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

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, JULY 15, 1993

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 12, Number 8

[ Page 8777 ]

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

G. Brewin: For the first time since the recent election, I am proud to introduce some members of my family to the Legislature. They live all over the place. In this case, on their way back to Namibia for work with OXFAM are my daughter Gillian, her husband, John Graham, and my two marvellous, fabulous -- the best in the world -- grandchildren, Danielle, who is soon to be seven, and Iain, who is five. Would the House please make them welcome.

P. Ramsey: Joining us in the gallery today is my wife, Hazel Ramsey. I know that not everybody here is going to be as delighted as I am that she is able to come and be with me for a few days, but I would ask you all to join me in making her welcome.

F. Jackson: There are six people in the gallery today who I would like to ask the House to make welcome: Sandy Mallory and his wife, Elaine, and their son Douglas, who are visiting from my constituency; their friends Graham and Mary Rogers, who are visiting them from London; and Sandra Lawrie, who lives here in Victoria. Before I ask the House to join me in making them welcome, I would like to point out that Mr. Mallory is the vice-president in charge of hospitality and protocol for the Canada Summer Games, which are happening in Kamloops on August 8. Would the House please help me make them welcome.

F. Gingell: Joining us in the House today is a good friend Virginia Barteluk and her daughter, Jennifer, who is going to start studying media resources this fall at Capilano College. Also with them is a cousin from England, Sarah Ashley, who is a student of geography at the University of Liverpool. I ask members of the House to please make them welcome.

M. Farnworth: It's a pleasure to introduce three distinguished individuals from my constituency. The first two are Mr. Brian Kirk, the city administrator for Port Coquitlam, and Mr. Igor Zahynacz, the city engineer for Port Coquitlam. The third individual is a good friend to this side of the House, the second-longest-serving mayor in Port Coquitlam, a former president of the Union of B.C. Municipalities, the current chair of the Vancouver Regional Transit Commission and a mayor who I have no doubt will have no trouble cruising to re-election this fall, Mayor Len Traboulay of Port Coquitlam.

Ministerial Statement

KEMANO COMPLETION PROJECT

Hon. M. Harcourt: Hon. Speaker, on July 9 Alcan Aluminum announced that it will participate in British Columbia's review of the Kemano completion project. As I said last January and again last week, the participation of Alcan and the federal government is important to this review. Now that 50 percent of that objective has been achieved with Alcan's announcement we hope that the federal government will also participate. In the same announcement, Alcan stated that it is seeking the government's assistance to "revitalize the economics" of the project.

In subsequent media reports, Alcan said it is not seeking amendments to their contract to supply KCP power to B.C. Hydro; rather it is seeking to sell long-term surplus Kemano 1 power to B.C. Hydro. This is power that B.C. Hydro currently purchases from Alcan on short-term, firm contracts.

In order that members of the assembly and British Columbians fully understand the events and communications relating to these discussions, I will offer the following summation. On June 11, I confirmed the following Alcan position with the corporation's chief executive officer: (1) the cost of completing KCP has risen by $500 million since the project was first announced; (2) the project is not economic for the corporation under its current contractual obligations to B.C. Hydro;

(3) Alcan proposes a new contract with B.C. Hydro that would have two significant consequences -- an increase in its contracted price for KCP power and a renewal of B.C. Hydro's contract for surplus Kemano 1 power for the long term at the same new price proposed for KCP power; (4) that this proposal was the Alcan board of directors' "bottom line." Without the province's agreement to this new arrangement, Alcan, which made a decision to suspend construction two years ago, would not recommence construction of KCP.

The government's analysis of the Alcan proposal indicates that the new arrangements would have cost Hydro and British Columbians an additional $350 million over the existing or reasonably anticipated commercial arrangements. This figure was arrived at by comparing the new proposed price for KCP power with the price Alcan contracted for three years ago, and by comparing the proposed price for long-term contract of surplus Kemano 1 power with what Hydro believes would be fair market value for that power, for Hydro to renew its current short-term arrangements for the long term.

My response to Alcan was the only one I could responsibly give as the Premier of British Columbia. I told Alcan that I could not accept their bottom-line proposal, nor could I ask British Columbians to accept it. Neither British Columbians nor their government could be responsible for the half billion dollar increase in the cost of completing KCP, nor should British Columbians be expected to rewrite existing contracts to pay for that overrun.

Recent events have left the government with uncertainty about the KCP and also the province's public review. I have heard directly from Alcan's senior officer that Alcan requires a higher price for KCP power before it will recommence construction. More recently, Alcan has communicated its commitment to the project, and is seeking only to increase its revenues by selling surplus power for the long term.

Given that the province is not prepared to rewrite the original KCP contract, Alcan must clarify its intentions for British Columbians. I have instructed the

[ Page 8778 ]

minister responsible for B.C. Hydro to clarify this with Alcan. The minister will inform the company that within the next 30 days the government needs to know the corporation's intention. The minister has a clear mandate from me:

1. B.C. Hydro will not renegotiate the original contract price for KCP power.

2. B.C. Hydro may enter into discussions with Alcan in order to arrive at a fair price for converting its current short-term contracts for surplus Kemano 1 power into a long-term contract. Such arrangements have the potential to mutually benefit Alcan and British Columbians.

3. Experience elsewhere has shown that by making its Kitimat smelter more efficient, Alcan may be able to free up a significant amount of marketable power that B.C. Hydro would be interested in purchasing. This also has the potential to provide B.C. Hydro with competitively priced power while providing new revenue to Alcan.

I have asked the minister to discuss with Alcan the potential of using Hydro's resource -- the Power Smart program.

[2:15]

The member for Prince George-Omineca raised concerns in this House two days ago about the time lines for the B.C. Utilities Commission review of the Kemano project. The government has heard the same concerns and has had to consider a number of issues:

1. Applications for participant assistance under the province's new program are being assessed and processed as quickly as possible. In the interim, the absence of funding has prevented some interested parties from preparing their participation in the review as quickly as they would like.

2. Similarly, we understand the commission is near to finalizing its arrangements to provide the independent expert consultants that will assist all parties in the review.

3. The government has heard two versions of Alcan's perspective on the economics of the project.

As stated earlier, I have given the minister a time line for clarifying this with Alcan. For these reasons I have instructed the Energy minister to meet with the commission chair and the chair of the review to discuss these issues. The minister will communicate the government's recommendation that the starting date for the public meetings be delayed and the deadline for registration of participants be moved back 30 days.

With respect to the issues of participant funding and the provision of technical and expert assistance, we will work with the commission to ensure these arrangements are concluded as quickly as possible.

There is one more related issue that I wish to bring to the attention of members. In correspondence sent to me by Alcan in January and again last Friday, the province was informed that Alcan takes the position that the province is in breach of the 1987 settlement agreement and that Alcan is considering taking legal action against the government. It was after the receipt of the first notice that I authorized government officials to meet with Alcan to explore what Alcan described as "non-litigious solutions" to the alleged breach. It was in these meetings that the government became aware of Alcan's desire to renegotiate its contracts with B.C. Hydro.

We fundamentally reject the allegation that the province breached the 1987 agreement. In announcing the public review in January, I made it very clear that the province recognizes the agreement as binding on Alcan, the province and the federal government.

Secondly, I am concerned with any suggestion that any action of this government has materially affected the economics of this project. Alcan has made it clear to me that its decision to recommence construction depends on my acceptance of its proposal to significantly increase the price B.C. Hydro pays for KCP power. I have told the House that the province will not do so. I expect that Minister Sihota will seek clarification on the economics of the KCP in his discussions with Alcan.

J. Weisgerber: We are hearing from the Premier the results of a problem brought on this government by itself. The government is responsible for the situation it finds itself in: dependent on Alcan and Kemano for energy for Hydro. B.C. Hydro projected that its sources and needs would be supplied by Kemano, Kemano 2, and the return of the downstream benefits on the Columbia River. During this same period, in the last 18 months in office, the government regularly turned away proposals to supply energy from independent producers in British Columbia.

They have had proposals from independent power producers, from waste heat cogeneration projects, from wood waste cogeneration projects and from thermal projects. The government and Hydro have regularly and routinely turned away those proposals. All of those projects could have been and should have been under construction now. They should have been prepared to contribute to the energy needs of British Columbia now.

Instead, the government and B.C. Hydro have maintained that they have surplus generating capacity. It was only yesterday in the Minister of Finance's estimates that he again stated that British Columbia has surplus energy and surplus generating capacity. Now we see the Premier trying to negotiate a deal in the Legislature. The reality is that the government has a shortage, and Hydro has a shortage of generating capacity.

This year and next year they are drawing Williston Lake down to unprecedented levels. For a month now, the people of Mackenzie have been trying to get meetings with the ministers in cabinet to discuss the very serious problem on Williston Lake that has absolutely nothing to do with the shortages that might flow from Kemano. These are shortages outside of the Kemano system. The government has put itself in a position where it is entirely dependent on energy from Kemano and Kemano 2.

Now the Premier comes to the Legislature to try and negotiate a deal inside the House rather than outside it. The government has failed miserably in its energy policy, and its so-called Energy Council has contributed to the problem rather than the solution. It's a sad situation we find ourselves in as a direct result of the

[ Page 8779 ]

actions of this government and its failure to take action where it should have.

F. Gingell: Today's announcement is purely one more symptom of the malaise of uncertainty that this province suffers from. It is time that this government recognized that good economic growth only happens when there's a feeling of certainty and an understanding of the rules and review processes that need to go on before major projects of this type are undertaken. This government has vacillated on this subject. It's been on again, off again, and that has been the cause.

Two things: first of all, I implore the government not to spend any more money until there's some feeling of certainty on whether something is or isn't going to happen; secondly, I believe that the Premier should save speeches of this type for the defence of the province's case in the courts of the land -- which I'm sure is going to happen as a result -- and not waste these words in this House.

Oral Questions

LABOUR DISPUTE AT CHILLIWACK CARE FACILITY

R. Chisholm: My question is to the Minister of Labour. We have yet another strike with the BCGEU at the Eden intermediate care facility in Chilliwack. Elderly residents are not even receiving the basic health care services they are paying for. Will the minister tell us what policy his ministry has to ensure essential levels of care at these private facilities?

Hon. M. Sihota: There are provisions in the Labour Code that would allow for essential services to be established in those disputes. Precedents have already been set by determinations made by the Labour Relations Board, and the employer knows full well its rights to go to that board and seek essential services. I find it astounding that the hon. member is unaware that the legislation contains provisions that allow essential services to be established.

R. Chisholm: Supplemental question. As another colleague said, I find it astounding that you don't understand your own laws. I'm going to quote from the media and from relatives of these people. They say: "Relatives and the media have reported elderly residents have not been bathed in weeks, they have open, weeping sores, and their dressings have not been changed. They are confused and frightened" -- you must remember, hon. minister, these are 80- and 90-year-olds -- "and their relatives are frustrated and demanding action." There is currently one nurse for 95 patients.

