[ Page 1351 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Election Amendment Act, 1987 (Bill 28). Hon. Mr. Veitch

Introduction and first reading –– 1351

Tabling Documents –– 1351

Home Owner Grant Amendment Act, 1987 (Bill 6). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) –– 1351

Ms. A. Hagen

Mr. Cashore

Mr. Sihota

Mr. Blencoe

Mr. Rose

Division

Third reading

Insurance (Motor Vehicle) Amendment Act, 1987 (Bill 9). Committee stage. (Hon. L. Hanson) –– 1356

Mr. Lovick

Mr. Williams

Third reading

Municipal Amendment Act (No. 1), 1987 (Bill 30). Committee stage. (Hon. Mrs. Johnston) –– 1358

Mr. Blencoe

Mr. Jones

Mr. Harcourt

Ms. Smallwood

Hon. Mr. Strachan

The House met at 10:07 a.m.

Prayers.

MRS. GRAN: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today we have Mr. and Mrs. Harold Leyenhorst, and Mr. Sicbe DeJong, along with a class of grade 11 students from the Credo Christian High School in Langley, and I would ask the House to make them welcome.

Introduction of Bills

ELECTION AMENDMENT ACT, 1987

Hon. Mr. Veitch presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Election Amendment Act, 1987.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, in speaking briefly to this bill, I'm very pleased to place before this House a bill which will streamline the election process in British Columbia and broaden the fundamental principle of free and open elections in our society. This bill will correct the misuse of the registration process, make registering and voting more convenient, and in short put British Columbia's election process at the very forefront in Canada.

This legislation increases the number of days voters will have to get their name on the voters' list after the writ has been issued, while eliminating the long lineups caused in past elections by voting-day registration. It will eliminate the misuse and abuse of what is currently called section 80 votes, where voters already registered in one district could register again in another. In some districts up to 83 percent of the total duplicate registrations, Mr. Speaker, were persons registering, thus voting, under section 80, while already registered in another district, resulting in persons casting an ineligible vote.

The bill extends to disabled and shut-in voters the right to vote by mail so they can exercise their rights and responsibilities as voters, without having to endure what is for some an extreme difficulty in getting to their polling place on election day. Also this bill removes the 12-month Canadian residency requirements for voters in provincial elections. As long as a person has resided in British Columbia for six months and is a Canadian citizen 19 years of age or over, he or she will be able to vote.

This bill also recognizes the right of people on parole from a correctional institution to vote in provincial elections. The province has recognized this right in the last two general elections and in by-elections, and it is time to change the legislation to reflect this fact.

In addition, the bill changes the timing for enumerations, bringing them closer to the usual cycle of provincial elections to ensure more up-to-date continuous voters' lists.

In concluding the list of significant amendments, the bill provides for replacement of the current metal, padlocked boxes with modem collapsible ones which are much more economical to transport and to store.

In summation, this amendment bill will continue the process of modernizing the registration and voting process in British Columbia and will help ensure that British Columbia remains a leader in the field.

Bill 28 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

MR. ROSE: Well, I'm a little concerned about the excessive explanation. We all love to hear the sound of the minister's voice — and he above all, I am sure, enjoys it — but, really, I think it's a bit offensive to the spirit of the practice recommendation, which doesn't really allow for commercials or debating the bill in detail. It sounds almost like a second reading debate he was beginning, and there is no opportunity for the opposition to respond. So if any other minister is going to introduce a bill — and on our own side  — I wonder if they couldn't really have a little bit more respect for the practice recommendation. Only recently, in the last two years, has this been permitted. I think it's a good rule; the minister was on the committee, and I think that he should be the first to be guided by that practice recommendation.

HON. MR. VEITCH: I'll take that to heart and, in so doing, I will table the 1984-85 and 1985-86 annual reports of the Ministry of Provincial Secretary and Government Services — in brief.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I call committee on Bill 6.

HOME OWNER GRANT AMENDMENT ACT, 1987

The House in committee on Bill 6; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

MR. REE: On a point of order, I might point out to the Chair that Bill 6 had second reading yesterday, and possibly we could have third reading on it today. We had committee yesterday.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

MS. A. HAGEN: Mr. Chairman, the amendment that we are proposing today is to strike from this bill the reference to $100 as a minimum tax which older people and disabled people with special dispensations will pay. It would mean striking out $1 and substituting $100 in 2(b). That would be eliminated, and we would be staying with the $1 basic fee that all older people and disabled people in special categories would have to pay.

[10:15]

It is a very simple bill, and this is a very simple and straightforward amendment. The amendment is proposed in the context of this bill, but it is proposed also in the context of looking at the needs of senior and disabled people in the province, and looking at their needs in financial terms. It would appear that this government, in its legislation and budget this year, is intent on hurting low-income people, and a very significant number of older people are low-income people. This bill, with the imposition of a minimum $100 property tax for seniors and disabled, is one of the most regressive of the budget implications for the average person in the province.

Yesterday I talked a little bit about some of the special needs which older people have in trying to maintain their

[ Page 1352 ]

independence, and about the lack of any coherent policy on the part of government to deal with the needs of older people across a number of ministries and a range of services. I talked particularly about some of the deficiencies that occur in the support services that are available to older people. I want today, because we are talking about budget items.... We've been looking at a whole series of bills over the last few days that have an impact on people's earnings and their disposable dollars. I want to talk about some of the ways in which the policies of this government are adding to the costs of older people, as they try to manage their very limited incomes.

As we know, in this province there are something in the order of 350,000 or 360,000 people who are over 65 years of age. In that group of people, as I have noted on many occasions in this House, at least 40 percent of them are officially at a level of income that requires subsidization from the federal government in the form of the guaranteed income supplement and from the provincial government in the form of GAIN. I would note too that those people who don't happen to qualify for those particular benefits tend to cluster just above the income of those people who do have some assistance in the form of supplements. So we don't have a very large number of people in this 350,000 whose incomes are anything but marginal in terms of the cost of running their households and looking after their personal and their health needs.

Let's just look at some of the increases that will be affecting older people as a result of the budget. First of all, there's an increase in income tax. As various members have noted, that increase is very much weighted against those people at the lower end of the income scale. There are regular increases in the Medical Services Plan, and even those people on supplement who have some forgiveness under the premium assistance plan are still seeing those premiums go up. Again, there are many people who fall just outside the range of guaranteed income supplement who pay the full Medical Services Plan premiums. I have had many representations from older people about the burden of that cost, that very essential cost, on them.

New fees for prescriptions and alternate therapies have aroused in the older population one of the strongest representations about the impact it is having upon them. Again, we have costed these particular new fees, these user fees, at anywhere from $200 to $500 per person, depending on the kinds of medical needs they have. We have from the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Dueck) a promise that he will be working hard to bring back hospital user fees. A good move on the part of this government finally occurred when they abolished those fees, admittedly after they had taxed people with an 8 percent surcharge and charged the fees for three years so that they were able to get enough money to cover off some of the cost of that for the next couple of years. But now we have the minister holding this particular threat over seniors, particularly people who have to make use of hospital services and for whom that added fee was a very heavy burden. They now don't know when, and if, that may be a burden that they will have to look after again.

Older people have added costs for transportation. Even with the fine program of handyDART that is available in some parts of the province, it still costs older people more to travel than it does able-bodied people.

I noted yesterday many of the lacks of service, which means that people living in their own homes have additional costs to bear in order to remain in their homes. This particular tax, this sudden increase, 100 times what many people were paying in the previous year, is the most regressive of the taxes. I know it has been said that many people will not be affected by this tax, but that's a myth, and a myth we want to dispose of very strongly today. There are very many people who will be affected. The property tax that has been covered under the homeowner grants has been $630 plus $1. That's now going to go to $731. For many people, in both the urban and rural areas of the province, that is going to mean a very significant addition to the cost of their housing when this bill is put into place.

