORTH ISLAND

W. Hurd: A question to the Minister of Health. Patients in North Island have been waiting since the government was elected for a CT scanner to be placed in their community. The community funding is there; the required specialists are there; the demand is there.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order!

W. Hurd: The only thing that isn't there is a commitment from the minister. Can the minister tell the House why he has

[ Page 13886 ]

delegated a decision like this to the regional health board, knowing that it will be one of the most divisive issues the community has experienced? Why won't he take the responsibility and the accountability to make this decision, as he has been requested to do by his own government member for

Comox?

Hon. P. Ramsey: There is a new era in health decision-making coming to British Columbia. We're asking regions to make decisions about their priorities in health care and how they're going to be delivered. The North Island Regional Health Board will make the decision on where the CAT scan should be placed, and we will fund it.

Hon. M. Sihota tabled the annual report of the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks for the year 1992-93.

Orders of the Day

Hon. J. MacPhail: In Committee A, I call estimates for the Ministry of Education; and in the House, I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 12.

ARTS COUNCIL ACT

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 12; M. Farnworth in the chair.

section 3 (continued).

D. Mitchell: We were on

section 3 before we adjourned earlier today on this bill. The minister was in the process of explaining why we have

section 3(2), which gives the minister the ability to "specify other powers and duties to be exercised and performed by the council." These are additional to the powers and duties that are already listed in the act, presumably, although the minister responded by saying that none of these new powers or duties that he would be wanting to specify would be inconsistent with, perhaps, sections 1 and 2, the

definitions or the establishment of the act.

But I wonder if the minister, just for clarification here, could provide some examples. What is being contemplated here with

section 3(2)? What does the minister have in mind when he wants to put this kind of clause into this bill, which gives him the power to specify whatever other powers or duties should be exercised by the supposedly independent, autonomous council? Why is this necessary?

Hon. B. Barlee: It gives the minister a little latitude, because we might have effects from Internet on the artistic community as a whole, on the cultural community, and this is something. Things that do impact the artistic community and the cultural community at large are evolving so fast that we have to be aware of that. That's a good question, but I think it does give us the latitude, again, to investigate certain areas that we might not otherwise do.

D. Mitchell: One other

section of the bill,

section 3(1)(b), says that the council must "allocate the money appropriated annually for the council by the Legislature." Could the minister just explain what this process of allocation would be? How is this money going to be allocated by the council?

Hon. B. Barlee: The council, of course, will draw up an annual budget on that. They will allocate certain sums according to the decision of council, along with some communication with the ministry to make sure that it is rather evenhanded. Then they will allocate those various funds to the various groups proposed by them.

G. Farrell-Collins: I just returned to the debate, so I'm not sure if the line of questioning I am about to embark upon has already been addressed. If it has, I'm sure the minister will advise me very quickly.

The Chair: As long as it's on

section 3, we'll all be fine.

G. Farrell-Collins: Yes, it will be on

section 3. We'll see how it's going to play. Anyway, I picked up a little of the last comment by the minister, so we may well have canvassed it.

My question here again comes back to the issue of equity across the various arts and cultural communities. If that has been addressed, I would like to hear the answer. I want to see what in here directs the council to ensure that it's one of the priorities, that when they allocate those funds there's some sense of equity.

Hon. B. Barlee: It's a very good question, and it was asked before by the previous member. Equity -- of course, we have to watch it very, very closely. With 15 members on that council, they may or may not represent the smaller sectors of the community. So the artistic community.... We have to be very, very careful that the major players -- the most obvious players would be film, publishing and so on -- do not get the lion's share of the funding provided. So, frankly, we take into consideration other players as well.

Of course, the 15 members of this council will be open to a certain amount of lobbying from the smaller players in the game. Certainly they will be lobbied. As you well know, the arts community is quite adept at lobbying. They are not always successful, but are fairly rational about it.

G. Farrell-Collins: I guess the minister is saying that it's understood in the legislation that equity must be a prime consideration while those allocations take place. I see the minister nodding his head, so I'm sure that that will be passed on to the council, whoever is appointed. I suppose that the minister will watch for the first little while, and I'm sure the artistic and cultural communities themselves will watch carefully to ensure that that's the case. I certainly hope it is.

Another question I have for the minister is the way the allocation is going to occur. In some way it ties back a little bit to the issue that was discussed earlier by the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi. The allotment of funds is going to occur annually, and these groups will receive those funds on an annual basis. Will there be some long-term planning process put in place so that they know they can count on a certain amount of money, so that they aren't going from year to year in sort of a reactive mode?

Rather, there can be some long-range planning, perhaps some investment, perhaps some discussion: this year we can give your group this much; next year we're going to give more money to this group, and you should plan on spending it over a period of time. Is there some way of allowing for that or determining that within this act, or are they just going to have to wait every year for Treasury Board approval of a lump sum?

[ Page 13887 ]

Hon. B. Barlee: That might be preferable or it might not be. We cannot commit the House, so it's an annual appropriation by the House.

G. Farrell-Collins: I realize that, and I guess it's the percentage funding that we were talking about earlier. I guess that the best we're going to get is a commitment from the minister that rather than rising and falling on a radical basis, the funding levels will be sustained over a prolonged period and be relatively stable.

I'm looking at

section 3(1)(c), which talks about the research that could be done. The council supports "arts and culture in British Columbia through the following: (

i) public education, research and advocacy. . . ." Who will be doing that research? Will the council members themselves be doing it, will that research be delegated as part of contracts to various people, or will it be done by the ministerial staff that will be working with the Arts Council?

Hon. B. Barlee: That decision is essentially made by council. We do some independent research in the ministry to see the impact of the cultural community upon tourism, small business and so on. But they may want to go beyond that. So they're at liberty to do that if they so wish.

T. Perry: I missed the second reading debate. Rather than take members' time with a third reading debate, I'd like to indulge for a moment to speak to

section 3, because it's the meat of the bill. I think it's a very good bill, I intend to vote for it, and the minister deserves some commendation for bringing this forward. As I have said before, both inside and outside the House -- unlike many other members, I have dared to say this outside the House as well -- he previously enjoyed a reputation as something of a hick. There were those in the Vancouver cultural community who used to make fun of him. But he has earned his spurs in the last year with the addition of the extra $4 million to cultural funding in Vancouver this year.

He has earned his spurs and the respect of the cultural community provincewide, and I think this bill shows partly why he's not only willing to recognize the importance of culture in British Columbia....

Interjections.

T. Perry: I hear people laughing, but he really has. A few years ago I would have thought that it was laughable, too -- the idea that the member for Okanagan-Boundary would have supported culture, other than mining or prospecting lore. But in fact he has learned. It shows that politicians can learn; even someone like the minister can learn -- and he has really earned his spurs. I can't help but point out that not all members of this assembly feel the same way.

The leader of the Libcreds -- the official opposition -- recently stated his opposition to cultural funding in response to requests to support the federal-provincial infrastructure program, in contrast to the federal Liberal Party, epitomized by Minister David Anderson, who has spoken eloquently about the importance of culture in the economy and of generating a sustainable economy with a lot of jobs that sustain people as well as add vitality to the community. The leader of the Libcreds frankly and utterly opposed that.

I see you pointing to the bill, hon. Chair. I am speaking to

section 3, and I do have a question for the minister coming up. I just wanted to record how strongly I feel about this, and how fervently I intend to vote not only for this

section but for this bill.

The question is: can the minister give us any inkling of his ability to maintain funding stability in this area in the future? Of course, without funding the council would be meaningless. I think it's something that calls for a response also from the opposition parties -- all of them. I mean, we know that there's one party whose members are absent today which doesn't believe in culture unless it's spelled with a K. But there are other members of this House who are at least sympathetic to the arts. One would like to know: are they sufficiently sympathetic that they would actually provide real support, given the difficulty arts organizations have in maintaining funding?

I can't sit down without celebrating the announcement yesterday of the Dance Centre in Vancouver. I know the minister was helpful in pushing that through the federal-provincial infrastructure program, and the dance community in Vancouver, including my own constituency assistant, a former ballet instructor, will be thrilled -- in fact, are thrilled by that announcement even though it doesn't have the unanimous support of the House.

Hon. B. Barlee: I'll accept that left-handed compliment, and it was intended as such. The member for Vancouver-Little Mountain is an old friend of mine, and he is correct...

An Hon. Member: It's a left-wing compliment.

Hon. B. Barlee: It's a left-wing compliment.

... that I do have a background in mining, but I also am still a publisher -- I'm allowed to keep that -- and I still write occasionally when I have time enough. And I still have a TV show. I'm a member of ACTRA.

An Hon. Member: But you are a philistine.

Hon. B. Barlee: But I am a little bit of a philistine, that's true. At least it's noted on the coast that I'm a philistine. I don't think that appellation necessarily applies in the interior of British Columbia.

[2:45]

As for funding from year to year, we've been fairly successful over the last two years, and I think we will continue to be -- if I'm in this rather unique position next year at this time and answering these questions. As other members of the opposition have noted, it is probably the finest position in government as far as ministries are concerned. I don't think there's much doubt about that at all.

Section 3 approved.

section 4.

Hon. B. Barlee: I move the amendment to

section 4(1) standing in my name in the Orders of the Day.

[SECTION 4(1), is amended to read:

The Council consists of not more than 15 members broadly representative of the regions and the artistic communities of British Columbia appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council.]