The Speaker: Your question, hon. member?

R. Chisholm: Thank you, hon. Speaker. My question to the hon. minister is: is this the minister's definition of essential service?

Hon. M. Sihota: The hon. member should know that under the legislation, the Labour Relations Board establishes the essential service levels in those areas. If they are inadequate to attend to the needs of the patients, the employer, who has the responsibility, can go to the Labour Relations Board and ask for those levels to be revisited.

R. Chisholm: Supplemental to the same minister. Unfortunately, 80- and 90-year-olds don't necessarily know what their rights are. Maybe the minister should take on the responsibility and do something for them. The Minister of Health has argued that the future of health care in our province lies in their Closer to Home strategy. What will this minister do to ensure that essential health care services for the elderly are maintained in community-based facilities?

Hon. M. Sihota: First of all, with regard to the rights, it is the responsibility of the employer to go and assert those rights in front of the Labour Relations Board; it should be doing that. I find it amazing that the hon. member, who speaks of the patients not being aware of their rights, does not realize that it is for the employer to make that case in front of the Labour Relations Board.

Secondly, with regard to essential service levels, I reiterate to that ill-informed member that it is the Labour Relations Board that makes those determinations. Under the legislation, the employer is free to bring any matter to the attention of the Labour Relations Board and have those levels set.

B.C. LOTTERIES FUNDING OF STUDENT EXCHANGE PROGRAM

L. Fox: My question this afternoon is to the Premier. Can the Premier explain why the Lottery Corporation issued a $500 grant to fund a student exchange program to Quebec sponsored by the South Sahali Elementary School? Can he confirm that the chair of the corporation advised trip organizers to apply for the special funding, knowing that her daughter was in the class?

Hon. M. Harcourt: I think the member has raised some legitimate questions. When I found out about this matter, I asked the minister responsible about it. She is going to have this matter referred to the auditor general for a review.

NATURAL GAS EXPLORATION IN THE FRASER VALLEY

G. Farrell-Collins: My question is to the Premier. Yesterday the Minister of Energy announced that the two Langley drill sites proposed for natural gas are going ahead. During the last election the Premier promised the people of the Fraser Valley, in a letter written on his own letterhead, that he wanted a moratorium on natural gas exploration in the Fraser Valley. Can the Premier tell us what happened to that promise?

[ Page 8780 ]

Hon. M. Harcourt: The matter was reviewed very thoroughly. The minister's staff dealt with a lot of the concerns raised about safety and some of the other issues that people in the Fraser Valley brought to our attention. On the basis of that very considered review by the minister, permission was given to go ahead.

G. Farrell-Collins: I will quote from the Premier's letter: "I also want David Anderson's 59 recommendations brought back to Fraser Valley residents for full public consultation, so all questions can be answered." When did that full public consultation take place? I would like the Premier to answer this question, and not pass it off to his Minister of Energy.

[2:30]

Hon. A. Edwards: Everyone should know that the issue of drilling for natural gas in the Fraser Valley has been one of considerable delicacy. Three wells were proposed. When one well was drilled -- under the previous government, under very stringent conditions -- that well indicated.... The reports that we had and the reviews by various ministries and various levels of government indicated that the drilling could be repeated safely in the Fraser Valley. That is the basis for the decisions.

The Speaker: Final supplemental, hon. member.

G. Farrell-Collins: I notice that once again the Premier has abdicated his responsibility. The fact of the matter is that the promise of full public consultation given by the Premier in writing was broken and violated. Can the Minister of Energy tell us whether these are the only wells that are going to be drilled in the Fraser Valley, or will further wells be drilled if requests come?

Hon. A. Edwards: I think the member knows full well that as far as we know, all indications are that these are the two wells that will be drilled. This does not mean that if someone has already bought a lease.... Pardon me, the term is a permit or another term; they don't turn it into a lease until later. But if they have one, then they have the right to apply to drill. If they apply to drill, the application goes through a stringent process. It is reviewed by any number of ministries and levels of government, and by the local people. It would go through that whole process before there would be any allowance to drill.

DOWNTOWN REVITALIZATION PROGRAM

W. Hurd: A question to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Is the minister aware of what percentage of grant money handed out under the downtown revitalization program has gone to cities and towns in NDP ridings around the province?

Hon. R. Blencoe: I'll take that question on notice and get back to the member with a full report.

The Chair: Unfortunately, hon. member, the minister has taken the question on notice, and there is no supplemental.

PINK MOUNTAIN BISON HUNT

C. Serwa: My question is to the Minister of Environment. The first legal buffalo hunt in British Columbia took place with the Pink Mountain bison herd, and it has been reported that almost a third of that bison population was slaughtered. Has the minister investigated this issue, and have charges been filed?

Hon. J. Cashore: The ministry has been carrying out very careful surveillance on this issue, and to my knowledge charges have not been filed.

The Speaker: A supplemental, hon. member.

C. Serwa: For the information of the minister, some 7,600 resident hunters applied for limited-entry hunting permits. Fifty permits were issued, and 33 of the bison population were taken legally. But 170 animals were taken by first nations people -- people from the Northwest Territories, the lower mainland and Vancouver Island. The obscene slaughter of 150 to 160 animals was taken by four native individuals from the Fort St. John area, who shot...

The Speaker: Your question, hon. member.

C. Serwa: ...cows and calves as well as bulls. Does the minister accept this unconscionable act that harms our fish and wildlife resources of British Columbia? Does the minister accept that as a reasonable and fair allocation?

Hon. J. Cashore: This minister does not accept any unconscionable act, but I will neither confirm nor deny the figures that the hon. member has put forward. I would certainly be pleased to review that. I want to point out, however, that in the midst of a situation that requires cooler heads to prevail, the government has come forward with a process that has very good support from the aboriginal community, the wildlife community and those who are concerned about the economic interests of the province. By appealing to those positive forces within this province, we are going to be able to resolve these concerns.

The Speaker: Final brief supplemental, hon. member.

C. Serwa: For the minister's information, the information was put forward by Pat Michiel, who was recently appointed to the chair of Northern Lights College. He's not a typical NDP flake; he's a very reputable individual.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please. Order! Would the member please state his question.

[ Page 8781 ]

C. Serwa: The only action that the ministry appears to have undertaken is a statement by the senior conservation officer in Fort St. John, who thinks that peer pressure from the native community may be imposed on the four. In the light of the situation, is that an example of the minister's concept of joint stewardship in British Columbia?

Hon. J. Cashore: There is nothing to be gained by this hon. member trying to embarrass me or by me trying to embarrass this hon. member. I would point out that I made no attempt to denigrate Pat Michiel or any such information. I said I would like to have an opportunity to review that information. Again, I would appeal to the hon. member that the way to resolve this very challenging issue is through the very process we have designed, a process of consulting with people in those communities whom we depend on in order to be able to come to appropriate solutions. We will continue to do that and to try to make information available with regard to these factors.

CLAYOQUOT SOUND

A. Cowie: My question is to the Premier. In light of the international attention garnered by the concert by the Australian rock band Midnight Oil in Clayoquot this morning, will the Premier confirm that he and the Minister of Forests are planning to helicopter up a pro-NDP government rock band called Mike's Madness in the Clearcuts to sing the government's lumberjack song?

SHAUGHNESSY HOSPITAL CLOSURE

L. Reid: My question is also to the Premier. This government has lost support among environmentalists, taxpayers and students. If you listen carefully today, you will hear the outrage of 400,000 British Columbians over the closure of Shaughnessy Hospital's emergency department. Do you not agree that all of this alienation undermines your claim of being a government that listens?

Hon. M. Harcourt: I will acknowledge that this government has had the courage to face some very difficult choices and decisions and that some people are going to be angered by those decisions -- whether it be the closure of Shaughnessy or the difficult decisions on Clayoquot and Tatshenshini. Yes, we will continue to make those difficult decisions, whether they are popular or unpopular, in the interests of British Columbians.

L. Reid: For a government that promised consensus, you have achieved it where you least expected it: the public agrees that one term of an NDP government is enough. This government seems to take great pride in the closure of Shaughnessy Hospital. But at what cost?

The Speaker: Hon. Premier, I regret that there was no question in that.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please. The bell has signalled the end of question period. I would like to ask all hon. members to be reminded of the guidelines of question period in terms of asking their questions.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 57. I also wish to advise all hon. members that Committee A will be convening in the Douglas Fir Room to deliberate upon the estimates of the Ministry of Finance and Corporate Relations.

MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS, RECREATION AND HOUSING STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1993

Hon. R. Blencoe: I am pleased to bring forward this legislation which constitutes the most significant measures ever taken in our province to support the role of local government in the provision of affordable housing.

Bill 57 gives local governments new powers to increase the supply of affordable housing through amendments to the Municipal Act and the Vancouver Charter to give local governments clear authority to provide density bonuses to developers in exchange for meeting specified conditions for affordable housing, customized comprehensive development zoning arrangements for large projects and legally enforceable housing agreements to ensure that affordable housing commitments are carried out.

The legislation also offers local governments optional powers through regulations that will allow them to lease land for affordable units of below market value, to establish housing reserve funds for housing purposes, to borrow for housing purposes following a referendum and to enforce standards of maintenance for rental housing within their communities. This makes the legislation flexible and responsive to the unique circumstances and needs of individual local governments.

Density bonuses enable local governments to draft zoning bylaws to permit an increase in density on a site in return for a developer building affordable and special-needs housing or amenities. We are trying to achieve a win-win situation for the community, the local government and, obviously, for the developer. The amenities could include underground parking, day care space, open space or an environmental conservation area.

This lays the groundwork for local governments to prezone land for housing as well. Comprehensive development zoning will enable local governments to negotiate with developers over the development of large, complex, multi-use sites and develop custom zoning regulations. It provides much needed flexibility and allows the local government and the developer to develop mutually beneficial solutions. This activity takes place within the context of the official community plan. I want to make that quite clear, because some

[ Page 8782 ]

concern has been expressed that it would not be within the official community plan. So I make it quite clear that it is within that context. It also allows the local government to trade increased density and relaxed building envelopes for affordable housing or site amenities. Housing agreements will provide local governments with a legally enforceable means for securing affordable housing accommodation over the longer term. The legislation allows the terms of the agreement, such as rent levels and management specifications, to be registered in the land title office and thus to be met even if ownership changes.

These amendments -- and this is very important -- implement seven more recommendations of the Provincial Commission on Housing Options, bringing to 17 the number of provisions that have been implemented in the five months since the report was released. There are 57 provisions in total, and work has been completed or is underway on 38 of the 57. We hope to bring some of them forth in the next session. These changes are practical and specific. The legislation provides much needed flexibility, and as I said earlier, it allows local governments and developers to craft win-win trade-offs.

