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

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, JUNE 29, 1993

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 11, Number 19

[ Page 8043 ]

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

Hon. D. Miller: In the members' gallery this afternoon is a good friend of mine from Prince Rupert, Lynn Salter. She is accompanied by her brother, Bob Salter, and her niece, Kristine, who are visiting here from Lejre, Denmark. I would ask the House to give them a warm welcome.

I would be severely remiss if I did not also indicate that my spouse, Gayle Ballard, is with them today.

L. Reid: As the Women's Equality critic, I am pleased that the minister took a moment to add that introduction.

I would like the House to welcome today five students of mine from the Richmond School District. Natalie Wolfe, Stephanie Schneider, Morgan Dean, Amanda Tipper and Ryan MacLeod are in the gallery, and I would ask the House to please make them welcome.

L. Hanson: In the gallery today is a young gentleman by the name of Andrew Gay, who is the legislative intern assigned to the Social Credit caucus. I know that the members will recognize, because of the superior debate that came from the Social Credit Party, the contribution that Andrew has made to the parliamentary process. Would the House please wish him well on his way to whatever his endeavours are in the future.

Hon. J. Cashore: Visiting from Toronto today we have the consul general of Belgium, Claude Rijmenans, who is making his first visit to British Columbia. Will the House join me in making him welcome.

G. Janssen: Visiting us today from Arnhem, Holland, is a relative, Claudia Van den Hoek. She is accompanied by my mother, Mrs. Janssen. Please make them welcome.

J. Pullinger: I want to make an introduction today on behalf of myself and my colleague from Nanaimo. With us today is a friend, a constituent and a woman who has worked very actively for a long time in the Canadian Diabetes Association which, incidentally, is celebrating its fortieth anniversary this year. Isabelle Williams is with us today, and I would like the House to help me make her welcome and also to recognize the work that Isabelle and other people do to make us all a little bit more aware of and educated about the issue of diabetes.

J. Dalton: Tomorrow the legislative interns end their current term. They have been helpful to all the parties. In particular, I want to thank the two interns who were assigned to the Liberal caucus, Peter Nyers and David Basi. The two of them have been very helpful to our caucus. The cabinet will be happy to know that all the embarrassing questions that have been thrown at them over the months have been provided by those two gentlemen, and I can assure you, hon. Speaker there will be more today. So the Liberal caucus thanks the two gentlemen and would wish them well in their endeavours.

S. Hammell: I'd like to introduce a good friend, an outstanding political activist and a wonderful person from the municipality of Surrey. Would the House please welcome Bill Piket.

F. Gingell: In the gallery today are two visitors: Dave Larsen, who's a well-known face around these hallowed halls, and a newcomer to our province to whom I'd like to make a special welcome, George Wayerhaeuser, Jr.

C. Evans: In 1992 I introduced in this House George Cady, the chairman of the Regional District of Central Kootenay. On Saturday that individual took his own life in Kaslo, B.C. I want to comment briefly on the man as I knew him and on the circumstances of his passing as I experience it. I'm not going to repeat my commentary of last year on George's political career.

Suffice to say that this man championed Canadian nationalism before there was a National Party, the politics of land and water before there was a Green Party and the rights of workers to democratic representation before there was a New Democratic Party. Although his activities in public life span many decades, they cannot be dismissed as history. He was chosen by his neighbours as their representative and by his peers as their chairman year after passing year, right up until the time of his death. You could actually say of George Cady's life that a river ran through it.

He worked under the Columbia River as a diver, he lived on the river system as a fisherman and he fought for the life of the lakes and rivers for half a century and was a spokesperson for the people of the river basin. In retrospect, it was a fine accident of history that he was able to see the beginnings of change for the river and the people at the symposium in Castlegar just a week before his death.

The circumstances of George's death raise only questions. There is the possibility that even those who called him friend knew him not. It is impossible to eulogize this man without referring -- however obliquely -- to those questions. In preparing my thoughts for this statement, I considered asking for a moment of silence so that we might all meditate on the issues of the use of justice and power for good or ill. I have, though, rejected that option, because at this moment silence is the enemy of healing.

If George was innocent of the charges against him, his death robs his family of justice and closure; if George was guilty of those charges, his death has robbed his victims of a chance for justice and closure.

British Columbia works as a system precisely because people like George Cady work to make it function. British Columbia will work as a society when we no longer have to choose between silence and justice. We can take these things from George's life and his death.

[ Page 8044 ]

Introduction of Bills

AMENDMENTS TO MOTOR FUEL TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1993

Hon. G. Clark presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: amendments to Bill 18, intituled Motor Fuel Tax Amendment Act, 1993.

Hon. G. Clark: This amendment to Bill 18 is response to the Vancouver Regional Transit Commission's request for a 1-cent-a-litre increase on the regional gas tax. The commission proposed the increase on June 9, 1993, in an effort to reduce the regional transit commission's local funding deficit. Members of the Vancouver Regional Transit Commission are: Vancouver mayor, Gordon Campbell; Vancouver councillor, Libby Davies; Port Coquitlam mayor, Len Traboulay; Richmond mayor, Greg Halsey-Brandt; Surrey mayor, Bob Bose; New Westminster mayor, Betty Toporowski; and North Vancouver mayor, Murray Dykeman. The increase takes effect July 1, 1993.

[2:15]

Hon. Speaker, I ask leave to move that the said message and the accompanying amendments to the same be referred to the committee of the House having in charge Bill 18.

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

Oral Questions

ADMINISTRATION OF EMPLOYMENT EQUITY POLICY

F. Gingell: My question is to the Minister of Finance. At his press conference this morning the minister said that employment equity is not part of the Public Service Act, but the truth will always come out. Did the minister intend to mislead the public on this issue?

The Speaker: Before I pose the question, hon. member, considering the words chosen in this instance, I hope the hon. member will confirm that he was not suggesting that another hon. member of the House had intentionally misled.

F. Gingell: No, I'm just asking.

Hon. G. Clark: I didn't notice the member at the press conference, but I did notice several other qualified members of the opposition. I will say two things. First, there is a bill before the House, and this is more properly the purpose of debate; but if the speaker wishes, I'm happy to discuss this particular question. Second, the question of merit and employment equity is contained in the bill. What I was referring to in the question period was that the policy of employment equity is a responsibility of the Minister of Women's Equality.

This bill simply moves the administration of that policy to a new organization as contained in the act. The policy was not a subject of debate; it was that when this bill is passed, the policy will be housed in the new commission.

The Speaker: Before I recognize a supplemental, I would caution hon. members not to discuss in great detail topics that are subjects of bills that could be called before the House. A general reference is allowable in question period.

A supplemental, hon. member.

F. Gingell: At the same press conference -- at which, I agree, I was not present; I was busy here, questioning the Premier -- I'm led to understand that the minister stated that the new commissioner would report to him. Recognizing the importance of this person being seen to be independent, unbiased and fair, is this wise?

Hon. G. Clark: Certainly we can have that discussion during the debate on the legislation.

The Speaker: Final supplemental, hon. member.

F. Gingell: My second supplemental is to the Minister of Finance. I ask him if in this case he will follow accepted business practice of advertising, interviewing, testing, reviewing and appointing, rather than following NDP past practice by filling this place with a patronage hack?

Hon. G. Clark: While individual cabinet ministers are interested in the outcomes of job competitions, they do not themselves do the advertising. A more appropriate time to question executive council operations might have been this morning when the member opposite here was questioning the Premier's estimates. Clearly, we will be widely canvassing the country for people to take the deputy minister position. That's been the practice of this administration.

I want to make one further point. We have many very capable people in the government personnel services division and in other areas of government who are well qualified to do this job. We expect many internal applicants as well as external applicants for this very important position that will be created by the legislation.

PUBLIC SERVICE HIRING AND COSTS

J. Weisgerber: A question to the Premier. The Korbin commission report indicates that as of December 1992 there were slightly in excess of 39,000 Public Service Act employees working for the government. Can the Premier confirm that 11,951 of those employees were appointed in 1992 alone?

Hon. M. Harcourt: No.

J. Weisgerber: Figure 4, on page 16 of the report, indicates that only 735 of the almost 12,000 appointments were lateral transfers. The other 11,216 were brand-new employees moved into positions that

[ Page 8045 ]

may or may not have been existing positions at the time. Has the Premier determined from Ms. Korbin or any other source, the actual number of new employees added to the government's service since his government took office in 1991?

Hon. M. Harcourt: Two of the areas that we had to clean up from the previous government were the phantom deficit and the phantom employees -- both of which were very real -- that the previous government tried to hide from the people of British Columbia. The truth is coming out now.

The Speaker: Final supplemental, hon. member.

J. Weisgerber: Page 43 of the Korbin report reveals that the total proportion of provincial expenditures for salaries and contractors dropped from 18.5 percent in 1985 to 12.5 percent in 1993, taking into consideration the massive wage increases extended by this government. Is the Premier willing to follow the lead of other provinces and commit to reducing the total proportion of salary and contractor costs to the level that it was when he took office in 1991?

Hon. M. Harcourt: Not only did we, as a new government, have to deal with the two efforts by the previous government to hide the deficit and to hide employees behind contracts that in a lot of cases were costing more money than they would have if they were within the civil service, but we also had to deal with the fact that the previous government was acting illegally under the Unemployment Insurance Act and the Income Tax Act by excluding almost 2,000 British Columbians from being public employees, and doing that illegally. They may have been prepared to act illegally; this government isn't.

FUNDING TO SUPPORT SINGLE FATHERS

L. Reid: My question this afternoon is to the Minister of Social Services. Family breakup and dysfunctional families are part of the skyrocketing costs of social welfare in this province -- there's no doubt about that. A Social Services ministry, which is gender-biased in terms of providing services, is exacerbating the problem. The regional director for the Ministry of Social Services in Prince George has stated that the Single Dads' Alliance is not eligible for funding to support single fathers, in this situation single parents, because "persons," under this ministry, are defined only as women. Will the minister confirm that there is a gender bias in her ministry?

Hon. J. Smallwood: I will be more than happy to look into the situation and bring the information back to you.

L. Reid: I appreciate the minister is going to check into this particular group, but the fathers' alliance looks at providing counselling services to single dads. If we can appreciate that they are going to have an impact on how those children are raised, is this minister prepared to say that this ministry stands in support of families or not? That's the issue for today.

Hon. J. Smallwood: I took the previous question on notice; I'll bring back a full accounting.

COMPENSATION FAIRNESS PROGRAM FINAL REPORT

D. Mitchell: Much has been made today about the release by the Minister of Finance of volume 1 of the final report of the Korbin commission. But I wonder if the Minister of Finance can tell the House why he has failed to release the final report of the compensation fairness program. Will he agree today to table that final report of Commissioner Neil Haggquist, now almost a year old? If he won't do so, why wouldn't he? Does he have something to hide?

