Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, MAY 8, 1997

Afternoon

Volume 4, Number 20

[ Page 3229 ]

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

B. McKinnon: It gives me great pleasure again, for the third time this week, to announce 27 grade 5 students from Pacific Academy in Fraser Heights, in my riding of Surrey-Cloverdale, and their teacher Mr. McLarty. I bid the House make them welcome, and I hope they enjoy themselves today.

H. Lali: Today visiting us in the galleries are 12 aboriginal adult basic ed students from the Chehalis Indian reserve near Merritt, in my riding, and their teacher Ms. Taylor. Would the House please make them welcome.

L. Reid: In the gallery today is a dear friend of mine, Karen Legeer, visiting from White Rock. She is joined also by our legislative assistant Ms. Terri Cunningham. I would ask the House to please make them welcome.

The Speaker: Malahat-Juan de Fuca.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca. A thousand pardons.

Interjections.

The Speaker: It could have been worse.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Excuse me, members. I never thought I'd have to intervene to ask for order in introductions, but could we . . . ?

M. Sihota: I must say, hon. Speaker, that a number of thoughts cross my mind, but I think I'm better off to just simply advise you that visiting us today are a number of students from Royal Roads University, which, of course, is located in my constituency and is an institution we're very proud of.

Interjection.

M. Sihota: Yes, in the constituency of Esquimalt-Metchosin, that is.

Those students are Navi Dhami, Rosanne Dardano, Kevin Hilscher, William Fry, Geoff Griffiths and Doug Racine. Would all members please give them a warm welcome.

M. Coell: Visiting us today is Jenny Thomas, a student at Arbutus Junior Secondary School. Would the House please make her welcome.

J. Smallwood: I'd like to introduce three people that are very important to me. I actually have two sisters-in-law in the gallery, Jean Smallwood and Deb Smith, and one other very important visitor, an eight-year-old niece, Kimberly Smith, who incidentally is an extraordinary public speaker. I would like the whole House to make my three important people welcome.

G. Wilson: In the galleries today is Mr. Harvey Martin, who has come down from Kelowna for business in Victoria. He also is the vice-president of the PDA. I would like the House to make Mr. Harvey Martin welcome.

G. Farrell-Collins: I have two sets of introductions I'd like to make today. First, two gentlemen who worked hard on my campaign and others -- they're the young people who get into politics and make it work -- are here: Bindra and Tejindar Parhar. They are in the gallery today, and I'd ask the House to make them welcome.

Also we have a group of newspaper editors with us today: Kevin Laird from the Nanaimo Daily Free Press ; Keith Norbury from the Goldstream News Gazette ; Alana Jorde, Esquimalt News ; Paul Lidgate, Peninsula News Review ; Bjorn Stavrum, Business Examiner ; and George Le Masurier. I'd ask the House to make them all welcome.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Present in the gallery are Anne McLean of the Canadian Bar Association and law student David Robbins. Would the House please make them welcome.

S. Hawkins: I'd also like to extend a welcome to Navi Dhami, who is a constituent of mine and also an e-mail pen pal, and his classmates from Royal Roads. Would the House please join me in making them welcome.

Oral Questions

B.C.'S CREDIT RATING AND

FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

F. Gingell: When the NDP was elected in 1991, the total provincial debt stood at less than $18 billion. At the end of this fiscal year, it will be over $30 billion. Sooner or later, you reap what you sow. By downgrading B.C.'s credit rating, Moody's Investors Service has cast a vote of non-confidence in the ability of this NDP Finance minister to manage B.C.'s money. Will the Minister of Finance show some honour, do the right thing and resign?

Hon. A. Petter: I didn't see the member rise to congratulate this government last week, when Dominion Bond Rating Service came in with its rating, maintaining B.C.'s rating.

I look forward to his subsequent questions and comments, because I'm sure he will reference to this House that Moody's rating today, while it is a notch lower, continues to be the highest rating of any province in Canada, along with Alberta; that Moody's notes that this province compares favourably not only with other provinces but internationally in terms of our investment record; and that Moody's notes that one of the reasons they decided to make this step was because this government insisted on maintaining its priorities, the priorities of funding health care and education.

F. Gingell: I remember that Dominion Bond Rating Service put this province on credit watch. Today the international financial community has cast a thumbs-down on the NDP's fiscal incompetence. When a Minister of Finance presents a budget that causes a major bond-rating agency to issue a credit downgrade, it's a sign that something is seriously wrong. If the Minister of Finance won't do the right thing and resign, will the Premier do what's necessary to restore confidence in British Columbia's fiscal matters and fire his poor, beleaguered Finance minister?

[ Page 3230 ]

Hon. G. Clark: I didn't hear the member opposite call for Paul Martin's resignation when Canada was downgraded in 1995. The members opposite here have demanded . . . . Well, I know that half the opposition wanted him to resign, because they're Reformers; the other half, they're not sure about . . . .

This Liberal opposition has stood in this House every second day or so and demanded that we build more schools, that we spend more money on education, that we spend more money on health care and build more hospitals. The reason that Moody's is concerned is because we maintained our investments in health care and education and because we're investing in school construction in this province. Even at that, our credit rating remains the highest in Canada.

[2:15]

F. Gingell: The only way that this government will protect health care and education in this province is by protecting our credit rating first. I'm sorry, but that's true. Moody's said that the "downward adjustment in the rating level reflects an incremental deterioration of the province's credit factors stemming from current budget strategies . . . . "

The NDP have missed every financial target in their debt management plan. They tore it up before the ink was dry. Two consecutive phony balanced budgets raise questions in the minds of citizens concerning this NDP government's veracity, and now it has affected our credit rating. Will facts like this, Mr. Speaker, be the right message for the Minister of Finance to understand that he simply has to resign and let someone else take over the ship of state?

Hon. A. Petter: Once again we hear from the slash-and-spend Liberals. One day they want to spend; one day they want to slash. What are their priorities, hon. Speaker?

It's true: Moody's in its decision today noted that one of the reasons that it decided to drop the credit rating a notch -- albeit it remains the highest in the country -- was because British Columbia has not refocused its budget priorities and funding for priority areas will continue to increase. In other words, health care, education, hospital and school funding will continue to increase. And the reason for that is while the opposition believes that the priorities of government should be determined by one New York credit-rating agency, this government believes that the priorities of British Columbians should be determined by British Columbians themselves.

G. Farrell-Collins: What the people of British Columbia believe is that the government should tell them the truth when they table a budget.

Hon. Speaker, not even a year ago the Finance minister stood in this House and said: " . . . while projecting a surplus of $87 million and a reduction in total government debt of $99 million . . . . Our commitment is to maintain B.C.'s number-one financial ranking in Canada. Through wise and judicious management . . . . "

The surplus was a hoax. The budget was another broken promise, and this minister has broken the commitment he made less than a year ago to the people of British Columbia. Will he -- somebody on that side -- finally do the honourable thing and take responsibility for this government's misleading of the public over the budget?

Hon. A. Petter: Hon. Speaker, the opposition seems to have missed the point. Even with this rating today, B.C. has retained its number one rating of any province in Canada.

I invite the member to review not just today's rating but the rating last week from Dominion Bond Rating Service, which noted that its rating was based upon a realistic medium-term financial management plan introduced by this government.

G. Farrell-Collins: Hon. Speaker, I expect that the downgrading we have today is based on the fact that this government misled the bond-rating agencies last year about their debt management plan. We now rank with that terrible province the people opposite talk about, Alberta. The difference is that Alberta is going up and British Columbia is going down.

This isn't about where we are; it's about the direction we're headed. This minister and this government have missed every single financial commitment they've made to the bond-raters around the world. When the minister goes next time, does he really expect the people to believe him, the bond-raters to believe him, the investors to believe him? Or should they believe what he said in the paper on the day he tabled his last budget -- that he doesn't expect anybody to believe him?

Hon. A. Petter: What this is really about is priorities. It's about priorities. The Moody's bond-rating agency notes that funding for priority areas will continue to increase and that this government has not refocused its budget priorities. That's correct, hon. Speaker. We have maintained our priority in terms of investing in education. We've maintained our priority of investing in health care. That's what the people of British Columbia elected us to do.

The question is: what are the priorities of the opposition, who one day stand up and ask us to slash spending and the next day say we're not spending enough? If there's a credibility question in this House, it sits on that side of the Legislature.

LICENSING OF ELECTRONIC BINGO

G. Wilson: Hon. Speaker, my question is to the minister responsible for gambling. It has to do with bingo. There is a new game in town; it's called linked bingo. Players now linked by satellites will be able to engage in the mother of all bingo games, because they will be linked to one of the largest pots available in history. Will this minister tell us: is the British Columbia Gaming Commission now licensed to allow linked bingo in the province of British Columbia?

Hon. D. Miller: I'm not certain with respect to linked bingo, but the Gaming Commission is authorized to proceed with electronic bingo, which has the same implications -- in other words, linking various communities up to a single game.

G. Wilson: In the minutes of the B.C. Gaming Commission of February 5, they say: "The chair has sent a letter to the minister advising that linked bingo was approved, and the commission would like to proceed as quickly as possible." Hon. Speaker, the difficulty with linked bingo is that it will allow people to play the game . . . and it will be directly at the cost of the charities who are so dependent upon bingo as their source of funding to do charity work.

Will the minister now confirm that he received correspondence from the commission asking for a licence to proceed, and whether or not he has said yes to that request?

[ Page 3231 ]

Hon. D. Miller: To the contrary, the expansion of both charitable and other forms of gaming will provide more opportunities and more revenues for charities. The member . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Hon. D. Miller: . . . is aware that currently the bulk of the revenue obtained through charitable gaming does go to very worthwhile charitable projects, and there will be opportunities for enhancing that revenue. In fact, my officials are discussing that with the charitable organizations on an ongoing basis, and I've not heard any negative feedback with regard to those discussions.

B.C.'S CREDIT RATING AND

FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

I. Chong: The people of British Columbia expect fiscal responsibility from this government. Moody's has downgraded our credit rating, based solely on the NDP's complete mismanagement of B.C.'s economy. Moody's has called for a more aggressive budgetary plan than the feeble attempt at cost control made by this Finance minister.

Will the Premier today fire the Finance minister and introduce a new budget, one that will restore confidence in B.C.'s finances?

Hon. G. Clark: It's a very, very simple answer. I want to know which schools the members opposite would close. I want to know which schools in which ridings that we are building right now that you say we should stop.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members, please.

Hon. G. Clark: We are in the process right now in British Columbia of building 100 schools or additions to schools. We are spending the bulk of borrowed money on building schools. I want the members opposite to come clean with the voters of British Columbia and tell us now which ones they want us to stop construction on -- because that's the implication of this line of questioning, in complete contradiction to everything they've said in the last month or two.

I. Chong: Well, the unfortunate thing about this government is that we have a plan and you don't.

Hon. Speaker, this Premier and this Finance minister continue . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, order, members! Members, I cannot hear the question, and that's simply not acceptable. Oak Bay-Gordon Head, please continue.