The result will be more affordable housing for British Columbians. It is an example of the way our government is working toward effective partnerships with local governments and the private and non-profit sectors so that together we can provide British Columbians with the range of housing options they need and deserve.

[2:45]

It is with this kind of legislation and innovation and partnerships that we think we can start to take up the slack in terms of the federal government withdrawal from its responsibility to help us. We are, of course, looking to the community and to all stakeholders for further creative ideas as we move in partnership to develop more affordable housing in this great province.

A. Cowie: The official opposition does not have any major objections to this bill; on the contrary, we want to congratulate the minister for bringing it forward. We have some concerns that I would like to speak about generally, and then I'll speak about them more thoroughly in committee.

To some extent, the amendments to the Islands Trust are unclear, although I believe that the objectives are forthright. The overall trust body will be able to make decisions that regional districts make; that's how I interpret it, and that's a good change. But they also have the power to delegate to the committees on the islands themselves. While I think that's a very good idea, one island could take a different stance entirely from the overall objectives that I think we should have for the Gulf Islands.

In our opinion, the Gulf Islands are a unique resource not only for British Columbians but also for the citizens of Canada. As the population doubles in the next 20, 30 or possibly 40 years in the Georgia Strait, the islands will become more and more important, especially as a conservation and park source. They will also be important for tourism and recreation purposes. Coupled with the fact that people want to live there, I think you're dealing with a very scarce resource, and it has to be worked out very carefully. So we have some concerns there, but we think this legislation is going in the right direction.

Our next concern is

section 4. While I say that it's a concern, I also say it with a lot of excitement, because I think this

section will allow a great deal of flexibility in local areas and municipalities. Under excellent leadership for years, Vancouver had the flexibility that we are really looking at in this bill. They have been able to look at particular zones. One example is the Fairview Slopes, which is a delightful place to live. There has been flexibility to change sections of the zones. The very thing that the minister is trying to implement with this legislation has been in place for a number of years.

I want to caution the minister, however. When one goes into that type of zoning, there will be a need for sophisticated staff to implement those sophisticated design guidelines. In many municipalities we basically have clerical-type planning staff who, while well-intended and well-equipped to do their jobs, don't have the design know-how to really make the decisions that this legislation points to. The ministry may have to give these municipalities help in training and that sort of thing.

I also want to caution the minister to use a delicate hand here, because we have in this province an excellent architectural profession, as well as an excellent urban design profession. They get terribly upset when they go to municipalities and are told exactly how to design something by somebody who doesn't have any design training. I think that we're in a delicate situation. The intent of this legislation is excellent. It's just that the experience in some municipalities where they have implemented it has been unfortunate in some cases. I think the minister will have to set up a mechanism almost for appeal, and the appeal body cannot be council.

In the early seventies in the city of Vancouver, the mayor at the time, Art Phillips, took decisions of design and detailed zoning out of the hands of council -- quite rightly, I think. Essentially, he said that they aren't paying for it and aren't capable of handling it. It has moved fairly smoothly since then. I can remember many evenings when councillors sat and debated the design of a motel or a shopping centre, and they knew absolutely nothing about it.

Putting that into a technical mechanism is a good thing at least. In Vancouver, they set up a development permit board of professionals to advise, and, on bigger projects, even took it out of the hands of the planning department. While the planning staff did the work for it, those recommendations came to council from the development permit board. I believe that other larger municipalities use a similar mechanism. In the municipality of Burnaby, they are fortunate enough to have a director of planning -- or they had a director of planning, who is now the manager.

He was very sophisticated himself in these measures. It was easier to get those sorts of things dealt with, although some architects would claim that they're very authoritarian in carrying out their duties. That's an area that the minister might want to watch very carefully.

[ Page 8783 ]

I also notice that in some sections of the legislation some changes within zoning will be done by public notice, essentially, not by public hearings. Perhaps I misunderstand that. But the public really wants to make sure that they have an opportunity to look at these changes. In Vancouver, they have an opportunity to come before the development permit board to express their opinion. There are no public hearings, as long as its within the overall zoning.

I think we're into a whole new realm when one gets into vertical zoning. Again, that's kind of exciting, but it requires a great deal of sophistication. When one talks about bonusing, as the minister did, that's an area full of pitfalls if one is not extremely careful. I've come to the conclusion personally that you may as well just rezone to the upper zone; although by doing that, if you're not too careful, you'll take away the bargaining power.

But what these changes, in effect, will do is.... Essentially, if you're going to do housing or if you're going to provide the amenities, what will happen is.... We're going back to the old land use contract that was chucked out about ten years ago. In fact, I always claimed there was absolutely nothing wrong with the land use contract. What was wrong was the people who were administering it, and they didn't have the proper guidelines.

I don't necessarily want to keep on looking at Vancouver, but I guess I have to because Vancouver is one of the few places where it's really been experienced. The city has done some fairly good, imaginative development around False Creek and along the harbour with Marathon Realty. They require 20 percent social housing as part of that. The problem is that there are no programs to implement the social housing, and the minister knows that. One might even want to consider allowing that density to be built somewhere else as part of the trade-off -- a transfer of development rights. That, too, is a very complicated procedure, but we're dealing with specific objectives, as in social housing.

I personally would like to see the minister define affordable housing at some point. I was talking to someone from Prince George only this morning. This person is living on welfare and paying $550 -- even up there -- for a very little suite. You would think they would be able to get some cheaper accommodation, but that's what this person is paying, and it's simply not affordable. So I think we have to look at that.

Even in the city of Vancouver, where the Vancouver Land Corporation has had some very noble objectives for getting affordable housing, if I can put it that way, rents are in the area of $800 or $900 anywhere up to $1,200 a month. For some people, anyway, that's not affordable. What they really are aiming at is the middle-income people who do not want to buy, and that does in fact allow more opportunities for those people at the bottom.

The minister mentioned that 17 objectives in the affordable housing report issued earlier this year are being implemented and that he will be implementing later this year or early in the spring some legislation regarding suites. I have put on record that I think that is an excellent objective for existing municipalities where there are already services and older houses with fewer people living in them now than in the past. I think that's where we should put a lot of our effort: making sure some of the poorer-quality suites are upgraded and making legal the suites in houses that have them.

These are perfectly good accommodation, and they help people to pay for the enormous tax increases we've had in the last while.

So I will close by saying that I think the minister is going in the right direction, and I look forward to further improvements. The Liberal opposition will be supporting this bill.

H. De Jong: I'm pleased to rise on Bill 57. It makes me wonder, however, where the minister has been for the last ten or 15 years. Many of the items in this bill that he has brought forward have been in existence already in many communities -- unless here in Victoria and perhaps in the city of Vancouver they have not made use of those inventions the minister talked about. But they have been in the outlying areas, such as the Fraser Valley. The communities wouldn't have expanded the way if they did if they hadn't had some of these inventions in place in terms of providing lower-cost housing.

I believe we are mainly talking about rental housing here. The minister hasn't been specific on this, but I believe that's what he's aiming at.

I have no problem with rental housing, and I don't think any municipalities have had a problem with rental housing. When the minister talks about the changes this bill will bring forward, he's basically talking about very minor things, such as underground parking in order to increase the density. Underground parking has been in place for many years in order to increase the density and provide the amenities surrounding these buildings, in terms of proper landscaping, playgrounds for children and so on. There's nothing new with that aspect.

The minister came forward with carry-forward stipulations. He hasn't been specific as to what those carry-forward stipulations would be or if they would apply to what was initially built as a low-cost housing facility that had received some government assistance along the way in terms of amenities or whatever was available. There were some programs back in the mid and late seventies. At that time there were no specific stipulations attached to those buildings. Later on, many of those were converted into strata title. If that is one of the criterion the minister has in mind, I believe he's on the right track.

The minister talked about increasing the densities. I suppose that in many communities, particularly in the lower mainland, there aren't a lot of choices. Municipalities have to increase the densities because of the limited land available for development, since many of those communities are surrounded by agricultural land. It's very difficult to get any land out of the land freeze for residential development. That has an effect, first of all, on the land price and also on the availability of land. I believe that that area certainly has to be looked into.

[3:00]

[ Page 8784 ]

The minister also talked about land being made available -- by the Crown, I would guess -- and that local communities or a developer could rent that land under a long-term lease from the Crown to provide such housing. That's not a bad idea, except for the fact that many communities don't have any Crown land within their boundaries that could be developed. How are those communities going to accommodate that? Is the government intending to purchase land within those communities for that particular purpose and then rent it out to a developer? The price would be the same, unless there is great subsidization.

Back in 1975-'76, some very inventive programs were brought forward by the Social Credit government. It appears that some of those programs were cut back over the years. As I recall, there was Bill 110 back in '75 or '76 and Bill 88. One was the sewer assistance program, and the other was the water assistance program.

They really were forward-looking programs, where the municipalities could plan the servicing aspects for higher densities and expanded development and then ask the provincial government to share in the cost of treatment facilities for the sewer plants, the bulk water supply and whatever else it needed. I know that the district of Matsqui has taken great advantage of those particular programs, because it was a forward-looking municipality. We knew that the growth would happen; we knew that people would come to British Columbia and to the lower mainland.

That is still the case, because people like to live in British Columbia. It has a nice climate; it has lots of beauty to admire and to enjoy. So there will be no stopping the growth that has happened over the last ten or 15 years.

Therefore I think we must look at a program expansion rather than simply deal with the small items this minister has brought forward this afternoon. We're certainly not going to see a big change in British Columbia because of the 17 items contained in this bill. In my opinion, it's not forward-looking and does not allow for long-term planning. It allows for minor improvements here and there in order to write some new, glossy paper to tell communities that the province is really doing something, but it doesn't amount to a hill of beans.

I'm disappointed that this bill isn't more forward-looking and doesn't have the potential for good, controlled, steady growth for municipalities, within the lower mainland in particular. Since practically all the items that the minister has mentioned are already in place, I don't think it's going to make any difference in terms of the need for socialized housing within the communities of the lower mainland.

L. Fox: I rise to speak on Bill 57, the Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Housing Statutes Amendment Act. When I first looked over the bill, the first thing that came to my mind was that only a few weeks ago this minister was chastising the federal government for off-loading the housing responsibilities and decreasing the transfer payments for the purposes of housing -- in fact, as I understand it, pulling right out of the housing programs. We see now a situation where -- mind you, it's only if a municipality requests the power -- there could be significant off-loading onto municipalities.

When I look at the present situation around the province, I see that there is indeed substantial need in three areas of the province. But there are also needs for low-income housing in other regions of the province. Probably they are not as significant, and maybe they haven't surfaced to the point they have in the larger lower mainland cities and the Victoria region. However, they are there, and I grant that. I understand that this is an attempt by the minister to develop a joint partnership with the private sector, municipalities and the ministry in order to create the adequate housing we all would like to see.