[ Page 13888 ]

On the amendment.

D. Mitchell: Just so that it's on the record, the minister is moving an amendment that offers an improvement to

section 4, which details who should serve on this Arts Council that we're establishing by this bill. He is moving an amendment saying that the council should consist of not more than 15 members who are "broadly representative of the regions and the artistic communities of British Columbia," and of course they're appointed by cabinet. I'm going to have to ask the minister what he means by this. "Broadly representative" is nice language, but it would be nice to define that a little more clearly. I think this is an improvement over the wording in the original drafted bill. It does get at what we need to do, which is to get more specific about who will serve on this council.

But while I'm at it I might as well ask the minister a question. Will the council be made up of artists as well as non-artists? What will be the balance on the council? What will be the balance of membership on the council between artists and non-artists? I think we need to know that, because we want this council to serve the public interest. We want this Arts Council to function well. I think we want to see working artists, working British Columbia artists, on this council.

But will there be non-artists as well, and what would be the balance between the two groups on the council, which the minister now says with this amendment will be broadly representative of the regions and the artistic communities?

Interjection.

Hon. B. Barlee: No, I think that's a thoughtful question. Firstly, as far as being broadly representative is concerned, I think that sometimes in the equation, various parts of the province have been left out. I think there should be representatives from the far-flung areas of British Columbia, whether it's the Rocky Mountains, Haida Gwaii, the far north, the Okanagan or the Cariboo. I think they all have something to offer. We are trying to extend that, and definitely that is why this amendment was made. The member picked that up rather rapidly. There is no arbitrary quota as such.

Again, I must refer back to the fact that we have to have a bit of ability to choose and to look at the various people and which areas they represent, and whether they represent the broad spectrum of culture at large rather than a specific part of that. There is some thought given to that, as well.

We don't want someone who is.... I won't say we don't want someone, but we will be careful not to go out of our way to choose someone who is specifically an advocate for one specific part of the cultural community. I think that would be a disadvantage to the community as a whole. We are looking at that broad spectrum of representation, as well as a geographic spectrum of representation.

G. Farrell-Collins: As the minister has been talking, I've been going through the bill. Perhaps it's a small point, but in the legislation wherever the word "arts" is mentioned, it appears that "culture" follows immediately behind. Both words are used, not one to the exclusion of the other. I note in the amendment that the minister refers to the artistic community. My assumption would be that the intent is the artistic and cultural community. If it is being stated in the bill, is it the minister's intent to just tidy that up, or does he feel it's fine the way it is?

Hon. B. Barlee: Really, it is not on the amendment as such. We're speaking, probably, on

section 5 or

section 6; essentially what we are doing is jumping ahead slightly. Arts and culture are used interchangeably in the cultural community, and culture, of course, is the broader term. It includes the arts. But many people think of the arts and they don't think of culture, so we are trying to incorporate both rather than saying "the cultural community," where they might not think we are referring to the arts community as well. That's why both are there.

G. Farrell-Collins: There are numerous references to that.

Section 3(1)(

c) talks about supporting arts and culture. It's used repeatedly throughout the bill. Perhaps it's semantics, but I just thought, given the minister is putting the amendment in there, that he may want to just change it so it says the artistic and cultural community. I don't believe it says that. It just says the artistic communities of British Columbia, and perhaps you want to change that to the artistic and cultural communities. It doesn't bother me, but I just thought he might want to parallel what he has done in the rest of the bill. Maybe it was just an omission.

Hon. B. Barlee: Certainly, certainly. It doesn't bother either of us, and I hope that it doesn't bother anybody else who is speaking to this amendment. "The artistic communities," I think, covers that relatively adequately -- not perfectly, but relatively.

D. Mitchell: I think the minister is getting a sense of what kind of contribution opposition members could make if we served on the legislative review committee that brings legislation into this House. We could improve this legislation quite a bit by making it more consistent and explicit.

I would like to ask the minister one further question on this section, which establishes the council, and on the amendment to the section. I asked the minister what the composition of artists and non-artists on the council would be. The minister indicated that he didn't think anyone should serve on the council who was specifically associated with any particular advocacy group on behalf of the community.

I would just like to get some clarification on that, because I might have misunderstood him. It would seem to me that when we get to the next section,

section 5, dealing with remuneration, one of the reasons we might want to be offering honorariums to members of the council is that working artists might be on the council. We know that working artists usually aren't very wealthy, and probably an honorarium would be extremely appropriate. Will we have working artists on the council, and what will be the balance between working artists and non-artists on the council? Is there anything contemplated there?

Hon. B. Barlee: There will be working artists and non-working artists on the council from the cultural community. What I did refer to originally -- I think perhaps the member misunderstood me -- is that I don't want a very, very focused lobbyist. I would find it uncomfortable if there were a very focused lobbyist among those 15 council members. I think they have to bear in mind that they represent the artistic community as a whole, and that's what I'm saying. So I think it goes without saying that that's the route to go; that we must take a very, very careful look and make sure it does represent

[ Page 13889 ]

not only the regions but the artistic community on their own -- all the corners of the artistic community, which would be probably 60 or 70 or maybe 100 groups.

Amendment approved.

section 4 as amended.

G. Farrell-Collins: The minister has made reference to the fact that these people are community.... According to his intent, anyway, they're going to be members of the community -- the arts community -- and they won't be used as a patronage vessel. I know that he's good to his word. I hope that if he moves on to better and greater things -- he says he's happy where he is -- that the following minister follows the same policy. But I do have a question, and it's particularly on

section 4(1). There is no mention here about the length of term of office of these appointments -- how long they'll serve on the board. I'd like to know what the minister has in mind and how he intends to ensure that we don't end up with people that are on there for six, ten, 15 and 20 years, like we sometimes end up with in politics -- people that are there for 20 years doing the same job. Perhaps the minister has some comments on that.

Hon. B. Barlee: That's a logical question. What we have done is stagger the appointments so there'll be a continuing rotation -- one year, two years and three years. The average term would be about two.

L. Boone: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

L. Boone: I'd like the House to welcome, please, Mr. R. Simmerer, a teacher who is here with a group of 14 grade 7 students and several adults. Mr. Simmerer comes from Queen of Angels School in Port Angeles, Washington. I'd like the House to welcome them here today.

G. Farrell-Collins: Can the minister tell me if that structure for appointments is contained in the act? I didn't see it. Did I misread it, or is it in regulations?

Hon. B. Barlee: By the way, before I answer that question, I should say I hope our American cousins from Port Angeles are enjoying British Columbia. It's somewhat the same; we're all on the marvellous coast. The statehouse may differ somewhat from this chamber but not a great deal, I imagine.

To the hon. member, the length of appointment will be set out in the appointing order-in-council.

G. Farrell-Collins: What provisions are made for reappointments? Is this at the direction of the government through order-in-council? Will it be done on an ad hoc basis, depending on who's there, or is there some intention to limit the number of terms?

When I was looking at the act, I thought perhaps a two-year appointment -- staggered -- with the first group, half of them, being for one year and then the other half for two years; stagger that, then, every two years, and have people perhaps serve a limit of two terms, so that we make sure we have some cycle-through of people, and we don't have people giving up their art and becoming Arts Council members, or staying there too long and becoming stagnant. Can the minister tell us what the plan is for that?

Hon. B. Barlee: First of all, I don't think they'd give up a budding artistic career to meet eight times a year for about $175 a day. They would be on pretty short shrift on that. Calculating that, it would be about $1,100 a year -- no, it would be a little bit more than that, but not much -- and trying to survive on $92 a month would be rather problematic.

These will go through the usual order. It will be one year for some of these people, two years for some and three years for some. I haven't really thought that out. I don't think anybody would be there for life, nor would they want to be. We have found that in the other councils we have appointed, after a certain time people say: "I think I've served my time." There are occasional exceptions to that rule. I can think of some exceptions to that rule in Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Of course, people in the arts community tend to revolve a little bit.

G. Farrell-Collins: I'll take the minister's word for it. I think it would be best if it were included in the legislation, and if how those appointments would be cycled were clearer. Some people would be very pleased to serve and would wear it as a little badge of honour, and it may take dynamite to get them out of there after a period of time. Having some experience with people in positions like that.... I'll take the minister's word for it. I do think it would be better to have it in the legislation.

I do have another line of questioning in that regard.

Section 4(2) mentions that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council -- generally the minister -- can appoint the chair and the vice-chair of the council. I feel very strongly on this one that the ministry.... It falls back on the issue of independence that we talked about earlier. If you're appointing 15 good people from right around the province who are representative of the arts community and are from a variety of regions and in a variety of different fields, those people would be best able to determine among themselves who should chair their meetings and who should be the vice-chair.

The reason is that whoever the chair and vice-chair are, that person has to have not just the confidence of the minister but, more importantly, the confidence of the people they're working with on the council.

I would like to move an amendment to

section 4, entitled.... Sorry, I have the wrong one here. It's right in front of me; I should have known it was there.

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: Sure, I'll let the minister answer the question before I move the amendment; that's fine.

[3:00]

Hon. B. Barlee: I can understand why the Opposition House Leader would ask that question. We are following the practice of the Canada Council, for instance, and of Saskatchewan, Manitoba and several other provinces where they do appoint the chair and the vice-chair. That is directly related to the previous question -- from both of you, in fact -- that there should be balance from the chair and the vice-chair. That may

[ Page 13890 ]

not be the case if they are elected by 12 of their peers. If they were elected by 112 of their peers or 250 of their peers, it might be the case.