Hon. G. Clark: I will look into that. Mr. Haggquist prepared a report for the compensation fairness program, which was tabled in the House. Some working documents were submitted to me with respect to the windup. I am sure they are available under the Freedom of Information Act, so I don't have any hesitation in saying that I would be delighted to give it to the member. It is certainly not a deliberate ploy to hide that information. Mr. Haggquist was appointed by this administration, and he did an excellent job of exposing some of the problems.

A lot of those problems resulted in the Korbin commission, and we are now trying to deal with remedies of the unbelievable mess we inherited from the previous administration.

D. Mitchell: I wonder if the Minister of Finance is a little bit reluctant to release the final report of Commissioner Haggquist because he has no appetite....

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please!

D. Mitchell: I wonder if it's because the government has no appetite to act on the recommendations of Commissioner Haggquist with respect to the privileged position of public servants in our province. Why has the government been sitting on the report for almost a year, with no action whatsoever on Commissioner Haggquist's recommendations? Could it be that the minister has been waiting until the government got all of its friends and insiders hired inside the public service prior to the release today of the Korbin Commission report?

Hon. G. Clark: The ludicrous premise of the member.... The appointment of Judith Korbin to review the public service and public sector was, in part, a result of both the independent financial review and Mr. Haggquist's work. In fact, Mr. Haggquist's principal recommendation was such a commission. The government acted upon it quickly. We are now seeing the fruits of that commission in a first report, and the

[ Page 8046 ]

second report should be tabled shortly in this House. We have no hesitation; he did excellent work. The information was a public service, and of course we're prepared to give it not just to members of the House but to members of the public.

The Speaker: A final brief supplemental, hon. member.

D. Mitchell: If the Minister of Finance is correct and the report is an excellent report, then why has he failed to release it to the public? Can the minister tell us what specific steps he has taken over the past year to act upon the recommendations of Commissioner Haggquist since that report was transmitted to him? In particular, what specific steps has he taken to determine whether or not the public service is in compliance with the Financial Information Act? What has this minister been doing to ensure that the public servants of this province are not breaking the law?

Hon. G. Clark: I would be delighted, but I know that brevity is required in question period. We have had a series of workshops on the Financial Information Act with the comptroller general to ensure compliance. For the first time in British Columbia's history we prepared a brochure on how to access information, which the Financial Information Act requires. Because of Mr. Haggquist, we found out that many bodies weren't providing the prescribed information.

In fact, the member for North Vancouver did an outstanding job of accessing information with respect to the school board in North Vancouver. So we are bringing in amendments in the House -- I believe we've brought in some amendments -- to ensure that the Financial Information Act is adhered to by all levels of government. We've taken significant internal and external action, including publishing information on how members of the public can access that act.

CLAYOQUOT SOUND DECISION AND ABORIGINAL INTERESTS

W. Hurd: I have a question for the Premier. Now that the government has made a so-called balanced land use decision, can the Premier advise the House exactly what it is doing to defend the interests of the Tla-o-qui-aht first nation in Clayoquot Sound? What specific action is the government taking?

Hon. M. Harcourt: When the Clayoquot decision was announced, I made it very clear that the land use decisions were without prejudice to the aboriginal people. The aboriginal people in British Columbia, our first citizens, now know this is a government that is going to move toward resolving the aboriginal issues that have been outstanding for 150 years. That's why we have the Treaty Commission Act, which was passed in this House. That's why we have agreements with the third parties. That's why this government has concluded a cost-sharing agreement with the federal government.

That's why we can now enter into the treaty process, in which a number of these issues that the member has alluded to can be dealt with properly.

[2:30]

Hon. G. Clark: I have the honour to table the British Columbia Housing and Employment Development Financing Authority's financial statements and auditor's report, as of June 30, 1992. I'd just advise the members that this is the final report, because this entity is no longer in existence.

Hon. G. Clark tabled the British Columbia Educational Institutions Capital Financing Authority's financial statements and auditor's report for the year ended March 31, 1993.

Ministerial Statement

B.C. FOOD INDUSTRY MARKET DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM

Hon. B. Barlee: I rise in the House to make a ministerial statement on a matter of great interest to the B.C. food and beverage industry. The food industry market development program, one of the most exciting projects ever undertaken in the food industry, is now underway. This morning in Vancouver, together with key agrifood industry stakeholders and the minister's council on the food industry, I officially launched the program and its new logo and slogan: "The Best Things in Life are B.C." The program will include.... [Applause.] No hand over there?

The program will increase consumer awareness and build preference for B.C. food, fish and beverage products, which is B.C.'s third-largest manufacturing sector. The potential benefits are great: a 5 percent increase in use of B.C. products will generate $440 million annually and create 4,000 new jobs in British Columbia, plus spin-off jobs. This program is being done in very close partnership with industry to enhance the industry's marketing development programs and initiatives. The partnership program has three components.

The first is building awareness. We will be building awareness through identifying B.C. products with logos at stores, restaurants and farm markets. An estimated 1.8 billion impressions of this logo will be seen by British Columbians in grocery stores, restaurants and newspapers within the first year. The campaign will reach all the corners of this province to build awareness of the vast array of B.C. products and beverages available. There are more than 280 commodities and thousands of value-added products, everything from abalone to zucchini.

This is a cost-shared, industry-led program. The cost-shared component is the heart of the program. It is dramatically different from its predecessors. The government will make strategic investments in industry-led programs that meet our program criteria. Our ongoing evaluation will ensure that the taxpayers' contributions to this program are well spent and have maximum input.

The food industry market development program is an initiative to meet challenges facing the British

[ Page 8047 ]

Columbia food industry. Today there is pressure on B.C.'s food, fish and beverage industry from increased international competition, changes to international trade regulations, globalization and cross-border shopping. We can successfully deal with these challenges by producing high-quality food and beverages at competitive prices in British Columbia. We are doing that. B.C. consumers have said that when we identify these quality products, they'll show their support at the cash register.

R. Chisholm: I must start by thanking the minister for a timely ministerial statement. I appreciate that. It is year two of a five-year program; we're finally seeing something constructive from the Buy B.C. program. It's better late than never.

It is encouraging to see that the Minister of Agriculture has listened to my plea for the Buy B.C. program. The lettuce and cabbage demonstration last summer and the persistence of various sectors of our food, fish and beverage industries have hopefully produced results. Unfortunately, it should have been implemented last year. It has been a rocky road to get to this stage. I must remind the minister about advertising through the States on the Buy B.C. program. I applaud the fact, though, that this initiative is not simply a government handout. It is supposed to be funded 50-50 by industry and government.

It will be very successful if this initiative increases sales of B.C. products, assures that our agriculture, food and fishing industries grow and prosper, increases cooperation among food industry sectors and becomes an industry-led, self-sustaining program over the long term.

I am pleased to hear that British Columbia food products will be identified with a B.C. logo to educate and raise consumer awareness, and a B.C. slogan will encourage a B.C. product preference by the consumer. I urge the minister to ensure that all government cafeterias throughout B.C., including those in office buildings, B.C. Ferries, B.C. Rail, schools and universities lead the way in this Buy B.C. initiative.

Unfortunately, the government had to be forced into this program. Hopefully, in this exercise this government has learned that it must invest in its resource industries in order for these industries to help pay back taxes to support this government's social agenda. This is a $13 billion industry which we must ensure survives. When this industry becomes viable and pays taxes, the government will have to raise less personal taxes off the backs of average British Columbians.

The last point I would like to make is that this minister founded a 16-person committee selected from the agricultural community to oversee this program. I have some advice for the minister: as long as this minister listens to his committee, I expect the road will be less rocky for this minister and his ministry.

H. De Jong: I'm very pleased to see the extension of the Buy B.C. program that was started back in 1991. The objective of the program has always been to familiarize the consumer with B.C. products and to improve returns for the producer and those involved in the processing of those agricultural products.

I'm really pleased that the ministry has taken this bold step. I believe it is a bold step in trying to get all the parties to work together in this process. The minister has also recognized the new techniques that are being used in the production of new products, the new commodities and the new varieties within commodities. This initiative will really help the agriculture community, the processors, the retailers and the consumers to be aware of what is growing in British Columbia and what all the new products are.

I'm very pleased with the new logo. It's bright, it's good and it's attractive. The whole intent of this program is a progressive innovation in concert with the industry and the retailer. Obviously all British Columbians will benefit from this innovation.

The Speaker: I will recognize the hon. member for Richmond Centre -- on what matter?

D. Symons tabled a document with further information relating to the Premier's answers to a question in question period.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Sihota: I wish to advise all members that Committee A will be convening in the Douglas Fir Room to deal firstly with the estimates of the Minister of Advanced Education, and subsequently with the Minister of Government Services. I also wish to call committee on Bill 27.

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1993

The House in committee on Bill 27; M. Lord in the chair.

section 1.

A. Warnke: As it clearly states, the amendment adds commercial vehicles owned and leased out of province. It's the same as the old

section with the addition: "(

e) an out of Province school district." This is where the amendment adds commercial vehicles owned or leased by out-of-province school districts, which are exempt from the requirement to pay fees. First of all, I want to inquire into the nature of the addition in this section.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: We're simply enabling out-of-province school buses to come into the province without having the requirement to pay a fee. British Columbia buses that travel in these provinces are not required to pay a fee. In fact, we haven't been charging a fee in any event, and we want to make sure the legislation reflects that reality.

A. Warnke: At this time which out-of-province school districts pay this tax?

[ Page 8048 ]

Hon. C. Gabelmann: No out-of-province school districts pay the fee now. We have waived the fee for all touring school buses that come in with schoolchildren, and we're simply making the law reflect that reality, as I said.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

A. Warnke: How will this

section be enforced? If a case is presently in front of the courts but there is not a judgment on the award, will the amendment apply?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Following enactment, it will apply to all judgments following that day.

A. Warnke: How would this affect present awards, which may require payment for the next ten years? Or does this amendment apply only to new awards?

[2:45]

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm not entirely sure of the member's question, but let me just see if this covers it. The changes will not affect any matters that have been decided finally and are judgments. It can and will affect matters that are presently before the courts and will be before the courts, even if those matters are arguments about events that may have occurred some years ago.

Sections 2 and 3 approved.

section 4.

A. Warnke: I have a quick question. There is a change here that broadens the class of institutions. Is the expansion now to include credit unions or trust companies? Perhaps the Attorney General could just expand a bit on that.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Yes.

Sections 4 and 5 approved.

section 6.

A. Warnke: I understand the nature of the amendment here. What has been brought to my attention with regard to this particular

section is a concern that this amendment is a reflection of how cabinet gets extra authority. To be quite honest with you, hon. Chair, the amendment is not problematic in itself. But what has been expressed to me is a concern about transferring more authority to cabinet -- to make regulations through order-in-council and so on -- and away from stipulating terms within the actual statute. One way to express this is in the question: why is the cabinet getting involved in establishing the deductible, and is there an amount that the government is intending to change it to?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The intent here is to take the reference to a specific dollar figure out of the statute and put it into the regulations in order to be able to adjust it more readily in response to inflationary pressures that may occur. As the member will know, the $150 amount was established in 1977 and has been unchanged since that date. The proposal is to take it to $350, and then from here on in cabinet will have the authority, by way of regulation, to amend the number. There's no intent to do anything beyond that.