But I'm extremely concerned about the sweeping powers this bill gives to municipalities should they choose to require them from the ministry.

An area may be developed all except for one small area within it, and that particular developer, through negotiating with the municipality, can increase the density in that neighbourhood by merely suggesting that they are going to create a number of low-cost housing units. I don't like to think about the impact that may have on the other people in the neighbourhood who may have bought their property based on the original zoning, built on the original zoning and the densities that were contained within that zoning. Those densities are now increased substantially without even a public process, it would appear.

At the whim of council, that developer and council can negotiate that arrangement. Several concerns with respect to that bother me. One is the effect that density may have on land values for those people who have invested a lot of money in those areas.

Another major concern is the infrastructure that may service that area, which would have been designed according to the density put forward in the original zoning of that property. We could create all kinds of nightmares, from traffic to a sewer system that is not adequate for the density and may create a lot of off-site costs to the municipality, because many municipalities aren't in a position to put in place development cost-charge bylaws or bylaws which will enforce off-site costs back onto that development.

I understand that a mayor and council, in negotiating with a developer, would obviously take those concerns into consideration. But if the need for housing is so great, they may be obligated to accommodate those initiatives without protecting the rest of the taxpayers within that community, and certainly within that neighbourhood.

As well, there are all kinds of opportunities with this kind of legislation to provide opportunities for political misuse. I am not one that doubts the integrity of municipal councils; I have the highest respect for them. But I think we could suggest that given the opportunities within this act, we may see single-interest people running for council -- not stating upfront what their issue is. They'd have a concern and they'd have an opportunity and may be able to convince the council that one of their buddies or somebody else could supply this needed housing under the guise of supplying low-cost housing but really for the developers benefit.

That almost sounds like I'm speaking from the other side of the House and that I'm not concerned about a

[ Page 8785 ]

developer's opportunity to do business. I certainly am. At the same time, having had years of experience in municipalities, I also recognize the issues that trigger concerns in neighbourhoods. Any time we put a large group of low-cost homes in a relatively affluent area -- and this can very well happen under this legislation -- we're going to have a huge concern by those neighbours. There are going to be nothing but disputes, and that has to be a concern.

If those increased densities had to go through a zoning bylaw or a new public process to amend the zoning bylaw, then I wouldn't have nearly as much concern, because the neighbourhood would have the opportunity through a public hearing to access the plans of that particular development. But I do not read that within this legislation. If I have missed something in going back and forth between this legislation, this amendment and the original legislation, I expect that the minister would correct me.

One of the problems we in this House have had since the first part of June is the overload we have been faced with in terms of trying make honest and astute critique of the legislation. We're piled with legislation upon legislation. It makes it extremely difficult to be exact on all points. However, I believe that I have stated those points correctly, and we will find that the minister will be unable to assure me that there will be a public process should the density in neighbourhoods be increased as a result of this legislation.

I understand the need to increase densities. I certainly understand the need to provide social housing and low-cost housing. But I'm not sure that I like this very first step. Given some of the comments of the minister and the Liberal critic during the estimates, where they discussed perhaps using revenue-sharing as a hammer to make municipalities comply with the ministry's housing initiatives, that is a real concern to me. While this suggests that a municipality opt into the program, if their revenue-sharing is threatened I suggest that it would be very difficult for a municipality not to opt into it.

Whether or not they utilize that program would be one thing, but certainly they would have to opt into the program, because municipalities are not in a position to see their revenue-sharing grants decreased. Most of the municipalities, certainly the smaller and more rural ones, do not have the huge reserves some of the cities more fortunately have. Many of them are still trying to pave some of the streets that have been unpaved for years; they're still trying to catch up to the level of service that other communities are able to afford, by and large because of the larger assessments and the larger tax base.

The other concern I have with this initiative is that there is no suggestion at all within this legislation as to what a sharing formula would be should a municipality opt into these housing programs. You would think that if we were going to have legislation brought forward, it would spell out what share of the responsibility the municipality would have should they enter into an agreement with the provincial government to provide social housing by financing local housing through bylaw at the community level.

[3:15]

I suggest this because it would be in the interest of all municipalities to have some consistency in the sharing process. We wouldn't want a politically driven program; we would want one that is consistent from one community to another; not one where you would be free as a municipality, depending on your political bent, to come down, twist the arm of the minister and get some exception or favouritism in terms of a program you're prepared to put forward versus that of another community. If we are going to enter into this process, there has to be a consistency in terms of what municipalities will contribute toward this versus the share that the provincial government contributes.

Hon. Speaker, I think I've made the points I want to make, and I have outlined some of the concerns I have. The minister, at several points, has been shaking his head. I can only suggest that the minister has all the staff in the world to explain the legislation to him. But when we are loaded with some 60 pieces of legislation in less than a month and a half, it's extremely difficult for the opposition to give constructive criticism and to deal with the technical points that each one of these bills presents. I look forward to committee stage, when we can go on a clause-by-clause basis.

I know it will take some time to examine what this bill can or cannot accomplish in terms of fulfilling the needs for low-cost housing in British Columbia.

The Speaker: The minister upon rising closes debate.

Hon. R. Blencoe: Hon. Speaker, I won't take much time in responding to my official critics, in terms of their response to this bill. First, I would like to say to my Liberal critic for his general support of this bill.... I think he recognizes that this legislation has been called for for a long time, and that in some ways some municipalities have been doing variations on some of this for a long time. Unfortunately, there was always a question of the legality of their opportunities to enter into -- the member is quite correct -- the old kind of land use contract. This is a definite refinement on that and an improvement -- an extension.

Hon. Speaker, basically what we're doing here, of course, is providing an extra tool box to local government for negotiating with the private sector in terms of zoning and getting opportunities for the community, but also opportunities for developers in terms of their requirements. I thank my Liberal critic for his general concern and comments. We will obviously get into some of those issues during committee.

To my Social Credit friend, I was somewhat confused because the Social Credit member for Abbotsford said that what I'm doing here is already in place. Then my official critic from the Social Credit Party said that what I'm doing here is giving sweeping new powers to local government.

Interjection.

Hon. R. Blencoe: You may want to check with your colleague, who is saying that this is already in place and there's not a hill of beans about this, or

[ Page 8786 ]

something. I recognize that this may be difficult. I've always offered to all my critics a full briefing in full detail on legislation that I bring forward, and that is still available for the committee, if my colleagues want that.

The members should know that the provincial government is not entering into any contract here with this legislation. What we're doing is giving what local government has called for for years and years: greater ability in terms of land use and community planning, and a greater extension of their tool box. Indeed, hon. member, I'm not sure if you or the member for Abbotsford are aware of this, but both of you sort of slurred the former Premier of this province, Rita Johnson, who actually said for a number of years that she wanted to bring back land use contracts, but she had no time....

Interjection.

Hon. R. Blencoe: Yes, well, I assume she still has some status within your party -- I don't know.

Anyway, hon. member, we have been thanked for this legislation. We will have extensive debate -- well, hopefully not extensive debate -- in committee. We know it has been welcomed, and I look forward to committee stage.

The Speaker: The motion before you is second reading of Bill 57.

Motion approved.

Bill 57, Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Housing Statutes 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. R. Blencoe: Hon. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 58.

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

Hon. R. Blencoe: It is my pleasure to put forward Bill 58 for second reading. This legislation contains a number of amendments to the Municipal Act and related local government legislation, as well as one amendment to the Assessment Act. The amendments are a continuation of our program to modernize all of the legislation administered by my ministry. It involves an ongoing consultation with the stakeholders in local government, particularly the Union of B.C. Municipalities.

The program has three goals: to empower local governments with the authority they need to deal with today's challenges, to streamline the legislation that governs their day-to-day business and to update obsolete provisions.

The amendments relate to the Municipal Act, and they will achieve a number of goals. For instance, they clarify and update the rules governing the way local governments provide for remuneration, expenses and benefits for councillors, at the same time requiring that council members' remuneration and expenses be reported annually in an open meeting.

As well, local governments are given more authority to protect from development areas that are designated as environmentally sensitive in their official community plans. This change will fill a legislative breach and means that development permits are required before any alteration on an area can take place.

Regional districts are given authority to provide more services, including transit and 911 emergency telephone services, rather than requiring each district to apply individually for these services.

In keeping with our goals of modernization to increase local autonomy and local decision-making, and eliminate numerous requirements for the minister's approval in relation to local government land use planning, this will streamline the process by which a regional district determines the area to be covered by an official community plan.

The amendment to the Assessment Act is a response to a recent court case. It redefines industrial improvement, thus providing stability in the tax base by ensuring that industrial improvements continue to be classified as such, regardless of the profitability of the enterprise.

I stress that the legislative modernization program within my ministry is ongoing. More can and will be done on a yearly basis to improve the way local governments do business.

A. Cowie: Again, the official opposition has no problem with Bill 58, and we see it essentially as modernization and clarification of a number of issues that have needed clarification for a long while. As I repeatedly say, whenever I get an opportunity, I welcome this government looking at anything to do with community planning and with improving the legislation that has been so badly overlooked by the previous government in the last ten years.

[R. Neufeld in the chair.]

We noticed that the method of payment has been clarified in this bill. From time to time one reads in the newspapers accusations by various municipalities setting their honorariums high, without any public scrutiny. This certainly clarifies this issue, and councils will undoubtedly have no problem in following these regulations.

Regarding the official community plan and its relationship to environmentally sensitive areas, I think this area needs to be controlled by local government. Local government clearly has to take into account that within the official community plan there has to be a method of paying for that open space. So many municipalities designate areas of open space primarily because they want to preserve them as open space. Quite often it has absolutely no relationship to being environmentally sensitive.

In many cases, municipalities claim the land has agricultural qualities. I believe that the agricultural qualities of any land in this province should be determined by the Agricultural Land Commission. Municipalities have relied on the Agricultural Land

[ Page 8787 ]

Commission as a method of zoning for too long. I'm hoping that this legislation will clarify that and that municipalities will be required -- but it doesn't state that very clearly -- to have a proper environmental assessment before areas are designated for that purpose. Otherwise, those municipalities will in effect be subject to every environmental special interest group in their area. In many cases, proper reports and the proper documentation of facts are simply not taken. I would hope that when municipalities weaken under such pressure, there will be a method of appeal. Again, that isn't mentioned in here.

If you were cynical, you could say this legislation downloads. But I believe that it actually gives the local municipalities greater rights to look after their own autonomy and their own future. I am personally not worried about the so-called downloading, because I believe that municipalities will be rationalizing their boundaries and doing various things over the next few years to become more efficient. I think they will have the proper staff to do this type of work. I'm not so worried about it. I think the minister has made a very wise choice by making the changes in this particular legislation.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

I am not going to refer to the Vancouver changes -- the board of variance and remuneration and expenses. I don't want to make a point about that; I'll leave that to others, should they wish to do it.

