[ Page 7735 ]

Hon. J. Pullinger: I have two people visiting the Legislature -- the first time in question period for both of them, I understand -- and they're both from the ministry. Terry Feesey is a manager of social planning from the planning branch, and Julie Bryant is from my ministry's intergovernmental relations office. Both of these folks are part of the team that has helped us move people in record numbers from welfare to work, and are helping us, as British Columbians, lead the fight on child poverty in Canada. They do remarkable work, along with the rest of my ministry, and I ask the House to please make them welcome.

R. Coleman: At noon today some members of my caucus, along with our crime committee, were presented with a 15-minute skit. It was written by some grade 9 drama students from D.W. Poppy School in my riding, and was followed by some very insightful questions and answers about youth violence. They're seated in the gallery today with their teachers, Paige Davis and Wendy Cook. Will the House please make them welcome.

B. Goodacre: Visiting us today from Smithers is a lifelong friend of mine and a respected elder in his church, Will Vandergrift, and his wife Yvonne and Yvonne's parents from Port Alberni, Mr. and Mrs. Dykstra. Will the House please make them welcome.

V. Anderson: Today there are 39 grade 11 students joining us from Magee Secondary School in the Vancouver-Langara riding, and with them are Mr. Latimer and Mrs. Fumano. I ask the House to make all these students very welcome.

C. Hansen: In the gallery today is Philip Hochstein, who is the executive vice-president of the Independent Contractors and Businesses Association. I ask the House to make him welcome.

Introduction of Bills

BOAT OPERATORS CERTIFICATION ACT

J. Weisbeck: Currently in British Columbia, anyone of any age can operate a boat of any size and any horsepower rating. The lack of skill, efficiency and knowledge in the operation of a boat has a profound impact in British Columbia, with an average of 40 fatalities a year related to boat mishaps. It has been shown in other jurisdictions that when mandatory certification is in effect, there is a decrease in the loss of life due to boating accidents.

This bill states: "Except as otherwise provided in this act, a person shall not operate a motorized recreation vehicle upon the waters of the province unless that person holds a valid boat operator's certificate."

Bill M206 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.

Oral Questions

LEVEL OF PATIENT CARE IN HOSPITALS

Hon. P. Priddy: I don't think there are many hospitals in the province that don't find themselves with a number of challenges, all of which we are working on with them -- including wait-lists, which we will hear more about later in the week. It is also important, as we look at where the resources for health care go, that there was a 3.3 percent increase in the Health budget this year in total.

I met the regional health board when I was in Kelowna. They raised three or four specific issues with me. We have found solutions to a couple of those, and we're working on the other ones. While we can always wish for more for every hospital -- I probably would for my own as well -- I do not think it's unsafe treatment in any way in Kelowna.

The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for Okanagan West.

S. Hawkins: The minister mentioned wait-lists. On the front page of my paper, it says that a five-year-old has waited a year and a half for surgery, and she is being flown to the U.S. so she doesn't have to wait. In the same region, the medical advisory committee at Penticton Regional Hospital recently declared in a motion: ". . .we can no longer assure the community of safe and effective acute medical care." That's in Penticton. Can the Health minister tell us why her government has let health care sink to such a low level that hospitals are warning their patients that they can't provide safe and effective care anymore?

Interjections.

Hon. P. Priddy: No. The member is correct: it is not funny. I think it's extremely important to recognize that while there are challenges and there are wait-lists in hospitals, we will be doing additional work around that, which I think will make an enormous difference. Let's be very clear that this is the only province in Canada that has consistently increased health care funding every single year for the last seven years. For individuals who are waiting for specific kinds of surgery -- and I'm not going to comment on this case in particular, although we'd be pleased to talk to the family about it. . . . In terms of people on wait-lists, we also need to be doing more work about how we manage wait-lists, so that we don't have one person with a wait-list of 37 weeks providing surgery services and another person in the same community with only a four-week wait-list but where patients aren't necessarily being referred. So there is a management issue, as well, around wait-lists.

R. Neufeld: My question is also to the Minister of Health. The Okanagan is not the only area of the province that is having some emergency room problems. Dr. Joe Quigg, an emergency room physician at Cariboo Memorial Hospital. . . .

[ Page 7736 ]

The Speaker: Hon. minister, come to order, please.

R. Neufeld: Dr. Quigg of Cariboo Memorial Hospital has written that emergency room overcrowding is becoming a problem. I read to you a quote from his letter: ". . .reached an unacceptable level and is a disaster waiting to happen." Can the minister tell this House and people in the Cariboo why emergency health care for rural residents has become a disaster waiting to happen?

[2:15]

Interjection.

Hon. P. Priddy: . . .or how you use another kind of health service. Yes, the member who is shouting. . . .

Interjection.

The Speaker: Hon. members, the minister has the floor.

Hon. P. Priddy: I'm sorry -- there are not beds being closed. It's not about closing beds at all. But it is about providing a different level of care -- which is more beds in the community, more long term care beds so that the emergency department has a freer flow. . .

The Speaker: Hon. minister, thank you.

Hon. P. Priddy: . . .into acute-care beds in the province. That's the strategy, hon. Speaker, and people will hear more about it.

The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for Peace River North.

R. Neufeld: The bed closure situation in Cariboo hospital is so bad -- absolutely so bad -- that I'm going to read another quote, another damning quote, out of Dr. Quigg's letter to the minister. . .

The Speaker: Hon. member. . . .

R. Neufeld: . . .that says: "Closing the emergency room would be safer than having a false sense of security that emergency services can be provided." Now, you can tell us. . .

The Speaker: Your question, hon. member.

R. Neufeld: . . .all you want about training people. But can you tell us, as the Minister of Health for the NDP, when you've said that health care is your main concern. . . ?

The Speaker: Through the Chair.

R. Neufeld: We're having areas of the province where the emergency room doors are being slammed in their faces and beds are being closed.

Hon. P. Priddy: I don't know if the member is referring to closed hospital beds or the backup in emergency. We are not closing hospital beds. And if there is a more significant emergency room problem at this particular hospital, then I would appreciate the member coming to me, and we will look and see if there are additional resources or additional ways of managing that. But the only place in the province I'm aware of where emergency room doors are being closed is where doctors have closed them.

U.S. QUARANTINE OF VANCOUVER ISLAND PRODUCTS

Hon. C. McGregor: Hon. Speaker, I'll take the member's question on notice.

ADEQUACY AND COST OF POLICE SERVICES FOR CROWD CONTROL

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The question of the extra cost can only be answered by the people in the community.

But the difficult issue is whether or not we in British Columbia want to continue to provide side arms to auxiliaries. The RCMP and the Vancouver police came to the Attorney General of this province and made very serious recommendations. There were issues about legal liability, there were issues about auxiliary safety, there were issues about the safety of the regular police officers, and there was the issue of the ongoing review of this matter. I've asked that it be expedited and completed before September. When the police forces of this province come to the Attorney General and say, "There are serious issues; we want you to give us an order suspending side arm use in British Columbia," the Attorney General of the province doesn't have the luxury of saying: "Let me think about this for about five days. I will make a decision, and I'll disregard the unanimous recommendations of the police forces in British Columbia."

The Speaker: I recognize the member for Richmond-Steveston for his first supplementary.

[ Page 7737 ]

The Speaker: And your question.

G. Plant: We're heading into a long weekend.

The Speaker: Your question is?

G. Plant: All across British Columbia there will be public events involving thousands and thousands of British Columbians. How does the Attorney General plan on replacing the 1,000 auxiliary officers and their volunteer hours this weekend, and how much will replacing them cost the taxpayers of British Columbia?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: We had a thorough debate on this issue during the estimates. All of these questions were put and answered. Let me repeat some of those answers.

The issue is that when these auxiliaries go into the police force to do volunteer work. . . . If you ever asked them -- even if you ask them today -- their answer would be that they didn't go into police volunteer work to bear side arms. That's the issue. Next, it is important for us to remember that in all of the jurisdictions in this country with the exception of British Columbia, there have been no side arms with the auxiliaries. They have been doing crowd control, traffic duty, crime prevention and education in the schools and in the neighbourhoods. I am urging these auxiliaries to do the same, pending the review that's to be completed as early as possible.

The Speaker: I recognize, for his second supplementary, the member for Richmond-Steveston.

G. Plant: Perhaps the Attorney General could make this improvement in his review process: perhaps he could include auxiliaries in the committees that are conducting the review.

The Speaker: And your question?

G. Plant: Hon. Speaker, it's not good enough for the Attorney General to make a decision that results in the drop and the decline and the end of service in communities across British Columbia. . .

The Speaker: Your question, hon. member.

G. Plant: . . .and then say: "I won't solve the problem of costs; that's for the taxpayers of the communities." So I ask the Attorney General again: what will he do now, on the eve of a long weekend, to reassure people in communities across British Columbia that they will have effective, affordable policing this weekend?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I made the press release issued by the RCMP available to everyone in this building. That press release was issued subsequent to the order that was issued by the RCMP taking the side arms away from the auxiliaries. That press release said that there would be no reduction in the level of policing in British Columbia; the safety of British Columbians would be assured by the RCMP, as it was prior to the auxiliaries losing their side arms. It is important for people to recognize that crime prevention, traffic control and crowd control do not always require the use of side arms.

PHARMACARE DELISTING OF HEAD LICE MEDICATION

Hon. P. Priddy: The delisting of head lice medication is the delisting of something that you can actually buy without a prescription. I don't think it's good, sound Pharmacare policy or public healthy policy to be covering an item with Pharmacare dollars which you can go to the drugstore and buy without a prescription.

The Speaker: First supplementary, member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members.

K. Whittred: The issue here is not as much about Pharmacare, perhaps, as it is about who can afford to buy the product. Head lice infestations in schools are pervasive; they spread like crazy. But if parents can't afford these treatments, children will not get the care they need. Can the minister tell this House if she consulted with either the Vancouver-Richmond health board or the Ministry of Education prior to delisting head lice treatments?

Hon. P. Priddy: No, I cannot tell you what consultation took place, but I will certainly find that out and answer it for you.

Hon. Speaker, while I acknowledge that for people who are on limited incomes any additional expense is undoubtedly a problem, let's also bear in mind that we have covered hundreds and thousands more people for MSP premiums in the last several years of this government. We have increased the Pharmacare budget by a third. Should we cover everything? We'd all like to cover everything. But this is an opposition that said that $6 billion was enough to spend for health care. . .

The Speaker: Hon. minister, thank you.

Hon. P. Priddy: . . .and we're spending well over $7 billion. . .

The Speaker: Thank you very much.

Hon. P. Priddy: . . .in order to provide those services to British Columbians.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members, order, please.

The Minister of Forests is rising to respond to a question.

[ Page 7738 ]

IMPACT OF FORESTS POLICY ON TAHSIS

Interjections.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I did think that the answer was self-evident, hon. Speaker.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. minister, just a moment, please. Order, please, everyone.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members, order, please.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Hon. Speaker, they sound surprised. In simple terms, the proposal involves realigning timber supply commitments on the west coast of Vancouver Island to enable the companies to plan for more stable operating areas. No decision has been made about changing the timber supply on north and central Vancouver Island. What is being discussed is a proposal put forth by industry. Forest district staff met with various stakeholders, including contractors, small business forest enterprise registrants, truck drivers, first nations and community leaders, including Mayor McCrea of Tahsis. We explained to everyone that we were still in a consultation process. The issues and concerns that their mayor raised were precisely the kinds of issues that the consultation process was designed to address. We're continuing to work with Mayor McCrea to answer all questions before we make a decision.

Tabling Documents

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Hon. Speaker, I have the honour to present the Forest Renewal B.C. 1996-97 annual report. And I have the honour to present the report of the Forest Practices Board of British Columbia for 1997.

Orders of the Day

[2:30]

ATTORNEY GENERAL STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1998

On section 1.

G. Plant: One of the things Bill 19 does is amend the Consumer Protection Act. Here, I think that the only new stuff in terms of the statute are the changes with respect to travel club services. Is that correct?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Correct.

G. Plant: There are already regulations in effect to extend consumer protection with respect to travel clubs. If that's so, first of all, am I right that what's being done here is to bring them into the statute to give them the protection which other types of contracts for future services enjoy under the statute?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.

G. Plant: Generally speaking, though, the same rules will apply going forward as have applied over the last little while -- that is, seven-day cooling-off periods and the rules that the Attorney General announced, I think, largely as a result of the Platinum Passport club affair. There's no intention to change the rules substantively here -- is that right?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Correct.

G. Plant: While this question belongs properly under section 2, I'll ask it now, and we can move on it if you want. Why is there a sunset clause in respect to the regulations that are the subject matter of section 2 of this bill?

The Chair: Perhaps while the Attorney General is considering that answer. . . . Will section 1 pass?

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: It was intended to be temporary so that we could have permanent protection in the statute; that was intentionally done.

G. Plant: I'm guessing here as to what the effect of the sunset clause is. Does that mean that the regulation that existed in respect of travel club services will come or has come to an end and will be replaced by the statutory protection? Or am I missing the point?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: This was an interim measure. The regulation reads, oddly enough, that as soon as the new sitting of the session of the Legislature begins, the regulation comes to an end. Hence we're here to include this protection in the statute.

G. Plant: Is the ambit of this amendment limited to the issue of contracts for travel club services, or does it extend to other subject matters?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Just for travel clubs.

Sections 2 to 4 inclusive approved.

On section 5.

G. Plant: Well, we turn now to the changes to the Residential Tenancy Act, the first of which is to give arbitrators certain powers in cases where landlords have exercised a right

[ Page 7739 ]

The first question is: to date, have arbitrators lacked the power to make any orders in respect of the improper exercise of the landlord's right of entry?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: So far the arbitrators have only had the power to bar entry, not to regulate entry. I think this provision will go to the extent of allowing the arbitrators to regulate entry.

G. Plant: Is it the Attorney General's view that granting this power of regulating entry will add to the workload of arbitrators by essentially turning them into supervisors of good behaviour by landlords and tenants?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: This power to bar or ban entry was obviously used sparingly by the arbitrators. Similarly, I think this power will be used only in the circumstances where it becomes clear to the arbitrator that something short of a total ban of the entry may be required. One could argue the same with respect to the banning of entry: where the entry was banned, were they supervisors? These are processes that are followed by quasi-judicial bodies, and we live with them.

G. Plant: How many of these orders to ban entry are made year by year, by Residential Tenancy Act arbitrators?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I'm advised that there have been very few orders. I couldn't give the number, although a number less than ten was mentioned, but in a very unsure way. I wouldn't want that to be on record as the number.

G. Plant: The question that always arises -- I guess in law school -- when you're asking about a new piece of legislation is: what is the evil against which this provision is directed? I'm not sure there's much evidence of an evil if there are only ten or fewer absolute-bar orders made a year. Are we dealing with a particularly widespread problem here or just something that someone thinks, on the basis of a kind of non-statistical, non-objective criteria analysis, would be a good thing to do for the arbitrators -- to give them this additional power?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I think it would be a useful extension and broadening of the power. Let's imagine a case where the entry has been banned, there is an emergency, and you can't get access -- where something less than a total ban could have served a better purpose. I think that's why this power is being enhanced and extended: so that perhaps those kinds of conditions could be attached -- that under certain circumstances of an emergency those regulations or conditions that the arbitrator might set in place are not operative. Because you need to deal with them. But if you change the lock -- if that was the only way of banning entry before, because the court arbitrator authorized the changing of the locks -- then the landlord is in a very difficult position and can't get into the premises to deal with emergencies and the like. I think that this is a compromise which I'm hoping will be useful both to the landlords and to the tenants.

G. Plant: Part of my concern here is that we don't really. . . . The Attorney General's explanation is probably reasonable up to a point. It might be that you could deal with that specific issue legislatively. But what's been done instead is that rather open-ended terms are being used -- "improper purpose," "unreasonable time," "unreasonable manner" -- and neither landlords nor tenants are going to know with any certainty what their rights are, frankly, until we have a whole body of decisions. Hopefully, if the Attorney General is successful in persuading the arbitrators to establish a body of precedents, then those decisions will mean something. But for now, arbitrators do not operate under the precedent system; they operate case by case and make any decision that they feel is just, on the facts of the case.

I guess I'm concerned here about uncertainty and unpredictability as much as anything else. I'm particularly concerned when I hear that there really isn't yet, at this point, a large number of cases where this is likely to become a problem. My concern is that what will happen, among other things, is that through the back door, people will read content into what an improper purpose or an unreasonable time means, and we'll end up having to rewrite landlord-tenancy agreements to make express exemptions for entry in cases of emergency, which may already be the case in many residential tenancy agreements. It seems to me, to use another time-honoured phrase, that this section uses a sledgehammer to kill a fly. I'm not sure why the sledgehammer is necessary.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I think we've gone over this. I've said why this power might be more useful than the simple and only power, which was to ban entry. It won't be difficult for arbitrators or landlords and tenants to recognize what's proper and what's not proper. Obviously an entry at midnight to change a lightbulb certainly isn't acceptable. I think that those are the kinds of issues that arbitrators can deal with without taking drastic action, such as allowing or authorizing the tenant to change the locks so that during emergencies the landlord couldn't have access to prevent damage.

R. Coleman: I think the Attorney General and his staff should look back at their own policies in the print material they're distributing to their own landlords. I'll just quote it back to you, because you're talking about somebody changing a lightbulb at midnight and that sort of thing.

There are standards of practice within the landlord and tenancy arrangement in this province today. Basically it's outlined that your landlord can enter your premises under the following circumstances: if there's an emergency such as a fire, an exploded pipe or flooding; if you are at home and agree to let the landlord in; if you've agreed, not more than one month before, to let the landlord in for certain reasons, which would usually be a maintenance issue, something to do with the toilet or something that had to be fixed or the changing of blinds or painting; if you've abandoned your suite; if your landlord has an arbitrator's order or court order to enter your home; or if your landlord has given you written notice of at least 24 hours and not more than 72 hours in advance. The notice should give the reasons for entering and the hours of the day your landlord will spend in your suite. The reasons must be valid, and your landlord's time in your suite must fall between 8 a.m. and 9 p.m., unless you agree to another time. That has been the method of operation. I believe that's what you can pull off your own home page relative to residential tenancy.

I get concerned when we put something into a section of the Residential Tenancy Act that gives this arbitrary situation to a group of arbitrators, which I've always stated don't have a standard of practice, don't have a set of rules to guide themselves by, don't have a set of rules of evidence or operational

[ Page 7740 ]

If we're going to have a section like this, we'd better outline up front what the reasonable reasons are that we can go into a suite before we say we're going to go back to an arbitrator. And all of a sudden, an arbitrator who isn't aware of your own policies or procedures or guidelines makes a decision that says you can no longer come in and do maintenance in a suite.

[2:45]

G. Plant: The price of striking the balance is going to be to create uncertainty. I worry here that the cure is going to be worse than the disease. The Attorney General points out that section 16 is about giving the landlord the right of entry. The Attorney General points out that that right is already subject to the power of the arbitrators to make an order to essentially prohibit the right of entry.

Now we want to find the happy medium. The problem with the happy medium is that it involves using words like "unreasonable" and "improper," which are simply value judgments, which we're now asking a group of people to make who don't have any of the safeguards in place that my colleague mentioned a moment ago. We don't do performance reviews, we don't know what principles they apply, and we don't know what rules they follow. Neither will the landlords and the tenants who are going to start arguing about this. We could have an interesting discussion, I'm sure, about what perfect justice is or is not and what's affordable justice and what is not. I think that one of the most important principles of public policy around landlord-tenant issues is to create something that is certain, that is accessible to lay people. It may be that sometimes certainty comes at the price of occasional hardship. Who's to say that we couldn't all argue about that constructively for quite a while? We might actually all find that we're agreeing with each other.

But you know what? I actually think that we lose something here when we lose certainty. Among other things, I know what will happen: my mailbox will get more full rather than empty with issues that I don't think should be in my mailbox at all, issues where people are writing to me saying they don't have a clue what happened in a residential tenancy arbitration process. They have no idea how the arbitrator made the decision that was made, and they have no basis for figuring out the logic. What we're doing, in that context -- which I think the Attorney General accepts is an unacceptable context, which the landlords' advocates argue is an unacceptable context and which the tenants argue is an unacceptable context. . . . We're giving arbitrators more powers, and we're giving them powers in terms which invite them to exercise value judgments about issues of reasonableness and appropriateness. I think that's a mistake.

Let me ask this, though. Perhaps some of this could be dealt with if there were a set of guidelines in place that said: "This is what constitutes unreasonableness in these circumstances; this is what constitutes impropriety in these contexts." Can the Attorney General give us any comfort around what his intentions are in terms of issuing guidelines, or something like that, that would at least address some of my concerns around uncertainty?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Two points: one is in response to the earlier comments. There's a certain level of discomfort that I detect on the part of the hon. member with the use of terms such as "unreasonable time" or "unreasonable manner," and the hon. member is saying that it's very difficult for an arbitrator to determine those matters in an objective fashion. But those very words are in the current right of entry for landlords. For instance, if you look at 16(1)(f): ". . .the landlord has given written notice of entry for a reasonable purpose. . . ." And nobody else determines that purpose other than the landlord. So if the landlord can determine that purpose, there has to be somebody else who can then perhaps determine that maybe it's not reasonable. I appreciate the discomfort the hon. member is expressing. There are always issues of uncertainty when something new is added to existing legislation, and I'm hoping they'll be able to work out these difficulties without much problem.

