1993 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 35th Parliament HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only. The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 16, 1993

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 11, Number 6

[ Page 7319 ]

The House met at 2:04 p.m.

Prayers.

K. Jones: I'd like to acknowledge the visit here today of my constituency assistant, Heather Sinclair, from Surrey-Cloverdale. She's in Victoria to observe our hectic workdays and to receive advanced computer training. Would the House please make her welcome.

F. Garden: In the precincts today are 39 grade 6 and 7 band students from 150 Mile House School, accompanied by their teachers, Ross McCoubrey and Warren Barkley, and other adults: Bonnie Kantymir, Tine Stace-Smith, Diane Hodgson and Bruce Donaldson. If you don't know where 150 Mile House is, it's on the crossroads to Horsefly and Likely. Would you bid them welcome.

F. Gingell: Although they're not here at this moment, I would like to introduce the House to the newest official opposition in Canada, the Liberal caucus in Alberta -- another government in waiting. We offer heartfelt commiserations to our friends across the House. There it goes.

Oral Questions

BAMBERTON DEVELOPMENT AND PENSION FUND INVESTMENT

G. Wilson: My question is to the Minister of Labour. On May 11 the Minister of Labour received a request from Mr. John Waddington for an investigation into the carpenters' pension funds that are being put into the Bamberton Investments Corporation. Can the minister tell us what action he has taken to date with respect to that?

Hon. M. Sihota: That letter was forwarded to the ministry. The ministry has the letter in its possession. I'm not aware of the exact status of the ministry's review of the correspondence, but I would be happy to tell the hon. member in due course. I'll undertake to get him a complete answer on its status and provide him with it.

G. Wilson: Can the minister tell us if it is usual practice for an administrator of a pension plan to be directing moneys into companies in which that administrator sits as a director? Is that a common practice in B.C.?

Hon. M. Sihota: It's not my place to give legal advice to the hon. member.

The Speaker: Final supplemental, hon. member.

G. Wilson: I assure you, hon. Speaker, that the minister wouldn't be my choice of lawyer to get legal advice from. I was asking for an

interpretation of the law of B.C.

Given that the letter from Mr. Waddington to the minister has not been acted on to Mr. Waddington's satisfaction, would the minister make the commitment today to undertake a full investigation into the carpenters' pension plan moneys that have gone into South Island Development for the purposes of the Bamberton development?

Hon. M. Sihota: I'm not prepared to make that commitment today.

TATSHENSHINI MINING PROJECT

J. Weisgerber: My question is for the Premier. Can the Premier confirm that his government has undertaken detailed public opinion surveys on the various options for the Tatshenshini area, and will the Premier table those surveys in the House?

Hon. M. Harcourt: The answer is no.

J. Weisgerber: According to estimates prepared by the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, the Tatshenshini project has the potential to contribute $1.6 billion in taxes to this government, and that doesn't include personal income taxes that would be generated. The project also has the potential to create 2,000 highly paid jobs for people in northern B.C. Has the government polled people in northern B.C. to find out how they feel about this project?

Hon. M. Harcourt: Hon. Speaker, I answered that with my first answer.

J. Weisgerber: I thought the Premier might have been somewhat sensitive to the people who live and work in northern B.C. Indeed, the survival of the mining industry in B.C. may very well depend on the decision this government makes on the Tatshenshini. We're soon going to see just how fair and how balanced this government really is.

The Speaker: Your question, hon. member.

G. Weisgerber: Has the Premier finally overcome his party's and his government's anti-mining, anti-northern, anti-industrial bias, and will he look fairly, honestly and openly at the Tatshenshini issue?

Hon. M. Harcourt: The answer is that mining is a significant activity in this province and has been for a number of decades. It will continue to be a significant activity. Our minister is working very hard with the mining industry to develop new mines and new opportunities around the world for our mining products.

WCB EXECUTIVE BENEFITS

D. Symons: My question is to the minister responsible for the Workers' Compensation Board. On February 24 of this year I requested some information from the minister regarding any bonuses, perks or

[ Page 7320 ]

severance packages for the CEO and the chief appeals commissioner of the Workers' Compensation Board. More recent and repeated calls have not pried that information loose from this government. What does the government have to hide? Doesn't the minister believe in his own freedom of information?

The Speaker: The Chair would note that that was a very broad question, and I would invite....

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please.

While the Chair has been fairly lenient on the wide scope of questions, members must understand that the guidelines for question period require that questions be precise. I would ask the hon. member for a supplemental in this instance.

D. Symons: I'll just finish off the first question: will he supply the information?

Hon. M. Sihota: I think the member indicated that he had corresponded with me, and the correspondence will be replied to in due course.

D. Symons: In due course! It has been 100 days since I sent in the original request. Is his ministry in such a shambles that it takes that long to find information that should be at his fingertips if he knows what's going on?

Hon. M. Sihota: I note that the hon. member never even bothered to ask me the question in estimates, when he had ample opportunity to raise the issue. As he indicates, he has written a letter; the letter will be replied to.

COLUMBIA RIVER TREATY

D. Jarvis: The Americans are drawing down water from reservoirs in the Kootenays, to the point of complete depletion. The environment is being devastated; the fisheries are being destroyed; tourism is near a state of collapse. My question is to the minister responsible for B.C. Hydro. Your ministry is responsible for the protection....

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please.

D. Jarvis: Your ministry is responsible for the protection of Canadian rights under the Columbia River Treaty. Why are you allowing the Americans to destroy the future of the Kootenays -- the riding of the Minister of Mines -- which has unemployment of up to 38 percent?

[2:15]

Hon. M. Sihota: I appreciate the question from the hon. member. It's not too often that I get to talk a bit about B.C. Hydro and some of the things that we're doing with that Crown corporation.

I'm pleased to advise the hon. member that this government announced just last week that we are holding a systems operation review to look at the options available to British Columbians to deal with the very problems that he refers to. The review is in terms of how we can deal with (

a) our treaty obligations -- and the hon. member is obviously not well aware of what our obligations are under the current treaty; (

b) how we can divert water from particular reservoirs in British Columbia to assist other areas, be it Koocanusa Lake or the Arrow Lakes on both the west and east side of the Kootenays; (

c) looking at non-power values and the impact that the release of that water would have on fish, and other environmental problems; and (

d) looking at operations on the Peace, as well, to see how they would impact....

The Speaker: Order, please. Would the minister conclude his reply.

Hon. M. Sihota: The hon. member should know that when we make these changes to divert more water into one area, it has an effect on the system elsewhere.

D. Jarvis: That answer is just plain rubbish. The Americans are using the water to flush the fish down the Columbia River and for a nightly light-and-water show over the Bonneville Dam. The Americans are breaking the terms of the treaty. The only two acceptable reasons for the use of water are hydroelectric power and flood control. The Columbia River Treaty Permanent Engineering Board has stated on two occasions now that what the Americans are doing is in contravention of the treaty. Why are you letting the Yankee traders once more devastate British Columbia's East Kootenay area?

Hon. M. Sihota: First of all, let me say to the hon. member.... In fact, I invite him to come to the Kootenays this weekend. This government is showing leadership this week by holding a significant public policy symposium in Castlegar to ensure that the people in the Kootenays, who have a legitimate and justifiable claim for some mitigation, begin to have a process to deal with those mitigation needs.

That area was neglected by the previous administration. This administration has taken a series of steps to deal with the problems in the Kootenays. First of all, we announced, for the first time in the history of British Columbia, a presence for B.C. Hydro through an office in Castlegar. We were pleased to do that. Secondly, we announced last week, for the first time in the history of B.C. Hydro, a systems operation review. Third, we have said this week that we will meet with the people of the Kootenays directly, face to face, at the symposium in order to deal with all of the kinds of mitigation issues that they deserve to have a government meeting them about.

Interjections.

[ Page 7321 ]

The Speaker: Order, please. Final supplemental, hon. member.

D. Jarvis: That's absolute garbage and rubbish -- absolute!

Madam Speaker....

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order! I ask the hon. member to take his seat.

Interjections.

[The Speaker rose.]

[The Speaker resumed her seat.]

The Speaker: I invite the next questioner, the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock.

ARTISTS AND WORKING LIFE PROGRAM

W. Hurd: I have a question for the Minister of Tourism and Culture pertaining to the Artists and Working Life grant program. Can the minister confirm that with less than a month left before the first deadline, this program has yet to receive a single application?

Hon. D. Marzari: I'm glad that the hon. member has put forward a cogent question. I must say that the Artists and Working Life program is coming up for program selection. Artists will be selected, and the due date for applications is July 1. How many applications have been received thus far? I am not aware of that, but I would be pleased to let the hon. member know.

W. Hurd: There haven't been any grant applications yet -- zero, the same number of seats the NDP won in the election last night in Alberta.

Will the minister scrap this Working Life program, put the money back into her ministry, where it belongs, and reward hard-working artists who are going to paint or write about anything?

Hon. D. Marzari: We have artists in this province who work on the Caravan theatre that wends its way through the Kootenays. We have artists in this province who sell their books on B.C. Ferries. We have artists in this province who are sponsored by business and churches. Artists in this province are important people to this province. There is absolutely no reason why artists should not be contributing their work and doing their performances in the workplace itself, where people put in eight hours a day.

To that end, I believe that this program -- which was modelled on a Liberal program in the province of Ontario called Artists and Working Life -- is going to be properly monitored and evaluated. By July 1, I guarantee that there will be a number of properly funded programs. Funding will be shared between government and labour for the first time in the history of this province, and we will have an effective working-life cultural program.

W. Hurd: The minister doesn't seem to understand that you have to get union backing and you have to paint a picture or write something about workers in order to qualify for a grant. That approach went out with the collapse of the Soviet Union. You can get art by trading blue jeans to the U.S.S.R. these days. Will the minister scrap this program, which hasn't had a single application to date?

The Speaker: The hon. minister, for a brief reply.

Hon. D. Marzari: Absolutely not, hon. Speaker.

Presenting Reports

F. Gingell: Hon. Speaker, I have the honour to present the first report of the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts for the second session of the thirty-fifth parliament. Hon. Speaker, I move that the report be taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

F. Gingell: I ask leave of the House to permit the moving of a motion to adopt the report.

Leave granted.

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

Hon. Speaker, this report deals with ten recommendations for the retention and final disposition of the operational records of this government. It is a subject that the Public Accounts Committee spends some time on and for which it has a responsibility to this House. We are now pleased to report that we have done our duty, and ask the support of the House so that the retention and disposition of these documents can take place as recommended.

Also, I would like to take this opportunity, if I may, for my usual plea on every occasion when I rise as Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, to ask this government, particularly the Minister of Finance, to follow through on the proposals that Public Accounts Committees have made many times in past years to allow the committee to sit out of session. Our time in Victoria is very busy. All members of this House are committed to certain responsibilities with respect to standing committees and to their duties as caucus members.

An Hon. Member: Is that in your report?

F. Gingell: Yes. We simply don't have enough time to be able to deal with the many important issues in a thorough manner. So I would once again make my plea that the government consider allowing the Public Accounts Committee to meet out of session so that we can get some good time to do the kind of work that I know this government will support. It is an important job, and I ask for that consideration.