The Crown is providing the funding for this, and we have to be sure that they are not a very, very strong advocate for any

section of the artistic community at large. I think it would be a significant mistake if we adopted that measure. I feel quite strongly on it, because where they have done this, it hasn't worked. Where they have appointed the chair -- and the Canada Council has decades of experience in this area -- they've found that it does work very well. I wish the member would perhaps rethink that.

G. Farrell-Collins: As we move through the committee stage on this bill, I'm becoming less and less confident that there really is an intent to give this committee some independence. The minister talks about giving them independence, making them representative of the community, and having them make decisions and allocate funds, but at each step of the way there are strings. I can't count how many times in this debate alone the minister has stood up and said: "We're worried that these people might not do their job properly; we're worried that they may represent a group too strongly."

I can understand that concern, but if we're going to appoint 15 people under the guidelines that we've itemized under

section 3, which is that they be broadly based and on a regional basis from the arts and cultural community, I assume that we're doing that because we have some confidence in these people. Too often the government delegates the work but never delegates any of the responsibility and accountability, and never really gives people the opportunity to make those determinations on their own.

This appears to be another example, where we're creating this Arts Council -- a good idea, everybody agrees with that and is in favour of having an Arts Council -- but at the same time we're not giving them the independence to really do anything. All their staffing is going to come from the ministry. They won't be able to appoint their own chair or their own vice-chair. At every step of the way, there are strings that the minister and the ministry will have on that council.

I think the least we could do would be to provide those 15 people -- quality people, I'm sure the minister will appoint -- with the ability to decide who should chair their meetings. If they can't decide that -- if you don't trust them to decide that -- then I doubt very much that we're trusting them to do much of anything. So I do intend to move an amendment to

section 4 -- the new

section 4(2): "The council must designate a member to be the chair and another member to be the vice-chair of the council." I so move.

On the amendment.

D. Mitchell: Just let me speak briefly to the amendment, to let the minister know that I think the amendment has some real merit. We're talking about establishing an independent Arts Council.

The minister has used the language of the Canada Council as a point of reference, and I'm not sure that it's the appropriate point of reference we should be thinking of here. The Canada Council, which has served our country well, has also had some problems over the years. It's been well noted for developing bureaucracy and labyrinthine decision-making. We don't want to replicate the problems associated with the Canada Council here in British Columbia.

We have talked about establishing an independent Arts Council. The minister has already told us that this Arts Council isn't going to have its own staff or its own support services; they're all going to come from the ministry. So concerns already have been expressed, right here in this committee today, about the supposed independence of this Arts Council.

The minister tells us that 15 good, strong members of the general community of British Columbia, including working artists, are going to be appointed by order-in-council to serve on the council. These are going to be, hopefully, among the best and the brightest artists, and people in the business community here in British Columbia, who are going to run this Arts Council. Why could they not choose from among themselves a chair and a vice-chair, as the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove's amendment to this

section contemplates?

They could even be given some direction from the legislation, if we wanted to, to let them know that, as the minister says, no one should be appointed to those positions if they represent only one sector or if they're lobbyists for one sector. But presumably those 15 best and brightest minds on the council would take that into account. They would not want to have this new Arts Council, this body being established by this bill, to be seen as anything less than the very best and objective in terms of the advice it's going to be taking and the decisions it's going to be making.

So I think the amendment has some real merit. My sense is that the member is offering it in a friendly manner. I think it's an improvement to the bill. I encourage the minister to accept this amendment, so we can move on.

Hon. B. Barlee: The member mentioned that it's at least a matter of balance and so on, or a matter of trust. It really is not a matter of trust; it is a matter of getting as close as we can to absolute balance.

As far as the comparison to the Canada Council is concerned, the Canada Council has served the country well; I think there's general acceptance of that. You mentioned that there was empire-building in the Canada Council. We happen to have the figures with us. About 20 percent of the funding of the Canada Council goes directly to administration. In my cultural hat, in that part of the ministry, 5.5 percent goes to administration -- the lowest in the country -- and I think it will remain around that level.

I do think the minister must have the ability to choose individuals who he is confident can be impartially balanced. Remember that this is a free vote in that committee of 15 votes and that if they don't like the inclinations of the chair and vice-chair, they can certainly vote against them -- indeed, they are empowered to do so.

G. Farrell-Collins: It's a small point, perhaps, but I think it's indicative of the paternalistic view of governments in general -- not just this one but a lot of governments: let's pretend we're going to give the council some autonomy; let's pretend we're going to let them allocate the funds the way they want; let's pretend that they're going to let them allocate the funds the way they want. Let's pretend that they're going to actually have some clout -- but we'll make sure that the

[ Page 13891 ]

staffing comes from our ministry; we'll make sure that they have to report to us on a regular.... Well, they should report anyway, but who knows what form those reports are going to take and what we're going to be asking them to do. In this case, they can't even appoint or elect their own chair.

It's a small point, but I think it sends a clear signal to the people that the chair is there because the minister wants the chair there. All the rest of them are appointed, yes, by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, and they come with their abilities and talents, but the chair is there because they're special. They were picked by somebody else, and they have a direct line to the minister; they have better access. I think what you're likely to find is that rather than have the council respect the chair as one of their colleagues who's accountable to them, they'll look at the chair as somebody who represents the ministry.

My sense is that the whole reason this Arts Council Act came into existence is that the arts community is not comfortable having policy and all the issues around arts and culture set by the government, set by the minister. Again, perhaps we're in an isolated situation here, because the minister has, as the member opposite said, "earned his spurs" and is well respected. But that may not always be the case.

As I said, and I've said a number of times in this House, you don't just draft a piece of legislation for one minister or even for one government; you draft a piece of legislation for a long time. Ministers change and governments change, and I'm concerned that we're going to end up with a

section here.... You're going to have a council of 15, and they're going to look to the chair of that council as having direct access to the minister, and to the minister as having direct access to the chair. You won't have that independence.

I think if you're going to choose a group of people to run the council, in order to make that group work well that chair should be accountable and answerable to those on the council, not to the minister. It may be a subtle change, but I think it's a significant change, and it sends a clear message to the council. I think in this case if it's left as it stands it will be a negative message. If the minister were to accept the amendment in the friendly way it's being offered, I think it would be a positive message: that the chair is accountable to the council, not the minister.

Hon. B. Barlee: The members make some salient points; there's not much doubt about that. But I still reflect upon the ability to ensure that there's absolute balance. When I'm talking about absolute balance.... We discussed this very briefly this morning. For instance, I appointed two people to Okanagan University College, and they get paid $5,000 per annum. One of those is a Liberal candidate who ran against me in 1972. I appointed her because I felt that she would be a very good representative of the community as a whole. The other one is a rather prominent individual who is certainly not a New Democrat. Those are the only two appointments I have made in that area.

The council does have the major powers. They allocate that money, essentially. If they do not like what the chair is doing, they will vote against the chair or the vice-chair. But I think there must be that balance on council. With 15 individuals, I think it's part of the responsibility of government to ensure there is a balance. They get the budget; they appoint the funding; they have to report to the House. There are lots of breaks in there.

I know what the member means, but I'm frankly still not convinced that this is the way to go. We thought about this quite carefully. If it were a free vote through the artistic community at large, it might not even work -- I don't know. But I do know that, in the final analysis, I'm responsible to the House, and I would rather do that knowing that this system works to the great advantage of the community at large.

G. Farrell-Collins: I guess my final comments are just that I disagree strongly with the minister's stance on this. I think it's incumbent that the chair, whomever that may be, is accountable to the council, and that if the council isn't happy with the leadership of the chair, it can replace the chair. I think what the minister is setting up is a situation that perhaps not under his guidance, but under the guidance of another minister, could result in great dysfunction of the group if the chair was at loggerheads with the council and didn't have the confidence of the council.

It's true that the minister appoints all 15 members, and that is the control the minister has. I know that the minister should do that, with the guidance of the community. And you will have 15 quality people there. If those 15 quality people can make any decision at all, they should be able to decide who is going to chair their meetings and provide leadership. If they can't decide that on their own, then this whole thing is a charade.

I disagree with the minister's stance. That is why caucuses elect their caucus chair. If the Premier tried to appoint them, there would be you-know-what to pay. It is just a matter of who is accountable to whom. I feel strongly about that. I hope that history will prove me wrong, but the member opposite is also a good student of history and perhaps he'll learn something from this too.

Amendment negatived on division.

Section 4 approved.

section 5.

G. Farrell-Collins: The minister made reference earlier -- I believe in second reading -- to an honorarium being paid to members of the council. In an aside, he also mentioned that he intended for them to meet eight times a year. I believe the figure used was $175 per meeting. There is also provision under

section 5 for travelling and incidental expenses. Could the minister confirm if those numbers are what he is looking at, how he arrived at those conclusions, and what other alternatives he looked at?

[3:15]

Hon. B. Barlee: We went over this very carefully. Members of the council will be paid $175 a day; the chair will be paid $250 per day. These are plus actual and accommodation expenses for the meetings, and there are eight meetings per year. So it is not a heavy blow to the public purse at large. There may be nine meetings, but we anticipate the average will be about eight meetings a year. There are other councils that are similar to this, and all across government the rates for boards, commissions and agencies are set by Treasury Board, as the member well knows.