C. Serwa: Since the figure has not been changed since 1977, I wonder why it would have to be changed at all by regulation in a more speedy manner. Some time has elapsed since 1977. I would express concern where it appears that the innocent victim, who happens to own a vehicle that was hit by a hit-and-run driver, is now going to be liable for a substantially increased fee. It doesn't seem to be appropriate to make the innocent victim pay a substantially higher sum set by the whim of cabinet. I don't understand the logic or rationale behind the request for this amendment.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The amendment attempts to deal with a serious problem in the escalation of costs, which are reflected in premiums that all motorists pay. The 22,000 claims in 1988 cost $11 million; in three years this had increased to 36,000 claims for a bill of $24 million. It is a significant cost for B.C. motorists, so the motivation for this comes from that significant escalation in costs.

The motorist who carries collision coverage and whose deductible is lower than this amount will not be subject to the full $350, as I understand it. If you carry the collision, and if you are an innocent victim, as I understand it -- and I think I have it right -- the regular deductible amount would apply.

C. Serwa: I have a great deal of difficulty understanding the rationale the minister is referring to in spite of the escalation in costs. Insurance is basically to spread out the averages. In this case it seems to be fundamentally wrong that an innocent victim has to make up for this increased number of hit-and-runs on an individual basis, rather than accepting that broad across-the-board responsibility. Fundamentally, that's what insurance is all about. In this case, you are hitting the innocent victim with an enhanced charge. I think there is something wrong when we have an insurance scheme and you're going to make the innocent victim pay more.

The minister also referred to owners carrying collision insurance. Because of the high cost of collision insurance, I suspect that fewer and fewer drivers are actually carrying collision insurance -- certainly a very small percentage. The minister may have access to the figures of individuals carrying collision insurance with a deductible lower than $100. So it appears to me that there is something fundamentally wrong with the request and with this amendment as it is put forward.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: To deal with the point the member raises, 70 percent of the deductibles are below

[ Page 8049 ]

$350. Secondly, $350 is actually lower in terms of purchasing power than the figure established by the government the member supported in 1977; $150 in 1977, in 1993 dollars, would be approximately $380. So we are reducing the cost and making it cheaper than the former government did in 1977.

C. Serwa: I wasn't here in 1977, although the hon. minister probably was. In spite of that -- talking about purchasing power -- I still feel that it is fundamentally wrong to be punitive to an innocent victim; to charge them in order to make this up. Fundamentally, it militates against the purpose of insurance, which is a broad spectrum of coverage, and that is only reasonable. It was probably brought in initially because of claims of damage to vehicles -- perhaps a nuisance factor -- which started this.

I don't know if that's still a reality, but I conclude by saying that I believe it is fundamentally wrong to negate the type of insurance that we have and the concept of coverage absorbed by the responsibility of the broad cross-section of motorists and impact the single individual for a higher fee to make up for increasing losses in this area. I can only reinforce that, and the minister accepts my statement.

Sections 6 and 7 approved.

section 8.

A. Warnke: Once again I think we see the amendment broadening the application and making it consistent with some other concepts introduced earlier. I'm just wondering about its application to the Land Surveyors Act.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The answer here is the same as it was on the early question. We're simply expanding the types of deposit-taking financial institutions so that it's more than just banks. It's credit unions and the near banks that are now being used more frequently.

Section 8 approved.

section 9.

A. Warnke: I believe that this particular amendment changes an amendment that was introduced during the 1992 spring session and expanded the official records section. The amendment in

section 9 allows the registrar to duplicate a document at the time it is filed; however, the amendment does not make it clear that the registrar must get permission from the person filing the document to create a duplicate. Would the Attorney General clarify what I see as a little bit of a problem here in that the amendment does not make it clear that the registrar must get permission? Would some sort of amendment be helpful?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The proposal is to allow individuals to have an original copy returned to them -- for example, the original copy of a power of attorney. But the registrar is required to have the document on hand as well, so if a person asks for their original back, then a copy would be made and kept in the registrar's office. That's how the permission is granted. No copies will be made if the person involved doesn't make an application. I think that should deal with the member's concerns. I hope it does.

A. Warnke: Perhaps it should require the signed permission of the person who applied to file it.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: As long as the registrar is satisfied that the individual wants the document back, whether it's by a signed letter, telephone call or visit to the office, the registrar has the discretion to determine whether it's a valid and appropriate request. If that determination is made, the document can be copied to be retained in the office and the originals returned to the owner.

Sections 9 to 12 inclusive approved.

section 13.

A. Warnke: As the bill states, it allows or permits liquor to be "shipped direct from a manufacturer, warehouse or liquor store to a...liquor store or agency store, subject to the orders the general manager makes." I would like to pose one question: is the amendment made because of a computerized quality and quantity control at each outlet?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: No. In fact, it's made as a result of a 1991 GATT decision, which in our case required British Columbia to allow, for example, American beer companies to deliver beer directly to both liquor stores and agency stores in the same way as British Columbia beer companies are able to do. So it's a trade-related issue.

A. Warnke: I suppose the answer then begs another kind of question. Will there be a lesser need for warehouses due to direct shipment?

[3:00]

I don't mind repeating the question again, due to.... I appreciate that it's difficult doing two or three things at once. The answer the Attorney General provided necessitates a question involving warehouses. Will there be a lesser need for warehouses due to the direct shipment?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I don't believe so. The volume of imported beer is relatively small. If you look at the LDB warehouses, you'll see that they're primarily occupied by domestic product. But let's just be clear. Domestic beer is not warehoused in LDB warehouses. The brewers handle their own directly. I may have said this; I just want to make sure that I speak clearly here, for my own sake if nobody else's. The proportion of space now occupied in LDB warehouses by imported beer is not significant, so this shouldn't change the needs there.

[ Page 8050 ]

A. Warnke: This particular

section stimulated some concern as to whether, as a result of the changes here.... I appreciate the answer given by the Attorney General that the effect of direct shipments of imported beer will be minimal. In this context, is there any anticipation of staff layoffs as a result?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: No.

Section 13 approved.

section 14.

A. Warnke: This concerns the Ombudsman Act. As I look at it, I think the amendment is a positive move and is in line with Bill 62, the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 1993. Nonetheless, I'm just wondering if the Attorney General could elaborate on the nature and purpose of

section 14.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: In the vernacular, people refer to this provision as whistle-blower protection, so that people who are providing information to the ombudsman can do so secure in the knowledge that they won't pay a price at their place of employment for having done so.

A. Warnke: Is this restricted just to the place of employment?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The provision is broad. There should be no discrimination against any person for having provided information. So it's not just at a place of work; it could apply to people who provide services to the government, such as contractors. In the tradition of whistle-blower protection, it's designed to make sure that people can feel free from threat of intimidation as a result of providing information that is appropriate to be provided, in this case to the ombudsman. It parallels the provision in the Human Rights Act and gives people the same protection as in that legislation.

C. Serwa: For my knowledge, would this initiative be undertaken by the Crown, or would it be a civil matter that an individual would have to take up, with latitude under the legislation?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The next

section we'll consider in this bill is

section 15. That amends

section 31 of the Ombudsman Act, which would make intimidation, coercion, discharge, suspension, expulsion or eviction -- any of those words -- an offence under the Offence Act. The Crown could actually initiate and carry the case on behalf of the employee, should it choose to do so.

C. Serwa: Once again then, just for clarification and understanding, if an individual feels that he has been somewhat punished, would he take the matter to a Crown prosecutor, and then an individual would be charged and called to court by the Crown?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: That avenue is available under the Offence Act. If the Crown determined that there was evidence and that a charge could be sustained, it would handle that. The individual would also have civil remedies, which are always available to them, if they chose those.

C. Serwa: I suppose a fairly significant concern of you enabling this protection is the cost of the investigative aspect of it. This is not necessarily going to be so clearly defined and cut and dry that it will be a yes-or-no, either-or situation. If the government is convinced that this is an appropriate amendment, it seems that the government should undertake the responsibility, when an indication is made, to investigate and perhaps proceed with the appropriate charge.

A. Warnke: There's just one other point. I think we appreciate that protection can be provided for the whistle blower. By the same token, there is a question here as to whether there's some sort of protection for the person whom the whistle is being blown on -- or whatever the appropriate phrase is. Let's say someone who has an axe to grind or something like that wants to pick on and report their boss. What about that sort of thing? Could the Attorney General elaborate a little bit on what protection there is for these individuals?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: First of all, the ombudsman doesn't have to take the complaint. She can reject the complaint if she feels that it is vexatious, frivolous or not worthy of consideration. On the other hand, if it is worthy and taken up, then the assumption is that there is potentially a problem. The normal employer-employee relationships would come into account here and the protections that are built in by collective agreement, employment contract or whatever would be available, as would general common law.

Sections 14 and 15 approved.

section 16.

A. Warnke: This particular

section has stirred a little bit of interest insofar as it involves personal property. When we're talking about personal property security it is a sensitive matter to many people. In that context, I wonder once again if the Attorney General could perhaps outline the nature and purpose of this particular section.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The amendment is to clarify the act in order to make it clear that

part 5 of the Personal Property Security Act actually applies to lease agreements. Do you want me to say more to help you to better understand it, or is that enough?

A. Warnke: What I'm after is very basic. When we talk about the transfer of personal property -- like an account, chattel paper or commercial assignment, essentially, I guess -- there is a concern about how a

[ Page 8051 ]

change, as proposed in this particular section, will affect basic things like chattel and that sort of thing.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: It's designed to ensure that the act does in fact apply to all of those things. There was a decision of the Supreme Court recently that said that this part of the act did not apply to any lease for a term of more than one year. That wasn't the intent of the original act. The court said that it wasn't clear. So in order to make sure that it is clear, this amendment is required.

Sections 16 to 20 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved on division.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Bill 27, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 1993, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Hon. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 53.

LEGAL PROFESSION AMENDMENT ACT, 1993

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The Legal Profession Act establishes the authority of the Law Society of B.C. to govern and regulate lawyers practising in British Columbia. The purpose of these amendments is to modernize and improve a number of sections dealing with membership in the Law Society and with the governance and administration of the Law Society.

One of the most significant amendments in this bill is the creation of a new category of membership in the Law Society for non-practising members. This new category would allow non-practising members to continue their membership in the profession at reduced fees. The current provision of the act and the rules requires that a lawyer temporarily leaving practice must either continue to pay the full annual practice fee and assessments or cease membership. This new category of membership will help those lawyers who wish to interrupt their careers and subsequently return to active practice.

The amendment is made pursuant to recommendations by both the report of the Law Society's subcommittee on women in the legal profession and the gender bias committee.

