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

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, JULY 20, 1993

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 12, Number 12

[ Page 8943 ]

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

Hon. M. Sihota: Joining us in the gallery today from Metchosin are David and Jo Marshall, their daughter Rosalind Fuss, and their grandchildren Michael and David Fuss. I had the opportunity to meet these people at lunchtime. Rosalind, who is from Ontario, asked me whether or not the Legislature here in British Columbia is more civilized than is the case in Ontario. I assured her that it was, and I'm sure that all members will reinforce that later on this afternoon. Would all members please give them a warm welcome.

J. Weisgerber: I'd like to welcome a good friend from White Rock. Chip Barrett was the Socred candidate in Surrey-White Rock in the last election. Chip is joined today by his son Tim. Would you please join with me in making him welcome.

Hon. B. Barlee: On the east side of the House, in the visitors' gallery, is Her Excellency Lillie Chitauro, who is High Commissioner for Zimbabwe to Canada. She is accompanied by Mr. Wilbert Dumba, who is the commercial consul for Zimbabwe. They've come a long way. Would you extend them a warm welcome, please.

B. Copping: I'm very pleased to introduce a constituent, Belle Barbour, who is in the gallery today. She does a tremendous amount of work for the hon. Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks and also for myself. Accompanying her are Racine Barbour, Jennifer Barbour and Brianne Barbour. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. G. Clark: I'm delighted to introduce in the gallery a very thoughtful British Columbian, Mr. Vuksic. He is a constituent in Vancouver-Kensington, I believe. I ask all members to make him welcome today.

E. Barnes: I'd like to thank the hon. Leader of the Third Party for announcing the presence of Chip Barrett, the former Socred candidate. I fortunately got in the House just in time to catch his name. I'm sure that Chip will recall the days at UBC when I was his coach. He was a football player -- and a very good one, I must say.

However, I Will Say This: I didn't do a good enough job, because he didn't make the right decision -- but he's still a pretty good guy. I would like the House to join me in making him welcome as well.

D. Mitchell: I'm pleased to note that a former mayor of Squamish, British Columbia, Mr. Phil Turner, is in our gallery today. He's a constituent of mine as well. Would the members of the House please make him welcome here this afternoon.

Hon. D. Marzari: Would the House please welcome Mr. Michael Harding to the House today. He's actually here to witness the passing of the Cultural Foundation of British Columbia Act. He is the former executive director of the Jumpstart dance company and is presently involved with fundraising for the Burnaby Arts Centre.

Oral Questions

B.C. RAIL LABOUR DISPUTE

D. Symons: My question is to the Minister of Transportation and Highways. The central region of our province depends on B.C. Rail as its lifeline, and that lifeline is now cut. Considering that the government has been aware for quite some time of the possibility of a strike, what contingency plans does this government have in place today to prevent undue economic hardships in that area?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: I am fully aware of the possible economic implications of the strike. I am puzzled that it has occurred, as it was my understanding that the issues were being resolved at the negotiating table. It is my understanding that the caboose issue stands in the way. However, B.C. Rail has proceeded through two and a half years of process and has won the right to implement.... I have indicated support for the corporation on this issue. I have urged that they get back to the table, and hope that shortly I will be able to report resolution of the issue.

D. Symons: I note that the hon. party there is also in the caboose.

My supplemental is to the Minister of Tourism. The Royal Hudson is a widely known tourist attraction. Sustaining and developing tourism depends upon certainty and dependability of service. The threat of a strike -- now a full-blown strike -- is seriously harming the tourism potential for the Royal Hudson train. What is this minister or her ministry doing to alleviate the negative long-term impact that this labour dispute will have on our world-renowned tourist attraction?

Hon. D. Marzari: This minister and ministry are paying close heed to the words of my colleague the

[ Page 8944 ]

Minister of Transportation and Highways. We are both looking forward to an early end to this strike.

D. Symons: A very short supplemental, hon. Speaker: is that it?

Hon. D. Marzari: That's all there is to say. When a legitimate strike is occurring and there is a labour disruption, you take a consistent stand; you stick with it and you go with it. It is true that the Royal Hudson is a very important part of the British Columbia menu of tourist attractions. However, there are many more, and British Columbia does not have a shortage of tourists this season.

PREMIER'S PROVINCIAL TOUR

J. Weisgerber: My question is for the Premier. Yesterday the Premier confirmed that he would campaign extensively for Audrey McLaughlin in the next election, at the taxpayers' expense. Doesn't the Premier understand that the reason he's in his political Death Valley is that British Columbia taxpayers are sick and tired of this government's abuse of their dollars? Can the Premier possibly justify campaigning on behalf of the federal NDP at the British Columbia taxpayers' expense?

Hon. M. Harcourt: I would have hoped that a politician with the experience of the Leader of the Third Party would realize that the fall is traditionally a time for the Premier, for ministers and for MLAs to get back to the grass roots to talk with British Columbians. That's what I said yesterday that I'm going to be doing.

J. Weisgerber: Indeed, yesterday on a local radio station the Premier said that he and British Columbians were tired of the "yack-yack" in the Legislature. Let me tell you, British Columbians don't want to hear your yack-yack around British Columbia on behalf of Audrey McLaughlin, particularly when they have to pay for it. Will the Premier immediately cancel this tour, or will he at least agree to impose a moratorium on propaganda coming out of his government until after the federal election?

[2:15]

Hon. M. Harcourt: I can say unequivocally that I have never used the words "yack-yack." I can also say unequivocally that my duty is to the people of British Columbia, and I'm going to be out among them listening, hearing their concerns and telling them about the great future this province has. We have created almost one-third of the new jobs in this country. We're on to the Asia-Pacific, which is the fastest-growing area in the world, and British Columbia is the front door to that.

So while most of the people on the opposition side, whichever permutation or combination they're in these days, are going to be pursuing their own political opportunities in whichever political party they're going to be running for, we're going to be out taking care of the people's business.

Interjections.

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

J. Weisgerber: Well, at least one federal MP doesn't agree. Yesterday Nelson Riis begged the Premier not to campaign on his behalf. Will the Premier do us all a favour and stay home this fall to mind the business of the province of British Columbia, and leave the federal election to its own resources?

Hon. M. Harcourt: The reason Nelson Riis doesn't need help from anybody, including the hon. Leader of the Third Party, is that he won his riding by 10,000 votes in the last election. He is one of the best MPs in this country.

PROVINCIAL DEFICIT REDUCTION

F. Gingell: My question is also to the Premier. I appreciate that yesterday the Premier had a bad day when the Angus Reid poll showed he only had a 23 percent approval rating. But today is better: today the Premier knows that the Minister of Finance only has a 9 percent approval rating.

During the course of the '91 election, the Premier said: "We will not spend a penny that the people of British Columbia do not have." Eighty-three percent in this Decima poll say that they want to see this deficit reduced by cutting spending. When will the Premier explain to the Minister of Finance that this is the way it should be done? You have just stated that you are going to go out and listen to the concerns of British Columbians. Will you listen to the 83 percent, explain things to the Minister of Finance, and keep your promises?

Hon. M. Harcourt: This government has made it very clear through the budget that we intend to take a balanced approach to balancing the budget. We have reduced the mess -- the deficit that we inherited from the previous government that was supposed to be $3.3 million. According to the independent financial audit for this year, it is $1.5 billion -- down from the $2.4 billion that we inherited.

But that deficit reduction is being done in a balanced way, so we can provide a decent education system for our children and our workers who need to gain new skills; so we can keep medicare intact and bring about the reforms to health care, by investing in B.C. 21; so this province can create even more jobs; so people have some hope and a sense of the future; and so even more people will move from the other parts of Canada to British Columbia.

F. Gingell: Will the Premier please start to recognize that government jobs do not create economic growth? The only way we are going to create a balanced budget in this province is by reducing government spending. Eighty-three percent of the people say that that's what they want. Will you please explain it to the Minister of Finance?

[ Page 8945 ]

Hon. M. Harcourt: This government appreciates that those 32,000 jobs were developed by the entrepreneurship of the private sector. But that entrepreneurship needs a partnership with government to make sure there are roads, bridges, transportation systems, decent schools and health care facilities to provide the quality of life that attracts the knowledge-based industries, the value-added industries and the Asia-Pacific industries that are going to drive this province's economy.

We are cutting waste. We cut $40 million of the bloated bureaucracy we inherited last year. We have cut cabinet members' salaries by 5 percent and we have, at my instructions, maintained the freeze on MLAs' salaries. And we will continue to cut more waste as we move to balance the budget.

PROTECTION OF PATIENT PRIVACY

L. Reid: My question is to the Minister of Health.

Section 34 of the Medical and Health Care Services Act contains very specific wording to allow a duly elected inspector to enter a diagnostic facility to ensure that the act "is being complied with." Does the minister agree that the rigid requirements are intended to protect patient privacy from frivolous inspection?

Hon. E. Cull: The Medical and Health Care Services Act has the toughest provisions to protect individual privacy of any act that has been passed by this parliament.

L. Reid: I have a letter from the Medical Services Commission to a physician which requests that confidential patient information be mailed back to the commission. The letter quotes

section 34 as authority, and says it is part of a cost study. But

section 34 does not authorize random mail inquiries about confidential patient information, and it does not mention cost studies. Can the minister justify this flagrant misuse of a statute by her officials?

Hon. E. Cull: I will take that item on notice and get back to the member.

LABOUR DISPUTE AT CHILLIWACK CARE FACILITY

R. Chisholm: Eden intermediate care facility in Chilliwack is on strike, and the patients have not received even the basics of health care in the past two weeks. What is the minister doing to ensure that health inspections are being carried out in strike situations and that health care in the province is not deteriorating?

Hon. E. Cull: The essential services designations under the labour code ensure that there are adequate services provided in all health care facilities in the case of a strike. The continuing care division of my ministry does regular checks of all facilities in such circumstances. If the member would care to give me the information on that, I can tell him when the latest report was made.

R. Chisholm: The question is: what happens if it's not happening? The minister's health care policy is to move long-term care patients out of the hospitals and into community care facilities. The BCGEU is interfering with this government's ability to implement its health care policy. Is this what the public can expect from the government's new Closer to Home strategy?

Hon. E. Cull: What the public can expect from our new directions in health care is that patients in this province will receive health care in an appropriate place. Let me tell you that no patient or senior citizen who requires continuing long term care wants to live in an acute care hospital bed. That is inappropriate care. They want to be in those long-term care facilities. That's why we are creating over 500 new spaces every year to ensure that our seniors get the care that they deserve.

If there is any concern on the part of this facility that the levels of service provided under essential services are not adequate, they have recourse under the labour code to go before the LRB and get a revision. That is done time after time by employers if they have any concern with it.

The Speaker: Final supplemental, hon. member.

R. Chisholm: When Alzheimer's patients are found on the lawns or downtown, and when patients are not getting their medication or not getting bathed for two weeks, it's time for you to look at your system, hon. minister.