Motion approved.

[ Page 7322 ]

Ministerial Statement

COMPENSATION FOR HIV-AIDS FROM BLOOD SUPPLY

Hon. E. Cull: I rise in the House today to advise all hon. members of the government's decision to financially assist those British Columbians who may have contracted HIV or AIDS through the blood supply. By taking this action our government recognizes that further assistance is required for the people of our province who may have contracted HIV or AIDS through the receipt of blood products.

Before November 1985, blood was not screened for HIV, even though a specific test for the presence of HIV in blood was licensed in March of that year. One hundred and fifteen British Columbians have been infected with HIV or AIDS from the blood supply, 80 of whom are hemophiliac. Of those, 65 are still living with HIV or AIDS. Many of these people and their families have faced both serious illness and death as a result. While the government has provided support by way of covering the costs of medical treatment and care, many people have faced financial hardship.

Prior to the change in government, Canada's health ministers agreed on a national program of compensation for those who had contracted HIV or AIDS through the blood supply. This agreement included federal compensation only. On April 1 of this year that compensation ran out. Upon further review, this government agrees with the majority of other governments across Canada that further assistance is necessary.

I think it's important to take action to redress the suffering of both individuals and their families as soon as we can. So the first step, hon. Speaker, will be to negotiate the amount that will be provided in a financial assistance package. I've been in touch today with the B.C.

chapter of the Canadian Hemophilia Society to advise them of the decision that I'm now announcing, and I informed them that we will begin negotiations as soon as possible.

Over the past several weeks I've consulted with both the B.C.

chapter of the Canadian Hemophilia Society and other provincial governments to review the situation. I strongly believe that receiving assistance should not depend on where you live in this country, but with two provinces now acting on their own it will be difficult to reach a national consensus. I am, however, still strongly committed to seeking agreement with other provincial governments on a guiding set of principles under which financial assistance will be negotiated.

I've therefore instructed my deputy minister to continue consultations with his provincial and federal colleagues at the deputy ministers' meeting next week to try to agree on those common principles. Hon. Speaker, I will inform the House of our progress as soon as we reach agreement on the amount of that assistance.

[2:30]

L. Reid: I'm delighted to respond to the ministerial statement today, but I must confess to this House that I'm indeed disappointed that it took so long. I truly believed that British Columbia could be on the leading edge in this. We've seen four provinces take decisive action on this question: Quebec, Ontario, Nova Scotia and Alberta. I, like other British Columbians, really wanted to see British Columbia be in the number one spot on this question. We certainly had the expertise and the ability to take that difficult decision. That is what British Columbians were looking for.

Certainly this is important not just for the 75 members sitting in this House today, but for the families of people who have HIV today as a result of a government's inability to set a standard. We can share in that responsibility or not, but I don't think we can ever justify extending the time line beyond where it has gone today. The news coverage in the last number of days has shown this province pictures of families who do not have a future, who do not have potential at this time. We need to ensure that this is something that is addressed very soon -- because the issue needs to happen.

The minister speaks of a time line. I trust it will be an immediate response. I trust that this will come very, very soon to the people who are waiting, because frankly, we can no longer afford to have people waiting and wondering. They simply have spent all the time that they have at their disposal.

L. Fox: I'm pleased to stand up and respond to this initiative by the Minister of Health. I recognize that it is indeed a very complex, dramatic and difficult issue to deal with. I concur with the minister when she suggests in her statement that this is something which should be consistent across Canada, and that deserves some negotiations with other jurisdictions on a mechanism and process that allows for consistency throughout Canada. As I said earlier, I do recognize the complexities of it. It's unfortunate that it took this length of time to develop this process, but I wish the minister well.

I know that there are immediate needs out there within the province, and I encourage expeditiousness in developing this process so that we can get on with meeting the needs of those individuals who were affected in such a dramatic way.

Hon. E. Cull tabled the 1990-91 and the 1991-92 annual reports of the Ministry of Health.

W. Hurd: I ask leave for an introduction, hon. Speaker.

Leave granted.

W. Hurd: I am pleased to introduce a teacher, Miss Val Hammell, from South Meridian Elementary School in my riding, and 43 students who are accompanying her in the precincts today. Val Hammell is the sister of the hon. member for Surrey-Green Timbers. I certainly welcome her and her class to the Legislature today.

H. Lali: I request leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

[ Page 7323 ]

H. Lali: Today we have visiting in the precincts 55 grade 6 and 7 students from Riverview School in Lillooet, along with their teacher, Mr. Johnson, and several adults. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. M. Sihota: I believe we have a report from Committee of Supply A with regard to the Ministry of Transportation and Highways.

REPORT ON COMMITTEE A ESTIMATES

L. Hanson: It was certainly interesting to take

part in these estimates. I think we canvassed every road, highway, street, lane, bridge and probably every pothole in B.C. I have to give the minister credit: I believe he does have a good knowledge of his ministry, and I note that his answers were candid. I must mention, though, that with the capital program that's left in the ministry, he has less to learn than in better days. I think that we did canvass the ministry's estimates well. The minister brought forward representatives of the various Crown corporations that he is responsible for. I think it was a good process.

We on this side of the House -- certainly in my party -- are all anxiously awaiting the announcements that the minister has promised us will come forward from B.C. 21, when they have their act together and are prepared to make those. So that's my contribution, and I was pleased to take

part in these estimates.

D. Symons: I too would like to thank the minister for his thoroughness in answering my many questions. As was mentioned by the previous speaker, we had some wide-ranging discussions on very specific projects and the general direction the ministry is taking. The ministry has received the additional responsibilities of B.C. Ferries and ICBC, and it is appropriate that these corporations now come under his ministry. I applaud the government for that belated recognition -- better late than never.

I would like to briefly summarize what we have heard from the minister and, in some cases, give my thoughts on his comments. The minister and his B.C. Rail staff indicated quite clearly that that corporation is going to diversify into areas which are not directly related, and most particularly into trucking. While we congratulate B.C. Rail for its fiscal strength -- no longer requiring a government subsidy -- I must confess that the Liberal opposition is not entirely comfortable with the direction B.C. Rail is taking in its diversification.

We are of the firm belief that Crown corporations should be involved in activities that cannot be adequately fulfilled by private enterprise. No doubt we will be having further discussion with the government regarding the role of B.C. Rail over the coming years.

In terms of B.C. Ferries, the opposition is concerned -- as I am sure most British Columbians are -- about safety on our ferry system. During the past year the Ferry Corporation has been plagued with accidents and with service disruptions due to employee disputes. It is hoped that the steps taken by the corporation will be adequate to address these concerns.

I was looking for some assurance that the minister considered the ferry system to be an essential part of the highway and transportation system, rather than an entity that must be made self-supporting through increased fares. Recent fare increases, reductions in subsidies and a reluctance to declare the ferry system an essential service did not give me that assurance.

The minister and I agree on the pressing need for improvements in the transportation infrastructure in the province. His government, however, continues to reduce the ministry's budget. Rehabilitation spending by both this government and the previous administration is about 75 percent of what is required to maintain the quality of the present infrastructure. Such spending-savings are false economies, to be paid for in the future.

The minister has suggested tolls on new structures, particularly on bridges in the lower mainland, as a method of paying off the loans needed for these projects. I have strongly suggested that any tolls or like charges should be site-specific. Tolls on the Lions Gate Bridge replacement should not be used to finance a bridge or road in Kamloops. A 1-cent-per-litre gas tax to the Transportation Financing Authority will not go far in addressing the province's transportation needs. I rather suspect that it will be doubled or tripled fairly soon. Taxes and fees have a habit of rising, especially since this government has taken over.

I would wish the minister all the best in the operation of the new Transportation Financing Authority. If it can be shown that that authority will provide British Columbians with a better system of financing provincial road construction, I will be the first one to congratulate the minister. However, the Peat Marwick report clearly stated that unless there could be a demonstrated and proven need for the continuation of special accounts, they should be discontinued. From the point of view of public disclosure, I would tend to agree with the Peat Marwick suggestion.

Once again, I thank the minister and his fine staff, who supported him during the estimates, for their time. I look forward to continuing our cordial association in the coming year.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: We have had a good session of estimates. I'm pleased to have the responsibility for three Crown corporations that are all well-managed. They were well represented by the staff who came. In addition, with regard to the ministry functions, we have a fine staff, and they too acquitted themselves well in the information they were called upon to provide me during the course of the estimates.

Of course, in the budget process this year, facing difficult fiscal times, we knew that we had to make some tough decisions at the Treasury Board level. One of those decisions was to reduce the capital budget in the ministry. With some regret, I had to support that. I point out, however, that we have maintained the maintenance budget at full funding, and we have been able to maintain the rehabilitation portion of my budget at near full funding. It would be nice to be able to spend even more on rehabilitation, but in this particular fiscal period we are not able to. We are doing the essential

[ Page 7324 ]

work, and doing it in a cost-efficient manner. On the capital side, we are able to continue work on the Hastings-Barnet people-moving system. On the Island Highway, in particular you can see the work around the McKenzie interchange going forward. We've been able to carry on the work at the new Columbia River bridge at Castlegar, much to the relief of the municipality, and the Savona bridge on the Trans-Canada Highway will be proceeding as well.

With respect to two budget issues, the member from Kamloops showed certain prescience during debate on the budget when he said that the opposition howls cut, cut and slash, slash. "Day after day in Highways estimates the same members who are now howling 'Cut, cut,' were then crying: `Spend, spend.'" I pointed out:

"Some marvels of nature can change their colours; they can change their plumage with the season. The species opposite, both Liberal and Socred, keep their colours, but they sure can change their tune. I think we should notify the local bird-watching society, and perhaps any noted ornithologists in the area, to be on the alert. In a few weeks, when estimates arrive again, we may well see these same birds changing their tune again."

I kept a running total of the requests made in the process of estimates, and it totalled some $3.912 billion. So when the time comes for estimates, do we ever hear the spend, spend, spend. Unfortunately, if you're going to be responsible in government, you can't do that.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please. I regret interrupting the minister, but out of courtesy we would like the minister to conclude the summation of his estimates without further interruption. Please continue, hon. minister.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: With respect to the Transportation Financing Authority, we will be in a position soon to announce expenditures on projects of some $75 million or $76 million. Those can be visited in the course of future estimates and will be subject to the same kind of rigorous debate that we have with the other Crown corporations that I'm responsible for.

With respect to the Crowns, I'm pleased to report that ICBC is continuing its recovery from a certain level of mismanagement a few years back, and we are now turning in a positive balance approaching $10 million a month. The returns on some claims initiatives commenced under the interim president are continuing under the present president; top-class management is in place at ICBC.

[2:45]

With respect to ferries, we put the first superferry into operation this year. Construction of the second superferry will be completed this year. Some 32 million passengers and eight million vehicles a year move in a safe and efficient manner. B.C. Ferries is a sound corporation. I'm pleased to report that the collective agreement is in place and there are currently good relations between management and staff. I can also report that the napkin committee, chaired by the member for Surrey-Cloverdale, will be meeting shortly to resolve some issues.