[3:15]

The bill makes a number of amendments to improve the sections dealing with the protection of the public, public participation and standards of professional practice and discipline. These include amendments to allow the Law Society to regulate lawyers who act as mediators; to allow non-lawyers to be appointed to Law Society committees so that the legal profession might benefit from the experience of other members of the community; and to permit a more expeditious handling of claims made against the special compensation fund up to a certain amount to be set by the benchers.

Other amendments are intended to improve the governance and administration of the Law Society. These include an amendment to limit to four the number of terms that a bencher may serve, or a total of eight years. This will help to allow for wider participation in the governing body of the Law Society.

I move second reading of the bill.

A. Warnke: Even if one is impressed with the bill, the natural course of action is to try to get in touch with as many people as possible to get a sense of its implications. As far as I've been able to see, the purpose of the bill is in many ways quite commendable. Some of its features were touched on a moment ago in the Attorney General's opening remarks.

With the indulgence of the Attorney General, we obviously would like to get through bills as soon as possible, but I cannot resist making some comments about the legal profession. I think it's extremely important that we get a sense of how Bill 53 affects the legal profession.

It's easy to look at the legal profession and automatically assume it to be a part of our society. It's hard to imagine the legal profession not existing in our society, even though a number of people make remarks that "I wish lawyers would go away" and so on. The legal profession is a unique feature of our society. I know some members are going to be bothered when I go back in history a bit. But it is a profession that rises, as we know it, anyway, at least from the time of Cicero, when members of the legal profession were actually unpaid amateurs. Some people might say nothing has changed in the legal profession. Now they get paid.

The term for the legal profession evolved from the Latin jurisperitus, which is someone who is wise in the law. So even now, when we have to recognize that the legal profession is an indispensable part of our complex industrial society and economy, its legacy can be traced back to ancient Rome. But even though lawyers were not paid and were considered amateurs in those days, they spoke on behalf of people before the courts. It was at this time that professional schools of law emerged.

In our own age, it's instructive to note that even though the legal profession is considered an integral part of our society, it varies from society to society. Indeed, the legal profession in the United States is of enormous size; and when you compare the ratio of lawyers to the rest of the population, it is in Canada as well. In Great Britain it's a little bit lower -- I won't get into statistics and details -- and in Germany, lower yet. From a historical perspective, it's interesting to note that in the German universities in the early nineteenth century, as many as 30 percent of students were enrolled in law.

About a century ago, it was 20 percent; more recently, 10 percent. Mind you, that is also relative to other professions emerging in universities. But it's instructive to note how the legal profession has changed even within one society. In Japan and the Far East, the

[ Page 8052 ]

legal profession is viewed entirely differently. As we know, Japan is a very complex industrial society and a very advanced economic society. Yet the legal profession is viewed entirely differently from how it is viewed in North America. Indeed, the legal profession is declining in size in Scandinavia.

As I'm doing a quick brush-over here, it's also interesting to note that even in these days there are areas in the world where lawyers do not have to have law degrees. Lawyers can represent clients sometimes but not necessarily for money. The point here is that the legal profession, as we know it, occurs in very few societies. It's a developing profession to be sure, but perhaps it's something that lawyers should recognize from time to time.

At any rate, as this applies to Bill 53, I therefore see establishing a certificate for non-members as a genuine positive step. I suppose an argument could be made that as the legal profession is presently constituted the system is gender biased. Women drop out of the legal profession in some obvious cases; perhaps it's only for two or three years. But to a certain extent, leaving the legal profession can invite problems. So I think that there are implications not only for women but also for men -- for anyone who may want to withdraw from the legal profession for a period of time for a variety of reasons.

As a result of these provisions, non-practising people have the opportunity to keep their linkages and be part of the legal profession. As I see it, it's extremely important for people to ensure that they maintain previous contacts, which obviously could go into the future. In this context, I see Bill 53 as quite positive. It allows people trained in law, who leave the profession for a period of two or three years, the opportunity to maintain contact with the profession. Until now, they found themselves blocked from returning to the profession.

Perhaps I was distracted at one point with the Attorney General's remarks. I don't recall him saying it, but there is the question of moneys legally obtained by lawyers. That power is now delegated to the committee. I want to take this up in committee stage; it needs to be addressed.

Overall, Bill 53 establishes the authority to govern and regulate lawyers, as the Attorney General has outlined. But it modernizes and amends the membership as well, which I agree with. We would like to support those contributions on this side.

Hon. G. Clark: Hon. Speaker, I ask leave of the House to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Hon. G. Clark: In the gallery, behind me I think, are 15 senior enterprise officials from Shanghai on a UBC executive training program. They're in Victoria to meet with the Deputy Minister of Finance and the Deputy Minister of Forests. I ask all members to make them welcome.

C. Serwa: It's a pleasure to rise on second reading of Bill 53, the Legal Profession Amendment Act. We acknowledge that this is primarily a housekeeping bill, but it does make some very significant amendments to the Legal Profession Act. We do not have any problems with most of the contents of the bill. But we do reject one concept included in this bill in the strongest fashion, and that is the concept of term-limits on benchers. We do not accept term-limits on any elected institutions in Canada. We believe that they're fundamentally undemocratic.

The determination of term-limits for elected officials -- like MLAs, for example -- is made by the individual's constituents. That is the opportunity, responsibility and fundamental basis on which democracy stands.

The term-limits deny the right of free choice to the voter, in this case the lawyers in the legal profession, and they disqualify experienced and qualified people from seeking office. The government in power at the moment doesn't support term-limits in the Legislature. I don't see the government hurrying to impose term-limits on Ken Georgetti or Mr. Shields, for example, in the unions. But in this particular case, when the Law Society asks for term-limits on elected officers it is granted.

I suspect, simply because it's seen as a self-governing body, that the Attorney General didn't peruse this legislation as acutely as I think he should have prior to bringing the legislation forward into the Legislature.

Normally the Attorney General's door is always open. I consider it a privilege to have that open-door policy for briefings on bills. We've had very good support and cooperation from the Attorney General. But in this particular case, when a briefing was asked for, we were referred to the Law Society. The concern I have is that here we're bringing forward a bill which is to become

an act, and the act will not deal simply in isolation with an element of society. The act is for the benefit and protection of all members of society. I think that perhaps the term "request" on this particular bill has slipped through. It should not have been accepted by the Attorney General and should not have been incorporated into this particular bill when it was presented into the Legislature.

[3:30]

The normal practice is for the Law Society to send someone to Victoria to give members the opportunity of a briefing from their perspective. This has been done in the past and will continue to be done in the future. Nevertheless, in this particular situation I feel that the Attorney General has failed to show adequate interest in this piece of legislation. It's questionable that in this particular case the government is doing a job that is responsible for the people.

The Legal Profession Act is not simply and solely

an act for lawyers. It's

an act, like all acts should be, about protecting the public. The Attorney General, the government and all of us are very concerned about responsible acts.

It's questionable, too, that when this was brought forward.... Seeing that the government of the day is headed by a lawyer, and the Minister of Labour is a lawyer, perhaps an overly strong show of support was

[ Page 8053 ]

made of this; rather than an acute look at this particular bill, it was allowed to slip through. I know it is to the advantage, obviously, of lawyers on the government side to have the savings deferred for the Law Society membership, but it causes one to wonder if the members excused themselves when the vote was taken in cabinet approving the legislation to go before the Legislature. That's a viable question. It's not a major issue, perhaps, but it's certainly significant. All in all, generally we look at this, as I said at the opening of the second reading, as primarily a housekeeping bill.

But we do have a great deal of difficulty with the implications of fixed terms for benchers, considering that it is fundamentally undemocratic.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Given that the comments have been made about specific sections of the bill, I'll save my comments on those sections for committee stage. I move second reading of the bill.

Motion approved on division.

Bill 53, Legal Profession Amendment Act, 1993, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I call second reading of Bill 41.

NOTARIES AMENDMENT ACT, 1993

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Notaries public have had a long and unique history in British Columbia. The earliest legislation relating to notaries in the province dates back to 1872. British Columbia's notaries are unique in Canada in the range of services they are able to provide to the public. In addition to administering oaths, drawing affidavits and preparing powers of attorney, B.C.'s notaries can prepare wills and convey documents. There are 278 notaries practising in the province; half are women.

The proposed amendments will allow notaries to provide their services through companies incorporated under the Company Act. This will provide notaries with the same advantages of incorporation available to other professionals, such as lawyers, dentists and architects. The professional responsibilities and liabilities of individual notaries to their clients will in no way be diminished by practising through a notary corporation. Amendments also ensure that these notary corporations remain under the effective control of notaries. The Society of Notaries Public will be able to make rules to ensure the maintenance of professional standards by these corporations.

Section 5 of the Notaries Act provides for a

schedule to the act which limits the number of members permitted to practise within notarial districts throughout the province. Due to an oversight when the new act was being developed in 1980, only two seals were assigned to the Quesnel district when in fact three notaries were practising, and continue to practise, in the district. The

schedule is to be amended to allow a third seal in the Quesnel district.

The people of this province continue to be well served by notaries public, and I am pleased to put forward this legislation enabling them to practise through corporations.

A. Warnke: I must confess to a bit of surprise here, but nonetheless, we'll deal with Bill 41. As the intent is described here, the bill essentially allows professional notaries public to practise as a corporation under the Company Act. From our position as the official opposition, the bill is not that controversial in principle, but there are sections that will require some clarification, especially as we take them up at committee stage. I understand that the Society of Notaries Public of B.C. has been working with the government to bring this legislation forward. I understand as well that it follows the lead of other professional associations.

I really don't have that much to say on the principle of the bill. When we get to committee stage there are some areas where I would like to see some qualification, and we may even move amendments.

The Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the Attorney General closes debate.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I would simply move second reading, hon. Speaker.

Motion approved.

Bill 53, Legal Profession Amendment Act, 1993, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Hon. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 44.

LIQUOR CONTROL AND LICENSING AMENDMENT ACT, 1993

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I wish to describe to the House some of the background and important features of Bill 44. The bill introduces amendments to the Liquor Appeal Board provisions to more clearly describe and circumscribe its authority, particularly as they relate to licensing appeals.

The Liquor Appeal Board is an administrative tribunal with responsibility to hear and determine appeals of decisions of the general manager of the liquor control and licensing branch. The board therefore has a vital role to play in maintaining public faith in the liquor-licensing system. To fulfil its mandate, the board must continue to have the authority to overturn branch decisions in circumstances where the branch acted without legal authority or if the principles of procedural fairness were not employed in the decision-making process.

However, where the legislation provides for discretion in licensing decisions, the appeal to the board should not have the authority to substitute its discretion for that of the general manager.

[ Page 8054 ]

Restricting the exercise of discretion on licensing matters to the general manager will help to provide the province with a more consistent licensing environment, to the benefit of both existing licences and new applicants.

Another important feature of this bill is the constraint on the minister's power to direct the general manager on licensing and enforcement decisions. While the minister will retain the authority to direct on matters of general policy, it is not appropriate to permit the minister to direct the general manager on a specific licensing or enforcement decision.