Will the Minister of Health instruct the Minister of Labour to intervene and restore quality of life to the seniors in this province -- and instruct the Labour Relations Board to declare health care an essential service?

Hon. E. Cull: I don't think the member was listening. I answered very clearly that the employer has the authority to have changes made to essential services if they believe there is a problem. My ministry has the responsibility through continuing care to ensure that standards are being met, and we're doing that.

GO B.C. GRANT TO KAMLOOPS INDIAN BAND

K. Jones: The guidelines for GO B.C. grant pay-outs clearly state that in the case of grants over $100,000, the pay-out is made in three instalments. The second pay-out is to be made after the project is certified, by an independent professional, to be half completed. In the case of the $1 million grant to the Kamloops band, could the Minister of Government Services tell us how the Minister of Highways, whose riding is in Kamloops, was able to have the second portion of the grant -- totalling $333,000 -- issued before the halfway mark?

Hon. L. Boone: I'm pleased to answer this question. It's not unusual to advance a portion of the payment if warranted, providing that proper approvals have been received. In this particular case, proper approval was received through cabinet. The Minister of

[ Page 8946 ]

Highways did not grant this, but merely delivered the cheque to the Indian band.

Point of Privilege

D. Mitchell: Hon. Speaker, I have given you notice of my intention to raise a question of privilege under standing order 26, practice recommendation No. 7. My question relates to unanswered questions on the order paper, requesting details of the government's use of contractors to conduct public opinion research and gather polling data. These questions have been on the order paper for more than four months. Surely that's more than enough time for the government to answer written questions. The standing orders of our House lay the groundwork for the information-seeking role of members of this assembly.

I would refer members to standing order 47(1), which deals with written questions in particular.

When a government refuses to answer questions in a timely fashion, it makes a mockery of our rules and parliamentary traditions. Furthermore, the government's refusal to answer written questions on the notice paper impedes my ability as a member of the assembly to do the job that my constituents have sent me for.

As a result, I believe the government....

The Speaker: Order, please. Hon. member, I have hesitated to interject and I regret I am doing so. But I want to remind the hon. member that he is only permitted at this point to state briefly the matter of privilege and is not permitted to debate or enter into argument on it. If he would conclude his statement and forward the appropriate documentation to the Chair, the Chair will take the appropriate action.

D. Mitchell: As a result of what I said, I believe the government is now showing a gross contempt for our parliament and for all members of our House by its continuing disregard for the standing orders and established procedures of this assembly.

Some Hon. Members: Order. order!

D. Mitchell: I would refer very briefly to Sir Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice, which states....

The Speaker: Order, please, hon. member. The member having concluded his statement, I must now ask him to forward the motion he would intend to move if the Chair does find a prima facie case of privilege.

D. Mitchell: I will conclude my statement by referring to Sir Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice, which states very clearly that parliamentary privilege is a right of members of the House....

The Speaker: On a point of order, the hon. Minister of Labour.

Hon. M. Sihota: I certainly endeavour to be as patient as I can in allowing the hon. member to state his prima facie case. But there's a difference between stating a prima facie case and making a political statement in the House, which is out of order in this instance. There are other opportunities and occasions when the hon. member can do that.

Hon. Speaker, you've ruled the member out of order in his statement. I would urge you to make it clear to the hon. member that his statement is clearly out of order, and he is to forward his material so that it's done in keeping with the rules, so that at the appropriate time we on this side of the House can respond to the point he's raising.

The Speaker: Thank you for your point of order, hon. member.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please. I repeat for the final time the request to the hon. member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi to now forward the documentation. The Chair has now got the gist of the point of privilege raised and will take it under advisement, hon. member.

[2:30]

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please, hon. members. I would ask the member to take his seat at this time. I do appreciate that the hon. member would like to finalize his statement, but the rules of debate are clear for a point of privilege: only the statement of privilege may be given at this time; debate cannot be entered into. I think that the Chair has given considerable leeway in this instance, and I hope that the member will now forward the appropriate motion to the Chair. The Chair will take it under advisement and get back to the House as soon as possible. I would ask the member to now do that.

D. Mitchell: Hon. Speaker, if the Chair agrees, I am prepared to move the necessary motion, which I will now tender to you along with my statement -- half of which was delivered today.

The Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. The Chair will take it under advisement and come back to the House as soon as possible.

Hon. A. Petter tabled the 1992-93 audited financial statement of the Provincial Capital Commission.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. Speaker, I call committee on Bill 75.

LIBRARY FOUNDATION OF BRITISH COLUMBIA ACT

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 75; E. Barnes in the chair.

[ Page 8947 ]

section 2 (continued).

A. Cowie: I would like some clarification under 2(6). I note that the members are not paid compensation; there is no remuneration. Does this also mean that the chair will not have remuneration? I take it that this is going to be quite an important and time-consuming job, which would not have any pay.

Hon. R. Blencoe: There is no pay for any members at all, including the chair.

A. Cowie: I also understand, from discussions we had this morning, that the 11 members will come from a wide area of the province, so I take it that at times it will be hard for all members to get to meetings. Has the minister established a quorum?

Hon. R. Blencoe: The usual rules of order are 50 percent plus one, and that would be the practice.

H. De Jong: During my municipal years I served on the Fraser Valley Regional Library Board for many years, as a member as well as chairman. From time to time we had meetings with other library boards and the association of library boards. There are a number of different kinds of libraries throughout the province; some are of a regional nature and some are of a specific municipal nature.

Why would the government want to establish a foundation totally outside of what is already there as an association of library boards? Why are they being ignored in this vital process of establishing a foundation? On many occasions during the years that I served, there were some discrepancies between libraries, whether they were of a city or regional nature. At the same time, there was a common interest expressed by all those boards. The real question was always: why do we not have more reference material? It was the same question with the city libraries, but perhaps even stronger with the regional libraries.

From what I understand, the idea of the foundation is that eventually -- with the moneys that are put into the foundation and the interest received from that -- they would be used for a specific purpose within the library system.

First of all, I don't see anywhere in this bill what these moneys would be specifically used for. I know that I am going a little bit beyond

section 2, but at the same time, why is this foundation board established outside of the parameters of that library association that is already there? Why do they not have an opportunity to make special recommendations as to who they would like to see? The government would not necessarily have to accept their recommendations, but why not give them a chance for some input?

Hon. R. Blencoe: I will answer the member's questions very quickly, which I hope will satisfy him. As the member knows, this legislation establishes the Library Foundation as an agency of the Crown. It will have the ability to provide 100 percent tax deductibility for donations to it, which is similar to other foundations established under your former government. It was also a recommendation of a 1988 task force under your government that this be done.

The purposes and powers of the foundation are in

section 5, in terms of what it is supposed to achieve. It has distinct purposes, and basically is there to foster growth and help facilitate library enhancement and, obviously, to collect funds on behalf of libraries in British Columbia.

H. De Jong: I know that

section 5 gives a very broad description. The moneys could be used for anything that's happening within the libraries. I don't see people making a donation for the specific purpose that it be used for operational expenditures within the library on a year-to-year basis. I believe firmly that the moneys derived through established foundation funds should never be used for operations, because those operations are there already and are being looked after. This bill needs to be more specific so that we can have some more confidence in the establishment of a separate corporation -- if you can call it that.

If I understand some of the following sections, this corporation also has the benefit of borrowing money. I question whether what is being proposed in this bill and the selection of a separate board are even in the minds of the B.C. Library Association, and whether they would want to have it that way.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I'm surprised at the kind of discussion that's coming from the Social Credit caucus. Everybody's in support of this piece of legislation. They want to get on with it. They want to be able to collect money to facilitate the growth of libraries. In

section 5 the purposes and powers are laid out. We fully expect efficient operations. We're going to have a board that can adapt to library requests. We're working with the B.C. Library Association and the various people who are given the responsibility of managing our libraries. It is a positive initiative to ensure that we can find extra funds for libraries in British Columbia, so I am at a loss to see what the difficulty is. Everybody is endorsing this. It came out of your task force.

It has been repaired in response to requests from the library community and to the pressing needs of the Vancouver Public Library. I don't know how much more I can say about it, but you can continue to speak if you so desire.

H. De Jong: I'm certainly not going to belabour this point beyond what I feel is correct. But I still think the minister has evaded the question as to why the B.C. Library Association has no input in the selection. Furthermore, I believe that most communities have a foundation within their boundaries -- I know that they have one in the Abbotsford-Matsqui area -- that makes donations to all kinds of public facilities in our community, not libraries specifically. That's something different again.

At the present time there is an avenue in most communities to set aside funds for the advancement of library services, or for the special books that are so badly needed within the library system. I think I've made my point. I do not believe that the government is on the right track in establishing a

[ Page 8948 ]

foundation basically outside of the B.C. Library Association.

C. Serwa: I listened to the minister when he said that everybody is in support of this bill. It's been my finding that everybody, somebody, anybody and nobody are often used, and they have very similar connotations. I think he is hiding behind a screen when the minister says something like that.

[2:45]

The concern we have is with the integrity of the foundation that is established. I appreciate the interest that the minister has put forward with respect to funds being 100 percent tax-exempt when they're donated, and the necessity for the provincial government to make the appointments. I'm not going to argue or dispute anything that the minister has said.

But I will argue that a truly representative board, which has the confidence of the system throughout the province and of the investors who would put considerable sums into this foundation either by bequest or by donation, has to be concerned with integrity and the true representation of the best interests of the public.

While the final appointment has to be made by the government or perhaps by the minister, the reality of the source of those individuals who will stand for that appointment should be put forward through the various regional library districts throughout the province, for example, so that we get individuals who truly have a long background in it.

We're cynical on this side of the House, because we see what has happened with legislation that has flowed through this Legislature. We've seen the political partisanship in the various appointments by this government. We believe that this is a good initiative, but if the minister is concerned with integrity, there has to be a better mechanism than the government itself, through the czar of patronage appointments, appointing individuals to this very important board.

If we don't do anything better than that, this whole concept of the foundation isn't going to fly simply on the fact that 100 percent of the donations are tax-exempt. In most cases they will be bequests of large sums of money, and obviously the individual is not concerned about the tax-saving implications of it. What they are vitally concerned about is how that money will be utilized to enhance the library system.

We are going into a potentially tremendously expensive cost to the library system, because I think the libraries of today and tomorrow are being changed quite dramatically through electronics and computer systems accessing libraries all over the world for resource materials.

This is a very important initiative, but it seems to me that a better, more responsible method of selecting the members of this board is quite in order. The minister has to seriously consider some sort of more credible process. Otherwise, this initiative will fail.

Hon. R. Blencoe: We can continue to debate this issue, but I think it's somewhat unfair of the member to prejudge the appointments and the integrity, credibility or honesty of the future composition of this board. I should remind the member that we have to work with -- the Social Credit caucus laughed when I said this -- the federal government. They have certain rules and requirements. One hundred percent donations are difficult to get, and we have achieved that with this legislation, but they have certain requests. One of them is that this be an agent of the Crown as in

section 3. They want to ensure that if that happens, it will be an agent of the Crown.