B.C. Rail turned a profit of $50 million last year -- in very tough economic times, when the other major transportation companies lost a great deal of money. B.C. Rail did so by having top quality management who is able to find opportunity where opportunity is and run an extremely efficient organization.

In the past year we acquired Vancouver Wharves Ltd., a corporation that was not going to survive very much longer under the preceding management. We have received the compliments of the Vancouver Port Corporation and many other industrial users. They are thankful that we have taken over that port and are going to operate it in a sound manner.

There has been mention of caution with respect to diversification of B.C. Rail. I would point out to the members opposite that diversification of a transportation company is essential in this day and age. As B.C. Rail looks to intermodal trucking, wharves and possible development of a Squamish port, I applaud them in all of those areas, because it is through diversification that when future stress occurs -- be it renegotiation of coal prices in northeast or anywhere else -- B.C. Rail will be able to survive those tough times on the basis of sound diversification put into place at this time.

The Speaker: I regret, hon. minister, that your time has expired.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: I would like to thank the members opposite for their very helpful comments during the course of the estimates.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Sihota: I wish to advise all hon. members that Committee A will be meeting to review the estimates of the Ministry of Agriculture in the Douglas Fir Room. I also call Committee on Bill 40, hon. Speaker.

CORPORATION CAPITAL TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1993

The House in committee on Bill 40; E. Barnes in the chair.

Hon. G. Clark: I want to introduce staff here today: Alan Carver, on my right, is the administrator of the capital tax; and Ian Forman, on my left, is the manager responsible for the corporation capital tax.

This is just by way of introduction, hon. Chair. This is generally a good-news bill, a result of technical changes made in cooperation with the business community and some other tax breaks associated with the budget.

section 1.

F. Gingell: I must admit I rose quickly because the definition of "apartment corporation" is here, but I guess the dealings with apartment corporations come up later on. Anyway, let us deal with it now.

[ Page 7325 ]

During second reading I made a plea to the minister to consider the consequences of this new definition of "apartment corporation." If I may, I'll quickly state what I understand the circumstances to be. The purpose of this amendment to the bill is to exclude owner-occupied strata units from the corporate capital tax, whether they be apartments or townhouses. The concern that I have is that it isn't logical for these people to pay a corporate capital tax. It's just a means of owning their home. As we all know, corporate capital tax gets passed on to the purchasers of goods and services.

The way this world works, unfortunately, is that only the relatively wealthy are able to buy homes, and those less fortunate, or those who have fewer resources, generally speaking, live in rented apartments.

You have specifically made an exclusion for residences, in effect, but you have not included in that exclusion those individuals who are the least able to pay additional taxes -- namely, the people who rent on a month-to-month basis and don't have the resources to buy their own property. I really would ask the minister to reconsider this particular

section and consider making an exemption for all apartments.

There is a second problem, one that often crops up on the issue of valuations. As one easily recognizes, the corporate capital tax is exigible on book values, not on fair market values. If an apartment building that's worth $5 million has been owned by this property owner for 20 years, was bought for $1 million but has now depreciated to $200,000, there won't be any tax. But the moment that property changes hands and you have a new buyer who has paid the fair market value of $5 million for it, there is a corporate capital tax immediately. That gets passed, in the end, to the tenant.

I presume that you have arrived at the conclusion that you shouldn't have a corporate capital tax on residences, because you've made this amendment so that those who live in a strata corporation home aren't taxed any differently than those who live in a non-strata home with a separate title for their property. It seems to me that the minister would be dealing with equity and fairness. I know that is something he is very concerned about, and I'd like to ask him to consider making an amendment to this to bring in all apartments.

Hon. G. Clark: There are a couple of premises underlying the member's comments which I don't agree with entirely. The first premise is that the capital tax paid by the owner of an apartment building would automatically be passed on to the consumer. I think the member neglects the free market. Perhaps I have more faith in the free market than members opposite.

Let me put it this way. In Vancouver there are renters in single-family homes. They, of course, wouldn't pay capital tax -- the owner would not necessarily. There are people in basement suites; in fact, some statistics on the number of people living in basement suites are staggering. There are people living in apartments, some of which are small and have a few units and some of which are larger. Frankly, to a great extent, the market determines the rent.

Apartment owners are incapable of passing the costs of the tax on to renters if there are other supply considerations, or if there are ability-to-pay considerations. While I don't want to dismiss the argument, we do have a fairly fluid and competitive rental market, particularly in an area like the lower mainland. I appreciate that the tax has to be paid by someone. The owners of the apartments may try to pass it on to the consumers. In this current market I'm not sure that they could -- certainly not all of it -- and I don't necessarily accept the premise.

We'll be monitoring rents, as we are in government generally, and there is a fairly significant supply. Even some of the VLC properties on the market in Vancouver are trying to attract renters, because there is an oversupply of rental accommodation in some areas. Similarly, a lot of condominiums, etc., are rented out. Generally speaking, I think the market is a good discipline in this area.

I have some sympathy for the member's second concern, but I think it is impractical. The member is concerned that the tax is paid on the book value rather than the market value. For the government to tax the market value each year would require the business to revalue each and every year. That would create a horrendous burden of paperwork for the business community, which we're not interesting in doing. Members opposite may be interested in imposing such a burden on the business community, but we're not.

While this doesn't fully capture value, with a dynamic market and with trades in ownership, we see periodic revaluation in the market at the time of sale, and at that time the capital tax captures it. The member is correct; it's not perfect. But I think that the cure would be worse than the concerns the members have.

J. Weisgerber: I didn't want to see us move off this argument of rents, because I don't think the minister does this subject justice by simply saying that there are basement suites and single-family homes, so if people can't stand a small rent increase in a highrise building they can move into a basement suite or a single-family home. I don't think it's quite that simple, and I think if the minister were honest about the issue he would recognize that the competition is primarily within a class of accommodation, and for the most part, one class of accommodation is going to be impacted by the corporate capital tax.

I'm not sure that the rents will be significant enough to cause people to move out of one accommodation into another. I think it would serve everybody well if the minister would simply acknowledge that there is likely to be a slight increase in most apartment rentals as a result of this tax, and we could then move on.

[3:00]

Hon. G. Clark: I'm not prepared to make that commitment to the member, and he has mischaracterized my argument. I didn't say that people would move to a basement suite; I said that there is a market in rental accommodation and the supply has a downward pressure on the ability of the landlord to charge rent. If there is some upward pressure on costs associated with this tax for apartment owners, they are fettered in their ability to pass that on. This is based not on the fact that people will have to move as a result of rent increases,

[ Page 7326 ]

but I think it's important that the gap between the rent charged in one sector and another be preserved. If the gap was widened, then it might result in people moving. That would have a depressing effect on demand, and rents would have to be reduced accordingly. I appreciate that it's not that simple and that there is a certain stickiness, and I appreciate that owners of apartments will have to absorb the tax. I'm simply saying that it's not clear at all that they will automatically pass on the tax to their renters. In fact, in the current climate, I would argue that they would be constrained from doing so by the free market, which I know all members of the House support.

F. Gingell: I was interested that the minister started his response to the member for Peace River South with the word "mischaracterized," because he certainly mischaracterized my discussion about valuations. At no time was I suggesting that you would put in revaluations and try to compute the corporate capital tax based on fair market values. But I would like to suggest to you -- and I believe it to be true -- that if you look at all of the types of assets worth in excess of $1 million, I would lay a wager that apartment buildings are bought and sold the most.

You don't sell mills or mines or hotels; those things change hands very rarely. But there are a lot of apartment buildings, and they change hands all the time. Therefore I'd like to suggest to you that the majority of the inequity in the valuation problem could be solved by just excluding corporations that own apartments used as residences. Then you'd look after all of the problems that we all have, and I think you would have a fairer tax.

Hon. G. Clark: It's an interesting sort of academic argument, and it would take some empirical evidence to prove it. I don't want to mischaracterize the argument you're making, so let me see if I've got it right. The member is suggesting that because apartments are sold more frequently than other forms of property or assets that are captured by the capital tax, they are therefore more quickly revalued, and the capital tax rises with each transaction if you have an appreciating property market.

Therefore, because apartments more accurately reflect the market than other forms of assets, which are more likely to be reflected in the book value, the valuation rises a little more quickly on the apartment side. Maybe the member could nod if that's.... Oh, that's not correct. Sorry.

F. Gingell: The first point that I was making was that you have made amendments to the act to exclude from the corporate capital tax residences that are owned in a certain form. I have suggested to you that it would be equitable to exclude all residential housing from this tax, because we're concerned about corporate capital tax costs being passed on to the group of our citizens who, generally speaking, are least able to pay increased rents.

Then there is the valuation problem that we discussed last year. The point I was making was simply that because apartment blocks do change hands fairly regularly -- and I would suggest there are more of those transactions than with any other type of asset -- you have this tremendous imbalance: somebody who hasn't sold their building, who has owned it for many years, is not paying any tax; somebody who happens to buy it this year is now suddenly subject to the tax; somebody else, with an asset of exactly the same value, getting exactly the same income from it -- all of the same things -- isn't paying. So the way to solve it is to exclude residential apartment corporations from tax.

Hon. G. Clark: Well, of course, the problem -- and I understand now, I think, the member's comments -- is that technically it can't be done; certainly it can't be done very easily. What do you do with a commercial building that has commercially rented property on the main floor and a couple of floors above it and then apartments above that? What do you do with corporations that own a factory retail outlet and a couple of apartment buildings. all in the same company, all on the same balance sheet? We would have to disaggregate the balance sheet.

While there is a degree of elegance and simplicity to remedy the member is projecting, technically it's just not possible. As a result of that, obviously we can't make the changes the member requests.

F. Gingell: I'd like to move on to the definition of "current accounts payable." In the course of dealing with bills that are current.... I appreciate that the purpose of the act is to include in the corporation capital tax the use of funds within a corporation that one considers to be relatively permanent: debenture borrowings, mortgage borrowings and those kinds of things. But in your definition, it's something that isn't paid within 120 days. You will remember that last year we discussed two things. The first is that it may just be that a company is in financial difficulty and struggling along, and that's why they haven't paid their account in 120 days. So you're just adding a burden.

The next question is: when you're looking at a corporation's payment pattern, do you take it on FIFO basis or a LIFO basis? Is the payment applied to the earliest debt or to the latest debt?

One item that really bothers me, which is caught by this, is a holdback payable on a construction contract. It is clearly a current account payable. It is simply an amount that is held back so that they can protect themselves under builders' liens and those kinds of matters. It is common business sense to retain the 15 percent and show that the subcontractors have been paid out. But the wording of this act, as I understand it, catches those amounts in your definition of permanent capital, and therefore they are subject to the corporate capital tax, unless it is going to be paid within 120 days. I would suggest to you that an amendment to at least take the holdbacks out would be fair.