So it is not out of line; there are not an amazing number of meetings allocated per year. When you look at the total expense of 15 people times $175, plus $250 for the chair, I think it comes within the realm of acceptance. The

[ Page 13892 ]

reason we are doing this is that there are working artists who simply cannot afford to give up that day. So the honorarium is adequate, I think.

G. Farrell-Collins: I'm not questioning the validity of paying people some sort of honorarium for attending meetings. But I'm not clear, and perhaps it stands out there in another piece of legislation that I'm not terribly familiar with.... The minister made reference to the guidelines set out by the department of the Premier's Office responsible for boards, agencies and commissions. Nowhere in the act does it mention the number of days a year they will meet. Is that done somewhere else?

Second, I assume those meetings are one-day meetings. I'm just questioning; I want to make sure that we're not setting up a situation where we have a chair who can claim a per diem rate for work they are doing on behalf of the council. There has been a history, which I won't go into now, of some people being appointed as chairs of various boards, agencies or commissions who then bill us for six days a week at $250 a day, or sometimes higher than that. I just want to make sure that that is not going to happen in this case. I assume that the chair's job is going to be to chair the meetings and that it's not a full-time position, nor is it intended to end up that way.

Hon. B. Barlee: Let me set the member's concerns at rest. First of all, when I look at the other councils I have appointed in both of my ministries -- Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, then this one -- there were 16 people and they got nothing. They got a sandwich for lunch, and 15 out of the 16 are still there. It amazes me. So that says something, doesn't it? Most of those members could certainly well afford to provide their own sustenance, and they met about eight or ten times a year as well.

This means that if they meet eight times a year, it won't be for two days; it would be four times two, which would be eight. We're a little flexible on that. We might go to ten one year and six the next year, so there's some continuity there. I hope that addresses the problems the member had with this.

D. Mitchell: While we're on this

section dealing with remuneration expenses for members of council, the minister has had an amendment approved in this committee today allowing for broad representation on the council from various regions in the province. Considering the fact that members of this council will be coming from all over British Columbia, when and where they meet will be a significant factor. I'm not sure if it's contemplated that the meetings will rotate and be held in different parts of the province. What has the minister budgeted for meetings of the council for the next 12-month period?

He says that he and his staff have gone through this very carefully in terms of the numbers. In this year's budget, which the minister has already had approved for his ministry, what has he budgeted for meetings of this council? While he's at it, and contemplating that this legislation will probably pass, what is the total budget for the British Columbia Arts Council? The minister must surely have budgeted for that in this year's budget. What will be the total budget for the British Columbia Arts Council?

Hon. B. Barlee: The only member of the council who may put in a little more time is the chair, so we are budgeting up to 50 days a year. I would think it would be very unlikely that the $12,500 would eat into it that much, and I would assume it would be significantly less than that.

As far as the other 15 members are concerned, it is based on four meetings of two days annually, with four additional days for travel and preparation, and that was $175 per day. That's $29,400. Additional remuneration for members to appear at conferences was a total of $9,800, which would be about $800-and-something per month on average. Additional travel for members to participate in conferences is $14,000. A newsletter twice a year to the artistic community at large, with four pages and 1,500 newsletters going out, and including the writing of it, is a maximum of $10,000.

The annual report is always a little more problematic because it has to be printed, so that's $5,000. Additional communications, business cards, letterhead, press releases, and so on are $2,500, and total new expenses are $83,200. Current expenses for the existing Arts Board -- general meeting costs for the Arts Board, including travel, are $25,000; expenses and per diems for jury members and advisory committees is $130,000. Total current expenses are $155,000. Total expenses all across the board, including the Arts Board and so on, are $238,200.

Section 5 approved.

section 6.

D. Mitchell:

Section 6 deals with the report and financial statement that the Arts Council will be making. The minister will hopefully be able to live up to the responsibilities of this, because time and again we see colleagues of his on the executive council tabling annual reports for ministries, agencies or boards -- one, two -- very much later than the requirement in the legislation. Just today in the House we saw a ministry annual report tabled for the year 1992-93, or something like that. So hopefully the minister will be able to time the reports as stated in this legislation.

I'd like to ask about

section 6(3), which says: "The council upon request must provide to the minister any information or advice the minister may require." The general gist of the debate we've had, and the concerns that have been put on the record in this debate on this important bill -- Bill 12, the Arts Council Act -- deal with the possible lack of independence of this body, and the minister has spoken at great length about the fact that this Arts Council is going to be independent. The minister's news release that went out to the arts communities throughout the province said that this is going to be an independent body.

Yet a number of concerns have been expressed in debate on this bill dealing with the fact that this Arts Council is not going to have its own staff; it's going to have to rely on the ministry, and the chair is going to be appointed by the minister.

A number of other areas that really raise concerns.... Only time will tell if the arts community and the people of British Columbia are really satisfied that this Arts Council is truly going to be independent. That's the one major concern that has been expressed. I think most of us in this House want to support this legislation, but the concern has been flagged. And no doubt a number of members in this House will be watching closely to ensure that this Arts Council is not manipulated by whichever minister or future minister is responsible to the Legislature for this.

But this section, one of the final sections of this bill, says: "The council upon request must provide to the minister any information or advice the minister may require." How does that square with the independence of the Arts Council?

[ Page 13893 ]

Hon. B. Barlee: I think it squares very well. I think the public should have a watchdog; after all, we are spending public money. That is my job. Therefore if I find the public money is not being well spent, then I will require a business plan. I will be a watchdog. We're not talking about a lot of money, but we are talking about taxpayers' money. That's why that

section is there -- "...any information or advice the minister may require." I may indeed take the chair and the vice-chair to task, saying: "I'm sorry, your expenses are out of line in this area." We must have that provision in there.

Sections 5 and 6 approved.

section 7.

G. Farrell-Collins: Has the minister drafted the regulations to govern this act yet? If so, would he be willing to put those forward so we can all have a look at them in the next few days?

Hon. B. Barlee: This is purely for future consideration; nothing is contemplated at the present time.

G. Farrell-Collins: I just want to clarify that. There are currently no regulations to govern this act, and there are not any intended over the next while, but there may be some in the future. Is the minister saying there's no intent for regulations to be drafted for this bill?

Hon. B. Barlee: Yes, the member restated that correctly.

Sections 7 and 8 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. B. Barlee: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Bill 12, Arts Council Act, reported complete with amendment to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. B. Barlee: I call committee on Bill 14, the Tourism Act.

TOURISM ACT

The House in committee on Bill 14; M. Farnworth in the chair.

section 1.

D. Mitchell: We'll just let the minister's staff take their places. This is a relatively small bill, although a very important bill; there are only four sections to this bill. Under

section 1 we might be able to address most of the concerns, and then, hopefully, we can move on.

This new Tourism Act for the province of British Columbia is something we debated pretty well in second reading in terms of general principles. But there is now an opportunity for the minister to address a few specific concerns. In

section 1, there is one major change, and this is really the most significant change in this piece of legislation. It is

section 1(d), which adds tourism interests to those considered in land use and resource use management decisions in the province.

This is the major change in the legislation. It's probably an area that the minister might want to comment on a little further. It adds an extra interest to any local land use planning. During second reading debate, I expressed a concern that this might add some complexity to land use planning in different parts of the province -- although I think it's valuable; I think the tourism industry should be represented at the table. But I would like to ask the minister: what kind of consultation has taken place with other ministries of government before bringing this piece of legislation forward?

What kind of consultation is taking place -- not only outside of government but inside government -- to ensure that tourism interests will be represented at local land use and management tables in a way that will be constructive?

[3:30]

Hon. B. Barlee: All other ministries, especially the resource ministries, have been consulted at length. Certainly Tourism should have a place at the table in land use planning, for several reasons. First of all, industry at large -- I mean all industry at large, not specifically the tourism sector -- does appreciate this. It does make for long-range strategies that serve every part of the community. It is logical. I sensed that from second reading yesterday -- that it was a very logical sort of way to go.

When I have conferred with the various players in the tourism industry, they are universally pleased with this. We have no major objections from other parts of government -- that is, the other ministries that are concerned with it as well.

D. Mitchell: Could the minister tell us whether or not any staff has been added to the ministry to take into account this new, added responsibility? We now say the Ministry of Tourism is going to be at the table throughout the province of British Columbia when tourism interests need to be championed and when land use decisions and resource management decisions are taking place. Can you tell us what specific resources have been allocated in this year's budget to take account of this new feature in the legislation?

Hon. B. Barlee: As the member well knows, we have the tightest Tourism ministry in Canada, per capita; I must admit that we do have, compared to our second-place competitor, Ralph Klein. He may not know really quite what he's doing there, because he had 130. He now has less. He was thinking of privatizing, which I think is a mistake. We had 70. We have four full-time employees committed to this particular sector.

D. Mitchell: The minister may have to field other questions on this particular area later on in the debate, but I have one specific area that I raised during second reading debate that I'd like to ask him about in relation to

section

Section 1 deals with the duties, powers and functions of the Minister of Tourism in British Columbia under this legislation. I should let the minister know that I've had representation from some constituents of mine, stating that this bill -- this new Tourism Act -- really is so important to the province of British

Colum-

[ Page 13894 ]

bia that we should have a Minister of Tourism who does only tourism work, and the Ministry of Small Business and Culture should be separate. I've had constituents reflect that to me, and I have noticed that there are other members in this House -- other members of the opposition -- who want to see fewer ministries of government. They want to consolidate them and have just six or eight ministries of government, and they want to see a smaller Legislature.