The other important feature of the bill is the implementation of a recommendation of the Task Force on Public Order, often referred to as the Snowden report. This amendment will provide the general manager with the emergency powers to close an establishment for a period not exceeding 24 hours if public safety is threatened.

A. Warnke: I'll respond by summarizing very briefly my view of the bill, although I'm not quite sure what's going on here. Once again I am taken a little bit by surprise, but let's get on with the bill.

The intent of this bill is to provide a more efficient and effective regulation of liquor licensing and control. That was stated earlier by the Attorney General when the bill was introduced. The bill clarifies the authority of the Liquor Appeal Board. It places constraints on the minister's power to direct the general manager of the liquor control and licensing branch, and provides the general manager with emergency powers. All of this has been outlined by the Attorney General.

This bill is a response, I suppose, to a number of problems that have occurred in the province at various local festivals. Given the trouble we have seen in different locales and different festivals, many people believe that this bill is long overdue. In that context, the government is bringing in legislation which will assist local communities to combat activities with those people who get out of control.

They get out of control at festivals for a variety reasons, but what is considered by the authorities to be the primary factor of people getting out of control at such activities is the consumption of alcohol; let's call a spade a spade: people getting drunk and disorderly, and all the rest of it.

Last year, Penticton brought in its own initiatives for the police by stating that they would bring in whatever legislation was necessary to maintain law and order. In that context, there is certainly a public impetus for something to come out of British Columbia. The government is trying to lead by example, and this is certainly a point that has been made by the public in their attempt to deal with problems of disorderly conduct. Therefore, given what the public wants, the bill is not controversial.

I want to go through the bill very carefully, because there are sections that require clarification. As far as the official opposition sees it, they need this clarification prior to our supporting the bill in full. So with that, I take my place, and will be pursuing this at the committee stage.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Hon. Speaker, I now move second reading of Bill 44.

Motion approved.

Bill 44, Liquor Control and Licensing Amendment Act, 1993, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Hon. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 47.

[3:45]

SPECIAL ACCOUNTS APPROPRIATION AND CONTROL AMENDMENT ACT, 1993

Hon. C. Gabelmann: This legislation will enable the province to receive forfeited proceeds of crime from the United States, as well as other jurisdictions.

Interjection.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I just said to the Minister of Finance that it goes in my budget, not his.

It will also enable the receipt of proceeds from federally prosecuted drug-related offences where provincial or municipal police forces have assisted in the investigation.

In 1989, in response to federal enabling legislation, B.C. introduced legislation allowing the Attorney General to receive and utilize money forfeited from "enterprise" crimes. These include fraud, forgery, theft, bribery and arson. The legislation also established a forfeited crime proceeds fund for the receipt of forfeitures. A joint protocol was signed by the then Attorney General and Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations providing guidelines for disposition of money in the fund. The vast majority of forfeited proceeds arise in the context of federally prosecuted drug cases, and the resultant funds currently go to the federal department of Health and Welfare.

In April of this year, the federal government introduced legislation that would provide for the sharing of forfeited crime proceeds where provincial or municipal police forces have taken

part in the investigation of federal drug offences. The amounts shared will depend upon the degree of involvement by the provincial or municipal police force. A sharing formula is being negotiated with the federal government. A related issue arises in situations where a law enforcement agency in this province has assisted authorities in the United States, and a portion of forfeited proceeds are to be directed to the B.C. agency.

The legislation being discussed here today will provide for the receipt of forfeited proceeds from the federal government as well as from the United States and for their deposit into the fund. The legislation provides that money in the fund is to be used at the discretion of the Attorney General to facilitate law enforcement and the administration of criminal justice.

The ability to receive a part of the forfeited proceeds from federally prosecuted drug offences will place

[ Page 8055 ]

money in the fund that can be used to help fight crime. The fund should be further enhanced by enabling it to receive forfeited proceeds from the United States. There are two such cases awaiting implementation of this legislation. British Columbia is in the forefront among provinces in obtaining and utilizing forfeited proceeds of crime. All such money will be used to strengthen law enforcement and the administration of criminal justice in the province.

A. Warnke: The purpose of the bill is to combat so-called enterprise crimes, ranging from fraud to forgery and so forth, and the bill is an initiative that I think can be looked at positively insofar as individuals certainly will not be permitted to profit from crime. Studies have illustrated that where this kind of program is in place, it has been fairly effective. But most important is the principle that moneys retrieved from criminal acts, and thus placed in the forfeited crime proceeds fund, will be put back into the community in positive ways.

In April 1993 the federal government introduced legislation agreeing to share money with jurisdictions that help in the investigation and resolution of a particular crime. However, what has yet to be determined is the sharing formula between the federal and provincial governments. I did hear from the Attorney General in his opening remarks that such a sharing formula with the federal government is being negotiated; I'm not sure whether there is a resolution.

I do have some questions that involve how jurisdiction is defined. For example, if the Vancouver city police assist with an investigation, do they receive the money, or does the money exclusively rest with the province? If there is a sharing formula between the provincial and the federal governments, I suppose there might be the suspicion at the outset that where the Vancouver city police assist with the investigation, nonetheless Vancouver city would not benefit by retrieving the proceeds from crime.

That, obviously, would not negate the principle of what we're after here in this particular bill, but it is certainly a question that I'd like to pursue at the committee stage. Similarly, if the RCMP assists, one could ask who receives the money, since the RCMP is federal. How do you define who is assisting and to what degree and so forth? Those kinds of questions are certainly appropriate at the committee stage, and I guess this is what we'll be pursuing on this side.

The disposition of money from such a fund may be done on the authorization of the Attorney General. However, it's interesting that the Minister of Finance is in good conversation with the Attorney General, because the Attorney General can only do this with the Minister of Finance. The Minister of Finance no doubt is taking a special interest in this particular bill. I suppose one wonders whether the Minister of Finance sees something to be gained for his ministry as a result of this bill. No doubt.

Once again, it invites the question of just how involved the Minister of Finance wants to be in this sharing formula that's being negotiated with the federal government and, hopefully, with some of the local police and local governments.

I suppose it's a minor point, but there has been a question raised in the community as to the types of programs that are appropriate to receive money from this particular kind of fund. In talking with a few people about this, I suppose there are cases where it is felt that funds forfeited from crime proceeds and so forth are inappropriate for certain kinds of programs and may be more appropriate to others. Somewhere in the committee stage I suspect we should pursue this question: what types of programs would be considered to receive money from this fund?

During the estimate debate it was indicated to us on this side by the government that as of May 5 the protocols were still to be established with the federal government in terms of how the moneys would flow in and so forth. An obvious question that we will have is: has there been any agreement with the federal government since May 5? We will pursue the outline of that. Also, what are the guidelines to be established for the types of programs that would be funded from this particular forfeited crime-proceeds fund?

I suppose that what is of special interest to the Minister of Finance is just what amount of money is involved here. I hope that it's not one where the government expects a certain amount and becomes dependent on it as a source of their revenue. Hopefully we will proceed in a direction where this program is effective, to the point where crime declines. I guess it's too high to expect that crime will be eliminated, but obviously we want the incidents of crime and the proceeds of crime to diminish. This is a warning, I suppose, to the Minister of Finance: don't become dependent on it.

Just because a particular fund increases.... We do not necessarily want to see anything that would contribute to the increase of crime just because we're dependent on a bit of extra money coming in.

I understand the nature and intent of the bill: to combat enterprise crimes and a variety of crimes and also to take the proceeds from criminal activity and somehow inject those back to the community in a positive way. Naturally a number of questions are still outstanding, but it would be more appropriate to pursue those at the committee level. In the context of the general principle, thrust and intent of the bill, I would suggest that the government certainly appears to be moving along the right path.

C. Serwa: It's a pleasure to rise and speak on the philosophy and principles of this bill. At first blush, the concept of utilizing proceeds from enterprise crimes and criminal activities to fight crime sounds very good indeed. But I wonder about the philosophy and principles of that particular situation. You have the regulatory bodies, the enforcement arm and the Ministry of Attorney General all directly benefiting from the proceeds of crime. It seems to me that there's an inherent conflict when the agencies become direct beneficiaries. It would seem more appropriate to have some distance.

If we get the funds back -- as the Crown will do in any event -- there has to be some distance. It would perhaps be more realistic to have it go into a

[ Page 8056 ]

general revenue fund rather than into a special account to fight crime.

The real concern I have is that over a period of time the system will benefit from the proceeds of crime I don't know if you're going to get any implication other than that it would create mutually benefiting organizations. The concern I have is that the integrity of the regulatory and enforcement arms and the Ministry of Attorney General would be compromised if they benefited directly.

I think that at first blush the concept is good and noble, as I said. But I'm concerned that over a period of time other perspectives will come into place. Certainly there will be some suspicion -- perhaps a small amount, but it will be there. For example, you can't have firemen without fires. There's no requirement for the enforcement arm of government without criminals; they are mutually compatible organizations. If you stamp out fires, you would have no need for firemen; if you stamp out crime, I suppose you would have no need for policemen.

As I say, I have some concern with this directly benefiting the regulatory and enforcement arms of government, as well as the Ministry of Attorney General. I can't elaborate any more strongly other than to say that that type of suspicion and observation will surface among the general public. The end result will be that the integrity of the entire crime prevention system we have will be perceived to have been compromised in some fashion.

[4:00]

It may be a major concern, or it may be a very minor one. I'm sincerely hopeful that it is in fact very minor. I would much rather that the Minister of Attorney General be funded, as it is at the present time, directly out of general revenue, in the votes under the estimates, and that any crime prevention programs be carried in that facet. At least the perception of some distance, and not as a direct beneficiary of this, seems to be a safer perspective.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Again, I'll deal with most of the issues in committee stage, where the debate would be more easily handled. But I'd like to say that the concern raised by the member for Okanagan West is one that occurred to me some years ago when the former government began, with the federal government, to move in this direction. I don't see it as a serious concern. The member suggests, in effect, some kind of symbiotic relationship between police and prosecutors on one hand and criminals on the other; he suggests that they may need to keep criminals in business in order to keep themselves in business.

I'll make the member this promise: if we wipe out crime and all criminal activity in the next year, I'll bring in an amendment to get rid of this

section and alleviate that particular concern. If we do that, I think I will be able to judge my term in this office as pretty successful. But more seriously, if the concern that the member expresses became a reality, I would very seriously want to revisit the principle that's established by this legislation, and I would make that undertaking.

With that, I move second reading of the bill.

Motion approved on division.

Bill 47, Special Accounts Appropriation and Control Amendment Act, 1993, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Hon. Speaker, I call committee on Bill 35.

LOCAL ELECTIONS REFORM ACT, 1993

The House in committee on Bill 35; R. Kasper in the chair.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

section 3.

A. Cowie: I have a number of questions relating to amalgamations in the next few sections.

Section 3 and sections 6 through 9 deal with incorporations of new municipalities. Apart from modernizing the legislation, is

section 6 wide enough to include the possibility of amalgamations? For example, let's say Surrey and South Surrey wish to separate from Surrey. Does this

section provide for that, or do we have to deal with one of the other sections on that?