We are, in this amendment, asking that the government not do what I remember the Minister of Health said he was doing when he discussed with us the imposition of user fees. We are asking this government not to decrease the deficit off the backs of older people, particularly older people who already have additional costs in maintaining their homes and their health.

This tax puts a totally unacceptable burden on a very significant number of senior homeowners. It's going to affect people still living in their family homes, not so much in the large cities but in many of the smaller towns and rural communities of our province. When we've travelled across the province, we have found that that homeowner's grant is one of the means by which people are able to plan to remain in their own homes. In the cities, it's going to affect many people who have chosen to secure their homes through buying a smaller unit: a condominium, a townhouse or an apartment. As I've investigated with the municipal treasurers across the lower mainland, I'm finding that a very large number of people living in that kind of accommodation are going to be suddenly faced with this added tax burden.

I have stressed over and over again, and I will continue to stress, that one of the most important things that we can nurture in our older population is some security in what they may expect in the costs that they will have to incur. What we need to recognize is that the things that we do in our taxation policies, in our fee policies, and in the services that we offer to these people are in fact cost-benefits to us, because the more we are able to encourage and to support the older person in remaining independent, the more we are able to enhance the health and well-being of that person, since his aspiration is to remain independent and self-sufficient, and the more we are also able to deal with the reality that for older people there are added costs, and some of those costs are borne by us, the taxpayers. Older persons are prepared to be partners in the establishment of programs and policies that will enable them to live in their own homes, with some planning and security and with the knowledge that their basic needs for housing and health care will be looked after. This amendment will deal with a very special population with very special needs.

I want to add one final point, because we so often do not acknowledge that within our regular population now there are more and more people with disabilities. They also are living with independence, with dignity, with self-sufficiency, as a result of policies that support them within their own homes. But again, we are placing an added burden on the families of those people who now have to face the possibility of additional property taxes, along with all of the costs that they must undertake because of their responsibility as primary care-givers for disabled people.

Mr. Chairman, it's obvious that the people in this House are not particularly concerned with this issue, and I find that

[ Page 1353 ]

disturbing this morning. It is an important issue, and one we should be addressing. We should, as legislators, be looking at the needs of this population, because of the care that we should be giving to quality of life, and because we as taxpayers have a stake in working with our older population to ensure that housing, health and predictability of government policy in those areas are things that we bring to that population.

I would urge all members of this House to consider the importance of this amendment, its significance to that population, and its significance to us as legislators of this amendment, in dealing with the needs of older people. I would encourage all sides of the House to vote in favour of the amendment.

On the amendment.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Chairman, I really do think I should make some reply, because of what I construe to be rather outrageous comments from the opposition side of the room.

First of all, I heard the allegation in the opening remarks that this government was deliberately — and this is an exact quote — "hurting" low-income people. Nothing could be further from the truth, Mr. Chairman. Every one of our user fee programs, every one of our revenue-generating ideas, contained safety nets to ensure that those people who could not afford to pay any increase in the cost of providing services would not have to, and at the same time to ensure that those able to make some small contribution toward an essential service were required to make that small contribution. And I emphasize small, Mr. Chairman.

[10:30]

We should remember that dealing with the requirement that a property owner in British Columbia should be expected to pay a minimum of $100 per year.... Dealing with that issue, which is the subject of the amendment, we should remember that the provincial government, in the provision of police services and secondary highways — those two programs alone — has a cost of $40 million in excess of property taxes received. It is a fact, and it's true and incontestable, that the property taxation system in the province of British Columbia for years has undervalued, and under-requisitioned from the rural homeowners, the cost of providing that service.

In recognition of the question of equity — equity so that all British Columbians at least are making some small contribution toward the provision of essential services for their welfare — we're doing this modest increase requiring a minimum of $100 per year for the privilege of owning your own home and receiving the benefits of those policing and highway services.

Even in those two instances alone, as I say, the cost exceeds revenue by $40 million. But more than that, the safety nets that are inherent in our programs are such that those people who cannot afford to pay will not have to pay. Anyone who finds the request to pay $100 for the privilege of living in their own home...can make arrangements to defer those property taxes as long as they wish. It is that ability to defer property taxes as long as they wish that ensures that no citizen in this province will be put out of their homes because of this modest $100 annual fee. It is absurd to suggest otherwise, Mr. Chairman, and I think it is important for the government to make that point.

Having said that, I would like to request the Chair to consider the propriety of this amendment. It seems to me that this amendment clearly affects Crown revenues, and therefore is an improper motion to be made by a private member.

I ask the Chair to consider that point of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment does offend standing orders, inasmuch as it does affect the revenue-gathering abilities of the Crown. But the debate got underway on the amendment, and the Chair wanted to be absolutely fair. So I allowed the debate by the member for New Westminster to continue and allowed the minister to respond, but now I feel that it is imperative that I rule this amendment out of order. We will continue debate on section 2.

On section 2.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Chairman, on the technicality that we have not been able to proceed with this amendment but in the spirit that we experienced here in the House yesterday afternoon, I would still have a glimmer of hope that there would be a continuation of that spirit that would consider some reasoned argument at this time with regard to the point that was being made in the amendment.

When we were referring in that amendment to the striking out of clause (b), I would point out that the minister stated in this House on April 21 that approximately 28,500 homeowners paid a minimum tax of $1. That's not very many. My calculations — not multiplying it by 99 but multiplying it by 100 — indicate that we are basically talking about peanuts that are going to be taken off the backs of these very lowincome seniors. It would amount to $2.85 million.

Mr. Chairman, I don't think that anything that has been said by the minister could possibly justify this type of mean-spirited, mean-minded approach on this particular issue. These people have paid taxes during their lives; they have contributed to this province. Why continue to take measures, combined with the problems with regard to user fees, that are going to make life more difficult for them, that are going to see these people having to receive institutional care at an earlier stage in their lives, simply because their quality of life has been diminished by this type of action?

So I urge the minister, in the spirit that we experienced yesterday afternoon, to make this change. It is his prerogative to do so.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Chairman, if the truth be known, I had not intended to speak on this issue at all. I was in the House waiting for another matter to come up. But I heard the minister's comments, and I must confess that that's what sparked me to stand up here and speak to this. It seems to me that the minister's comments are saturated in arrogance.

To say that $100 is something that anybody can afford is being totally oblivious to the living conditions that some of these people find themselves in. A hundred dollars does make a lot of difference to these people.

The minister says that these people are receiving all these benefits. They are receiving police benefits, they've got sewers, they've got this and that; therefore $100 is not too much money for those types of services. Well, that may be true in general terms, but the point is that these seniors have contributed to the wealth of this province. They are the ones who have been contributing all their lives to provide for all the types of services that we have in this province.

[ Page 1354 ]

The one time when they need a break.... In the past, the government, for sensible social policy reasons, I may say, has chosen to provide this $1 minimum property tax. So now it is deviating from that social policy rationale. It is deviating from the basic acceptance of the fact that these people have contributed all their lives. It seems to me blatantly unfair for the minister to take the type of position that he did — to say $100 is nothing.