I. Chong: . . . to display their financial ineptitude. Moody's also states: "Unlike other provinces which had embarked upon major austerity programs earlier, B.C. has not refocused its budget priorities."

My question is: will the Finance minister admit that his promises to cut and control the cost of government were nothing more than a scam and a sham at the expense of B.C.'s reputation around the world?

Hon. A. Petter: I will readily admit that this government has not refocused its priorities at the behest of one credit agency or anyone else. Those priorities remain the priorities of British Columbians: to invest in schools for our kids; to invest in hospitals for those who are sick; to invest in education programs. But I'm interested that the member didn't quote . . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, members. A moment ago I said to one side that I must hear the question. And now I must hear the answer. Please, members.

Hon. A. Petter: What we have done with this budget and this plan is to meet those priorities and to continue, as Moody's itself notes, to enjoy a relatively low debt burden that compares favourably with other Canadian provinces and foreign subnational borrowers. That's what we've done, because we believe in the future of this province. We've maintained our priorities. We don't change them every day -- slash, spend, cut, reduce -- as the opposition over there does.

The Speaker: The bell ends question period.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members. Please, let us hear the member for Delta South.

Standing Order 35 Motion

F. Gingell: Under standing order 35, I rise to move adjournment of this House to discuss a matter of definitive and urgent public importance -- namely, the matter raised by Moody's bond-rating service with regard to the government's . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members! Members on both sides. Members, we must have a little respect for one another in this chamber. Please let us hear what Delta South's motion is about.

F. Gingell: . . . domestic debt. This matter really is urgent; it has to be done now. Moody's action at noon today will cause all future borrowings of this province to cost more, unless this government sends a clear message to all credit-rating agencies and investors that they do indeed recognize that this downgrade is the consequence of their fiscal mismanagement.

Timing is important; nay, it is critical. This government must seize this opportunity to commit to mend their ways and send a clear message today that will begin to bring to bear the fiscal discipline we need to protect the essential services that British Columbians rely on every day. Perhaps it is time for a steadier hand on the wheel. No one wants this ship of state to founder on the rocks.

[ Page 3232 ]

Mr. Speaker, I have given notice of this motion, which I would now like to move, as this is a matter of urgent public importance. I further move that this House do now adjourn, awaiting the ruling of the Speaker, rather than the tradition which has happened in this House that we wait 24 to 48 hours for a ruling of the Speaker on this most urgent public matter.

The Speaker: Excuse me, Government House Leader. Before I recognize you, I must clarify with the member for Delta South.

Did I understand correctly, member, that your motion was that the House adjourn for the Speaker to make a ruling? Because if so, that isn't in order, and I would give you the opportunity, then, to move the motion pursuant to our standing order 35, if that is indeed your intention.

F. Gingell: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If the second portion of my motion is not in order, then I withdraw it and restrict my motion: that this matter be debated as a matter of urgent public importance.

The Speaker: Thank you, member. I appreciate the clarification.

[2:30]

Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Speaker, I expect that you will see that this is an issue that really is nothing more than a political stunt. There is nothing urgent or pressing about this, which is required under standing order 35. We've been through the budget debate, we've passed all of our budget legislation, we've had a credit rating of last week that didn't require any of this attention from the opposition, we've got this credit rating that's here today and we'll have two more credit ratings coming out.

There's nothing urgent, nothing of importance that couldn't have been raised by this opposition in every question period since the budget was introduced, in every piece of legislation that has been introduced around the budget and in the budget debate itself.

I suspect, hon. Speaker, that what the opposition is really doing is bidding for time to prepare for their skit tonight, and that's it.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please, members. Members, according to established practice in this House, it is the habit of the Chair to examine the matter somewhat more carefully in the quiet of one's chamber, so I shall do that. But I shall endeavour to report back to the House as expeditiously as I possibly can.

I thank the member for giving me notice of the motion, and I thank the Government House Leader for her intervention as well.

Orders of the Day

Hon. J. MacPhail: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of the members, we'll be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Labour and then of the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs. In this House, I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 8.

BRITISH COLUMBIA NEUROTRAUMA

FUND CONTRIBUTION ACT

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 8; G. Brewin in the chair.

section 2 (continued).

G. Plant: I'm delighted to see that the Attorney General's complement of staff assisting him has expanded, and I'm sure that will be a very considerable assistance to him as he deals with the questions that we have.

I want to draw the Attorney General's attention to the fact that in subsections (1) and (2) the draftsperson has created an obligation. It's an obligation to pay the neurotrauma fund a grant in a certain amount, and the language used in the

section is mandatory. Each provision says "the Attorney General must pay to the British Columbia Neurotrauma Fund" certain amounts of money.

Now, the expression of an obligation to pay in this context is difficult -- at least, I'm finding it difficult -- to reconcile with the Attorney General's powers under

section 9(4) of the Victims of Crime Act. That

section is entitled "Victim Surcharge Special Account."

Section 9 of the Victims of Crime Act continues the special account, and it makes arrangements for how money is to be paid into that account by the Attorney General. It is the money in that special account which the Attorney General must pay to the British Columbia neurotrauma fund -- not all of it, but some of it; we've already talked about the formula that calculates the amount of the payment.

Section 9(4) of the victim surcharge special account provision says: "The Attorney General may pay money out of the special account to do one or more of the following . . . . " There are three subsections: the first is to defray costs incurred in administering the act, the second is to pay costs associated with the administration of the special account, and then the third -- at least, as it's presently worded -- is to defray the costs of victim services or other prescribed services to victims.

So the way the Victims of Crime Act works is that there is the special account, and the Attorney General is obliged to pay money into it. Then he has the power -- a discretionary power -- to pay money out of it. He is not obliged by

section 9 of the Victims of Crime Act to pay money out of the special account for any of the statutory purposes set out in detail in subsection (4). He merely has the power -- a discretionary power -- to do so.

That contrasts with the obligation that we find in

section 2 of the bill that we are now debating, which does make it mandatory for the Attorney General to pay to the neurotrauma fund certain amounts. It's not clear to me how these two provisions in different statutes will work. It looks to me as though the Attorney General is in a position where he may choose not to pay to defray the costs of administering the Victims of Crime Act, he may choose not to pay costs associated with the administration of the special account, but he is always and in any event obliged to pay money to the neurotrauma fund. That doesn't seem to me to be a coherent statutory framework.

I'm wondering if the Attorney General can explain what appears to me to be a contradiction.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: There's no question that on the face of it there appears to be a contradiction, but when one really looks at both pieces of legislation and puts them together, there is no contradiction. The fact is that this specific statute

[ Page 3233 ]

mandates the Attorney General to pay money to a specific organization. Then, of course, whatever is left in the account . . . . The Attorney General then has the discretions that are indicated in the Victims of Crime Act. I don't believe there is a contradiction. One simply says that $2 million or a lower amount must go to a particular institution. With respect to the balance, of course, the Attorney General has the discretion within the Victims of Crime Act.

G. Plant: On the Attorney General's reasoning, then, what we have in

section 2 of Bill 8 is an obligation which requires the Attorney General to pay money to the neurotrauma fund, and in

section 9 of the Victims of Crime Act, the Attorney General has certain options which, as I understand his explanation, are available to him after he has satisfied the obligation that exists in

section 2 of Bill 8. Is that an accurate enough restatement of the situation as the Attorney General understands it?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: That is accurate, qualified simply as follows: that the projected revenue with respect to this account is estimated to be at about $10 million a year. So there is always going to be that money available for those discretionary purposes.

G. Plant: What we are looking for is the source of the power to make the contribution to the fund. We find it in Bill 8 expressed in

section 2 in mandatory terms. For those who look through the statutes to try and find how the Attorney General gets the power to make the payment to the neurotrauma fund, they find it in

section 2, and they find it expressed in mandatory terms. Therefore, we look to subsection 9(4) of the Victims of Crime Act, and we find other things that the Attorney General may do with the money in the special account. Again, is that more or less a correct

summary?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: It is correct, somewhat. Theoretically, what the hon. member is saying is correct. But that is not to say that the discretions vested in the Attorney General would mean that other obligations under the Victims of Crime Act would not be looked after. It is my understanding that projected revenue is going to be $11.3 million for 1998-99, and we will have more than enough money to look after the obligations. The Legislature, if this bill passes, would have seen fit to mandate a certain amount of money to a specific organization for specific purposes.

In that regard, I was able to get my ministry to dig up the presentation. The purposes that money would go to were mentioned in the proposal, and in fact, I was somewhat incorrect in advising the hon. member that there was no price tag attached. The proposal given to the ministry in 1995 -- I haven't seen the latest proposal; I haven't been able to access that in this short period . . . .

Potential annual expenditures from the proposed research fund were to be as follows: six independent research scientists/clinicians, $576,000 per year; six research associates, $360,000 per year; ten post-doctoral research fellowships at $40,000 each per year; ten graduate student scholarships at $20,000 each per year; ten research grants and laboratory equipment grants, $500,000 per year. And that would amount to just over $2 million.

The understanding given was that any unspent money would be used for annual capitalization of the research fund to offset any future charges against the fund. Now, this kind of proposal is not etched in stone. This was the proposal that was made to us at that time, and the society may see fit to change it a little bit. The major thrust of the utilization of this fund is going to be research.

G. Plant: I appreciate the effort of the Attorney General in obtaining that document and reading from it to us. The question is: if the focus is research, does the Attorney General know if the focus is on conducting that research in British Columbia?

[2:45]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: That would be my assumption, and I'm certain the organization is watching this debate very carefully. If certain kinds of research capabilities are available in British Columbia, then the fund would be utilized in British Columbia. But if, for the kind of research that they want to do, the capability isn't available in British Columbia, they may have to go out of British Columbia into other parts of Canada. I think it only makes sense that we utilize British Columbia talents to do this research if those talents are available in British Columbia.

G. Plant: That's helpful also. Through the hon. Chair, I thank the Attorney General. I return then to the issue that we were canvassing before the Attorney General provided us with the 1995 information -- it sounds like a bit of a business plan -- about the ways in which the foundation proposed to spend and how much they proposed to spend.

On the issue of the relationship between the Victims of Crime Act provisions in respect to the victim surcharge special account, on the one hand, and the provisions in Bill 8, I had the advantage of a technical briefing from some of the minister's staff with respect to Bill 8, and I appreciated that opportunity. I think I was told at the technical briefing that there was a concern around whether or not the current provisions of the Victims of Crime Act would permit contributions to the British Columbia neurotrauma fund.

So it was considered necessary to enact provisions in Bill 8 that would make it clear that the government and the Attorney General in particular had the power to make payments from the special account to the British Columbia neurotrauma fund. Is that correct? What I have recited is what I recall I was told at a technical briefing with respect to how a part of this act came into being. I just want to be sure that my understanding is correct.

Hon. U. Dosanjh:

Section 9(4) of the Victims of Crime Act would be amended, of course, if this bill passes. That amendment is not just aimed at being able to provide funds to this specific organization. It is also aimed at broadening the spectrum of activities or services that can be funded for research and the like. If the hon. member looks at

section 9(4)(c), it simply says: " . . . defray the costs of victim services or other proscribed services to victims." It would provide no moneys for training service providers, no money to do any research or analysis of those kinds of issues. So we needed to broaden that, and hence it's being broadened.