I want to convey to the minister that I have constituents actively involved in the tourism industry, bringing wealth to our province -- entrepreneurs who are doing a good job -- who would like to see a Minister of Tourism who could spend 100 percent of his time on tourism alone and not be burdened with the other portfolios of Culture and Small Business, which are important in their own right.

Having said that, I'd like to ask the minister what this act will do to enhance his abilities to attain one current issue which is before us in British Columbia that is so important. The federal government has established a Canadian Tourism Commission; I referred to this during second reading debate on this bill. The Prime Minister came out to Vancouver just a few months ago to announce this great initiative of a Canadian Tourism Commission, worth $50 million a year in spending, and with 50 full-time staff. The object of this commission is to attract tourism -- tourists and visitors from around the world -- to Canada.

There's a debate now taking place as to where in Canada this commission is going to be located. Heaven forbid that it should be located in Ottawa, or in the pork-barrel in Toronto, or in Quebec to placate the separatists! Because we know that doesn't work. Heaven forbid that that should happen! But wouldn't it be a great signal to the rest of the country, to British Columbians and to tourists from around the world if that commission's headquarters were located right here in British Columbia?

I think it would make sense to have it right in Vancouver, a city that is known around the world and is positioned on the Pacific Rim -- the greatest emerging tourism market in the world. British Columbia understands the importance of tourism perhaps better than any other province.

I'd like to ask the minister what he is he doing.... Are Bill 14 and the duties, powers and functions being conferred on this minister going to help him provide the resources necessary to ensure that the Canadian Tourism Commission is located in British Columbia? There's a private sector initiative, which the minister is familiar with, taking place right now that's trying to get this commission located here in British Columbia. I think it would be a big boon to us.

It would be a symbolic gesture of the first order, and I'd like to know if this bill is going to help this minister get that commission located here in British Columbia. If it does, I think it deserves the support of every living British Columbian.

Hon. B. Barlee: Actually, we've done our due diligence on that as well. We not only lead the country in tourism growth, as the member well knows, but we are also aware that we are actually the heavy hitter in tourism in Canada. The dollar-a-year-man to the Prime Minister is a man called Judd Buchanan. Judd Buchanan happens to be a very straight shooter, and he has cooperated with us absolutely fully. We have requested that the headquarters of the CTC be in Vancouver, for several reasons. We are on the most buoyant economy in the world: the Asia-Pacific and the Pacific coast of North America.

There is a meeting of the CTC on May 15 in Vancouver, and the decision on where the headquarters of the CTC goes will be on the agenda. We have also indicated our wishes to the federal government, so we've covered that base very, very well.

I would think that Vancouver and Victoria, who are in the top 20 cities in the world to visit.... It's really quite astonishing: both of them are in British Columbia -- and they haven't looked over the rest of British Columbia, because there would be other cities that would probably fit into that category as well. We have worked very diligently on that; we've informed the federal government. I must admit that the federal government has a lot of time for us; they listen to us very carefully.

D. Mitchell: I'd like to compliment the minister for the encouraging words he has just stated. I know that he's devoting some of his deputy minister's time to the 26-member commission that's been established. I know that his deputy minister, along with the president of Tourism Vancouver, Mr. Rick Antonson, is now going to be a member on this 26-member Canadian Tourism Commission.

But I'd like to ask the minister how familiar he is with the work that's being done by a private sector group based in Vancouver, the Canadian Global Tourism Initiative, which is co-chaired by the general manager of the Hyatt Regency hotel in Vancouver, Mr. Mark Andrew, and by the president and CEO of the Great Canadian Railtour Co., Mr. Peter Armstrong. They've taken this initiative, separate and apart from any efforts of the government, to ensure that the Canadian Tourism Commission is located in British Columbia because it just makes so much sense for us; tourism is emerging as our number one industry in British Columbia.

I'd like to ask the minister: is he familiar with the initiative of the Canadian Global Tourism group? If the minister is expressing optimism, can he tell us what the process is going to be? When will the decision be made, and what chances are there that British Columbia will be the headquarters for the Canadian Tourism Commission? How does he rate our chances?

Hon. B. Barlee: I rate our chances very high. I think they'd be making a significant mistake if they didn't give it to us. My ADM of Tourism is on that committee, by the way. My DM is on the CTC, along with two other British Columbians, not just one; Rick is one and Joe Houssain is the other. We have three representatives there, so we're well represented all the way across the board. I don't know how many members are on that committee altogether.

Interjection.

Hon. B. Barlee: There are about 25, so we have three out of 25, which is about right. We have three very good members there.

As far as the one hat you referred to, there's not much doubt about it: by the turn of the century, tourism will probably be the leading business in British Columbia as far as revenue is concerned. There are people who would debate that point, but tourism is so vast that it may eventually become a single, stand-alone ministry. I don't think that's in the immediate future.

The official opposition wants to reduce the numbers of ministries from 18 to 12. I frankly don't know how they can do

[ Page 13895 ]

that. I know that I'm extremely busy with the three hats I wear: Culture, Small Business and Tourism. I really do not know how they could do it and serve the public well.

R. Chisholm: The minister has stated that there won't be any more FTEs with the adoption of this bill, and I would just like to lead on that a little further. I'd like to talk about the land claims treaty negotiations that are underway in British Columbia. Does the minister foresee using

section 1(1)(

d) to get his ministry a seat at these tables?

Hon. B. Barlee: That's a good question. The government does hire a number of negotiators. If those negotiators want input from my ministry, whether it's Culture or Tourism or even Small Business, they will make that request of us. I don't think it's necessary to have an extra person, or an extra two or three FTEs. That would be a waste of taxpayers' money, because that's adequately handled by the negotiators now.

R. Chisholm: I gather, then, that you are saying that you won't have anybody at the table. Pursuing that same line of questioning, have any of the aboriginal communities approached the ministry to have you at that table?

Hon. B. Barlee: There would be two major negotiators at the table: the government representing the third parties; and the aboriginal community, representing themselves, their band or their nation. Frankly, we would not expect to be and we have not been approached by any of the major bands or major nations in the province to represent them at the table; nor should we be.

R. Chisholm: Finally, on the same subject, could the minister comment on whether or not the Ministry of Tourism would have jurisdiction over future land claim territories and the establishment of scenic corridors? One last question: could the minister comment on whether or not he has had any communications with first nations on whether he would like to work with them on establishing future scenic corridors? While he is on it, how much has his ministry done in terms of establishing tourism strategy with our first nations peoples?

Hon. B. Barlee: We realize that in certain markets in the world, for instance, the first nations are a significant attraction. I think this is what the member is alluding to. Certainly the Old West has an amazing attraction to many Germans in that higher-income group. There are something like 300 or 400 clubs in Germany, and these clubs travel to North America to relive the Old West. Whether it's in Saskatchewan, Alberta or British Columbia, they do this, and they're quite willing to spend vast sums of money. So what we have done.... We have an inventory of the product in British Columbia.

That would be Kwakiutl, perhaps Haida, Interior Salish, Coast Salish, Dene, Tsimshian and so on. Looking over that very, very well, we've also had conferences with a number of the players in the Indian nations who are interested in following this route of international tourism and drawing extra -- what I call new -- funds or money into their particular communities.

R. Chisholm: One part of the question you didn't answer was whether the Ministry of Tourism would have jurisdiction in the future over land claim territories when we talk about the establishment of scenic corridors. We have it in other areas, and I'm just wondering if Tourism would have it in this area.

Hon. B. Barlee: No, this would not be under our purview; this would be under the purview of the negotiators assigned by the government.

R. Chisholm: Still on the

section dealing with new powers for the minister in terms of having a seat at a land use planning table -- or whatever -- I'd like to ask a couple of questions on behalf of the Clayoquot Sound Aquaculture Association and the aquacultural industry in general. I'm going to send across a piece of correspondence dated January 18, to the minister from the Clayoquot Sound Aquaculture Association, on the question of scenic corridors -- the advisory process for Clayoquot Sound.

I would like to pause for just a moment for the minister to see the correspondence, and then ask the questions if permissible.

[3:45]

The minister will note that they were having serious concerns with the process. Could the minister first explain to the House what this advisory group's role was, how it was established and how this relates to his new powers in this bill under

section 1(1)(d)?

Hon. B. Barlee: This process is ongoing; there's no doubt about that at all. Perhaps I indicate from the tone of the letter that some of these individuals are not very happy with the way the process is going, and I understand that. The Clayoquot Sound Aquacultural Association is interested in doing very well in their specific area of enterprise,

whereas we are more interested in scenic corridors. We have to bear in mind that there has to be a balance between aquaculture and the scenic corridors. It would be very logical for them, certainly, to lobby the opposition parties, which they have done. I think the member fully understands that. This process is still ongoing in consultation with various groups, including the Clayoquot Sound Aquacultural Association.

R. Chisholm: I'd like to read into the record a few paragraphs of this letter of January 18, 1995, from the aquaculture industry in Clayoquot Sound, dealing with the scenic corridors discussions. This group says:

"The scenic corridors advisory group does not operate as a public advisory process. The agenda, the information presented and the results are controlled by the government representatives who should be facilitating the process.

"The process is not objective. Double standards are being used to evaluate the visual impacts from tourism and all other activities. Tourism activities are being given essentially exclusive access to large areas without clear rationale -- other activities that are mutually compatible and do not diminish the scenic quality are not permitted in significant proportions of the sound. The lack of objectivity is also resulting in the lack of adherence to the terms of reference."