Hon. G. Clark: The member opposite has more expertise in this area than I do. But let me say this: we've had no complaints. We've been in operation a year. The concern the member raises has not been raised by any of the paying businesses. That's the first point.

[ Page 7327 ]

Secondly, we had a technical committee of chief financial officers, nominated by the various business communities, who worked very hard on this, and this was not an issue. I don't want to take their names in vain -- they may have concerns. But I would suspect they'd register those concerns with us.

This is moving the definition

section -- certain

definitions -- up in the bill, so it can be used throughout the bill. This definition is consistent with what it was last year. I know that the member has concerns. We've had no concerns expressed to us along the lines the member suggests. That would suggest to me that there isn't a requirement at this point to make changes. But I don't have any problem saying that we will continue to monitor it. If it does become a problem, we'll certainly review it.

[M. Lord in the chair.]

Sections 1 to 31 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. G. Clark: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Bill 40, Corporation Capital Tax Amendment Act, 1993, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. G. Clark: The applause was a bit faint for the passage of that bill. It's good news for tax cuts to business, and I thought there would be a bit more applause.

I call committee on Bill 36.

FINANCE AND CORPORATE RELATIONS STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1993

The House in committee on Bill 36; M. Lord in the chair.

Hon. G. Clark: I'd like to begin by introducing staff here with me. On my left is Neil Muth, director of corporate policy and legislation. On my right is Ed Turner, executive director of consumer taxation in the Ministry of Finance.

[3:15]

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

F. Gingell:

Section 2 has some proposal to change methods of public access to financial information held by the government. I was wondering if the minister would like to explain to us exactly what this does and how it will tie into the new laws dealing with access to information.

Hon. G. Clark: Initially, the Financial Information Act had a fairly narrow directive with respect to the Minister of Finance. Members may be aware that we published this year for the first time a brochure on access to information through the Financial Information Act, independent of freedom-of-information and other initiatives the government is taking, just because there was some interest in the act. In fact, the member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale made excellent use of the Financial Information Act to access the salaries of administrative personnel in the North Vancouver School District.

Partly as a result of his work, there was a flood of inquiries as to how to use the act. We prepared some information for broad public discussion, and I'm sure that members opposite received that brochure.

In the process of review, however, there was some concern about consistency not just in application but in the ability to prescribe the terms and the types of information, or, as you see, "the form and manner of providing public access to financial information...." So this is genuinely housekeeping legislation, but it allows the minister to give a broader directive to the numerous bodies covered by the Financial Information Act to ensure compliance and consistency in the "form and manner of providing public access to financial information."

F. Gingell: I thank the minister for that. The minister may be aware that the auditor general has done quite a bit of work in the field of availability of financial information from various government organizations, and he found it to be wanting. Can the minister assure the House that he will not only use these new broader powers of his to ensure consistency of presentation but also, at the same time, ensure that all government agencies, bodies and independent bodies that are subject to the Financial Information Act are well aware of their responsibility to respond to inquiries about financial information?

The problem that the auditor general found was not just lack of consistency but that people in some school, college and university boards didn't believe the public had a right to this information. I would appreciate your response to that issue.

Hon. G. Clark: The member is correct. This is driven by a variety of factors, one of which was the concerns raised by the auditor general. Others were the heightened awareness of the act -- as I said, in part because of the activities of the member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale -- the Korbin commission, other information questions and the government's broader initiatives. We found that in order to ensure better compliance, some of the agencies -- and one can argue whether this was deliberate or not....

For example, the narrow directives of the Minister of Finance could not direct remuneration, however that was defined...and those kinds of considerations. So they would comply with the elements of the act, but some would comply more fully than others and give more information. So as a result of the concerns of the auditor general, the comptroller general and others, it was recommended --

[ Page 7328 ]

and that's why it's here -- to broaden the power of the Minister of Finance, not in any punitive way but to give some comfort to agencies that everybody would be treated the same way and there would be consistency in application and compliance with the legislation.

You're correct. We found that as there is more awareness, there isn't the same level of problem that the auditor general found. The Ministry of Finance has been putting on seminars with respect to access to the Financial Information Act, both for the public and also the various agencies. This bill ensures that we can continue that process, clean it up a bit and ensure consistency across the board.

Sections 2 and 3 approved.

section 4.

F. Gingell: I was wondering if there is any intent to change the purposes of the British Columbia Health Care Research Foundation by this amendment that takes out the word "Care" and makes it the B.C. Health Research Foundation. I'm not exactly sure, but is this the foundation into which 50 percent of the B.C. Lottery Corporation revenues are fed?

Hon. G. Clark: I don't exactly know the answer. It's not really the purpose of this bill. Fifty percent of lottery funds go to health care. Some of that does go the B.C. Health Research Foundation. I'm not sure how much of that 50 percent. I think there's more money available than that.

This is literally a consequential amendment which, it seems to me, should have been enacted somewhere or other. In other words, there has been a name change of the B.C. Health Care Research Foundation, to B.C. Health Research Foundation. So to make sure the Financial Information Act applies to the new name we're simply changing the

schedule of the Financial Information Act to bring it up to date, and to make sure that agency complies.

Section 4 approved.

D. Schreck: Hon. Chair, I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

D. Schreck: I see that we've just been joined in the galleries by approximately 17 grade 7 students from Norgate Community School in North Vancouver, accompanied by their teacher Miss Duncan. I spoke to the students earlier indicating what would be taking place in the House this afternoon. I think this is a good illustration of what a dynamic place this is, where things are constantly changing.

Interjection.

D. Schreck: The Minister of Forests, sitting at my left, tells me that he went to Norgate School in grade 4. So I hope you follow in his excellent footsteps. Would the House please join me in making them welcome.

Sections 5 to 9 inclusive approved.

section 10.

F. Gingell: I wonder if the minister has at any time set out a series of criteria that he believes are appropriate for Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council appointments to the Real Estate Council.

Hon. G. Clark: No, I haven't. I'd certainly be interested in any comments the members have. Essentially what we're doing here -- and you see a pattern; at least, I think, with some of things that have been brought into the House; and if they haven't already been brought in, you will see a pattern -- is ensuring that self-regulatory professional bodies have some public representation in order to give the public some confidence that those bodies aren't simply self-serving protective agencies. In discussions with these bodies, and in particular with the Real Estate Council, they've been very supportive of this.

It applies to two out of 19 members of the Real Estate Council. The only criterion that's been developed at this point is that they must not be of the real estate profession. We want to ensure that these people have absolutely no connection. They're not real estate agents; they're not real estate salespersons. They can be from related industries, but we want to make sure that they simply reflect a lay perspective, and in that regard the criterion is fairly broad.

Generally, I think you want to have people who are public-interest-minded in their activities; people who do not have a vested interest in the activities of this self-regulatory agency, and who can bring a fresh perspective so that if there are consumer complaints and the like, they are more representative of the consumer than they are of the agent. It's just a broad public policy initiative. Discussions were begun, I believe, by the previous administration and minister -- at least, the topic was broached.

I have picked up the ball and suggested that we move forward on all of these areas under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Finance.

Frankly, and in some ways coincidentally, you can see that move in other areas of government. It's not revolutionary; it happens in many jurisdictions. In the Ministry of Health, for example, we now see laypeople on regional health councils and all those agencies. It's very good public policy; it enhances the stature of the self-regulatory bodies. They've been fairly supportive of it -- with a little hesitation or concern. We'll take great care with the nominees. We are not likely to get thousands of applications from people who wish to be on the Insurance Council or the Real Estate Council.

Obviously, from the government's perspective, we want to take account of gender -- and region, if we can, although in this case I doubt whether that is a particularly prevalent consideration. There are no formal criteria. It's a modest initiative which enhances those agencies.

[ Page 7329 ]

As I said earlier in this House -- I hesitate to say it again -- there really isn't any consistent practice across government. We are moving in this direction. In this case it's two out of 19; in the health councils, one-third have to be from the public sector; on the Insurance Council, it's two out of 20-odd or something. It's moving incrementally, and it's positive. I'm not sure that it's earth-shattering that the lay representatives on these organizations aren't completely consistent or a fixed percentage. That's not absolutely critical.

It is important that we have some non-industry people to give some comfort and, hopefully, a fresh perspective to avoid any concern that these agencies are really just self-protection agencies, rather than self-regulatory ones which deal with consumer complaints.

[3:30]

F. Gingell: I thank the minister for that. Does the minister ensure that there's some form of pre-appointment briefing, so that someone who the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council has appointed at least goes in with a little background information from the government, not from the council to which he or she is being appointed? Is there a discussion that lets the person clearly understand that they represent the public interest, separate from the interest of self-regulating professions?

Further, does the minister make a point, on a periodic basis, say once a year, of speaking to these people to make sure that issues they see as being in the public interest are brought to the minister's notice, rather than being bogged down in debate in the organizations?

Hon. G. Clark: Those are excellent suggestions. We have not proclaimed the

section appointing two laypeople to the Insurance Council -- that was last year; this year we're doing it here. My only experience, frankly, with laypeople on boards is with the Vancouver Stock Exchange. I can assure the member that I have met with those public governors on a couple of occasions to discuss their concerns, or the government's concerns. I met with Mr. Couvelier and other appointments to the board fairly recently. It's an excellent suggestion. We haven't got a codified policy with respect to that.

It's a good idea to brief them from a broad perspective -- maybe a bit of an educational briefing on the public interest. I'll definitely follow that up. It's also a good idea to have the minister meet, perhaps annually, with the public representatives to ensure that there is some reflection and understanding of where things are going.

In the scheme of things for the Minister of Finance -- and I don't mean to belittle this -- it is a modest initiative. Maybe that explains why we haven't got that well-thought-out policy you're suggesting. We've got a fair number of other things to deal with. I'll take those suggestions very seriously under advisement. In fact, I'd almost be prepared to give a commitment now that we'll follow along with something like that. I will be happy to report back to members of the House next year as to how it's proceeding.

J. Weisgerber: First of all, let me say that I think this is a move in a direction that's consistent with public policy these days. More and more boards and regulatory organizations are looking for lay members or members from outside the profession. I therefore rise not to question the government's decision, but I'm curious to know whether or not the selection of people falls under the purview of John Pollard. I'm wondering whether, in his considerable responsibilities as czar of patronage, he has time to deal with these rather mundane kinds of appointments, or with appointments that might fall outside of his particularly busy

schedule of putting people into other positions that the government sees as politically sensitive. Is this part of Mr. Pollard's responsibility, or are they selected in some other way?

Hon. G. Clark: As usual, the member has mischaracterized the role of Mr. Pollard. I'm not sure how it worked in the last administration, but literally thousands of British Columbians from all walks of life and all political parties write in to government and say: "I would like to be on this hospital board or that real estate council." Those go to Mr. Pollard, who essentially keeps an index of interests from people. When an appointment like this is made, it's made by the cabinet, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, and always with the recommendation of the minister responsible. Mr.

Pollard's role is only to provide information to the cabinet minister and the cabinet as to the names of persons who might be interested. Those can be supplemented by the minister or anybody else, and usually they are; in my case they often are. I might suggest Mr. Couvelier, who I'm sure did not write in. That was my suggestion. Mr. Pollard would then take that suggested list of options for government and attempt to recruit other people.