G. Plant: We are looking at dealing with the British Columbia Neurotrauma Fund Contribution Act -- it's not, for example, a Victims of Crime Amendment Act --

an act, which is intended to give government the power and indeed to confer upon the Attorney General an obligation to make an annual grant from the victim surcharge special account for one purpose only. That purpose is grants to the British Columbia neurotrauma fund established by the Rick Hansen Man in Motion Foundation. It seems to me that purpose is achieved by

section 2 of the bill, which, as I understand from the Attorney General's explanation earlier, he regards as imposing on him an obligation to make the very payment -- the very grant -- which is the subject matter of this piece of legislation.

[ Page 3234 ]

Once we have established that the Attorney General has this obligation, once the bill establishes the formula for calculating the amount, once the bill identifies the recipient of the grant and imposes on that recipient some obligations in respect of reporting its activities, it seems to me that the purpose of the British Columbia Neurotrauma Fund Contribution Act is not only fulfilled but exhausted.

We are moving into a discussion of

section 3 of the act. I'm happy to do that in a formal sense, but I just want to be clear as we do that . . . . I'm grateful that the Attorney General has confirmed for us that in

section 2 of Bill 8 we find the obligation to make the contribution to the British Columbia neurotrauma fund. So when we move on to

section 3 of this bill, we're going to be moving on to something quite different, I would suggest. Those are my comments on

section 2 of the bill.

Section 2 approved.

section 3.

G. Plant: Now we get into the provision that I think takes us beyond the principle of the bill into a new area where we are trying to change the use of the special account -- the victim surcharge levy. As I understand it, the purpose here is to amend the existing

section 9(4)(

c) in the Victims of Crime Act, which the Attorney General read for us a moment or two ago, and to replace it with the provisions in

section 3.

My first question is to ask the Attorney General to explain why he considers it necessary, in the context of

an act which is dealing with the British Columbia neurotrauma fund contribution, to impose on us this change to the Victims of Crime Act.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I am told that my ministry has given an opinion that it was important to broaden the scope of

section 9(4)(

c) to be able to legitimately mandate a specific amount. I differ with that opinion from the ministry. I think that the mandate specified in

section 2 overrides the previous general act. Therefore we may not need to broaden this particular

section of the Victims of Crime Act just to provide for that grant.

It has always been the intention of the government that that account was intended to fund other initiatives to benefit victims of crime -- such as research, evaluation of programs, development of program standards, training, etc. -- if we had not dealt with this in a related statute. Of course, it was included in this because of the ministry's opinion, and there are no designs here, other than it was their opinion that it was appropriately included in this because it was required. Whether or not it was required for that purpose, it was required to broaden the scope of what we could do under the Victims of Crime Act, and that's why the amendment was included here.

G. Plant: I thank the minister for the answer. I can't help but observe that it appears that the Attorney General and I may share the same legal opinion in one respect. That is, if there is a legal issue about whether there is an enforceable obligation in

section 2 of this bill which would, by virtue of the specific way in which it is expressed, override any limits in the generality of the language in

section 9(4)(c), I think he and I are of the same view that

section 2 in fact accomplishes all of the purpose. It is interesting that others have a different view.

We may be right; they may be wrong; they may be right. I know that I often find it difficult to actually enumerate the occasions where I was wrong, but I'm sure others can do that for me much faster and with a great deal more accuracy.

M. de Jong: I once thought I was wrong, but I was wrong about that.

G. Plant: I'm getting the support from my colleagues which I expected on this important question.

To sort of move forward in this debate -- and we're going to have to spend a minute or two on it -- I think that

section 2 of this bill does everything the government can legitimately want in terms of achieving the stated objectives of this bill, which are to empower and fund the British Columbia neurotrauma fund.

Now we are into a slightly different area. We're now looking at the Victims of Crime Act, and I guess the government is saying that when it enacted

section 9(4) in 1995, I think it was, the people who wrote the statute didn't quite foresee the kinds of services the government now wants to fund under this provision. I think that's unfortunate in a way, because there probably was a debate about the Victims of Crime Act in 1995. There probably was a debate about whether and how and why it would be useful to have a victim surcharge special account. There probably was a debate about the kinds of things that could be done with the money in it. That debate presumably took place in the context of

section 9(4) as it was then worded, which seems to me to be fairly carefully drafted in a way that limits the use of the money to victim services -- something that back in 1995 I expect was considered to be a fairly clearly understood idea.

In fact, when I look through the Victims of Crime Act, I find that victim service is defined as "a service that is designed to assist victims and is provided or funded by the government." Now I find that if we are to amend

section 9(4)(

c) in the way that this bill contemplates, we're going to be expanding the scope of the act and the way that that surcharge could be used. Frankly, that raises a political concern, because this government already has available to it a number of special accounts and funds which were set up for a purpose that was probably praiseworthy and was probably even approved by the opposition when the account was established. But we find that government has been unable to resist the temptation to use the money for purposes unrelated to its originally intended purpose.

I think that people on this side of the House, having accepted the notion that there is to be a victim surcharge account, having accepted the notion that the purpose of that account is to allow for the payment of grants that will be used to defray the costs of victim services, are entitled to now look at

section 9(4)(

c) as it is proposed to be amended and say: "What of this? Why do we need to change this?"

I want to spend a minute or two looking at how it's being changed, because the wording that is proposed is that the surcharge would be used to "provide funding, directly or indirectly" -- and the term "indirectly" already expands the available scope of the use of the levy -- "to a service or project, all or any part of which may benefit victims . . . . " So pause there: "all or any part of which" -- that is, even if the smallest part of the service or the project were something that might benefit victims, then it would be within the scope of the new power that the Attorney General will have to spend this money. That's already a very broad expansion of the ability to spend this money.

[ Page 3235 ]

[3:00]

But the

section actually goes further. It says: " . . . which may benefit victims or lead to the development of services that may benefit victims." So not only do we have a levy and an account which has money in it that can be used to provide funding indirectly to a service or project that may benefit victims, it doesn't even have to stop at that. It could be used to provide funding which, directly or indirectly, may lead to the development of services that may benefit victims.

When I think about what those words might mean in context, I find the challenge is to identify something that this government does that would not be caught by that provision. Teachers in classrooms provide services that might lead to the development of services that may benefit victims; health care professionals, social workers, economic development officers, the job protection commissioner -- the list goes on and on of things that the Attorney General will be able to spend this money on if this

section is enacted.

I must say that I examined this question in the context of the next

section in the act. The next

section in the bill repeals

section 16(2)(

c) of the Victims of Crime Act. What that provision says is that the services that are to be paid for, if you will, pursuant to

section 9(4)(

c) are to be done by way of regulation. That is, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council prescribes, by regulation, services to victims, which are the subject matter of 9(4)(c), so that those of us outside the inner circle of government would be able, on a regular basis, to at least see a regulation that attempted to enumerate, describe and define the kinds of things which the government could do with this money.

Well, now the government wants to repeal that, wants to take away that restriction on how it can spend this money. So we have not only a tremendous expansion of the ways in which the money could be spent, but we have a little bit less publicity, a little bit less accountability, in terms of making public how the money will be spent.

I think the first thing I want to do is to ask the Attorney General why it is necessary, from his perspective, to expand the provisions of 9(4)(

c) so broadly, in order to give effect to the purposes of the British Columbia Neurotrauma Fund Contribution Act.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The hon. member and I agreed that the opinion given by the ministry may be wrong. However, assuming that the opinion provided by the ministry was correct, it is important that we broaden the scope of this particular

section that we're talking about, 9(4)(

c) of the Victims of Crime Act.

The opinion given indicated that research was not a service to victims of crime -- just as a for instance. It was also indicated that some neurotrauma victims may not be victims of crime per se; therefore "all or any part" wording was required. So from the point of view of the fact that there was an opinion provided by the ministry, based on that opinion, this amendment was crafted to the existing section, which was somewhat narrow. I hope that that puts in context for the member the broadening of the scope of this particular section.

In terms of the accountability, in terms of the repeal of

section 16(2) of the Victims of Crime Act, at the end of the day, this is the place where these issues are scrutinized. If the Attorney General makes the grants over a year, we come into the estimates and you have all the time in the world to question the Attorney General as to why a particular grant was provided, why it wasn't provided, and what criteria were used.

I am certain that to provide all of the services contained and described in sections 3 to 8 inclusive, and for the other grants, there would be criteria established by the Attorney General ministry -- in fact, in consultation with the victim services groups, because it's important that we consult the community that we are going to serve. So there would be accountability; there's no question about that. I understand that with respect to the development of Bill 8, the victim services groups and advocates were consulted, and they knew that we were doing that.

This takes away a certain amount of money into a specific fund for people, all of whom may not be victims of crime -- but some may be. So all of that has been done in consultation with them, and they are aware of this.

This act, the Victims of Crime Act, has been so well publicized and is so well known to the victims advocate community that I'm sure, even more than the hon. member in the opposition, that they will hold the Attorney General's feet and the government's feet to the fire to ensure that we provide them with the services we've promised them in this legislation.

G. Plant: In the last part of the Attorney General's comments, he hit in part on the problem, which is that what we have is a Victims of Crime Act. I think most people would understand that to be

an act that deals with victims of crime, not people who, by a horribly unfortunate accident entirely of their own making, are permanently disabled. So we have a Victims of Crime Act that is the vehicle by which the government takes what I think is the moderately extraordinary step of adding a surcharge to a wide range of fines levied under provincial legislation. What it says to all those who are at risk of committing offences under provincial law is: "If you commit the offence and you are convicted or plead guilty -- or however you get an outcome -- you will not only have to pay the fine but you will have to pay this thing called the victim surcharge levy."

I'm sure that most people who are told that will assume that this is related to the imposition of the Victims of Crime Act, the provision of rights and remedies and all the right things that are done under the Victims of Crime Act, and will expect that this levy is being used for purposes related to the provision of services to victims. Now we find the government coming to the House and saying: "We wish to use a portion of this money for a special purpose.

The special purpose is to make contributions to the British Columbia neurotrauma fund." This is an important purpose which engages our interest and our sympathy as private citizens in communities all throughout British Columbia. It has engaged the interest of the government. That government has said, "We are prepared to allocate a portion of the victim surcharge levy, to make a contribution, on an annual basis, to this neurotrauma fund," presumably because the work of the fund . . . .

Although in the short term and long term it will extend the reach of its benefit to include people who are victims of crime and people who are not, its overall purpose is sufficiently important that, as a matter of good public policy, this is something that we should support.

I'm willing to go with the Attorney General that far down the road. What I'm having trouble with is going as far down the road as the Attorney General wants us to go. In answer to my question a moment ago, the Attorney General said: "Well, 9(4)(c), as it was previously drafted, had some limits in it." There was an opinion to the effect that it wouldn't allow us to fund research work, training or certain kinds of services that

[ Page 3236 ]

could be directly useful to victims of crime and victims generally -- that problem with the old

section is that it is a little too restrictively drafted, and therefore we need to expand it a bit.