It goes on to say:

"Concerns and comments from advisory group members are being completely ignored. Specifically, concerns raised by aquaculture representatives were not directly answered during the SCAG meetings. These concerns were included in a letter and sent to the two co-chairs of the process, requesting a reply.

[ Page 13896 ]

Nearly six weeks later, this letter has not been answered, yet a draft report was completed and a deadline for this process fast approaches. A copy of our letter, which details our concern, is attached" -- which I gave to the minister.

My question is: where does the Tourism Act provide direction on how scenic corridors are to be established? This

section we are debating gives the minister a mandate to be part of land use planning, but there is no mandate or direction to give authority to the need for scenic corridors.

Hon. B. Barlee: Addressing that, as I said before, there has to be, hon. member, a certain amount of balance. If I remember correctly, and of course I was in charge of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food several years ago.... Certainly I do remember from my colleague, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, that nine new licences have been given to the aquacultural association. Whether it is Clayoquot or not, I doubt it would be specifically in that area. Certainly we are addressing these issues. I think the member has probably seen some of the impact of the aquacultural association upon the shoreline of British Columbia. Clayoquot is one of the grand areas of British Columbia.

Again, the Clayoquot Sound Aquacultural Association certainly is trying to lobby government, and that's the right way to go about it. But we in government, specifically in Tourism, must bear in mind that we're looking down the road ten or 15 or 20 years. There has to be a long-term strategy. This is part of the way to address a long-term strategy. Not everyone gets their way; there's no doubt about that at all.

R. Chisholm: On the same line, hon. minister -- and I'm going to repeat a little -- there is no direction that other needs be considered in establishment of scenic corridors. I repeat the sentence from the industry, and I quote:

"Tourism activities are being given essentially exclusive access to large areas without clear rationale -- other activities that are mutually compatible and do not diminish the scenic quality are not permitted in significant proportions of [Clayoquot] Sound. The lack of objectivity is also resulting in a lack of adherence to the terms of reference."

My question to the minister is: if we give this new authority to the minister under this section, how will he deal in future with this sort of concern that was raised this January by the aquaculture industry?

Hon. B. Barlee: Draft 2 is at the printer right now. Each one of the groups at the table will have an opportunity to comment on that draft -- and it is only a draft.

Sections 1 to 4 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. B. Barlee: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Bill 14, Tourism Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I call committee on Bill 2.

BUDGET MEASURES IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 1995

The House in committee on Bill 2; D. Lovick in the chair.

section 1.

D. Mitchell: I have a brief question for the minister on this amendment to the corporation capital tax. I wonder if she could offer a brief explanation of why this particular amendment is being brought in at this time. Could she also explain why more significant amendments aren't being brought in, even going so far as to repeal the corporation capital tax at this time? We had some references to this during second reading debate. The minister really hasn't answered those questions, and I think now would be an appropriate time.

Hon. E. Cull: We did discuss the matter during second reading debate -- in fact, in both my introductory remarks and my closing remarks. The member may not have been in the House or have had a chance to review Hansard; I'll repeat very briefly what I said in my closing remarks. The budget consultation this year showed very clearly that people -- whether they were from the business community or from labour; whether they were local government leaders or just ordinary folk -- who came out to talk to me about the 1995 budget said that this was not the year to make tax cuts. In fact, if we had eliminated it entirely, we would have had a deficit this year instead of a small surplus.

I think all members have been urging the government to balance its books and achieve a surplus budget, and to not continue making tax cuts or other spending decisions that would not allow us to have a balanced budget. This year, because of the advice we received through the prebudget consultation, we elected to pay down debt and not cut taxes further.

This particular change, though, essentially brings our corporation capital tax into compliance with changes that were made to the federal income tax laws, so that a number of changes were required. This was announced by me and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources last year.

F. Gingell: I was going to let

section 1 pass, because I appreciate what it does, which is, purely and simply, to deal with an anomaly; now the interest, as it's earned, is added to the fund to be excluded, like the fund is. But I can't allow the minister's remarks about a balanced budget to pass. Clearly, you haven't repealed the corporate capital tax. You don't have a balanced budget. Your accounts are flimflammery. There are $337 million of expenditures in the British Columbia Transportation Financing Authority. That is not included, but in the years to which you make comparisons it was included.

You've included $250 million of income, supposedly from the sale of some of the downstream benefits of the Columbia River Treaty, which are not income of 1995-96, whatever opinions you may get from KPMG Peat Marwick. The auditor general is correct: they are not revenues of this year. You don't have a balanced budget, and that's why you haven't repealed the corporation capital tax. You're just living up to the promises you previously made. I would be interested to know if the minister has any comment on that.

[4:00]

The Chair: Hon. member, we have canvassed general principle in second reading. Indeed, I believe you gave that

[ Page 13897 ]

speech in second reading debate. I don't think the minister would be in order to respond. We are in committee stage now. Having said that, I'll go directly to the member for

Richmond-Steveston.

A. Warnke: I have just a very quick question about the rationale for (f)(ii). Maybe I'm off base here, but I just want some clarification or the rationale for (f)(ii): "...any security posted by the corporation under

section 10 of the Mines Act that is not deducted under subparagraph (i)...." Could a rationale be applied there?

Hon. E. Cull: Subsection (f)(ii) is in the existing legislation. The entire

section is being replaced here, but only subsection (

i) is new. The other was already there.

A. Warnke: Maybe I was not clear. I guess what I'm getting at is that there appears to be some sort of conflict or contradiction. Nonetheless, I will just accept what the minister has said about that.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

F. Gingell: Could the minister please advise us for what time period this $270 million in additional borrowing approval will fund the capital expenditures anticipated by B.C. Ferries? Does the minister have any breakdown of what the $270 million will be spent on?

Hon. E. Cull: The increased borrowing limit will fund some portion of the ten-year capital plan for the ferries, to at least March 1997.

F. Gingell: Can you identify which portions of the ten-year capital plan are going to be funded by this $270 million?

Hon. G. Clark: This is a borrowing limit which we may or may not reach. This allows for the full funding of the ten-year capital plan through the conventional means. If we do any private sector partnerships, or otherwise, that might mitigate the borrowing requirements.... For example, there are three high-speed catamarans, which the member is familiar with -- I think they're about $60 million each.

There is provision in the capital plan for one conventional ship a year, which can range from $17 million or $18 million for a century-class 100-car ferry to the larger Queen of Prince Rupert, which is required, and that's about $70 million.

In addition, there is the Duke Point terminal and the Duke Point road, which is another $70-odd million; the renovation of the terminal at Horseshoe Bay, including extra parking required just for the Sunshine Coast; the renovation of Departure Bay, although that's very modest, to accommodate the fast ferries; some more passenger service terminals; and renovation of the other terminals throughout the system.

As the member knows, the ten-year capital plan is a very significant, rational plan which looks out over ten years. This provides the funding for it. It's no secret that I have been quoted in the press -- and I have no problem saying that here today -- that we're looking at possibilities for private sector participation. There's a lot of interest in the Duke Point terminal and a build-own-operate-transfer arrangement -- a bought arrangement which we are actively seeking to explore -- which may allow the private sector to take some of the risk and therefore some of the debt. Similarly, there is a lot of international interest in something similar to the three fast ferries.

The short answer is that this increase in the debt limit will allow the full ten-year funding of the capital plan. We will make every effort, of course, to see if we can minimize that and do things in alternative financing ways, etc.

F. Gingell: Could the minister advise the committee what the borrowings of B.C. Ferry Corporation were at March 31, 1995?

Hon. G. Clark: As of March 31, 1995, it was $419 million.

F. Gingell: As the Minister of Employment and Investment knows, I have some concerns about the fast-ferry project that deal primarily with the issues of the ability to meet schedules, very busy waters, and some environmental concerns. I wrote to him back in December; I haven't had a response yet.

Hon. G. Clark: I recall the correspondence. I thought that a full briefing was offered to the members, which might take place.... The member is shaking his head in the negative, so I'll ensure that that takes place.

The member raised some very interesting questions about the fast ferries -- almost all not accurate, but obviously legitimate questions. The one area where there is some discussion is on the environmental side, which I was surprised to get from the member, and which we take very seriously. I'm certainly happy to canvass all of us in the House and I am fully briefed on it. But I think it would be appropriate to have a detailed, full review on the fast-ferry program particularly. We have a detailed business case now, which I'd be happy to provide, as well as others.

But some of the key assumptions in parts of the letter, from memory, aren't accurate, and some of the criticism, particularly from Mr. Ward here on the Island, is based on certain assumptions that we don't believe to be accurate.

I'll tantalize members with just one comment, and that's on the environmental side. There's a lot of debate and division around gas turbines versus diesel engines. Gas turbines consume something like 30 percent more fuel, which obviously has an impact environmentally. Diesel has other challenges, and generally speaking, the corporation is working on trying to accomplish this with traditional diesel engines as opposed to next-generation gas turbine engines. That's partly a technical debate and partly a technological priesthood debate, and depending on your assumptions, it has a big difference on environmental implications.

I'll make sure that the member's letter is answered within the next week, and that a full briefing is offered to the member. I know other members have had or are about to have briefings on the fast-ferry program in particular.

The Chair: I just remind both the minister and the member that this debate is ex cathedra. So I....