I would urge the minister just to try spending a month living on the type of fixed income that some of these people live on, and then, on top of that fixed income, to try to deal with the other charges that this government has placed on seniors. Seniors in this province have been hit by a tornado in the last budget. It's not just the $100; it's the user fees and all the other hidden charges and extra expenses and taxes that they're being required to pay. It's fine and easy to say that a hundred dollars is not a lot in isolation, but when you begin to look at the overall burden being placed on seniors in this province, this is a lot of money, and it does affect a lot of them. The minister knows that we have the letters and the petitions and the phone calls to prove it –– I would suspect that, living in southern Vancouver Island, the minister's constituency office has been inundated with the same level of telephone calls and letters and petitions as mine and those of the two members for Victoria and, I'd venture to say, the member for Oak Bay. It seems to me that the essence of government is for the minister to recognize when they've made an error, and to respond to all those phone calls, letters and petitions that we've been receiving.

You have offended seniors. You have placed an incredible burden on the older people of this province. Here is your perfect opportunity to show some leadership, to recognize the tidal wave of concern out there in society, and to put aside this $99 increase.

It's a shame that the government, for pure rhetoric, has chosen to stick with section 2 in this legislation. The point has been made. It doesn't make a lot of economic sense: $2.8 million or $3 million, from a liberal interpretation, is the amount of money that the ministry is going to be picking up on this. I would venture to say — I haven't looked at the budget carefully on this point — that if you looked at all of the increases in ministerial allocations for supplies and so on . . If you added up all of the increases, you would come very close to $2 million. There are other areas within the budget where the minister could find $2.8 million; the minister knows that as well as everybody on this side of the House does. To try to justify this for economic reasons just doesn't hold any water whatsoever. In fact, it reinforces the argument on this side of the House that the sole, pure intention on the part of the government, by introducing amendments like this one, is to take a direct shot at the elderly population. It's grossly unfair, it's inequitable, and it totally ignores the contribution that these people have made in the past.

If the minister really had a cash problem.... It's true that this government does, through incredible financial mismanagement over the years by various Social Credit governments. The minister laughs. But the minister knows as well as I know the extent of the provincial deficit. It wasn't people on this side of this House that created that massive deficit; it was financial mismanagement by previous Social Credit governments and previous Ministers of Finance under that Social Credit government. That's why the minister is paying somewhere in the neighbourhood of $500 million a year in interest on that debt. It's this government that has put this province in $20 billion of debt, and it's as a consequence of its cash-starved position that it's beginning to make an attack on the seniors of this province.

There are ways to remedy that cash-starved position. There are ways to adjust revenues, and there are ways to adjust expenditures. There are ways to deal with the taxation mechanisms that the minister has at his disposal, to pick up that $1.8 million. But he's not doing that. So we continue to live in a society in this province where — it's an oft-used quote now — a teller working for the Royal Bank pays more in taxes in one year than the Royal Bank; or a gas jockey working at Shell Oil pays more in tax in some years than a corporation known as Shell Oil does. If the minister wants to deal with the fundamental problems of revenue-generation in this province, he ought to put his mind to dealing with the larger matters of fair taxation, instead of these nitpicking attacks on seniors.

This provision is disgusting. It's an attack and an assault on seniors in this province. It's about time that this minister put aside his arrogant comments and began to recognize the phone calls, the letters and the petitions that he's been receiving, and show, for once, a little bit of leadership, and put aside this provision and amend the legislation, or delete 2(b) of the legislation in its entirety. It's a shame, it's an attack and it's unfair. The minister knows better, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just before we continue with the debate, I would just like to remind hon. members that we are in committee stage. We were getting to the point where it sounded to the Chair as if it was a repetition of second reading by the last speaker,

We'll recognize the second member for Victoria, who is going to speak on section 2.

MR. BLENCOE: I am indeed, Mr. Chairman. But in light of the discussion that's already taken place from our side of the House, my remarks will reflect much of those comments.

Mr. Chairman, the minister has tried — perhaps not in a very valiant way — to defend this legislation, particularly in its impact upon senior citizens. But the point is that this budget and this Minister of Finance, through his budget, had dramatically affected the spending power, the consumer power, of senior citizens in the province. Whatever the minister tries to say and defend, and put forward fancy rhetoric, the evidence is there, the figures are there, the statistics are in. The user fees for seniors, for many of them using chiropractors, or Pharmacare, and those sorts of things, compounded with this kind of legislation.... Whatever the minister tries to say, the effect on senior citizens is dramatic. I want to say this morning that the minister's attempt to say that seniors can use the deferment program of only paying $1 or whatever it is and their estate will pay when they pass on....

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: Well, you know, seniors have pride. They have intense pride. They like to pay their own way. They don't like to defer their taxes; they don't like the bills to collect. They like to pay their taxes on an annual basis, and they don't want their family and their estate to have to pay back taxes. I am just appalled that this minister, who has served in municipalities and has worked with seniors and

[ Page 1355 ]

knows that they struggle to hang on to their property, has suggested that the way to get around this disgraceful tax on seniors is for them to defer their taxes. Seniors don't do that. When I served in the city of Victoria and you mentioned that to a senior who was struggling as a last resort, they wouldn't take it nine times out of ten. They wouldn't do it. They said: "No, I'll find a way somehow." Many of them didn't, though. They couldn't pay the taxes, and they sell their properties or they move into long-term care facilities, and of course the taxpayer has to pay for that too.

[10:45]

Seniors have pride, and what we're doing is nickel-and-diming them out of their homes — a little bit here, a little bit there. That's what we're doing. If this minister had any concern for the seniors of this community that he lives in and the rest of the province, he would on his own remove this section increasing the taxes payable from $1 to $100. In good faith he would do that for the seniors of the province of British Columbia, recognizing they have deep pride and don't want to defer their taxes as the minister has suggested.

They don't want to leave their families having to pay their taxes that they couldn't pay. It's an insult to them, and I and our side of this House and all the seniors, I think — the majority of seniors in the province of British Columbia — will not take the minister's advice and defer taxes. They want to pay their way; but they want to be dealt with fairly and honestly and not be nickeled and dimed out of their homes. We ask this government, ask this minister, to withdraw this section in the interest of fairness to senior citizens.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I just want to make some small response. I heard the phrase "saturated in arrogance." My goodness, if any party was arrogant about this question it has to be the opposition. They seem to automatically equate ageing with poverty. There is no obvious connection between the two facts. The fact of the matter is, the vast majority of elderly people in this province want to make their contribution and carry their fair load of taxation. I do believe that for those few who are not able to do so, the opportunity to defer taxation ensures that they can stay in their home. I suggest that we recommend the bill be considered for third reading.

MR. ROSE: It angers us over here to be the recipients of remarks concerning seniors and poverty from the Minister of Finance. I mean, I know he's not suffering from terminal stupidity, but there is something wrong with him if he does not know that 60 percent of those people receiving the old age pension in this country — the over-65s — qualify for the supplement. Now why do they qualify for the supplement? Because they are broke.

So there is a definite link between poverty and ageing and poverty and the sex of the person, because many of those elderly people are women, not men. If the minister doesn't know that — we know he doesn't have a heart — it means he doesn't have a head.

Section 2 approved on the following division:

YEAS - 36

NAYS - 20

Section 3 approved.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, I would be grateful if the House would give me leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman and members of the House, I would ask you to give a very special greeting to 36 grade 6 students from the Talmud Torah School in the Vancouver constituency of Vancouver-Little Mountain. On behalf of my colleague from Little Mountain (Mr. Mowat) and all members of the House, I would like to wish them a very special "shalom" this morning, and also welcome Mr. Bauer, their teacher, who is accompanying them.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Back to committee on Bill 6.

Title approved.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved on division.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the bill be read a third time?

[11:00]

HON. MR. COUVELIER: With leave of the House now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Motion approved on the following division.

[ Page 1356 ]

YEAS - 36

NAYS - 19

Bill 6, Home Owner Grant Amendment Act, 1987, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I call committee on Bill 9.