Here's where I think I have a different approach towards these things than some who are responsible for drafting bills. I'll tell you what my approach would be. Tell me the specific things that you think you need to do with this money: research, training, funding post-doctoral grants, that kind of thing. Enumerate those. Work from the most restrictive up. Create a list of the specific things that you think need to be added to the list as it was, and then give the Attorney General the power to spend this money on those additional things. That would be my approach.

The approach taken by the government in this bill is the other approach. The other approach is an approach which says: "Every time we have an impediment to our complete, free exercise of unfettered power and discretion, we should do what we can to get rid of it."

We've had examples of this already this week. We amended the Correction Act. For a century the Attorney General Act had statutorily assigned responsibility for prisons and correctional institutions to the Attorney General. The government wished to reassign responsibility for corrections for young people to a new ministry -- the Ministry for Children and Families. What they could have done was simply amend the Attorney General Act to carve out that limited exception and then assign it to the Ministry for Children and Families, but that's not what was done.

What was done instead was to take away the statutory assignation altogether and replace it with an order-in-council power, which is something that happens much farther from public scrutiny than the debate that takes place on the floor of this House.

So again we come back here, and instead of dealing with what the government may be able to defend as the legitimate need to expand the scope of funding under the Victims of Crime Act, by doing so in an incremental, careful, cautious and limited way, we've just basically taken the strings and cut them altogether. Now the Attorney General will be in a position to provide funding on the broadest possible range of projects -- projects which may only have the thinnest connection to services that may ultimately benefit victims. Frankly, I think that's the wrong way to approach lawmaking. It's wrong as a matter of process. It's wrong as a matter of principle.

I think that if this government wants us to debate the limited ways in which it's necessary to expand the use of the victim surcharge levy, then we should have that debate in the context of an enumeration of what those specific purposes are. And we're not going to have that debate, because

section 3 doesn't do that.

So I go back to what the purpose of this act was. The purpose of the British Columbia Neurotrauma Fund Contribution Act was to require the Attorney General to make an annual grant from the victim surcharge special account to the British Columbia neurotrauma fund established by the Rick Hansen Man in Motion Foundation. We on this side of the House support that principle, we support that purpose, but I don't think that we are prepared to go further here. So the question is: how can we best give effect to that purpose without taking the route that is chosen by the draftsperson of

section 3 of the bill? I think the way that is to be done is to make an amendment to

section 3 of the bill, and I am now going to do that.

[3:15]

Hon. Chair, I have a copy of the amendment. The amendment that I'm going to propose is to replace

section 3 of Bill 8 with the following:

[Section 9(4) of the Victims of Crime Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c.478, is amended by adding the following as subsection (d): pay grants as required by the British Columbia Neurotrauma Fund Contribution Act.]

Just to explain what that does, if we were to look at

section 9(4) in its existing form, we would find the provisions that the Attorney General and others have referred to already.

Section 9(4)(

c) empowers the Attorney General to pay money out of the special account to defray the costs incurred under the operation of the bill, to pay costs associated with the administration of the special account and to defray the costs of victim services or other prescribed services to victims. I propose leaving those provisions intact.

In order to overcome the apparent potential problem in terms of whether or not

section 2 of Bill 8 goes far enough to allow the government to in fact make this contribution to the British Columbia neurotrauma fund, I propose adding an additional subparagraph to subsection (4) which would expressly empower the Attorney General to make the grants from the victim surcharge special account that are required by the British Columbia Neurotrauma Fund Contribution Act. And I so move.

On the amendment.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The amendment leaves the question of

section 9(4)(c), which remains narrow and does not provide the discretion to the Attorney General to provide grants and funding for research or indirectly related services that might be important to victims. Therefore this amendment will not do what the amendment to

section 9(4)(

c) is intended to do, in addition to providing a way of making the $2 million grant available to the neurotrauma fund.

M. de Jong: As I've been following the debate . . . . I'm not sure I understand the Attorney General's response to the proposed amendment. As I understand it, this specifies with the greatest possible particularity that the power the Attorney General is seeking is conferred on him and that there would be no doubt about the ability to make the requisite transfer of funds. What I hear the Attorney General saying, though, is that Bill 8 actually has two purposes: one is to provide for the fund that everyone is in favour of; but he also seeks to correct an error or to expand the provisions of pre-existing legislation.

That might be okay. But the concern that we have, as the member for Richmond-Steveston has previously alluded to, is that in opening that door . . . . This Attorney General may not have the creativity and imagination that we have seen from other ministers or may see from other Attorneys General or other governments in the future, but in swinging that door open in the way that would be done by the wording as it presently exists in the act, the potential is there for having exactly the opposite effect of what we want in passing this bill.

So I'm not sure that I understand the Attorney General's response or that he has addressed the purpose of the amendment as it exists. And the part that I do understand troubles me somewhat.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I'd like to say that this amendment is redundant in the way it's presented, because with Bill 8 and the

section 9(4)(

c) amendment included in Bill 8, all of what

[ Page 3237 ]

this amendment by the hon. member proposes to do is already done -- and more, in fact, is done. Therefore the amendment that's being made by the hon. member for Richmond-Steveston is redundant; it's unnecessary because

section 2 as well as

section 9(4)(

c) as amended would take care of the concern of the hon. member. What the hon. member is saying is: don't broaden the scope of

section 9(4)(c); leave it narrow. If there is any doubt, we should add a subsection (d). What I'm saying is that we need the broadened scope of

section 9(4)(

c) both to provide the $2 million to the neurotrauma fund and to broaden the scope for other purposes that are mentioned in that proposed amendment.

M. de Jong: I think it's the "and more" that has members of the opposition intrigued and perhaps a little troubled. No one's quarrelling, as we've said, with the purpose of the act. The amendment removes any doubt that that will be accomplished.

But I don't think the Attorney General is in a position to provide the House today with any assurance that access won't be made to these funds -- or that an attempt to access these funds won't be made by any one of the many government departments, all under the guise of serving what might be a very useful purpose but what might actually be seen by others to represent a need to overcome budgetary shortfalls in other governmental departments. So I think that when the Attorney General says we accomplish our goal and more . . . .

If he says that seeking to comfort us, he's having the opposite effect, because therein lie our concerns.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The purpose of broadening the scope of

section 9(4)(

c) of the Victims of Crime Act is twofold. First, to ensure that what we plan to do with the neurotrauma fund is doable -- that we are able to provide that sum of $2 million both through

section 2 of Bill 8 and through

section 9(4)(

c) of the Victims of Crime Act. As well, if one looks at the current

section 9(4)(

c) in the Victims of Crime Act, it is appropriate that we broaden the scope to make sure that we are able to do all of the various things and projects that we need to do with respect to victim services. Because

section 9(4)(

c) as it is today is simply very narrow, and it does talk about victim services or other prescribed services to victims.

My ministry has given me the opinion that research, evaluation and analysis aren't services to victims. What we want to make sure of is that we're able to do some of those things. The hon. member has legitimate fears, but if those kinds of fears were expressed every time a

section of particular legislation were passed, we would never pass any legislation here. There is a large amount of discretion vested in many ways in many pieces of legislation. At the end of the day, the ultimate scrutiny is on the floor of this House during estimates and during question period.

G. Plant: I think it is the experience that we've had with those many other places where this discretion has been exercised that gives us the concern that we have. There is a Health special account. It was established to reduce waiting lists for certain kinds of surgery. As I am informed, it is now used for virtually every purpose imaginable under the Health Act.

The lawyers of British Columbia were told by this government: "We are charging sales tax on your accounts in order to fund the legal aid system." That wasn't done. The lawyers of British Columbia and their clients believed that by paying an additional 7 percent on legal fees, they would in effect be endowing the operation of the Legal Services Society in a way that would elevate it from the financial difficulties that it has experienced and that it continues to experience. That was not done.

The problem comes when we hand carte blanche powers to a government that says: "Trust us. We will exercise them wisely, and if we do not, you can come and challenge us in the estimates debate. You can ask us questions about how we've exercised powers, and you can hold us to account for our failure to exercise these powers properly." I think that we should not be giving governments, generally speaking, those kinds of powers. I think we should be careful when we give government powers.

I think we should be careful when we create funds that add to the cost of life in British Columbia for its citizens by imposing surcharges. We should be careful to be sure that there are rules in place that are enforceable about how those funds are spent.

The Attorney General spoke eloquently a moment ago about the need to broaden the purposes for which the special account -- the victim of crime surcharge levy -- could be spent. He spoke about research; he spoke about training; he spoke about specifics. Those may all be perfectly legitimate ways to spend the money raised by the victim of crime surcharge levy.

They may be ways of broadening the scope of the kind of work that can be done with these moneys in a way that will, in a tangible and measurable way at the end of the day, provide some benefit to victims -- either by reducing their pain in some way, giving them access to new procedures and processes, or perhaps in some cases preventing the situations which cause them to be victims from arising in the first place.

But we should be exploring those on a case-by-case basis, specifically. We should have a bill that says that

section 9(4)(

c) is to be amended by specifically enumerating these additional victim services. It's not difficult to do that. In fact, grass-roots people create these techniques and use them all the time. They're already there in the Victims of Crime Act. There is a definition of victim service: " 'Victim service' means a service that is designed to assist victims and is provided or funded by the government."

The Attorney General has received legal advice which I'm not sure that he accepts and I'm not sure that I accept. But his advice is: that definition doesn't go far enough in order to permit the contributions to the British Columbia neurotrauma fund. Well, we've resolved that.

[3:30]

What I seek to do here would make it be clear beyond doubt -- if there were any doubt -- that the contributions which this government wants to make to the British Columbia neurotrauma fund could now be made. Having achieved that purpose, which was advertised to us and stated in the purpose clause of this bill and which is the purpose that has engaged the interest of the House, I think that is as far as we can go and as far as we should go at this point. We should have a bill that is directed at assisting the British Columbia neurotrauma fund.

If we need to come back and debate whether or not the Victims of Crime Act was properly drafted in the first place, we should do so with a specific list of the kinds of things that the government now thinks, two years later, ought to fall within the meaning of the term "victim service." Not very long ago, only two years ago, a definition was brought to this House in a bill that was a product of careful consultation and that was much thought about, and I'm sure it was debated here in this House.

[ Page 3238 ]

The government took the time to devise that program. Maybe it's not devised in the statute in a way that will allow it to do the job that it needs to do, but we should have that debate. But I don't think we should have that debate on the basis of a

section that blows those criteria out of the water, that allows the government -- perhaps not this minister, but perhaps his successor -- to spend this money any way the Attorney General wants, and we won't find out about it until long after it's spent. We won't find out about it, if at all, until estimates debates that occur long after the program is up and running.

This is not just an issue about whether or not the money will be used in a sense that might be described as illegitimate. This is also a debate about whether the government is in effect doing what it says it wants it do. When it says, "We will charge a levy for the benefit of victims of crime; we will create a surcharge on provincial offences for the benefit of victims," then that's what it should do. It should not empower itself with the ability to use that surcharge to fund the ordinary operations of either the Ministry of Attorney General or any other ministry of government. My real concern is that

section 9(4)(c), as the government seeks to amend it, will in fact allow the government simply to expand its ordinary operations and to call upon this surcharge to be used in a way that is beyond its original intention. It will be used in a way which will simply ultimately make it one more way that the government taxes people in order to pay for its ordinary operations. So I strongly urge the Attorney General to give serious consideration to the amendment.