Mr. Pollard will be involved in these appointments, as he is in all appointments. His position is more an advisory one. He collects the names of the thousands of people who request, keeps track of appointments as they come up and gives advice to ministers and cabinet. But I assure you he has no role in the selection and no influence on cabinet's decisions. It's a service agency. I assume it also existed with the previous government, but probably sort of behind closed doors, connected to the Premier's office. Perhaps our mistake, if there is one, in inviting misguided criticism from members opposite is that we have been open about the review and the procedure.

That's the procedure. If this passed I would likely ask Mr. Pollard if anybody at any time has submitted interest in this kind of agency. I'll certainly do my best to solicit the names of people who might be interested.

An Hon. Member: How about the NDP in Alberta?

Hon. G. Clark: That's not a bad heckle.

I assure members that this is not political in any way in terms of trying to get lay people on these regulatory bodies. It's not a perk; it doesn't pay anything; it's not an advantage. Mr. Pollard will be there, as he is with all

[ Page 7330 ]

of these appointments, to give us some sort of inventory of individuals who may be interested.

J. Weisgerber: One of the nice things about moving the defeated members from Alberta is that transportation and moving costs will be lower than for bringing them from other jurisdictions across the country. I suppose we can take some comfort from that.

The minister suggested that there was no compensation -- no honorariums, per diems, travel expenses and those kinds of things.

Hon. G. Clark: I apologize. There's no honorarium from the government. I suspect the Real Estate Council has some travel costs and maybe a per diem. I don't know the answer to that, but I can find out for the member. But I can assure the member there's no taxpayer implication for this.

Sections 10 and 11 approved.

section 12.

F. Gingell: I think this is the most interesting

section in the whole act, and I'm just longing to hear what circumstances have caused the need for this amendment.

Hon. G. Clark: I frankly think this is quite an innovative piece of legislation as well. I know that members of the consumer tax division were very creative in dealing with this.

What happens on occasion is that individuals with two residences -- those who own two homes or properties, one in British Columbia and one outside the province, usually Alberta -- purchase construction materials, boats, motor homes, and other large items in Alberta and bring them into British Columbia for use here. How it works now is that if you purchase something in Alberta for use there, it's obviously tax-free; if you purchase something in Alberta and you move it within a specified time period to use here, then you have to pay the British Columbia sales tax.

Unfortunately, for the sake of escaping the sales tax, some individuals argue that they own a property in Alberta, it is just here temporarily and their principal residence is in Alberta. They've been successful in making that case because they own property and maybe spend some time every year in Alberta. However, those same individuals then turn around and claim that their principal residence is British Columbia for the purposes of claiming the British Columbia homeowner grant, or for the purposes of going on the British Columbia medical system.

This is not an attempt to tighten the screws or anything else; this is just a question of being fair. If you declare this as your principal residence and apply for the homeowner grant in British Columbia and receive the $450, or $725 if you're a senior, you cannot in the same year argue the case that you're a resident of Alberta for the purposes of not paying British Columbia sales tax. Again, I think it's a good amendment, and I applaud my staff for their creativity in closing that loophole, which is not necessarily abused but is from time to time a problem.

Section 12 approved.

section 13.

F. Gingell: This purely and simply reduces the number of years in which the same amount of tax is being paid. What happens in the case of equipment and parts, etc., that have already been purchased and are in the transitional process? I expected some transitional provisions here, but there aren't any.

Hon. G. Clark: My staff advise that this applies to aircraft only and not to equipment in any way. We exempted aircraft on April 1. If that's not the answer, maybe the member could focus the question a bit.

F. Gingell: I was under the impression that the

section being amended causes a tax to be paid over a period of years on an aircraft that is used interprovincially. What happens if one is already in the process of the tax being paid? If they are in year two, and they've now paid two-fifths, instead of them being required to pay one-fifth next year, will they have to pay the three-fifths that remain unpaid?

Hon. G. Clark: I'm advised that any non-turbine engines will be grandfathered, so to speak. I hope that answers your question.

Sections 13 and 14 approved.

section 15.

F. Gingell: Thank you, hon. Chair. I was sitting here and heard you come to

section 15, and when you said, "Shall

section 15 pass?" I felt like shouting out: "No way."

I think this is an unnecessary change and creates an unreasonable burden on business. I presume I am correct in that what you are saying is that an auditor from the department of social service tax comes in to a business, makes an assessment and sends the estimated assessment out to the registered vendor, and they're only given 15 days in which to pay the amount of the assessment.

Hon. G. Clark: I wanted to catch the member and I should have risen, because I know that he raised this question in second reading. I have a note, but the bill was moving too fast for me in terms of dealing with it.

The member has an incorrect premise, and it's important that he know that the provision does not apply to billings for audit assessments. Once an audit assessment is billed, the taxpayer has a total of 60 days to pay the tax due or arrange for payment periods before a legal collection action is undertaken. The amendment applies strictly to situations where a vendor has collected tax already but has not remitted the tax collected, as required under the act.

[ Page 7331 ]

The tax collected during one month is due on the 15th day of the following month. If the tax is not remitted by that date, a letter is issued by the 5th day of the second month -- that's 20 days later -- requesting payment and advising that failure to remit tax due will result in an estimated assessment being issued if a response is not received within a further 14 days. If no response is received, an assessment is then issued, based on an estimate of the tax collected. The existing provision allows a further 30 days to pay the estimated assessment.

The proposed amendment reduces this time from 30 days to 15 days. This results in an overall reduction of the payment period from 64 days to 49 days.

J. Weisgerber: I want to thank the minister for the clarification, because I too misunderstood. As I was contemplating the change from 30 days to 15 days, I had to reflect and wonder how the ministry itself was doing in paying its invoices and whether or not the minister had been able to achieve any similar success.

Given the periods of time that the minister now talks about, is the minister paying invoices within 45 days for goods supplied to government and invoiced in the proper way?

Hon. G. Clark: That's a good estimates question, and when we get to estimates I'll ensure that we have an answer to that.

Sections 15 to 17 inclusive approved.

section 18.

J. Weisgerber: Essentially,

section 18, with its various subsections, deals with the appointment of six governors to the stock exchange. I hope that we can just deal with that as a topic and go through it.

[3:45]

Following up on the discussion we had a little bit earlier about the appointment of two people to the Real Estate Council, it seems to me, at least on the surface, somewhat excessive for the government to simply take the position that they are, without any consultation with the exchange, going to appoint six directors. That starts to become a rather significant number of people who will have quite an influence on the direction of the exchange. I'm curious to know why, in the case of many other self-regulatory groups -- lawyers, the Bar Association, etc. -- a relatively small number of lay people are proposed.

In this case the government has decided to put six, rather than the standard two or three people on the exchange.

Hon. G. Clark: That's not quite right. There are six public governors. Currently, one is nominated by the Law Society, one is nominated by the chartered accountants, four are nominated by the exchange and expected to be approved by the Minister of Finance, and then they become public governors. I want to assure the members that we intend to consult. We intend to continue to have one chartered accountant and one Law Society member -- that's in the act.

I want to just say anecdotally -- and I don't want to get anybody into trouble -- that when we discussed this question with the Law Society, they were a bit surprised when they were given the power to nominate someone in the first place. They didn't ask for the authority to nominate someone; it was done by legislation, and then they were told that they could nominate someone. So I don't think it's a big burden for them if we say that now we will consult with them, rather than them having the power to nominate.

We wanted to make sure that this was consistent with lay members of self-regulatory bodies. We're not giving the Real Estate Council the power to suggest to the government who the two lay people are. That defeats the purpose of trying to put lay people on self-regulatory bodies. Why would we give the Vancouver Stock Exchange any say over the lay people on that board? I appreciate that there are more lay people on the board. There are now two lay people out of 11 on the Insurance Council, I believe. There are two out of 19 on the Real Estate Council and six out of 24 on the stock exchange.

It's not completely out of line. There were six before; there are six now who are appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. The exchange is not concerned about that, and in all likelihood many of the existing members will be reappointed to the Vancouver Stock Exchange -- or at least some of them will be.

As you can tell by the Jim Matkin inquiry and other amendments like this, the other more political point is that we're trying to give people more confidence in the Vancouver Stock Exchange -- it's hopefully to improve and monitor it, but also to give more confidence. I think that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council appointing lay people as public governors of the board without reference to the exchange enhances the confidence the public might have that there are people on the exchange who have no connection and who are appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.

As you know, the exchange didn't ask the government to do this, but they are not opposed to the government moving in this direction.

There have been discussions -- and I'm sure Mr. Matkin will hear this, because I've heard it both in opposition and in government -- that there should be more public governors on this exchange. This is a dramatic change in getting more lay representation on the board. In this bill I chose not to do that. We are undertaking a review. We are not increasing the size; we're just changing the form. If Mr. Matkin recommends that, then certainly we'll have to discuss it in this House. I don't prejudge his recommendations, but I know that people will make that case to him.

I think it's consistent with other self-regulatory bodies. Two of them are from the legal and chartered accountant communities, and we will be consulting with them. This takes us a step further in terms of reform of the exchange, although this is a very modest initiative. I don't think the number of public governors should cause too much concern, because public governors are already there.

On that last point, despite the fact that we're doing this, I want to say very clearly that I have full

[ Page 7332 ]

confidence in the public governors who exist now, even if one is concerned about this cumbersome nomination approval. They are not fettered or tainted by the process that exists to date. I completely reject any notion that they are. Public governors like Mr. Couvelier, Ms. Rubin, Dean Lusztig and other members who are on the commission now, appointed under the old process before this change, are superb individuals doing a very good job. I don't criticize them. This bill is not intended to criticize their actions.

However, because of the process by which they were appointed, because they have to be nominated and elected by the exchange, it is possible that the public might view their appointments with cynicism. That's what we're trying to deal with. It's more of a perception problem than an actual problem. Again, I think that's why the commission is not opposed to this. They know that the government is not taking action here to deal with an actual problem, but only with a perception problem. It's part of this overall attempt to try to build confidence in the exchange.

J. Weisgerber: I don't think that it's the role of lay people on boards to dominate them or to influence the decision of the boards simply by numbers. The fact that on most of them there are two or three is to have a presence, an awareness and to bring a perspective to the board. If that's the approach, I'm not sure that six are necessarily that much different than two or three.

My concern with the minister's response is that he talks a lot about what he intends to do and how he will use the act. I don't have any reason to doubt that he would use the act in the way that he says, and that he would continue to consult with an accounting agency in the selection of a chartered accountant and with the Law Society in the selection of a lawyer. But there's nothing in this bill that suggests that this has to happen. All the government has to do is identify a lawyer and an accountant and four other people. So my criticism is that this act will be interpreted by ministers responsible for the exchange in the future and may well be dealt with differently.