To answer the member for Abbotsford about directing, they were quite specific that people could not direct their donations to a specific library. It had to be to libraries in a general sense. Again, the federal government insisted on that.

We have gone through a lot of hoops to establish this for libraries in the province of British Columbia. As much as I can provide some comfort to the member in terms of my integrity, I shall do my utmost to ensure that the board reflects the problems of British Columbia and that we bring people to this board who have an interest in libraries and who will serve the citizens of this province in an honourable, honest way and with integrity. That's certainly what I will try to achieve in bringing forward names for the composition of this board.

L. Fox: Earlier the minister was surprised that we would be opposing the establishment of this foundation. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, we are extremely concerned, given the powers in further sections that this foundation will have, and that's why I put forth an amendment earlier on the structure of this foundation. Later, by the way, the bill refers to it more as a corporation than as a foundation. It's extremely important that this particular foundation be structured in a non-political way.

If it does not represent a cross-section of B.C., it will not have the confidence of those people it needs to make donations -- and therefore help the foundation meet its goals and objectives of furthering our library services in British Columbia. It's from that angle that we bring forth these concerns, because we want the foundation to be successful. We do not want it to be a political body, which would react to the government's whim rather than to the needs of the libraries. It's from that perspective that we bring forth this argument.

C. Serwa: I have just a couple of questions on this section. The minister indicated that the foundation must be an agent of the Crown. I accept that. But for my information, what type of autonomy will the foundation have? I ask this with respect to

section 2(5)(a), which says that the board may "determine its own procedure." I suppose the question is inspired.... If they are an agent of the Crown, then the latitude of autonomy is fairly important. I am familiar to a degree with foundations. If they determine their own procedure.... The donors, for example, will contribute a sum and that will remain in a perpetual fund, which will be invested. The interest thereby accrued, less the cost of the overhead of the operation, then may be distributed for whatever. I can only presume from this that the foundation can make a determination whether funds would be used for operating expenses or

[ Page 8949 ]

addressing fixed and variable overheads of library operations in the province, or they can make a decision, for example, that funds may be specifically used for the acquisition of new books, computers or materials for library systems. They may consider that funds from this may simply be an injection for acquiring capital and physical assets for libraries. I ask the question about autonomy to get some clarification on the latitude of the foundation determining "its own procedure."

Hon. R. Blencoe: I think it goes back to some concerns of the opposition that this foundation must not be perceived just as a direct arm of the provincial government. They must have some autonomy to set direction if they are to represent views or look at different needs of the libraries in the province. Consequently, they can determine their own procedures, conduct their own meetings and elect a person to be acting chair in the absence of the chair.

Section 6, which we have yet to come to, also does this, given that it obviously has to be an agent of the Crown. We want to make sure that, if necessary, the bylaws of the corporation established by the board are finally approved by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. There's an interesting sort of process. Yes, there is some autonomy, but agents of the Crown will want to ensure that bylaws meet certain criteria or are acceptable. That's normal procedure, hon. member. You always did that when you were in government, and I think that's straightforward.

There was also a question about the title "corporations." This is also in the University Foundations Act that your government established. It's traditional, standard legal language in these affairs; that word and that language is used in other foundations that your government established, hon. member.

C. Serwa: I can appreciate

section 6 when we get to it; we will certainly be looking at and discussing that, to elaborate on and clarify

section 6. But on the phrase "determine its own procedure," my questions were: at what point and how will the government intervene in the foundation's direction? The minister alluded to approval of bylaws being discussed later on under

section 6. But latitude of bylaws allows a fairly wide range of activities. Right now, this "determine its own procedure" seems to be an expansive term. The foundation itself may determine the distribution of funds -- as I say, whether they are to address fixed and variable overheads of library operations, or capital infusions. There are a variety of options that the foundation can address as the resources continue to build up. My question is: does the foundation have control over this? If not, what is the connection with the Crown on sourcing the direction?

If the foundation was only to acquire the funds from donors, and then the funds were turned over to Municipal Affairs, which oversees the library systems, then perhaps I would have less concern. In that case we can always attend to it in estimates. But in this particular case I don't know where the accountability or the latitude is in this foundation. I think that before we go beyond this section, we have to find out what "determine its own procedure" really stands for.

Hon. R. Blencoe: Staff have pointed out a good point: if you read

section 4 of the University Foundations Act, "Purposes and powers" -- I am sure that

section 4 was done under the member's government -- then you go through this

section 5, "Purposes and powers," it is identical language, hon. member. So we have obviously tried to use tried and true methods, and those foundations have worked well. In terms of bylaw control, again, it is the same as in the University Foundations Act.

I should also say that in terms of distribution of funds and property, we are getting ahead of ourselves; it is

section 11. But the provincial government would not need.... There is no requirement for the federal government to interfere or step in, unless they go ahead or beyond the bounds of

section 11 as it is laid out in terms of distribution. We may want to discuss that when we get to that section.

C. Serwa: What I would like to do.... I am prepared to leave

section 2, because it seems to be my best opportunity to look at the total picture. Before I leave that section, I would like to see some potential for reasonable latitude as we discuss subsequent sections, because they will relate to this

section to a degree. I think I have the latitude of the minister, and hopefully of the Chair in that situation, because it is an important issue.

[3:00]

The board determining its own procedure and its own course of action is something that leaves me with a substantial amount of uncertainty. As we address it in the sections that the minister referred to, which follow, we will try to develop a clearer picture on this. With that reasonable assurance of some latitude, I think I will leave

section 2.

Sections 2 to 4 inclusive approved.

section 5.

L. Fox: I think this is where we get into a lot of the nitty-gritty of the purposes of this foundation. I notice that in the first sentence of 5(1), we now refer to the foundation as a corporation instead of as a foundation. Then when we look down to

section 7, we see that this new corporation has borrowing powers. I wonder why we are referring to this as a corporation instead of a foundation, and why that shift was necessary.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I have already answered that question, and I seek your guidance, hon. Chair, on this issue. I tend to be repeating. It is technical legal language that is required. It was required in the legislation and also, to answer that question, it is normal standard procedure. In terms of borrowing -- and we are not even there yet -- if you look at the university foundations, it's the same thing.

[ Page 8950 ]

C. Serwa: Foundations are normally registered as non-profit societies rather than as corporations, and I have listened to the minister with his response. Whether it's the Vancouver Foundation or the Central Okanagan Foundation in Kelowna, virtually all the foundations are registered as non-profit societies and can conduct business and their affairs under that. I don't understand why, all of a sudden, we have to register this as a corporation.

Hon. R. Blencoe: The hon. member is like me, asking the same kinds of questions. An agent of the Crown is significantly different than a non-profit society; it's a different model with different tax rules, and those are the requirements of being an agent of the Crown, I believe.

W. Hurd: I have a brief question under

section 5(2), which states: "The corporation has the powers and capacity of a natural person of full capacity and may enter into agreements in its own name." Can the minister advise us whether those agreements would involve the incurring of debt on behalf of the corporation? Would they be able to enter into financial arrangements which might create indebtedness for the foundation or corporation?

Hon. R. Blencoe: We are again on

section 7. I hope the hon. member will note that a lot of these questions have been asked in advance, but I'm trying to be as fair as I can to the opposition. In terms of borrowing money, this is an issue that has come up before with the former government's establishment of foundations. The reason this is there is that it is required to allow the foundation to plan its expenditures on the basis of money committed but not yet received. For example, as in other foundations, this foundation may have a commitment from an estate payable over a number of years, but it has a project that requires funding immediately.

This will allow the foundation to participate in a timely manner in the project, as other foundations currently do. It has worked and been tested, and that is why it's there.

W. Hurd: Can the minister assure the committee that by virtue of the change from foundation to corporation the relationship to Revenue Canada in terms of issuing tax credits is fundamentally the same?

Hon. R. Blencoe: Absolutely. As a matter of fact, the term "agent of the Crown" is required. They stipulated that, long and hard.

C. Serwa:

Section 5(

c) says: "to receive, manage and invest funds and property of every nature and kind from any source for the establishment, operation and maintenance of the corporation and to further the purposes of the corporation." I would like to spend some time on this particular

section because I'm concerned with the lack of any limitation on the type of investment that the corporation can make. It appears to me that in normal foundations which are non-profit societies, and the Vancouver Foundation is an example, they are restricted by certain acts as to the types of investments in which they can invest the money that has been put in trust for this specific purpose.

In this particular situation in subsection (c), there appears to be no restriction whatsoever. Typically, when a foundation is structured there are limitations. These funds are provided by donors with the implicit trust that they will be retained in perpetuity; therefore they must be invested wisely to provide an adequate return, but in a conservative fashion to ensure that the money will not be lost through a poor type of investment. Perhaps the minister will elaborate on that.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I guess the opposition may be more familiar with this, in terms of where we're taking the wording from.

Section 5(c), hon. member, is lifted right out of your government's "Purposes and powers,"

section 4 under the University Foundations Act, word for word. It worked well, and we just went with what seemed to be working, hon. member.

C. Serwa: When you change the horses pulling the wagon, sometimes you get different results from the same wagon. Sometimes it goes faster and slower, and sometimes it doesn't go at all. So I derive very little comfort from the minister's statements.

Whether it worked or worked well or didn't work is a considerable question. Here we're asking the public, through bequests or long-term donations to the foundation, to put in money, and we have no design parameters on the type of investments that can be made. I don't know that there's a great deal of confidence and security in that.

People like to leave a legacy. One of the key attractions to this is leaving a perpetual legacy so that the dollars they leave can continue to work to better the society they grew up in and perhaps provide a better future and opportunity for those who are coming along. If the comfort from the type of investment is not there, then I again question the validity of subscribing.

Again I bring this point up, because whether it's 50 percent, as with the Vancouver Foundation, or 100 percent, it becomes primarily academic in the case of a bequest. Most of the monetary resources that have come to the Vancouver Foundation have come through the bequest path. So, without any limitations, there's considerable concern there.

Obviously the provincial government treasury branch carries on large investments, with some parameters, I guess; sometimes they don't work out. The Vancouver Foundation could manage these funds effectively, for example. They have a splendid track record, and in fact could manage the funds and take away the responsibility from this particular foundation. It's not an easy task to look after the effective management of funds.

There are a variety of options here, all in the interest of ensuring security of the donation. I know that the hon. minister is very concerned about the credibility and integrity of this proposed foundation. So perhaps he can give me the necessary comfort.

[ Page 8951 ]

Hon. R. Blencoe: I thought I was going to be satisfied with the track record, on this issue, of your government. However, I will add that

section 6, which we're to get to, does give you the comfort. We anticipated that there might be some provincial interest in terms of borrowing and investments, and if we so deemed fit, through bylaws under

section 6, we could limit or control their borrowing and investment if we found it to be a particular problem. But we don't anticipate any problem, hon. member.