The Chair: Seeing no further speakers, and having reviewed the amendment, I will now put it to a vote.

Amendment negatived.

Section 3 approved.

section 4.

G. Plant: If I may ask the Attorney General, what is accomplished by repealing

section 16(2)(

c) of the Victims of Crime Act?

Hon. U. Dosanjh:

Section 16(2)(c), I believe, authorized cabinet to prescribe which victim services would get funding. With the broad discretion in 9(4)(c), that power would be redundant and would not be required.

G. Plant: The effect of these provisions is essentially to vest in the Attorney General the decision-making power and the discretion with respect to all funding under the levy with the exception of the neurotrauma fund. Is that correct?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.

G. Plant: Is it the Attorney General's intention to develop a set of criteria or principles that will guide him in the exercise of his discretion? If so, will he make those public? And if not, why not?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes to both.

Sections 4 and 5 approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Chair, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Bill 8, British Columbia Neurotrauma Fund Contribution Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 9.

TOURISM BRITISH COLUMBIA ACT

The House in committee on Bill 9; G. Brewin in the chair.

Hon. J. Pullinger: I simply want to introduce to the House my deputy, Lyn Tait, who is with us here today to assist, and Dick Butler, who is sitting behind us -- he's a legislative analyst. With that, I would welcome the members' questions.

section 1.

R. Thorpe: I'm just wondering if the minister can advise us if the memorandum of understanding that is sort of linked to this document . . . . Has that been signed yet?

Hon. J. Pullinger: That document is being worked on. It's not part of this legislation, but it is being worked on.

R. Thorpe: Legally, it's not part of the document. I guess that is correct. But I think that through the negotiating process in reaching this legislation, there has been some understanding that it will be signed. I believe that a commitment may even have been given. Can we know when this memorandum of understanding will be signed by the minister?

Hon. J. Pullinger: I'd be happy to answer questions about the legislation. The memorandum of understanding is about implementing the bill in a number of ways, but it is not, in fact, part of this legislation. I'd be most happy to talk about that in another venue. But it's not part of the legislation. So I'd be pleased to answer questions about the legislation.

[F. Randall in the chair.]

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

R. Thorpe: It indicates here . . . . We're talking here about the board of directors, I believe. We're talking about 15 directors, as I read here. I recall yesterday that the minister . . . . I also recall when the minister introduced this bill at first reading and talked with great pride. Overall, it's a very good bill. It gets almost where it has to go.

But she's talked a lot about the independence in the private sector. I think the minister knows that independence is very, very important in this industry. I'm just wondering why the ten directors . . . . You may appoint those. If you want the

[ Page 3239 ]

independence, why would you not be stronger in your commitment to that industry, when you've talked about the importance of the board being independent?

Hon. J. Pullinger: The industry has endorsed this formula. The entire industry has endorsed and signed off on this formula. In fact, Mr. Williams, the current co-chair of the SOA advisory board, made it very clear -- said: "Thanks, Mr. Premier, for getting it right." So it is, in fact, endorsed and agreed to by industry.

G. Wilson: I'm on record as saying I would prefer not to go to a Crown corporate model, so I'm not going to re-debate the principle of the bill. Having said that I would prefer a different model and knowing that we're now faced with this one, let's try to get to the nuts and bolts of how this is going to work.

What we know in this

section 2 is that there's going to be up to 15 directors. It doesn't necessarily have to operate with 15 directors, because it says in

section 2(3): "A vacancy in the membership of the board does not impair the power of the remaining directors to act."

The question is: how many vacancies can be there and still have the board have a constitutive quorum? Nowhere in the legislation does it talk about what a quorum is; neither does it talk about what I presume are standard notices of meetings and the sort of things that we'd expect to have directors fully participate in.

Let's start with a question here with respect to

section 2(3). A vacancy . . . . How many people can be absent and still have the board deemed a quorum?

Hon. J. Pullinger: Seven.

G. Wilson: The minister said seven, and I wonder if I've missed that in my reading. Perhaps the minister might point to where that is. Maybe I've missed that in the bill -- that it says that seven is a quorum.

Hon. J. Pullinger: It's standard practice. That's the kind of thing that the board will put in its bylaws once it's constituted.

[3:45]

G. Wilson: So it actually doesn't say it in the bill, is what I'm hearing, but there is presumably some convention that exists somewhere, and I understand that the board is going to try and set up some bylaws that would say seven. They now have the benefit of the Hansard to give them some authority, presumably, that seven will be the number.

Let me, then, just talk about how we're going to set up the original board, because under

section 2(2) it says: "At least 10 directors appointed under subsection (1) are to be individuals nominated and recommended by the board . . . . " Now, this is interesting, because the board doesn't exist yet. Yet it says that ten of the directors have to be recommended by the board. Well, if the board doesn't exist, then how can it be by the board -- unless, in reading 2(4), what we're actually referring to is the Tourism British Columbia special operating agency advisory board? In that case, what we're doing is taking the Tourism British Columbia special operating agency board, and simply converting them into the original board of directors of the corporation.

As I read that,

section 2(4) says, "Despite subsection (2), the first directors appointed under subsection (1) may be" -- it doesn't say will be; it says may be -- "individuals recommended . . . by the Tourism British Columbia Special Operating Agency . . . . " So this is quite confusing language, because on the one hand, it says the board -- and it doesn't define which board -- has to appoint the first ten directors. And then, second, in

section 2(4) it says that this Tourism British Columbia special operating agency may recommend individuals, but it doesn't say it has to be themselves.

Clearly this is ambiguous in the extreme, and if we're going to set up a board that is going to have in its initial funding -- my estimate is -- about $1.3 million to play with, we ought to know how we're getting those directors in place.

Hon. J. Pullinger: I can understand why it's confusing to somebody who hasn't been part of the process. First, actually, let me clarify that the question the member asked earlier was: how many people could be absent to have a quorum. I said seven, which means eight would be a quorum. I just wanted to clarify that for the record. So a majority would be a quorum.

What we've done here is put in place a process whereby the industry, the people on the board -- the majority of whom clearly will be from the industry -- have a mechanism whereby they can nominate and recommend to the minister, to the L-G-in-C, names of people that they would like to see appointed to the board. So it's a process through which industry can make recommendations for subsequent members to the board.

However, as the member correctly points out, when you start with no board, that process won't work. That's why subsection (4) is there -- to, in effect, provide some mechanism from the existing advisory board, the SOA board, that they can make recommendations for the first board. Then, after that, the SOA will exist no more, and the board itself, of the Crown agency, will make those recommendations in future. So

section 2(4) provides for a mechanism for industry to make recommendations for the initial board. After that, the board of the Crown will make its recommendations to the minister for subsequent appointments.

G. Wilson: Just let me very quickly come back to the question of quorum. Given that the makeup . . . . There is this ten and five relationship on the 15. Five are supposedly at-large members appointed by government directly, and ten are from the industry. It's conceivable, then, given that boards frequently operate without a full component -- and history shows that; we don't need to go through that -- that this board could operate with five government-appointed members-at-large and three members from the industry, giving the majority to members-at-large. That's a conceivable relationship. Is that correct?

Hon. J. Pullinger: I suppose that's one hypothetical thing that can happen -- I could probably dream up many more, as could the member -- but it's highly unlikely. What this entire

section is about is creating a means by which we have assurance, appropriately, that there are at least ten members from industry on the board.

I fully expect that this board, like every other board, will run for the majority of the time with a full slate. There may, from time to time and for different reasons, be a member or two missing -- people move for different reasons -- but I expect that it will function like the zillions of boards around the province. It will have a full complement; it will set its bylaws around quorum, according to standard practice. But

[ Page 3240 ]

what we have here is a process that's a little different: to provide industry with a mechanism to recommend names from industry.

G. Wilson: I'm not sure there are zillions of boards, but there are a few.

Let me just ask this question. I hear the minister saying that this new Crown corporation stands to replace the Tourism British Columbia special operating agency advisory board, although there's nothing in here that says that that board -- of course, I guess by statute you wouldn't do that anyway, but it is important for us to know -- or that operating agency is going to be gone. With the passage of this legislation, that is gone, and this then becomes the Crown agency that will be responsible for all matters of tourism development. Is that right?

Hon. J. Pullinger: An SOA, a special operating agency, is in fact an agreement between the Ministry of Finance and any given ministry. Essentially we're moving the ministry marketing part. The policy part and the land use part will remain in my ministry; we're taking the marketing function . . . . The people who are there, in fact, will do the same jobs, but they'll be a Crown corporation, an agency. So there would in fact be no reason, nor any ability, to have an agreement with that part of my ministry, because it won't be part of my ministry anymore.

In fact, that agreement will be null and void and would no longer make sense. The SOA will be gone, and the marketing function will be moved into the new agency.

But in

section 2(5), I'm curious about the language that's here. It says: "In appointing the directors the Lieutenant Governor in Council should take into account" -- doesn't say "must," neither does it say "will"; it says it "should," so it's discretionary -- "the public interest and the diversity of the population of British Columbia."

Now, I have no idea what that means. They "should take into account the public interest." Interest in what? Tourism, presumably, or community tourism. And "the diversity of the population." Diversity by what measure? Ethnic diversity? Cultural diversity? Regional diversity? Economic diversity? What? I mean, that statement is so broad that it really doesn't give us any understanding of what it means. Maybe the minister just might elaborate for us so that we can understand what that means.

Hon. J. Pullinger: The language here is very similar to the language used in all appointments. When we were first elected government, there were clear inequities amongst the boards and appointments around the province, including government agencies.

They were not representative of the fact that there are 50 percent men and 50 percent women in this province; they were not representative of the fact that we have significant visible minorities in the province; they were not representative of the fact that first nations are an important part of our society and our province; they were not representative in terms of people with disabilities; they were not representative in terms of regions. So those are the kinds of considerations. The reason the language is not prescriptive is because it's pretty hard to do that, to define exactly what it means in any given case.

But I think the member would appreciate the fact that we have come a long way since 1991 in being inclusive in all the many boards and commissions around the province, to better reflect the diversity of British Columbia based on all of those kinds of things. That's what we're trying to accomplish here.

The public interest. Obviously it's in the public interest to have a board that will work well, that will market our province in a way that assists in the development of the regions. Therefore we need to have a voice from the regions, etc. So those are deliberately not prescriptive but rather indicative of the principles that government would try to adhere to in putting together a board.

I simply want to address one other issue that's come up a number of times, and that's the difference between "may" and "must." In a democratic form of government it is inappropriate -- and in fact not doable -- to fetter the discretion of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council in that way. That would in fact have the effect . . . . If you put "must" in a number of these sections, it would in fact provide a higher power to an unelected body than to an elected body.

I know the member appreciates that a democracy must retain that ordering of things and that we must retain the discretion of the Lieutenant-Governor where appropriate.