The second issue that the hon. member raises is a lot more serious, and I agree with him that the arbitrators need a certain set of guidelines to guide their decisions. I have said -- I said about a month ago -- that I'll give them six months to settle on those guidelines amongst themselves. If they don't do that, I will impose them -- and I do intend to do that. I'm sure they'll be looking at Hansard to start working on them very quickly.

Section 5 approved.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Chair, I move the amendment -- section 5.1 -- that's in the possession of the Clerk.

[SECTION 5.1, by adding the following section:

5.1 Section 17 is amended by adding the following subsection:

(4) If consent to assign or sublet the tenant's interest in a tenancy agreement is arbitrarily or unreasonably withheld by a landlord contrary to subsection (2), an arbitrator may order that a tenancy agreement is assigned or sublet.]

G. Plant: I'd just like to clarify the purpose of the amendment. In the bill as read for a first time, section 7 made changes by adding section 54(5)(e), which uses the same language as the amendment. It seems to me that what the amendment seeks to do is to move the power in respect of assignment and subletting from section 54 into the section of the act that expressly deals with the subject of assignment and subletting. Is that correct?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.

G. Plant: Then is this a case where essentially the arbitrator is given, I guess, expressly a power to effect a remedy -- the remedy being to assign or sublet the property in cases where the arbitrator is of the view that the landlord's consent

[ Page 7741 ]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand that there was a decision that cast some doubt on the arbitrators having this power, and that's why it's important that it's included.

G. Plant: I'm not going to pursue the point vigorously, although I will say this: oftentimes in some legal contexts, when a judge or some decision-maker decides that an individual who is required by law to make a decision based on reasonable circumstances fails to act reasonably, then the direction that is given is to act reasonably, rather than: "This shall be your decision." In other words, if the landlord unreasonably refuses consent to a sublet or an assignment of a tenancy, it may not always be the right thing in the circumstances for the arbitrator to say: "You unreasonably withheld your consent. Therefore I order that you assign or sublet to the person who wanted it." I understand the reason for the need for the reform, and I support that. I'm not as happy with the choice of language to achieve the result as I'd like to be.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Particularly with respect to mobile homes, if the arbitrator doesn't have the power to order that a tenancy agreement is assigned or sublet, valuable time is lost and sometimes the owner of the mobile home, who is the tenant, loses that sale. I understand that in the past the arbitrators have said, or maybe one arbitrator has said: "Yes. I have the power to hold this consent as being unreasonably withheld, but I don't have the power to assign or sublet. I don't have the power to order that it be assigned or sublet. Therefore I only have the power to say that the tenant can now apply for financial damages as a result of the unreasonable withholding." That's why it was important for us to make sure that if there is a finding by the arbitrator that a subletting or assignment is unreasonably withheld, the arbitrator would know that he or she has the discretion -- it's permissive -- to order the assignment or subletting completed.

G. Plant: I appreciate the explanation. The provisions of section 17 of the Residential Tenancy Act, when you are not looking at manufactured homes, only kick in in respect of a tenancy agreement that is more than six months in length. I guess that means that if a landlord wishes to let premises for a period of less than six months, the landlord is not bound by the obligation to act reasonably in respect of assignments and subletting. Is there any intention to change that by the amendment which is now before us?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: No.

R. Coleman: I just have a couple of quick questions regarding this section. The first one comes back to a discussion that should probably take place in this House at some point in time, relating to the fact that manufactured home parks probably don't belong under the Residential Tenancy Act. We should be into some sort of lease arrangement and have some standards of practice regarding the operation of these because of how it gets wrangled up.

The other side of it is that, again, in order to ever solve this problem completely, we're going to have to come to some standards of practice. When you get into the discussion about unreasonably withholding a tenancy, particularly on the assignment on sale, we have some difficulties in the industry relative to some of the product that is sitting in some of our parks that do not meet CSA standards because they are pre-1972. Today they are actually becoming hazardous to other homeowners in the same parks. That is one of the concerns about some standard of practice as far as livablity and the inspection of the unit relative to the transference of title and the transferring of the lease.

I'm wondering if when you dealt with section 5 any of that was taken into your discussions -- in other words, how you were going to handle those types of tenancy, as far as setting some standard relative to the unit that is being transferred in the tenancy?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: If the hon. member would look at section 14 of this bill -- which amends section 90(2) of the current legislation -- sub-subsection 90(2)(p) is a regulation-making power with respect to assignment and sublet of a manufactured home park tenancy agreement, so that we can establish criteria through regulations that would then govern the withholding or granting of consent. Then it's not done in a vacuum.

[3:00]

Leave granted.

C. Hansen: Visiting us in the gallery is a group of grade 5 students from Crofton House School in Vancouver-Quilchena. They're accompanied by their teachers Vicky Harris and Mark Fischer, and by parents Jim Abel, Karen Keating, Lian Cuddington, Jamie Maw and Rose Smith. I ask the House to please make them very welcome.

R. Coleman: I'm aware of that section that we're going to be dealing with later. There's some debate around that section, as well, relative to who's going to make the decision as to what the standard practice in the manufactured home park is. At this point in time, the industry views it as something that's going to be done without consultation or discussion and be dealt with and just arbitrarily applied to them. Those are the calls I'm getting from both the tenants' groups and from the park owners' groups, because they had some concern there.

When we had discussions in the last two years relative to manufactured homes, we really felt in estimates at some time -- I remember I had the discussion with the former Minister of Municipal Affairs and the Attorney General -- that we had to clearly define this in a way that protected both the asset and the operation of the park in such a way that the other tenants would live in a park where other people are meeting standards.

As we get down further into the sections, I'm going to turn this over to my colleague from Shuswap. We're going to end up in discussions that are going to show us that some of what we're trying to do in this. . . . Some of the sections that we have in this particular bill are actually going to throw this industry somewhat into disarray relative to how we're going to have any hammer for people to behave so that everybody can have quiet enjoyment of their tenancy. I think we'll get into that discussion shortly.

My only concern would be that those standards of practice. . . . I'll ask the Attorney now: what consultative process do you have in place relative to setting the standards for the operation of these parks?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Chair, I understand that there has been some consultation on the criteria that I spoke about

[ Page 7742 ]

Section 5.1 approved.

On section 6.

G. Abbott: I don't think there is any simple way to put this question to the minister. What we are primarily concerned with here is, I guess, section 18(1)(c)(ii) of the Residential Tenancy Act. I'll just read section 18(1): "A landlord and tenant are deemed to have agreed to submit to an arbitrator any of the following applications. . . ." And then, going down to subsection 18(1)(c): ". . .an application to dispute the amount of a rent increase between a tenant of a manufactured home pad and the landlord if. . . (ii) the tenant applies for arbitration within 30 days after (A) the tenant receives a notice under section 69(6) that the chair of the dispute resolution committee has refused to appoint a dispute resolution subcommittee." Now, is there a dispute resolution committee in every instance with which we would be concerned here?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I'm given to understand that yes, there is a committee in every case.

G. Abbott: You're given to understand that in every instance where the tenant receives a notice of a rent increase, he goes to the chair of the dispute resolution committee and asks him to appoint a dispute resolution subcommittee. In every instance there is an established committee for the tenant to deal with.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: A subcommittee?

G. Abbott: No, a committee.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes, there is a dispute resolution committee in every case. In some cases, this particular section or subsection is intended to deal with cases where the DRC, as it's called -- the dispute resolution committee -- refuses to appoint a subcommittee. I don't understand the hon. member's question, if there is a question beyond that.

G. Abbott: What I'm attempting to do here is just clearly understand what I understand to be the "new portion" or the new contribution to resolving these disputes. I just want to be clear in my mind, before we pass this, that we have a practical working system that mobile home park owners and residents can deal with. In every instance, then, the tenant's application for arbitration 30 days after the tenant receives a notice from the landlord goes to the chair of the dispute resolution committee. Is it up to the chair of the dispute resolution committee, or is it up to the dispute resolution committee to determine whether a dispute resolution subcommittee is appointed? It would appear that it is the chair. But is that the case?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: This only applies to arbitration. In fact, you have to have the mediation before you come to arbitration. This is a 30-day provision with respect to arbitration, and those 30 days kick in after the dispute resolution committee has refused to appoint a subcommittee after the tenant has received the notice under section 71(3) ending mediation, or after the tenant received notice under 71(6) that a recommendation has been rejected -- and of course it would go on. This is a 30-day limitation set in that particular event.

[H. Giesbrecht in the chair.]

G. Abbott: Again, I know this is laborious and painful, but I think it's only fair, if my constituents who operate or are residents in mobile home parks are to be expected to understand the process -- and hopefully, I'm able to understand it as well. . . . So let's back up to the landlord delivering to the tenant a notice of a rent increase to which the renter takes exception. The first step is, in fact, mediation. Is that correct? Can the Attorney General describe to me how the mediation service -- if indeed it is a service -- is provided? How would either of the parties in this case obtain the services of the mediator, who pays for it and that sort of thing?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: If the hon. member understood the previous requirements for mediation, those requirements still stand, except that now the tenant has 60 days from receiving the notice of rent increase to apply for mediation.

G. Abbott: That's a useful explanation. This is merely an expansion of time of a previously existing step in the process.

Moving on from there, then. . . . If the recommendation has been rejected, as in section 18(1)(c)(ii)(C), then the matter, at the tenant's instigation, can then be referred to the chair of the dispute resolution committee. Again, I hope I'm not putting too fine a point on it, but is it up to the chair of the dispute resolution committee or is it up to the dispute resolution committee to determine whether this subcommittee of the committee would be formed?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I'm going to become very smart going through this discussion, and I will, for a change, understand this process.

What happens when you go through mediation is that there can be three possibilities: Firstly, the DRC could say we're not going to appoint a mediation committee, which is a subcommittee, to mediate -- that's (A). In (B) the subcommittee has been appointed but they end mediation, deciding that mediation is not going to work. In (C) they make a recommendation, but it has obviously been rejected by the landlord or the tenant -- one party or the other -- or both. In those three eventualities the tenant or the landlord then has 30 days to apply for arbitration. . . . I'm sorry. Only the tenant has the right to apply for arbitration. The landlord has increased the rent, and it's up to the tenant to accept or reject it. It's only the tenant that then applies for arbitration.

G. Abbott: I thought for just a moment there, as the Attorney General was sitting down and asking a question, that he had in fact anticipated the question that I was going to ask, which is. . . . We have this sort of parallel process, where we have landlord and tenant working through mediation and so on. Yet we end up going back to the dispute resolution committee, having failed to achieve a mediated solution that both parties agree to. The tenant can go back to the DRC but the landlord apparently cannot. What happens to the landlord?

[3:15]

It's the landlord that gives the notice of rent increase, and it's the tenant that wants to dispute it. If the tenant doesn't want to dispute it, the tenant doesn't go to the arbitration, and then the rent increases. The landlord is happy.

[ Page 7743 ]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The dispute resolution committee is the mediation mechanism, not the arbitration. Arbitration comes afterwards.

G. Abbott: I understand that. I've been elevated to that point, and I don't question that. It is presumably the dispute resolution subcommittee which becomes the arbitrator, is that correct?

Interjection.

G. Abbott: No?

Interjection.

G. Abbott: Okay, fine. I will defer to my colleague for the moment.

R. Coleman: I'm not going to get into a long, drawn-out explanation as to how the dispute resolution committees work. It's actually quite a simple process: the subcommittee becomes your mediator and then it goes back to the dispute resolution committee for a decision. The committee forwards it on. That's basically the quickest description I can give, but I do have a couple of questions relative to it.

Subsections (1)(c)(ii)(A), (B) and (C) do anticipate that only a tenant would apply for arbitration in the case of a rent dispute. Unfortunately, that's not the case. We have seen cases where, if a landlord is rejected by the dispute resolution committee and makes a recommendation for an appropriate rent increase that's not acceptable to the landlord and it goes forward to an arbitrator, and the arbitrator. . . . The landlord's request is: why can't the landlord have the right to arbitration in that particular situation as well?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: If the tenant does not apply for arbitration within 30 days of that eventuality, the increase takes effect.

R. Coleman: And you're absolutely right. However, I'll give you an example. Let's say a park was going for an increase of 3 percent, or $10 per pad, and the DRC said: "Well, maybe you should only have $5 a pad." But the tenant still doesn't want to agree to pay $5 a pad, so they go to arbitration. The landlord, at the same time, doesn't agree that he wants $5 a pad; he wants $10 a pad. He can't go to arbitration, but the dispute resolution committee decision can go to arbitration in spite of the fact that they've reduced the number. That's where it gets into the conundrum where the tenant is still not satisfied with the increase, and therefore it goes to arbitration. The dispute resolution committee has made a decision that has not been mediated with the landlord, and that's why it goes to arbitration. This is what has been happening in a number of cases.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: If the increase has been reduced by mediation, then the landlord has the obligation under (C) to reject that, which means, then, that the onus is on the tenant to apply within 30 days for arbitration. If the tenant fails, the full increase takes effect.

R. Coleman: I can accept the notion that it's the dog that's going to chase the tail, and eventually he's going to get it done. It's just that it would seem to me that rather than having to go through all the rejection, there would be an opportunity for a landlord to go to arbitration on some issues. I understand what the Attorney is saying; I accept that. But I wanted to bring this situation to the attention of the Attorney, because it has been occurring and there is frustration that they can't seem to get their message relative to the rent increases back the other way.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Well, I appreciate the hon. member's generosity in taking my word for it. I think it's important that we recognize that the onus here is on the tenant if the tenant wants to continue to challenge the rent increase. If the mediation recommendation is rejected by the landlord, as in (C), and the tenant does not apply for arbitration within 30 days of that, I think the landlord doesn't have to do anything. The rent increase becomes effective. Maybe I shouldn't have said anything.

R. Coleman: What's the appeal process for the landlord if, after going to arbitration, the rent increase is rejected? What is the appeal process for the landlord to go back again?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I would like the hon. member to clarify what stage he is talking about. Is he talking about after mediation or after arbitration? After arbitration, I think it's only the judicial review procedure with respect to the courts. Sorry, there's the arbitration review panel in between.

R. Coleman: Well, basically what I'm looking for is clarification that there's an opportunity for a landlord to take action if he's not able to get his rent increase after trying to justify it under the guidelines, rather than having to go through some lengthy legal process. I recognize that the guidelines do try to work something. . . . The DRC tries to function. The trouble is that it's tough to discuss this within the envelope of no longer having retroactive rent reviews, which was one of the issues that was causing most of these problems to begin with. I think that if we're getting into a situation where the DRCs and the subcommittees can actually make recommendations. . . . If the DRC can come forward and there's arbitration and there's a process without having to get into the fight over retroactive rent review, this might work. I really think that it has to be clear that the owner of the land, which in this case is the landlord of a manufactured home -- which again is an odd form of tenancy, as I've always said -- does need a mechanism to deal with losing in arbitration and to go back into the system to deal with the rent increase.

Relative to that, while I'm on my feet and we're on the same section, in section 18(2). . . . I'm just wondering what the rationale was for repealing subsection (2)(a), as well.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: This change is brought about by the fact that so far there are no guidelines, because I understand that we haven't, at least until quite recently, come to an agreement about those guidelines. Now, those guidelines. . . . Whether they're done in consultation with the stakeholders or not, once they are guidelines they'd be appended as regulations. That's why, in fact, subsection (2)(a) would now refer to regulations rather than the guidelines.

[ Page 7744 ]

I know that one of my colleagues has some more questions about dispute resolution committees and how they function. But just so we understand. . . . The industry has to be balanced in the ability to cover its costs of running its operation in a manner that is good for the people who live in the park, and it also has to be balanced so that people will meet the rules and guidelines in order to allow for enjoyment by everybody who lives in a particular location. Maybe my colleague would like to get into the DRC a little bit with regards to that, but I think it's important to realize that landlords are at times put in a corner where they need some arbitration or some assistance as well, and they shouldn't be ignored in this process.

G. Plant: I'm trying to play catch-up here in a game that I don't fully understand, which is always a high-risk but exciting adventure.

The Residential Tenancy Act speaks in section 67 of something called the manufactured home park dispute resolution committee. My understanding is that there is one such body in the province of British Columbia. Accordingly, in the amendments which are under discussion, it would be the body that would be referred to in the first of the three subsections that deal with the tenant's application for arbitration. Is that correct?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I think there is some confusion. The hon. member was talking about arbitration. It is the same committee -- referred to as dispute resolution committee -- but it is the mediation mechanism.

G. Plant: Let's just read the words that I have in mind, because exactly describing the section number would be even more tedious. The words are: ". . .the tenant receives a notice under section 69(6) that the chair of the dispute resolution committee has refused to appoint a dispute resolution subcommittee." In that context, dispute resolution committee refers to the body which is established by the minister under section 67 of the act. Is that correct?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.

G. Plant: Is that body currently functioning? Does it have a chair? Does it have committee submembers or whatever the other committee members would be?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I'm given to understand yes.

G. Plant: I had some communication with someone who, I guess, was a former chair of the dispute resolution committee, who expressed to me the concern that his views were not sought in respect of the proposed amendments to the act -- the amendments that we have under consideration. I find some reason to share his concern when I look at the functions of the dispute resolution committee in section 68, which include providing the minister with reports and information and guidelines and recommendations "respecting issues arising out of the renting of manufactured home pads." I would have thought that these legislative changes would be the very things that something like the dispute resolution committee would be asked to talk about. It may be that the minister consulted with somebody else. Did the minister actually receive recommendations about this process from the dispute resolution committee?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: He was definitely consulted when he was the chair. Sometimes the difference in recognizing whether or not you have been consulted is whether or not you have been completely followed in terms of your advice.

[3:30]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The DRC is fully functional, I understand.

R. Coleman: The idea behind mediation and the DRC is to come to a solution. Ironically, within the system that we have established, if the DRC refuses to set up a subcommittee, the resident can still go to arbitration. Is that correct?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.

R. Coleman: I would just tie that back into my argument on balance: the tenant can go around the system to the residential tenancy branch, but the landlord does not have the same ability with regard to arbitration or appeal. It's simply because of what's happened in this system. If the DRC subcommittee isn't appointed or if it rejects it, off they go to the arbitrator. And that's been happening on a regular basis.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The hon. member doesn't recognize the fact that if the DRC refuses to appoint the subcommittee, the onus is upon the tenant to then apply for arbitration if the tenant wants to continue to challenge the rent increase. If the tenant decides not to, the rent increase becomes effective. So there is no injustice to the landlord in that case, I will submit.

R. Coleman: I would submit that you're right, provided the arbitrator took into account that the DRC refused to appoint a subcommittee in rendering its decision, thereby obviously sending some sort of message to the arbitrator.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: One wouldn't want to argue about the circumstances under which the DRC may have refused to appoint the subcommittee. Obviously arbitrators take into account, within the context of the law, whatever they're entitled to take into account. I have said this very clearly: they need to have guidelines; they need to develop them; they are quasi-judicial individuals. If they don't do that within six months of the date, I indicated to them that I will impose those guidelines -- if that helps the hon. member.

Interjection.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes, so am I.

G. Plant: Just one more question around the composition of the DRC. The DRC can have a chair; it can have vice-chairs; it can have members. How many members of the DRC are currently appointed, including both chair and vice-chairs?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I don't have that information here.

Section 6 approved.

On section 7.

[ Page 7745 ]

[SECTION 7, by deleting the proposed subsection (5)(e) and renumbering paragraphs (5)(f) and (g) as paragraphs (5)(e) and (f) respectively.]

G. Plant: The amendment that we're discussing simply completes the process of amending the assignment and subletting provision which we earlier moved to another section of the act. Is that correct?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.

Amendment approved.

On section 7 as amended.

G. Plant: Perhaps I could begin this discussion by asking the minister: with respect to each of the remaining subparagraphs in what will become section 54(5) -- all of which are new -- was there some doubt in each case as to the power of arbitrators to make the orders which are contemplated by these new provisions?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: As do most creatures of statutes, arbitrators are known to take a very narrow view of their powers. Unless the powers specifically indicate, arbitrators have said many times that they don't have the power and are not prepared to read into the legislation the power that they sometimes need -- and I say this without criticizing anyone -- to fulfil the intended objective, such as what we're now trying to do.

G. Plant: I want to move to discuss what used to be subsection 54(5)(f) -- what will become 54(5)(e), which is the hardship provision.

First of all, as a sort of exercise in comparative lawmaking, perhaps I could ask this question: do arbitrators -- or whatever their equivalent is -- in other jurisdictions in Canada have powers that are similar to those which are contemplated in the hardship provision that is proposed before us?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes, I understand that Ontario legislation has a very similar power.