C. Serwa: I perceive -- and I think the public would perceive -- a problem in this particular area. Would it not be cost-effective, perhaps, to have an organization like the Vancouver Foundation, for example, manage the investment of the funds along with their other investments? Again, I say that they have a splendid track record and a good return on the invested income with very prudent, shrewd investment advice. They have been very conservative, yet they have greatly benefited the province and have won wide-spread support.

Several years ago someone from the Kelowna area, as a matter of fact, left $1 million to the Vancouver Foundation. That is fairly great recognition of the quality of work they pursue and also their commitment to continuity.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I'll just re-emphasize, hon. member, that this is basically the same as what the former government did in terms of other foundations. I think it's interesting that this member is trying to find something here that could be a problem. Hon. member, this is tried and true. It's clear; the language is no different from anywhere else. The Crown does have protection in terms of bylaws. Hon. member, I should also remind you that the federal government has insisted that it be an agent of the Crown.

But in terms of advice from other foundations or linkups,

section 10 might very well allow for investment counsel to be brought in. That could be done. Another foundation like the Vancouver Foundation could be the counsel that is sought. There are all sorts of opportunities for creativity, and I think the hon. member knows that. I'll leave it at that.

C. Serwa: Thank you very much, hon. minister, for that opening. Hon. Chair, I have continued concerns, but obviously the minister has given a great deal of thought to that.

Section 5(

c) says "invest funds." Can the minister give me some idea of what he perceives to be the cost of this foundation as a percentage of income.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I don't have the exact amount. It's somewhat of a hypothetical question, hon. member. We expect minimal costs. There is no remuneration or anything else to deal with this foundation. There is structuring that is very similar to other foundations which worked exceedingly well in that area.

C. Serwa: Again, this is really important, because we're looking at the confidence and the integrity of the foundation. We have a proposal before us with absolutely no projections of the overhead cost as a percentage of income. That's why I suggested that what should have occurred is an assessment of other areas, such as the Vancouver Foundation, so that we would get that answer, because that's going to be a very important answer. I note that remuneration to directors is non-existent. Nevertheless, there can be a very substantial cost.

As a matter of fact, I remember reading that the most expensive president of the United States was the individual who worked for a dollar a year; I think he took it out in expenses, and he took it out very well to have earned that reputation.

So the concern is credibility. When we look at it, at the outset it seems to certainly be attractive, but it seems to me that a great deal more homework should have been done so that the minister would have been more forthcoming with the answers. Is it going to cost 10 percent of the income? Five percent? Minimal is sort of an ambiguous term. Minimal to whom?

Hon. R. Blencoe: Hon. member, this foundation could be as simple as 11 members and a bank account, which would maybe cost a few expenses for people getting to the meeting. If we have substantial contributions, obviously some of the operating costs may increase, but it depends on the level of contributions. I go back to what we've done with other foundations. We have all the flexibility and the power here to ensure that as an agent of the Crown, the government has a window in. We will have a chair who we will work with, and we have various procedures we can approve.

I can assure you that this will be a well-run organization, as other foundations have been, with similar language and powers to those that you established when you were in government.

[3:15]

C. Serwa: Thank you very much for your patience. I appreciate that. I still continue to say that this is very important, and I'm not really comforted by talks of past history. There will be substantial costs -- legal, accounting, audit, staff and facility costs -- as well as the expenses incurred for the directors' travels. They are not small costs; they're very substantial over the course of a year, and you can't ignore them. The trust responsibility is very grave, indeed, and the minister acknowledges and appreciates that fully. But it is not as if it's a simple type of operation.

It's a very responsible type of foundation that the minister is proposing, and they will have substantial costs. Whether those are wages to the directors is not a major factor here. The reality is that there will be travel and all the other costs I have addressed, which in the course of a year are very substantial. It's apparent that the minister hasn't even bothered to make some sort of assessment to understand what will transpire. A close hand must be kept on foundations as well.

Just because you have large capital sums in the bank and are bringing investment income in tends to promote -- if you have the wrong people involved -- a laxness in the system, and we must be faced with substantial overhead costs. When the minister says minimal costs, it doesn't really give anyone any sort of an idea. The track record of past

[ Page 8952 ]

administrations with respect to foundations is something I'm really not aware of. Perhaps the minister would care to divulge some of the good statistics.

Sections 5 and 6 approved.

section 7.

L. Fox: The minister referred to

section 7 earlier. He talked about the fact that there may be contributions made over a series of years and that the board may wish to call upon those prior to the receipt of the total donation. That alerted some concern in my mind, because my idea of a foundation is that you collect these donations, and they are put into trust fund. The expenditures reflect spending only the interest paid on the trust, not paying out the principal of the donation. It seems to me that borrowing on money that has not yet been paid into the trust but is committed over a series of years would actually be drawing on the principal of the amount that would be paid in. Is that the intent of this section?

Hon. R. Blencoe: As I read this borrowing section, it's identical to the University Foundations Act I referred to, which your government brought in. My understanding is what I said to you earlier -- that the foundation, like the university foundations, is given an expectation of a commitment from an estate, but it doesn't come all at once; it comes over a period of years. They know it's there legally, and they therefore can plan according to that. That's my understanding of what this intent is. It's the same as we've got in the foundations' borrowing, in

section 6, under the University Foundations Act.

L. Fox: The minister keeps referring to what he's pirated from other legislation. The fact of the matter is that in any bill, or any piece of legislation, it all flows together. Other pieces of legislation may control the borrowing aspect differently than this legislation does -- if so, I'm not aware of them.

I guess my concern is that if I, in drawing up my will, decided that I was going to leave a lump sum of money to a trust to be made payable out of the estate for some practical reasons, probably over a period of years, then I would be concerned about the opportunity for the trust, or in this case the corporation, to borrow on the capital amount. If it did, this would lessen the opportunity for my total donation to sit in perpetuity within that trust and to contribute to the foundation in an interest-bearing way. This particular

section may allow that board -- perhaps by bylaw, although it doesn't state that -- to reuse the principal amount, and that is a concern.

Hon. R. Blencoe: We fully anticipate that they will have borrowing bylaws. We will therefore allow the various financial people in government to take a look at those borrowing bylaws to see if they fit and ensure that they're not problematic, as we do with university foundations. Treasury Board or the Ministry of Finance can take a look at those kinds of borrowings.

In terms of your bequest issue, I think you're suggesting that you are prepared to put a bequest in, but only the interest can be utilized by the foundation. That could be stipulated. If the bequest were interest only, the foundation would only borrow the present value of the interest.

C. Serwa: I just have to challenge the minister's statement, because I don't understand a foundation where you will actually take the principal and spend it. The minister clearly said that you would spend principal. I just want to clarify that, because my understanding of a foundation is that the moneys invested are for perpetuity, and only the interest from those funds may be spent.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I think we're getting into semantics. If it's principal over time, we can deal with it. If it's interest over time, and that's the nature of the bequest, that can be dealt with in terms of the foundation. It would only be able to borrow the present value of the interest or the principal over time.

C. Serwa: I think the minister is just going to have to explain that a bit more clearly to me. If the bequest is made and the money is put in the foundation, whether it's specified or not, that money is put in trust in the foundation for perpetuity. That's how it works in a standard foundation. Only the interest or the earnings of that principal amount may be utilized for the purposes of the foundation. Is that correct?

Hon. R. Blencoe: Yes.

C. Serwa: Thank you very much. That was an important point to clarify, because as an agent of the Crown I wanted to explore if they had some latitude that normal foundations did not have.

The borrowing authority in

section 7 that we're discussing at the present time is a very unusual section. Certainly when you relate it to foundations.... My experience has been with societies or community-type foundations, and this capacity is not within that. It makes me wonder what the purpose or agenda of the foundation is if it is going to have to borrow or sell debentures. Is the purpose of the foundation, as expressly implied by the minister, an opportunity to source more funds to enhance the library system in British Columbia? Is it partly the purpose of the foundation to do that?

Is the real purpose to reduce the expenditures of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, Recreation, and Housing? That's what it appears when you get into borrowing, debentures and imposing a potential for indebtedness on a foundation.

Hon. R. Blencoe: No, hon. member; you are incorrect in terms of your last statement. Again, I refer to the University Foundations Act,

section 6; the language is the same as we're doing here. This is not the same kind of foundation that you're familiar with. It is an agent of the Crown, and there are certain stipulations and differences. Again, hon. member, there is nothing different from what your government did.

[ Page 8953 ]

A. Cowie: I'd like to enter this filibuster that's going on with a clarification. I heard the minister say that if I were to give the foundation $1 million, the foundation could not spend it. I think it depends on how I specify the money is to be put in. Surely the foundation could spend the million dollars; that is, it could spend the principal, not just the interest.

Hon. R. Blencoe: Hon. member, you could either give the million dollars or you could give the endowment of the interest for $1 million. It's your choice.

A. Cowie: Thank you for the clarification, because that wasn't clear in the answer to the previous question.

L. Fox: As I understand it, the trust is not going to be a trust in all cases; it's going to be a flow-through in some, and a trust in others. I would suggest, however, that if anybody is donating $1 million that they want to see disbursed right away, they are probably going to look at their own community or own area for a capital structure they can hang a name on. Therefore there is some recognition for their contribution.

Let me get back to the part of this

section that both the member for Okanagan West and myself are talking about: the borrowing authority of this particular corporation or foundation. If I, as an individual, have bequeathed X number of dollars to the foundation -- and, because of the situation within my estate it may take some time for that to become liquid to make the payment or to clear up the holdings, property rights or whatever the case may be in order to transfer it -- if it's a normal type of contribution to a trust, then the borrowing authority would not come to be.

As I understand the minister's words in this clause, all you would be able to borrow on is the interest that the donation would have created, and because you don't have it at this point, you don't have any interest on which to borrow.

Interjection.

L. Fox: I know, but it's an important issue.

If in fact the trust itself has made an investment from which it will receive remuneration over a period of months in order to meet its year's expenditures, then I understand the need to borrow in order to meet its expenditures in a one-time year, because its investments may mature at a different stage of the operating year. That's one issue. I could understand if that applied in that case.

[3:30]

But the other issue -- of borrowing on trusts not yet received by the foundation -- is a concern I have. The minister suggests to me which priority is the correct one: the priority to borrow on investments that the board may make but that do not mature at the appropriate time to meet its expenditures or needs for that year. Is that the main purpose of this clause?

Hon. R. Blencoe: The board may wish to accommodate your statement and

interpretation. But they also may wish to take up the anticipated or phased interest or money that they can fully expect from an estate, say, which won't be paid out all at once or will be paid out over time.

Section 7 approved.

section 8.

C. Serwa: I was surprised by the comments just a few minutes ago by the member for Vancouver-Quilchena, although I shouldn't have been; I've noted how he often votes with the government. But when he considers this a filibuster he's truly out in left field.