G. Wilson: I'd be the last person to try to shackle the Lieutenant-Governor's rights to whatever. Let's face it: we want to make sure the Lieutenant-Governor's powers are kept intact as long as they can be.

But there is a difference between "will" and "should" or "shall," and that's a difference. "May" and "must" is . . . . I mean, we can get into the semantics of it. But if you're going to determine the constitution of a board, and you say a board "will be comprised of," that means that's it. If you say it "shall" be or "should" be, then there's a distinction in law, and I would make that point. Anyway, I'm not a lawyer, by way of disclaimer. I'm not and would never pretend to be, for a host of reasons, hon. Chair.

But let me just say that this diversity issue . . . . The reason I raise it is because my understanding is that this board is going to be made up in large measure of people from the special operating agency. And while there's sort of a gender equality there, I don't know that in looking up that board -- and I have a list of the members on that board -- it would meet the criteria that the minister has just referred to.

I guess the concern we get into . . . . And I don't want to get into a long debate on affirmative action and the wisdom of affirmative action or not affirmative action. I don't think it's appropriate in this debate. But the reason that I'm concerned about it is because, having served in local government for a long time, having been involved to a large degree in local tourism promotion and having been involved with some of the organizations in the province, there's enormous frustration when the people who serve on the board don't have a full appreciation for the needs of local community tourism initiatives.

They are focused on the mega-industry, whether it's destination tourism or whether it's broad fishing interests or whatever they are. They forget that there are, for example, small independent campground owners that need to be heard. There are people who are involved in . . . . The hotel and motel owners need to be heard, and so on.

So under

section 2(5)(b) . . . . The member for Peace River North raised this matter in the second reading debate, and I

[ Page 3241 ]

think his point was extremely well taken. It does talk about the need for there to be regional interests in this board and that, in the recommendation of this, they have to take into account regional interests. There have been long, heavy and very vociferous debates within the industry as to what regional interests are. I don't want to get into them, but the minister should be aware that I'm familiar with them. I have participated from time to time in them, and they're relatively unproductive.

I'm hoping that what we can do with respect to this bill is to ensure that if we are going to go with this model -- if we are going to set up a big Crown corporation, or even a small Crown corporation -- we are not going to do it to the detriment of tourist interests and concerns in small, isolated communities where the tourist dollar is absolutely critical to whether or not those people can pay their bills in the year.

In the city, there's a variety of various overflows in the economy. In a small community like Pender Harbour, which is in my own community, or Lund, which is in my riding -- or let's go further north to Echo Bay or to Minstrel Island or some of those places . . . . Their opportunity to make money during a short tourist season is the ticket to their livelihood, and these places are often ignored by the large boards that don't understand the needs of those local interests. That's why I take issue with this.

If the minister could at least provide me with some comfort that in this diversity issue, we're talking about geographic diversity, and we're talking about protecting those regional interests and allowing those individuals to make sure that they have some access to whatever largesse comes out of this process.

[4:00]

Hon. J. Pullinger: The tourism industry until last year had no formal voice whatsoever in the marketing of British Columbia. It had its first voice with the advisory board of the SOA, and it will have much more influence with this board, which is one of the reasons that the existing CEO and a group of people and so on are being moved into a different format -- so that they can function a little differently.

One of my concerns -- that one of the Reform members alluded to yesterday -- is that I'm on the record as saying that in order to be effective, this board must represent the regional interests of the province. I can give the member the assurance that I have spoken with the existing SOA board and made it very clear that I expect to see regional interests come forward, as well as the other issues under

section 5. I expect their appointments to reflect these principles. I agree absolutely -- it's important.

I. Chong: I have some questions on this section, as well. I want to go back to the composition of the board. I heard the minister mention that the direction they received in drafting this

section was endorsed by the industry. I'd like to ask the minister specifically what it is that the minister has in her hands that has given us this endorsement. Is there some draft agreement? Is there something that has been drawn up so that we have that assurance that there has been that endorsement?

Hon. J. Pullinger: There are minutes of the SOA board that endorse this legislation. COTA also voted in favour of this legislation.

I. Chong: My question then to the minister would be whether I would be able to obtain copies of those -- whether she has been provided with those copies or whether I would have to go directly to COTA to obtain those. I see her shaking her head and that's fine.

The other thing I wanted to ask the minister . . . . She mentioned earlier the issue of vacancies and a quorum, which the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast raised, and I want to be quite clear on this. The act states that a vacancy in the membership does not impair the power, and I understand that. But a quorum and a vacancy are really two different things -- as I've seen it when I sat on a board. You can have a board empowered to have 15 directors; you can choose to select 12 people to sit on a board so that three vacancies do not impair the board.

But your quorum would in fact be seven, and you could have only five people missing to cast votes for decisions that are made. So I want to be clear here that we're talking about vacancies -- as the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast mentioned -- and how many vacancies in fact can occur. We're not talking quorum, because once you establish your board -- taking into consideration the vacancy -- you will then establish a quorum, which is always a majority plus one.

Hon. J. Pullinger: The

section in the act that says that a vacancy in the membership of the board does not impair the power of the remaining directors to act is simply to allow the board to function if someone is not there or resigns or whatever. That's pretty standard practice. The quorum, I believe, would be eight, not seven. The question that was asked me was: how many members could be absent? I said seven, which leaves a quorum of eight. It's standard practice to have a majority as a quorum, and I fully expect that that's the bylaw they'll put in place. I also fully expect that we'll have a full board.

I. Chong: Well, it's great to have expectations, but in the event that the expectations don't come to fruition and that in the first interim period you're only able -- for whatever reason, because of the recommendations made and the non-acceptance of some names -- to furnish ten appointed people, whether they're all from industry or government-appointed, you therefore would have a very different situation. Your quorum would in fact be six to ensure that the proceedings occur, and you can have a vacancy of four people there.

I want to be very clear here, because a vacancy can occur for the term if the board chooses not to replace that person,

whereas your quorum for making decisions will depend on the number of seats actually filled -- not those which have been vacated because someone has perhaps resigned. That can change materially through the course of the year, and since this is a new agency, there may be some transition -- it may take some time. And people's expectations may be different when they offer to sit on a board. I would hate to see a full complement and six months later have that reduced to half because people have not realized the role and the responsibilities. That then changes the ability of business to be conducted, and we're talking quorums versus seats held; we do have that difference.

I would just want to be sure that the minister is clear or that there is an understanding somewhere -- perhaps this is in the memorandum of understanding that we need to see or discuss -- to have that very clear, definitive power and authority placed before us. Because there are those differences. I've served on boards, and I know that there can be some confusion about vacancies versus quorums.

Hon. J. Pullinger: Those kinds of issues are all issues that would be inappropriate, quite frankly, to put in legislation.

[ Page 3242 ]

They will be dealt with in bylaws, as is standard practice. I would expect that the initial meetings of the new board will deal with precisely those kinds of issues. They're fairly standard, as the member says. There are rules set up by virtually every organization that has this kind of structure, and I fully expect they'll follow standard practice and put those bylaws in place right away.

[G. Brewin in the chair.]

I. Chong: So what I'm hearing -- which I wasn't very clear on prior to this -- is, in fact, that once empowered, the board will be establishing another set of bylaws and guidelines. If they are established, are those bylaws going to be overseen by the ministry or are they going to be bylaws that the SOA is allowed to establish with or without interference from the ministry?

Hon. J. Pullinger: The bylaws would of course have to reflect and be within government policy. Things like severance, travel, expenses or remuneration, actually, are addressed in the legislation. But all of those things would be expected to be within the bounds of acceptable practice within government.

I. Chong: I'm satisfied with the minister's answers on that at this point. I'd like to move on to the other question that was raised, again by the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast, regarding the subsection on diversity, subsection (5)(a). I was curious to hear the minister's answer, and what I would like to know is that if you were not able to accomplish your goal of procuring the diversity that you wish, whether it's based on age, gender, cultural background . . . . If for some reason you're not able to establish that diversity in the board, what measures will be available to accomplish that goal?

Are there steps the ministry will take to ensure that that occurs, and is that going to be a major role in influencing the recommendations to the Lieutenant-Governor?

Hon. J. Pullinger: There is no perfect model, and one can only do one's best to find the people with the right qualifications to do the job, as well as the best diversity that's possible. With 15 people, obviously we can't include all of the diverse interests, but we'll certainly do our very best. I have challenged the existing SOA to do so. The current SOA board is not reflective of the diversity of British Columbia, neither in gender nor in region nor in race nor in any other way. I have challenged them to put forward names that better reflect those diverse interests, and I will be working with them.

Ultimately, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council or cabinet has the ability and the power to appoint the board, and it will go through all the normal processes -- including agencies, boards and commissions -- after it leaves my hands. So the policies of government as well as the items in the legislation here will obtain, and we'll simply do our very best in working with the industry to get the best diversity we can.

I. Chong: What I've heard from the minister is that the minister will make appointments, if necessary, to accomplish that diversity. I'm just wondering if that is in fact going to be a problem. If the industry is not able to come up with the recommendations that establish that diversity, as we know can happen . . . . As the minister has already mentioned, the current SOA doesn't reflect that diversity.

If the industry is still not able to do that, am I clear in understanding that the minister is going to then appoint and make changes to the recommendations that the industry would otherwise have put forward and that those recommendations, which perhaps reflect regions but don't reflect another kind of diversity . . . . ? Is it not going to be a problem for the stakeholders and the industry -- for their own representation?

Hon. J. Pullinger: The industry, under this legislation, can make recommendations for ten seats. I expect that industry will present me with reasonable diversity, but the intent of this whole

section is to ensure that we have the kind of diversity that I think British Columbians expect. Every reasonable effort to do so will be made.

I. Chong: I don't want to belabour this section, but I think the minister has to understand that the integrity, I guess, of this corporation . . . . The whole process for it coming into place was to . . . . The industry, as I understand it -- and I have had conversations with them -- wants to ensure that we do have a board that is autonomous, a board that's independent and a board that the industry does in fact support -- or an agency that the board is very supportive of. To fulfil that integrity, we have to ensure that there is as little interference as possible in terms of appointment.

So my question about the diversity is: if we fail to accomplish that . . . ? I was looking to find out from the minister whether there was an appeal process that was available. Once the makeup of the board was established, once the appointments were made, if someone from industry had a look at it and said, "We still don't agree with this; we don't think it reflects what the industry is looking for," is there an appeal process available? Would the minister at that point step in and allow for reappointments?

Hon. J. Pullinger: No, there's no appeal process. The industry will recommend ten names. If they don't present me with adequate diversity, then I will have to ask them to present me with other names.

But that process will in fact lead to agreement on those ten names between the minister and the SOA at this stage and the Crown board at a later stage. There will in fact be agreement on the ten seats, and the other five seats are discretionary for the L-G-in-C.

I. Chong: Based on the response from the minister, I'd just like to be somewhat clear again on the ten seats.

Section 2(2) states that at least ten directors appointed or ten of these . . . . Excuse me. I just want to be certain that when it says "at least," it's not restricting it to only ten and that if the industry came up with 14 names that it would recommend and felt it extremely difficult to drop the additional four off . . . . Would the minister consider those additional four names, if they were satisfactory, to be part of the four names that they would have recommended?