L. Fox: This bill is extremely distasteful. There's no common thread or principle throughout the bill. Bill 58 in fact attempts, in several areas, to take away the opportunity for an industrial company or corporation to put its plants in mothballs for a year or two because the economic times do not allow it to continue to run them.

Because of this amendment, in order to get any alleviation from the taxes an operating company would have to pay, they'll have to do the Cassiar job -- which this government is certainly aware of -- where they literally knock down every building in the community to do away with the improvements so they won't have to pay tax on them. That's one concern, and I'll come back to that at considerable length in a few moments.

[3:30]

Let me go over the other issues a bit. Let me first talk about some of the issues with respect to remuneration. I'm not aware of any dramatic problem that would be caused by the public knowing what the remuneration of their councillors is. Any good council publishes that on an annual basis and publishes the increases -- if any -- to their councillors and mayor. I don't see any problem with that

section of the bill, because I think it reflects what's really happening in practice. I suppose that is something the minister felt he had to stand up and thump his chest about. In fact, municipal councils are very open and honest about their expenses, which are published annually in their budgets and tabled annually at a public meeting.

Most of the bill relates to those kinds of issues.

Section 38, however, requires a development permit for virtually any change to land designated for environmental protection in the regional district community plan. I am having some difficulty understanding that. If that is on public property or Crown property, I don't have a problem with it. But if this

section -- and I will certainly clarify that during committee stage -- deals with private property and requires a development permit for virtually any change to the land designated, I have a lot of concerns. Private property is private property.

If an individual wishes to do anything sensitive to the environment on private property, he must go through an environmental permitting process with the Ministry of Environment. If a request is made to change the zoning classification of residential or rural land to allow either industrial or commercial activity on it, the environmental concerns are going to be front and centre during that rezoning application. This appears to be an attempt to give the authorities rather than the owner extra powers over a piece of private land. I am extremely concerned.

Now I want to get into the real zinger of this bill, the changes to the Assessment Act.

Section 2 states: "Section 15.2 of the Assessment Authority Act, R.S.B.C. 1979, c. 22, is repealed and the following substituted: Application of School Act exemptions."

Section 15.2 will now read: "Sections 144 to 147 of the School Act apply for assessment and taxation purposes under

section 15(4) of this Act." I identify those sections at second reading stage so that I can identify the principle of that

section by referring to the main act, and therefore show the Speaker and the assembly what that clause is doing in principle.

The first thing that is happening in the changes to the Assessment Act is that.... I put before this assembly a good example of an industrial complex -- a mine. Endako Mines is located within my riding on the outskirts of Fraser Lake. It has been shut down for a period of three and a half years due to the economics of the day. During that time they made an appeal that because they were shut down, they should not be assessed on the basis of an operating mine, but on the basis of actual value. There's a big difference in that. An operating mine has some value; a non-operating mine doesn't have a lot of value.

The change that that makes in the tax base of that business is substantial. This mine was able to shut down for three and a half years. When the market improved, and once again there was an opportunity for that industrial body to make a return on its investment, that mine was able to start up again -- partly because it was able to save thousands of dollars over that three and a half years, through not having to pay taxes as if it were an open mine.

This legislation will literally force that mine to knock all of its buildings down in order to save on the assessment. The minister obviously does not understand the issue. When the minister's staff are here at committee stage of this bill, I know the minister will be told that that is a fact. I've researched it. I have the proof, and I will certainly get into it. This amendment was required, as the minister pointed out, because the Assessment Authority lost a court case on an appeal. That appeal was based on that exact situation. The minister doesn't realize it at this point; I can't expect

[ Page 8788 ]

him to understand everything that's happening. But certainly when his staff gets here, they will instruct him that that is the case.

I understand the need for communities to protect their tax base and to have a consistent assessment. But communities also understand the need for jobs and the need to protect the opportunity for an industrial complex to re-open. We've seen it several times over the last ten years with respect to Granisle, which is a very similar situation. The Cassiar mine is a good indication. What we have after this government closed down that town, knocked down every building and sold off whatever they could -- along with the mining company -- is a corporation looking to re-open it because the market has improved.

The fear of asbestos is no longer as strong as it once was. All of a sudden there is an opportunity to open that mine again. But what happened? The capital cost of opening up that facility is delaying it. There's no longer anything at that mine for somebody to go in and re-open. The minister does not understand what this bill is doing.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please, hon. members.

L. Fox: Hon. Speaker, I'm trying to point out the importance of understanding how fragile many industries are. Many industries are extremely fragile, and I'm surprised that the Minister of Municipal Affairs has not had an opportunity to discuss these issues with the Minister of Economic Development and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. They would tell the minister that the mining industry is leaving British Columbia. We have to start to look at ways and means to be flexible.

This bill shuts those doors, and tells the mining industry once more: "You're no longer important to us, if you shut down, knock down your buildings or continue to pay the same taxes." That's what this bill is saying. It's a shame on that minister; it's a shame on that government. In fact, we will see the mines in the East Kootenays, in the Kamloops area and in the Cariboo area, when they shut down to get out -- and they're going to, because the policies of this government are forcing the shut-down of that industry....

When they do, we will see all those mines, to get out of paying those horrendous school taxes -- which they're having difficulty paying because of the corporation capital tax that has been placed on those corporations -- literally bulldoze buildings down in order to decrease their assessment base. That's what will happen.

Let's look at the forest industry, the pulp mills and the sawmills. There are times when they do not use, for whatever reason, parts of their complex. For instance, they may very well shut down the sawmills for six months to a year and apply to have an assessment adjustment based on the fact that the sawmill isn't working. They may continue to run a planer. As the act was written, that corporation could in fact apply for a decrease in assessment; it wasn't automatic. In fact, this minister has loaded the assessment appeal boards, and he's loaded the legislation against these individuals.

Even with the old legislation it wasn't automatic. In fact, it was doubtful in many cases that they would win it unless they went to court. That's why the minister has made the changes to the act: they want to close the loophole that one or two corporations managed to use for decreasing their assessment. In fact, the Assessment Act reverted to actual value. Actual value, when you have a sawmill or a mine not working is, as I said before, a whole lot different than the value of an operating mine or mill.

Hon. Speaker, it's unfortunate that this minister does not even understand what this legislation is doing. He wouldn't sit over there and giggle, and he wouldn't belittle a process that allowed industry to stay in British Columbia and allowed corporations the flexibility to hold onto their holdings until the economics of the day improved, so that once again they could create jobs in the province of British Columbia.... He would not be sitting over there giggling and making heckling noises if in fact he understood his own legislation. I'm disappointed.

I would expect that backbenchers on the government side who have mines and industries in their area that could shut down for one or two years -- and probably will under the policy of this government -- would stand up and state their concern over this

section of this legislation. It astounds me, but then we've seen time and time again where the backbenchers are afraid to stand up on their two hind legs and point out that in fact....

The Speaker: Order, please, hon. member. I would caution the hon. member on the direction he's going and urge him to return to discussing the principles of Bill 58 on second reading.

L. Fox: I was talking about the principles of the bill, and the principles of the government as well, hon. Speaker. I believe they're one and the same. The principle of the government is reflected in the principle of this particular clause within this legislation. That is the issue; that's what I'm talking about here this afternoon. But that's not what the government seems to want to understand. Certainly it's not what the minister seems to want to understand, because they have never created a job.

Other than what they've done as government, collectively the whole bunch of them have not made an investment on an independent basis that has created a job. That's a very different principle from the one we see in this bill. In fact, I shouldn't say that; it's a very similar principle to what is in this bill, because they do not understand what it takes to make a profitable investment in B.C. and how much is at risk when you do that.

[3:45]

When we make laws in this Legislature that discourage investment in the way that this

section of the bill is going to, either the government doesn't understand what it's doing or they are designed, along with several other policies that have come forward, to discourage the mining industry from staying in B.C., allowing the Premier to stand on the dock and wave goodbye to the rest of the mining industry, as he suggested during question period he has done. It's really unfortunate, because they should be looking at ways to encourage a facility to reopen. We should be

[ Page 8789 ]

looking at policies that allow a facility some flexibility to reopen.

This actually conflicts with an earlier act, which we discussed, that gave taxation preference to a corporation in the Kootenays because it needed the flexibility to redesign its plant and make some investment without increasing its tax costs in order to continue providing jobs in that part of the province. That flies right in the face of this clause. The minister suggested that I had no concern about the stability of the municipal tax base, and he heckled me about it. If he wants to argue the same principle, that legislation in fact eroded the tax base.

But there was a reason for it, and the reason was to protect jobs and provide opportunities for the corporation to become technologically advanced so that it could continue to get a return on its investment. I'm asking for nothing different here.

I'm asking for the same kind of recognition for that plant and industrial corporation that we allow other mines and industrial plants: the flexibility to look at ways to cut its fixed costs when it's not in operation in order to maintain the infrastructure so that when the economy improves, whether it's because of a resource price or the cost of whatever that plant produces, they can reopen.

The commercial assessment does that. The commercial assessment reflects the income of the business, so when the business closes down and there's no income, automatically the assessment decreases. It's the very same principle. Why does this government want to attack the industrial sector, when the policies of the Assessment Authority reflect exactly the same principle that we used to have in the Assessment Act for the business sector, because they are assessed on an income base.

I could argue all day. I could be designated speaker and talk on this subject for two hours, because it's so dear to my heart -- as a former municipal politician, as a businessman and as an MLA who represents a resource-based constituency. It's extremely dear to my heart, because my constituents are looking for initiatives that provide for the reopening of plants, not further knocking down of plants. The amendment to this act is going to cause us to lose capital investments and cost those industries thousands of dollars in taxation. That action will not only cause a delay in the reopening of those plants, it will prevent the reopening of those plants, and therefore those jobs will be lost.

That is my major concern about this section, and I hope that I have been forceful enough in putting it forward that the minister will inform himself between now and committee stage and find out if what I have said is right. If he researches it, he will find out that everything I have said in the last 25 minutes will be fact, and this action will cause what I predicted. I look forward to the minister coming back with an amendment at committee stage that would correct this injustice to the industrial sector of our economy.

R. Neufeld: I rise to speak to the philosophies and principles of Bill 58. Much of what the former speaker, my colleague from Prince George-Omineca, talked about reflects on my constituency also. It affects investment in this province and how we are going to encourage companies and individuals to invest their money in British Columbia. We have to look at the issue rationally, and I can understand a little on both sides of the coin, because there are always two sides to a story.

If there is a slowdown in the economy -- regardless of whether it's in the forest or mining industry or any other industry -- and we close down corporations because of the market conditions and hope that they can come back at a later time and start those plants back up and employ people again.... I think that's what we're looking at. The member was speaking about the issue of whether those corporations and individuals that invest money to build those plants -- they are not all corporations; a lot of them are individuals who want to invest in British Columbia -- can come back, open those plants and start employing people again in British Columbia and provide revenue for the province.