In any event, when we look at

section 8 I'm concerned again with the foundation simply duplicating other opportunities for investment. I can see the redundancy in the demand on individuals who are capable in the investment field. I'm concerned about the increase in risk when you have a foundation.

It appears to me that the only qualification is: "The board may make investments that a prudent person would make." I look around in this Legislature and, while they're all hon. members, I don't see too many prudent hon. members on the government side of the House, and I'm not certain how many prudent friends these hon. members have. I have a great deal of concern when the investment powers are limited only by that prequalification. It doesn't seem to inspire confidence or security.

I hope that the minister doesn't rise and respond to me: "That's the same vehicle the former administration utilized, and it's the same wording." I gave one analogy, and I suppose we can use a car: if you use the identical car and put different drivers in it you will get different results. I would like to hear what the minister has to say. I presume he's given some thought to this important bill.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I won't participate in the political rhetoric coming from the other side. Suffice it to say we will appoint people with prudence and integrity who can manage accounts. Hon. member, as you well know, we're a government that at great expense has managed to eliminate considerable deficit and mess that your government left. I can assure you that we can find prudent people, just as you could.

C. Serwa: I won't get into a debate on that, because it's pointless. I think the public knows better than to listen to the minister's remarks.

The minister has alluded to a number of foundations that the provincial government has, and they're all agents of the Crown. Would it not be reasonable to have one central type of investment authority that would handle the investments, rather than trying to find a diverse, new group of people who may have a great deal of knowledge and interest in libraries but very little in financial matters? It seems to me that the risk factor here is inordinately high.

[ Page 8954 ]

Hon. R. Blencoe: Again, I will do what the member said, the same as

section 7(1) in the University Act. I will take his comments under advisement.

Sections 8 and 9 approved.

section 10.

C. Serwa: In

section 10, again acknowledging that there will be considerable expense with respect to generating income from donated funds: "The corporation may employ the services of investment counsel and fix their remuneration." Again, why would the minister bring in this

section 10(1) when there are other vehicles which could be utilized more efficiently, reducing the risk and providing the necessary security and return to the foundation?

Hon. R. Blencoe: The member is talking about a high cost that doesn't necessarily exist. But I also remind the member that this is identical to

section 9 of the University Foundations Act brought in under your government.

C. Serwa: It is amazing to see the reliance on the wording of previous sections written by the former administration. I suppose we should take it as evidence of a job well done. Nevertheless, the reality is that if we are looking at a proliferation of government agents-type of foundation -- we will shortly be looking at another one that the Minister of Tourism will be bringing forward -- it seems only prudent and makes a great deal of common sense to seek some form of investment that would incorporate all of these funds.

You will have a lower cost for investing the funds, a more efficient management of a larger fund and, hence a more attractive return. So as well as the reduction of risk, you get a more handsome return and a very cost-effective approach. Surely the minister can clearly see that as we increase the number of these, and we have, it would be wise and prudent to look at some consolidation with respect to the financial management of investments -- sort of a joint-stewardship program of Crown agents perhaps.

Hon. R. Blencoe: There is nothing to preclude that. That is future policy. Again, I will take your comments as they are noted.

Sections 10 to 17 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. R. Blencoe: Thank you to my colleagues for their comments. I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Bill 75, Library Foundation of British Columbia Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I call second reading of Bill 76.

CULTURAL FOUNDATION OF BRITISH COLUMBIA ACT

Hon. D. Marzari: I'm pleased to begin second reading debate on Bill 76. The purpose of this legislation is to establish a foundation which will encourage private sector donations to the cultural sector by increasing the tax deductibility of charitable donations. In creating this foundation, as with the Library Foundation, we will help to ensure financial health -- but in this case, of culture -- through steady long-term investment.

This legislation is one component in a series of initiatives designed to meet a strong government commitment to culture. These initiatives include securing improved federal funding for culture, improving the economic and employment status of artists, and increasing the access for artists to cultural programs.

We've seen these initiatives carried out through ongoing negotiations with the federal government for increased funding through the establishment of the status of the artists' committee and through the development of new cultural programs. This legislation in particular speaks to our commitment to stabilize the financial future of the cultural sector. By bringing forward this legislation, the government acknowledges the need to diversify the economic base for culture by creating new mechanisms for investment.

This does not mean that the government has forsaken its own responsibility to the cultural sector. In a year where cultural funding has been slashed in other provinces and by the federal government, the dollars this government has provided to culture have remained constant. Against all odds, grants to artists and arts organizations have been maintained.

The foundation builds on our commitment to culture, and it sends out a strong message that culture is a worthwhile investment, which from both an intrinsic and economic viewpoint is very important to all of us. Every year culture creates more than $17 billion in economy activity in this country and returns about $650 million directly to the federal treasury through wage and taxation benefits. In 1989 the value of cultural exports was estimated at $1.3 billion, which is an increase of 44 percent from five years ago.

[E. Barnes in the chair.]

In this province we can't afford to ignore the economic impact of cultural activities. Our cultural industries, with little more than a minimal subsidy from government, have recovered the public's investment many times over. In return for the $16.5 million, for example, that the province has invested in B.C. Film -- the non-profit agency that administers cultural grants for film -- the agency has generated

[ Page 8955 ]

$148 million in film activity during the last five years. Meanwhile, production budgets for films shot in B.C. totalled almost $370 million, of which more than $211 million was spent directly here in British Columbia.

Our book publishing sector paid out more that $3.4 million last year in salaries and wages. We need only look to B.C. Ferries and see the B.C. book publishers' stand in each of our ferries to know that our publishers -- about 178 of them all told -- are doing very well. We anticipate sales of over $1 million in B.C.-published books on the ferries. Figures like these legitimize the fact that public investment in culture can be nurtured, given access and opportunity. Through the establishment of a cultural foundation and in conjunction with the funding provided by government, we can expect to provide a strong and integral base of support for the cultural sector.

Through the management and establishment of this foundation, we can create a credible, well-managed vehicle for the administration of charitable gifts to culture. If we endorse this opportunity to increase outside investment in culture, we can continue to enjoy the economic benefits that it provides.

This bill acknowledges that the time is long overdue for broadening the base of financial support for culture in B.C. in a way that encourages community involvement, acknowledges the already significant contributions of the private sector through meaningful tax incentives and recognizes the vital and enduring role of culture in our society today. With these objectives in mind, I move that Bill 76 be read a second time now.

C. Tanner: In standing to reply to Bill 76, the Cultural Foundation of British Columbia Act, the Liberal caucus is generally in favour of this act, which mimics the hospital and universities foundation acts with one major exception. Hospitals and university acts specify the institutions to which the grants will be made. This act is broad-brushed, and it is vital that the minister exercise great caution in who she appoints to the board in order to ensure that they are not limited in their vision to a particular cultural activity or affiliated with any political philosophy.

The minister, we understand, has had discussions with the Vancouver Foundation, which is one of the top five foundations in North America, and has generally been seeking their advice and expertise. We commend the department for its willingness to be guided by this experienced foundation.

[3:45]

The Liberal opposition notes that the recipients of grants from the foundation must be in receipt of a government cultural grant for the year prior to the application and must also be applying in the current year. While we appreciate the necessary control this imposes on the applicant and the foundation, we would not condone this process as a method for the government to back off from its commitments to the artistic and cultural societies of the province. The Liberal caucus would see some merit in a matching grant from lottery funds for the first year of operations as an inducement to kicking off the foundation.

As I stated earlier, the official opposition thinks it is most important to appoint the right people and chair for the corporation to fulfil its mandate, and we will be vigilant in watching the appointment by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. The Liberal opposition supports this bill in principle, and we reserve the right to make detailed observations on the 17 sections of the bill in committee stage.

L. Hanson: Bill 76 is obviously a copy of Bill 75 and accomplishes exactly the same thing. The purpose, as everyone I am sure is aware, is to allow public donations to fund the cultural interests of citizens of British Columbia, thereby gaining the tax benefits from that. I know that the minister has considered this and took

part in the calculations they did to arrive at the necessity to bring in this legislation.

But in the simplest terms, there is a competing factor out there for this kind of money, particularly the universities and hospitals, which get the same benefit under the same

section of the act. Now we will have the Library Foundation and the Cultural Foundation competing for that. I suspect that the benefits that the cultural arena is going to enjoy may have some effect on universities and hospitals and on other agencies that we already know are the benefactors of those kinds of gifts.

Be that as it may, I suppose a finite amount of money is going to be donated in any year or at any time, and there will be a number of agencies competing for that money. This act will in fact increase that competition and reduce donations to other agencies. Be that as it may, one of our concerns is that we wouldn't like to see, through the process of appointments, any particular sector of the cultural community take charge of the foundation so that the foundation wasn't truly representative of all of the cultural community but instead was representative of a specific group with a specific interest.

I think we have seen some situations where that may have happened. I guess opinions vary on the merit and benefit of the recent purchase by the federal cultural community.

I hope that the minister will consider putting in place some kind of examination process so that purchases with these sorts of funds, if they aren't dedicated, would reflect a general interest of the public in a cultural object. I think everyone knows the issue I am referring to. It has recently been in the news, and I suspect that that particular organization may have been captured by a group with a particular interest that may not serve all of British Columbia.

We will be addressing a number of concerns when we get to committee stage, but with those reservations, the intent of the bill is not a bad intent that we can't support. By the same token, during committee stage we would like to voice some concerns about the specific initiatives in the project and how it is formulated.

With that, I think my colleague has a few things to say.

C. Serwa: It's a pleasure to speak on the philosophy and principles of Bill 76. I am appalled and disappointed that the minister responsible, in talking about something that features such a high profile in the

[ Page 8956 ]

province, would take a full 4 minutes and 30 seconds to speak about the importance of culture to British Columbians. I am really disappointed in that, and I have to believe that the cultural community in British Columbia is disappointed as well.

When we are talking about culture, one thing that we note in the passage of a civilization -- long after we have forgotten all their technological gains and advances -- is that we remember a civilization by its performance and standard of excellence in the arts, be they performing or visual arts, playwrights or authors. I come from a community rich in artistic resources, and I am very proud of that. We have the Okanagan Symphony, for example, made up of musicians throughout the Okanagan Valley. They tour extensively and perform classical music for the enjoyment of many thousands of Okanagan residents, and they have been very aggressive in utilizing any opportunity for their performance.

Here we go again, hon. Speaker. We have a government that does nothing but knock the business community over the head with rules, regulations and legislation, and with taxation initiatives that are bleeding the very essence of life out of the economy of the province.

Then they have the audacity to turn around, cap in hand, and go out to the private sector and say: "Well, we feel that you should donate more money to the cultural community, because government, in its largesse, is not capable of providing the necessary support funding for the cultural community, and we have to hire more people." This is a rehash of the '72-75 period, when, in their largesse with taxpayers' dollars, the former New Democratic administration went throughout the province and bought all sorts of pictures that enhanced the visual artist community.