Hon. J. Pullinger: At a very early stage I invited industry and others, such as members, to encourage qualified people to put their names forward from around the province; that goes without saying. But industry can select ten names for ten places and present them to me. They cannot select the names for the other ones, although I welcome their input.

[4:15]

I. Chong: The last response from the minister actually caused me a little confusion, when she stated that there were ten names for ten positions and that the industry would not be

[ Page 3243 ]

able to submit the other names for the other positions. Now my question would be: are there five other specific positions, which is an intent for those appointments . . . ? They are perhaps not industry-related, but are they related to some other form of, I guess, representation? If she has those five slots as five other representative areas, could she share those with us?

Hon. J. Pullinger: There's no formula for the other five seats.

Just to clarify for the member, this formula is set up so that industry -- in the form right now of the special operating agency board and in future in terms of the sitting board of the new agency -- can, through those vehicles, have some influence over ten of the seats. In effect, the minister and industry or the SOA board or the agency board will agree on ten of the seats.

The other five seats are discretionary. There is no prescription for any nature of who would sit in those seats, but obviously they would be people who are qualified to do the job, and they would certainly complement the other ten. But there is no prescription for the other five seats. The ten will probably be recommended by industry and agreed to through that process. The other five will complement them, but they are not through the same process.

Just to be very, very clear, the ten is a laid-out nomination-recommendation process of the board to the minister for people to sit in those ten seats. Anybody can submit names either to . . . . For the ten seats they would submit the names to the board that's going to make the recommendations. In the case of the five seats anybody, including the board, can submit them to me.

I. Chong: To be clear again, those additional five seats are, as she's mentioned, discretionary, and if they're discretionary, they can in fact still be industry-related appointments or nominations. Thank you; I see the minister shaking her head. I wanted to be clear on that.

The other question I want to ask the minister is whether or not the minister has in mind . . . . Of those five seats, are they specifically allocated a number for -- I hesitate to say government-appointed seats -- government representation?

Hon. J. Pullinger: I'm not quite clear. All of the boards and commissions in British Columbia are government-appointed, and I'm sure the member understands that. I think the question is -- and clarify if I'm not correct: is there going to be anyone from my ministry sitting on the board? Is that correct?

I. Chong: Yes. I guess, to be more clear, it's whether there is any designated number of seats for appointments from the ministry, whether there's any designated number of seats for sitting members of the Legislature and whether there's any designated number of seats for members who represent local government -- those kinds of government representation. I'm wondering whether there's an allocation of those five seats specifically earmarked for those roles.

Hon. J. Pullinger: None of the seats are specifically earmarked.

R. Thorpe: Going back to

section 2(2), we're looking for ten directors here, and again it's "may." One of the things you've talked about is creating certainty and independence. If we're committed to the industry, which I want to believe we all are, then why should it be "may"? Why can't this government show its commitment by saying it "must" be? They must accept those nominations, because this industry has been in ongoing negotiations. It was promised twice before that it would move forward, and we are moving forward. I honestly think that to change the word "may" to "must" is an insignificant change to us here in this chamber, but to the industry that would be seen as a huge change.

Now, I know that perhaps we're going to hear some legalistic arguments on this. But we have our opinions that it can be done. This industry has been tied up in negotiations with this government for years and months. Yes, we heard the rhetoric yesterday about "the first government in 20 years to do this." But the reality is that this government has held this industry almost hostage over the past two years in ongoing meetings, so that people are missing so much time from their work. I would just like to hear why this government will not commit that the ten directors must be from the tourism industry of British Columbia.

Hon. J. Pullinger: The process set up ensures that ten are from industry. The member has made it very clear that he doesn't want the legal arguments, so I won't give them to him. But the fact is that it is not appropriate to fetter the discretionary powers of cabinet in a representative democracy.

R. Thorpe: I would like to introduce an amendment to

section 2(2). I would like to replace the word "may" with "must" in the words highlighted, "At least ten directors appointed . . . . " I would just like to read the amendment to

section 2(2):

[At least ten directors appointed are to be from the tourism industry and these ten directors appointed under subsection (1) must be individuals nominated and recommended by the board to the Lieutenant Governor in Council, one of whom must be a representative of the Council of Tourism Associations.]

Hon. J. Pullinger: Hon. Chair, I would offer that the amendment is out of order. The effect of the amendment would be to give a board, an agency of the Crown, the ability to direct cabinet, and that is completely inappropriate in a parliamentary democracy. So I would offer that, while I appreciate the intention of the amendment. Certainly I've made it very clear that the intention and the effect of this

section of the legislation will be to ensure that there is a minimum of ten people on the board. The language that the member is proposing here is simply out of order.

The Chair: Hon. members, I have read the amendment and listened to the arguments on both sides. I rule the amendment out of order, because it does impose an obligation on the Crown. So back to the main motion.

R. Thorpe: On

section 2(4), can the minister advise us . . . ? As I understood the discussions, these recommendations are going to come forward from the organization that's been operating since February 1996 or whenever that agreement was signed. Have you received the recommendations from the industry with respect to these appointments?

Hon. J. Pullinger: Yes.

R. Thorpe: The minister has talked about meeting the diversity, etc., of the province. Can the minister advise us if the list of ten industry names that have been recommended is acceptable to the minister?

[ Page 3244 ]

Hon. J. Pullinger: The board has not been selected yet. The names on a list that the existing board has given me are not covered by this section. This is the

section that lays out a process through which we will appoint the first board, and that process will unfold in due course.

R. Thorpe: Well, if that's not covered by this section, could the minister please advise me what

section of this bill does cover that?

Hon. J. Pullinger: There is no

section in this legislation that deals with the SOA's list. This sets out a process, and we'll follow that process.

R. Thorpe: So we talk about assurances, we talk about commitment, we talk about certainty for the industry, yet government continues to hold all the cards. Quite frankly, your record in that area is questionable to date, but we do live in hope for tomorrow. Once again this industry requires certainty, and it needs voice. Therefore on subsection (4) I would like to introduce another amendment, and it pertains to substituting the word "may" for "must" on behalf of "individuals recommended . . . by the Council of Tourism British Columbia Special Operating Agency advisory board."

[4:30]

Hon. J. Pullinger: I'd like to first respond to the member's comment. I would simply like to remind the member that the right-wing coalition that sits over there now is very much the same as the right-wing coalition that sat as government for 20 years, which never, ever provided the tourism industry the kind of voice and access that we are doing under this legislation -- nor under the legislation that provides a direct voice for the tourism industry in land use decisions. That is why both John Williams and Pat Corbett of the industry have applauded this government for its actions on tourism.

That is most likely why we've gone from a $4 billion to at least a $7 billion industry since 1991, in great measure.

With respect to the amendment, I believe it's out of order for the same reason as the last.

The Chair: I've perused the motion, and I would concur with the minister. It does impose an obligation, and therefore it's out of order.

R. Thorpe: The minister appears to take great pleasure in talking about the accomplishments that she's achieved, yet she hasn't achieved them. It's with great interest that . . . . When we look at the history of this process, in fact, on February 24, 1996, your government signed a special operating agency with the tourism industry, and you've broken that twice.

Hon. J. Pullinger: Point of order. I don't think history is addressed in this legislation anywhere, and I would appreciate if the member would speak to the

section -- I'd be delighted.

The Chair: I'm not sure that's a legitimate point of order, hon. minister, but thank you for the intervention.

R. Thorpe: What we're talking about here is the ability to keep promises. That's why we've been asking that these things be put in the legislation -- so that no one has to worry. The government can get on with running its business, and the tourism people -- who want to run their businesses, who don't want to go to Victoria and go to meetings in Vancouver endlessly -- can have that certainty, and they can get on with their lives.

I would just like to introduce one more amendment with respect to this section; it would be added as subsection (8). I would like to read it:

[According to subsections (1) and (2), the government has the right to nominate and recommend up to five board members. In the event of the appointment of a government MLA as a director, the government will also ensure that an official opposition MLA is appointed as a director.]

The Chair: Hon. member, without hearing from the minister and from my observation of reading it, I think it's out of order for the same reasons: it imposes an obligation on the Crown.

R. Thorpe: The tourism industry has submitted a list of ten people -- directors from key segments of the tourism industry of British Columbia. Can -- or will -- the minister give assurances today that they will be recognized and that those folks will be appointed to this board?

Hon. J. Pullinger: The board selection process is not complete yet. I'll be delighted to provide the member with a list of the board members when it's made public.

R. Thorpe: I don't want to draw the wrong conclusions from the words of the minister, but I was just wondering if we could have that interpreted into either a yes or a no.

Section 2 approved.

section 3.

I. Chong: It seems fairly simple that the purpose of the agency is to promote development and growth in the tourism industry, to increase revenue and employment in that industry, and I'm just wondering whether the minister can advise us . . . . To accomplish the goal of growth in the tourism industry, have they set out some guidelines? I recognize that this is a marketing function, but has the minister in fact developed some sort of an agreement or framework of operations and some parameters with the industry, with the special operating agency that was previously established?

Hon. J. Pullinger: Good question. The meat on the bones, if you like, of the mandate will come through the business plan, which is addressed later in the legislation. But we'll work with the industry on that.

Section 3 approved.

section 4.

G. Wilson: I have some questions regarding

section 4(1)(c). I look to the original act, and I see that within the powers of the minister previously, the minister has been empowered with the enhancement of the standards of accommodation, facilities, tourist services and related amenities. This is now being transferred to a Crown corporation.

[ Page 3245 ]

When I see that there is an opportunity for an enhancement of standards of tourist accommodation, facilities, services and amenities, I'd like to know how this Crown corporation is going to be empowered to impose standards on independent tourist accommodation with respect to approved standards in the province. I can understand how the minister can do it, because the minister has the discretionary right to bring legislation forward or, by regulation, to work within the context of the Tourism Act.

But this Crown corporation is supposedly an independent body, and I'm not sure that the minister wants to have an independent Crown corporation starting to apply standards with respect to how independent operators can operate in the province of B.C. -- or maybe she does.

Hon. J. Pullinger: I absolutely agree that my ministry does not now, nor will the corporation in the future, impose standards on the tourism industry per se. What the industry has looked for and achieved to date through government -- and in future through the Crown -- will be that accommodations, for instance, listed in the Accommodations Guide , which is a very effective marketing tool, are rated. They're there only if they meet certain minimum standards. The object of that is one that industry fully ascribes to, and that is to ensure that we're directing tourists to accommodations that meet some minimum standards.

So it's an industry-driven process, one the industry wants. It works very effectively to ensure that tourists who come here have quality experiences in places that are listed and therefore de facto recommended by government. But it also provides a standard to which accommodations, for instance, aspire. It's a very effective tool. But it's one that's a self-select process. If they choose to participate, they can. If they choose not to participate, they can do that. But to be included in the guide, the establishment is inspected and rated.