INSURANCE (MOTOR VEHICLE)
AMENDMENT ACT, 1987

The House in committee on Bill 9; Mr. Pelton in the chair,

On section 1.

MR. LOVICK: Mr. Chairman, I'm certainly not going to be very long in all of this, but what I want to begin by doing is simply asking, if we can, the minister responsible to give us some statement of rationale for this thing. What I want to suggest in asking that question — and I will certainly give the minister some lead, rather than just an open-ended question — is that it seems to me that the rationale for this particular legislation is to make the Insurance Corporation of B.C. operate just as any other company in the province. This is somehow considered to be consonant and consistent with the business of running an economy, a free enterprise system, etc., etc.

My question, though, is just this: is doing this for ICBC in fact also not effectively to say that we are going to use the same "let the market decide" mentality for all other things — for example, let's say, the "Buy B.C." campaign? My point is that if we are talking about protecting our economy in the province of B.C. and trying to ensure that we take steps to help our own people be employed, to keep cash within the province and so forth, what we have in the past decided, as an appropriate response to fulfilling that strategy, would be to give ICBC some benefits that other outsiders would not have.

Apparently the government has now decided that it wants to put an end to that approach to the economy. My question, and it is very specific, is whether the government, consistent with that approach, is also going to put an end to the "Buy B.C." campaign recently announced by the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Michael) in dealing with the B.C. Ferry Corporation. It seems to me that we have two different philosophies directing this government.

I'm wondering if we might, then, start by looking at the rationale for this legislation to see if in fact that is the case, that there is an inconsistency. Or perhaps we on this side are missing something. Could I start with that, Mr. Minister?

HON. L. HANSON: First of all, the philosophy behind the removal of the insurance premium tax from ICBC.... I think, to go back on that, I should explain first of all that there is a portion, and it is roughly 40 to 45 percent of the insurance premium that ICBC takes in, is as a result of mandatory coverage by the Insurance Act. The other 55 percent — with some little leeway in that; I think it's about 58 percent — that ICBC takes in it takes in as a result of selling insurance in a competitive field where other private insurers, some based in British Columbia, do compete, and the application of the I percent tax makes ICBC, in that competitive market where it is non-mandatory, live with the same rules that the private insurance company lives with.

I can't see that being construed as an exporting of business from British Columbia. In fact, I guess about 80 percent of that coverage is already purchased from the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, and the other 20 percent is purchased from the private sector. It's simply a move to make ICBC live with the same rules as the private sector is required to in that competitive market. I have difficulty in seeing that that has any relationship to the policy of "buy British Columbia," as far as it refers to the steamship lines and the ferries and the other things. I mean, I don't understand the relativity of it.

MR. LOVICK: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the minister's attempt to answer, and I think we are so far on parallel streams. We haven't quite connected, so let me try again.

What I'm suggesting is that we have apparently decided behind this particular bit of legislation to treat ICBC as any other company, as you say, to make sure that it is competing fairly with others in the marketplace. The issue, though, is whether we are going to be guided by the same logic and the same philosophy when it comes to other things, such as a purchasing policy in this province, or rather whether it is the government's stated intention to treat B.C. producers and B.C. suppliers differently from others, i.e. to interfere with the normal operation of the competitive market.

HON. L. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the question but it appears to me that it isn't really relevant to this particular Bill 9. I suppose that that is a policy that you might ask of government in question period or whatever, but it isn't relative to the discussion on Bill 9, and I still really don't see the significance of the relationship that you're trying to bring out. There's quite a difference in the philosophy of buying British Columbia and this amendment to the Insurance Corporation of B.C.'s act.

MR. WILLIAMS: Could the minister advise us how much revenue is anticipated as a result of this change?

HON. L. HANSON: The premiums that ICBC now generate on an annual basis, without being too specific in exact numbers, is about $800 million, and this equates to 3 percent

[ Page 1357 ]

of it, which comes out to $24 million on an annual basis. In the year 1987, because roughly 50 percent of the policies are already issued, it will amount to about $12 million. That equates to around $12 as an average in an individual policy. The only thing is that taking an average is a little bit misleading, because an average, as you know, is exactly that. There are extremes in both cases. We've also done a calculation that about half of that will be applicable to the mandatory portion of the insurance that's purchased. It's actually a little less than half — $5 to $7 as an average.

MR. WILLIAMS: It would seem then, Mr. Chairman, through you, that the heaviest amount of the incidence of this will presumably be on the lower-income people with less valuable, less vulnerable vehicles — or maybe more vulnerable people. So it would seem to be a bottom loading, if you will, in terms of this kind of levy. The implications are bottom loading, so that lower-income people with just basic insurance on an older vehicle are picking up the bulk of the freight on this thing. Has the ministry looked at that question? Because if the bulk of it — $7 of the $12 — is applied to the basics in terms of insurance, it would clearly seem to be a bottom-loading situation. The old beaters would really be hit.

HON. L. HANSON: Maybe you're talking about my car. I'm not sure how you can interpret that, because about close to 60 percent — I think it's 58 percent or 57 percent, without holding me to those figures exactly — are the discretionary or at least the optional insurance that is purchased. It seems to me that in most cases the insurance purchased is relative to the vehicle's value, and lower-value vehicles purchase, if anything, the minimum. We expect that the effect is around $12 to $12.50 on the average insurance premium, and that includes the discretionary as well as the mandatory part. It's a moot point. I don't think you could really make a clear statement that that would be the case.

MR. LOVICK: Another concern that we on this side have about this bill is one I made reference to during second reading. I posed a couple of questions, albeit rhetorical ones, at that time, and now I would like to pose them as direct questions if I may. We argued the case that an administrative error had apparently been made, in terms of presenting this particular legislation, in connection with the Fire Services Act. We argued the case that insofar as the bill is intended to remove ICBC's exemption from the tax imposed under section 48 of the Fire Services Act, an administrative error had indeed been made, in that the amendments of the Fire Services Act needed to allow collection of the tax have not been proposed. Can we confirm whether that is the case?

HON. L. HANSON: I think the Hon. member.... Do you have a copy of the fire insurance act?

MR. LOVICK: No.

HON. L. HANSON: Let me go back to when ICBC was first formed. It was not only an automobile insurance company, but also a general insurance company. There was therefore a requirement to exempt it from the insurance premium tax, as well as section 48 of the Fire Services Act. The Insurance Corporation of British Columbia then sold its portfolio of general insurance, and is now, as you know, involved totally in the automobile end of it.

[11:15]

[Mrs. Gran in the chair.]

Section 48 of the Fire Services Act says: "An insurance company transacting the business of fire insurance in the province shall pay to the commissioner a tax equal to the portion prescribed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council of the aggregate of the premiums and assessments received or receivable by the company" — and this is the important thing — "other than automobiles, after deducting the following...." When the act was originally put in, because they were in the general insurance business they had to be exempted from the fire insurance section, section 48. If ICBC were not exempted from it, it would make absolutely no difference, because we don't write anything but automobile insurance policies, which are in effect exempt from that tax. All we're doing is cleaning up the legislation so that there's no requirement for an exemption from the Fire Services Act, because we don't write that kind of policy.

MR. LOVICK: One more question just to make sure that I do indeed understand. Is it the case then that ICBC will not be required to pay to the B.C. fire commissioner a tax equal to 1 percent of total premiums received?

HON. L. HANSON: ICBC entered into an agreement with the purchaser of its general insurance portfolio that for a period of time we wouldn't go back into the general insurance business. If we ever do — and who knows what decisions may be made in the future — ICBC would be obliged to pay that tax. But as we write policies now, and as our premiums are generated from the automobile industry, there is absolutely no tax application under the fire insurance act to premiums that ICBC writes. Is that clear?