I don't know if sculptures were included in that, but pictures, which had been hidden and forgotten in a vault, certainly were. With the recent flurry of activity, I see that some of the more horrid works of art have somehow surfaced briefly, only to be pulled back off the walls and reasonable pictures put up again. The public has a great deal of concern; look at what happened at the National Gallery in Ottawa with the expenditure of millions of dollars for works of art. The most recent acquisition was, apparently, a steal at $1.8 million or $1.9 million, because somebody placed a value of $5 million on it.

It makes a farce of the whole exercise, when the money is thrown away in that fashion.

Culture is a very large part of our society, and the quality of life is directly dependent on the quality of the cultural environment around us. I don't for one instant believe that it receives the attention that it deserves. Part of the reason for that is that many of us have not had the opportunity to participate, whether it's in a school band...or perhaps through the educational process, to become more aware of the enduring value of the beauty of art.

When I look at the Cultural Foundation of British Columbia Act and recognize the tack the minister is taking, I might advise the minister that there are other options to create opportunities, especially with respect to the visual arts. For example, in British Columbia public buildings are going up with very little visual arts representation. It appears reasonable to conclude that many of the public -- and, I would think, private -- companies could be encouraged to dedicate perhaps 1 percent of their budgets to artistic aspects in their buildings, be they sculptures or other visual artworks.

We can take a number of tacks. Fundamentally, though, what is incredibly important is that the visual arts community make certain that the work they're doing has public acceptance. I'm a great believer that the artistic community cannot go spinning off in its own direction and believe that they can draw sustenance from the public or from the Crown. I think they have to be aware that there is a certain attitude that prevails, a certain expression of desire and a certain market for the type of art they produce. Even in the case of authors, there is a time and a place.

The pendulum does swing, but an author has to be sensitive to the market. If the author is not sensitive to it, then the creation is an artistic creation -- but with a limited market. Then the originator of that artistic creation, whatever it is, has to recognize the limitations in financial success. That's part of the reality that prevails and part of the discipline.

On the other hand, I don't want to see a society where we tend to prostitute ourselves to the market, simply to become artisans, and rather than creating works of art, simply paint murals or scenes that contain mountains, moose and Mounties -- which is the standard of Canada -- just because they happen to sell. In my mind, that's not art. An artistic picture is a unique creation, not a series of creations on a theme. The work of a true artist is to be genuinely appreciated.

While I took a few shots at the National Gallery of Canada, it is also nice to recognize that they have established one of the finest collections of Canadiana of any art museum in Canada: historical art by artists who took a great deal of patience and painted native aboriginal scenes of several hundred years ago and early French-Canadian scenes in a wealth of detail, so that we can study them from our present perspective and see how the people lived at that time and what they had.

Art serves a wide variety of fields. You have to be sensitive to the merits of the philosophy and principles of this bill. I have concerns in this particular field, and I will probably talk longer than the four and a half minutes the minister took. Because of my constituents, I have a great awareness of the value and the importance of art to all ages of the community.

I have concerns about who will benefit from the acquisition of funds in the cultural foundation, because earlier this year we saw the government hand in hand with the unions promoting labour art. There is nothing really wrong with that, but are we promoting labour art because of its origin or the scenes depicted? If you look at the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, now defunct, it really promoted that, not only in the visual and literary arts but also in the performing arts.

If we embark on that particular exercise and if the directors of the foundation have that political orientation, then I would suggest that the confidence of any potential donor has to be diminished. I think other speakers said earlier that art really should be apolitical. Art is to be

[ Page 8957 ]

enjoyed by everyone. Because of that perspective, you should not try to impose some political will through the artistic community. I think that the minister is acutely aware of my concerns there, and hopefully shares those concerns.

[4:00]

I think the bill is well-intentioned, because it attempts to encourage more private sector donations to the arts and to cultural activities. We are all enriched, whether a performance in the performing arts is by a little theatre group or by a professional organization. In my community we have Sunshine Theatre, which puts on a number of plays in the summertime. The minister is quite right: it certainly is noteworthy that it is part of the economic activity of the community.

It attracts tourists year after year for the performances, and certainly enhances the opportunity of the community to participate in good-quality entertainment. A number of those plays are very clever, and the quality of the actors is really outstanding, superb. So we all tend to be enriched.

While I agree that the philosophy and principles are well-intentioned, I suggest that the bill with its flaws will perhaps fail to deliver the type of fundraising vehicle that it's designed to achieve. Fundamentally, the potential donor has to have confidence in the foundation, confidence in the direction that it's going in, and confidence that it will represent a wide variety of interests -- all perspectives in the directors of the foundation.

You are obviously going to have to have a foundation board that represents business interests, so that you have the experience of fiscal management if the foundation is going to be well managed. Artists are a strange group of people: they get self-infused with excitement, and they tend to be zealots in their particular field. Common sense and prudent management of affairs are generally overwhelmed by this positive excitement to want to do and to accomplish, and then we have what is often a legacy of debt that somebody has to pick up. It's not simply the artistic community; I think it's widespread.

We know the fiscal problems the Vancouver Symphony Orchestra has. It has been bailed out by the provincial government, and it is still having difficulty.

There has to be some sort of opportunity to encourage prudent management and the selection of programs that appeal more to the large masses of individuals, so that they participate and become interested. Slowly, over a period of time, we encourage them to be more readily educated in the appreciative aspect of all the forms of art, and to become more ardent supporters. Whether it's a touring art gallery display or something else -- and we have a very fine art gallery associated at the present time with the Kelowna museum -- the community has to be encouraged.

The tax matters, which seem to be a very strong and significant aspect of the Cultural Foundation, as of the Library Foundation, are not anywhere near as significant as they would appear. It makes very little difference to the small donations, which I think the minister would hope to encourage through this act. To the large donations that will probably come in as bequests, it makes no difference at all.

Fundamentally, what is of primary concern is the security of the fund as a living fund, as a legacy of the individual who really cares greatly and is willing to put their money where their mouth is in this particular case, to encourage and foster the artistic community throughout British Columbia -- whatever their specific field of interest would be. There are a number of aspects and elements with respect to the foundation other than relying simply on being 100 percent tax-exempt. Other than perhaps for some temporary problems of large corporations, I don't even see that occurring.

I feel that a great deal of diligence and care have to be exercised by the part of the minister in the selection of directors so that they represent all sorts of interests -- perhaps many elements of the artistic community as well as representatives of the business community and those who simply appreciate and value. It's a very significant and responsible task for a relatively small number of individuals.

I talked earlier about the National Gallery and some of the areas where it is losing its credibility among the public at large. This is a great concern of mine, if we are going to build a much stronger artistic community. If the representations to potential donors to the foundation are going to be successful, and if the representations for getting a greater allocation of provincial dollars for the artistic community are going to be successful, then the choices, and the selection of the venues, have to be made so that the public can readily understand and appreciate the art.

The case of the National Gallery and the charade that has been carried on with the two acquisitions, one very recently and the other one a year or two ago, doesn't inspire a great deal of confidence in those who rise to the top echelons in the artistic community and who become influential in the choices. There are a number of concerns here, all of which relate to the credibility of the foundation.

In any event, I think it's clear that this bill requires input and approval from the community at large. It must meet the approval of the entire cultural community in the selection of directors. Whether authors, playwrights, performing or visual artists, it is imperative that that broad range of appeal be structured in order to make this act successful.

I will voice my concerns here while we have the latitude of exploring the philosophy and principles. As I have emphasized, one of the primary concerns is with the selection of the members of the Cultural Foundation. It is clearly a very important task, and if we are going to go through a charade of appointing NDP supporters who will continue as zealots in that field, then this initiative, no matter how well intentioned, is doomed to failure -- not to say anything to diminish the quality of those individuals; I have no difficulty with that. Gifts are given by the good Lord, and all individuals have that ability.

Obviously, many individuals in society who support the current government are gifted individuals and have a strong background.... I am suggesting that if you have only those individuals represented in the foundation, you are not going to get the diversity that I would expect from either the artistic community or the public at

[ Page 8958 ]

large. Again, it depends how committed the minister is to the concept of encouraging and fostering this, and the first evidence of that will be the selection of the directors of the foundation.

We are well aware that it has to be seen as an agent of the Crown, and the Crown will have to appoint these individuals. I again emphasize that the appointments cannot be made simply out of the artistic community, but have to represent the global community, both the individual who appreciates art.... Hopefully, that same individual has some background in business experience so that prudent management of the fiscal affairs of the foundation are held well in hand.

I believe that the bill represents a good idea, but probably an idea that will not be successful unless some sensitivity is shown on the part of the minister for accommodation in the legislation when it's brought forward in committee stage.

In concluding my remarks, I appreciate this initiative. As I have said, there are other ways of encouraging the artistic community, and they all have to be utilized if we are going to build a strong artistic community. Hopefully, the minister is as committed to this as she appears to be, and that presentations will be made to the federal government, because it is my understanding that of the 12 provinces in Canada, we are twelfth in the line of federal assistance to the arts and cultural community.

When the minister talks about constant dollars being the same as in the previous budget, I am not certain that is really saying very much. I am not aware of the commitment of the present government. I am well aware of the inflationary aspect of it and that the dollar really doesn't go as far as it used to.

With that, I will conclude my remarks -- to the joy of the Minister of Tourism -- and indicate that during Committee of the Whole we will be challenging the Minister of Tourism to modify the legislation to make it more responsible and more representative, thereby enhancing, I hope, the potential for success of the Cultural Foundation of British Columbia Act.

W. Hurd: I want to make reference to the tax and economic advantages of the idea of a foundation. I think it's significant to read into the record that,

whereas a donation to a private charity is only eligible for a 20 percent tax deduction, 100 percent of the value of a donation to a foundation is tax-deductible, up to the amount of the income of the person donating the money. Contrary to the remarks from the hon. member for Okanagan West, I think the only people being milked are the federal government. Clearly this is a tax advantage.

One wonders how long the federal government will be willing to support the idea of a trust, established by the Crown, that appears to exist primarily for tax advantages. While the concept of encouraging donations in kind for artistic endeavours in British Columbia is good, I wonder whether the federal government, in due course, will look upon this as a form of reverse downloading -- something the government has talked about at length and that I think we in committee may want to explore in certain aspects of this bill.

But obviously the tax ramifications are the key reasons for both Bill 75 and Bill 76. I suppose one can't blame the provincial government, during an age of restraint, for trying to encourage this kind of donation when such a tax advantage exists at the federal level.

Deputy Speaker: The hon. minister closes debate.

Hon. D. Marzari: I believe the last speaker had it right. This bill presents a mechanism -- simply a mechanism, a tool, another means of developing new partnerships -- to pull money into culture and the arts. Many people around this chamber have spoken to the value of art to the community, how important it is and how we enjoy it at the local community level, right from the small performing theatre all the way up to the most famous artist doing a new oil or abstract.