G. Plant: Here is the beginning of my problem: I can't imagine an eviction that would not cause hardship. I can't imagine an eviction that would not give the person being evicted the opportunity to argue: "I am -- or he or she is -- experiencing hardship." Eviction means moving; eviction means leaving the place that is your home. A notice to end a tenancy agreement is a notice to bring to an end the agreement, the relationship, that allows somebody to live somewhere. Forcing people to move is always going to cause discomfort, inconvenience, trouble, pain and expense -- something that I think almost any tenant could, if they felt so inclined, characterize as hardship. In fact, I'm sure that in many cases their characterization of what was happening to them as hardship would not be altogether unreasonable.

I think this section is a disaster. I think this is a big mistake. I think it is wrong to give arbitrators these powers in terms that will essentially invite an explosion of litigation in the residential tenancy branch. Even if the resources were available to handle the explosion of litigation it would not be in the public interest for that explosion to take place, because it would create uncertainty out there in the community of landlords and tenants. I think it would, at the very least in the short term, and, I fear, even in the medium term and the long term, create a big problem in the community of landlords and tenants. And that is a community of hundreds of thousands of British Columbians. It's not just big, bad, evil landlords that operate huge apartment buildings. It's ordinary folks who have basement suites, and the thousands of landlords who own premises that have one or two rental places in them. It's all the thousands of tenants who live in residential tenancy situations in British Columbia.

I think what we should be doing for residential tenancies in British Columbia is fostering rules, certainty, predictability, guidelines, precedents; we should be making everything more understandable, more predicable, more certain. What this is going to do is make things less understandable, less predictable and less certain. I have to say that I haven't actually heard anyone among the people who have communicated with me and the people who have communicated with my colleagues. . . . I haven't heard anyone yet say that we need this amendment in British Columbia; that this will improve the law in British Columbia; that it will improve the protection available in the law for landlords and tenants; that it will in fact mean that there will be more residential rental housing in British Columbia; or that it will mean that in communities across British Columbia where rental housing is at a shortage, that in fact that problem will be dealt with. I'm hearing people tell me, for quite good reasons, exactly the opposite.

So let's avoid the debate. I'll ask the Attorney General to withdraw the subsection. Will you?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The hon. member has commenced the debate; obviously it can't be avoided. But I'll try to avoid it. Let's not have a real debate.

I think the issue is -- and I remember the hon. member saying in his remarks during second reading -- that any or all of us can imagine circumstances under which this particular section could be useful. The difficulty the hon. member had with this during second reading was that it would be broadly interpreted, and it would create uncertainty. It is my view that that concern is somewhat misplaced.

This is why: section 54(5)(f) is intended as a remedy for those very, very few extraordinary cases where applying the strict letter of the law to evict a tenant would not be a just or equitable result. For instance -- and I gave this example to the hon. member when we were talking about this, not as part of the debate but otherwise -- let's imagine a case of an elderly mother who has a child living in the neighbourhood somewhere, an adult son or daughter, who has a pet. The son has to move, there is a no-pet clause in the agreement for the mother's tenancy, and the son is wanting to leave the pet with the mother for a two-, three- or four-week period. Let's say that it only happens for two weeks. Strictly, that is then a breach of the tenancy agreement. Under those circumstances, if it only happens for two weeks -- if it only happens under those circumstances -- should that alone be allowed to be used to terminate the tenancy agreement and force this elderly woman to move, when she may have been living there for years? Those are the kinds of extreme cases that this would be utilized for, and that's my hope.

Let me give you another example. Let's say there is a woman with young children, and she is separated. The husband has been late in sending his maintenance and support

[ Page 7746 ]

[3:45]

The legislation also requires the arbitrator to take into consideration the landlord's interests, by requiring the arbitrator to consider the conduct or circumstances that obviously led to the issuing of the notice in the first place. I want to assure the House that the arbitrators will receive training in this particular matter.

As well, I have indicated that, through regulations and policy guidelines, the consistency of the application of this legislation -- not just this particular section -- will be ensured. I said that publicly some weeks ago; I've said this in the House several times. I have given the arbitrators instructions to put together their own guidelines within six months. If they won't do that, we will impose them.

G. Plant: Well, let me begin my response by putting some of the narrow issues into the larger context. Perhaps I should tell the Attorney General that I'm the moderate on this, in focusing my remarks on the procedural issues. I wasn't intending to create the sense that this was the only concern that members of my party have. I suspect that stronger objections can and may in fact be put to this provision in the course of the next little while.

But let's put this in the following context. The Residential Tenancy Act isn't working. It's not working for most people. It needs to be rewritten in plain language. I actually get no letters complimenting me on the way the rental arbitration or any other arbitration process under the Residential Tenancy Act works. What I get is a steady stream of mail from people who point out to me, usually with all kinds of backup, the ways in which the process doesn't work: it's arbitrary, there's no certainty and no rules, and people don't apply the rules of evidence. You never know from one day to another what you're going to get when you appear in front of a Residential Tenancy Act arbitrator. That's not to impugn the good faith or the motives of most of the arbitrators. They're cast adrift in a sea where they're not really given a lot of guidance or training. Apparently, so far, that has not been a priority for this government.

In that context, what we're asked to do here is give the arbitrators more power. We're not being asked to do it in terms that are clear or simple or straightforward or practical or finite, or any other way; we're doing it in terms which are open-ended. We're using the kind of value-laden judgment stuff that the Attorney General and I are quite accustomed to seeing when we're dealing with bills or common-law rules that apply to judges in Supreme Court of British Columbia processes but not when we're talking about a process that needs to be inexpensive, quick, accessible and efficient for thousands upon thousands of people, day after day. For landlords, dealing with this stuff is often just a part of the cost of doing business. I'm told, for example, that the rent review stuff is so dysfunctional that landlords simply don't bother to engage in it. It costs more to engage the rent review process than they could ever hope to get out of a rental increase. That is the climate in which we're looking at these changes.

We're looking at these changes in the context of a legislative regime that isn't working very well for many people, and we're asked to do these things to it. Frankly, I think the context makes the problem worse. If the system were already up and running in a way where the rules were certain, where we knew we had some certainty of expectation and certainty of outcome in the vast majority of Residential Tenancy Act arbitrations, then I might just be prepared to take a chance and go down this road a little bit with the Attorney General and say: "Here, if you want, we'll give the arbitrators this additional power. We'll accompany it with lots of guidelines and regulations, and we'll make sure that it's only done in the most unusual cases." But I'm sure reluctant to participate in that process in the current context where, as I've said, I think the act as a whole is not terribly functional.

Let's come back, then, in that context, to the specific provisions that are before us. Yes, the hardship has to be unreasonable. That can mean a lot of things. What we know is that that involves a weighing of considerations by the people who are the residential tenancy arbitrators -- the people who, by the way, make it extraordinarily hard, on a day-by-day basis, for landlords ever to get an eviction from a tenant. The Attorney General gave examples that I'm sure move all of us in terms of the potential for hardship that can be created when people who are in vulnerable positions are on the receiving end of a notice to end a tenancy agreement. They think: "Well, you know, I'm sorry I couldn't pay my rent cheque. Every month my husband sends me a maintenance cheque; he's been doing so for three years. He slipped up this one month, and he's six days late. Here's the rent cheque now. Please don't evict me." I would be extraordinarily. . . . I shouldn't say extraordinarily surprised -- the world is too complicated for that -- but I'd sure be surprised if there were very many landlords who could get an eviction against a tenant under those circumstances in British Columbia today.

The problem with examples and the problem with anecdotes is that there are many anecdotes and many examples. There is the person who lives down the hall from the tenant who never turns the stereo off, the tenant who has a grow operation, the tenant who is, frankly, a complete and utter nuisance. The landlord gets a letter every day from the tenant's neighbours, saying: "Get rid of this guy or I'm out of here." And the guy that we're talking about says: "You can't move me out of here. These are minor details. Loud noise? Come on! We live in a big city. Who cares about loud noise? No arbitrator's going to throw me out in the street." The landlord is in a position, then, of saying: "You know what? I promised my tenants -- in fact, the law requires that I promise my tenants -- quiet enjoyment. I can't deliver it because there's a tenant in my building who won't protect the dignity or respect the rights of the other tenants in the building. I can't

[ Page 7747 ]

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

That's why I come back to the concern that, for me, is still the most important concern. I'm willing to put aside the issue of whether the playing field is level or whether it ought to be, of whether or not landlords have not enough or too many rights, or tenants have not enough or too many rights. I'm pretty sure I know the answer to all of those questions. I'm pretty sure I know that what this provision does is tilt the playing field, which is already tilted pretty badly against landlords, even further against them. But for the purposes of my concerns here -- I'm not necessarily speaking for my colleagues -- I'm even prepared to put all of that to one side and say. . . . The field is tilted and the odds are against you, but if the rules are written in such a way that you lose nine times out then, at least you're better off knowing what the rules are. You're better off with a bit of certainty and a bit of clarity. To create a provision which invites the kind of analysis that this provision does, by requiring arbitrators on a case-by-case basis to flip a coin and decide whether hardship is reasonable or unreasonable in the circumstances, to decide whether being five days late with the rent cheque is reasonable but being seven days is too late. . . . To build up a body of case law on those sorts of things is, I think, bad public policy. It sends the wrong message to an important sector of our economy in British Columbia, and it is a mistake.

I'd like to invite the Attorney General one more time: do the right thing, move an amendment, and get rid of this provision before it does all the harm that I think it will.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Rather than prolong the debate, I'll come to the issue. The hon. member used the example of a person who interfered with the quiet enjoyment and use of the neighbouring properties. I think it's important for us to recognize that under those circumstances, if the individual was being moved on that basis, I don't believe any arbitrator would believe that there was any hardship. Why would there be any hardship to an individual who flagrantly violates the terms of the agreement? I think that it is important for us to recognize that that's not what this section is intended for. There has to be unreasonable hardship -- not just hardship, unreasonable hardship. I think that's a much higher test than just hardship, which the hon. member has been talking about.

R. Coleman: Well, frankly, that's just a nonsensical argument. It's not with the issue of quiet enjoyment that it comes up; it comes up with the unreasonable hardship of the eviction. So now if the person who continues to breach goes before an arbitrator and says, "I'm a single parent; I have two young children; I have nowhere to go; it's cold; it's winter," the arbitrator says: "Well, that's unreasonable hardship." It doesn't go back to the quiet enjoyment of the operation of the apartment. It goes back to the argument of what is unreasonable hardship.

When you have a system like we have right now, when my colleague says the frustration in the agreement. . . . I mean, the statement about the non-payment of rent or the rent being late. . . . There isn't an arbitrator in this province that I've seen who, if somebody comes in six days late with the rent, will continue on with an eviction. That just doesn't happen. In the case of the dog, that's another one. Has nobody ever heard of a kennel? In addition to that. . . . This happens all the time, and arbitrators overturn those rulings. These are not arguments for unreasonable hardship, because the arbitration system in this province already deals with those in our eviction process. That's why there is an arbitration system. But to throw this unreasonable-hardship portion into this discussion just sends the industry into chaos.

[4:00]

On the same thing, you have frustration with other tenancy agreements. Where's the liability? Let's go back to this quiet-enjoyment situation. When an arbitrator decides that it's an unreasonable hardship for a tenant to be evicted even though they've broken the rules, and when the landlord loses five other tenants as a result because they move out to find a quieter building, who pays those bills? Who is going to take responsibility for us having a clause that allows an abuser to make it bad for everyone else and allows the person who owns the property to lose money -- to lose revenue, to be unable to pay taxes, to be unable to pay strata fees or whatever portion of their operation they pay from the rent they collect every month? Who's going to respond to the financial institutions that look at this and say: "Unreasonable hardship, and you want to make a sale. We'll wait until we see the eviction go through before we'll finance the purchase of your home, simply because we can see that this is going to be a difficulty"?

What you have done is created something that I don't think anybody has thought through. You've created something that literally is going to frustrate real estate contracts and frustrate the ability of the residential tenancy arrangement between a landlord and a tenant to work. It works now. It can work now, with regards to an eviction, relative to process. It goes before an arbitrator. Let me tell you -- believe me -- that the arbitration process in this province protects 99.9 percent of the people in an eviction process. So there is a reasonable result to that process.

To throw an unreasonable hardship against the industry and say that it will be seldom used. . . . I can tell you that that's not how it works out there. How it works out there is this: "If there is something that we can use to make it tougher on our landlord, in a relationship that's supposed to be balanced between two parties, we're going to make use of that." We're tilting the scales here. We cannot do that. If we do that, we are frustrating the industry. When we frustrate the indus-

[ Page 7748 ]

Now, I'd go back to what my colleague asked for: a friendly amendment to remove this clause. If in six months we're going to have what we call the guidelines for our arbitrators to operate under, and if, as the Attorney General said in estimates, we're going to have a plain-language piece of legislation before this Legislature in a year, let's remove this for now. Let's take it out, let's set the guidelines, let's write the act, and let's see what the industry has to say. Then let's bring it forward and see whether we've got a valid discussion here. But not today -- not in the absence of the rest of what should be done. I'd ask the Attorney to remove this one clause from this section.

G. Abbott: I guess I'm not entirely surprised that the Attorney General hasn't, as of yet, succumbed to the very persuasive -- I think -- arguments of my colleagues with respect to this section. I want to try as well, because frankly I think -- partisanship aside -- that a mistake is being made here and that the Attorney General really should rethink this particular provision. Hopefully, I can ask a question or two here.

But I also want to make the argument -- and hopefully, make it in a way which will be persuasive to the Attorney General. . . . In AG estimates recently, we had a brief but productive discussion around the issue of rent retroactivity for mobile home parks. In fact, the Attorney General passed along to us in those estimates the good news that he would soon be introducing a bill which would relieve mobile home park owners of the ongoing stress and concern and uncertainty around retroactive rent reviews back to the early nineties. I had in fact penned a letter to that effect to a constituent who had raised the issue with me. Regrettably, I now have to tell her that along with relieving her of the stress of retroactive rent review, the Attorney General is going to be adding a new source of stress, uncertainty and conflict in her life. I don't want to do that. I don't think it's necessary, and I hope that the minister can appreciate that there's a very powerful argument being made here to take another look at this thing and try to do something better.

Undoubtedly, the consequence of this section -- as my colleagues have stated -- is that it's going to produce a whole lot more uncertainty with respect to mobile home parks and rental in the future. The consequence, as has been stated, will be less affordable housing in the future. Already, there are powerful disincentives to provide affordable housing in British Columbia. This, I think, almost certainly is going to add one more powerful disincentive to investing and creating new affordable housing. This is a big mistake that the Attorney General is proposing to make, and I think he really should take another look at it.

Before I go on, I noted that the Attorney General stated that subsection (f) would be "used only in a very, very few extraordinary cases." I want to ask the Attorney General how we can be assured that it will only be used in a very, very few extraordinary cases.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I did indicate earlier, and that's why I didn't really rise to respond to the previous comments. . . . Those comments have been made and I have responded. Let me just add and simply repeat that if one goes to subsection (e), which is what it would be now, it says the arbitrator will make the decision ". . .having regard to all the circumstances, that ending the tenancy agreement would create unreasonable hardship" -- and now the more important words -- "in relation to the conduct, breach or circumstances that led to the issue of the notice."

So I think that all of those circumstances would be taken into account. Furthermore, I have said that we are going to make very thorough regulations and put in place policy guidelines. If the arbitrators don't do it themselves, we will do it for them at the end of six months. I want to make sure that is done, and I made that promise outside the House, in fact, long before this issue was introduced in the House.

I think that we will agree to disagree. I understand the concerns of the members opposite. I understand the intent and the objective and the ambit of the provision to be different, and I think I would rather leave it at that. If we want to belabour the issue, we can, of course, go on.

G. Abbott: The last thing I would ever want to do is belabour an issue. But on the other hand, when the government is proposing to do something which I think is going to make life a hell of a lot more difficult for a whole bunch of people in British Columbia, it's time to underline the concerns we have. Let me just quote briefly. . . . I've been getting some mail from my constituents on this issue, and I want to share just one of those with the Attorney General. This is from the Valley Mobile Home Park in Salmon Arm. It's from William and Anne-Marie Summers, who are the owners of that park. They say:

"The first major concern is [that] the government should remove the proposed section 54(5)(f), which gives the arbitrators a completely free hand to reject all termination notices on the basis of 'unreasonable hardship.' This section will open the door for more grey areas, and each individual arbitrator may have a different idea of 'reasonable hardship.' I would like to urge you to clear up these grey areas and make the law clearer to what an arbitrator must rule on."

I think it is unreasonable, if we can use that phrase, for the Attorney General to assume that this provision (f) -- now (e), I guess -- will be used in technical breaches only, as the Attorney General said. I think that once this provision is in place, there will be constant pressure to broaden what is understood to be an unreasonable hardship. While the Attorney General again says that it's not just a hardship but an unreasonable hardship, clearly there is here a degree of subjectivity around an option which, I think, is likely to be used with increasing frequency as more and more people become aware of this particular provision. The Attorney General will say: "No, people never respond in unreasonable ways to these kinds of opportunities." But I'd have to suggest that they will.

In order for an arbitrator to save the day for the mobile home park owner in an instance, the arbitrator is going to have to rule that an end of tenancy will impose only a reasonable hardship. Given the nature of human beings -- including arbitrators, who are clearly human beings -- it seems to me that it's going to be a very tough call. It's going to be very tough to view any hardship as being anything other than unreasonable. I think it's going to be a very tough call to say, "Well, this hardship is reasonable," if indeed it means that on a cold winter day someone is being relocated or dislocated from their premises. I'm not going to go on all day here, but I

[ Page 7749 ]

R. Coleman: My disappointment in not having this section pulled yet is huge, as you can well imagine, simply because I do believe what I state. Because I've been around this industry -- and not in the legal profession -- I can tell you what works and what doesn't work. Certainly I have been somebody that has stood in this House before and understood residential tenancy issues. I believe that I am correct when I state that you're about to frustrate an entire industry because of narrowness of thinking and not taking the time to take a step back on this.

I do have a couple of questions, though. My first question. . . . Because I'm not of the legal mind, I am of the practical mind, and I see that this is an impractical section which is applicable to an industry which perhaps you should meet with. I understand there's no appeal possible from a finding of fact by an arbitrator. Would that mean that a decision based on the fact of unreasonable hardship cannot be overturned by the arbitration review panel or by the Supreme Court?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I didn't catch the first part of that question.

R. Coleman: My understanding is that there is no appeal possible from a finding of fact by an arbitrator. My question is: if a decision is based on the fact of unreasonable hardship, does that mean it cannot be overturned by an arbitration review panel or by the Supreme Court?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: At the end of the day, what an unreasonable hardship is and what goes into determining that is a question of law. Certain facts would be taken into account, and it's important for us to recognize that. From the arbitration there is an appeal on points of law to the arbitration review panel, and then there is the judicial review at the end.

R. Coleman: So the answer to my question, then, is yes, a decision made by an arbitrator on a finding of fact can be overturned by the arbitration review panel or by the Supreme Court.

[4:15]

R. Coleman: So there is an opportunity, if it can't go to the arbitration review panel, to go to the Supreme Court?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Without having looked at the entire act at this point, I'm given to understand that yes, you can go directly to the Supreme Court from the arbitrator's decision, in the nature of a judicial review application, or you can do that from the arbitration review panel's decision.

R. Coleman: I guess my difficulty would be that we're asking people in a residential tenancy situation -- people who have invested their life savings in a secondary residence or an apartment building or whatever the case may be; people who are hard-working, who do not, frankly, understand the law in its totality or its appeal processes -- to deal with a section where, first of all, there is no absolute definition of what unreasonable hardship is and a section where the Attorney General who brings the legislation to the House can't tell me their processes for appeal. Where are they going to find out about their processes for appeal other than by hiring a lawyer who. . . ? I understand there's a few of them in the House today that can't answer my question. Perhaps you could tell me what lawyer we're going to find who would be able to answer these questions. Or are we just creating a situation where we're going to continuously be in the courts appealing and redefining unreasonable hardship, like we have with other terms we've put into law in the past where we end up having this discussion and driving people crazy with unreasonable regulation or discussion on legal terms?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: We're talking about quasi-judicial appointments here. I pointed this out to the hon. member. If one wants to argue, you can stand there for the next two hours and argue, and I would be happy to hear the arguments. You have, in section 16, a determination of what is reasonable for exercising the right of entry in the hands of the landlord. Essentially, the landlord decides what's reasonable under those circumstances. Here you have the arbitrators, who are given the quasi-judicial function of determining this particular issue, having looked at the circumstances of the notice, the breach and what kind of hardship it might impose on the tenant. I don't see howls of criticism from the opposition as to the existence of the word "reasonable" in section 16(1)(f), and that's in the hands of the landlord. So if we want to be partisan and spend the next three hours beating up on a particular phrase, I have no difficulty in sitting here and listening to the hon. members.

The Chair: Members, the Chair has some difficulty in regard to the standing orders on repetition.