G. Wilson: I was listening intently over the rising din of the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin.

What I'm hearing the minister say is that in order for this corporation to essentially assist the tourism industry, they will facilitate a variety of different programs that will be able to promote tourism through marketing and those sorts of things. And in order for them to do that, they want to make sure there are minimum standards that apply.

This causes me some concern because, as the minister will know, the tourism industry is a highly competitive industry -- highly competitive. In this province the tourism industry for the most part, particularly those people that have businesses related to access to this splendid resource that we have in B.C. -- our salmon-fishing, our hiking, the outdoor kind of recreation resource -- has a very limited season. So it's a very competitive industry and a very limited season, and therefore there's an opportunity to try and get in and to market your facility during that limited season to its greatest effect.

[J. Doyle in the chair.]

The problem is that if this corporation is going to be able to establish arbitrary standards with respect to who does and who doesn't get promoted, who does and who doesn't get marketed, who does and who doesn't qualify by whatever set of regulations and rules in this highly competitive market, especially in light of the issues that I raised under

section 17 with respect to conflict-of-interest provisions, I have some serious concerns. If people are excluded from marketing brochures or programs or web sites -- or whatever it is that this group is going to do -- on the basis of some arbitrary set of standards, I'd like to know by what measure in this act the corporation is empowered to make those decisions, to decide what those standards will be. Or is this something that will be entirely discretionary to the board?

Hon. J. Pullinger: This is not new; this exists now. The accommodation guide that you would pick up now includes this process. This is not new; this is something that exists now. The tourism industry understands that a quality experience is essential if we're going to have return visits. People who are coming here on vacation or on business want a quality experience. So the industry itself strives to do that; therefore standards are set with industry to try to achieve that goal. It's not a process that I have heard any objections about, quite frankly, from the industry.

Most people want to improve the quality of their service, the quality of their establishment. It's a positive goal that the tourism industry in all its facets strives for. So what we're simply doing is providing an ongoing mechanism for ongoing programs to do that. This is not a new ability of the board; it's ongoing.

G. Wilson: It is new to the extent that this corporation is new. The various regional organizations, as we're all aware, have had in the past recommendations with respect to standards, and so on. However, the corporation is new, and the corporation is going to be getting directed to it funds specifically for the purpose of promotion of tourism. And we have seen that the board is going to be set up with a particular raison d'�tre. I guess it's determined partly by the board and partly by the government. So to that extent it is new.

What I'm concerned about -- and let me speak directly to the heart of my concern -- is that I want to be sure that this corporation is not going to pick up what was traditionally the role of government with respect to the establishment and implementation of minimum standard requirements on accommodation in order for them to qualify to be certified within the province. I think that would be a departure from convention, which allows government to be the regulatory authority, not a Crown corporation.

And we've seen that this government has already, by combining the motor vehicle branch with ICBC, given to a monopoly Crown corporation the rights to be able to do just what I've said shouldn't be done. And I wouldn't want to see that done through this corporation. So, if I can have that assurance, we can move on.

[4:45]

Hon. J. Pullinger: I can give the member the assurance that subsection (

c) is to encourage enhancement of standards; it's not a regulatory function. So it'll be a continuation of the programs that industry has developed for itself, essentially, and that are now delivered through the branch, will be delivered through the same mechanisms and the same people through the Crown. But I can give the member absolute assurance that they do not have regulatory authority; it's simply about encouraging standards, which is something that the industry very much wants.

G. Wilson: I'm pleased to hear that. I think the industry has been an effective self-regulatory authority in the past, and I'm pleased that it can remain that way.

The other

section under here that I have some questions on is with respect to 4(1)(e), where it says that this corporation is going to be responsible for facilitating the creation of jobs.

[ Page 3246 ]

Now, maybe the minister can tell us how this corporation is going to facilitate job creation. I'm assuming that it's going to have limited revenues, and I'm assuming it's not going to facilitate it through direct hire. So maybe we could expand that just a bit.

Hon. J. Pullinger: The tourism industry depends on marketing, both regional marketing, which is supported through Tourism B.C. now as an SOA and will be supported through this new agency . . . . It has created somewhere in excess of 23,000 new jobs since 1991 by very effectively promoting British Columbia as a whole and also promoting the regions of British Columbia. It's very important, in my view, that the board remain focused. Their mandate is, in fact, to develop the industry but also to create jobs in every region of the province. And I expect that their business plan will reflect that, and that they will continue the good work they've been doing with government to that end.

G. Wilson: I'm not sure that I really got a very specific answer on that. I'm assuming, then, that what we're getting out of this is that the corporation, in its promotion of tourism generally, is going to hope there are some jobs that spin out of that. It isn't going to be involved directly in job creation programs. Or is it going to be empowered to run, operate, and put in place . . . ? I can think of, for example, the SuperHost program. There was a lot of discussion when the SuperHost program was in place.

And I think it was under a different regime that that came in -- one of those dastardly free-enterprise coalitions was in power at the time, I think, when that came by -- but I'm not certain of that. But in that program -- which I would point out that in the voting of this bill I was not a part of -- that coalition seemed to transcend the lines of this House on both sides here. Nevertheless, having said that, it seems to me there was a lot of discussion about the industry wanting to get involved in direct job training and job creation programs.

There was some discussion as to how that industry might be able to have those job training programs underway. And there were some very good ideas -- some really good ideas -- coming out of people engaged in the industry. Now, I'm curious to know whether or not this corporation will be empowered to involve itself and engage itself in direct job creation programs.

Hon. J. Pullinger: No.

G. Wilson: If I could just quickly move on, again under

section 4(1)(

g) it talks about generating additional funding for tourism programs. Now, clearly this is not a taxing revenue, so how is it going to generate additional revenue? And where does the minister anticipate this additional revenue is going to come from?

Hon. J. Pullinger: Good question. The new agency will own the SuperHost program and the Super, Natural B.C. trademark. If the agency chooses, it can make hats with the trademark on them and sell them. It also can and will make money from marketing the SuperHost programs, and there's a whole variety of them. There's one that's been developed with the disabled community to ensure that people with disabilities, who happily are travelling more and more, are appropriately served. There's one that's been developed very recently as well for intercultural understanding. We have more and more different countries around the world whose residents are travelling here.

So this SuperHost program has been sold around the world and has made money -- returned money to the coffers, if you like -- that will now go back to the agencies, as well, as I say, if they sell hats or . . . . And the third thing they could do is enter into other partnerships, if they choose, that would perhaps have the effect of expanding their funding base -- or the amount of money they can spend -- although it wouldn't be revenue right back to the corporation.

But I think the two primary ways would be in their ownership of the SuperHost program and the Super, Natural B.C. trademark.

G. Wilson: I was going to say, by way of a flagrant violation of the rules, that when one puts one's trademark on one's pens and so on, it really does work well, except that that would be to try and enhance and promote my own party, which I wouldn't want to do -- at least, not in this chamber at this time. But let me say that certainly that kind of promotional thing really does work very well, although I'm not sure it would show up very well on camera.

The interesting thing with respect to trying to promote SuperHost and the Super, Natural trademark as a way to try to come out with some additional revenue . . . . I'm curious to know whether or not the corporation will have the authority or power to be able to embark on licensing or fees or any kind of revenue collection systems for people who may be part, or be deemed to be part, of the industry. Will they be empowered to impose some kind of tariff for those people in the industry?

Hon. J. Pullinger: I've just realized -- my apologies, because it's taken awhile -- that Rod Harris, the CEO of Tourism B.C., is here. I'd like to introduce him to the House.

The ability of Tourism B.C. to sell, to levy fees, obtains only insofar as their marketing of their own trademarks and programs. That would get us back to the SuperHost program and Super, Natural B.C., etc. So they can charge a fee to use that, for instance, but they can't levy fees outside of the things that they already own.

G. Wilson: But it does say in a subsequent

section that it can acquire, hold and dispose of properties, which is pretty standard for a Crown corporation. So I am curious to know whether or not it's anticipated that this corporation is going to at some point be directed to become more self-funding. Right now my estimate of the 1.65 percent that it's going to take off last year's budget . . . . I think last year it was . . . . That's going to generate in revenue directly, in terms of startup, about $1.3 million. Roughly, that's my calculation.

I could be wrong, but I'm just going by the budget -- I'm seeing some heads being shaken back there -- by the revenue collected off that tax last year, and taking 1.65 percent of that 8 percent. I could be wrong, and if so, I'll work the figures again.

In any event, it seems to me that that is not sufficient revenue to make this corporation run, and run effectively, for very long. So it would seem to me that there is going to be a demand at some point for this corporation to raise additional revenue. And my guess is that once it becomes a functional part of life in British Columbia -- if it does -- it will, like many corporations, be under pressure to become more self-funding and self-regulatory, because that's the nature of the beast. That's one of the reasons I think this is not the way to go.

However, having said that, this

section does not preclude it from entering into a variety of other methods. When we get to

section 6, we will see where that can be expanded on. It doesn't preclude it from being able to engage in a variety of other activities to make it a self-funding and therefore self-perpetuating authority. The only place that they're likely to get

[ Page 3247 ]

any revenue from is the people who are in the tourist industry, because they're the ones who are going to presumably benefit, and therefore they're the ones who are likely to have to pay whatever tariff or tax.

I'm hoping that the minister can give me absolute assurance today that this corporation will not at any point be empowered to be able to put a further burden of fees or taxes or any tariff on any individual who is operating within the tourist sector today.

Hon. J. Pullinger: The part that we're discussing,

section 4(1)(g), is an enabling clause that allows the new agency to generate revenue for itself by selling its trademark or its programs, such as SuperHost -- which the latter already does effectively. But that money, when it's part of government, must go back into general revenue. It can't go back into the SOA. One of the advantages of having a separate agency is that the funds it generates by marketing the SuperHost programs or by marketing things with the Super, Natural B.C. logo can go back to the Crown, appropriately.

So this

section simply enables the Crown to do those sorts of things and any other creative thing it can do of that nature, as well as enter into other partnerships.

G. Wilson: But it's not a restrictive clause; it's in fact quite opposite to that.

What I need to have the minister confirm is that this corporation will not be empowered to levy any fees, licence requirements, taxation or other levies on anybody who is currently, or who will be in the future, involved in the tourist industry. Because we have many corporations in this province, and I can name several: ICBC, B.C. Ferries . . . . They're all operating in British Columbia and are empowered to impose fees, licences and dues.

An Hon. Member: And are.

G. Wilson: And they do -- and frequently. And they go up and up and up, and it costs us a whole bundle of money. In fact, one might argue, they are even detrimental to tourism in some instances.

What I want to know is that this corporation is not empowered, once established, to become an authority that will require those people engaged in the industry to pay it a levy, fee or tariff.

Hon. J. Pullinger: This new agency will have a majority tourism-industry board, and I am absolutely certain that a tourism- and industry-driven board will not do things that are detrimental to the tourism industry. Beyond that, we're getting into the realm of the hypothetical about what the board might or might not do at some time in its history, and I simply am not prepared to engage in hypothetical questions and answers.

I'll say once more that this is an enabling clause to allow them to do things that will generate additional revenue that they can then use for the benefit of the tourism industry as a whole.