If the minister is looking perhaps to reduce the level of cynicism -- and I believe he is sincere on this -- he would also recognize that from time to time there is cynicism around government appointees. So I would try to answer that second criticism that may come up at some later time -- that these folks are seen simply as appointees, not necessarily always of the government but of the political party that happens to be in power. It's with those kinds of concerns that I raise this issue.

As I mentioned earlier in second reading, I think it may have been possible to achieve what the minister set out to do with two or three people directly appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council and two or three appointed from other groups in society. This would achieve essentially the same goals, without the cynicism around either process being there.

Sections 18 to 20 inclusive approved.

section 21.

F. Gingell: I think it's appropriate that we raise the issue of the payment of the cost of the Matkin commission. It isn't often that

an act or an amendment to

an act is brought in that requires some third party to pay the bill of a program started by the provincial government, without any cap on it, although yesterday, of course, we were dealing with amendments to the Waste Management Act that contained all kinds of open-ended exercises. Maybe this is going to be a practice of this government in the future. I would appreciate some remarks from the minister with respect to the anticipated costs of the Matkin inquiry and whether there are guarantees that it will not exceed any particular sum.

Hon. G. Clark: This is a bit of a novel section. I grant that if the Minister of Finance were not responsible for the Vancouver Stock Exchange, I don't know whether this

section would have made its way in. Let me try to give some comfort to the member in a general sense. Under the Securities Act -- which underwent a major revision by my predecessor, Mr. Couvelier, and lengthy late-night debates in the House, which members opposite are becoming more familiar with -- there is now a

section which allows the Minister of Finance to order an inquiry, independent of the commission, and that is paid for by the commission. The commission's revenue comes from the exchange members.

For example, there was an option to appoint Mr. Matkin under that

section of the Securities Act. However, the legal

interpretations were that that

section was narrow, and it was really designed for the Minister of Finance to order an investigation into a particular stock transaction. We chose to go the public inquiry route. I guess what I'm saying is that it's not without precedent. The existing Securities Act contemplates the industry paying for ministerial inquiries and regulation.

As you can imagine, I discussed with the Vancouver Stock Exchange their contribution to a review or inquiry into the exchange. They were sympathetic to contributing to such a review. We wanted to ensure that there was independence and that it was unfettered. There was some concern that the VSE paying for a review might give rise to some public cynicism.

So rather than having them contribute to it or having the commission deal with it, we felt it much simpler and cleaner legally, in terms of legislative counsel, to amend the act -- as we were doing in any event for a variety of other things -- to enable the Minister of Finance to order an inquiry at any time and to charge a percentage, not all of it to the exchange members. Again, generally speaking, I think it's reasonable.

Public inquiries can cost a fair amount of money. I don't know if members opposite are cognizant of the fact that when the government of the day appoints a public inquiry, the inquiry commissioner has no budget. The member opposite may be interested to know that when the government appoints an inquiry commissioner, that commissioner is not fettered by the budgetary process in most cases. In that case the budget of an inquiry commission can grow somewhat. They're

[ Page 7333 ]

not subject to the same Treasury Board; they're a statutory body of independents, which arises out of some almost judicial process and gives inquiry commissioners independence, including the power to spend tax money. In this case, I felt that this was a focused inquiry dealing with a particular industrial sector that had a vested interest in enhancing it. It made more sense to have the industry itself pay, and as you know, the industry has not criticized this, so that's why it's here. I gave you a bit of history there.

[4:00]

We had a couple of choices: the Securities Act, which would have been by the commission and paid for by the industry; or the Inquiry Act, which normally means there's no budgetary restraint on the inquiry commissioner. It's normally allowed, and it has complete independence and access to the public treasury to spend money. We decided that rather than do that we would make it an industry review, paid for by the industry itself -- by way of an amendment here -- and that allows the government some flexibility. It doesn't put a strain on the taxpayer to fund a review which will, after all, enhance the exchange and therefore enhance the industry.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'd like to introduce to the House the former Premier of Newfoundland, Hon. Brian Peckford. He was Premier from 1979 to 1990. He is here speaking at the University of Victoria on the subject of overfishing and what that does to domestic fisheries. I hope he gets the appropriate attention that his subject matter deserves here in British Columbia. Would the House please make him welcome.

F. Gingell: I am somewhat surprised that this amendment deals only with the Matkin inquiry. You won't be able to use it for any other purpose in the future. I would like you to comment on that and also on the problem that might arise if you decide to change the current terms of reference of the Matkin inquiry. Presumably that would be required to be done through an order-in-council. You would need to have a new order-in-council, and it wouldn't apply; you wouldn't be able to use this

section of the act, because it refers only to order-in-council 638/93. I wonder if you would like to comment on those issues.

Hon. G. Clark: That's an excellent question. Let me say that if we were to have an open-ended

section which required the Vancouver Stock Exchange to pay, then they would legitimately be a bit concerned about that being there. To be candid, we wanted to give some certainty to the stock exchange members that this is not an open-ended ticket that they would have to pay.

Secondly, we have the Attorney General's advice that there is a bit of latitude under the

Interpretation Act. For example, and I hesitate to say this because I don't want to do this, if it were required to extend the time frame by further order-in-council, the

Interpretation Act would allow this

section to continue to be enforced for some modest changes. If there were substantive changes to their terms of reference, then I suspect the member is correct; it would cause great concern in terms of being able to require the exchange to pay the bills associated with that. All that would happen in any such regard is that the taxpayer, literally, would pay the costs of any expanded or dramatically changed terms of reference associated with it. That's consistent with the Inquiry Act and other inquiries that might occur.

We wanted to give some assurance to the exchange that there is some certainty to this; it isn't a blank cheque for any minister to do a review at any time. But I appreciate that it's a bit inflexible as a result of that.

F. Gingell: Moving from subsection (1)(

a) to subsection (1)(b), I notice that (1)(

b) is permissive, rather than requiring the funds to be, in effect, paid out of the profits earned by the B.C. Securities Commission, because that's what the special account contains. Number one, is it your intention to have the remainder of the costs paid from the special account? Number two, if you were to have a problem in part (a), where you decided to expand the terms of reference, would you use part (b), which seems to apply, to pay the additional costs that you perhaps could not recover from the Vancouver Stock Exchange?

Hon. G. Clark: That's a hypothetical question. I hadn't given it any thought. You may be correct that you could do that.

I just want to remind members of how the Securities Commission functions. It is essentially a self-financing agency, but they have a profit target from government, which is fairly modest. The commission, like the exchange itself, generates revenue with volume. I don't know this for a fact, but I would anticipate significant increased revenues to the Securities Commission from fees as a result of the increased activity. On the other hand, if the commission and the exchange were struggling -- volumes were down and they weren't meeting their targets -- the government might not want to impose an extra burden on the commission to pay for this inquiry. That's why it's permissive.

If the commission is generating sufficient revenue as a result of a buoyant market and it can easily accommodate some extra pressure without raising rates, for example to industry, then we would likely have the commission pay 15 percent or more of the costs. That would be my intention. On the other hand, if they're struggling to meet their budget and would have to increase the rates to industry in order to pay the extra costs, then we have the option of taking money out of general revenue.

Sections 21 and 22 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. G. Clark: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

[ Page 7334 ]

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Bill 36, Finance and Corporate Relations Statutes Amendment Act, 1993, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. G. Clark: I call committee on Bill 34.

FORESTERS AMENDMENT ACT, 1993

The House in committee on Bill 34; M. Lord in the chair.

section 1.

W. Hurd: I have a brief question on "practice of professional forestry," as it is a somewhat nebulous term even to those in the profession. Will this apply just to Crown lands in the province, or will the practice of professional forestry potentially apply to all lands? Is there a designation for the type of land under

section 1, or is that matter dealt with in later provisions?

Hon. D. Miller: First, let me introduce Richard Grieves, senior advisor in policy and legislation, and Michael Grist, manager, policy development and legislation.

The answer is that it essentially applies to Crown lands, but there may be occasions where activity on private land would impact. Primarily the answer is that it applies on Crown lands.

W. Hurd: Is there a potential for this to apply as well to municipal land and band land, for example, or would that fall under a different statute? From speaking to the association, I understand there was a case involving an aboriginal timber harvest. Since the land was being harvested and was not actually subject to a reforestation program, it wasn't deemed subject to the forestry guidelines. Given the amount of municipal land that can potentially be designated community forest, I'm asking how the land designation would apply.

Hon. D. Miller: It would apply on those lands for which the Crown has management responsibility. Later on in the bill, under

section 21, there are some specific exemptions -- for example, for woodlot licensees. But in the case you're referring to, Indian reserve land falls under federal jurisdiction.

In most instances people do employ a professional forester to draw up a development plan, but it's not an absolute requirement.

W. Hurd: One other brief question. I may have missed a reference to roadbuilding. Is that considered a matter for an engineering designation, or would it...?

Interjection.

W. Hurd: Oh, I see: "forest transportation systems." I assume that type of designation refers to all forestry roads and logging roads?

Hon. D. Miller: That's correct. The RPF would have the responsibility, but we clearly recognize there may be RPFs who do not have that particular skill. They would obviously employ either RPFs who did have the skill, or engineers, who would then have responsibility. But the final sign-off, if you like, would still be the responsibility of the RPF. So responsibility goes down the line. You can't avoid it or evade it simply because you as a forester don't have that particular skill. Of course, there is a range of particular skills in the profession of forestry.

But you would still have the overall responsibility, which is as it should be. In terms of putting together a particular roadbuilding plan, you can employ a professional engineer to design roads and bridges and use forest technologists to do some of the work in developing the plan, but you would have the responsibility. That's not atypical. If I can make an analogy to engineers, quite often plans are developed using people with technical skills, but nonetheless there's a sign-off. One person signs their name to the document and bears the responsibility for it.

W. Hurd: I have one other brief question under

section 1(a), which refers to integrated resource management values. What responsibility does the minister envisage for the RPF to sign off on any of those integrated plans that might involve spotted owl designations or other wildlife management studies? I understand that the situation, as it stands now, does not necessarily require the RPF to sign off those plans. While they're important from an integrated or total resource standpoint, they do not necessarily fall within the purview of the RPF over forest land management.

[4:15]

Hon. D. Miller:

Section 1(

a) is really the same as in the existing legislation, although there has been a wording change from "forest property" to "forest land," but subsection (

b) is new: "assessing the impact of planned activities on forests and forest land." Now there can be a range of activities which are not necessarily harvesting. It could be that some development is planned for land in the forest class. In that case the forester would provide his or her opinion about the impact that development would have on that particular piece of land. Their expertise lies in managing the land, and clearly there's a variety of activities. We mostly think of roadbuilding and harvesting, but there can be other activities on forest land that have an impact. The forester would clearly have to advise what that impact might be.

Sections 1 to 8 inclusive approved.

Section 9, sections 10 to 14 inclusive approved.

section 9,

section 15.

[ Page 7335 ]

W. Hurd: I just have a brief question with respect to the "board of examiners" -- the board that will be examining credentials. It might not be specifically relevant under this section, but can the minister advise us what percentage of the registered professional foresters in the province are employees of the Ministry of Forests? Is he aware of the percentage?