R. Coleman: My last question was the first time I had asked it relative to this section, so I don't know whether repetition was in that particular question. I think the difference is that we already have defined when a landlord can enter a premises, and anything outside of that is unreasonable. We've defined that in what I quoted to you earlier. But we have not defined what "unreasonable hardship" is. So we defined that; we know when a landlord can enter -- right?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: There is a definition of reasonable purpose.

The Chair: Through the Chair, please, members.

R. Coleman: I'm not into a discussion of reasonable purpose. I'm into a discussion of the basic guidelines that you provide to landlords in your correspondence and your documentation as to under what circumstances they can enter a premise and when a tenant can refuse that entry. We're not into that section right now. What we're into -- and I will say it one last time -- is a section that will frustrate an industry, I guarantee you, and that will frustrate the ability to produce affordable social housing in this province. It will end up putting the onus on government to provide affordable housing even more so than it is today, because we will be losing stock and inventory as a result of one clause in this section.

B. Penner: I rise on behalf of my constituents to add my voice and express my concern about this proposed section. As

[ Page 7750 ]

It seems to me that the particular section we're talking about here -- I believe it's Bill 19, section 7, which amends section 54(5)(f) -- the unreasonable hardship provision allowing an arbitrator to basically disregard or cancel an eviction on the basis of "unreasonable hardship" for a tenant. . . . It creates too much subjectivity and too much uncertainty in the application of this very powerful law. I think it's also unusual in the sense that it puts the subjective interests of only one party -- that is, the tenant -- before the arbitrator. To me, that is an obvious sign of imbalance in this legislation.

I suppose any eviction could -- and may well, if this provision passes unamended -- end up going before an arbitrator on the basis of unreasonable hardship. It has already been mentioned and I don't want to repeat it ad nauseam, but I believe it will create undue hardship not just for the landlord but for other tenants who are perhaps disturbed by loud noises and loud parties by the tenant who has received the eviction notice. What about the other tenants in the building? They have a right to some certainty that disturbances will come to an end at a particular time. I believe that it is already very difficult under the current legislation to evict a tenant for anything short of absolutely outrageous behaviour. Even then, I'm told that in many cases eviction notices fail for want of technical requirements.

This section is worded so broadly that initially I thought it was a drafting error, but the Attorney General is maintaining his support for this section. I'll conclude my remarks by just affirming again that I believe this will have a negative impact on the people that we're supposedly trying to help: the tenants. It's been said that the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and this bill is one more brick in that road. What will happen to people with lower incomes who are looking for an increased supply of rental housing, if the private sector is discouraged from making the necessary investments? We've already seen other legislation in this session that adds red tape and discourages investment. I'm referring to Bill 14, Workers Compensation (Occupational Health and Safety) Amendment Act, and we debated that at length last week. I believe that this particular provision will have much the same effect: discouraging private sector investment in a much-needed area of our economy.

R. Neufeld: I'm just going to be brief, with one question. I apologize; I haven't been here for the whole debate.

I listened to some of the debate around unreasonable hardship as it relates to cold weather, and I noticed some recognition from the minister and his staff when someone talked about cold weather. Would that be considered unreasonable hardship as it relates to this piece of legislation?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Weather alone does not make an eviction unreasonable. It's all the circumstances of the eviction and the reason that the individual is being evicted. I gave an example of an old woman who had to look after her child's pet for two weeks. Now, technically she'd be in violation of the "no pets" clause. Whether she is being evicted in cold weather or in warm weather would have no bearing on whether or not it creates an unreasonable hardship. An unreasonable hardship is all of the circumstances, looking at the nature of the breach and at the nature of what follows once the individual is asked to vacate. All of those issues have to go into the determination of this issue. This is not intended to be used for vexatious or frivolous purposes, to cause any delays. I think it's important for people to understand that. If it was, it would simply be hardship -- not unreasonable hardship. It is always a hardship for people to move, but it's not always an unreasonable hardship for people to be moved.

R. Neufeld: I appreciate the explanation that the minister gave. I was rather taken aback by the expressions from over there, when someone talked about cold weather. All too often people down here -- people that draft legislation -- forget that a good part of this province survives quite well in cold weather. I mean, my winter starts in October and doesn't generally finish until mid-April, and we can incur all kinds of different weather patterns during that time. That was my concern around the question. The minister shakes his head and says: "No, it wouldn't be an issue at all." I'll take that as some comfort to my question, then.

[4:30]

YEAS -- 34
Evans	Zirnhelt	McGregor
Kwan	Hammell	Boone
Pullinger	Lali	Orcherton
Stevenson	Calendino	Goodacre
Walsh	Randall	Gillespie
Robertson	Cashore	Conroy
Priddy	Petter	Dosanjh
MacPhail	Lovick	Ramsey
Farnworth	Waddell	Sihota
Smallwood	Sawicki	Bowbrick
Kasper	Doyle	Giesbrecht
	Janssen

NAYS -- 30
Gingell	C. Clark	Campbell
Farrell-Collins	de Jong	Plant
Abbott	Neufeld	Coell
Chong	Whittred	Jarvis
Anderson	Nettleton	Penner
Weisbeck	Nebbeling	Hogg
Hawkins	Coleman	Stephens
Hansen	Thorpe	Symons
van Dongen	Barisoff	Masi
Krueger	McKinnon	J. Wilson

Sections 8 and 9 approved.

J. Weisbeck: Hon. Chair, I request leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

J. Weisbeck: On behalf of the member for Okanagan-Vernon, I would like to welcome 31 students, their parents and their teacher from St. James School in Vernon. Would the House please make them welcome.

On section 10.

[ Page 7751 ]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: In some cases, mediation is not entirely appropriate. For example, if the dispute involves a question of legal interpretation best decided by an arbitrator or a court, and if the dispute includes threats or intimidation such that a fair negotiation between the parties would not be possible under those circumstances, I think the chair should have the discretion to essentially bump the matter up to arbitration, because that would be best dealt with by an arbitrator.

G. Plant: So in those circumstances, the chair of the committee would have a discretionary power to refuse but would not be obliged to refuse.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.

Sections 10 to 13 inclusive approved.

On section 14.

G. Plant: The provisions in section 14 add to the regulation-making power of cabinet, in this case. The additional regulation-making powers may include the power to prescribe standard park rules to govern a manufactured home park and the power to define words or phrases that are used but not defined in the act. They include regulations about the kinds and levels of services to be provided by the landlord in manufactured home parks. I guess my concern here is around whether or not the Attorney General or his ministry will be embarking upon some process of consultation with the groups in the community who are likely to be affected by these regulations to ensure that they are prepared in a way that, to the best extent possible, balances all of the competing interests. It won't just be crafted in some well-meaning bureaucrat's head, without any consultation.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: As I indicated in one of my earlier responses to another question, some consultation has taken place, and more consultation will take place. These matters will be developed upon the fullest possible consultation.

G. Plant: Is there a timetable within which the government expects these regulations to be implemented?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: These will be a whole bundle of regulations for different issues, and it's difficult to provide time lines. We will do them at the earliest possible. . . . Some might be required earlier than others, as there has been some urgency in some areas.

G. Abbott: I don't want to leave this section without expressing a few concerns, among others, that have come to me from some of my own constituents who attempt to derive a living from mobile home parks that they own and operate. I want to preface my remarks with this: every government should struggle to find that perfect balance between necessary regulation and unnecessary regulation. It seems to me that in section 14, the government is moving beyond what is necessary or appropriate to achieve relative stability and certainty and reasonable relationships between owners and renters within mobile home parks. I think this section goes beyond what is fair and reasonable.

I want to start by quoting from a constituent, Mr. Mier, who is an owner of the Cedar Crescent Mobile Home Park in Salmon Arm. Again, this is a letter to the Attorney General that has been provided to me:

"Re: Proposed Bill 19. My wife and I are the owners of a small mobile home park since 1972, which I practically built with my own hands -- I am now 71 years old. We used to be one happy community of 31 mobile homes. In all these years, we had reason to evict two tenants and again everybody was happy to see them leave. Today the happiness is gone. It's more like mistrust and confrontation. Why? Because of overregulating."

"We ask this government to remove these sections from Bill 19 in the name of fairness and justice for all: tenants and landlords. We are also frustrated with the lack of consultation and the difficulties and additional cost these proposed amendments will impose on our business."

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I don't really want to enter into a long debate on this issue. The fact is that I have heard. . . . The largest amount of criticism that I've heard in my tenure as the Attorney General has been with respect to the lack of any guidelines for the dispute resolution committee. That is because the mobile home owners and the park owners have not been able to come to any agreement on any guidelines whatsoever.

Yes, in some areas government does overregulate, and I agree that we should do the least amount of regulation. But in some areas we need more regulation. Obviously all of the parties that collectively need to come to terms with issues can't do that, because they have interests and they can't sit down and accommodate each other's competing interests. I think it's important for us to do that. We're going to in fact do exactly that with respect to those guidelines very shortly.

[4:45]

On section 15.

G. Plant: This provision extends the limitation period for offences under the Residential Tenancy Act from six months to the period described here as being "more than 2 years after the facts on which the proceeding is based first come to the knowledge of the registrar." Is the Attorney General able, from the information that he has available, to tell me how many prosecutions there have been under this act in the last few years?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I'm not aware of the total number of prosecutions. It has been brought to my attention that six

[ Page 7752 ]

G. Plant: How many investigations have been frustrated because of the existing time period?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand from the staff I have here that one staff is aware of at least two.

G. Plant: Forgive me if I'm not impressed with two as a number for a fairly significant change in the limitation period. To return to the question that I asked earlier about what evil this legislation is addressed against, I respectfully suggest in this case that the answer would be a relative absence of evil -- at least, none that has been brought to my attention. I have asked people about this, and I'm told that there are almost no prosecutions -- ever -- under this act. When I ask how many investigations have been thwarted by this limitation period, I'm told that someone's aware of at least two. That doesn't strike me as being a particularly large number.

Before I move on to what becomes a more significant concern -- in my mind, anyway -- with respect to this provision, maybe we should just try that out again. Is the Attorney General of the view that a couple of thwarted investigations is a reason to quadruple the limitation period?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I think it's important to recognize that a landlord-tenant relationship is such that sometimes it is difficult for people to gather the courage to complain when they are in a landlord-tenant relationship at a particular place. People who are already intimidated or harassed possibly do not want to face further difficulties. Sometimes they would only complain when they have left the premises, and by then the time limitation is over.

I think it's important to recognize that there is an element of many people not complaining simply because it is impossible to complain, given those circumstances. I think we need to provide some assistance in that regard, some freedom for people to be able to move away from those circumstances and then complain if they believe that they need to complain. I don't think it's a matter of enhancing or diminishing anybody's rights. It's a matter of providing the opportunity for people to be able to complain and to have those complaints successfully investigated.

G. Plant: Am I right in the way that the change is being made here? It's to replace the six-month limitation period that exists in the Offence Act with an express limitation period that is provided for in what will become section 91.1? Is that generally the drafting technique adopted here?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes, it's the same technique that is used in the Motor Dealer Act and the Mortgage Brokers Act. That's essentially what we're doing.

G. Plant: I haven't had a chance to look at the Motor Dealer Act. Let me get to the heart of the more significant problem here. This isn't a two-year limitation period: it is potentially a very, very long limitation period. The way it's described is in the following terms: ". . .2 years after the facts on which the proceeding is based first come to the knowledge of the registrar." If the facts don't come to the attention of the registrar for one year, two years, five years or ten years. . . . Time does not even begin to run until the registrar is first made aware of the facts. I think that is, to coin a phrase, bad public policy; I think it's a bad law. Even if we were to accept the proposition -- and I'm not going to seriously quarrel with it -- that a two-year limitation period might be reasonable for the kinds of things that the Attorney General is talking about, at least let it be a two-year limitation period. The interesting thing I find about the examples given is that I suspect that the examples given are in fact instances of discrimination under the Human Rights Act, and there's probably a remedy available there anyway.

But here's what the Offence Act says: ". . .proceedings must not be instituted more than 6 months after the time when the subject matter of the proceedings arose." It seems to me that if the goal is to ensure that tenants who are faced with the kind of intimidation that the Attorney General talks about are in fact given a longer window of opportunity than six months, and if the appropriate window is two years, then the way to word the section is to say that the prosecution of an offence under this act must not be commenced more than two years after the subject matter of the proceedings arises, or words like that. To make it conditional upon the knowledge of a third party who is neither the landlord nor the tenant and who is not a peace officer and not a judicial official and who is an official who, as I understand it, has very little else to do just doesn't seem to be the right way to address the problem which the Attorney General identifies.

Actually, I think this would be an opportunity for the Attorney General to think about this point, and we could improve the language. The way it's written now puts landlords in a very unfair position. Months and months and months can go by, and something is lurking out there as a potential problem that they don't know about it. Not only do they not even know about it, but the clock is not even ticking on the right of the tenant to make the complaint that could engage this process. I invite the Attorney General's response.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Chair, I think the hon. member makes a very reasonable point. I want to think about this section; I want this section stood down. We can proceed to the other sections, and we'll come back to it before the end. I want one of the staff to go and make a call to the other members who drafted this -- get the rationale.

The Chair: Okay, members, the section is stood down, and we'll go to section 16.

On section 16.

G. Plant: Basically, I have just two issues to pursue here. First, perhaps the Attorney General could outline briefly and in lay terms what is intended by this idea of a first-time business opportunity scheme, which I think is a new term in the area of trade practices. At least, I believe it's being introduced into this legislation for the first time now.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The first-time business opportunity scheme is already mentioned in the legislation. This is the first time we've defined it. There was a court case that made it narrower than it ought to be -- interpreted it as a rather narrow concept. We're trying to provide some protection to the consumers by actually defining what it should mean.

G. Plant: The consumer in this context is the person who signs up for the kinds of schemes that are caught by the

[ Page 7753 ]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.

G. Plant: Then, looking at the provisions of section 16 as a whole. . . . I was about to say that they probably don't amount to a substantive change in the protection afforded by the act but rather are matters of clarification. I suspect that's not quite right. First of all, in the case of subsection (a), I gather the intention is to capture certain kinds of marketing schemes where the supplier of the service may be in British Columbia, but the consumer is not. The objective here is to ensure that the supplier is caught by the act even though the consumer may not be resident in British Columbia.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The courts have actually already decided that that coverage of the act extends beyond British Columbia's borders. We are simply legislating the court decision.

G. Plant: Does the Attorney General expect that the provisions made in this act with respect to trade practices will require an additional demand on the existing resources of the director of trade practices and staff? Let me just say by way of context that from time to time the issue arises about whether or not some of these programs are adequately staffed and resourced. It would be unfortunate to pretend to enlarge the ambit of consumer protection on the basis of what the law says but not in fact have the staff available to ensure that the investigations can take place. Perhaps I could leave that question with the Attorney.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I don't believe there would be any significant increase in the workload of the branch at all, because what we're essentially doing in some places is legislating the decisions of the court and, in other places, perhaps adding some areas that may not have been covered by the legislation. But if we're talking about the real property coverage that we're going to extend for the first time, the realtors were always covered by this legislation. I think the only new area would be the financial transactions relating to the sale or purchase of property -- new property, I believe. Of course, the developers might also be subject to the same.

[5:00]

G. Plant: So to try and wrap that up, the Attorney General does not expect that there will be a problem with the adequacy of resources in the trade practices area of his ministry in dealing with these new changes.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The director, I'm told, doesn't always enter into the picture. The director doesn't always necessarily investigate. Quite often the parties themselves take advantage of the act and take matters to court for resolution. I think, in that sense, that simply reinforces my previous argument that it would not be a significant additional load to what we are already doing.

G. Plant: The last part of the minister's answer takes me to issues raised in the context of section 20 of the act. I will just defer my question until we get there.

Sections 16 and 17 approved.

On section 18.

G. Plant: Actually, the question I was going to ask arises here too. Section 18 gives the director of trade practices some additional powers in relation to investigations and hearings. Are those new?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes, this is an expansion of the director's power to issue interrogatories as well as to make inquiries of third parties, not just the suppliers.

G. Plant: In keeping with the questions asked a few minutes ago, has the budget of the director's office been expanded in anticipation that there will be an increased use of these powers? Is the budget the same for this year, or is it reduced -- or what?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I think that once it's put into place, this would be a less expensive process. Rather than the investigators having to travel, make appointments and ask questions, it would be a simpler process of getting the information. And it would be less intrusive for businesses as well if they could respond in writing rather than having to be interviewed and spending time travelling back and forth.

Sections 18 and 19 approved.

On section 20.

G. Plant: This section gives the director powers to order a supplier, within the meaning of the act, to comply with the act and the regulations. I guess you could say that it's equivalent to a mandatory injunction. It's an important power. The director has to believe, on reasonable and probable grounds, that a supplier has contravened or is about to contravene the act.

The question I raised in second reading that I wanted to pursue with the minister is: does the director have the ability to do this without giving notice beforehand to a supplier?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Obviously sometimes discussions go on between the director or his or her representatives and the supplier. Those discussions may go on, and the supplier may continue to contravene the act. The director does not have to notify the supplier before the order is made, but once the order is made, section 17.1(4) comes into play. The director must then serve a copy of the order on the supplier named in the order. However, that doesn't preclude the director from holding discussions with the supplier before the order is made. There is no obligation to hold those discussions or to notify.

G. Plant: I must begin by saying that I'm not sure how many other administrative statutory officers in British Columbia have the power to make what are in effect ex parte orders. It may be that there are many. I am less excited about doing that than I would be about another way of approaching it. The other way of approaching it would be somewhat similar to what is done in courts with respect to ex parte injunction orders, which is that the order that's made expires automat-

[ Page 7754 ]

It's harder to do in this context because if the director, who is both judge and jury in the first instance in terms of deciding that there's been a contravention and then making the order. . . . I am apprehensive about a regulatory regime that allows the director to make an order without providing formal notice. This, as we all know, means that the person affected by the order does not have an opportunity to defend the case at that point, in effect leaving it to the person who is the subject of the order, the supplier, to go off to the Commercial Appeals Commission and appeal.

It seems to me that there is the risk here that we're giving more power in law to the director than is perhaps necessary for the director to achieve the objectives that he or she will have in a particular case. I don't have a problem conceptually with ensuring that the director has the power to make an order to cause a supplier to stop contravening the act. What I'm concerned about is whether it's fair -- whether it's consistent with principles of fundamental justice, to use Charter language -- that the director be able to make that order before giving any notice to the supplier and that the order not automatically expire in those circumstances, which is a safeguard that, as I say, the courts frequently use. I wonder if the Attorney General has an explanation, perhaps, of why my question is not a legitimate concern.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: In areas of consumer protection, sometimes you have to act with the speed of lightning. In fact, my complaint is that it doesn't happen too often. It's for those reasons that these powers are being given. If the hon. member then looks at subsection (5) of new section 17.1, it says: "An order under this section must inform the supplier. . .that the supplier is entitled to appeal the director's decision to issue the order to the Commercial Appeals Commission." So there is an instant appeal available, which is not necessarily very expensive either. The Commercial Appeals Commission isn't a very procedurally onerous body -- at least I hope it's not. But that's the motive behind it. In fact, my complaint is that we don't do enough, and we don't do it fast enough.

G. Plant: I'm not disagreeing with the intention or the motive. The Attorney General knows, of course, that the courts are often asked to make orders immediately -- Anton Piller orders -- to ensure that someone who is pirating software doesn't destroy the software. Those orders are made sometimes on the strength of a telephone call and very quickly, because, of course, in some cases if you give notice, then the person who's the subject of the order may act to destroy the subject matter and render the whole proceeding nugatory.

My concern is a different concern, I suppose. Granted that there may be circumstances where the director should have that power, is the appropriate safeguard simply to give the person affected by the order a right of appeal? Or would a more cautious safeguard be a provision that said that the order made has a limited life -- a week or two weeks or three weeks -- at which point the director then has to justify the continuation of the order? It may be that the way to do that is for the director to exercise his or her powers on an ongoing basis in a way which is mindful of that risk. So when an order is made, make it time-limited so that there is an opportunity to reply. As I say, it's not a hill I'm going to die on, but I'm always apprehensive about the conferral of these kinds of powers on public officials -- more than is good for them or us.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I don't mean any criticism of the trade practices people in my ministry or the consumer affairs people generally. They're doing a very good job under difficult circumstances. But my concern has been that we have not moved fast enough on many issues. In fact, if this particular tool is available, the director can move fast enough.

I recognize that it's a balancing act. You don't want to be providing these kinds of positions with some very arbitrary and very strong authority, but it is important that we recognize that in today's world, consumers can be deceived out of a lot of money very, very quickly by schemes that are difficult to stop. With all of the reservations in mind that the hon. member is talking about, we've decided to go this route. If it appears at the end of the day that it's too arbitrary, obviously we'll revisit it.

G. Plant: Well, acting fast is not the problem. It's the question of whether or not the person on the receiving end has a legitimate opportunity to give reasons why the order should not be made. If I'm right -- righter than I think I am -- I'm sure that the Attorney General will be dragged off to higher courts to have interesting section-7-of-the-Charter arguments around these provisions, and so be it. I like to try to avoid those things and move cautiously.