MR. LOVICK: Yes.

HON. L. HANSON: We write strictly for automobiles, and automobiles are exempt from the act.

MR. LOVICK: I think that deals with my specific questions, and I thank the minister for his response.

I would just like to make a couple of points. First of all, when I heard the minister make reference to the future, followed by ellipses rather than completing the sentence, it set off a kind of minor alarm bell in my head. The minor alarm bell has to do with that new religion we hear being bruited everywhere now — namely, privatization. As I am sure the minister is well aware, a number of people are apprehensive — justifiably so, it seems to me — about whether ICBC may become part of that cast of characters whose heads are placed on the chopping block.

What I would like to ask the minister is whether he would give us some assurances that the measures enunciated in Bill 9 have nothing whatsoever to do with plans to privatize ICBC. I realize that that is a very loaded question, but I am wondering if the minister might like to respond to that.

HON. L. HANSON: I know that the issue of privatization has become fairly vocal or at least well-publicized, but the issue that we are dealing with here has absolutely nothing to do with privatization. It was stated in the budget that ICBC would be subject to the insurance corporation tax, and that's

[ Page 1358 ]

all that we are dealing with in Bill 9. It has no connotations of privatization or intent to privatize or anything else.

MR. LOVICK: I thank the minister very much for that assurance. I want to explain, however, precisely why it is that some people do draw that conclusion. The reason is very clear to all who pause to reflect for a moment: if we decide to treat public corporations, Crown corporations, precisely as any other entity operating in the marketplace, it seems quite logical to say that perhaps indeed we are de facto making those things private operations. So that is the reason for the question. As I say, I don't think it is an unreasonable conclusion to derive, but again I thank the minister for his assurances to the contrary.

The other point I would like to just allude to, albeit briefly, is the fact that here again what we are dealing with is yet another relatively small financial matter, another relatively small tax increase, but a matter that nevertheless when added to all of the others represents a very significant tax bill to the average British Columbian. The concern that I would raise — and I would end my remarks with just this observation — is that at some point I sincerely hope the government will undertake, perhaps in concert with its counterparts in Ottawa, a very major and significant tax review so that we do have some direction for how we ought to go about gaining our revenues.

It seems to me that what we are doing on a regular basis is incrementally adding to the tax bill for ordinary men and women throughout this province. I sincerely hope that at some point government will come up with a full-scale, wide-open examination of the process of acquiring revenue so we can indeed pay our bills. Otherwise, it seems to me that we will forever be doing precisely what we are now, looking for a nickel-and-dime approach; and frankly, the nickel-and-dime approach sadly becomes a big-dollar approach when seen in cumulative terms.

In any event, Madam Chairman, we on this side are not supporting this legislation because, as I say, we see it as another tax grab that is really not quite justified.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

Title approved.

HON. L. HANSON: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 9, Insurance (Motor Vehicle) Amendment Act, 1987, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I call committee on Bill 30.

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT (No. 1), 1987

The House in committee on Bill 30; Mrs. Gran in the chair.

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

On section 4.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Madam Chairman, I move the amendment that I have given notice of to the Chair.

On the amendment.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: The amendment is to delete section 4. Shall the amendment pass?

MR. BLENCOE: It's my understanding that section 4 is being totally deleted, not passed.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: That's what the amendment is.

MR. BLENCOE: I would like to comment that I am pleased that it is being deleted. I would be fascinated to know why it was in there in the first place, but I suspect I might find out down the road sometime. However, we're pleased, Madam Chairman, that that's being removed.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: Good point. Actually, maybe the minister might tell us what the thoughts were behind section 4 originally. Will we see it in some other form?

Interjections.

MR. BLENCOE: I suspect section 4 might have been somewhat embarrassing. Shall we leave it alone? Is that the point that's been taken?

Section 4 negatived.

Sections 5 to 7 inclusive approved.

On section 8.

MR. JONES: I would like to question the part in section 8 numbered 755.3. It is an area that I have questions and concerns about. I did ask the minister privately, and I imagine there hasn't been an opportunity to get back to me, so I would like to ask her at this time.

The section I refer to is the section entitled "Nuisance actions." It's a section that says that a municipality, regional district, council, regional board, improvement district or greater board is not liable in any action based on nuisance or the rule of Rylands v. Fletcher. My understanding is that Rylands v. Fletcher is a very complicated piece of litigation that certainly I don't understand and don't have a legal opinion on. But according to the Vancouver Province of Friday, May 15.... Its interpretation of that section is that city councils no longer will be liable for flood or accident damages caused by their sewers, water pipes or roads. I have a particular concern about that, and I mentioned it to the minister because a number of constituents of mine — it just happens to be constituents of mine; it could be constituents of Surrey-Newton as well — have a problem with a combined sanitary and storm sewer system that during heavy rains continually backs up, causing flooding in basements. People end up, if they have insurance, making insurance claims; or subsequent to that, if they are not able to get insurance, they

[ Page 1359 ]

end up having to shovel raw sewage out of their basements, and it poses a serious health threat to those residents.

I understand that a number of these residents have banded together, have hired a consultant, and the consultant indicates that there is a serious flaw in the original design. It is contradictory to the provincial regulations administered by the Minister of Municipal Affairs under the residential services and site-planning standards, 1980. These citizens want some rectification of this problem, and when they approach the municipality, the municipality suggests, as I think they are wont to do on a number of occasions, that "we don't see that we have any liability and your answer is through the courts." And they remind citizens that they have never lost a court case.

Even despite that warning, a number of these residents have spent something like $12,000 to date in organizing their legal case and having studies done of this area. They are concerned about this legislation, even though I don't think it will affect them, because their case is already proceeding. I think it is a serious concern if what we are doing in this legislation is making it more difficult for legitimate complaints of citizens to be addressed by municipal councils; and if they are not addressed properly at that level, making it more difficult for them to sue for damages or sue for rectification of situations that clearly municipalities have responsibilities for.

So I would like the minister to assist me in understanding this section of the legislation, firstly, and hopefully give me some assurance that this section is not going to make it more difficult for citizens who find it very difficult, find it very financially onerous, to represent themselves legally and make challenge to municipalities.

[11:30]

I am hoping that this section does not do what I fear it does, because I don't think it is in the best interests of citizens. Certainly nobody wants nuisance actions, but I think there are legitimate actions; and if it is difficult to sue municipalities now, and if this section makes it more difficult, it's not going to assist the relations between municipalities and their citizens in making them more responsive to the needs of those citizens. So I'd appreciate some elaboration by the minister.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I apologize to the member for not getting back sooner, but we have attempted to put together a very brief background paper on this particular section in order that we can properly clarify it. I'm sure that when I go over this the member will feel comfortable with the section.

In legal terms, "nuisance" is "interference with the use or enjoyment of property." "Nuisance" can occur even if there is no negligence. It goes on to say that there are many kinds of nuisance. Bill 30 only deals with the kind of nuisance that results from the breakdown or malfunction of a public work which has been designed with care, built with care and maintained with care. Bill 30 seeks to balance the interests of the property owners and taxpayers, and we have a scenario here of how we see it working.

If property damage results from inadequate care in the design of a public work, the municipality can be liable by reason of negligence. If property damage results from inadequate care in the construction of a public work, the municipality can be liable by reason of negligence. If property damage results from inadequate care in the maintenance of a public work, and I think this is the situation you were referring to, the municipality can be liable by way of negligence.