On the other side of the coin, as the minister said when the hon. member was talking, who pays when that assessment is lowered and the taxes don't come in?

In the previous act and in other provincial acts, there are issues where the job protection commissioner or the Minister of Economic Development will get involved so they can be looked after; usually the province gets involved specifically. I don't know of a situation where local taxpayers were really burned by some company or corporation shutting down a plant just because they arbitrarily wanted to, but I'm sure the minister will let me know.

That's why we have a provincial government, a job protection commissioner, an Economic Development minister, a federal government, a western diversification fund and all those things: to try to alleviate those problems so we can keep those industries in our province and allow them to close down their plants. A number of them have been closed down.

The member mentioned Cassiar. That's probably a very isolated situation, but he's entirely correct when he says that Cassiar will be leveled; there will be nothing left of Cassiar. I would think that in time, a company or corporation could come back to Cassiar and mine the asbestos that is there. When these things happen.... We see equipment and everything that goes along with making a mine that's worth millions and millions of dollars coming out of Cassiar and going for next to nothing.

I don't know whether the minister paid any attention to the sale in Cassiar last September, but some of the very costly items that were moved out of there were purchased for next to nothing -- they had to be to make it viable to move them out. But it just makes it that much harder for someone else to come in and start that mine back up again.

It's indicated in the bill what the NDP government wants to target, and I'm just going to read a little of

section 1, where the Assessment Act is amended:

"...(

a) in subsection (1) by repealing the definition of 'industrial improvements' and substituting the following: 'industrial improvement' means an improvement that is part of a plant that is designed and built for the purpose of -- and it doesn't take long to figure out what we're targeting here -- one or more of the following: (

a) mining, extracting, beneficiating or milling of metallic or non-metallic ore; (

b) mining, breaking, washing, grading or beneficiating of coal; (c)

[ Page 8790 ]

producing of aluminum; (

d) smelting or refining of metal from ore or ore concentrate; (

e) producing, manufacturing, processing or refining of petroleum or natural gas; (

f) manufacturing of lumber or other sawmill and planing mill products; (

g) manufacturing of wood veneer, plywood, particle board, wafer board, hardboard and similar products; (

h) manufacturing of gypsum board; (

i) manufacturing of pulp, paper or linerboard; (

j) manufacturing of chemicals; (

k) manufacturing of chemical fertilizer; (

l) manufacturing of synthetic resins or the compounding of synthetic resins into moulding compounds; (

m) manufacturing of cement; (

n) manufacturing of insulation; (

o) manufacturing sheet glass or glass bottles; (

p) building, refitting or repairing ships; (

q) loading cargo onto sea going ships or barges, including associated cargo storage and loading facilities, notwithstanding that the plant cannot be operated as a going concern or is temporarily or permanently unprofitable, but does not include an improvement exempted under subsection (1.1)."

This government has specifically targeted some industries, because I'm sure that short list does not cover all the industries in British Columbia. It certainly starts out with one that is leaving B.C. fairly quickly, and that's the mining industry. We know that the mining industry is leaving and is on the decline. Decisions made in the Tatshenshini and remarks made by the Premier about helping mining companies move to Chile.... He would love to move their head offices out of the province. That's not how we create jobs or keep jobs in British Columbia.

As the minister said, they decided to change the initial act because of a court case. That initial act had been in place for a long time. I'm sure when we get into committee stage, as the member for Prince George-Omineca said, we will be delving a little deeper into this section. It is important to me, as it is to that member and as it should be to any member of this House, especially those from rural B.C. They find themselves in one-industry towns, where if the one industry goes down, there is difficulty. Why compound that difficulty? Why not do what should be done?

Why not deal with the job protection commissioner, the Minister of Economic Development, the Minister of Mines, the minister responsible for B.C. Hydro and the Minister of Forests to resolve those issues in a rational way? But not this government. I don't know why they would lay the groundwork to discourage that investment in this province.

[4:00]

When I listen to those ministers, when I talk to them in estimates, when I sit through other estimates and listen to them talk about wanting to encourage development in B.C., they almost make me believe that they really want it. Then they come through with legislation like this. Again I am reminded to listen carefully. I think that's what a lot of industry and a lot of investors in this province are doing. They are listening carefully, and they are starting to read a little more carefully where this government is trying to take British Columbia.

It's little sleepers like this in a bill the rest of which we could probably do without. Or it could have been in another bill. It's stuck in this bill so that we won't just dwell on that one thing -- and the Minister of Municipal Affairs smiles. This could have been in another bill.

I'm not sure about the rest of the bill either. It extends additional municipal powers to trust boards in the Islands Trust. I'm not going to speak on that, because I'm not familiar with it. But it's a small

section of this bill and could easily have been in the earlier bill.

As I leafed through this bill, I underlined parts of it. The bill is about 23 pages long and there are about 15 sections that deal with granting municipalities and regional districts powers over benefits, expenses and remuneration for officers and elected people. I've listened to this and other ministers -- but specifically this minister -- stand up and say that we should give municipalities more responsibility so that they can make more of their own decisions. Yet what do we see? We see the father-type image of this government.

We have to have about 15 sections dealing with "Employee and officer benefits and expenses." It goes on to say that when engaging in municipal business, they can be paid -- and so on. I can't quite understand some of that.

I was a mayor and an alderman in a community for nine years. All the time I was there, we had bylaws in place that allowed for certain things to be paid and certain expenses. The remuneration was X amount of dollars, and it was usually decided by those who voted those people in. You didn't run as an alderman in Fort Nelson and say that you wanted $20,000 or $30,000 a year. It was almost nothing, but it was in the public record for the public to see at any time, and people knew about it.

What does this minister do? It's the father image: "We're going to create another piece of legislation and throw a few little sleepers into it, such as this 'Payment for other benefits and expenses relating to municipal activity'." Why does the city of Vancouver, or a community of 10,000 people, need to have the Minister of Municipal Affairs telling them about what payments they can make or about other benefits and expenses relating to municipal activity? It just amazes me that we have to have this grandfather urge to control. If we want to give some leeway to local governments, let's give it to them and make them responsible. All this does is lead to confusion.

We have "Council members' benefits." There are about three pages referring to council members' remuneration and expenses. To me, the reporting of remuneration and expenses was always done. I would be surprised if it wasn't. What are "special expenditures"? It's really amazing that the Minister of Municipal Affairs, who wants to see responsible local government.... Under "Special expenditures," subsection (

c) states: "...to provide for receiving and entertaining distinguished guests." Do we need to have legislation from the Minister of Municipal Affairs which was drafted by people...being discussed by us in mid-July, and referring to that, when the minister and I are constantly saying that we want the municipalities to have more responsibility? There's nothing wrong with that....

Here's another little subsection: "...to honour persons who have, in the opinion of the council, brought honour to the municipality." I find it

[ Page 8791 ]

unbelievable that we have to have the minister saying to the municipalities: "Yes, you can do that." I'm sure that municipalities have been doing that for a long time. I would hope they have been. I know that the municipality I came from did that. If we had to honour someone or receive someone in the town, such as the Governor General, we were able to look after it. We didn't need the minister to do that. Again, it's being done just to cause confusion and make people wonder what's going on. It causes a lot more work for everyone involved when all of a sudden it's written into provincial legislation.

Other sections are "Remuneration and expenses of directors and committee members" and "Reporting of remuneration and expenses." It's even redundant; as you go through the bill you'll see that it even repeats itself in places. Partway through the bill they go into a few other things. Then we bring up employee and officer expenses, council members' remuneration and expenses, remuneration for board members. My goodness, what else are we going to tell them? That they can have their meetings between 1 o'clock and 2 o'clock on a certain day? Why don't we let municipalities be responsible to the people who elect them?

I have no problem with some provincial legislation, because it has to be there. But when it comes to commonsense, ordinary things that have been going on for decades, all of a sudden a minister has to come forward and table this kind of a bill at this time of the year, when we've already got 70-some pieces of legislation to look at. It's just a waste of time. I think it's in order to slip in a sleeper. We got caught last year at the very end of the session with the Infants Act.

It was just a -- what do you call it? -- housekeeping bill, one of those bills that they're always talking about, and we missed part of it. That's what I think is happening here.

But there are other things. There's some downloading. Sections 21 to 26 are about broadening the powers of regional boards to regulate solid waste and to extend various services, including transit, airports, cemeteries, telephone, natural gas and electrification to rural areas. All of a sudden, rural electrification and gasification pop up in the bill, something that in our part of the country is very important. Maybe down here and in the lower mainland people don't think too much about electricity or natural gas. All they do is call B.C. Gas or B.C.

Hydro and for a nominal fee they're hooked up and get those services. Most of that electricity -- I think about 40 percent of it -- is produced in my constituency of Peace River North. I know that all of the natural gas that's consumed in this province is produced in my constituency and the constituency of the member for Peace River South, and it's pipelined down here for these members.

Interjection.

R. Neufeld: The member laughs. It's absolutely amazing. That's how much for granted some of these members take those services. It's hard to believe, but in the north there are people who don't have electricity; they generate their own. In this province, where we produce billions and billions of cubic feet of natural gas yearly, there are people who still have to heat their houses with diesel fuel or wood. At one point the minister responsible for Hydro -- and I am speaking to the philosophy of Bill 58 -- decided to cut off rural gasification grants.

Those are still not cut off, but I would say that it's close, because all of a sudden the Minister of Municipal Affairs is saying that regional boards are going to be responsible for those. If regional boards are to become responsible for them, maybe the minister should have taken this bill just one step further and said: "Yes, they're going to become responsible for those services.

But they also have the ability to hold back some of the revenue that comes to the province from the sale of that electricity, natural gas and crude oil, to be able to provide those services to those people up there." That's what I am talking about.

It just goes a little way, downloading it onto regional districts. But the other

part isn't there. The other

part is there when we want to tell them about how much they can spend or where they should go for a meeting, how they should report it for the public, how much they should pay one another or whether they should honour someone. We list that out with 15 sections of this bill. As I said, we list it out for people constantly -- all kinds of crazy little things.

So why doesn't the minister take the extra step and say: "If we're going to have regional districts responsible for that, then we'll allow them the powers to tax for it or to hold back some of the money that goes to the province in royalties, to be able to provide those services for those people"? Those people would be very happy indeed. Things that people in the south take for granted -- electricity and heat -- let me tell you, up north where it's cold about seven months of the year and where we have snow, that's where we need those services.

[4:15]

It says regional districts can provide services to Indian reserves and military bases -- I don't know why that's there. As far as I know, that was in the previous legislation. I know that in the north we have provided those services -- fire and solid waste and those services -- to reserves.