I do want to make this point clear, because I don't want the Attorney General to misunderstand what we are slightly disagreeing about. I agree with him entirely that there is a need to be able to act fast, to be able to protect consumers and to be able to ensure that suppliers that are deceiving consumers or engaging in bad trade practices are stopped before they can do damage. That's not the question; that is, however, the context, realizing that in some circumstances that could be a fairly extraordinary exercise of power. We should ensure that the rules around the exercise of that power are cautious and careful and only give as much power as necessary in the circumstances.

I'm sure I've probably expressed myself in terms that the Attorney General, at least in general, agrees with, although he will continue to defend the particular approach taken in this section.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Correct.

Sections 20 to 22 inclusive approved.

On section 23.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I move the amendment to section 23 that's in the possession of the Clerk.

[SECTION 23(c), by deleting the proposed subsection (7) and substituting the following:

(7) A fine imposed under this section may be increased by the court by an amount of up to 3 times the court's estimation of the amount of the monetary benefit acquired or accrued as a result of the commission of the offence.]

G. Plant: Is the amendment intended to change the original proposed subsection in any substantive way, or is it to simply express the point more clearly?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The latter.

G. Plant: Essentially what we have here is a treble-damages clause or something analogous to a treble-damages

[ Page 7755 ]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Correct.

G. Plant: Are there any other instances in the consumer protection laws in British Columbia where this approach has been taken to date, or are we striking out on relatively new ground here?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand that it's some new ground.

Amendment approved.

Section 23 as amended approved.

Sections 24 to 27 inclusive approved.

On section 15.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: This section obviously causes some concern to the hon. member. It causes some concern to me as well. It is difficult to determine what course one should follow. I understand that out of the two examples that the branch is aware of, one would have been appropriately investigated and prosecuted two years from the date of the offence, and one wouldn't have been. Particularly with mobile home owners it is very, very difficult. Sometimes they can't sell their property for a year, two years, and they still have to live there. This is a relationship, particularly with the mobile home owners, that sometimes continues without you wanting it to continue because you can't sell, assign or sublet.

With other tenancies that are month-to-month tenancies or short-term leases, it may not be such a big problem. Keeping that in mind, I am concerned about what the hon. member is saying. I agree with his concerns, but I will err on the side of caution to provide some protection to people who are in these arrangements where they are locked in and they are not free. You have to weigh the interests of justice: the interests of those who may be the victims and those who may be the perpetrators of whatever may be complained of. Therefore I am asking that we proceed as is. If there are any significant Charter issues, the court will strike it down, as they have done in other cases.

G. Plant: It's nice to know that my concern is shared. The problem is, of course, that the facts that the minister gives in terms of the second example, in order for them to be protected by this section as worded, will constitute a form of fraud: that is, the persons affected will simply deliberately have to keep quiet, because the moment the registrar hears about it, time will begin to run. There's nothing in this limitation period that speaks in any direct way to the public policy issue addressed by the minister, which you could do; one could do it. In fact, the Limitation Act does have provisions in it that are designed to try and accommodate those sorts of problems. I understand that the minister wants an opportunity to respond.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I have considered an alternative form of limitation, which is two years from the date of the termination of the agreement. However, there is no guarantee that someone wouldn't be locked into a tenancy arrangement for 20 years after the offence may have occurred before the tenancy is terminated. You are into the same degree of uncertainty. Considering those issues, that's why I indicated that I think it's better to proceed with this. There have been no prosecutions under this -- I'm told that there have been none -- where these kinds of limitations would have been required. It is my humble suggestion that we go on with this. If it creates problems, this is a very minor amendment, and we can always reconsider it and take a look at it. It is difficult to base it on the termination date as well. It raises the same kind of problem. In fact, somebody could be in a tenancy arrangement for 15 years and then move, and then have two years to complain.

I think the issue here is the balancing of rights. Obviously the court would look at these issues and say that somebody had the obligation to inform the registrar once there was no opportunity for any kind of undue influence or any kind of arrangement where there was any pressure to not talk to the registrar. I think it's important that we keep those things in mind.

G. Plant: Well, let me say one or two things. First of all, the premise upon which this provision is justified has something to do with the circumstances of a continuing relationship. I haven't had the opportunity to look at the Limitation Act to check this point, but off the top of my head -- and having practised law for 15 years -- that is not a compelling reason for this to be accepted by the Legislature in any other context that I can think of. If there is an injury in a family home in which one member of the family has a cause of action against another, the Limitation Act requires the lawsuit to be started within two years. It may be tough to sue the member of your family, but, you know. . . . The statutes of British Columbia do not yet, to my knowledge, recognize continued relationships as being a public policy rationale upon which we would create what amount to virtually infinite limitation periods.

Secondly, why is it the registrar? How many tenants or landlords in British Columbia will know that the person they go to in respect of these things is a civil servant in the ministry's office as opposed to a police officer?

Interjection.

G. Plant: Okay. Well, I understand from the minister that in this respect, the provisions are consistent with the other consumer protection legislation. I don't actually think the analogy works as well in this context, because I think that tenants who think that an offence is being committed are much more likely to go to a police officer than to the registrar of the residential tenancy branch.

So there we are. I think an amendment that will do more harm than good will put landlords to an additional burden, a burden of uncertainty -- the burden of not knowing whether something they have done is a wrongful act and not knowing for potentially very, very long periods of time. Twenty years is not the shortest tenancy that exists; there are tenancies that are 40, 50 and 60 years. Who knows -- someone may argue that they have felt for 40 or 50 years that they were unable to make an argument, report an offence. I really think that this is a bad amendment. It's too bad the Attorney General didn't take advantage of the opportunity presented to him to improve it.

Section 15 approved on division.

Title approved.

[ Page 7756 ]

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Bill 19, Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act, 1998, reported complete with amendments.

The Speaker: When shall the bill be considered as reported?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: With leave now.

Leave granted.

Bill 19, Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act, 1998, read a third time and passed.

[5:30]

WASTE MANAGEMENT AMENDMENT ACT, 1998

On section 1.

M. Coell: As I commented yesterday, I think this bill shows a real distinction between the government and opposition in its principle, and there are a number of comments that I want to make and questions for the minister to define that. I am aware that the minister also has some amendments on the order paper that. . . . I worked with her, and she may want to explain those at greater length when we get to them.

Section 1(a) adds: ". . .and includes an assistant director appointed under those sections." I wonder if the minister could clarify for me whether that is an elected person at the regional district level or an unelected, appointed person?

Hon. C. McGregor: It's a staff person.

M. Coell: For clarification, does that mean that the regional directors can appoint staff people to make those decisions for them, which are presently made by elected officials?

[P. Calendino in the chair.]

Hon. C. McGregor: Yes, it's to give the regional district the authority to appoint staff to carry out the directions of the directors themselves.

M. Coell: I appreciate that definition. Section 1(c) says: ". . .in the definition of 'refuse' by adding 'or abandoned' after 'discarded.' " I wonder if the minister could clarify that for me, as well, and what the purpose of that addition to this bill is.

Hon. C. McGregor: It's for the eventuality that recyclable material that is captured in the location through which it's been collected, and at some point is abandoned, can be covered off by the definition of waste.

M. Coell: Would that allow for abandoned items that were once not recyclable and that have become recyclable to be withdrawn and put into the recycling stream rather than being abandoned in one place? Is that the purpose of it?

Hon. C. McGregor: Could you ask your question again? I'm not quite clear what the question is.

M. Coell: In many areas around the province there is hazardous waste stored that has not been able to be recycled. With new technology, it is. Does that now allow the regional district the ability to remove it and recycle it as part of the recycling stream?

Hon. C. McGregor: In the example the member gives, the municipal government or the regional government could do that, but this act does not cover that material. Hazardous waste is not covered; it's solid waste management plans.

M. Coell: What I'm looking for is whether there's a benefit. . . . Where there are potentially recyclable goods stored in sites throughout the province that would now come under the control of regional districts, would that give them the power to remove them and place them in the recycling stream?

Hon. C. McGregor: Certainly the regional district could do as the member describes, but the purpose of the amendment is not to permit that. They can currently do that as it stands now.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

M. Coell: In section 2, there are a number of definitions. I wonder what consultation there was on the production of that list of definitions. Was it specifically with the regional district, or were the industry and the recyclers involved in those definitions?

Hon. C. McGregor: Generally, those definitions were put in place on the recommendations of legislative counsel in order to clarify the parts that follow, so that everyone understood what the definitions were. I'm certainly given to understand that there's no difficulty with the broad, general understanding of these definitions.

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

M. Coell: There was some discussion of section 3, as it requires a vote by electors for consent for new recycling projects. I still have some problem with this section. I realize that it has some continuity with the Municipal Act, but I really think that in the future, if you're going to encourage new forms of recycling and new initiatives, you may want the electorate to be part of that in a positive way. I see this as continuing on what I would say is a negative trend, in that government knows best, and I think this part of the section doesn't add anything to the bill. As a matter of fact, from my

[ Page 7757 ]

Hon. C. McGregor: As the member knows from when we discussed it this morning, the reason for tabling this amendment is to improve on the wording that was introduced in 1992. In fact, it actually closes a loophole that would have allowed unapproved plants, where there had been no public consultation, to have bylaws implemented prior to there being approval. This is actually a mechanism through which we can check to make sure that there has been appropriate consultation.

As the member referenced, it is very important that we involve the public in a wide consultation process around solid waste management and recycling programs, because it is in fact the local and regional taxpayer that has a great interest in how these issues are decided. In fact, they may well alter their behaviour, which I'm sure the member opposite would also acknowledge is an important goal for us around reducing solid waste and increasing our recycling initiatives.

M. Coell: I understand where the minister is coming from. I want to point out that I think times have changed. Instead of lessening the amount of public input, that final plebiscite or referendum in a municipality to choose a direction is still an important part of recycling and part of the general improvement of people's interest in recycling. I suspect we may differ on that point. I think that's the only point I'll make on section 3.

Section 3 approved.

On section 4.

Hon. C. McGregor: Hon. Chair, I move the amendment standing in my name in Orders of the Day.

[SECTION 19, to replace section 19(4) as follows:

19 (4) Before exercising the authority under this section, a regional district must

(a) undertake consultations with affected stakeholders; and

(b) indicate its intention to do so in its plan.]

M. Coell: I appreciate that amendment. As I said in some of the statements I made yesterday, this moves the industry, at least, to be a player in the process. I guess my first desire would be to not have that section here, but knowing that the government has more seats in this House than we do, I appreciate the minister at least allowing the affected industry to feel that they will be part of the ongoing process with the regional districts. I think that's important.

[5:45]

Hon. C. McGregor: I'd like to begin by thanking the member opposite for his suggested amendment to this section. I think it did what we on this side of the House had in fact hoped was the intention, which was to make sure that there was wide consultation prior to any implementation. But it never hurts to clarify that that is indeed a function that we must consider, because, as the member says, it's important that we broadly involve the public.

Who are affected stakeholders? Well, let's look at a list. It would include haulers, site owners, operators, recycling firms, environmental groups, local governments and the general public. I would say that all of those would be affected stakeholders that would be involved in a consultation process.

M. Coell: I thank the minister for that clarification.

In putting the bill together with consultation from regional districts, I wonder whether there was ever a cost-benefit analysis done for this section. I view this section as the authority for regional districts to go ahead and regulate a new industry, and I just wonder whether there was any cost-benefit analysis done by the ministry or the GVRD or the CRD.

Hon. C. McGregor: Actually, because this bill is not creating any new authorities -- it's simply clarifying existing authorities -- there was no cost-benefit analysis done. It's simply clarifying a function that's already being provided and making it a part of this act.

M. Coell: The new regulation of this industry will undoubtedly -- from my perspective, anyway -- cost more money, because you're going to have new regulations to administer and a new group of participants who will be regulated. From my perspective, I still think you're going to see a need for increased staff at the regional level to oversee this new regulation or increased fees from the regional districts to the recyclers, the haulers and the site operators. I just don't see how you could get around not having that effect. I wonder if the minister could comment on that for me.

Hon. C. McGregor: Just for the record, I'd like to introduce some comments that were written by George Puil, who's the chair of the GVRD, about the purpose of this act. He makes it clear, as I have, that the amendments place no new requirements on industry and the GVRD but, rather, clarify powers previously granted to regional districts and consolidate responsibilities currently shared between the GVRD and MELP. He then goes on to speak to the reason why it was necessary in the 1980s for the GVRD to take on these responsibilities. He talks about the abuses of overfilling of demolition landfills, the abandonment of waste at recovery facilities after recycling efforts failed, fires at landfills and recovery facilities, and, in some instances, the dumping of source-separated recyclables. All of that had to be paid for by the property owner or the host community, and in one case the remediation cost to the GVRD exceeded $1 million. All of that speaks to the intention of this act and the need for us to ensure that we have the legislative tools for the GVRD to be able to manage the environment safely on behalf of the public and to avoid huge costs to taxpayers at the municipal government level.

M. Coell: With regard to section 4 and the waste stream management licence, there are a number of new licences that the regional districts are now given the authority to enact. I wonder whether any thought has been given to the cost of these licences to haulers, recyclers and the industry in general. It does appear that there are a number of areas where you're going to have someone now issuing licences, reviewing company records and reviewing sites where businesses take place. That seems to me to be a lot more work, and I just wonder whether the government is leaving the regional district responsible for the costs and also the costs of the licences to the individuals.

[ Page 7758 ]

I would also note, as this bill makes clear, that the minister will have the opportunity to review, and this is particularly as a result of the concerns raised by private waste management firms which feel that there may be. . . . I guess I have to characterize it as a lack of trust between those operators and regional districts. They have, in their view, very legitimate concerns that the costs will be imposed in such a way as to make a business unprofitable. That's why we've taken the steps that the minister would be able to review these fees, ensure that they are just and fair, and that there is no gouging of any company as a result of making a decision to monitor recyclers and waste managers for environmental purposes.

M. Coell: I'm glad to hear the minister define that more clearly. I too think there is potential for recycling businesses, which are generally not rich businesses -- they run on very small profit margins -- to be put out of business by increased regulation and licence fees and the like. The minister will have to watch that and make sure that the industry doesn't become overregulated, because I think its future is in innovative free enterprise. I think that the industry will be the leader in the next century on how we get past the 50 percent, once we reach the 50 percent. I'm pleased to hear her clarification on that.

The other one, just briefly, is in section 19(4). It seems a bit overbearing, along the same lines as the minister has clarified, and I wonder if she could comment on that section. I see that as a lot more red tape, a lot more control over the industry, and I don't really see that as a . . . . There's nothing in it that jumps out at me and says that this will benefit the industry. It may do, and I would be interested in her comments on that.

Hon. C. McGregor: The GVRD already has the authorities that are outlined in 19(1) under the GVS&DD Act. So this simply clarifies those pre-existing powers.

Hon. J. Pullinger: Noting the hour, hon. Chair, I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Committee of Supply A, having reported progress and resolutions, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. J. Pullinger: Before adjournment, I'd like to advise the House that we will be sitting tomorrow afternoon. With that, I wish everyone a good evening and an excellent lobby. I move the House do now adjourn.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:56 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

The committee met at 2:35 p.m.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EDUCATION

(continued)

Hon. P. Ramsey: Before everybody takes their seat, I just realized there's one member of staff that I've not formally introduced to the chamber. That is Mr. Keith Miller, who is manager of the K-to-12 capital planning. He has been ably assisting me with all the details of the hundred and more projects that we have going on around school districts in British Columbia.

K. Whittred: Just to recap where we were before the break, I believe that the minister had responded to my little example of the reality of the classroom today by suggesting that there was in fact support for the variety of students that are in a real classroom. I'm not talking about the average classroom or the classroom the ministry envisions, but the actual classroom of kids that sit in front of a teacher.

The minister mentioned that there is ESL support. The fact is that if the students in front of me were ESL, they would have been in an ESL classroom. However, I might point out -- just for the benefit of the people from the ministry sitting across the way -- that there is a fine line between a student who has just come out of ESL and one who is proficient in English. In the real world of the classroom, there are four levels of ESL. Students are integrated into regular classes after the second level. I certainly do not want to belabour the minutiae of what goes on in the classroom, but to point out that for the classroom teacher who is actually handling that class, there is, in fact, no support. Those students are treated in exactly the same manner as a student who was born and acclimatized in the English language.

The minister made the point that there is support for students who are deaf. Yes, that is true. I mentioned that deaf students have an interpreter who accompanies that student. That interpreter, however, only interprets; that interpreter interprets literally everything that I say. If I use a grammatical error, that grammatical error is interpreted to the student. That in no way helps me as a classroom teacher to deal with the variety of needs that are in that classroom.

Hon. Chair, the minister also said that there is support for behavioral-disordered students. That is true. Those students are pulled out of class from time to time and are taken to a special program where they are socialized and their behaviour is treated. That again has nothing to do with what goes on in my classroom. Not to belabour this point. . . . The point that I'm trying to make here is that while these supports are all very useful and very good, they in no way decrease the workload of the classroom teacher who has 31 students and has to accommodate the variety of needs.

To get back to the original point that I was trying to make, I think what disturbs me most about the supposed agreement is that while we have theoretically addressed what is a desirable educational goal, we have done that at the expense of addressing any other issue in the school system -- whether it

[ Page 7759 ]

Hon. P. Ramsey: Briefly, far from wishing to say that class size has no effect on the ability to deliver education, I've been explicitly arguing that class size does have an effect. Contrary to what the Liberal critic has been saying, I've been arguing strongly that the reductions in K-to-3 are one of the best things we can do to improve learning in those early years. I'm pleased to hear that the member, as a longtime teacher, feels that there is some link between class size and quality of education, because that's precisely what this agreement-in-committee says. It's precisely what this government is committed to. The member is right that the focus of this agreement is on K-to-3, but contrary to what the member says, that's not the only object. That's not the only thing we're seeking to make advances on in this budget year, in the debates we're holding in this chamber.

I would ask the member to reflect on the fact that we are going to add, across the province, 500 non-enrolling teachers to our system in the next three years -- most of them in the first couple of years -- as a result of this agreement-in-committee. Those will be added in secondary as well as elementary schools. And yes, I think that will have some impact on what happens in classrooms. We are continuing to increase the funding for special education and aboriginal education, and we have other initiatives that are also funded, including a provincial learning network which will enable us to link all schools in the province to the latest in technology. Far from the only initiative in education this year being the K-to-3 class size reduction. . . . That's not even the only initiative within the agreement-in-committee, it's one of two or three major initiatives that are involved in that agreement.

I see this as part of what we're doing. The member is absolutely right that one of the focuses of this agreement is on K-to-3. I will say again that one of the reasons for doing that is the research which suggested to me and to the people who were working on this that the area of public education -- K-to-12 education -- where reduced class size would have the greatest impact on the quality of education was in K-to-3. We may disagree on that. I surely recognize that there are arguments in other areas, and the member has made a strong one for grades 8, 9 and 10. But the research that I have seen suggests that the prime area of attention should be K-to-3, and that's what this agreement does.

K. Whittred: There is just one final point that I would like to make in this area, and that is to try to have the members across the way understand that you can put as many non-enrolling teachers into the system as you want. . . . And I am not saying that they are not helpful and do not assist students, because they do. However, ultimately the responsibility for the students in a school is on the shoulders of the "enrolling teacher." The enrolling teacher is responsible for the administration and evaluation of those students' programs and so on. Where I think the ministry is out of line with the reality is that when you take a group of students -- and I will use students in say, an IEP, an individual education plan. . . . If you have a student or students in that program in your classroom, that means that every time you evaluate -- and as you get into secondary school, evaluation becomes a fairly complex thing; it requires the making of exams and so on -- you are expected to do several different tests. You do one for your "regular" kids; you do one for every single student that is on that IEP. That is the responsibility of the enrolling teacher. The number of non-enrolling teachers, while they are certainly helpful to the student, does nothing to relieve the multitude of responsibilities on the enrolling teacher in the classroom. I think that it is probably not necessary to pursue that any further.

[2:45]

K. Whittred: I'm going to switch gears a little bit and go back to an expression that was actually used by the minister in his answer several questions ago when he mentioned the "composition of classes." I want to just refresh our memory. Within this agreement there were supposed to be two parties to the agreement. One is the teachers, represented by their bargaining committee; the other, of course, is the trustees, represented by theirs. I think it's been well established within this estimates procedure that the objectives -- the goals -- of the trustees were not addressed; their goals, such as posting, infilling and flexibility and so on, were not addressed in this agreement. I have learned from my colleagues in the federation that the teachers' primary goal this year was to deal with class composition, and that is exactly the reason that I brought up my example. There is a vast difference not only in issues dealing with class size, but when you add class composition to that, you have an entirely different issue. Twenty-five students or 30 students who are roughly the same is quite a different matter than 25 or 30 students where you have many different varieties of abilities or disabilities.