Everyone wants to speak to the value of our art, dance companies, symphonies, performing artists -- and the film community in British Columbia, one of the best in the world. People want to speak of the value of the cultural and economic contributions that the arts make.

[4:15]

But when it comes right down to it, what we need is an infusion of dollars into the arts such as the church provided in the fifteenth century, rich patrons provided in the sixteenth century, and the Canada Council and arts policies of various provinces in our country have provided over the last number of years. The time has come in the 1990s for us as provincial taxpayers to look to other sources of funds for the arts. One of those sources is most definitely -- in our case most particularly -- our federal government.

Do you know that British Columbia has 12.5 percent of the total population of Canada? In fact, we contribute a tremendous amount to the arts across this country. Our artists are renowned across the country and internationally for their dance, visual and literary arts. We have contributed a great deal. Yet the funding we receive into this province from the federal government for the arts is something like 5.5 percent of the total contribution the federal government makes to the arts across this country. This has been a longstanding relationship, and it's one this government has attempted to redress.

We are basically attempting to put out new vehicles, create new mechanisms and develop new wheels for the car, so that this province, British Columbia, can develop new working relationships with different communities within B.C., and most particularly and emphatically with the federal government. By developing this foundation, we are in fact creating a vehicle. By not collecting revenue, the federal government is in fact putting money into our pockets for culture, and this vehicle, the Cultural Foundation of British Columbia, does that.

We cannot say at this juncture how much money this vehicle will collect or whether or not it will be successful. But it is absolutely imperative that this foundation have the credibility that the opposition and the third party speak about. It is absolutely imperative that this foundation be accountable. And these two basic criteria are built into the structure of the act itself.

[ Page 8959 ]

Money that is granted by the foundation will have to be tied into provincial grants and the provincial granting structure which, I may add, has been operating diligently in this province for many years. Most notably, the Arts Board of British Columbia is a group of basic volunteers who are brought together three or four times a year to adjudicate and do peer review on everything from performing arts and festivals to visual arts and literary arts in our province. It's a very credible operation, a very efficient operation and a very underfunded operation.

But the Arts Board of British Columbia has developed, I believe, an accountability and a credibility across this province and across the country as well.

Nothing in this foundation flies in the face of what we have already done. Nothing in this foundation detracts from the credibility that arts funding in this province already has. Nothing in this foundation takes away from the infrastructure or from existing funding patterns. In fact, everything in this foundation enhances, facilitates and puts us in British Columbia one step forward -- in fact, one step ahead of many other provinces -- in terms of attracting federal money to this new vehicle that we have created to create a new partnership.

I thank the opposition and the third party for having raised their concerns and for having gone through the bill. What concerns me now is whether or not they have the gumption to go to committee stage now, so that we can all put our money where our mouths are and say yes to this bill at committee stage. Let's put the concerns on the table clause by clause right now, this afternoon, while the cultural services branch and finance staff are waiting. It's time to open the egg and scramble the omelette, and I ask my colleagues on the other side of the House to agree with me when I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered, by leave, now.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. minister, I would ask the member to make the first motion on second reading, and then we will get to....

Hon. D. Marzari: I will repeat the motion that Bill 76 be read a second time.

Motion approved.

Hon. D. Marzari: Hon. Speaker, I ask leave to move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Leave not granted.

Hon. D. Marzari: Bill 76, Cultural Foundation of British Columbia Act, 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. T. Perry: I call committee on Bill 77.

ENGINEERS AND GEOSCIENTISTS AMENDMENT ACT, 1993

The House in committee on Bill 77; F. Garden in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

H. De Jong: If the minister could give it, I would like a simple clarification of

section 2 as to who is exempted. I have some difficulty understanding whether the work done by the engineer is $25,000, or the work in total is worth $25,000, whatever the engineer has engineered.

[M. Farnworth in the chair.]

Hon. T. Perry: I am not sure which part of

section 2 the hon. member is referring to. If he could clarify his question it would be easier for me to respond.

H. De Jong: The area that I am concerned with is whether the exemption is based on the amount of work done by the engineer himself and in the engineering plans, as to the $25,000, or whether it is the actual construction value that is being engineered by the engineer that would exempt him to a total of $25,000.

Hon. T. Perry: We are removing that exemption, which would be for the total construction. The existing

section is contrary to the B.C. Building Code, which governs type of work, not the value.

H. De Jong: Then I don't understand removing the

section that says anyone who wishes to take up insurance is in the ball game. Will people have the confidence and assurance that should something go wrong on any type or amount of engineering to be done, or drawings to be made, they are covered by insurance? All the rest of them -- anyone who chooses not to provide that, or who is not taking off that insurance -- will have to state so to the customer they are dealing with.

Hon. T. Perry: The disclosure of liability insurance comes up under another section. In this section, we're repealing the existing

section 2(4) of the statute, which is contrary to both the B.C. Building Code and municipal bylaws that require an engineer to be involved in certain types of work. You can't say that the public safety would be compromised just because the value happens to come in at less than $25,000. Where the Building Code or municipal bylaws for good reasons require an engineer, it's the importance of the work to safety or good design that counts, not the dollar value.

Section 2 approved.

section 3.

[ Page 8960 ]

G. Wilson: I have just two very quick questions on this section. The first is with respect to the appointments. It seems rather convoluted, given that

section 3(9.2) simply says that there has to be a letter ballot, and that you essentially have to elect half of the members each year. I wonder why we have this split term stipulated in subsections (9), (9.1), (9.1)(a), (9.1)(

b) and (9.1)(c). It seems that the act has complicated a fairly simple procedure. I think I understand what's intended: you essentially have a split election so that you have half-and-half. It's covered in subsection (9.2.) Is the balance simply there for transition? It seems that it could have been done by a simple regulation for the bill, rather than by putting it in the body of the bill itself.

Hon. T. Perry: Yes, this is transitional, and the basic intent is to ensure continuity so that you don't potentially turn over all the members on a governing council at once.

G. Wilson: Is that consistent with the way it currently operates? This is really not a major departure. In reading it, it seems unnecessarily complicated. It strikes me that that is the way it proceeds now, so really we're not deviating at all from the norm. Is that correct?

Hon. T. Perry: That's correct. This is at the request of the engineers, and it's completely consistent with existing procedure.

Sections 3 and 4 approved.

section 5.

G. Wilson: Again, I have just a very quick question to the minister with respect to striking out "Provincial sScretary" and substituting "minister." Recognizing that it is literally just a housekeeping question, why was the striking out of 30 days and the substitution of 45 days implemented in

section 5(b)? I recognize that the first

section is strictly housekeeping.

[4:30]

Hon. T. Perry: Basically, although we try to give the best possible service, sometimes turnaround time is hard to achieve in 30 days. If the mail is slow or the minister is away on holiday, out of the country or preoccupied with something else, it gives us a little more room. Virtually never would such bylaws be of urgent importance. Again, it's with the consent of the association.

Sections 5 and 6 approved.

section 7.

G. Wilson:

Section 10.1(1) recognizes that "The council must issue a certificate of authorization to a corporation, partnership or other legal entity for the practice of professional engineering...." I wonder if we could have a definition of "legal entity," as to whether or not that would allow for an unincorporated practice. In fact, it might not be in our interests to have that under certificate. What exactly is meant by the term "legal entity"?

Hon. T. Perry: Again, this section, like all of the bill, was interpolated at the request of the engineers and geoscientists. It would be any other legal entity providing engineering services -- for example, a municipality.

G. Wilson: That was the answer I was looking for: whether or not it constitutes.... A municipality or regional district could have on staff people who would perform the duties of an engineer and therefore presumably would be certified in that category. The answer to that -- I see the minister is nodding -- is yes. It might be nice if we had that, simply for the record.

Sections 7 to 12 inclusive approved.

section 13.

G. Wilson:

Section 13 is two sections, essentially, with sections 24 and 24.1 repealed, and a new 24.1, which deals with complaints and investigations. I have some questions with respect to this. In second reading I mentioned that I would be raising a couple of questions on it.

It says: "If the association receives a complaint against a member, licensee or certificate holder, the registrar must designate a member to review the complaint." If you look at what has to transpire subsequent to that, I wonder if it may not put the registrar in a rather powerful and even potentially conflicted position, depending on the nature and circumstance of the complaint. If the minister would spell out how this new complaints and investigations procedure works, it might give us some clarification, and we could move on.

Hon. T. Perry: I'll take a stab at it, although I'm not an expert in the procedures of the association. This is not a new provision. The purpose of having a self-governing association like the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists is that it will protect the public. It is the job of the registrar to ensure that when complaints are made, they are appropriately investigated. The only thing new about this

section is that it's amended to include certificate holders. I think the reason for defining certificate holder to include a former holder of a certificate is that someone could not escape review or investigation simply by virtue of letting their certificate lapse. This is entirely consistent with good disciplinary practice.

G. Wilson: I don't take issue with that. Any time there is a self-policing or self-regulatory authority, one has to be very careful that an even application of review is provided in all cases. It seems that the registrar doesn't have any choice -- and I think that is good -- under

section 24.1(3), which suggests: "If an inquiry under

section 24.4 is not held in response to a complaint, the council must have the complainant, and the member, licensee or certificate holder against whom

[ Page 8961 ]

the complaint was made, informed of the reasons." Presumably, that means there has to be some procedure, which I would argue has to be covered under

section 24.1(2): "If after the review the member designated under subsection (1) considers that further investigation is warranted...." At some point some review has to be undertaken to make the decision whether or not to proceed -- some form of discovery or hearing. Reading this, I am a little confused as to how it is intended for that to take place. It's quite clear -- if you look at

section 14 and

section 15, which talks about how the discipline committee acts and decides -- that it is fairly straightforward. How it proceeds from the point of complaint to the point of internal discipline is the point that we would like some clarification on.

Hon. T. Perry: The essential point of this

section is to include certificate holders, which now means not simply an individual professional engineer or geoscientist; it could be a company.

The detailed procedures are spelled out in the bylaws of the association. I will attempt to take a stab at it again, emphasizing that although I am the minister responsible, I am not an expert in these procedures. It is both conventional and appropriate that when a complaint is made, an initial relatively informal investigation is made to see whether there is substance to the complaint. For example, a complaint may be trivial; it may be completely unfounded on matters of fact; it may be so obviously serious that the member designated under this

section can recommend to the registrar that very stern disciplinary measures be taken promptly. It is not unusual to ask a distinguished member of the profession to undertake such an initial review of the circumstances. The

section provides -- which I re-emphasize -- extending this existing practice to companies as a flexible mechanism to make an intelligent investigation.

In an earlier

section we approved the provision of increased lay representation to ensure that where the public had concerns, the professional body ought to be seen to be exercising its role of protecting the public. That is reinforced by increasing from one to four the number of lay people on the council who oversee this procedure.