Those are some of the issues I have with Bill 58. As the member for Prince George-Omineca said, probably the most important is having the assessment part of it changed. To me, another

part is the redundancy of a bunch of this bill. That's important to me; I don't see why we need it. The municipalities are probably wondering why we need it. The other

part is that if this minister wants to download services to municipalities and regional districts, then along with that he should give the taxation measures, so that those services can be properly supplied.

I look forward to the committee stage of Bill 58.

J. Weisgerber: I want to speak to this legislation, particularly the area that deals with the industrial assessment, because I believe there is a tremendous potential impact on industry in British Columbia as a result of this

section of Bill 58 -- particularly the mining industry. I'm reluctant, but I think it's important to recognize the tough economic circumstances that the mining industry already finds itself in. We've seen the

[ Page 8792 ]

mining industry looking at other jurisdictions across this country and North America, and indeed, many British Columbia mining concerns are looking to South America as an economic climate that is more advantageous for them.

The provisions in this

section of the bill would provide for the fact that, even though an industrial plant or a mine were shut down, the mine property would continue to be assessed as if it were an ongoing, profitable operation. The current tax system in British Columbia is that should a mine or other industrial plant cease to operate, the method of appraisal of that property changes. Rather than being taxed as an ongoing, active industrial plant, the property is appraised on its market value rather than on its cost and depreciated value. Obviously, valuations of a mine that's no longer operational are very low.

As a result, the tax responsibility for that plant reduces substantially when the plant shuts down. That's the situation that exists today in British Columbia. The effect of that is to allow a plant operator -- whether it be a plywood plant or a fibreglass manufacturing plant or, particularly, a mine plant -- to explore market opportunities, to explore the ore body in neighbouring areas and try to find a way to bring that mill back into production.

But the effect of the legislation before us will be to encourage the plant operators to demolish the improvements, relieve themselves of the tax burden, knock down the mill and remove the improvements at the minesite.

The mine near Houston is an example that would have been treated.... The outcome of that mine would have been much different had this legislation been in place, because the mine was shut down for three years. The metal prices and efficiencies improved, and the mine was able to reopen. Had the tax regime encouraged the mine operator to destroy the plant, there is no way the plant operator would have been able to justify the rebuilding of the facility.

The minister folds his arms and shakes his head and pretends to ignore the suggestion put forward. This is not only my

interpretation of this legislation; this is an industrial

interpretation -- it's an

interpretation by experts. It's an

interpretation, I suggest, that had the minister chosen to serve the people of British Columbia well, he might have sought when he was considering these changes to the act.

This legislation is going to be harmful to the mining industry; it's going to be harmful to small, resource-based communities; it's going to be harmful to industries that find themselves having to close down, whether it be from a shortage of material, a shortage of market or low commodity prices. From time to time all of those things have caused plywood mills, fibreglass mills and mine mills to close down.

There has been a very dramatic reduction in the tax assessment under the current regime -- an assessment process and a lowered assessment that made it reasonable for the operator to take a financial risk, to continue to pay taxes on the property while seeking other markets and sources of supply, or simply wait for the market to turn around.

This is one more attack on the mining industry, because mines will be most often affected by this change in the assessment. I am surprised, given some of the recent decisions take by the government -- the Tatshenshini and others -- and the commitment by the Minister of Mines, the Premier and others to support the mining industry.... Only a few days ago we heard the Premier say that the decision on the Tatshenshini was not an attack on the mining industry, that the government was committed to supporting the mining industry and that it was going to do what it could to assist the mining industry.

A few short days later we see ourselves with an amendment to the tax assessment process that will be harmful to mines when they shut down, because it is clearly most often mines, mine property and mine improvements that have taken advantage of the existing legislation and that will be captured in the changes to the legislation as proposed here.

I think there is still an opportunity for the minister to change his mind and to listen to the concerns -- because they're genuine concerns -- and to decide whether or not these changes that purport to bring more revenue into the province may have the opposite effect and encourage owners to destroy properties. The minister may not recognize -- having probably not gotten away from Victoria as often as he should -- that from time to time property owners, faced with high assessments and a lack of use for a property, decide to destroy it.

I could take the minister, in 15 or 20 minutes, to two or three substantial commercial sites in Dawson Creek that have been torn down because the owners couldn't see their way clear to continuing to pay taxes on property for which they didn't have a use and for which they couldn't in the foreseeable future identify a use. The same situation exists with industrial buildings. There are examples not far away from these buildings of plywood plants that have shut down because of plywood markets, and where the employees after a time have found a way to reopen the plant.

This legislation simply makes it more difficult for the owner to maintain the property and more unlikely that the property will be there when circumstances change. It is that particular objection that I have to this piece of legislation. I think it is poorly thought through. The minister smiles. We will listen with a great deal of interest to the rationale he has for this particular change.

I believe that it's going to hurt industry in this province and that it is going to particularly affect the mining industry -- the one industry in British Columbia that sees itself already under siege from this government and that sees every action of this government as one more nail in the mining industry's coffin. If it weren't for the words of the Premier only a few days ago, having made a decision on the Tatshenshini that was seen as a very serious message by the mining industry, then perhaps one wouldn't be as offended with this change. But it does have serious implications, and because of that I will be voting against this particular piece of legislation.

I will be hoping, perhaps, that the minister will be genuine enough to go back and examine some of the ideas that I and my colleagues have put forward on this section, talk to people who have some expertise in those

[ Page 8793 ]

areas and think about bringing forward an amendment that would change this

section of the legislation, or better yet, simply stand down this offending section. So I will be voting against this. We will be looking for some changes from the minister, but his attitude would certainly suggest that that's highly unlikely.

Hon. R. Blencoe: Most of the discussion will happen in committee. First, let me answer the comments of the hon. member for Peace River North. I'll be very pleased to send to the UBCM his comments attacking their request. At every single meeting I can remember for a long time, the UBCM have been asking for the things I have given them. Specifically, they are absolutely delighted with the changes we've made in terms of their remuneration abilities and expenses that were often challenged legally, which put local government members in great difficulty. I'll be glad to send your comments, and I'm sure they will be very edifying for many local officials.

[4:30]

In terms of the comments about the Assessment Act, I think the members know that the game they are playing is trying to play politics in the mining industry. All members are aware that there was a court case that came down with a specific change that put in question "industrial development" and "industrial classification." I have had to ensure, as the Minister of Municipal Affairs, that an assessment is balanced and that all sectors pay their fair share of taxes. The hon. members also know that if there is a concern by a mining company.... Take what we've done with Cominco, for instance.

A few weeks ago, I brought in legislation that allowed for tax breaks for Cominco to ensure they could stay alive and well, and I think some of the hon. members attacked that. I think you're trying to have it both ways, and you can't. All we're doing in this legislation is ensure that there's a fair system of industrial classification, and that the little homeowner in British Columbia is not affected by a transfer of responsibility.

With that, I move second reading of the bill.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS -- 44

Petter

Perry

Priddy

Edwards

Barlee

Charbonneau

Jackson

Pement

Beattie

Schreck

Lortie

Hammell

Lali

Giesbrecht

Smallwood

Gabelmann

Sihota

Clark

Blencoe

MacPhail

Copping

Lovick

Ramsey

Farnworth

Dosanjh

Doyle

Hartley

Streifel

Lord

Krog

Kasper

Simpson

Brewin

Janssen

Farrell-Collins

Dalton

Gingell

Reid

Cowie

Chisholm

K. Jones

Jarvis

Anderson

Symons

NAYS -- 7

Hanson

Weisgerber

Serwa

Dueck

De Jong

Neufeld

Fox

Bill 58, Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Housing Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 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. M. Sihota: I call committee stage of Bill 39.

MULTICULTURALISM ACT

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 39; M. Lord in the chair.

section 3 (continued).

Hon. M. Sihota: Dealing with

section 3 of Bill 39, this provision is the essence of the legislation and lays out the expression of policy on the part of government. In many ways, if I may say so, it's historical legislation in this province, because government, through an expressed legislative enactment, not only acknowledges the importance of multiculturalism in legislation but also makes an affirmative statement as to the definition and the context of that policy, and gives colour to it.

For far too long in a society such as ours, multiculturalism has been seen in the eyes of many to be an occasion where we share food at festivals and share a little bit about our culture and dance. This

section says that multiculturalism is more than that, and it enumerates in a very definitive way what multiculturalism should mean to British Columbians. I'm sure that all hon. members would agree that this articulation of multiculturalism policy is long overdue in this province.

A. Warnke: As I listened to the minister's remarks, I was somewhat impressed, so I will forgo

section 3 after all.

C. Serwa: Is it the intention of the minister that the Multiculturalism Act will apply to all British Columbians, with the express purpose that we're all treated equitably and fairly in all sectors of British Columbia? Is that the expressed intention of this?

Hon. M. Sihota: Yes.

C. Serwa: In what way will the minister be able to encourage, let's say, the aboriginal community to abide by the Multiculturalism Act? The minister is most definitely aware of this situation. For example, in many constituencies, including mine, a large number of non-native residents live on band land. Whether or not you want to call it actual discrimination, there is taxation without representation. The native community residing on band land does not pay taxes, of course;

[ Page 8794 ]

non-native residents do pay taxes. In band and council matters, the natives elect the chief and their representatives; non-native individuals do not have that opportunity to make their voice known. It may be what we call reverse discrimination; I really don't know. But it's fundamentally not appropriate. It certainly doesn't comply with the spirit of the Multiculturalism Act.

Hon. M. Sihota: Maybe I should amplify on my first answer and then speak for a moment to what the hon. member had to say.

Through this policy, the government is committed to fostering the ability of all British Columbians to share equally in the economic, social, cultural and political life of British Columbia. This

section requires that this participation be done in a manner consistent with the rights and responsibilities that every individual in society has. I think that embellishes upon the previous answer that I gave, which is to recognize that we are all equal but different -- and we need to celebrate that difference but also recognize that as human beings we are treated equally and with dignity.

With regard to the native issue that the hon. member notes, those situations have obviously arisen because of political conclusions found in our constitution -- the responsibilities that the federal government has with regard to the aboriginal population in the province and the constitutional non-applicability of provincial legislation. That heightens the feelings people have about the absence of taxation or benefits or privileges that may be available to one class of people and not to others. As I say, we can be equal but different in society.

Inasmuch as it may be disconcerting, I think people also recognize that the lifestyle often found on band lands in itself represents a remarkable inequality in the society we have.

[4:45]

Promoting cross-cultural understanding and respect is a cornerstone of the policy that we have here, of course. The legislation cannot correct the inadequacies or constitutional wrinkles that exist in terms of responsibility with regard to aboriginal people due to the non-applicability of provincial legislation. Those issues can only be resolved through the process of negotiation for which my colleague the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs is responsible.

C. Serwa: I thank the minister for his explanation, and I will accept that. But there is a concern with respect to the provincial government's commitment to this multicultural process. I'll give an example of the aboriginal community again. We treat two different classes of British Columbians differently in the eyes of the law. We have not constructed a legislative process or passed legislation to enable government to treat two different classes of British Columbians differently, but this government's policy is in direct contravention of the spirit of the act that we're bringing forward -- which the government indicates is their policy objective.