Hon. R. Blencoe: These sections are -- and staff can correct me -- basically unchanged, so there is no significant policy change in this area. Through my ministry there are grant programs for restructures. As the member knows, during second reading I indicated that we have significant restructures ongoing all the time. But at this time we are not anticipating a change in the voting procedures, simply because we did not get to that

section in a meaningful way. We concentrated on the general elections for local government rather than the amalgamations and the restructures. That's not to say that changes aren't required, and I anticipate that we will get to that in due course.

A. Cowie: I want to refer to

section 6(2)(

a) for a clarification. It states: "on the request of the council of a municipality all or part of which is within the area." My understanding was that previously should a large municipality like Surrey wish to stop a portion separating, it could do it simply because it was large and it required a vote of the whole municipality. Is it now just the vote of the people within that portion?

Hon. R. Blencoe: There is no change to this

section as it is in the current act. I think the questions the member is raising come under future sections. We may be able to get to them later on. There is no change here. It's unfortunate for you, perhaps, that it's the status quo.

W. Hurd: I just wanted to follow up on that line of questioning under

section 3, where the minister may direct that a vote be taken of persons within a specified area. Can the minister advise us under this

section

[ Page 8057 ]

exactly what would induce, require or influence the minister to direct such a vote? What steps need to be taken, either by the municipal government or by residents living in the affected areas? Perhaps he could just explain. Even though the essential purpose of these sections is unchanged from the original act, clearly we are dealing with different language here.

Interjection.

W. Hurd: "Sections 6 to 9 are repealed and the following substituted" -- which I assume means that there have been changes. I'm just wondering if the minister could explain to the committee exactly what would induce the ministry to conduct a vote or to direct that a vote be taken.

Hon. R. Blencoe: First, it's not my modus operandi to force two municipalities to incorporate. I have said to local government many times, however.... I know your interest, because of White Rock and Surrey. I imagine the member has learned some lessons from what transpired on that. Nine times out of ten, unless the two municipalities are at war or the government has come to a stop, my modus operandi is to encourage local governments to find the solutions themselves. We encourage that by grants, problem-solving and dispute resolution.

I meet with municipalities who are having these problems. Maybe a solution could be to amalgamate, but usually we first encourage the elected officials to achieve some consensus. Many hon. members across the way, particularly the former Minister of Municipal Affairs, are aware of this. You try to encourage the local officials in two or three areas that wish to amalgamate to achieve some consensus.

If that is achieved, then my ministry would advise that a restructuring committee be struck, perhaps made up of the elected people and citizens of the area representing various interests, to work towards looking at amalgamation and restructuring. Usually, if we get that far, the restructuring committee would hire a consultant to do the studies and the numbers, and to see whether it works and if it is in the interests of the citizens of each area to do it, financially or otherwise. That is monitored carefully.

Some of these restructures can be done in a year; sometimes they take three or four years, depending on the local issues, the local interests and indeed the politics in the area. When the work is done and the numbers are crunched, the province -- my ministry -- will offer restructuring assistance to encourage the two areas to amalgamate. All the information is put on the table so the citizens see what is available and in their interest, and so they can make an informed decision as to whether to maintain the status quo or to amalgamate. That, very quickly, is the system.

[4:15]

The actual change of wording -- and I'm going to go through this -- is that in

section 6(1) we've changed the word "poll" to "vote." In

section 6(2), it's "poll" to "vote." In

section 6(3) it's again to "vote" and then new language: "must determine" and a reference to "eligible voters." In

section 6(4), again, rather than "poll," we now use the modern word "vote." So they are not significant changes, hon. member.

W. Hurd: I'm certainly delighted that the minister raised the concern about South Surrey and White Rock. I'm delighted indeed that he has given me the opportunity to talk about that issue in connection with this

section of the bill. Clearly the instructions from the minister on that occasion were that if the two municipalities could agree to sponsor or ask for a study on restructuring the municipal boundaries, the ministry would be willing even to provide funds to pay for the study. In these days of restraint, imagine that.

Under

section 6(2)(d), "on the minister's own initiative" -- in restructuring municipal boundaries -- "if the minister is of the opinion that those persons should, in the public interest...be incorporated into a new municipality...." Given that it's highly unlikely that two municipalities could ever agree on a dismemberment or at least a reduction in area -- because it's clear that municipal governments are not in the habit of approving studies that might actually reduce their area -- I wonder if the minister could share with the committee exactly what steps the citizens of an aggrieved area, or at least of an area where they might want to see the boundaries changed, can take to encourage the minister to take his "own initiative" and order either incorporation or a study or review.

Or are the citizens of an area that might have grown apart from a municipality, for reasons of demographic change or anything else, captive to the wishes of their municipal government, which, I'm sure the minister could agree, may at times be entirely insular in nature and somewhat self-serving when it comes to protecting municipal boundaries? What action could the citizens under this

section take to induce the province to at least fund a study?

Hon. R. Blencoe: We're getting into detail. It really doesn't pertain to site-specific cases, but let me be as brief as possible.

In the case that the member refers to -- if I recall, and it's some time ago -- the members, without consulting one of the interested parties, I believe, made a suggestion of amalgamation. I think my response to the member was objective, in terms of what my ministry has available in grants. I think the member used licence -- for which he got himself in trouble with his locally elected officials -- to say that the minister was endorsing amalgamation. The hon. member knew exactly what I was doing. Of course, I discussed it with both councils, who were quite surprised at your method of operation.

Let me suggest, though, that you encourage citizens to run for council who may have your perspective or who may wish to pursue your thought on the issue. But I did not detect, at least some months ago, that there was a consensus for the agenda that you wished to pursue. The citizens are free to lobby, to elect and to work. When we achieve some greater consensus on it, we might be able to move ahead. But at the moment, hon. member, I think you know that there isn't consensus.

[ Page 8058 ]

W. Hurd: What I hear the minister saying is that if you want to address some of the anomalies in municipalities throughout the province -- and there are many.... There's not just the situation in my riding. There's the situation in Langley. Quesnel come to mind, as does the area around Castlegar and Trail. There are a number of anomalies. What I hear the minister saying is that if you want to be part of a solution, don't write to the minister; run for council and hope that somehow you can effect a change that way. That's somewhat disturbing, because municipal councils are not in the habit of asking for studies.

I think it's important to get on the record that what was being asked for in south Surrey and White Rock was a study -- no more, no less. There was never any suggestion that amalgamation was even financially feasible. Obviously those kinds of issues cannot be determined without a proper study, and it was highly unlikely -- in fact, impossible -- that the municipalities would agree to fund or even ask for that type of input.

I welcome that clarification for residents in areas that are really divorced from the municipalities by which they're governed and who may want to effect a change of municipal boundaries: don't write to the minister; don't write to the province; don't sign petitions. Run for council, because that's the only way the boundaries can be changed.

It's disturbing, but maybe down the road some meaningful changes can be effected to these sections so that people are not captive to municipal boundaries that really make no economic and social sense. There are many such instances in the province. I would certainly welcome any recognition by the minister and his ministry that this problem exists and that encouraging people to run for council to effect change may not be the ideal solution.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I don't often respond in a critical way to any hon. member, but I really do have to take exception to this member. Don't try to blame me, hon. member, for your political naivety in getting yourself in trouble locally. I suspect you should learn that you might wish to talk to the Surrey City Council and get them on board. I have to work with those councils, and I suggest that you do so. If they are going to amalgamate and talk about restructuring, I think it's essential that you talk directly to the elected people involved, rather than having your office here in Victoria suggest what's best for local elected officials.

Please don't blame me for your political naivety, hon. member.

L. Fox: Just by way of clarification, my experience tells me that it isn't often that a minister would direct a vote. In fact, most often other clauses would be used to accommodate a vote, or the ministry would accommodate a process. To perhaps allay the fears of some of the members, the minister might want to suggest that it would be unusual for him to duplicate the move that was made by the NDP government between 1972 and 1975, when it forced such a vote on Kamloops and Kelowna. As I understand it, there are still unresolved issues surrounding that decision. If he gives that kind of assurance, perhaps we can all rest.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I don't reflect on past governments or past practices, hon. member. Circumstances change. However, I want to say that during my short term of a year and a half, we have managed to restructure some major areas, one being Vernon and Okanagan Landing. It was pulled off, and I think the citizens are going to be better off. The other one was the incorporation of Langford, which had been tried many times. Because of the skill of local people and staff in this ministry, we managed to achieve that incorporation.

My tactic is that there are different ways to do things, and nine times out of ten you don't need a 2-by-4; you need discussion and working it through. As I think you know, hon. member -- because that's where you come from -- in the end the solution comes from the local people themselves.

Interjection.

The Chair: We're going to deal with

section 3 in its entirety -- new sections 6 to 9 -- and I'm calling that vote. But if the hon. member would like to discuss more items, please continue.

L. Fox: To expedite the process, it might be useful if in each

section we took the subclauses independently, because some sections later on are extremely long. I look to the Chair for guidance.

The Chair: Okay. Perhaps members could clarify for the benefit of the Chair which subsection they are discussing and whether they want to deal with one subsection at a time or jump all over the map. Continue, member.

L. Fox: I think it would expedite the process if we passed

section 3,

section 6, which I believe is the

section we were just discussing. Then we could go on to the next sections in

section 3 and take them in systematic order. Because when we get to

section 10, it's enormous.

Section 3, sections 6 and 7 approved.

section 3,

section 8.

L. Fox: It is in this

section that I want to discuss restructuring and the area of the vote. When we look at a restructuring vote, we're looking at the incorporation of a municipality -- it may well be a village plus a new area outside which is incorporated into the municipality. In this particular

section it calls for one vote in the prescribed new municipality borders. Yet when we look at a later

section dealing with the reduction of a municipality, it provides for a vote independent of the municipality on the area that is going to be taken out.

When restructuring a new municipal body -- say from a village to a district municipality -- why would we have one vote, which is not independent, for people outside of the existing village boundaries to make their

[ Page 8059 ]

desires known? We allow it later on in

section 8,

section 26, for people wishing to remove themselves from a respective municipality. Why is there a variance in the two processes?

Hon. R. Blencoe: My understanding is that this

section has not changed, and we're trying to explain the.... It's a good question. The overall vote is the minimum requirement, but within this section, I, as the minister, can require a double vote. For instance, in Hope, if I recall correctly, we had a vote within the area to join, and then we had a vote for the people in the surrounding area on whether they wanted that area to join. That is quite permissible. Indeed, it's been that way for a long time to maintain flexibility. We do a number of different kinds of ballots these days, such as composite ballots. My understanding is that the flexibility is there, but that doesn't mean to say that we couldn't refine it.

Does that help, hon. member?

L. Fox: Perhaps if the minister could point to the precise

section which allows him to determine that structure, it might help. In reading this I can't see where there's any opportunity, unless it's under the

section 6, which gave the minister the power to instruct that there be two separate votes, one for the new area and one for the old area.