On the other hand, if there is no negligence, a municipality cannot be held liable for property damage that results exclusively from nuisance. The philosophy behind Bill 30 and this section, we feel, is the duty of municipalities to provide carefully designed, constructed and maintained public works. This duty is policed by the law of negligence, which Bill 30 does not diminish. If municipalities are negligent, they forfeit the protection of Bill 30.

MR. JONES: I appreciate the careful and considered answer. I would like to just pursue it one step further and go back to my point with the comment of the Burnaby municipality suggesting that they've never lost a suit. Given that, I'm wondering about the motivation for this kind of thing — if municipalities need this protection. I'll give you my interpretation of how I think this thing came about, and maybe you can correct me if I'm wrong.

It seems to me that we did have a serious problem in terms of insuring municipalities for liability against actions, because of the tremendous increase in premiums by the insurance companies. As a result, it was difficult for municipalities to get insurance at reasonable rates. Since that time, however, I understand the Union of B.C. Municipalities has banded together and developed a group insurance plan. If there had not been that group insurance plan, then perhaps legislation which.... The minister has suggested that it doesn't make it easier for municipalities to avoid liability. If that had not happened, then perhaps there would be some need for this kind of legislation to help municipalities with their insurance rates. But given the fact that they are banding together and are developing a group self-insurance scheme, it seems to me that new legislation, new protection for municipalities against suits, is unnecessary.

Given the connection between the group insurance plan and this section, I still wonder why we need this section and what motivated the government to bring this forth. Was it brought forth at an earlier time in previous legislation when this group insurance scheme was not part and parcel of what was planned for municipalities?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: It's my understanding that this is a follow-up on the previous Bill 38 that was introduced by my predecessor. What we're trying to do, Madam Chairman, is to achieve a balance which will ensure that the rights of the ordinary citizen in a municipality are protected but that we don't lay an unduly heavy responsibility — as far as financial obligations through litigation go — on the taxpayers. It really isn't the responsibility or the duty of the municipalities to provide supplementary insurance protection. You're referring to the process in the works at this time for their pooling of insurance resources. That really doesn't respond to this particular need. This need is still there, and it's not enough for municipalities to obtain insurance against negligence.

What you're really doing is forcing the taxpayers to bear the cost of public-works accidents. We're trying to come up with a balance to ensure that the taxpayers at large are not having to pay for exceptional expenses, and yet the general citizen who is also a taxpayer has some protection as well through this section of the bill in cases of negligence.

So I don't know how we can respond to that better. It is an attempt to come up with a balanced program that will show fairness to both the municipality as a whole representing all of the taxpayers and the individual taxpayer who may have

[ Page 1360 ]

some type of claim as a result of.... If it is negligence, they have a claim.

MR. JONES: I think the minister has answered the question as fully as I could hope for. I would like to pursue the point though, in the sense that I am wondering about the thinking that there is going to be a greater degree of litigation. My understanding, at least in my municipality, is that there hasn't been a lot of litigation in the past. There hasn't been any excess cost to the taxpayer in terms of litigation that has already transpired.

I am wondering if the minister is concerned about an antiquated infrastructure that is in serious need of repair and hence is anticipating more of these kinds of problems and a different mentality on the part of the citizens that will become litigation-happy, if you like.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: No, I have no reason to anticipate more litigation than we have seen over the past few years. But there is no question the insurance premium over the last few years has caused concern to all of us, whether we be elected officials or as taxpayers in the municipality, because there is only one place that that money is coming from, and that is from the general taxpayer, So this legislation is an attempt to address that concern in a way that we feel is balanced and fair.

MR. BLENCOE: I want to make a few comments about this section. I have to admit that all along I have been of two minds on this particular section on limiting. I have had a number of discussions with former colleagues and current colleagues about this aspect of the bill or this protection for local government.

I am in many ways still of two minds. I have heard longer explanations and rationale why it is necessary. I think at this point what the government is saying is reasonable.

When I was involved at the local level I can recall, Madam Chairman, our lawyers and our engineers were tough when it came to citizens saying they had been aggrieved and they wanted to sue the city. My colleague for Burnaby North (Mr. Jones) refers to the fact that in Burnaby they'd never lost a suit, and I think many municipalities always virtually automatically state they don't feel they're liable; then it pursues. I can recall two or three times when I was on the local council; obviously, as an elected official and protecting the corporation of the city, you were of two minds. You were caught in between. It was very difficult. You wanted to help the citizens to organize to sue the city because you felt really the officials of the city weren't taking the proper action or were being very difficult, and the citizens felt they'd been aggrieved. I know that on at least two occasions that I can recall in my time I helped citizens find the way, through the courts and through the lawyers, etc., to be able to indicate that indeed.... One was a sewer backup in a certain neighbourhood, and another one was a storm drain that created problems on the boundary between Saanich and Victoria and I got into a big dispute with the mayor of Saanich at the time; and in both cases both municipalities adamantly said they were not responsible. In my view, when I took a look at it, I discovered or indeed I felt there was some responsibility on behalf of both municipalities. Through my help and others, it proceeded. In both those cases the citizens won. But initially the municipality had said: "We want nothing to do with it."

So there's where the other side of me comes from. Many times automatically — and you can see the corporation or local council wants to protect all its citizens by not getting into huge suits and costs, and that's the other side. But I know there are many, many examples, as the minister states: where should a local government be responsible for an accident when clearly there wasn't negligence? They weren't negligent, they were in no way responsible, but should they be held responsible, and consequently the local taxpayers have to pay the result of that case proceeding? It's a difficult one; it really is. In some respects, I don't like the fact that we're giving the private insurance companies a little bit of a boost here, because I think what they did in their rates.... And I've taken a long look at that; I don't know if the minister has.

I sent a lot of information to local councils, in the proposal I made for self-insurance, showing them that insurance companies having trouble financially was really a bit of a scam; that indeed it wasn't true in Canada; that what had happened was that they were on about a six- or seven-year business cycle, and they had written all sorts of policies in a very competitive time and gotten themselves in trouble. Instead of trying to get their stockholders to take the loss, they were going to pass on those losses to public bodies and institutions like municipalities and library boards, etc.

So part of me also has some concerns that we're giving a break to the private insurance companies. However, my concern there is somewhat relieved or alleviated by the fact that the UBCM is pursuing self-insurance, and that is the best challenge to the private insurance business that I know of — saying to the private insurance business: "We don't believe you and what you've done in terms of your financial problems, but we want to go our own route, to some degree, and take care of our own." I think that's an exciting proposal.

So part of me shares the concern that my good colleague from Burnaby North has, and I've had long discussions with the same people as the minister has over the last year. I suspect that if we find this is a problem, and citizens feel that we are plugging a loophole — putting too much of a plug in — we may be back here in the next year or so to look at it again. But at this time, I am prepared to support this section.

[11:45]

Another point — I want to also ensure that by passing this section, local government continues its course of looking at its own operations, and that its own operations are in good shape. When I first started at the local level, the concern for ensuring the operation was top-notch, that every angle was covered, that citizens weren't, shall we say, by poor maintenance, by checking all the potential problems.... Those concerns weren't thought of very much when I first got involved locally. But in the last few years, local councils have started to take a look at their operations — I suspect in light of the insurance problem, suits and that sort of thing.

I would not like to see the local government say: "Wow! We have protection now. We are limited in terms of liability. We can drop our program of monitoring our system." That would be a great shame, Madam Chairman. That's another concern that I have. I hope the minister and UBCM will consider the program they have now in place of advising local government how they can minimize their exposure to risk. I think that's a program that must be expanded; otherwise, if local government relies on this section to relieve them of suits or of proper maintenance, or minimizing their exposure to risk, we could be in a problem also.