Hon. D. Miller: I'm advised that there are slightly less than 3,000 foresters in the province. It's in that range -- 2,863 to be exact. About one-third of those would be employees of the ministry.

W. Hurd: In examining

section 15, one assumes that the RPFs will be subject to having their proficiency examined. Are we dealing with a one-shot analysis when they become RPFs, or is the board of examiners dealing with qualifications and performance over an indefinite period of time?

Hon. D. Miller: The association would develop criteria to deal with the issue of continuing membership. I'm not that familiar with the full range, but other professional associations have a mechanism whereby they can ensure that as professionals they are up to date. In other words, as knowledge accumulates and as things change, there needs to be an ongoing mechanism to ensure foresters keep up with that. I think that in a normal course of events foresters and other professionals take continuing courses.

For example, as we introduce new regulations governing activities on the land, such as soil conservation guidelines, and as we move to develop and implement biological guidelines, foresters clearly have an obligation to be current in their understanding of what those guidelines are and what the implications are for implementation. The association will have to develop criteria to ensure that their members keep up to date with whatever is current. This

section clearly allows that, but it does not delineate that criteria or the method by which the association would do that.

Section 9,

section 15 approved.

section 9,

section 16.

W. Hurd: I have just a brief question with respect to

section 16.

Hon. D. Miller: On a point of order, are we dealing with

section 16, or are we dealing with

section 9 of the bill, which refers to

section 16 of the Foresters Act?

The Chair: We are dealing with the sections contained within

section 9.

W. Hurd: I'm pleased that that point of order was raised, hon. Chairman. Now the confusion is complete.

I just have a brief question under

section whatever-it-is. It refers to out-of-province permits to practise professional forestry in the province. Given the fact that the standards for a professional association vary from province to province, can the minister advise the committee whether we're talking about a significant number of professional foresters transferring? Is he aware of the numbers involved, or is this really up to the association to monitor?

Hon. D. Miller: I'm just trying to interpret the member's question to some degree. Is there a concern that people from outside the province are coming in in significant numbers and practising forestry? I don't believe that's the case. There has always been a provision to allow professional foresters from outside British Columbia to come in and practise forestry on a temporary basis or a permit basis. Again, that's not unusual. You will find that that same circumstance exists in other professions.

The specific criteria for those permits will be developed by the association, and obviously they'll be based on some of the work that exists. Visiting foresters are granted special permits if their education and work experience is equivalent to that of registered members of the British Columbia association. So there is an assessment based on work experience and criteria. The association examines an applicant's academic qualifications and checks references for work experience to ensure that they are equivalent to those needed by a person applying to become a member of the B.C. association.

L. Fox: I hope I'm on the right section. I am on page six, special permit area, I believe.

The Chair: That's correct, hon. member.

L. Fox: I'm a bit confused by the numbering.

I just want a bit of clarification. I understand some of the reasons why these professional foresters come in from out of province to do work, primarily based on a seasonal need. But it says in the explanation of this section: "...the other to permit the limited practice of aspects of professional forestry." Would the minister expand on what that particular aspect of this legislation permits?

Hon. D. Miller: Members will be aware that the act deals with the relationship between professional foresters and other professions, such as technologists. The act and the association have an ability to allow that relationship to work. In other words, the technologists work in a related field, much of which is work that falls under the practice of forestry and, in fact, falls under the practice of a registered professional forester. But the people doing that work might not have the full title; they will be technologists.

So the permit system allows people from outside of our borders who fall into that category to come in and do the work that they are qualified to do, while recognizing that they are not RPFs.

Section 9, sections 16 to 18 inclusive approved.

Section 10, sections 19 and 20 approved.

[ Page 7336 ]

section 10,

section 21.

W. Hurd: I'm going to have to get a math degree to follow the progress of this bill.

I have a question on this

section as it relates to the woodlot program. The minister made reference to it earlier in the debate. Given that the owners of these woodlots often engage in practices described at least under subsection (4), can the minister advise us what role the RPF will have on a woodlot program? Will they have to sign off the activities that are normally undertaken by the operator or owner of the woodlot? Does he see any change there as a result of this particular

section in the act?

Hon. D. Miller: As I indicated earlier in committee, woodlots would be exempt from the requirement to have a registered professional forester sign off the work, whether it's harvesting, roadbuilding or what have you. In a previous bill we eliminated societies from eligibility to apply for woodlots in the future, although we recognized that those societies currently holding woodlots could retain them. In many cases in the past you would find both societies and individuals who had applied to hold a woodlot when this expertise does exist -- not in every case, but the bill does recognize the uniqueness of woodlots.

They are small, and in many cases the holders of them are very close to the land and, have the experience. As I indicated in the previous bill, experience is a major factor in the awarding of woodlot licences. Under this

section they are excluded from the requirements of having an RPF sign off on those plans.

[4:30]

[E. Barnes in the chair.]

Section 10,

section 21 approved.

section 11,

section 25.

W. Hurd: Earlier in the debate we talked about the number of RPFs directly employed by the Ministry of Forests. In the event that an offence is committed by any of those ministry employees vis-�-vis this section, can the minister advise, to his knowledge, what role his ministry or the government would have in assisting the person so charged under this section, if, as a member of the ministry, the person was charged with professional misconduct under these revisions to the Foresters Act?

Hon. D. Miller: The offences under that

section are for either misrepresenting yourself as an RPF or for practising when you are not an RPF. So that really wouldn't come into it. I'm happy to deal with it, but I don't have an answer.

Regardless of where RPFs are employed -- whether they are employed by the Ministry of Forests, the Ministry of Environment, private companies or as private consultants -- they are professionals, and they are governed by their own act. In the same sense as other professionals who have their own act, they are self-regulating -- not completely, because the Crown retains the right, as you will note in the bill, in terms of approving bylaws and those kinds of things, but they do police themselves.

If an RPF, whether working for the Crown or anyone else, contravenes the bylaws of the association in any form, they are dealt with through the disciplinary measures that are laid out. I don't believe there are any special circumstances simply because they may be employees of the Crown.

At the outset I indicated that I think this bill represents a challenge to professional foresters -- perhaps less to those employed by the ministry, and more to those employed by private companies. But I think the foresters are up to that challenge.

Section 11, sections 25 and 26 approved.

section 11,

section 27.

W. Hurd: I would restate the question that I had attempted to pose about

section 25. Under this section, one assumes that a member of the public could bring a complaint against an RPF with the ministry. This occurred in the case of the Arrow Lakes situation where the association looked at the performance of ministry staff. Can the minister clarify exactly what role his ministry might take in assisting an RPF in his ministry to deal with a situation where a member of the public issues a complaint against that person for any aspect of his work with the minister?

Hon. D. Miller: The statute is pretty clear. Any person who feels that a member or former member of the association has been guilty of incompetence, professional misconduct or contravention of the act or the bylaws may request an investigation. It is stipulated that it must be in writing and include details, and the registrar must acknowledge the request and inform the person who requested the investigation, etc.

I want to be very clear that the situation in the Arrow Lakes -- and I don't wish to interfere in anything the association might do -- relates to whether or not the preharvest silvicultural prescriptions, which are a requirement of the Forest Act and not the Foresters Act, were in all cases complied with. We are doing further work and will make that work public. The explanation is that in 1987, when the legislation changed and first brought in the concept of preharvest silvicultural prescriptions, it was a vast administrative task. It appears that in some circumstances the actual prescription was not advertised.

We're working through that in an administrative way and checking in other districts as well to find out.

But let's not confuse an administrative foul-up with anything relative to misconduct or foresters not doing their work. The proof of the pudding at the end of the day will be -- let me give a mixed metaphor -- whether the land....

R. Neufeld: You could be one of those artists.

Hon. D. Miller: Yes, right. Occasionally, hon. Chair, I do feel artistic. I would suggest that it's not something anybody should try to foster or promote.

[ Page 7337 ]

The proof will be whether the land that has been harvested has been restocked and reforested, and whether it is going to be allowed to go to a free-to-grow state. That's the issue there. It doesn't relate to

section 27 of the Foresters Act.

W. Hurd: Without wanting to take us too far off the track, I'm rather curious to hear the minister's assessment of exactly what the Association of B.C. Professional Foresters is doing in relation to that case. My understanding was they were examining it under the terms of their existing association bylaws, rather than any

interpretation of whether there were breaches of the Forest Act. Can he clarify that? My understanding was that they were actually looking at it as a professional competency issue under the existing act that governs their association. I'm just trying to anticipate this section, given the controversy we have about environment land use issues in this province. There obviously is the potential here for these cases to proliferate in the event that there are practices that an individual may feel are the direct result of some malfeasance or non-performance by the registered professional foresters.

I just ask for clarification: if it were a member of the Ministry of Forests staff, exactly what role would the ministry be required to take in representing this person in any disciplinary hearing before the association?

Hon. D. Miller: I'm not aware of whether or not the association is pursuing individuals. They certainly don't come to me and ask my opinion as to whether they should or shouldn't, nor do they advise me if they are or are not. I'm completely unaware as to whether or not they may be pursuing anybody. As I indicated earlier, there are specific provisions in the act so that if someone wishes to allege that there has been a breach, there are mechanisms for the association to deal with that. It's not something that I would want to interfere with.

W. Hurd: Just one other quick question under

section 27 of the Foresters Act. Is there any grandfather clause for this section? Would it be theoretically possible for a member of the public to bring forth a complaint based on past practices, or does the

section relate just to forest practices that occur from the date of incorporation or passage of this act? For example, what if a logging road built 20 years ago were to fall down and it could be traced in some way to the work of a professional forester? Is it the minister's understanding that a complaint could be launched under

section 27 for practices in the past, or is it strictly for conduct from this point forward?

Hon. D. Miller:

Section 27 does not limit anyone's ability to register a complaint with the association for activity that happened prior to the introduction and passage of the bill. It simply delineates it in a better way. Complaints against foresters are, by their nature, after the fact. Although there may be instances where someone could say, "I think what you're doing, or what you're going to do, will be detrimental," generally it's after the fact.

I think it's unlikely that someone would pursue a complaint in the situation that you mentioned, where a road was built 20 years ago and subsequently failed; I would think it unlikely to try to pursue a complaint against an individual forester for that failure. I would say that the question should be directed to the association. I don't think there are any particular limits or strictures on individuals for pursuing complaints with the registrar and the association.

W. Hurd: My questions don't relate just to past practices. There are the ongoing issues in Clayoquot Sound, where as a matter of strategy, if we could use that term, some members of the environmental movement may decide that it's possible to bring some frivolous actions against professional foresters through this

section of the act, which has the best of intentions but clearly has the potential to trigger a major investigation by the association. It's impossible to envision how this

section of the act may actually be played out as it is dealt with by the association. Does the minister see any potential for concern under this section, or does he not really foresee it as being a significant issue?

Hon. D. Miller: I can't foresee it being that significant. It may be. I suppose complaints are lodged in any profession, some of which are frivolous. The legislation clearly requires the registrar to acknowledge a complaint that's filed in writing and to inform the person who filed the complaint of the results of any investigation and the disposition of the matter. They really do have that opportunity to respond. The allegation must be in writing, and they must respond in writing to the person making the allegation. There is no ability to pursue beyond that, except through civil law.