So my question to the minister is: in addressing primary class size as the main objective, whose agenda were you following? We know it wasn't the trustees', and now I know it wasn't the teachers', so whose agenda was it to address this?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I'm not going to engage in a lot of debate on what the BCTF took to the bargaining table on behalf of their members. I will say that this is the first time I've heard -- I've surely not heard of that directly from the TF -- that the issue of class composition was their first and major negotiating item. Frankly, I have a few other things that they seemed to place higher than that. But I'll leave that. This agreement is now out there for consideration by the teachers of the province. Actually, I think they're engaged in balloting on it -- yesterday, today and tomorrow -- and then they will be engaged in counting those ballots. So we will see in the very near future whether the majority of teachers in the province, those who are actually doing the classroom work -- which I agree with the member is the core of what education is about -- feel that this is a good agreement for education in

[ Page 7760 ]

I don't know; I've surely heard in my time as minister lots of concerns about class size, particularly in the lower grades, from teachers, parents, trustees and others. It is an issue that is of great concern to this government. One of the mandates that we clearly had was to make a difference in that area, and through this agreement we think we can make a difference, because the proposal in front of the teachers is essentially that they will forgo wages for the next couple of years and let the government do its part by investing heavily in increased resources in classrooms.

K. Whittred: I might perhaps remind the minister that teachers, if they accept this, are not only forgoing wage increases but also any change to any other part of the system, any reform to any grade, any program, any issue other than the K-to-3.

Moving on to a few local issues, one of the main problems in the education field that is brought to my attention as an MLA is one that deals with, I think, the concept of neighbourhood schools. A major problem in North Vancouver is that children, because schools are full -- which means that class sizes are at their max -- are unable to attend their neighbourhood schools. In the neighbourhood where I live, the children go to three different elementary schools. Some children from my street attend Brooksbank, some Lynnmour, and some Ridgeway Annex. In fact, one family down the street has three children attending three different schools. Now, this is of grave concern to me and I think it should be of grave concern to the ministry.

Every August I get literally dozens of phone calls from parents whose children are being denied access to their local school. I feel that this is extremely serious. It impacts on traffic. Every morning you have to have parents get up and drive their kids all over the place, adding more traffic to the community. It impacts on families when their children are going all over the place to different schools. It impacts on things like safety and Block Watch programs, which are generally organized through the elementary school. It impacts on playmates, who the children meet and who they socialize with after school. So I wonder if the minister could comment on his own attitude about this particular problem.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I don't think the member opposite is asking the Ministry of Education to take on the task of drawing neighbourhood boundaries or catchment areas for schools in all 60 school districts around the province. This is a local issue. School districts do what they feel best meets the needs of their own parents and children in terms of drawing catchment areas, and in allowing parents to send their children to school across catchment areas.

Personally, I think I agree with the member that neighbourhood schooling is preferable, but there are a number of school districts that are quite aggressively pursuing a more diversified system, and setting up specialized schools which would have catchment areas much wider than a neighbourhood school, such as traditional schools or Montessori schools or whatever. So I don't think it's as simple as saying that you get the boundaries right and everything will work. There are a number of other initiatives that are driving school districts to, at times, provide what they feel is increased opportunity for parents and for children by developing specialty schools that have catchment areas that stretch far wider than any neighbourhood.

This is always a difficulty, and North Vancouver has a very large number of very small schools. It has chosen to keep them all open rather than close or amalgamate, which I believe was one of the recommendations of the trustee some time ago. It has chosen to do so, and the plethora of small schools creates some of the difficulties that the school district is dealing with. But, as it responded to local issues in keeping all of those schools open, I think it's in the best position to work with local issues in making sure, as much as possible, that the concept of the neighbourhood school is one available to students in North Vancouver.

K. Whittred: I just hope, minister, when we're talking about specialized schools and parents who wish to or assume that they can enrol their child in the neighbourhood school, which is mostly what I hear about, that we're not comparing apples and oranges, because I think these are two quite different things. It really gets down to a matter of space -- what space is available.

Moving on to another local issue, last year in North Vancouver we had a very serious issue involving an elementary school and the sharing of that facility with the Ministry for Children and Families. In a briefing -- in fact, last week -- with senior staff of the BCTF, reference was made to increasing involvement with the Ministry for Children and Families. At the time that this issue came up, it really became very bitter and quite nasty. I wonder if the minister could tell me what direction the ministry is going with this in terms of the sharing of facilities and what kind of priorities or guidelines are in place.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Staff have no knowledge of the situation the member is referring to. We can go one of two ways. I would suggest that perhaps the best way would be a letter that we could consider and gather information on and answer in detail on the specific school. Maybe that will help us. Or the member can elaborate and provide more information. Maybe somebody will have some familiarity with the issue she is describing.

K. Whittred: I did in fact discuss this issue with the minister at some length last year. If the ministry has no guidelines, perhaps we should leave it at that. I might just put on the record as a matter of caution that this is an issue that is arising. The background of it really was that when enrolments were low, space in schools had been allocated to the Ministry for Children and Families for day care use. Now that enrolment has increased, those day cares, by necessity, must be misplaced -- or displaced, rather. As a result, there was a very bitter community battle about which was more important, day cares or education. Of course, I think that most of us think that they are both important, but they can't both occupy the same space. It became a rather serious issue within the community. Okay?

All right. Just a couple of other, very quick questions. I hear from my colleagues, particularly my elementary colleagues, about curriculum and what is known as the western protocol, which I gather is the movement toward the centralizing of curriculum and resources throughout the western provinces. I wonder if the minister could comment on where that is at, and what exactly is going on.

Hon. P. Ramsey: First, I'm glad that we clarified what the Children and Families - Education issue is. We will try not to misplace day cares, even if we have to displace them occasionally.

[ Page 7761 ]

[3:00]

I guess I should take one step back. One of the reasons for doing this -- well, two things -- is to say that as a jurisdiction, Canada is still a pretty small country. I mean, 30 million people is about the size of a good-sized Chinese suburb. Right now we have 12 different jurisdictions doing education, curriculum or whatever within it. If we can do some sort of coordination and save a few bucks, that would be good.

The other thing that's happening, of course, is that we have a very mobile population in this country. And the more we can ensure some commonalities in curriculum as families and their children move from system to system across the country, the better.

The second area of the western protocol, though, that gives us some abilities is to do common resource evaluation and, where there's agreement, common resource acquisition. Again, it's a cost-saving measure and allows for some commonalities.

So those are the two elements of the western protocol, which may be giving some of the member's former colleagues some pause. I would ask her to assure them that in neither case has the Ministry of Education given up its authority to set curriculum and to recommend resources.

K. Whittred: I should assure the minister that I was not asking that question in a defensive kind of way. I just wanted to know where this western protocol was at. In fact, I would be most supportive of some of the things the minister said, particularly in the area of resources. I know from my own experience how much we are hampered by our small population in terms of getting resources, and I know the cost of resources, particularly at the secondary level. So I was very curious to see where this was at, because I have not heard very much about it.

My final question has to do with accreditation as part of the accountability process. It's an area where I have worked extensively in the secondary field, but I was mostly curious about the elementary accreditation and where it is at. I know that about three or four years ago, it was announced that elementary accreditation would be mandatory. I don't believe I've heard a word about it since.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Elementary accreditation has not just been developed; it has been implemented. In the current school year, 1997-98, we expect there to be around 172 elementary schools that do accreditation and about 63 middle and secondary schools, for a total of 235 schools going through the accreditation process. We're really looking at a six-year cycle that would cover all schools going through accreditation: elementary, middle and secondary.

K. Whittred: My last question is: can you clarify what you meant by the six-year cycle? Specifically, how often do a secondary school, a middle school and an elementary school come up for accreditation?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Six years. There is a six-year cycle for all three.

K. Whittred: Thank you. That concludes my questions.

G. Hogg: The minister and the ministry have been so popular and the lineup for the opportunity to come and ask a couple of questions has been so large that I think at one point in time, we had a third of our caucus queued up. I've had the advantage of being able to pop in every now and then and get a grasp of the intent and focus and direction which the minister and the ministry have been taking. Through that process, I've had a chance to get a better grasp and a better understanding and perhaps answer some of my questions.

One of the comments I heard the minister make yesterday. . . . He was talking in response to some questions regarding Hammond Bay, clarifying the provisions of services. By implication he was saying that he was supporting kids across the province having the same level of access to services: special education, counsellors, ESL, librarians, etc. He was actually making the inference that since he thought that perhaps the opposition thought it was a bad idea, he was therefore -- by implication, certainly -- supporting the idea. In listening to the discussion and certainly in having discussions with my school board, the Surrey school board, on the issues which have been prevalent for them, I think the minister is aware that the Surrey school district and the board, as a result of growth having substantially outstripped available funding levels, have gone into their infrastructure and have stripped their infrastructure over the past number of years -- on the order of some $20 million -- in order to support classroom services.

As a result of the agreement, the perception if not the reality is that we're being penalized in Surrey, because other districts that have, in the past, cut their libraries and their counsellors and the services which I just previously referenced are now being rewarded in some way as a result of the agreement-in-committee. In Surrey there hasn't been an equipment replacement budget for some five years. The agreement-in-committee will mean some 70 to 100 portables in order to meet the three-year initiatives. I think there's been

[ Page 7762 ]

Hon. P. Ramsey: I thank the member for his questions and for his concern about education.

First, there will be the need for many more classrooms in Surrey, as in other districts, to take account of the reduced class sizes for kindergarten-to-grade-3. I've also said repeatedly to this committee that the government is committed to building 1,000 new classrooms and spending $370 million to do that. Once the agreement is ratified, we will begin the planning for how that takes place -- in Surrey and elsewhere. Far from having portables grow in Surrey over the next little while, we expect to more than cut in half the number of portables in schools in Surrey during the next five years.

Let's go to operating funding. I'm puzzled by the member's comment that school funding for Surrey has decreased by $20 million over the last four or five years. Actually, in 1990-91 their block funding grant was $213.5 million; this year it's $310.3 million. Just over last year it went up $14.2 million. Yes, Surrey has very rapid growth, and their funding has more than increased in accordance with that growth. They've had just over 29 percent enrolment growth over those seven years; their funding has gone up by 45 percent. Like other districts, it has had to make some decisions about how to deliver services more effectively. When I met with the board, we talked about some areas where they've had some success and where they think there are more opportunities.

As far as the general question on funding collective agreements, I said repeatedly to this committee, and I'll say it again for the member: we are committed to funding the enhancements to school operations that are contained in this agreement, and the amounts of those enhancements are specified in the agreement -- $25 million more this fiscal year and $25 million on top of that in each of the next two.

G. Hogg: Well, perhaps I didn't phrase it correctly, or perhaps you didn't understand my phraseology. With respect to the $20 million, I was referencing the $20 million which has actually been taken out of some of the infrastructure and support services and applied to actual classroom space. I wasn't referring to a reduction. I was referring to the methodology by which the Surrey school board had utilized its funding and its efforts over the past number of years to do that. As a result of that, access to the types of services in your quote of yesterday, which I made reference to, is what has suffered. Now, as other school districts are being given the potential to be upgraded around those services as a result of this agreement-in-committee, Surrey seems to have been left behind because of the process that they use. Is that making it any clearer? It's not. Let me try it again. Okay -- it is clearer.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Let me try again. First of all, far from wringing my hands over Surrey's ability to find $20 million in savings outside the classroom, I'd commend them for that. When the amalgamation study was done jointly by the BCSTA and the Ministry of Education, it identified around $800 million of expenditures through school districts that were not direct classroom delivery. The amalgamation report said that it's the area where school districts and the ministry ought to look hard at getting some savings. You get some efficiencies in the delivery of education without directly impacting what happens in classrooms. So that is one area where, you know. . . . And it does include a wide range of stuff: everything from how you do legal advice to how you do transportation and maintenance to how you do all the myriad of tasks that need to be done if you're running a $310 million-a-year operation, as the Surrey school board is. So there are lots of opportunities there.

The other thing I will say -- and I will repeat it for the member because he may not have heard me say it before -- is that I recognize that the agreement-in-committee will have variable impacts on different districts. Frankly, what we're attempting to do is set some baselines here for maximum class size in K-to-3 and to say: "Look, this is what we ought to set as a baseline across the province and as some baselines for access to out-of-class resource teachers in ESL, librarians, counsellors and others." That's the attempt here.

The member is absolutely right. It will have a variable impact across the province. I was told by somebody -- I think it was actually the president of the BCTF -- that Surrey would have more new K-to-3 classroom teachers as a result of this agreement than any other district. So there are clearly some variable impacts here. It may benefit greatly there and maybe not so much in some other area.

G. Hogg: I appreciate your statement with respect to the variable impact and your willingness to look at that and at the impact in trying to draw some baselines with respect to service delivery.

But if I can quote directly from a member of the Surrey school board who said that as a result of the actions they've taken in the past number of years -- and we've just referenced those -- they've had to strip their infrastructure in order to support the classroom. And as a result of the agreement, they're now being penalized while those other districts, which in the past cut librarians, counsellors, etc., are in some ways being rewarded by their interpretation of this agreement.

So if you are in fact taking some time to look at the variable impact that this agreement-in-committee will have on various districts, I hope you will look at that impact with respect to Surrey and see if there are some options available, which we'll look at, to support those ancillary infrastructure services which are being provided now by Surrey. Am I hearing you say that this is something that you and your ministry are looking at or are prepared to look at in terms of the impact, therefore getting back to looking at the minimum level of services which will be provided outside of the classroom as well?

[3:15]

[ Page 7763 ]

G. Hogg: I am hearing you say that you're looking for any unintended consequences of the agreement that may be happening with respect to a district. I am therefore interpreting that to mean that there's possibly an unintended consequence of the actions taken by Surrey, which seems to be out of sync with what some of the other school districts were doing in the past. So I will leave it to the minister and his ministry to look at that with Surrey to see if there are some unintended negative consequences to the actual services which students will be receiving within the Surrey school district -- and there will be.

Moving from the operating budget to look briefly at the capital budget, the Premier's stated goal of reducing by 50 percent the use of portable classrooms in the Surrey area. . . . It appears, based on a capital projection and on the population growths which have been done both in Surrey and by the GVRD, that there will be somewhere in the neighbourhood of $35 million in capital funding per year, which will be required for each of the next five years in order to accommodate the growth and to achieve the Premier's stated goal of those reductions. Is there any planning with respect to that capital budget and the methods by which that funding might be made available to see that we maintain the schools at the levels which will be necessary to accommodate the students?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The subsequent years' capital budgets will, of course, be announced in subsequent years. What we did when we unrolled the 1998-99 capital budget was specify for each project that we are funding how many portables we expect to go away -- vanish -- as a result of completion of that, both for Surrey and for other districts across the province. When I met with the Surrey school board earlier, they presented, I think, the same brief that the member is reading from and their request for $35 million a year. I thanked them for their projection and committed staff to work with them on their future capital plans. Actually, for the member's information, the capital allocation to Surrey this year was actually $41 million. I don't know if the member heard that. Their allocation this year was $41 million.

G. Hogg: I appreciate that, and I know that it was $35 million a year balanced, of course, over a five-year projection. Certainly you've made it in the first year, and it is hoped that in each of the subsequent four years it would be available to provide that level as well.

The other area of uniqueness that Surrey has is their unique collective agreements, and it puts them in a unique position. Therefore, instead of achieving any of the needed flexibility that they have in staffing. . . . Because of some of their agreements, they are obviously having great difficulty providing services, which resulted in them taking the actions they took -- which I previously alluded to.

I will take solace in the fact that the minister said there is an appetite on behalf of the ministry to look at any types of anomalies or unintended negative consequences which may have come out of the agreements. We'll take back to the Surrey school board your ministry's willingness to look at any unintended negative consequences. I will take that information back to them and trust that they will be in touch with you further with respect to those. With that, I will turn it over to the other members.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I'll just thank the member for his comments. I'm glad he made it to the top of the queue, waiting to question the Minister of Education. Surrey is one of our most important districts -- the second-largest now. If its growth continues, it may well be the largest in the province. It's coped very well with stresses over the years. We'll continue to work hard with them.

T. Nebbeling: I have a few questions for the minister. But before I get into them. . . . Talking about Surrey, I was thinking that about two months ago, there was an issue where, on kind of an emergency basis, some assessment had to be made about the air quality in one of the schools. Can the minister tell me what happened there?

Hon. P. Ramsey: It was Hjorth Road school. There were several air-quality studies done to try to reassure parents that the district was taking very seriously the safety of their children and the healthy environment for their children. The last of those, which was completed about a month ago, if memory serves, gave the school a clean bill of health after some of the remedial work that the school district had done.

T. Nebbeling: The reason I ask was that during that period of time. . . . I'm not going to try to put words in the minister's mouth, but I thought that during one interview, he actually stated that if indeed the concerns were true, as expressed by various parties, there would be immediate action taken to see the school replaced, or whatever. Like I say, I'm not putting words in your mouth. I thought I heard you say something of that nature in an interview. However, as the minister just stated, there's been a clean bill of health given to the school. Could the minister tell me how much that clean bill of health cost the ministry?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The study was funded by the school district of Surrey. We don't have the cost to the district. It would probably be a few thousand dollars.

T. Nebbeling: That brings me to the issue that I really wanted to talk about, and that is the concern expressed recently in a study done on behalf of the school district or the Ministry of Education by a group from the Alberta Microfungus Collection and Herbarium. I don't know if you're aware of this study done for the four schools in school district 48.

Hon. P. Ramsey: The ministry is aware that the district had this study conducted. We haven't seen the study, actually. I understand that the school district is looking at any remediation issues that may result from that study.

T. Nebbeling: That answer surprises me; more importantly, it worries me. The studies for the four schools in Pemberton -- and I will name them for the record: Stawamus Elementary School, Squamish Elementary School, Mamquam Elementary School and Signal Hill Elementary School -- have been done in two particular areas. One is the airborne mould

[ Page 7764 ]

Hon. P. Ramsey: I'm advised by senior staff that the school district met with my deputy and other senior officials two weeks ago, and this issue was not raised by them. I mean, air quality and safety of students -- let me say it again -- are a responsibility of local boards. We seek to work with boards for capital expenditures where they are required. Then the school boards submit plans, and we work out which elements we can fund at which time. But responsibility for ensuring safety in schools rests with the districts themselves.

T. Nebbeling: Can the minister then tell me if indeed the staff in his ministry were aware of this study being undertaken?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I'm informed that the school district did inform the ministry that the report had been done about a week ago -- I believe when BCTV decided to do a story on Mamquam Elementary. Other than that, we have no knowledge of this, and the report has still not been received by the ministry.

I must say that in the course of normal events, issues around health and safety arise every month in a school or in multiple schools. There are 1,700 schools in British Columbia, and school districts have the responsibility of ensuring healthy, safe environments for learning in them. They work regularly to make sure that those conditions are there, and where necessary they approach my ministry for funding assistance in capital construction. Let me repeat: the school district met not more than two weeks ago with my deputy and did not raise this issue for his consideration.

T. Nebbeling: Well, two weeks ago the deputy may have met with the school board, but you also just stated that a week ago your staff was advised of the study having taken place. Now, considering that this study. . . .

The Chair: Through the Chair, please.

T. Nebbeling: Oh, through the Chair. Considering that this study clearly identifies very serious toxic levels of mould in all four schools and very strongly urges immediate remedial work wherever it can be done and recognizes that in certain areas the remedial work will never deal with all the airborne mould that is in some of the facilities, which has an effect on respiratory ailments and on asthmatic indications in a number of students. I don't care if the school board is not doing its job. Where's the ministry? That, to me, is the real question. You, as a ministry, are aware that something was happening there. This is not the first study done on airborne particles in the air in the schools, and last year it was identified in a Workers Compensation Board study that air quality in one school was abominable and really caused grave concern. We have discussed this, Mr. Minister. This is a follow-up study that was needed because of what came out of last year's study. A consequence of that, we now see a study with serious recommendations based on a very serious situation based on the health quality of kids in these schools and the teachers as well. So if the school board hasn't done anything, can the minister tell me what he will do under these circumstances?

[3:30]

T. Nebbeling: Just to illustrate the seriousness of some of the findings in this report, it talks about one of the schools in school district 48, where "in classrooms, corridors and library, high levels of airborne moulds, which represent a potential health risk, were found. The dominant moulds at these sites are. . . ." And then it goes into a Latin name. I will hand you the paper, because it's going to take me ten minutes to get through that one.

But the consequences of these moulds are that they are both potentially toxin-producers. The moulds were found only indoors, which led the study group to come to the conclusion that the actual growth of the mould is occurring in the facilities. The fact is that these are potential toxins, and it is explained in another section of the study that these toxins actually cause asthma and other respiratory problems. These are the things that our students are subjected to.

I would have expected that if immediate action was not taken by the school board, the ministry would have taken steps. Whatever mechanism it took to make the ministry aware -- be it a program on BCTV or any other mechanism -- the ministry knew a week ago, as you just explained, through the TV program that there was a serious problem there. Why has there been no action? That's my No. 1 question.