Hon. G. Clark: I'm sorry: is ...?

The Chair: Ex cathedra. It's wildly out of order at this stage, so I hope we will just pose this question....

[ Page 13898 ]

F. Gingell: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm not quite sure what the instructions were, but anyway....

Is the minister suggesting that the Canadian Coast Guard has dropped its concerns or its disallowance for bidding of passenger ferries to be fuelled by compressed natural gas?

The Chair: Member, I'm sorry that my last instruction was not clear. I was simply making the point that the debate was moving into areas that are not really subsumed under this bill, and I would caution members that we must be in order on this particular item. Would you care to try again?

F. Gingell: May I put the position to you that if we can convince the minister not to proceed with the fast-ferries project, we might even convince him to reduce this anticipated borrowing from $730 million to some figure that's somewhat less?

The Chair: That would have been a legitimate mission in second reading. Minister?

Hon. G. Clark: First, I want to make a correction. I apologize because I inadvertently said that the debt limit level covers a full ten-year capital plan. It does not, entirely. As is appropriate, this is corrected from Finance and Ferries staff. Over time, these plans are obviously.... You can't entirely budget for something ten years out, because the costs are different, etc.

This covers the fast-ferry plan, the Duke Point redevelopment and capital rehabilitation, and it allows for some of the first few years of the one-ship-a-year replacement program, if you will -- that's crudely put, but I mean the replacement and expansion program. Depending on our ability to pursue private sector partnerships, that might have to be a few years out; there may have to be some revisiting. So I apologize, to correct the record.

Section 2 approved.

section 3.

F. Gingell: I'm sure the minister continues to be inundated, as MLAs are, with the concerns of elderly people living in homes they've owned for many years that, through unusual circumstances in the real estate market, have caused their so-called values to be increased. Has the minister given any thought to or looked at the issue of whether this particular tax, which is not really progressive but is regressive, is perhaps inappropriate? Has he given consideration to pulling out the homeowner grant clawback?

Hon. E. Cull: Given the focus this year in the budget on balancing the books and paying down debt, we have rejected any major tax cuts at this time. We looked at a number of tax reduction proposals; none of them was pursued, because of other priorities. This particular amendment makes sure that 95 percent of B.C. homeowners continue to receive the full homeowner grant, and that an adjustment has been made every year to maintain that percentage.

F. Gingell: I have one last question then. If you were ranking proposals to reduce taxes in the future, how high would you put this particular issue in that ranking?

Hon. E. Cull: I don't think I could do that, because the thing I've learned in two budgets is that the tax concerns change from year to year. What might be considered a low ranking this year could be a higher ranking next year because of the economy, federal changes and all kinds of things. We continue to review taxes each year for proposed changes or reductions. This one will be looked at as a benefit to homeowners when we start to look at serious tax reductions again.

[4:15]

Sections 3 to 5 inclusive approved.

section 6.

F. Gingell: Could the minister give me some assurance that this really doesn't change anything? There isn't any point in going through a rather long and complex calculation to see what this does, but all you're doing is providing for these reclamation trusts to be sitting in a tax-free status. Is that correct?

Hon. E. Cull: The income in the trust has always been subject to tax. Prior to these amendments, that was not deductible from the overall taxation. This actually improves their tax situation by making it deductible.

F. Gingell: One could truly call it the mine's own registered retirement reclamation plan.

Hon. E. Cull: Actually, no, because in an RSP, your income is obviously tax-sheltered; your earnings within an RSP are tax-sheltered.

F. Gingell: I would suggest that's what this does.

Hon. E. Cull: No. I guess the member didn't hear clearly my answer to the last question. The income, the earnings, in the trust have always been taxable. What this now does is provide for a deduction before the calculation of other taxes.

F. Gingell: If this provides for the deduction, then surely that's the same thing as sheltered income.

Hon. E. Cull: Maybe the easiest way to provide more information to the member -- because this is a very complicated tax issue -- is to refer him to the press release from August 31, 1994, which I will make available to the member. The contributions to the mine reclamation trust are now tax-deductible. This will reduce the income taxes for the mining company, but earnings within the trust have been and remain taxable.

F. Gingell: But if those earnings, which I presume belong to the corporation that owns the fund, are left in the fund -- i.e., the earnings are made, they come into the hands of the corporation and are paid back into the fund as part of the contribution -- then they would be tax-deductible also. Is that not correct?

Hon. E. Cull: Previously, the only time you could deduct money that was in the trust from income for taxation purposes was when you spent the money. Now you can deduct it when you put it in. That is what is deductible: the contribution into the trust.

Sections 6 and 7 approved.

[ Page 13899 ]

section 8.

F. Gingell: I guess I don't have any problems with any of these sections, which really are purely and simply ensuring that transactions not intended to be originally taxed don't get caught into the trap. But the minister will remember that last year, when we dealt with the change of the base of the property transfer tax, during second reading I broached the suggestion to the minister that the old high-ratio financing looked after all the first-time buyers and was in fact a fairer and better exemption.

Now that we're one year down the road, can the minister advise the committee how much greater the collection of property transfer tax was in the fiscal year just ended than it would have been with the exemption being for high-ratio financing rather than first-time buyers?

Hon. E. Cull: I may not be able to answer the question exactly the way the member has asked it, but I can tell him that under the old program, which cost $13 million for the exemption, 17,000 home purchasers benefited from the old high ratio. Under the new program, 19,000 people benefited last year, and the cost was $26 million.

F. Gingell: When one thinks that through, am I correct in coming to the conclusion that the increase in the number of people means two things -- first of all, that there may have been more homebuyers? It would be interesting to see the number of total transactions in 1994-95 versus 1993-94 to know whether 17,000 up to 19,000 is the same percentage or the same ratio. The second matter, I guess, is a conclusion that first-time buyers tend to have more money to put down on a transaction. They would not have been exempt under the old rules, and they become exempt because they are first-time buyers.

You have the second group of people with little resources, who are second-time buyers and who are now being caught. You must have had some analysis done. Are they the conclusions?

Hon. E. Cull: While there certainly are situations of second-time buyers who have fewer resources than first-time buyers, that is the exception, not the rule. Usually, once someone has got their resources together to acquire a home, they purchase different homes as they move through their life cycle, and they generally have more resources to put towards the acquisition of second and third homes. But I think the increases are particularly notable, because there were 2,000 more people who benefited, despite the fact that we had a 20 percent reduction in sales last year.

Even in the case of the reduced sales, we still saw more people benefit. Of course, the benefits that were provided to those first-time homebuyers were generally larger than under the old program. Very clearly, the objective of the government in changing this legislation last year was to make it easier for families to get that first home so that we could encourage home-ownership in the province. I think with more people benefiting, we've done that overall.

Sections 8 to 10 inclusive approved.

section 11.

F. Gingell: My questions are going to be from ignorance. When the provincial government requires Crown corporations to make grants in lieu of taxes to other government agencies, those taxes are based on the total tax bill -- i.e., you don't say: "This is the municipal portion of the taxes." You only give a grant to cover that and leave the school tax portion out of it. Is that correct?

Hon. E. Cull: These are grants in lieu of provincial school taxes, so this is the provincial school tax that's affected here. Some municipalities had determined that the existing legislation wasn't strong enough to require them to pass on those taxes to the province that they collected on our behalf. Because they were for provincial school purposes, assessed for those purposes, we wanted to ensure that the money went where it was supposed to go.

F. Gingell: Yes, I realize that. I'm sorry I didn't make my question clear. Perhaps if I dealt with the question of a federal grant that's dealt with under subsection (a).... The grant that the granting organization makes -- whether it be CN or whoever; Canada Ports Corporation would be a good example -- does not clearly show the difference between the grant that is considered to be municipal taxes and the grant that is considered to be school taxes.

Hon. E. Cull: The member is correct; they are broken down that way.

F. Gingell: They are broken down that way. So what this does is ensure that the school portion passes through the municipality and comes back to the province. I understand that, and I expected that to be the answer, which is, I guess, why I started on the provincial side. In the case of grants in lieu of taxes being made by provincial organizations, whether they be Crown corps or whatever, you still include a portion for school taxes even though they are going to come back to yourself.

Hon. E. Cull: That's correct. And most of these taxes which we're trying to clarify here are provincial grants in lieu of taxes.

Section 11 approved.

section 12.

F. Gingell: I just want to stand up and say to the minister that I'm really pleased that her ministry has listened to the concerns. A very mixed-up situation existed prior to these provisions being brought in. I certainly hope that these changes accomplish what it is that we all want to see sorted out.

Sections 12 to 18 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

[4:30]

Hon. E. Cull: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

[ Page 13900 ]

Bill 2, Budget Measures Implementation Act, 1995, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. E. Cull: I call second reading of Bill 15.

REAL ESTATE AMENDMENT ACT, 1995

(second reading)

Hon. E. Cull: I move that this bill be now read a second time.

Hon. Speaker, this bill proposes a number of amendments to the Real Estate Act. For the most part, these amendments reinforce and supplement existing requirements of the act to ensure protection of the public in real estate matters. The major amendment in this bill would regulate the marketing of undivided or shared interests in land or buildings. The amendments are aimed at the recent proliferation of condominium-like developments in which purchasers buy a shared interest in an existing building or in bare land.

These quasi-condominiums raise a number of serious concerns. Purchasers of shared interests may not understand what they are purchasing and may receive less information about their investments than purchasers of comparable housing. These interests are not condominiums, where the owners have statutory rights, obligations and remedies.