G. Wilson: Under that section, then, if we look at the act as we see it now, ostensibly the minister is suggesting that the only difference is that the report is going to be assigned not only to the complainant, but the member, licensee and certificate holder. Is that ostensibly the only change, and other than that, the same procedure is followed?

Hon. T. Perry: Yes, that's correct.

Sections 13 and 14 approved.

section 15.

G. Wilson: In

section 15 we are essentially looking at the discipline committee and how it functions. Perhaps the minister could point out through the addition of subsection (6).... In the existing act, if you look at the discipline committee in terms of its structure with respect to the panels -- and I am assuming that we don't need to go back and review all of the existing act, but for the purpose of this debate -- the committee may refer a matter before it to a panel. A matter that is before a panel may be referred to the discipline committee or another panel, or an appointment to a panel may be terminated, and so on. Then it suggests under what is being added here that:

"If the discipline committee considers that a delay in holding an inquiry under

section 24.4 concerning a member, licensee or certificate holder would be prejudicial to the public interest, the discipline committee, without giving the member, licensee or certificate holder an opportunity to be heard, may suspend the membership, licence or certificate of authorization, or restrict the scope of practice, of the member, licensee or certificate holder, pending an inquiry and decision under

section 24.4."

That is a fairly major departure, and it may not be bad; I am not saying that it is. But if you look at it in relation to subsections (7) through (11) that are also added onto this bill, it does provide an opportunity for this discipline committee to have a great deal more power and authority than it does right now. You have to be very careful whenever a pseudo-judicial authority in the province is given the right to suspend a licence without the certificate holder having an opportunity to be heard. In British Columbia we have to be a little careful about that. Maybe the minister can tell us why that would be permitted under this act.

Having said that, I would like to look at a couple more subsections under

section 15.

Hon. T. Perry: Like the whole bill, this

section was requested by the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists, and supported by the Applied Science Technologists and Technicians of B.C. I think they are trying to learn not only from the Closkey commission report, which called for stricter protection of the public, but I surmise that they are also trying to learn from the experience of other professions. For example, the recent experience of the College of Physicians and Surgeons has taught that sometimes the regulatory processes of that profession and the interaction of that profession with the courts have not provided timely protection to victims of unprofessional conduct. This

section is intended to be reserved for an extreme circumstance where action by the association is required to protect the public interest. Of course, in

section 15(7) of this bill, provision is made for review by the Supreme Court in the event that the licensee, member or certificate holder feel that their rights have been prejudiced.

G. Wilson: I guess this is where there is a bit of concern. I am well aware that this bill has been drafted, in large measure, by the professional engineers. Nevertheless, I think that it is the role of government, and of the opposition, to look after the interests of the public, not the interests of any particular group within the public. We have to be careful that we don't simply allow any particular special interest group in the

[ Page 8962 ]

province to draft their own legislation and pass it because they think it is a good idea. I am not suggesting that we have necessarily done that here. In this, subsection (6) moves to subsection (7), where the discipline committee decides to act under (6), and there is a right of appeal to the Supreme Court, which is potentially time-consuming.... Perhaps, hon. Chair, I should wait until the Minister of Labour has finished with the minister, so that the minister might be able to participate in debate.

The Chair: Continue.

G. Wilson: In subsection (7), the question is an appeal to the Supreme Court, which could be a lengthy and expensive proposition. It then suggests that the suspension of a membership, licence or certificate under subsection (8) is not effective until the earlier of either the receipt of a written notice or three days after written notice is mailed to the member. It says, "mailed to the member." It doesn't say that the member has received it, and that's of some concern. In terms of the legalities of it, I question why we would want that and why the notice "is mailed to the member" as opposed to "has been received by the member."

[4:45]

I don't notice anything here that suggests that there is an internal appeal process that might be able to nip the suspension in the bud -- if I can use those terms -- without moving to a major litigation process in the Supreme Court. The minister might argue that the suspension of a licence isn't going to happen unless there is a really serious issue here, so that this is not something that would be done lightly, and I recognize that.

Nevertheless, where you have an authority within a pseudo-judicial body like this to withdraw a licence to do business -- and this is going to have a major effect on an individual or on a company because they will essentially be out of business -- there should be some form of internal appeal that might bypass a very lengthy and expensive Supreme Court challenge.

On those two points, I wonder why you would have in (8)(

b) that it's three days after written notice is mailed to the member, because the vagaries of the mail system are not always useful. And secondly, why would there not be some kind of internal appeal process that could bypass a rather expensive Supreme Court challenge?

Hon. T. Perry: Again, I emphasize that the purpose of the act is primarily to protect the public, and the purpose of the amendments to the act is to strengthen the protection of the public, which has been found to be wanting or imperfect. I think the intent of subsection (8) of

section 15 regarding suspension of membership is that the association will make a reasonable attempt to notify the member, which is due process. Normally under such circumstances letters are sent by registered mail and are delivered on time. It's the obligation of each member of a professional association that is self-governing to keep the licensing body aware of one's address of record and practice. In the event that an engineer or geoscientist absconds, the association can't be held to account for failure to deliver the letter.

This is something, again, which the engineers have requested. The disciplinary committee is typically made up of very senior members of the profession, and I think experience teaches us that they tend to be rather conservative and err on the side of caution. One hopes that it would be a very unusual event that takes this course.

G. Wilson: I know a bunch of geoscientists and engineers who are actively working on my campaign and are liberals -- absolutely in every sense.

I understand what the

section is all about. Nevertheless, whenever you empower a body.... I don't want to belabour this point; I am just trying to be very clear for the record. Subsection (6) is basically about a disciplinary committee. It empowers this committee to restrict the practice of a member, licensee or certificate holder, pending an inquiry and decision. This isn't somebody who has been found guilty -- at least as I read it. It's pending an inquiry. Maybe this isn't a good one, but for want of a better analogy, it's kind of like a roadside suspension because of a suspicion that you are under the influence.

Until you are proven to be under the influence, they suspend your licence in the interests of public safety, because they think that you are going to do some damage. It seems to me that that's where we are at, if that's a reasonable analogy.

I don't think that's necessarily bad; it is probably useful to have. But if that power is going to be granted, you have to be absolutely clear that you don't allow it to be used one step further where, pending any proof that there is a problem, you can effect an unnecessary delay or an unnecessary set of circumstances for whatever reasons. It could put this person out of business, even though they may be found not to be under the influence -- if I can go back to my original analogy. A roadside suspension is quite different from saying: "We're going to revoke your licence, and you're going to have to challenge us to get it back." Does the minister see my point?

This says that, pending this investigation, your only course of appeal to get your licence back is through the Supreme Court. Isn't it better to recognize that there should be some internal mechanism for appeal, pending this inquiry? Once the person is guilty, I understand it -- no problem -- but this is pending an inquiry.

Hon. T. Perry: I think we have to recall that the alternative to professional self-regulation is direct regulation and protection of the public by government. Professional self-regulation is a privilege granted by law to professions on the understanding that they are likely to be able to protect the public more effectively, more efficiently and more constructively than government can directly. It's not perfect.

The reason that we are amending this bill is that experience has taught us, through the Save-On-Foods' roof collapse in Burnaby and the subsequent Closkey commission investigation, that the existing regulatory procedures were imperfect. We know from the

[ Page 8963 ]

regulatory experience of other self-governing professions that they are far from perfect as well.

We're talking about an interim judgment made by a very distinguished committee of peers at arm's length from government exercising the autonomy of an ancient and very important profession -- not the oldest profession, but a very ancient and important profession. Perhaps an example might serve to illustrate the point. Were an engineer to become compromised by alcoholism, drug addiction, Alzheimer's disease, psychiatric disturbance or personal problems and begin to practise unsafely, it would be derelict for the association not to curtail a practice that might result in unsafe conditions for members of the public.

They must have the ability to intervene in such exceptional circumstances. It goes with that, that under principles of natural justice, it's also incumbent upon such bodies to proceed fairly. Their proceedings are subject to review ultimately by the court, and they ought to proceed in a timely way. I think we can expect that they will do so.

G. Wilson: On the advice of the Chair, I won't get into the debate as to which is the oldest profession. I take that advice wisely.

Coming back to this particular section, I guess that's fair enough. I think we need to point out that this is a fairly onerous power to be providing, one that has to be looked at with great care. Whenever legislation is enacted that gives an authority to that group, I think it's important that we stipulate that this is a body empowered to put in place a restriction on individual liberty to practice. Therefore that's a power that should not be wielded lightly but has to be looked at and used with extreme care, notwithstanding also -- and I take the minister's point -- that if the public safety is abridged as a result of those actions, there's a need to be able to act.

Let me ask my last question on this section. Subsection (11) says: "A discipline committee member who takes

part in the decision under subsection (6) must not sit on any inquiry or appeal with respect to any matter that was the subject of the decision taken under subsection (6)." Essentially you're suggesting that if a person in the discipline committee is making a decision to move forward to an inquiry, that person -- who may have heard that initial evidence -- then is no longer able to pursue that matter with respect to the inquiry itself. I question, in the provision and review of evidence, if that's a wise move.

It seems to me that there may be reason why there would be some consistency in terms of those who are reviewing documentation and evidence because of knowledge of the event. I can see the other side of the coin. But could the minister tell us why that was done?

Hon. T. Perry: This is an attempt to address precisely the concern that the leader of the Liberal Party raised a moment ago: every reasonable effort should be made to avoid the appearance or reality of prejudice or bias. The person subject to prompt disciplinary or regulatory action ought to have the chance for an entirely fair subsequent hearing, at a more leisurely time, by people who had not participated in the initial decision.

Sections 15 and 16 approved.

section 17.

G. Wilson: With respect to

section 17, I have a very quick question with respect to

section 24.41, "Court ordered production." This new addition allows the council to apply to the Supreme Court for any record or things relevant to an investigation or review.

I don't understand why that provision wasn't in the original. There has to be some reason why there would have been some provision not to have that included, and I wonder what has precipitated the inclusion of that. Could the minister just let us know why there is a need to provide the right of application in legislation as opposed to having that in the normal course of an investigation?

Hon. T. Perry: I'm not sure I understood the question. Let me try answering, and that will perhaps tell us if I understood.

The association in its disciplinary committee must have access to all the facts to be able to make an informed decision. The intent is to avoid or prevent the situation in which material evidence might be withheld.

G. Wilson: I understand that. But it would seem that this would have to be after the fact. If some evidence is presented before the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court makes a ruling on that, then presumably we're looking at something that would happen after the fact. I wonder why that evidence would not just be available as a matter of course. I don't understand what the relevance of the particular

section is. Why would that evidence not be available as a matter of course? I would have some real concern if we're dealing with a matter that is currently before the Supreme Court and disciplinary action or some form of investigation is being taken by that committee.

[5:00]

Hon. T. Perry: Let me try to illustrate again by an example. A number of years ago the College of Physicians and Surgeons of B.C. moved to emulate the practice of the Quebec college of physicians and surgeons.