My No. 2 question is this. One of the schools that indeed identified a problem a year and a half ago is Signal Hill school in Pemberton. The minister and I have talked about the need for dealing with the problem in that school, but this was the school that triggered the whole study. In that school, levels of all kinds of mould had been detected, which caused the problems I just identified with the other school as well. This school was on the priority list of school district 48 to be replaced. Things haven't happened the way the minister wanted them to happen, and I give him credit for looking at the issue and, in the past, for having given directions to the school district on how we could move forward.

However, the school district did put the replacement of this school as the second item on the priority list. When the ministry came out with its budget, of course, it was totally eliminated. One of the main reasons that it was second in priority on the list of school district 48 was exactly that problem: the air quality of that school is such that there are physical consequences to the well-being of the kids. So the problem has been identified. It may be a lot more serious than we anticipated. Nevertheless, the school district, with the princi-

[ Page 7765 ]

I have very little faith in the chief environmental health officer of Garibaldi community health, Mr. Paul Martiquet. I'm going to quote him, because this is very serious. In a meeting with partners in this whole exercise of getting that school under control, he was asked: "Now that you know the consequences of the air quality in that school, are you going to do something about it?" He turned around and said: "There are 12 schools like that. If I do something here, I have to do it in other schools as well. I will not be welcomed with suggestions that 12 schools should be replaced."

I gave his name on record, so you can check that this has been done. I don't think we should judge school replacements by what the cost is to the system. But when there is a serious need based on health, that becomes the priority, and that fact determines whether the replacement is indeed going to happen.

Hon. P. Ramsey: The school board has been in contact with the ministry, as I said, around the BCTV story. I assume that they will send us a copy of the report, and we'll continue to work with them to address these issues.

The member may know that as recently as a couple of weeks ago, I met with the mayor and some councillors both from Pemberton and from the regional district to discuss how we move forward on getting a site for the Signal Hill replacement, which regrettably seems to have. . . . I mean, this whole issue seems to have just lain there for a year, with little or no action on the part of the school board. It's clear that the first step towards getting that replacement for Signal Hill must be identification and acquisition of a site. We're committed to working with them on that as a top priority, so we can move ahead.

T. Nebbeling: Just one more question. Traditionally, you first want to see a site where a school could be built before you start looking at not only plans but also funding to start the whole process. Is there any way for the ministry to fast-track it? There is land available; we know that. It can be identified, and if the Ministry of Education would commit funding for planning, I think the whole process would go a lot faster than it is going today.

Hon. P. Ramsey: We think that the site will, in all probability, be Crown land. So it will be a transfer for very low cost. We've committed to working with the district to identify and facilitate that. But prior to actually saying, "Here's some money for planning," you need to get a site. Obviously topography of a piece of land is going to affect the sort of school you're going to build. We don't want to have a whole bunch of schools being planned when we're not quite sure where they're going to be plopped down on the ground. So we've got to get the site done first; then we'll move into planning as fast as possible.

D. Symons: Just a very few questions. One is a follow-up on something I asked the minister last year, and that dealt with the year-round schooling project. You informed me then -- and I'm just reading from Hansard -- that there were supposedly eight schools that showed an interest, but only one that actually followed through: Kanaka Creek Elementary in Maple Ridge. The funding was going to made available for them. Is there a progress report so far on how that's working -- anything at all on it?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I've been informed that before they can do it, they need an expanded school. So we're expanding the school to accommodate that. What would normally be a 600-place school will actually accommodate 800 kids, because they'll be staggered throughout the year. We're looking at that construction project being finished and the doors opening in September '99. The school district there is looking at implementing year-round schooling as of that date.

D. Symons: Oh, I see. The numbers seemed to have jumped since last year, because in your answer last year you said that it's a school that would have a capacity of 400 students in a normal school year, and because it's operating year-round, it will actually accommodate 600 students. So now it's gone from 600 to 800. It's interesting what happens in a year's time. So they're looking towards expansion.

Interjection.

D. Symons: Yes, all right. I follow that. I'm just trying to move along quickly to get answers to these. They're looking for an expansion as well as the. . . . Now, the other side of this. . . . There were two initiatives mentioned a few years ago as ways that we might better utilize school facilities. One was year-round schooling, and the other was the extended day. Are both of those things still priorities or important to the ministry? Are you intending to encourage boards, one way or another, to continue with those projects?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The answer is yes. In discussion of capital projects in this committee, the application of extended days to particular projects has been a matter of considerable discussion.

D. Symons: Your answer implied that they were involved or tied to projects, and I'm wondering. . . . They could operate an extended day without a project, but I guess they wouldn't need the extension -- the extra space -- in that case.

I'll just move to a slightly different topic, but it's certainly related. I don't think you discussed this earlier with the other members who were questioning the estimates. It has to do with the School Sites Acquisition Statutes Amendment Act. I believe that was Bill 43 a few years ago. Very few school boards and city councils signed on for that. Richmond did very quickly, and a very few others, I believe. This may be asking about future legislation, but can I ask whether there is some possibility that that's going to be changed or made compulsory so that it can be consistent across the province rather than the way it currently is?

Hon. P. Ramsey: On the legislation issue, yes, you are asking about future legislation. We've done a lot of work on this in the last year. As far as extended days, let me only say this: the member is absolutely right. There's nothing that would prevent school districts from running current facilities on extended days. I think that in the last year there has been an increased awareness of how this might be done in different locations and an increased awareness of some of the potential educational benefits from actually doing it that way.

[ Page 7766 ]

I wonder if we might look at one last topic that relates to some concerns in Richmond, and that's the idea of public-private partnerships. I gather that for Richmond high the board has made $50,000 available for a study to look at public-private partnerships. Where might that be in the scheme of things at this time, so that Richmond can get on to dealing with something at that school, which has had some problems in structure before?

Also, predating that is the fact that Steveston high school has. . . . The minister's had some intimate relationships with Steveston. I believe he was crammed in there at one time. No, it was your predecessor who had a picture of being crammed in the school. Steveston has wanted to go into a public-private partnership, and I believe they've been looking at Kwantlen College, which is into the post-secondary. . . . Is there anything within the ministry currently that would preclude the board from making agreements and doing this sort of thing, or do they need ministry approval? How's the whole thing going to work with public-private partnerships?

[3:45]

There seems to be considerably more opportunity in the Richmond High proposal. The capital plan given to Richmond this year included $50,000 from the ministry to do the work on developing a plan. We expect that to come back to us this fall, and then we'll be looking at whether it does actually accrue some significant savings to the public purse and whether we should be proceeding.

D. Symons: Just one final question, and then I'm finished -- and this relates to your answer. I believe that besides the $50,000 that has been allocated to Richmond, the ministry was doing a study on public-private partnerships. Or is that the study? Is it two separate items?

Hon. P. Ramsey: That is the study that's being done. These are done site-specific, project-specific.

K. Whittred: The questioning about public-private partnership reminded me. . . . The minister might be interested to know that when I first started teaching, I think it was Neilson's who used to put out maps of Canada. Of course, the attitude in those days was distinctly not public-private partnership. We had to take a piece of tape and tape over the advertising on the map.

Anyway, further to the contemporary situation, I wonder if the minister could bring us up to date on the status of, I believe, North Burnaby high school which was to be built under a private-public partnership.

Hon. P. Ramsey: First, yes, our attitudes have changed a little bit. Of course, the era that the member is referring to was far before all our students started turning up looking like walking billboards for various clothing manufacturers. The prevalence of advertising does seem to be everywhere.

North Burnaby. It was regrettable that this project couldn't proceed on a public-private partnership basis. The studies came back and simply said that there was no value to the Crown, no savings, in proceeding in that way. It has now been funded and approved as any other capital project. I understand that site clearing is due to begin in the next couple of weeks. Land has been transferred, and the district is getting construction underway for that very exciting project in North Burnaby.

R. Masi: I'd just like to ask a few questions about independent schools, if I could. If it's been covered in detail while I was not here, I'll forgo it. There is obvious growth in the independent school system, and I would just like the minister's comments on the extent of the growth and possibly some rationale for this growth in the independent school system.

Hon. P. Ramsey: There is some increased growth that continues in the independent schools' enrolment this year, 1997-98, and it is reported at 58,497. Last year it was 55,866. So we have growth there of 2,500, which is roughly 5 percent. The year previous to that it was 54,207. So you have growth of around 4,000 over just two years -- around 4 percent a year on average. It looks to me like there was a sharp spurt in growth in the early nineties. It seems to have flattened off in the late nineties.

R. Masi: Is the ministry developing initiatives in the public school system to counteract this growth in the independent school system?

Hon. P. Ramsey: We can talk about why we think there is growth in the independent school sector. It strikes me that one of the driving forces has been the desire for a level of integration of religious education with the standard curriculum, which is clearly not acceptable in a school that's run by government -- by the state. That seems to be one clear driver, and I'd say that's probably the largest driver for the increased number of private school spaces. There's not a whole lot the public system can do. We are very non-sectarian in the education that we provide, and that's very explicit in the mandate of public schools. Frankly, in most areas -- academic achievement, socialization, citizenship and a variety of others areas -- I think the public school system does at least as well and in many cases a better job than in the private school system. But parents surely have a choice.

The other thing that I see some school districts doing, as I mentioned earlier to your colleague from North Vancouver, is to have within their districts a number of specialty schools that might attract children from families who wish a particular focus in their education, whether it be a progressive model, such as Montessori, that they want to include in the public stream or whether it's the approach that two or three districts now have: a "traditional" school offered within the public system. So districts are looking at that. But I guess my great concern about some of the growth that I see is that. . . .

As I said earlier in this committee, I think one of the real strengths of our public system is the diversity of kids. I think it

[ Page 7767 ]

The other thing that I'd say is one of the concerns that I have heard from parents. . . . This is absolutely anecdotal; I have no statistical basis for this at all. I want to emphasize that. But when I talk to parents who've decided to move their child to a private school, aside from the desire for a religious focus to education -- which I respect, but I'm not willing to accommodate within the public school system -- the second one seems to be concerned about order and discipline and all that stuff. That is one of the reasons why I think the safe schools initiatives we're taking with and some of the anti-bullying initiatives and the focus on citizenship is the right way to go to say: "Look, we want our schools to be safe, inclusive places where kids can learn."

R. Masi: I appreciate the minister's answer in terms of the safe schools program, and I think most people would support such a program in our system. I just hope it has results.

In terms of the financial guidelines for independent schools, what is the process of distribution of funds to the various schools in the independent school system?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I don't think these procedures have changed much over the last several years. I'll read them into the record if you wish, but I suspect that you know them. Group 1 schools offer programs that are consistent with the B.C. curriculum. They employ certified teachers, maintain adequate educational facilities and meet municipal codes. They receive funding at 50 percent of public schools in the same district. That hasn't changed in some time. Group 2 schools meet the same requirements as group 1, except that their per-student costs exceed those of the local public schools; in other words, tuition on top of it goes well above per-student expenditure in the including public school. They receive grants at 35 percent of the district public schools. There are also groups 3 and 4 that receive no funding from the provincial government. The great majority of kids in independent schools are enrolled in groups 1 and 2.

R. Masi: I appreciate that answer. I did understand that before I asked the question; I guess my question was not clear enough. It's about the accountability of the money to the independent schools, and it's the process that I'm looking for. Is it sent to the individual school? Is it sent to school boards? Or is it sent to a superintendent of a certain religious group, or something like that? I don't understand the distribution system of the funds.

Hon. P. Ramsey: They're distributed to the individual schools.

R. Masi: If I could just pursue that a bit further, there is one large independent school system -- more than one, but one that's large -- the Catholic school system. What I'm asking here is: is the money distributed throughout the independent school system to all the schools separately, or are there different levels or systems that actually account for the dollars?

Hon. P. Ramsey: As far as staff know, within the Catholic system it's distributed to individual schools. That's the extent of the knowledge on this side of the table, hon. member.

R. Masi: My main concern here is the accountability of dollars. What I was trying to find out here. . . . It seems to be that some schools use the dollars directly and some have a system of accountability. I am concerned about some of the accountability processes that we've come across in the last few months.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Is the member indirectly referring to Khalsa?

[4:00]

Hon. P. Ramsey: I think I understand what information you are seeking. I'll provide some general stuff, and if you wish further detail, again, I can probably put you directly in touch with the person who is primarily responsible for it.

There is an independent school inspector who works within the Ministry of Education. His job is to go out and certify that these schools have the qualities, which I've just enumerated for the committee, for group 1 or group 2 schools. Further than that, a comprehensive external evaluation is done every four years and an inspection by ministry staff two years following the external evaluation. So there's a rolling cycle of ensuring that basic standards are met. Where problems are encountered, obviously some special work is needed. That has been the case with Khalsa School, where we ordered an independent inspection and now have in place a person, hired by the ministry, to monitor any problems at that school and the implementation of the recommendations contained in the external report.

R. Masi: Are these inspections equivalent to the accreditation processes that are involved with the public school system?

Hon. P. Ramsey: In many cases, the issues that are examined by an external team in an accreditation process are the same. In some ways the external evaluation is broader, because it looks at facilities, certifications of teachers and the like, which might not necessarily be the focus of what's happening in accreditation. One of the main differences, though, is that the inspection is definitely done by external professionals that are seeking to evaluate the school. The accreditation process is far more an internal process of school staff working with the community.

R. Masi: In terms of funding towards the independent schools, will there be an increase in operating funding?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Not in percentages; those percentages stay the same. But in overall budget for them, yes, there will be. The grants for 1998-99, which I think are reflected in the blue book, show at $136,900,000. That's up about $3 million or $4 million from last year.

[ Page 7768 ]

Hon. P. Ramsey: There is no provision in the budget before this committee for capital expenditures in the private schools of British Columbia.

R. Masi: On a different topic, the College of Teachers, it's my impression that the existing construction of the College of Teachers today is decidedly BCTF-dominated. It seems to me that because the B.C. Teachers Federation is a union and does have small-political initiatives and directions involved in their makeup, we have a sort of one-sided perspective on the College of Teachers. On the basis that the College of Teachers has been established for a few years now, is there any suggestion that there'll be a review of the makeup of the legislation for the College of Teachers to include educational partners that are pretty well underrepresented or non-represented?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The member is right in one sense, and that is that the council of the College of Teachers is indeed dominated by teachers. It is a self-regulating college. The members, too, that sit on the college are chosen either by selection -- election by teachers, district by district, in the number of regions of the province that elect teachers -- or there are a small number of lay members that are appointed by the ministry, a responsibility I take very seriously. I wish I had the exact numbers in front of me; we don't seem to have that material. But it is not unlike other colleges that regulate professions; whether it's the Law Society or the College of Physicians and Surgeons or the College of Midwives, all of those bodies have a dominance of members from the actual profession, and that is the self-regulating model that is incorporated in the College of Teachers.

The member again asked about future legislative policy. There's no work underway to prepare amendments to that legislation that would radically change that. I believe there were a couple of minor amendments that we voted on last session.

R. Masi: While that may be the case in terms of midwifery, I cannot really agree that it's the same case in terms of all the components of education. I mean, we do have teachers who are. . . . There's no question about them being the greatest percentage. But there are people in the superintendency, principals. . . . I'm not sure where secretary-treasurers sit; I don't believe they're members of this. But in terms of representation in educational questions, I would suggest something like the question of Trinity Western University. There's a decidedly political flavour in the position of the College of Teachers here that may not be representative of all of the members who have to be members of the College of Teachers, including superintendents and principals.

Hon. P. Ramsey: That may very well be, in terms of the Trinity Western case the member talks about, but that matter is before the courts, and I don't think we should be commenting on it in this committee.

R. Masi: I'll assume, then, that there'll be no major changes forthcoming in legislation for the College of Teachers -- for a while.

In terms of school sports, this is an issue that seems to be a public issue these days: largely, recruiting for athletic teams, a suggestion of scholarships perhaps -- I don't know what kind of scholarships exactly, but help to go to school. I would like to ask the minister where the ministry stands in terms of this whole question. Just to go a little further here, this is. . . .

Hon. P. Ramsey: Recruitment from one school?

R. Masi: Yes, it's school sports recruitment, and it seems to be in the lap of Sport B.C., which I understand -- if I'm not mistaken -- reports to the Ministry of Small Business, Tourism and Culture. The minister may correct me if I'm wrong. I guess my essential question here is. . . . This is an educational issue, and yet it seems to be beyond the control of the ministry, the school trustees. . . . Could we have a comment on this, please?

Hon. P. Ramsey: This is an area that I have not sought to influence. I don't think the ministry has, over the years. Districts have a variety of policies to allow students from other districts to transfer in to take courses at their schools. There are students right now who live in Burnaby and are going to school in Vancouver, and probably vice versa, for a variety of reasons -- a particular program that they're interested in or friends or they moved and wish to complete a program in their previous district. So there is lots of movement, in and out, across district boundaries in urban areas.

There is also movement from school to school within districts for the same set of reasons. Those are policies that are set up by the school districts as they try to make the educational programs that they're delivering accessible. What Sport B.C. has done is say: "That's fine, but in order to try to level the playing field for varsity sports, we're going to try to impose a variety of strictures on how that transfer takes place, above and beyond what the school district cares about." I don't think the school district much cares about the sports teams. Some school districts might. But they're very concerned about making sure the education stuff is there. So what they're looking at is. . . .

Sport B.C. has this other layer of restrictions on how transfers should take place. I'm loathe to touch that right now. I don't really understand all the intricacies of how one might restrict the movement of students from school to school.

I must say, though -- and I will put this on the public record, hon. Chair -- that I find regrettable the tendency of some secondary schools, and it is clearly a minority, to seek to "recruit" in this way for the enhancement of local teams. I happen to come from a country, the United States of America, which in my mind placed entirely too high an emphasis on athletic success at the secondary level, with the result being that anything we're seeing in British Columbia as far as the recruitment of high school students goes is dwarfed by the excesses of some schools in some states in the United States of America -- where at times it appears that grade 8 students are being recruited cross-state for particular high schools. I hope that as Sport B.C. looks at how it imposes its policies to ensure fair competition, they do so in a way that prevents that sort of excess.

R. Masi: I understand the situation very clearly. I've been involved in sports and coaching throughout virtually all my career.

Interjection.

[4:15]

[ Page 7769 ]

Now, the province of Ontario had to virtually wash their hands of it and declare an age limit, and so be it. In fact, we now have players coming from the United States playing various sports in the province of Ontario. I support the rules, but I don't understand is where we are going in this. If the courts are ruling against it, there ultimately has to be a decision made by somebody. I think it's unfortunate that this whole thing has been taken away from the Ministry of Education. You may not mind it at the present time, but I think it's an educational issue. I have a strong belief that athletics and competition are very valuable to our schools and to our students. We may have a difference in philosophy there; I don't know. I think school sports are very important for the whole culture of the school, as long as it's not abused. We're in a delicate time now, and as I say, this is an important issue that is just going to get worse. I don't know if the minister would care to comment or not.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Only to say that if I ever said that my previous comments were off the record, clearly they're not; they're on the record. I don't think that the member and I disagree.

What I saw in the States, where I grew up, was, frankly, too large an emphasis on sports. I participated in sports in secondary school. I found it a valuable part of what I did in school; I think most people did. Schools are about setting patterns for the rest of your life, and the fact that here I am at the age of 53 still going out for a morning jog has something to do with my time on the track team as a 16-year-old. There are patterns set as far as taking care of yourself physically as well as mentally, and that's part of what schools do. I thank the member for his heads-up. I'm not sure whether I want to raise my head and try to catch that ball or duck.

R. Masi: At this point we've concluded our questions. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the minister for his very forthright answers and his patience and to thank his officials for their indulgence and their excellent advice to the minister. It was an excellent session. At this point, I think we'll conclude. Thank you again.

Vote 26 approved.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Before I move the next motion, I too would like to thank staff of the Ministry of Education for ably assisting me and, I hope, for providing information of use to the members opposite. As usual, education attracts a lot of interest. The queue of the opposite side waiting for their chance to ask questions was at least as lengthy as it was last year. I thank the members opposite for their interest in education. We may at times differ in what we think are the priorities, but I hope that the non-partisan support that we saw at the breakfast held by the B.C. School Trustees Association recently will continue. Public education is one of the cornerstones of the democracy that we're elected to serve here.

Vote 27: ministry operations, $4,261,979,000 -- approved.

The committee recessed from 4:19 p.m. to 5 p.m.

[E. Conroy in the chair.]

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION AND HIGHWAYS

Hon. H. Lali: It is indeed a pleasure to present the 1998-99 budget estimates for the B.C. Transportation Financing Authority, as well as for the Ministry of Transportation and Highways. Joining me here today are John Doyle and Doug Hibbins and Frank Blasetti from the BCTFA.

I'm a little nervous here, so you'll have to excuse me; it is my first time presenting estimates. I'm not a stranger to the House, but this is actually a bit of a different role that I'm playing here today. Actually, I'm very proud of the role that I have been given a chance to play. I think all members of the Legislative Assembly and members of the committee. . . . In one sense, we're all fortunate that we're here, because we are at the whim of the voters. As minister, I have an important task: basically, to build highways and bridges and look after the transportation and transportation safety needs of the people. And my hon. critic, and the hon. deputy critic, too, play a very important role in this assembly. As critics, they are not only my watchdogs but also the watchdogs over the BCTFA and the Ministry of Transportation and Highways. Together, by doing our roles, we are able to practise democracy in this great province of ours.