Hon. M. Sihota: We're going way beyond the parameters of multicultural policy; we're reaching into the responsibilities of aboriginal policy, or the development of aboriginal policy, and relationships between federal and provincial governments. I appreciate that certain laws are not applicable on band lands, and I'm sure the hon. member understands the reason for that in terms of legislation and so on. Yes, it does create some feelings between people, and I guess part of the context of multiculturalism is to encourage cross-cultural understanding and respect for those differences. That's not easily done.

I'm well aware of the sensitivities people have with regard to these matters, but that is to be resolved in the context of both aboriginal and constitutional policy.

With regard to multiculturalism, all we're seeking to do in this legislation is to promote cross-cultural understanding and respect for attitudes, and to recognize that we can be equal but different. But some of those tangible day-to-day things -- some people paying taxes and others not, for example -- cannot be resolved in the context of this policy, but only in the context of the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and what is occurring through interprovincial negotiations.

C. Serwa: Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. My concerns are, let's say, with respect to fish and wildlife and legislation specifically in British Columbia. The policy is creating an exaggeration or focus on the differences in what government policy will allow one or another class of British Columbians to do -- not on band land but on Crown land in the province. By that very act there is a tendency to heighten tensions, and I think that is inexcusable -- particularly with the professed intent of trying to reduce discrimination or racism, which is a truly noble objective.

Hon. M. Sihota: Yes, issues like the ones you indicate around fish and wildlife and access rights can indeed bring about strong feelings, add to sentiments of racism, or invite hatred among groups. That does indeed occur, and I recognize what the hon. member is saying. I just think that he must also recognize that we cannot resolve the impact of decisions, as they're made with regard to wildlife and fish and some of the day-to-day issues which arise, through this policy of multiculturalism.

I'm very sensitive, and I know that in the hon. member's own area in the Okanagan these are daily concerns on the part of the residents, be it fish or wildlife issues, or access to ski hills. These are ongoing concerns in his community, and I know that. We can't resolve those issues in the context of multicultural policy. In this context we can take steps to try to work towards building a society that's free of racism and conflict. But we have to take other steps as a society to reduce the indicia of conflict, by resolving those issues much in the vein that the Minister of Environment talked about today when he was questioned by you with regard to those issues in question period.

V. Anderson: On the multiculturalism policy, we have the goals or philosophy laid out here. I'm wondering if the minister would be able to provide us with some kind of programs or sense of direction. It

[ Page 8795 ]

stresses that it's going to be applicable to each of the ministries. But perhaps we can get some suggestion of the kind of program or application that this specifically has within some of the ministries.

Hon. M. Sihota: Thank you for that question, hon. member. All ministries are participating on an interministerial level to see ways in which we can incorporate these policies, and to be able to celebrate our differences within the context of the ministries we represent.

V. Anderson: I appreciate that, and I understand that there is an interministerial committee on multiculturalism. What I'm trying to get at are some of the specific programs or directions. It's one thing to have a philosophy, but you don't know the meaning of the philosophy until you get some idea of the program or directions into which this philosophy is trying to direct us.

The Chair: Just before you answer, minister, for the information of the committee, this area was canvassed thoroughly in committee yesterday by your colleague. With that information, if you'd like to proceed....

Hon. M. Sihota: Let me give the hon. member some examples. In terms of how we can deliver in a far more sensitive way, we have established a multicultural advisory committee within the Social Services ministry. In Advanced Education, we can use the opportunities available through the Open Learning Agency and Knowledge Network -- which are remarkable resources for government -- to encourage a better understanding of multiculturalism. As a member of a visible minority, I am well aware of some of the excellent work being done through the Knowledge Network in that regard.

Through the Ministry of Attorney General there are multicultural law camps and day activities. Some excellent work is being done with the People's Law School to make sure that multicultural groups are attended to through the law courts education programs that are available and some cross-cultural training in equality initiatives that occur within that ministry. There are examples throughout.

Inquiry B.C., in the Ministry of Government Services, provides multilingual access and the Centre for Executive and Management Development, which supports and encourages initiatives which promote a fair, equitable and diverse workplace.

Looking at the work of boards and commissions, this government has been taking a leadership role in making sure that the multicultural mix of this country is well and adequately reflected on our boards. There is a plethora of government programs. We are trying to bring them together in a more sensible way.

We as British Columbians should celebrate the fact that the we have such a wide diversity of cultures working in the civil sector, and we ought to make people proud of the multicultural heritage that they bring that benefits the quality of life and embellishes it for all of us. It's a wonderful thing we are doing within government, and this policy will go a long way towards making sure that it is not only captured in the ministries but also felt by people on the streets of Chinatown or at the Punjabi market.

V. Anderson: Perhaps I could pick up one of the words of the minister, because he responds very well, and I appreciate that. One of the words that he picked -- and I think it's an important item to bring into the discussion -- is that we do spend a great deal of time, and properly so, dealing with visible minorities. The question I was raising was about the invisible minorities -- the other aspect of that -- because that's an aspect that is often overlooked in the discussion.

Hon. M. Sihota: That's an excellent point, and I think the buzzword with regard to the multiculturalism policy is inclusiveness. It ought not to be seen as a policy that simply is an opportunity for those like myself who are part of a visible minority in society; of course, it ought to include those who aren't seen in that context. It is far more than just a policy which looks at people or asks people to showcase themselves; it celebrates differences and acknowledges that we can be equal but different in a society.

Consequently, in the development and encouragement of multicultural policy, it is imperative that the invisible minorities, as you put it so well, have to feel a part of the policy. They must feel the same kind of pride and commitment to the policy as those who come from visible minority groups. It cannot be limited in any way to visible minority groups.

There are people from all parts of the world who have come and made British Columbia the special place that it is. Because of that, whether they're visible minorities or not, it's important that their culture, lifestyle, experience, religion, language, food and essence be part of the fabric of society here. What we've been able to do in this country is a wonderful thing. The wonder of that thing must be shared among us all, regardless of colour of skin.

V. Anderson: One of our daughters is a member of a visible minority. I presume the other two daughters are members of an invisible minority. None of them, however, would like to think that any of them is a member of a particular minority of one kind or another. Living with it every day in your own family raises the issue and brings it closer to home.

One of the important things is that we're becoming a society -- we've always been so but are now more aware of it -- in which some 35 percent of our people are members of a mixed minority group. They don't belong to one or another pure minority. Increasingly, we are going to have that kind of multiculturalism in which there is mixed racial and cultural background. We need to be aware that many of the visible minorities are first-, second-, third- and fourth-generation Canadians. Many of those who are thought of as members of visible minorities, and their parents, have never lived anyplace else than in Canada. It's that kind of awareness of a new Canadian citizenship.

[ Page 8796 ]

I find a focus missing here. Would the minister respond on the focus of being Canadian, with Canadian citizenship? In my own multicultural advisory group, this is being stressed again and again by those who are new to Canadian life and those who were born and have grown up here. It's the common identity with Canadian citizenship in which they take pride.

Hon. M. Sihota: My colleague the Minister of Education and Minister Responsible for Multiculturalism addressed this issue the other day in debate, and I refer to that. As one who feels strongly about this policy, let me take the occasion to point out to the hon. member that I concur with a lot of the points that he makes. The notion of citizenship is captured by subsection (d), which deals with British Columbians living together "in a manner that is consistent with the rights and responsibilities of that individual as a member of the society of British Columbia."

V. Anderson: I have one more thing in that regard. I realize that we're talking about multiculturalism within the British Columbian context, but I regret that we don't put enough emphasis on the Canadian context as well. In many acts it's appropriate that we do it within the British Columbia context. When we're dealing with multiculturalism, however, particularly in a society where there is so much mobility and interaction, the Canadian context could be stressed.

Hon. M. Sihota: I guess one can always make points. Let me just make this one. We also have a Canadian Multiculturalism Act, and this flows from that broad federal policy. I hear what the hon. member is saying.

[5:00]

H. De Jong: I want to discuss that particular point further. The other day I was speaking to one of the leading members of the native community in our own community. He commented: "I'm getting sick and tired of governments separating us all the time by our heritage from the rest of Canadian society." I think the member who spoke just prior to me made an excellent point, which I tried to bring home the other day too in second reading debate: why doesn't

section 3(

a) say "to recognize and promote being a Canadian," understanding that multiculturalism reflects racial and cultural diversity? I think we're missing something very important in this bill, and that is being a Canadian. I'm not sure exactly what it says in the Canadian constitution, but why do we have to be so different in this act from the Canadian constitution? I believe that the Canadian constitution specifically speaks of Canadians, not of a society within a province or a country.

Those values that you talk about are enshrined in the federal legislation. Maybe they could have been incorporated in this legislation, but we felt that this ought to capture the essence of British Columbia. Of course we're Canadians first. But, of course, what makes us so special as Canadians is that we have come from all over the globe, and as Canadians we share our culture with others. We take a special pride, in a way that even those to the south of us don't, in sharing those cultures.

No one would deny that we're Canadians first; no one would deny that when we're overseas we take a look at that maple leaf and we point to it. At the same time, when we're here, we also point to the cultural heritage that your family and my family brought to this country. Neither you nor I -- of course, we know each other well enough, hon. member -- would deny that we're Canadians first and proud of it.

H. De Jong: The minister has made a good point. He's gone back to his beginnings here in Canada and how he feels about it, and I think he spoke very well. Perhaps I should also outline specifically why I feel so strongly about Canadianism and being a Canadian.

I was born in the little province of Vreeland in the Netherlands. It was a province that had its own language; it had its own provincial song, you might say. But we sang the national anthem just as lustily as anyone else in the Netherlands. I believe that because we were so proud, we had a strong patriotic feeling about the Netherlands. I do not believe that by continually, as this bill does, speaking about multiculturalism we will foster the patriotism that is required in Canada so that we can indeed stand up, all of us as Canadians, and sing the Canadian national anthem as lustily as we should.

On many occasions, I'm sad to say, when there are major community events where thousands of people are gathered together to sing the Canadian national anthem, it is a disappointment, because many people simply do not participate. That's why I so strongly believe that we must stress the point that we are Canadians, and we are proud of being Canadians.

Hon. M. Sihota: This doesn't diminish our Canadianness or take away the pride we feel about being Canadians. I'm sure that those Canadians here observing this debate in the chamber feel as strongly as you and I do about being Canadian. Those Americans sitting in the chamber today are perhaps amazed at the depth of conviction all of us in this House have about being Canadian. Nothing in this legislation diminishes

[ Page 8797 ]

that, and we know it. We know intuitively what we are, and we're proud of it.

Hon. member, I endorse what you say about the fact that that Canadianism is something that (

a) should never be