[ Page 1361 ]

MR. HARCOURT: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to reinforce some of the remarks of my colleague from Victoria, and just add a few thoughts too.

One is this issue of claims. In municipal government a number of us have that experience. They're generally handled toughly but fairly by our claims officers and lawyers. There's always access to the most accessible form of government, so there is built-in accountability there. We've all dealt with hundreds of cases of broken water-mains, and roots of trees gnarling up a secondary feed into a house, and whose responsibility it is — potholes, heaving sidewalks and all that.

There is an attempt here to redress the courts, using municipal government as a no-fault insurer, basically. I think that's what is intended here. The White Rock case and many others over the last 20 years have basically said that if somebody's injured, except under an act of war or natural catastrophe, then the municipality collectively can handle the liability, and we'll deal with this citizen's problem. I think we're starting to come back to more of a balance on that, and this is part of that process.

But there are two other issues that are involved, and I think it is important to see it in that context. One is that the municipal governments have been savaged by the international insurance companies on their liability insurance. That is part of what we're reacting to, aside from the huge increase in claims and awards to people in the courts. That has brought a lot of smaller municipalities, in particular, to their knees, where they cannot afford to do a whole bunch of activities, where we have seen playgrounds being closed down, where we have seen almost ridiculous steps being taken by municipal governments to scare people away from using public facilities because of the fear of a lawsuit and huge damage awards and being cut off of their insurance because of a quadrupling — and in some cases much larger increases — in their premiums. I think the work that the minister is doing with the UBCM to bring in a self-insurance scheme will start to help in that area.

But there is one other area — and I know the minister has been supportive, unlike her predecessor — and that is: let's fix up these crumbling sewer and water facilities so they don't burst and create these problems for us all. I reiterate what the minister and I and our shadow minister of municipal affairs from Victoria have been saying: let's fix up our municipalities. Let's fix up our municipal services and cut down the lawsuits in the province for citizens and municipalities and Ministers of Municipal Affairs even more by bringing the sewer and water lines, the potholed streets, the bridges that are rapidly getting dangerous — like in the United States, where two-thirds of the bridges are unfit for travel now.... They're dangerous. We are just about at that point, and we need to convince the Minister of Finance, Mr. Wilson. We need to convince the Prime Minister that there are 5,000 municipal governments across this country that are waiting for the federal government to get on the team and put up $800 million a year for the next five years that will pay itself back by 60, 000 people being employed doing that necessary work of fixing up the secondary highways, the sewer and water systems, and the bridges in this province.

That is the key, aside from the other measures that are here — the modest one of the legislative reform, the self-insurance scheme for municipal governments. I can assure you that this side of the House will work very cooperatively with you to see the Minister of Finance take off his blinker, his blinder, his blindness to this pressing need in this country, and to see the Prime Minister return somewhat from the abysmal showing with the Canadian people that he's presently suffering under, because he's not taking up these kinds of initiatives. So we think it's important that we look at it in that sort of overall context and not just see this modest proposal to try to redress some of the imbalances the court systems have created over the last few years.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I'd like to ask a question of the minister. First of all, I'll set out some of my concerns and the minister can explain, perhaps, how my concerns relate to this particular clause.

Some of the previous speakers have talked about the concerns over the infrastructure in municipalities and the possible responsibility that municipalities would have because of any accidents pertaining to that infrastructure perhaps not being maintained up to the standard that the municipality itself would like. My concern is about some of the directions that both the provincial and federal governments are taking on the transportation of hazardous goods and the disposal of hazardous goods. What we're seeing in particular by the provincial initiative is a trend to have private companies deal with disposal of hazardous goods, which would fall directly within the jurisdiction of the municipality where that facility would be located.

My question is on the liability that the municipality would have in regard to accidents relating to the transportation of those hazardous goods and/or problems the facility may have that would relate to health and safety in those communities. If I haven't made that clear....

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Well, as the bill has been set down, it really doesn't cover the concern that you have expressed, Madam Member. This is strictly to cover negligence versus nuisance claims.

MS. SMALLWOOD: If I can more clearly make the link then, my question pertains to an accident that might be exacerbated because of a pothole. For instance, where a road has not been maintained and the quality of access to a hazardous-goods facility is not up to snuff, my question is: does this bill deal with the shifting of responsibility pertaining to the transportation of hazardous goods, and does the individual municipality then take the brunt of the responsibility for a facility that indeed might be a regional facility?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Well, Madam Chairman, whether or not the vehicle would be transporting hazardous waste or a load of lumber, if an accident occurred in a municipality as a result of negligence by that municipality in maintaining their works, then the municipality could be faced with legal action.

MS. SMALLWOOD: My understanding — and perhaps I'm again reading something into some of the statements of previous speakers — is that this also limits responsibility. If that is so, then when we're dealing with significant issues like transportation of hazardous goods and/or facilities, we're talking about the potential for enormous lawsuits.

[ Page 1362 ]

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Madam Chairman, I believe we're getting off this particular section; it's to do with negligence. Really I am losing the gist of the conversation. Dangerous goods is a regulating issue, and Bill 30 deals with public works, so I really believe that your subject could be better handled in a different forum.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Madam Minister. Your point is well taken.

Sections 8 to 10 inclusive approved.

On section 11.

MR. BLENCOE: A little skill-testing question for the minister: can she...?

AN HON. MEMBER: You've got no skill to test.

MR. BLENCOE: Be nice.

Could the minister, through the staff, or the staff, through the minister, give me some explanation of the rationale for this section?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Madam Chairman, it's strictly to simplify and streamline the development process, and it will.... You aren't paying attention, Mr. Member.

It's to streamline the development process. That's the short of it.

MR. BLENCOE: I know we want to streamline local government process, but do we have to streamline the explanations? Perhaps a little more detail would help, Madam Minister.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: This could be referred to as a one-stop-shopping concept. This concept is currently hampered because of the uncertainty over the applicability of public-hearing provisions to a combined bylaw. This will allow the entire development process to be streamlined and simplified with the one bylaw.

MR. BLENCOE: I think I have the gist, Madam Chairman. I have no problems with streamlining the system, encouraging development and trying to get it through the bureaucracy. I know that can take a long time sometimes. I'm not going to oppose the section. I want to see how we do. But one of the things we have to be careful about.... One of the reasons we're here in many of these sections is because the old bill, Bill 62, and we're dealing with the Bill Ritchie amendments today....

[12:00]

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that the old Bill?

MR. BLENCOE: The old Bill.

We rushed a little bit. The former minister wanted to streamline everything — to streamline the public process out of existence, virtually.

Just a word of caution to the minister: at the local level there are processes for public hearing and APCs and all the various things that go on, and to some developers that process is very frustrating at times. I know, because I heard those developers for six.... I still hear them today over the Songhees, but I won't get into that. The public process is important, and nine times out of ten, through the council process, developments do go through. There are those developments that are controversial, and the process is there for a reason: to allow the public as much input as possible.

On that note, Madam Chairman, not wanting to take away the lunch hour from my good colleagues by more than one minute, I will move the committee rise and report progress.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Madam Chairman, the government opposes the motion. We're here to work, not to eat. The bill has been on the order paper since May 14. I would move that we debate till 12:30.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, there is a motion on the floor, and I don't believe we can accept another motion. I'll call the question on the motion to rise and report progress.

Motion negatived.

MR. BLENCOE: Madam Chairman, I can understand the government wanting to get on with business, but there are those of us.... For instance, I do have a very important meeting — with a group of developers, as a matter of fact — at 12 o'clock. Given that you want to streamline and help development, I'm going to be frustrated in meeting those developers in this community. I don't know why, totally out of the blue, the House Leader wishes to continue, but this government does strange things. Maybe it's awake at the switch today.