[4:30]

Hon. R. Blencoe: This is technical, so please bear with me.

Section 8 refers to the incorporation of a new municipality. In 8(1)(

a) we reflect on

section 6(3)(a), which talks about the type of vote or how you conduct the vote. It's my understanding that under

section 6 the minister can then determine the kind of vote to be held, which I reflected on in terms of the Hope situation.

A. Cowie: I have a question regarding

section 8 and also part of

section 9. Perhaps, however, the minister can deal with it in general. It was pointed out in the minister's report on housing that one of the objectives would be the creation of housing on Crown lands. There are also situations like Whistler, a resort town, and Tumbler Ridge, which is a resource town -- that would be

section 9. There are other proposed new towns, such as up-Island.

My question is that if one deals with regional districts or larger municipalities, and these areas lie within those, there may be an attitude of either stopping or promoting them. It would seem to me, with Tumbler Ridge, for example, that a whole new town was structured, and the provincial government took the initiative to set up a commission and the organization of the new town. With 60,000 people coming into B.C. every year, and with policy such as the housing study, we will supposedly get these new towns. Certainly we see them all over North America and Europe.

I happen to favour that approach under certain circumstances. How would the minister set up a new corporation for those? Does this legislation allow for that?

Hon. R. Blencoe: I think the member is slightly ahead. I think we're on

section 8, but....

Interjection.

Hon. R. Blencoe: Yes, but

section 9 allows for the incorporation of a new municipality and refers to that kind of natural resource development situation. I think it's there. Again, this has not changed significantly. We have done a number of these in the past and they have worked, though I'm still not sure of your drift.

A. Cowie: For the record, if you did it through the regional district, there may not be support for such a new town. There was support for Whistler, for example, to stay away from any local situations. Would an order-in-council be set up? How would the minister use

section 9 to promote and assist new town development to get started?

Hon. R. Blencoe: There is flexibility in this act to allow incorporation of a municipality. With respect to Whistler, as the member is aware, a separate act was created for that municipality. There was a lack of local government there, and it was deemed at that time that it was best to create a separate act. Creating that community was primarily driven by the province. That option is still there; it hasn't been used. Tumbler Ridge was under a different program as well. In normal circumstances,

section 9 allows for the incorporation of a new municipality.

I am the first to admit that these sections have not been extensively reviewed; they are to be done in the future. We have worked on the general elections, which has been big enough already -- a mammoth task for staff and for local government. But there have been successes, and it does happen.

Section 3,

section 8 approved.

section 3,

section 9.

J. Tyabji: I want to canvass

section 3,

section 9. We talked about it a little bit in second reading. We are talking about the incorporation of a new municipality in conjunction with natural resource development. This is a substantial change from the way the bill was outlined before. From my understanding, instead of a decision being taken by the people locating in the area, it is now at the minister's discretion. Could the minister please explain why there is that change?

Hon. R. Blencoe: My understanding is that under the old act, five electors had to be petitioned. One difficulty was that in new areas, there was no form of local government and there often were no electors, so we felt that we needed to give ourselves flexibility. In Tumbler Ridge they had to hunt. So it's not a significant change; it just gives us flexibility. There was no real rhyme or reason to five electors.

J. Tyabji: Why would the minister not have allowed for both options? For example, it was a minimum of five

[ Page 8060 ]

electors, so in this model there is no option for the local community to initiate and follow through on the process. Now it's only at the minister's discretion, and you could have an instance where the people are trying to incorporate locally and the minister isn't allowing for that.

Hon. R. Blencoe: If there are people present, they are going to incorporate under

section 6. This is to give us flexibility for a municipality in terms of natural resource development, and sometimes there are no electors present. If there are people there to vote, they vote under

section

Section 3,

section 9 approved.

section 4.

J. Tyabji: I just want a bit of a clarification from the minister on why

section 4(

a) has been added so that letters patent include exceptions from statutory provisions. What are the specific examples that required that addition?

Hon. R. Blencoe: It used to be in

section 13(3) of the old act. It's currently a section; we just moved it.

Sections 4 to 9 inclusive approved.

The Chair: The Chair recognizes the hon. member for Prince George-Omineca on which section?

L. Fox: Hon. Chair, I thought we had an understanding that with some of these large sections, we would go through the subsections. We've got sections 21 and 22 under

section 7, and so forth.

The Chair: Hon. member, what you refer to as subsections are not in fact subsections. We have sections, and we have notations of sections as they apply to the Municipal Act. Those are sections in the Municipal Act as it stands right now, with the amendments noted in the sections. We've gone through sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7. Do you want to go back to "Change of municipal status"? Was that the area you wanted to touch on in

section 21 of

section 7?

L. Fox: I really don't have any need to go back. I'm concerned that when we get to

section 10, there are so many subsections, as there are in other parts.... If we go at the rate you're going, flipping through whole sections that may include up to 20 pages of this book, there's no way that is a legitimate process we can follow. I beg your indulgence and ask you to deal with this in a rational way, because it's going to be a long evening.

The Chair: Based on Orders of the Day, we have a number of amendments on

section 10, so we'll be here for quite some time. I think there will be great opportunity for debate and discussion during the rest of the day.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I have some

section 10 amendments here.

A. Cowie: We have some amendments too.

The Chair: We're going to call the sections -- for example,

section 35 within

section

Section 10,

section 35 approved.

section 10,

section 36.

C. Tanner: I just want to make one minor improvement. As long as everybody realizes we're talking about

section 10, I don't think there's any need for the Chairman to mention

section 10 every time. All he has to say is 36, 37, 38; that would make it easier.

[4:45]

Section 10,

section 36 approved.

section 10,

section 37.

A. Warnke: As I mentioned in second reading, this is a change from holding general local elections every two years. Given that holding local elections every three years is a rather recent phenomenon, it is worthwhile at this stage for the minister to make an assessment as to whether a three-year term is appropriate and whether it is a development in our political system that is warranted, especially when people are actually putting more pressure on politicians at all three levels.

We'll just deal here primarily with municipal and city councillors. People want frequent accountability, especially at the local level. If we take the concept of recall, people have been suggesting that they want the ability to recall our elected officials as soon as possible. It's really another way of saying that they prefer the two-year term, but the two-year term has been extended to three years; it is a movement away from more electoral accountability to the people. Therefore I'm wondering if the minister might give some overall assessment, considering where we have come from and where we are now.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I recall the member's comments in second reading on this issue. I have to say that as a city councillor for a number of years, I always felt that the two-year election was good. I happen to believe that the citizens' opportunity to vote for elected officials more often than not is probably a healthy thing. But what transpired at the UBCM was a number of years of debate on whether British Columbia would come down. Some of my colleagues across the way will remember the discussions which I and they were a part of. We were the last jurisdiction in the country to still have a two-year term.

The debate at UBCM and all across local government was widespread for a number of years. In the end UBCM finally voted and wanted, fairly significantly, to go to the three-year term.

I remember when the vote came to this House. I can't recall who was the minister at the time; I suspect it

[ Page 8061 ]

may have been Rita Johnston. I know that in our ranks as opposition there was a difference of opinion. As a matter of fact, we agreed to a free vote, and a number of members voted for the two-year retention and a number of us voted for three years. My rationalization of it at the end was to give it an opportunity. There seemed to be momentum to try it, the grounds usually being that two years isn't long enough to get something done, so you therefore need three years. I'm not convinced of that argument, hon. member. If you're going to get it done, you're going to get it done and work in that two-year time frame.

I have to tell you that we thought of reviewing the three-year term this time around. The consensus from UBCM, elected people, a former president -- Gordon Campbell -- and others was that we have only had one time out, one three-year period, and we're going into a second period of three years.

I have undertaken and agreed to.... Obviously it all depends on what happens here -- whether it's this minister, or whoever is around.... What I have said is let's do the next three years. We have some assessments for the first term; there are pros and cons. Some people say they're not going to run again -- it's too much time, etc. So let's do an analysis of the next three years, and then we will undertake a review. Maybe we should take a look at whether we should go back. The consensus at the moment is that it's too early to determine, when we have only had one go at it. I always supported the two-year term, but we're in the three-year, so let's see where we go.

A. Cowie: I wasn't going to mention that particular topic. Since the minister has given his opinion, I feel that I would like to at least get my opinion on record. Since we are the Liberal Party, we have different points of view.

I have served ten years at the municipal level, and have been elected under the two-year term and the three-year term. From my experience, I can assure you that in many councils nothing gets done during the first six months to one year, because new members are always coming on board; in some cases, whole councils change. Then, in the last six to nine months, nothing gets done. So that leaves three months to do everything. I assure you that that does happen. So I favour the three-year term; it gives time. I would hope, for the minister to overcome the problem of....

Maybe some day it could be shifted back to two years, but I think we should have the opportunity for councils to get educated very quickly. I think Municipal Affairs should speed up their program for allowing councils to get educated early in the game, and allow them to make decisions.

There seems to be a trend now where council members think of council as being a permanent job. I wish to go on record as saying that I think the three-year term is better. At least the person knows it's three years. They can get something done, and then get out. I think it is better that people run for three or six years, and then leave and go on to something else. We get too many politicians wanting to stay on forever. I would have thought that the three-year term is a much more sensible way of going than two years.

Section 10, sections 37 to 40 inclusive approved.

section 10,

section 41.

L. Fox: I think this really reflects the practice presently in place. Most of the concerns that I had raised in my massive mail-out to all regional districts, municipalities and school boards were that there should be a clause which would allow for equitable cost-sharing arrangements between municipalities and school boards, and this appears to do that.

There was some concern whether there would be consistency around the province. Perhaps the minister may want to address that issue under

section 41. How is the minister going to assure consistency in the respective districts?

Hon. R. Blencoe: I can understand why the member might think this is the cost-sharing for school boards. That comes up a bit later under

section 50, and it is addressed in the School Act. I have made some suggestions, and when we get to it we can discuss it.

C. Tanner: Mr. Chair, I have one more minor improvement on procedure. Perhaps the minister would allow us to say aye instead of him. He keeps snapping out the ayes, and you keep moving on to the various paragraphs, and we can't keep up. We could say it, or maybe one of his other members could, but not the minister.

Section 10, sections 41 to 44 inclusive approved.

section 10,

section 45.

L. Fox: This

section deals with public notice of elections and with the specific requirements to publicize them in a newspaper. Certainly there are some regional districts in the Cariboo which were concerned about the intent of this section. In some smaller municipalities they don't have a newspaper; in fact, they may be served by a neighbouring newspaper. In a regional district area, they may not be covered by a specific newspaper.

It would seem that this

section should be worded so that advertising is required by newspaper or, if deemed appropriate.... Because it appears as though there may be a situation where there is no newspaper to advertise in. This clause doesn't seem to allow for that circumstance. Perhaps the minister might answer that.

Hon. R. Blencoe: That's a good question and reflects the member coming from a smaller community and being aware of those situations. I come from one of those large urban areas where we have a lot of communication possibilities.