Because the disclosure statement requirements of the Real Estate Act do not apply to shared interests, there has been no requirement for the developer to prepare, file and distribute a disclosure statement to provide prospective purchasers with full, true and plain disclosure of the details of their investment. Nor have the purchasers of shared interests had the benefit of the other consumer protection provisions of the act, such as a cooling-off period in which to reconsider a decision to purchase.

In addition, the municipal approvals required in the case of ordinary condominium conversions, subdivisions and bare-land strata developments do not apply to shared-interest developments. As a result, local government control over the supply of rental housing and over land use and development is being eroded. Furthermore, there is no requirement that buildings converted under such a scheme meet current building standards, as is the case for condominium conversions.

These amendments to the Real Estate Act remedy these inequities in the real estate market by requiring the developers of shared interests in both existing buildings and bare land to distribute a disclosure statement to prospective purchasers, to meet building standards and to obtain local government approval. The amendments are intended to ensure purchasers receive the same level of disclosure and that shared-interest developments are subject to the same kinds of municipal approval presently required for condominiums, cooperatives and subdivided land.

Several related amendments close similar gaps in the marketing requirements of the act by extending the disclosure and other consumer protection requirements to long-term leases and to cooperative associations involving partnership arrangements.

The bill also makes public protection amendments to the provisions of the act which regulate real estate licensees. Under current provisions, property managers who collect rent moneys must be licensed and are therefore subject to the educational, bonding and insurance requirements of the act. The amendments require that persons engaged in similar activities, such as the collection of condominium fees or short-term rental moneys, be similarly licensed.

Another consumer protection amendment deals with disclosure of agency relationships by licensees unknown to a prospective purchaser. The real estate agent, the realtor, may actually have a duty to disclose confidential information to the vendor, and often the person using that real estate agent may not be aware of exactly who the realtor is working for. The amendment will improve the information available to purchasers and vendors by requiring that the licensees disclose to these persons exactly whose interests they will be representing.

Other amendments will tighten the handling of moneys by real estate licensees. Real estate trust funds will be required to be held within the province to ensure that the funds remain within the regulatory ambit of the act. A related amendment would protect the public by stipulating that real estate moneys may only be paid to third parties in the transaction with the written consent of the principals.

The bill also contains amendments to the enforcement powers of the superintendent of real estate. Currently the superintendent has the power to conduct warrantless inspections of any person believed to have engaged in a real estate transaction. In order to ensure that these powers accord with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and to reflect the superintendent's current practice, the amendments will limit these powers to inspections of licensees or former licensees.

Finally, the bill contains housekeeping amendments to clarify the corporate status of several corporations established by the act and to replace some outdated references to the superintendent of insurance.

D. Schreck: In my mind, this bill represents far more than just housekeeping amendments to plug loopholes. This bill shows part of what politics is all about. In the absence of the power to fix this problem, we have some unscrupulous developers being able to prey on uninformed purchasers and cause enormous uncertainty, with the eviction of tenants.

I have more than 200 tenants in my constituency, many of them in their seventies and eighties, who are worried about whether they are going to have a place to live as a result of the building they live in being registered for sale as undivided interest. It is only as a result of the introduction of this legislation that those tenants again feel some comfort and security. There have been tenants in two other buildings on the North Shore who have gone through the anxiety of not knowing whether the property would be sold out from under them and they would be subjected to harassment.

I believe that one was very close to the boundary between West Vancouver-Garibaldi and West Vancouver-Capilano. I think it's just into the West Vancouver-Capilano side. I regret very much that we did not have the powers to protect those purchasers and those tenants at that time. Largely as a result of the high-profile struggle regarding that building, legislative work began to deal with this loophole.

While the four buildings in my constituency will be protected by the statute, there is considerable uncertainty as to whether tenants in a building located in North Vancouver-Seymour will be protected by these amendments.

I put it to you that all tenants have protection under the Residential Tenancy Act. Even if these amendments do not

[ Page 13901 ]

capture that building near Capilano College in North Vancouver, the tenants should take some comfort that the Residential Tenancy Act will still protect them. In particular, what I mean by that is that purchasers of undivided interest are not buying a strata title suite. Purchasers of undivided interest are buying a share in a building; they become a shareholder in the overall property, not the owner of one unit in what we think of as a strata title building.

As a consequence of that, people who purchase through this loophole that now exists may be quite surprised to find that they have no legal power to take possession of their suite. While the tenants who are having their building sold out from under them are going through enormous anxiety, they then have to worry about whether they're going to have fights on standards of maintenance, on bylaw questions, on suites being left empty and sold next to theirs, or on how the structure of the building is going to be managed.

In other words, they're going to have enormous uncertainty, which they don't need, even though at the end of the day they may be able to assert their rights through the Residential Tenancy Act.

It is far better if no one is put through that kind of uncertainty. This legislation plugs the loophole that allows some developers to put tenants through that uncertainty and then some time down the road purchasers find that it is really they who have been the victims. Purchasers who buy into undivided interest -- or at least the people I have spoken to on the North Shore who have bought such units.... In one building I can think of near the Westview interchange, one was sold as undivided interest, and people somehow think that they have rights equivalent to a strata title owner. And they don't.

They aren't eligible for the homeowner grant. They cannot obtain conventional financing. If any informed purchaser were to look at buying their contract and their interest in the building, I believe responsible legal counsel would tell those purchasers: "Don't touch this. There's a reason it looks like an incredibly good deal. It is because you are not getting the equivalent of buying a strata title building."

What this legislation does is protect potential purchasers of buildings that may be sold as undivided interest. It does so by requiring the municipality to approve the sale as an undivided interest, in the same way the municipality would approve the stratification of existing rental housing stock. It does so by enabling the municipality to require that the building be brought up to Building Code standards. It does so by requiring the filing of a prospectus with the superintendent of real estate and that this prospectus be made available to potential purchasers.

I put it to you that no units, for any practical purposes, will be sold if they have to jump through those hoops. It's not that the hoops are bureaucratic; it's that the hoops impart the knowledge that it's such a bad deal -- that you would be taking an extremely high risk if you were to buy into such a building. As a result, the potential purchasers will be protected.

The tenants, who would otherwise be victimized and have to take their chances on whether the Residential Tenancy Act will protect them or not, will have the security that they don't have to go through that hassle and fight arbitration by arbitration and case by case with people who may like to force them out of their building so they can take their suite on some sort of a scam.

So I say this legislation reflects what politics is really all about. It's about protecting people, providing security for people and stopping ripoffs. Those people who say politics makes no difference.... In fact, I was just speaking to someone from the tenants' association who said: "Issues like this, what do they have to do with partisan politics?" I say this is the essence of partisan politics.

I remember the Dave Barrett government in the 1970s offering, for the first time in this province, protection to tenants. I remember, within a year of that government being replaced, the Social Credit government of the day abolishing protection for tenants and tenants not having protection in this province for the following 17 years, until this government came along to restore protection for those tenants.

So I say that this legislation reflects the essence of politics, in terms of identifying whose side you are on. Are you on the side of kicking tenants out, to be able to flip a building and reap a quick profit by redefining the form of ownership of the building? Or are you on the side of protecting purchasers and tenants, and enabling the municipality to have some control over such developments?

[4:45]

The building in North Vancouver-Seymour near Capilano College is not in my riding, but as I'm the only government MLA on the North Shore, those tenants landed at my door asking for help with this legislation. I know that in the 1970s it was the New Democrat government that stood for tenants and the Social Credit government that removed that protection. In the 1990s, I want to know where that Liberal opposition stands. I know that the member for North Vancouver-Seymour is a person I await hearing from in this debate on this issue. I challenge that member to say why he isn't here fighting for the tenants in his riding. This is an issue that shows who stands for whom.

I am proud to stand on the side of a government that moves to amend legislation, that offers security for 200 tenants in my riding who would otherwise be victimized by this scheme, and that I hope will remove the uncertainty for the tenants in the building in North Vancouver-Seymour. But even if it doesn't, they can count on my support in helping them with the Residential Tenancy Act. I hope that this opposition will stand up and show that they support this type of consumer protection as well.

J. Dalton: It is certainly a pleasure to speak after the member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale. I can assure that member and all members opposite that we are supportive of this legislation.

I would say that the member is taking far too much credit for something that has been a longstanding issue. It is not the Seymour issue itself that precipitated this legislation. In a moment I am going to give a bit of history as to what led to this bill and these amendments, which, as I say, we are supportive of. I've talked to many people in the last two days -- lawyers, real estate agents, Real Estate Council representatives and the mayor of North Vancouver district, among others -- who are happy to see this. There is widespread support for the initiatives that are shown in here.

Let me just comment for a few moments about some of the history that led to this legislation. I am indebted, by the way, to the director of housing and properties and the director of legal services for the city of Vancouver, who, on July 18 of last year, presented a policy report to the Vancouver City

[ Page 13902 ]

Council that dealt specifically with the Arbutus Gardens issue in Vancouver, which I would say is one of the examples that we have to pay heed to as to what led to this legislation today. The director of legal services has given a history in this report as to some of the issues that came up over the years and that resulted in other amendments that we've debated in this session of parliament and that have occurred in previous sessions of parliament.

For example, in 1989 a 99-year lease was sold on a rental building in Kerrisdale. That gave rise a year la