[4:45]

Foresters have a vested interest in trying to elevate the public view of their profession, It's one that they do take seriously. I think there has to be some ability to screen out frivolous allegations. The penalties are fairly severe. They are not matters that people should take lightly.

Section 11,

section 27 approved.

section 11,

section 28.

W. Hurd: I just have one brief question. This particular section, in which the association undertakes an investigation of a fellow member, is, of course, one that is currently a source of controversy of the College of Physicians and Surgeons. The complaint in that case was about the time limit of these investigations. After an initial complaint is launched, at times there seems to be an unreasonable delay in processing it, and, of course, a lack of information to the complainant. That is understandable, given the need for confidentiality.

Would it be prudent to ask a question about the timing of an investigation? How long could or should that investigation continue in order to give the public confidence that in a situation where a society is called upon to investigate one of its own members the

[ Page 7338 ]

investigation is timely and that it's dealt with in a manner than fosters public confidence?

Hon. D. Miller: There are no prescribed time limits in the legislation. Again, it's in the interests of the association to deal with these issues in a timely manner. In the past disciplinary issues have taken a considerable amount of time. But from my memory of them, they involved a great deal of technical material and pretty deep discussion relative to professional differences, if you like. So while there is none, the association clearly must deal with issues in a timely manner.

Section 11, sections 28 to 34 inclusive, and

section 12 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. D. Miller: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Bill 34, Foresters Amendment Act, 1993, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. D. Miller: I call second reading of Bill 33.

HUMAN RIGHTS AMENDMENT ACT, 1993

(continued)

On the amendment.

J. MacPhail: We have before us today a motion from the opposition to hoist Bill 33 and put it on hold for a while. I rise to very strongly oppose any delay in bringing in the Human Rights Amendment Act, 1993. I feel quite strongly about this. The reason I am opposing it is that any delay in bringing in the Human Rights Amendment Act, 1993, would put British Columbians in a lower position than other Canadians. It will have the effect of leaving British Columbians without any protection against hate propaganda, and that's not a situation we want to see our residents put into, nor our families and diverse cultural groups.

I would suggest that British Columbia is one of the last safe havens within Canada for individuals and organizations that promote racial supremacy and hatred, and that's just not acceptable. I know that those of us who care about our province see that as unacceptable. There are those who would like to delay and who feel a bit cowardly with regard to this issue, but they need not do so. It is not that we are breaking new ground here or that we do not have substantial constitutional protection for freedom of speech within Canada.

But it is true that our province is one of the last areas that needs to have this final protection. The current Human Rights Act just does not do it, and our other laws are inadequate to prevent hate activities and to remedy the harmful effects of hate propaganda. It is important that we do not support the hoist motion, that we get on with bringing in the Human Rights Amendment Act, 1993, and that we pass Bill 33 so that British Columbia will be in the forefront in protecting against hatemongering.

For the sake of the opposition, let me just read some notes put out by the B.C. Human Rights Coalition, who are a well-respected group of advocates on behalf of all British Columbians and who advocate on behalf of balancing between the rights of the individual and the rights of freedom of speech with regard to hate-mongering. Let me tell you what the Human Rights Coalition is saying about Bill 33, the Human Rights Amendment Act:

"Without this amendment, the only piece of legislation which can be used to combat hate propaganda is the B.C. Civil Rights Protection Act."

I know that's

an act that the opposition rests its laurels upon. However, the Human Rights Coalition goes on to say:

"This act makes it a criminal offence to promote hatred and contempt of a person or class of persons. If convicted, an individual is liable for a fine of up to $2,000 and six months in jail. If a corporation or society is involved, the fine could be $10,000. The Civil Rights Protection Act is punitive in nature and provides no remedy to the victim of hatred. In order to convict someone, a charge of promoting hatred and contempt must be proved according to a criminal standard; that is, beyond a reasonable doubt."

Those of us who are familiar with the court system know how difficult that can be. The Human Rights Coalition goes on to say:

"It is necessary to prove intent. Because of the foregoing, there has never been a charge laid under the Civil Rights Protection Act.

"The new amendment decriminalizes hate and moves it to a forum where the public interest is the paramount consideration. It will be the B.C. Council of Human Rights which will determine whether a violation of the Human Rights Act has occurred. Free speech is not the issue. Even if the amendment contained a caveat which said nothing in it restricts the right to free speech, complaints would still go forward. The council would have to determine what is legitimate free speech and what is the promotion of hatred."

For those who may be concerned about the integrity of the Council of Human Rights, I might say that it has existed in this province and done an excellent job defending the interests of individuals against all forms of discrimination, and it has done that through some tough times. I know that in the early eighties there was substantial change to the human rights council, much of which was protested by those of us on this side of the House.

Through it all, the human rights council, regardless of which government was in power, has managed to do its job in defending the interests of British Columbians against discrimination. I would say that that's going to continue. It will continue with the B.C. Council of Human Rights for years to come. Now the council will have added ammunition at its behest to protect us all against hate.

"The wording of this amendment is not as strong as the wording contained in the Saskatchewan human rights code," the B.C. Human Rights Coalition tells us.

[ Page 7339 ]

"Saskatchewan prohibits publication or display of anything `which exposes or tends to expose to hatred, ridicules, belittles, or otherwise affronts the dignity....'" Then it goes on to list the various classes that will be affected by this. The B.C. amendments contain the words "hatred or contempt" only. The Saskatchewan code has been in force for a number of years, and there has never been an issue of free speech being threatened within that province. So I would hope that that would give the opposition comfort in reconsidering or perhaps withdrawing its hoist motion and allowing the Legislature to proceed with the Human Rights Amendment Act.

Let me read to you information received from just one other group in society, an excellent advocate and defender of the interests of all British Columbians regardless of background. That is the Affiliation of Multicultural Societies and Service Agencies of British Columbia -- AMSSA, to those of us who are well familiar with it. I quote their president, Riasat Ali Khan. He says:

"We believe the bill represents a good balance of the freedom of expression and the protection of rights of minorities. This is badly needed in a time when hate groups such as the White Aryan Resistance, the Ku Klux Klan and Western Guard seem to be growing in size and becoming more active. Hopefully, it may prevent the kind of racist violence that is happening in Germany, France and other parts of Europe."

They conclude their public statement on the Human Rights Amendment Act by pointing out to us that the Canadian Bar Association has in fact recommended that provincial human rights statutes be amended to include prohibition against hate and that the provisions of

section 28 of the Criminal Code dealing with hate propaganda be strengthened. So we have good allies of the members of the opposition calling for such amendments as well. I hope that on this very difficult but important issue that would give all of us in this chamber comfort to proceed on this basis.

Bill 33 decriminalizes hate and moves it to a forum where the public interest is paramount -- and that's important to us all. It will be the B.C. Council of Human Rights that will determine whether a violation of the Human Rights Act has occurred. Again, free speech is not the issue. It is not a law that is aimed to suppress individual freedom of expression. In fact, the bill expands individual freedom of expression in the current law. I would just reiterate that

section 2 in its current form is subject to the Civil Rights Protection Act, which prohibits any conduct or communication, whether public or private, that promotes hatred or contempt of a person or group. Bill 33 expressly protects private communications.

I would like to conclude by really urging all of us within the House to not delay, to have courage to proceed on this matter and to have the courage of our convictions. Everybody who lives in British Columbia deserves to have their rights protected, and we do not deserve -- any of us, whether we be an individual or a group of individuals -- to be subject to hatemongering. That is, finally, what Bill 33 protects all British Columbians against.

I would hope that my four-and-a-half-year-old, whom I often speak about in this House, will have the benefit of Bill 33 and grow up having friends from diverse backgrounds and not be targeted by any group. I would hope that he will be able to go through the education system and society knowing that the interests of free speech, individuals' right to free speech and society's right to be protected against hatemongering will be well balanced and protected in Bill 33. I really urge all of us to proceed quickly and pass this legislation.

C. Evans: I don't want this to be an indignant speech. A lot of times in politics, indignation is a feigned emotion, a dishonest way to speak. Yet I feel a little indignant about standing here. The general public might find what's happening in here a little arcane and difficult to understand, so I'm going to try to go through it. I rise to speak against a hoist motion on Bill 33. A whole lot of people probably don't understand what a hoist motion is or how it comes to pass that a government member would be speaking against a motion having to do with a government bill.

I'm going to try to explain that to them, because having brought in a hoist motion on this bill, the people who did must understand that the general public will understand what they are doing.

[5:00]

Firstly, what is Bill 33? Bill 33 is the Human Rights Amendment Act, 1993. What does it say? It says that a human being has the right not to be subjected to hate. For sure, there's nobody who works here who disagrees with that. The other side and members on my side would agree that it's a perfectly legitimate thing to make a law in this place that says none of us and none of the people we represent can be the object of hatred.

Because the discussion that brought in this hoist motion had to do with the existence of the present legislation, let me say to the people who might be confused that we already have a law in B.C. called the Civil Rights Protection Act. Some people would make the argument that you don't need a law that says that a human being has the right not to be hated if you already have a law that says that it's against the law -- a criminal offence -- to disseminate hatred.

I hope I don't demean the intelligence of members, but I want to say to people who maybe don't follow these matters too much that there's a terrific difference. The law we have now says that I will be tried in a court of law as a criminal if I write down and disseminate something that demeans one of you because of your religion or that encourages my neighbours to hate you because of your religion or gender or sexual orientation or where you're from.

We are proposing, in Bill 33, to replace that or to augment it with a law that says: "My human rights have been abrogated if you disseminate literature that encourages people to hate me."

Are we laying one good law on top of another? Is this smoke and mirrors or a duplication of effort? I don't think so. We're saying that the law that now makes someone a criminal for disseminating hatred doesn't work. The courts are expensive. The courts won't hear the case. The police will never charge the

[ Page 7340 ]

person. If it gets to court the person will never be found guilty. The criminal system just didn't work. Anyway, we wrote that law in 1981, before we had a Charter. The Charter, which supersedes all legislation in Canada and which guarantees me my freedom of speech -- and guarantees other hon. members and you, hon. Speaker, your freedom of speech -- makes it impossible for us to charge people and have them convicted as criminals under the present law.

Maybe it's wrong of me to use an absolute word like "impossible" in trying to make something simple. Maybe someday someone will be charged under the present law and convicted -- maybe in the year 2000, maybe next month, maybe in the year 2030. But it's a complicated and sophisticated society out there, with people doing crummy things every day, and it hasn't happened in 12 years. With all of the dissemination of hatred against Jews, the cross burnings, the Nazi-like activity and the organization of the skinheads, it hasn't happened. Maybe next month something will happen which is so clearly a criminal act that the criminal law will work, but it hasn't happened yet.

We're saying that in a pragmatic sort of a way, we're the leaders. We're the legislators. It's our obligation not only to say, "Gee, we did right; we passed a law," but to look at it ten years later and ask: "Does it wor