Sections 11 to 19 inclusive approved.

On section 20.

MR. BLENCOE: I support section 20, which allows discretion to local councils and advisory planning commissions. But I do have one question for the minister. I wonder if in the near future we will see those local councils which sit on advisory planning commissions have the right to vote on the advisory planning commission. At the moment they cannot do that, and it has created some frustration and concern. I wonder if the minister has any views on that.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: That particular subject is presently under consideration.

MR. BLENCOE: Consideration that would allow council members to vote?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Yes.

MR. BLENCOE: Thank you.

Sections 20 to 32 inclusive approved.

On section 33.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I move the amendment that I have given notice of to the Chair.

Amendment approved.

[ Page 1363 ]

Section 33 as amended approved.

Section 34 approved.

On section 35.

MR. BLENCOE: I wonder if the minister could just give a little more detail behind this section.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: You almost have to be a lawyer to respond to this question, but it has been suggested that there is a fair amount of legal uncertainty surrounding the present wording. That is the reason for this proposed amendment. It's a clarification; that's what it is.

Section 35 approved.

On section 36.

MR. BLENCOE: I am particularly interested in something this section doesn't deal with, and I wonder if I can get into asking the minister some questions. Subsection (d) on page 13 "clarifies that it is the owner of the property who is ultimately responsible for restoring the property after the temporary use permit expires." I'm not specifically interested in that, but what I would like to bring to the attention of the minister is this whole question of developer responsibility.

One that's been around for a long, long time is sites where construction started, and for whatever reasons those sites are abandoned and local councils have some control in terms of trying to make them environmentally safe. I know local councils are very frustrated by the sites. They have no power to try to find out why the developer won't proceed, no power to investigate, no power through the courts to insist that if there is the ability to continue that development but they decide to develop elsewhere and therefore left this site not only environmentally unsound but aesthetically and sometimes very unsafe....

It is in my community, and I am sure in many other communities, a bone of contention and an irritant that local government would like to deal with. I'm wondering if the minister is considering more powers for local government to deal with that. I mean, here in Victoria there are many sites even on Douglas Street. Sandman Inn has been sitting there for I don't know how long. It's a disgraceful sight, and it's allowed to sit there, and local council can't do anything about it. It looks like a bombed-out site. Is the minister considering some changes in regulation to allow local government more control?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: That's a very valid point, and there is no question about it that these partially completed construction sites are, in many cases, unsafe. There are areas of the Municipal Act that address that type of problem, but it is certainly worthy of further discussion. I will give my undertaking that we will look at that.

MR. BLENCOE: Excellent. We're getting on very well today. Thank you, Madam Minister.

Section 36 approved.

On section 37.

MR. BLENCOE: This deals with development permits. My first question: is this intended to allow more flexibility in the development permit process? Is that the intention?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Yes, that is. It's also to simplify, but it is to speed up and give some flexibility.

MR. BLENCOE: I will digress a little bit, but I think I will be in order, Madam Chairman. We used to have not just development permits in the province of British Columbia but what I thought was a really very good process locally, the land use contract. The land use contract was abandoned; I forget the exact year. It was the next step up from development permits, if you will. It allowed, particularly in sensitive areas — development permits will do it to some degree.... For instance, let's talk about the Songhees over here. If we had a land use contract system, we could enter into some more flexible kinds of negotiations over developments. Land use contracts were cancelled by the government of the day some years ago, and I think it was a real loss to local governments, particularly when you're trying to deal innovatively with your urban scene and introduce more flexibility into the zoning process.

Is the minister thinking about bringing back land use contracts or a variation on the theme? I know many local governments would like to see it back.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I have just been advised by my staff that very shortly the UBCM, industry and the ministry will be looking into ways and means of bringing back the land use contract, without monetary aspects, and I would think that when we come back in the fall we'll probably have some more information on that.

MR. BLENCOE: Terrific. I look forward to that. Perhaps, Madam Minister, if I may, if there's any way that communication between my office and your office about some of the issues that we've been talking about could be slightly improved, it would be very useful for us for future discussion.

If I may, in digressing — you may rule me out of order, Madam Chairman — one of the things that I would like to participate in but have not been allowed to so far is the discussion on decentralization. The opposition was not officially invited to those meetings in Vancouver. It might have been very useful for future reference and future discussion.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Although it has no relation to the bill, I would suggest that maybe you check your mail, because you have just had an invitation to attend the next meeting.

Section 37 approved.

Sections 38 to 40 inclusive approved.

On section 41.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I move the amendment that I have given notice of to the Chair.

On the amendment.

[ Page 1364 ]

MR. BLENCOE: I have got to admit, Madam Chairman, that I am not quite sure what this does. Perhaps a little explanation why the amendment is necessary....

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: This removes a loophole. We could give you an example of a highrise office tower which could contain three residential units and therefore be exempt from the development cost charge. Is that the section you are referring to?

MR. BLENCOE: Yes.

Amendment approved.

On section 41 as amended.

MR. BLENCOE: Madam Chairman, if I am correct, this section will allow local government to go ahead and put in the infrastructure on a particular site.... No? I am getting a nod there. So, for instance, on Songhees, if the city of Victoria could not borrow the money and do the infrastructure and then recoup the funds and development cost charges by a loss.... Am I totally wrong?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I believe possibly that would be a section further along. This is strictly to do with development cost charges.

[12:15]

MR. BLENCOE: What I am referring to is somewhere in the sections, is it?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I think it is in a section further down. Madam Chairman, could we have clarification? I was wondering if the member would be referring to the latecomer's arrangement.

MR. BLENCOE: I am referring to a situation whereby, for whatever reasons, a local government may wish to prepare a site before the developer moves in; put the infrastructure, the sewers and the storm drains in place first, and then.... I'm thinking of the Songhees in particular; that's an area over here in Victoria. I would like to see the infrastructure in place first by the city of Victoria, and then recoup the development costs later on. Is that being addressed as an issue in this particular section or any other section?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Apparently that could occur. The development cost charges could trigger in on the issuance of a building permit to cover those costs.

Section 41 as amended approved.

Sections 42 to 45 inclusive approved.

On section 46.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Madam Chairman, I move the amendment that I have given notice of to the Chair.

Amendment approved.

Section 46 as amended approved.

Sections 47 to 58 inclusive approved.

On the title.

MR. BLENCOE: I know we want to get on with this bill and the House Leader probably wants to have his lunch, but I just want to make a final comment, which is in keeping with the feeling of.... It is convivial, I think, and the opposition is trying its hardest to ensure this legislation gets through without controversy or confrontation.

I would like to conclude the discussion on this bill. In keeping with the opposition leader, one of the concerns that I have had for a long time is that Municipal Affairs is not always seen as a very important ministry. The opposition leader was talking about infrastructure and the dynamic proposals that could come from that. I would like, Madam Chairman, in conclusion on this bill, to ask the government — I know that the minister takes it seriously — to see Municipal Affairs as a far more dynamic, proactive ministry. There are a lot more things that could be done. It has excellent staff who've got good ideas, and if we could get going on things like infrastructure rebuilding and putting our municipalities back in shape, there'd be lots of work, and our staff in Municipal Affairs would probably have to be expanded.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, could I suggest that your remarks be saved for the minister's estimates?

MR. BLENCOE: Well, Madam Chairman, I knew that was going to come.

I would conclude by saying that we hope this act will do what the minister hopes for, and I look forward to the estimates debate.

Title approved.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Madam Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 30, Municipal Amendment Act (No. 1), 1987, reported complete with amendments to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. Mr. Strachan moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:20 p.m.