I think

section 45(2) covers that. Actually, hon. member, this was extensively covered in our consultation with UBCM and local government. The fact that we have referred to "alternative means within

[ Page 8062 ]

the same time period" means virtually that we allow radio, flyers, weeklies or monthlies. Whatever they can come up with for the information system is there. In terms of our consultation with UBCM and local government, our understanding is that this will do the job.

Section 10, sections 45 to 51 inclusive approved.

section 10,

section 52.

L. Fox: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 10, is hereby amended by deleting from new

section 52, subsection (4), paragraph (

d) of the Municipal Act, R.S.B.C. 1979, c. 290, the phrase "for a term of at least 99 years", and by the substitution therefor of the following:

"where the lease specifies that the lease-holder is responsible for paying taxes on the property."]

The reason for this is that in many cases around British Columbia people who have historically had the right to vote will now be excluded. We look at situations, for instance, where people lived on a lease from the Crown that was not 99 years. In fact, you cannot achieve a 99-year lease, yet now under this clause, that will be excluded for voting purposes. I don't think that's what the minister intended to do, but obviously it's what he is doing.

[5:00]

I believe this is a very friendly amendment. It recognizes that those people are legitimate taxpayers and that they should have the opportunity to vote. Going back to the Boston Tea Party, we can see how irate people can get when that right to vote is removed. I would allow the minister to give me his considerations. I know there are other members who want to speak on the motion as well.

On the amendment.

Hon. R. Blencoe: Let me try to start this discussion, because it's useful. It's probably one of the more substantive changes to this legislation. In the discussion document we put out, as the member is aware, we primarily said that in our democratic society today all levels of government recognize that citizenship and residency are the determining factors in eligibility to vote. In B.C., of course, we had some significant anomalies in who could vote at the local level. As you recall, I made the suggestion in the discussion document that we should go to residency and citizenship.

A case can be made that paying taxes, even if you're a non-resident, should automatically get you a vote. What we did was compromise and listen to some of the outstanding concerns shared particularly by communities like Whistler and by Gulf Islanders who own properties in other jurisdictions. We suggested that we have two categories of voter: one for residents who hold citizenship and residency; but, on the other hand, we heard over and over again that ownership and paying taxes at the local level should allow one to retain a vote.

Now, the member is quite right: there are a multitude of other opportunities for voting which we are virtually the last jurisdiction in the free world to allow. One of them is leasing. Lease a parking space or a storage locker in another jurisdiction, and you get to vote. Or, for instance, if you lease a tie-down for an aircraft or a recreation spot on somebody else's property out in Sidney, it gives you a vote. You lease a little bit of space and you get a vote in Sidney. Quite frankly, the anomalies were overwhelming and impossible to monitor.

There were people in short-term leases and long-term leases; some were paying taxes, some weren't, and some were subletting. How was eligibility to be determined? So when it came down to it in our discussions, it was residency and citizenship for one category, and ownership was the other clear way to measure.

[G. Brewin in the chair.]

I recognize that your point is that leasing should get you a vote. I guess we differ on that viewpoint. We've compromised in terms of ownership, and thus far the response has been that that's a reasonable compromise. We took a look at all the leasing situations. What happens now with virtually all jurisdictions is that you just come in and say you lease. They don't check; they don't look. It really is very subject to abuse. Those cottagers who are concerned with what they own get a vote. We've given the 99-year lease the vote because that's basically considered ownership.

But in terms of leasing, Vancouver hasn't had leasing since 1974, despite what the mayor who's running for the Liberals now says. He's been there long enough to change it. It has not been changed, and he has not made that overture.

I guess we have a difference of opinion. We think we've found a balance. We discussed in second reading the fine balance between residency and permanency: that those who lease and often are not in a permanent situation affect those who have to live with the full-time decisions, so the property owner absentee retains one vote per property. But in terms of the leasing anomalies, you're quite correct that we have eliminated them.

L. Fox: It seems to me that this province was innovative some time ago when it recognized that renters should have the right to vote. It shouldn't be tagged only to property owners.

Hon. R. Blencoe: They are residents.

L. Fox: It may be true that they're residents, but the fact is that this particular amendment as put forward excludes people who may be five-month residents. They may have a sizable holding not just on leased Crown land but on other leased land, but they are now excluded from voting. It seems to me that if they're paying a substantial amount of taxes, then a leased parking lot giving the right to vote versus somebody who has a substantial investment and is paying taxes on it in the same way as any other non-resident individual,

[ Page 8063 ]

whether or not they own the land, is substantially different.

I'm surprised that the minister would not want to understand those concerned citizens and give them the same autonomy he is giving through this legislation to people who basically have no investment in the community. Under this legislation you can't be a street person and vote, and I don't argue against that.

Hon. R. Blencoe: Thirty days' residence.

L. Fox: Certainly, but you could have absolutely no investment anywhere in the community -- not even pay rent -- and still vote, yet a substantial tax payer would not have the same opportunity to vote as a non-resident owner has. I'm very disappointed that the minister would not see that we should in all fairness reflect the rights of those individuals in this legislation.

I can think of another issue that this clause doesn't address. I suppose I should wait until we finish the discussion on this amendment so that I don't get ruled out of order by the Chair, because it's something different. I'm concerned that you could have a situation where a piece of land leased to a developer by a municipality under other legislation may be looked at as a summer cottage or a condo that you visit or whatever. You're going to be taxed the same as any other resident or non-resident and still not have the right to vote. I ask the minister to seriously consider expanding this into something more reasonable with respect to lessors.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I suspect we're going to have an impasse here. It's a matter of philosophy to some degree. We think we've achieved a balance between the interests of residency and non-residency. The basic driving principle of voting at any level is still citizenship and residency. We've gone away from the old days where the number of votes depended on how much tax you paid. I think you have to be very careful there. We have tried to maintain that the non-resident property owner retain a vote. We've tried to balance....

On ownership, we've tried to say that a stake in the community is residency and citizenship; but on the other hand, leasing over five years or two years, or having one property here but living somewhere else.... I think you've got to balance those interests. I can understand where you're coming from, hon. member. You have your supporters to support or whatever. But we, in this legislation, have tried to balance the interests.

L. Fox: I almost take offence at the minister's suggesting that I'm trying to support my supporters. I have a concern for a rural lifestyle and for the right of rural people to be involved in decisions made by local or regional governments that will affect their lifestyle. When the minister suggests that because you pay taxes, you shouldn't be able to buy votes, I think that's straight ignorance. In fact, if you look at the situation and at the argument, all this amendment does is give the holder of a lease that's shorter than 99 years the same rights as a non-resident property owner.

If he's contributing in exactly the same way as a non-resident property owner, why should he not have the opportunity to vote? That's what this amendment suggests. I'm really disappointed that the minister doesn't understand the logic of that and chooses to enter into cheap politics in order to try to dissuade me and others from speaking on the principle of this amendment.

Hon. R. Blencoe: Well, I'd ask that member a question: if an absentee Albertan company pays significant municipal taxes or provincial property taxes at the local level here, should they get a vote in the province of British Columbia, provincially or federally?

L. Fox: I'm extremely pleased that the minister should ask my advice, and I'll turn it around. If in fact that individual owned the land and would qualify under the non-residency rule, the answer would be exactly the same. All I'm suggesting here is that anybody who has a 20- or 30-year lease for a cabin or a building that they utilize on a regular basis should have the same opportunity to vote as an individual who owns that piece of land, because the taxation on that property will be the same, irrespective of whether it's owned by the individual or leased from the government or the Crown.

That's all I'm asking: give exactly the same recognition to those individuals who lease property from the Crown and build substantial holdings on it.

By the way, I note that most often they cannot buy the land; they must lease it, particularly around lake frontage and if it doesn't have access from a road maintained by Highways. They can't acquire it; they have to lease it. This legislation excludes those individuals from having a vote; that's all it does. I'm not suggesting that we give them any other power than a non-resident voter would get under this legislation.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I'm just going to respond once more to this. Actually, I refer to the member's letter to me and to his official response to the discussion document. I notice that in his official response the member never actually mentioned this issue, was not concerned about it and did not draw my attention to it. As a matter of fact, his official response on behalf of the Social Credit Party said that non-resident property owners should not have the opportunity to vote in municipal, school district or regional district elections but should be able to vote on taxing bylaws and referendums.

I've gone much further. You wanted to limit the non-resident property owner to voting only on taxing; I've given them a full vote. You want to limit property ownership, but you want to back short-term leases as opposed to residency and citizenship. Hon. member, I am really surprised at you.

The Chair: May I remind all members: through the Chair, please.

L. Fox: It's really too bad that the minister only picks a selective part of a paragraph to read out. It was not an official stance; it was reflective of many concerns

[ Page 8064 ]

out there. The member knows full well that it wasn't an official policy statement. However, let him play his cheap politics; that's beside the point. It's only going to set the mood for the rest of the night, because I am certainly prepared to sit here all night or for the rest of the week. I know that other people have questions they would like to ask the minister with respect to this amendment, so I will just relax for a moment.

[5:15]

R. Neufeld: I support my colleague in his amendment. I would ask the minister about something that I know of personally, because I happen to own a piece of property in Kelowna at a place called Holiday Park; it is a 45-year lease, which would exclude me. I pay lease fees and taxes on that property. Although I have never voted in Kelowna, would it exclude me? There are probably about 500 people who live in that park. Some of them live there year-round; a lot of them live there half the year and disappear for the other half -- they are called snowbirds. How would your legislation affect those people who really have a residence in British Columbia, but only lease for 45 years?

Hon. R. Blencoe: If they have residency there, they vote there as residents.

R. Neufeld: It's over six months.

Hon. R. Blencoe: So they have residency. Did you say you had never voted there?

The Chair: Excuse me, Mr. Minister; through the Chair, please.

R. Neufeld: As I understand, I had the right to vote there before, but now I don't. Is that correct?

Hon. R. Blencoe: Unless you are resident there, that is correct.

R. Neufeld: I will say to the minister again that there are an awful lot of people who live in that particular park under something like 45- or 48-year leases, who are going to be disenfranchised from voting. That's an issue, and I'm sure the minister should seriously consider what has been brought forward to him, because that's only one area that I know of specifically, and I'm sure there are many others in British Columbia.

One other that comes to mind in the north and which may not be evident in the south so much, is the guiding outfitter. There are quite a number of them in northeast and northwest British Columbia who have their operations in the mountains and who may not live there for six months. They only live there part-time during hunting season and then they come into a community or go south. What effect would that have on these people, keeping in mind that these businesses generate millions of dollars? I am not sure of the amount of taxation, but it would be substantial revenue for British Columbia. Would this disenfranchise those people also?

Hon. R. Blencoe: Hon. member, you should realize that when you talk about disenfranchise you are misleading. People can always vote where they reside, where the decisions are made. That's where their residency is, and that's their opportunity to vote. We have balanced the competing interests in this, and we have determined, through discussion back and forth, that there are two types: voter residency based on citizenship and property ownership.

Whe