As the MLA for the riding of Yale-Lillooet, a riding that spans 30,926 square kilometres with more than 6,900 lane kilometres of roads and 244 bridges, I understand the importance of infrastructure for the safe transportation of people and also of goods. As MLA for almost six and a half years, I worked on countless transportation and highways issues and at times was a regular pain for four NDP ministers. Mostly, it was Art Charbonneau from Kamloops, who was the first minister under the NDP.

There are a lot of issues in my own riding that I had the pleasure of working with various ministers on. I just want to name a few of them: Whipsaw Bridge, Fraser-Hope Bridge, Colletteville Bridge, Stirling Creek Bridge, Lytton Bridge and, most recently, Marshall Creek Bridge. I've also worked on a lot of highway issues in terms of resurfacing roads within my riding. Some of the major roads there are the Coquihalla Highway, the Trans-Canada Highway 1 and Highway 97, which is the longest highway in the world and which stretches from Alaska through British Columbia, the United States and then on through Latin America and actually to the tip of South America and is represented by various national highways throughout the countries that it crosses. As well, Highway 3, known as the Hope-Princeton Highway, the Sea to Sky Highway 99 and others including Highways 12 and 8, etc., B.C. Rail, CN Rail, CP Rail -- they all go through my particular constituency. The only thing I don't have is any scheduled airline service within the constituency.

There is a brief story that I know the former minister Art Charbonneau used to tell. I was not only working with highways and transportation officials in B.C. trying to build roads, but when I went back to my traditional village in India, in the Punjab, there was still a dirt road there. The local village council said to me: "Because you own property in Miranpur in Punjab, we want you to go with us and talk to the minister of transport locally, who also happened to be our local MLA, to

[ Page 7770 ]

Highway and transportation issues are something that I am particularly proud of in terms of having worked with various ministers on that. This ministry plays a crucial role in the government's three-year plan to stimulate the economy to make B.C. more competitive, to attract investment and to create jobs. Our investment in rehabilitation is estimated at just over $153 million. This will complement our maintenance budget of almost $377 million. New capital investment is $227 million.

Immediately after becoming minister, I toured the roads of northern B.C. and promised to try and improve the situation. The people of the Peace region asked me to get serious about fixing the road problems that were there. I did exactly that. Three and a half weeks later, I went back to announce the northern roads initiative. Over the next year, along with our regular road maintenance budget, we will invest more than $66 million new dollars rehabilitating roads, expanding capacity and repairing bridges across northern British Columbia. From the north coast through Skeena, Bulkley Valley-Stikine, the Prince George region, north Cariboo and the Peace, we are more than doubling our rehabilitation investment compared with last year. As a first step towards correcting the conditions of our roads in the Peace region, we are investing $27 million in that area.

The northeast of the province is home to another initiative that this government is proud of: the Sierra-Yoyo-Desan road. The province, through the BCTFA, is facilitating the $5 million road upgrade to be financed by the private sector. This will help ensure a reliable road for our expanding oil and gas industry. Local industry and its employees will receive immediate benefits, and the cost of the project will be paid off over the next five years through industry user fees. We hope to have construction begin this summer.

The B.C. Transportation Financing Authority is involved in major regional transportation initiatives across the province, often in partnerships with local government. I would like to highlight some of these initiatives, starting with the air transport assistance program. This annual program provides financial contributions on a cost-shared basis for capital works with the objective of maintaining the essential airport network and providing basic air access service to communities.

Also, there's the cycling network program. This program provides financial contributions to local governments for the construction of new or retrofitted facilities with the objective of encouraging the development of cycling network plans, as well as promoting cycling as an alternative form of transportation for school, work and shopping.

In the Okanagan the BCTFA is working to build partnerships with the city of Kelowna, the Central Okanagan regional district and the Westbank first nation on ways to move ahead with improvements to the Okanagan Lake bridge. Also in the Central Okanagan, we are developing a corridor management plan for Highway 97 that will be integrated with local land use in the region.

Along the Trans-Canada, on the Kamloops to Alberta corridor, we are four-laning the highway east from Kamloops to the intersection with Highway 97. We are also completing projects in Salmon Arm, Sicamous and Yoho Park. Highway 1 will continue to be a priority, and we are finalizing plans for further improvements.

We will continue to pressure the federal government to accept its share of responsibility for funding the national highway program. The federal government has been abrogating their responsibility in this particular field. The federal government takes out on an annual basis approximately $740 million in fuel taxes. Yet over the last three years, what they've put back into British Columbia has averaged only $6 million. I would like to point out that Canada is the only major industrialized nation with a national government that does not support a national highway system. Along with my provincial and territorial counterparts, we are actively pursuing the establishment of a national highway network with a federal commitment for long-term funding.

While dealing with Ottawa can be challenging, I am pleased that British Columbians are working well together when it comes to negotiating our own solutions. This government has ratified a deal for a new greater Vancouver transportation authority, known as the GVTA, with the regional district. The two levels of government and stakeholders are now working out the final details.

Our "Greater Vancouver Highway Improvement Outlook," which we announced last fall, recognizes that congestion on the Trans-Canada Highway near the Port Mann Bridge is among the worst in the province. We want to take pressure off the bridge by diverting some Vancouver-bound traffic to the Alex Fraser Bridge via a new South Fraser perimeter road. To this end, we are working with the municipalities of Surrey and Delta. We're also working with New Westminster and Coquitlam on ways of relieving rush hour bottlenecks at the Cape Horn interchange.

In the battle against lower mainland highway congestion, we are fighting on many fronts. Part of the solution lies in the transit investment and in better urban planning and highway improvements. Over the past two years, this government has invested in the Barnet-Hastings people-moving project, the new Westview interchange in North Vancouver, as well as the Mary Hill bypass in the northeast and new Highway 91 interchanges, thereby getting rid of congestion in the southern part of the region. The Trans-Canada HOV lanes will be ready this fall.

I'm also pleased to tell you, hon. Chair, that 160 person-years of employment will have been created by using the HCL model on that particular project. Over the next ten years, our priorities for dealing with lower mainland congestion include: an HOV and transit priority network, a regional trip reduction service, major road improvements and a traffic management system. This government is the first government in 60 years to address the Lions Gate Bridge issue. A decision on a four-lane crossing or a three-lane rehabilitation will be made very shortly.

On Vancouver Island, the Island Highway project is proceeding well and within budget. So far we have completed the western approaches to Victoria, the Nanaimo Parkway, the Parksville-to-Mud-Bay section and the Campbell River bypass. This government is proud of providing more than 2,700 well-paying family-supporting jobs. Of this number, almost 15 percent of the jobs have gone to traditionally underrepresented groups such as women, first nations people, people with disabilities and visible minorities.

My ministry is a forward-looking ministry. Beyond building roads, we are moving on many other issues. Examples include preparing our computer-controlled traffic systems to

[ Page 7771 ]

To date, 46 projects have been identified where the ministry will either modify or find alternate solutions in order to meet year 2000 requirements. It's not a happy thought, but we assume that one day our province will be struck by an earthquake, and we are taking steps today to lessen our future damages. This year we will invest $2.5 million to upgrade bridges with seismic retrofits. We have re-evaluated the speed limits on 2,850 kilometres of road, resulting in speed limits being increased by ten kilometres an hour to encourage safe and effective traffic flow.

We continue to get tough with drinking drivers. Police now have the authority to impose 90-day administrative driving prohibitions for failing or refusing to take a breath or blood alcohol test. This process is separate from criminal charges that may arise.

[5:15]

We have merged the motor vehicle branch with ICBC. This will achieve more cost-effective program delivery and a higher level of customer service. The office of the superintendent of motor vehicles was retained in the ministry as an independent body to review ICBC licensing or certification decisions and to administer driver-medical programs.

By building and rebuilding our transportation infrastructure, the province is not only connecting locations but also people. We are building highways and bridges between government and the private sector, between the urban and the rural, and between people.

D. Symons: I thank the minister for those opening statements. I'm very pleased to see that he realizes the importance of the ministry which he heads. I think that all too often people look at education and health as being very important -- as they are -- but of course there's the importance of the economic environment of the province and the need for roads to move our goods about. The mountainous terrain we have makes it particularly important that we have good, adequate roads, rail, ferry and all the rest -- transportation services within this province -- in order that we may succeed economically.

I'd like to start, since we are beginning with the Transportation Financing Authority, to look at the role, the mandate and maybe the purpose of the actual existence of the authority. I keep harking back to the days of the Social Credit government when basically what happened, year by year, was that they put money into transportation issues, usually through the Ministry of Transportation and Highways, and they simply budgeted a certain amount that year if they had the money, and they didn't budget that amount if they didn't have the money -- or possibly they incurred a small amount of debt in their consolidated revenue fund for that year.

In 1993 the Build BC Act was introduced and changed that to the extent that it set up the Transportation Financing Authority to allow for long-term financing of primarily highway projects. That's what I understood it to be at the time, although it seems to have expanded since then. Thus we have this new entity here -- a new arm of government, if you want to say that -- but the figures that they work with, the projects that they finance, don't appear on the consolidated revenue fund -- they are moved off the books.

I'm wondering really, as time moves on. . . . You now have projects whose value has probably topped $1 billion at this stage. You now have the debt servicing of that money for projects that the Transportation Financing Authority has been funding. We have debts to pay on those, and as time moves on, we're going to find that those debt-servicing charges are going to accumulate to not that far off the roughly $300 million to $400 million that the Social Credit government traditionally seemed to put into the Highways ministry. They didn't have to worry about somebody in the future down the line paying off the debts, because they were doing it out of the year's allocation of funds. So are we going to be that much further ahead as time goes on and more and more projects are undertaken by the authority -- and the debt to be serviced ends up increasing even more so than it is today?

Hon. H. Lali: First off, I want to read out the mandate for B.C. Transportation Financing Authority: ". . .to plan, acquire, construct, improve or cause to be constructed or improved transportation infrastructure throughout British Columbia and to do such other things as the Lieutenant Governor in Council may authorize." There are four main objectives to fulfil this mandate of BCTFA, and they fall under the auspices of planning, financing, project delivery, and project monitoring and review. I also just want to clarify that the BCTFA started out in 1993, so it's only been five years -- instead of the seven years that the government has been in office.

In the old days, under the Social Credit, when construction was done for Highways and Transportation, it was reflected within the regular budget. When they ran a deficit, that contributed towards the debt. Under this administration, projects that are financed through the BCTFA. . . . We have dedicated revenues that are going into it, such as the fuel tax, and it's not hidden -- it's there to be seen, for the public, and it is reflected within our books and reports are given annually.

[E. Walsh in the chair.]

D. Symons: I'm not sure in what order I'll ask these questions. Currently I figure that the Highways ministry has spent somewhere around $1.2 billion on the Island Highway project -- or will have spent that shortly on that particular project. At a rate of around 7 percent -- which is what I think you're probably currently paying in interest charges -- that works out to about $84 million a year. Now on that one project alone, then, you're going to have to have revenues of some sort. The minister mentioned that we have two sources of revenue that I'm aware of so far for paying off the major projects the ministry is involved in. One of the sources was initially a provincewide 1-cent-a-litre gasoline tax. I think that's been increased to 2 cents a litre, and I'd have to have confirmation that indeed it's provincewide as well. As well, we have a $1.50-per-day surcharge on automobile rentals. I believe they currently create for you somewhere in the neighbourhood of about $120 million in revenue.

As you take on more projects -- I mentioned only one project, the Island Highway, and it's currently taking up about. . . . The interest charges and that are going to take up about two-thirds of the money that you're already receiving in revenues. Shortly you'll be at the stage where more projects

[ Page 7772 ]

Hon. H. Lali: First off, I want to point out that the fuel tax was never increased. It was 2 cents to begin with. It was 1 cent and 1 cent; it was never increased for taxpayers. That's where the split is.

In terms of the revenues for BCTFA, it's $120 million and the annual interest cost is $52.7 million. So it's not the two-thirds that the hon. member across the way had indicated that it would be.

I also want to point out to the hon. member that the current debt for BCTFA is $1.1 billion, and our current assets are $1.3 billion.

D. Symons: I'm wondering if the minister then might. . . . I said that when the Island Highway is fully capitalized, I suspect that you'll be at that higher figure of interest that I mentioned earlier. The minister said assets of $1.3 billion. Would the minister just give me an idea of what those assets are?

Hon. H. Lali: We can get the list for the hon. member; it's just not available right now. Certainly we've got assets all over the province that we can. . . .

Interjection.

The Chair: Through the Chair, please.

D. Symons: I suspect that the answer -- and the answer I was expecting the minister to give me -- is that indeed the assets are the roads that you've built. If that's the case, then in the normal situation -- when you talk about debt and assets that a company has -- the assets are something that you can sell in order to cover the debts. You may have a bankrupt situation where there aren't enough assets to cover it, or you may have a situation where at least there are some assets left over, and there are some revenues on that side. I'm not too sure what the going rate is for selling highways in the province right now, but I don't think you can treat the highways as assets in the sense that they are monetary assets. Certainly a highway in the province is an asset to the people of British Columbia. But to bounce it off the way that the minister suggested a moment ago -- that we have debts of so much and assets are more than the debt -- I don't know if that's a fair way of describing the situation that we have today.

I was looking at the situation of when you get the debt of the Transportation Financing Authority up to that $5 billion range -- and at the rate projects around this province need to be funded, that could happen not too long from now -- you will then have approximately $360 million worth of annual service charges. We'll have a fair amount of debt to pay that will be fairly equivalent to what, in days gone by, was the average amount that the Social Credit government used to plug into the Highways ministry for capital projects.

What I'm getting at is that it seems that after a period of time of doing it the way you're doing it, we'll be no better off than we were back in the old way of doing it, in the sense that we'll be stuck for a certain amount of money that will have to go each year. You've identified a funding source, but the funding source was always there in the consolidated revenue fund for the government to use. It was revenue you got from taxes, and essentially that's what you're currently doing.

Hon. H. Lali: In terms of building assets, the member indicates that you can't sell a highway or a bridge, and I would beg to differ with him. In Toronto the government of the day is trying to sell off Highway 407. Also, if you look across the world, governments contract out the building of highways and bridges. For all effective purposes, the particular organization that builds the bridge can put a toll to help pay for it, and that is an asset that they effectively own until it is paid for. If you look across the province, hospital societies own hospitals and school boards have schools. These are all public assets that those public bodies own on behalf of the government.

I also want to point out that the last government -- before 1991 -- certainly built assets all over the province; it built highways and bridges as well. Our record since 1991 is comparable to any administration before that -- if not better -- in terms of building assets for British Columbians. Certainly in highways you can look all across the province. . . . I don't think I need to name the structures that have been rebuilt or new structures that have been built and put in place.

D. Symons: I would just point out to the minister that Highway 407 in Ontario is a privately owned highway, built by a private-public partnership with the government -- privately built, let's put it that way. It's going to pay itself off and will be funded through tolls and so forth, which we aren't yet doing.

I'm wondering if the minister might be able to tell me how much has been spent or is committed for this year by the TFA for rehabilitation of highways -- basically I think it will be some moneys from last year and a larger sum this year; a rough total for the two years.

[5:30]

I just want to correct the member opposite on the Highway 407 situation. The Ontario Transportation Capital Corporation owns Highway 407, and they are now trying to privatize it.

D. Symons: I'll stand corrected on that.

I did ask a question earlier and didn't really hear the answer. That was: when you're building a project under TFA financing, are those projects individually financed -- plan and design -- for that particular project so it will be covered, or is each project individual as far as the financing plan goes? I gathered from the setup of the BCTFA in 1993 that the concept was that there would be a project-by-project financing plan. If that's the case -- and I hope the minister will say yes -- I'm wondering what the financing strategy is and how you're going to be paying for the rehab jobs you've now taken on.

Hon. H. Lali: Our highway capital plan is actually pooled together, unless we're doing a partnership, and then we do it on an individually financed basis -- as, for instance, the South Surrey interchange, Mount Washington and others. I also want to read out here that in 1997-98, funding available for new roads -- capacity improvements -- has been

[ Page 7773 ]

D. Symons: I think we'll come back to those figures a little later on. What you've told me, then, is contrary to what I understood when the bill came in that set up the TFA: that we're not doing project-specific financing. You're setting up a fund which you dip into every so often for the various projects that you're undertaking. That seems to be what you answered to my question of a moment ago.

If that's the case, then really what the Transport Financing Authority represents is another pool of money outside of the consolidated revenue fund, with the taxing authority to bring the money into it. It's really nothing more than a shell game. Instead of doing it under the consolidated revenue fund, you've simply put another fund that's outside of there -- tax money, just as the consolidated revenue fund is -- to cover the Transportation ministry expenses out of. It seems to be as simple as that.

Hon. H. Lali: It's not cost-effective to project-finance. We have specific funding agreements for specific projects. It's done similarly with education -- for pulling the funding.

The hon. member mentioned a shell game. Well, it's all there in the blue books. It's recorded where the money is coming in and where it's spent; it's there for the public to see; it's there for the hon. critic to see. There is no shell game involved in this.

D. Symons: Well, I suppose the shell game -- my term used there -- is that if I look back in the history of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways, I find that historically it seems to be pretty close to about a billion dollars of spending, or thereabouts, going back pretty well a decade in that ministry. It's a little bit higher when we find an election year coming up; it goes up a little bit, by a couple of hundred million dollars, then. But it seems to be fairly consistent.

What has changed, if you take a look at the total voted expenditures for vote 61 this year -- I'm not quite sure what it was other years. . . . You find out that when those voted expenditures have gone down, as they have recently. . . . We find the voted expenditure for the ministry this year for vote 61 is $470 million, down roughly about $37 million from the previous year, and we find that the spending through the Transportation Financing Authority has gone up by almost precisely the same amount of money. So the constant spending on highways remains constant there.

We have this situation, then, where what had been covered by the consolidated revenue fund is now just simply being off-loaded into the Transportation Financing Authority. So that was why I used the words shell game: the spending has been fairly constant. I will congratulate the minister and the government that they are spending roughly the same amount on the highways as has been spent for the last decade, year by year.

Just to go back, then, to the topic, if we can look in your annual report -- and unfortunately, I only have the one up to '96-97; we haven't got '97-98 yet -- under "Project Delivery," one of the comments is: ". . .to promote the innovative and cost-effective design and construction of transportation infrastructure and to develop alternative financing arrangements for transportation infrastructure, increasing cost recovery. . . ." -- and so forth.

I'm wondering what the minister might tell me. . . . On the Island Highway, what sort of innovative or developing of alternative financing arrangements may have been done there? I'm curious -- maybe I will stand corrected on this -- why design-build was not part of some of those portions of the Island Highway that were built when they went out to tender on it. Why didn't they go out on a design-build policy or concept? This doesn't seem to have happened, I don't believe.

Hon. H. Lali: I just want to go back to the historical spending under the Social Credit. The hon. member mentions that it was about a billion dollars a year. Well, that's correct. But he's got to realize that while the Coquihalla Highway system was being fast-tracked, that's when it averaged about a billion dollars a year under the Social Credit. I also want to point out that without the Coquihalla Highway, it was never near $1 billion annually. I also want to point out that in 1991, the last budget that the Social Credit brought down, their capital on Ministry of Transportation and Highways was only $60 million; that was it. Since 1992, under our administration, we've averaged well over $800 million, with the exception of last year, in terms of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways and the BCTFA funding that has gone into it.

On the issue of the design-build, we have done two pilot projects with the Westview interchange and the Johnson-Mariner. In terms of the VIHP -- the Vancouver Island Highway project -- we have got a really good building team, amongst the best in the business, looking after that project. What was suitable for the Westview and Johnson-Mariner was not suitable for the VIHP.

D. Symons: I gather there were bridges built on the Island Highway, and there were portions of the highway that could have been done quite easily under design-build, but I suppose you chose not to. The figures I have for 1991-92 for. . . . And that was the last half-year of the Social Credit government. But the projects that they undertook before they were turfed out of office were $363 million -- considerably more than the minister just said they spent in that year. I'm surprised that we differ that much.

I'm wondering, if we go back again to page 1 of your annual report of a year ago, and just finishing off the project delivery statement that's in there. . . . I read the first part of it. It talked about increasing cost recovery from the direct beneficiaries and reducing the burden on taxpayers. The Island Highway project certainly was the biggest -- and first, I think -- project that the TFA got involved in, and it almost maybe was invented for the purpose of building the Island Highway. I wonder if you might be able to tell us what sort of direct-benefit cost recoveries were put in place for that particular project.

[5:45]

[ Page 7774 ]

Interjection.

Hon. H. Lali: Okay, there's time for one more question from the opposition.

Interjection.

Hon. H. Lali: No, there isn't.

I move that the committee rise, report resolutions on the Ministry of Education, report progress on the Ministry of Transportation and Highways and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:46 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1998: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada