[ Page 10379 ]

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

Prayers.

J. Doyle: I'm pleased to have in the gallery this morning visitors and friends from Golden. In the gallery today we have Donna Mozell, her husband Gordon and their son Chris. They're down here spending some time in Victoria and on Vancouver Island. At home they're very active on the ski hill, and Chris is one of the better skiers with the Golden skiing group. I'd like to welcome this family to this building this morning.

Orders of the Day

STRATA PROPERTY ACT
(second reading)

Hon. Speaker, the new Strata Property Act will provide British Columbia with a better system of strata development, ownership and management, in addition to responding to the Barrett commission's recommendations for consumer protection. This act embodies three major objectives. First, it's been written in plain language and has been reorganized to make it easier to use. Second, it more fairly balances the interests of various parties, including developers, strata corporations and individual owners. Third, the act provides strata corporations with the flexibility to adapt to diverse and changing circumstances and to better meet the needs of their owners.

The new Strata Property Act builds upon and improves the current Condominium Act without altering the fundamental basis of condominium ownership. It is an important step in ensuring consumer protection and in incorporating many of the Barrett commission's recommendations. These changes include greater disclosure requirements for developers and strata corporations, increased financial contributions to the contingency reserve fund and enhanced recordkeeping and access provisions. For example, under the new legislation developers will have to give strata corporations all documents relevant to the construction and management of the strata development. This will provide strata corporations with information to deal with building defects in a timely and efficient manner.

As well as responding to the Barrett commission's recommendations, one of the primary objectives of the new legislation is to address a fundamental problem with the current Condominium Act: it's legalistic, it's complicated and it's incomplete. The new act has been restructured and rewritten using plain language, and gaps and ambiguities in the legislation have been addressed. These amendments make the new legislation much easier to understand and use, enabling it to form the basis of an accessible and comprehensive strata property regime.

The second major objective of the Strata Property Act is to more fairly balance the interests of various parties. The act governs the relations among strata corporations, strata councils and individual strata lot owners and affects the activities of municipalities, developers, strata managers, landlords and tenants. The new act balances the interests of these various parties by redefining and reclarifying their rights and obligations and by protecting minority interests as well.

One of the most important aspects of condominium living is the relationship between the individual lot owner and the strata corporation. The Strata Property Act introduces many changes intended to balance their sometimes differing interests. For instance, the act contains comprehensive guidelines for the financial management of the strata corporation. These guidelines include detailed budget rules and new restrictions on expenditures by the strata corporation. Amendments of this nature will help ensure that strata corporations remain more accountable to the owners.

Not only does the Strata Property Act balance interests of the strata corporation with those of individual owners, it also endeavours to protect owners holding a minority of votes with the strata corporation. For example, a new provision requires strata corporations to delay the implementation of certain decisions to give owners the opportunity to have these decisions reconsidered. This amendment is a prime example of the attempts to balance the interests of the strata corporation with those of a minority of the individual owners. On the one hand, it provides owners holding a minority of votes with the means to have an important decision reconsidered, while on the other hand, it enables the strata corporation to conduct its affairs with minimal interruption. It further protects minority interests by enhancing the existing arbitration scheme. The new act improves and clarifies the current arbitration process by introducing detailed procedural rules to govern arbitrations. The proposed arbitration scheme responds to considerable public comment and demand and will provide a much more accessible forum for the resolution of strata corporation disputes.

The third main impetus behind the Strata Property Act is to provide strata corporations with greater flexibility so that they may better meet the needs of their owners. To this end the new act increases many types of options available to strata corporations. Significant improvements include provisions that provide alternative approaches to expense-sharing. While the Strata Property Act maintains lot size as the standard basis for the allocation of common expenses, this approach may not be fair in some circumstances. Therefore the act allows for refinements to this basic rule and also allows owners to adopt different expense allocations by unanimous agreement.

There are other examples of increased flexibility in the new governance provisions. Some options allow for electronic attendance at meetings and waiving of general meetings with the consent of all owners, and deal with holdouts in situations where a unanimous vote is required.

More generally, the new act provides strata corporations with increased options for organizing themselves. For example, because the interests and needs of owners of different types of lots may vary significantly, the act provides strata corporations with the flexibility to create distinct sections to represent these interests.

Also, the new act gives strata corporations broader options for reorganizing themselves. Plan amendments to incorporate new configurations of common property and strata lots have been simplified and streamlined. As well, the act establishes a new scheme that allows for the dissolution of strata corporations on a consensual basis without the need for intervention by the court.

[ Page 10380 ]

For these reasons, hon. Speaker, the Strata Property Act will lay the foundation for a fair and workable system for the ownership and management of strata property in British Columbia.

In closing, I would like to acknowledge that the Strata Property Act has benefited greatly from the input of hundreds of strata owners and other stakeholders and from members of this Legislature as well, and I want to take this opportunity to thank all of them for their invaluable contribution.

R. Coleman: I'm pleased to stand today and respond in second reading to the introduction of the Strata Property Act, Bill 47. First of all, I'd like to start out by saying: "Well, it's about time." It's about time that we brought a plain-language act into this Legislature to deal with strata property management in this province, and what's unfortunate is the amount of time that it's actually taken to get here.

[10:15]

Most of my comments and questions and concerns are going to be dealt with in committee stage of this particular bill. It is a very extensive piece of legislation, and some of these sections that have to be dealt with are ones that are of concern to both industry and ownership, but they need to be canvassed on an individual basis relative to the content of the act, rather than in some broad rhetorical discussion here today.

The longstanding issue, of course, has been the plain language and governance relative to condominium ownership -- the contributions to contingencies on the part of the strata owners and by the developers. I have some concerns about this piece of legislation -- that the initial contribution to the contingency prescribed in the act does not match the contingency requirement of the owners in their budget. I think we missed the boat a little bit, relative to what the contingency contribution of the builder and developer should be. One is 5 percent and the other is 10 percent. We'll deal with those particular issues in debate.

The next thing that has to be a concern is the protection, through voting, of the rights of people that own condominiums, so that these people and their voting rights, which have been improved in this act, can be protected and not be discriminated against, relative to a movement within a strata corporation that would be prejudicial to them.

The functions of the act that are of concern to me are relative to how we're going to deal with some of the reporting and the formats, and particularly to how they're going to relate back to the real estate industry and how they're going to deal with their disclosure, relative to a couple of sections of the act that require an extensive disclosure package and checklist to be provided to potential owners during a sale. I don't think there's a difficulty with that. We may want to look at how we're going to incorporate that into the property condition disclosure statements that are presently in use in the industry, how that's going to affect how the industry will react and what timelines, outlines and formats we're going to provide them to operate with. When the sale takes place, there's going to need to be that disclosure on the real estate side. And there are two parties in that relationship that have to get the right information together -- one being the strata council providing it to the owner, who then puts it in some format that's acceptable, through to the real estate and to the land titles issues relative to the sale of the condo. We'll deal with that issue in detail in committee so that we can decide how we're going to deal with that formatting so that the industry will understand where we're going with that portion of this legislation.

One of the welcome things to people that own condominiums will be the accessibility of the information -- their accounting information, relative to how their particular strata corporation is operated -- and the fact that it will now be in legislation as to when that's to be provided to them within certain time frames. One of the biggest complaints I've had from condominium owners relative to their strata councils over the last three years has been the fact that they can't get information so that they know that their facility is actually being properly run and whether their money is being expended in a fair and reasonable manner.

There is going to be some discussion in committee relative to the vagueness of the part of the section that deals with rental restrictions and flexibility and also deals with age restrictions and their applications.

Also, we're going to have to spend some time discussing outside of what we're familiar with, being condominiums, relative to leaky-condo issues but also to bare-land strata issues. In the future, we will probably find that in our housing in this province, as land becomes more of a premium and the cost of servicing roads at a municipal level, to municipal standards. . . . We're going to see more and more bare-land stratas. Those bare-land stratas will be functioning subdivisions that will have a different internal road system relative to what we're used to seeing in a subdivision in a community and will be controlled by a bare-land strata agreement, as far as the cost, maintenance and operation of the strata is concerned. We may even see in the future where bare-land stratas will be involved in such things as we've seen on the Prairies. We've seen bare-land stratas that have actually put in their own sewage treatment systems, because sewage treatment wasn't readily available, and they didn't want to go to things like septic. So how will we respond to a bare-land strata having to maintain that type of facility? I think we can deal with those types of discussions quite easily in committee, which we will do as we go through this.

I would like to compliment the minister for bringing this legislation forward. I'd first of all like to say that it's important to the people that have condominiums that they have some-

[ Page 10381 ]

As the issues expand, in committee we're going to find that we have an act that works pretty well for this industry. We're going to find that it has some weaknesses and that in our debates we'll miss some of the weaknesses. We may end up, in three, four or five months, where we have something similar to what happened with an interpretation of a section of the Builders Lien Act last year, where an industry responded aggressively. That can happen with a piece of legislation like this, where we're trying to address an operation with some very complex issues relative to condominiums, their disclosure, their filing with the superintendent of real estate and how they're managed.

The other thing I find in the legislation, which I will canvass in second reading, is that we don't really deal with the issue of the licensing of property managers who would be in a position to manage strata corporations, and with what recommendations we're making to those strata councils. I think it's important that we look at how we're going to deal with that, because we haven't come to grips with that piece of the act, and when we get there I'll have some comments and discussions on how it relates back to real estate licensing today in the province, relative to condominium management.

Having said that, I think the people who are in condominiums today have a piece of legislation before them now that they'll actually be able to read and understand, and when they get into the governance issues and how they're dealing with their votes -- right down, almost, to how they could set up an agenda to run a proper, effective strata corporation -- it is contained in this act. A little bit of board management and training by the Condominium Owners Association and what have you for these people, relative to this piece of legislation, is going to greatly improve how we manage condominiums in the future.

Obviously it doesn't solve some of the problems we face in the industry today, which we're going to deal with in future debates in this House relative to other legislation, but when it comes to the Condominium Act, all I can say is that it's about time. We have some concerns that I will deal with in a professional and balanced manner in committee. Hopefully, we can come to some conclusions for the betterment of the act, and at the end of the day, over a period of time, this will be a growing document that will provide better management of condominiums in British Columbia.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I very much appreciate the comments of the member opposite and look forward to addressing these issues in committee stage as well. With that, I now move second reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

Bill 47, Strata Property Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 46.

HOMEOWNER PROTECTION ACT
(second reading)

With Bill 46, we're implementing the Barrett commission's key recommendations to protect consumers, help affected homeowners and restore the basis for confidence in residential construction in B.C. The legislation will make strong warranty coverage on new homes mandatory: two years on materials and workmanship; five years on building envelope defects, including water penetration; and ten years on structural integrity -- beginning January 1, 1999.

Residential builders will be licensed and must meet standards set by government. The licensing system will be phased in as of January 1, 1999. The legislation will also establish a reconstruction program to provide zero-interest loans to homeowners in greatest financial need because of construction defects. Assistance will be available through this program by October 1, 1998.

For the information of members, we have committed $75 million as bridge financing to get this program up and running as soon as possible. I'm pleased to report that the federal government has also agreed to match our contribution. Contributions from both levels of government will be paid back over time through a special assessment on residential builders. It will not cost taxpayers any money.

Let me reiterate: this is not a voluntary request. Builders and developers will be required to pay a special assessment which will ultimately finance the reconstruction program. The specific mechanism for collecting the assessment will be developed in consultation with industry.

Finally, the legislation will create an industry-funded homeowner protection office to manage the reconstruction program, oversee the licensing of residential builders, carry out research and education to improve construction quality in B.C. and provide single-window support and information for leaky-condo owners and homebuyers. The province has taken the responsibility for our role in this issue; the federal government is coming on board, and now it is time for industry and the banking institutions to also step up to the plate and work with us to resolve this problem once and for all.

I ask all members to lend their support to this very important piece of legislation.

L. Reid: I would like to begin this morning by begging leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

[ Page 10382 ]

I am rising today in my response to Bill 46, and I can tell you that it's unfortunate that we have to be here today debating a bill that involves so much financial and emotional pain for so many homeowners. It's even more unfortunate that the bill we're addressing today will inflict more pain on all future homebuyers in British Columbia.

Bill 46 is supposed to be about two things: helping leaky-condo owners out of their financial mess and preventing future homebuyers from facing the same crisis. Bill 46 does neither very well. Bill 46 does little or nothing to help existing leaky-condominium owners. The government announced a $250 million reconstruction fund. It's a lot of money, and it sounds very impressive. "Reconstruction" sounds like it's going to be rebuilt, thanks to the government. But the devil is in the detail. We're going to look at this construction fund. We're going to look at the government's claims that it will be the industry, the builders, who will pay. But they won't. You want to know who will pay? The consumers. Future homebuyers -- that's who will pay the price.

Who exactly is this grand reconstruction fund going to help? If you've already completed repairs, the government is offering no financial relief; you're out of luck, and in many cases, you're also out of money. For everybody else in a leaky condominium, the only way you will get the government's zero-interest loan is if you are at the end of your financial rope. That's not the decent way to treat people living in leaky condominiums. They've already been devastated financially and emotionally; now the government is saying that you have to be destitute before you get a helping hand.

[10:30]

Then we found out that the government had been sitting on a report on condominium construction that it had commissioned in 1996, more than two years ago now. Then we found out that it wasn't just those evil builders who were putting up shoddy buildings. It turned out that the provincial government, under the Dave Barrett administration, had built housing that was rotting from the inside -- housing that was so bad that it was giving kids severe allergic reactions.

The official opposition set that aside. We made a submission to the commission, in the hope that something good would come out of it. We hoped that we could put politics aside and work constructively with the government on finding solutions. It wasn't to be. We suggested that the NDP immediately provide some help to leaky-condo owners by waiving the provincial sales tax. This was a suggestion that was accepted by the Barrett commission: ". . .government should not benefit as a result of the hardships faced by homeowners." Today that would put dollars into the hands of owners of leaky condominiums. That recommendation has not been acted on by this minister; the government has rejected the suggestion. It's unfortunate.

We don't have all the answers, but we don't believe that the answer to the problem is to make all future homebuyers pay. We don't believe in making every home in the province a money pit for government bureaucracy. But pay they will, hon. Speaker. In the end, this bill is guaranteed to do only one thing for future homebuyers: it will raise the cost of buying a home in every corner of this province. In order to receive the privilege of building in this province, developers and builders will pay a levy. It could be anywhere around $1,000. This is a tax that will, one way or another, be passed on to consumers. If the government has any doubt, I would invite them to get to their feet and give me one example -- just one -- of when a tax has not been passed on to the consumer.

It won't be just homeowners in the lower mainland or greater Victoria who will pay; it will be homeowners in the north, the Kootenays, the interior, all of Vancouver Island, the Okanagan and the Fraser Valley. Then you add up the cost of the bills -- other licences, warranties and regulations. The government hasn't done a cost-benefit analysis, so we don't know exactly how much this will cost homebuyers, but people in the industry indicate that it will add at least another $2,000 to the cost of each new home. That's a total cost of $3,000 for each and every unit of new housing that will be built in this province. Who does that benefit? Not the young family hoping to buy their first home, that's for sure, not the empty-nester moving from a house to an apartment and certainly not the homebuyers in Fort St. John, Prince George, Williams Lake, Cranbrook, Kelowna or Courtenay. When the price of housing goes up, fewer people will buy new homes. You know what that means, hon. Speaker: fewer jobs, less economic activity and more people moving out of the province to find work.

What about protecting future homebuyers? Well, there's a costly new bureaucracy: the homeowner protection office. Never mind that it was the New Democrats who eliminated the building standards branch in British Columbia more than two years ago. Never mind that they didn't have the foresight to see that that was a necessity for building construction in the province -- wiped out and eliminated. Now an additional cost is required to replace that service -- an appalling lack of foresight on behalf of this government. The government could have reinstated that branch in the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. That branch consisted of eight individuals who were familiar with building code issues; it actually had some expertise. They identified problems in the building industry, and they made recommendations for action. But the government got rid of them in 1996.

Then the government turned around to create a building policy branch, with a staff of four, to review building code policy. We went from people who did something about it, to people who talked about it. What we needed in this province were people who delivered expert service to homeowners and homebuyers -- once again eliminated by this New Democratic government. Now they've gone full circle and recreated the wheel, with the so-called homeowner protection office. It's a brand-new bureaucracy. It's bigger, but it's definitely not better.

We agree that we need to have some way of verifying the qualification of builders, but the NDP did not choose to explore a less burdensome self-regulation model that could have avoided a costly new bureaucracy. The government

[ Page 10383 ]

We'll be looking closely at this legislation in light of the impact it will have on leaky-condo owners and also the impact it will have on every single future homebuyer in the entire province.

I want to spend some time this morning reviewing where we've been. I want to talk about a press release of January 31, 1996. I would invite the members to compare it to the press release of just a month ago -- an amazing similarity. So the message was clear more than 30 months ago. The press release is from the Ministry of Housing, Recreation and Consumer Services, and it is entitled "Report on Leaky Condominiums Released." It's an amazing document: "The report of the task force on condominium construction, which identifies problems and proposes solutions in the construction of multi-unit buildings, was released today by [the Housing minister]" -- who is the current Minister of Women's Equality. "The report identifies the complex nature of the problem, with the contributing factors of inappropriate building design, construction techniques, business practices, inadequate inspections and significant gaps in warranty protection. I expect the industry to take actions to correct these problems."

This information is 30 months old, and this government didn't act. This government has been in office since 1991. These are not new problems. These are homeowners who have been faced with this uncertainty, this anguish and this financial burden for more than a decade. For seven years this government has been aware of this problem and has not acted. The report noted that the industry has initiated a number of actions to redress the situation, including the development in material specification, quality control information for stucco applications and ongoing education and training for builders.

B.C.'s private sector new-home warranty program has given preliminary approval to extending structural defect coverage from five to ten years, adding an optional three-year weather shield component and including roofing systems as a major structural component. Most of this work has been done. Again, why the wait? I invite any member opposite to get to their feet and indicate to me why it was necessary to put homeowners through an absolute thrashing, until they decided it was politically time to make a decision that only gave owners of leaky condominiums in this province an audience, not much else.

To continue, the then minister recommended that the industry build on these actions in order to improve on quality and to expand warranties so that more homeowners are covered for a longer period of time, particularly with respect to leaks.

So when this minister gets to her feet and indicates that this is somehow brand-new information, that is patently false. This information has been known to this government for a long, long time; it has been known to the people who live in leaky condominiums for a long, long time. They looked to this government to act decisively more than 30 months ago. There is no justification for the delay.

The then minister suggested that the ministry would conduct a review of new-home warranties, including consideration of mandatory warranty coverage, to determine the most appropriate and desirable form of warranty coverage for purchasers of new housing. Other recommendations from the task force, which was formed in the fall of '96 -- actually, it might even have been the fall of '95 -- included improving protection for new homeowners by introducing disclosure requirements in real estate transactions and providing better consumer education programs.

The task force was made up of representatives from the development industry, architects, property managers, homeowners, housing cooperatives, local building inspectors, the new-home warranty program, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the Ministries of Municipal Affairs, Finance and Housing. So all of those people had their hands in the pie. Every single one of them, who attended numerous committee meetings, knew full well that there was a problem. How in the world they could justify putting that problem on the back burner for more than 30 months astounds, dismays and horrifies me. There is no justification for the inaction of this government.

This task force was very specific. If members in this audience have not looked at this report, I would invite them to do so. It talks about design practices, inappropriate building styles and inadequate designs. They looked at all of these issues: insufficient research and information and unidentified consequences of certain zoning provisions. They knew where to look for the problems, and they were addressing the problems. The government put them on the back burner. We had people who looked at construction practices, business practices, regulatory and inspection practices, consumer practices and the legislative framework. But then we didn't see anything else; we didn't see anything come from numerous meetings.

What was known in January of 1996? The Ministry of Finance and Corporate Relations released a discussion draft of the revised Condominium Act in April of 1994. Included are provisions that would require developers to provide building permit plans and as-built drawings to strata corporations and to increase the required rate of contingency reserve fund contributions.

More than one ministry of this government was fully aware of what was required. The Ministry of Municipal Affairs is responsible for the provincial Building Code and, in conjunction with local governments and industry, already has an extensive safety systems review underway to recommend improvements to codes, compliance, material standards, trade certification and inspection procedures. The review, which carries on the work of the two-year-old options for renewal initiative, will also examine issues of accountability and how responsibility is divided between the various participants in residential development.

The villains in this exercise are not the owners of leaking condominiums. Yet that is what this government would leave us with. They have accepted no responsibility for their own inaction. There is culpability on this question. They have neatly sidestepped that question -- not good enough.

Canada Mortgage and Housing, CMHC, committed $50,000 to a field study or survey of building envelope problems in approximately ten buildings. This is information that's now 30 months old and was never acted on. Have the problems plateaued in the interim? Absolutely not; they have only worsened. The inaction has allowed these problems to only worsen. "To this end, the task group makes the following recommendations to the Minister of Housing, Recreation and Consumer Services." The previous minister, who is still a

[ Page 10384 ]

Recommendation No. 1: "Establish a hotline to inform homeowners and strata councils of the proper steps to take to address water leakage problems" -- again abundantly clear that this is not a new problem. Employing a partisan commissioner to rehash information that is 30 months old and to pay that individual an enormous sum of money -- dollars that could easily have gone to owners of leaking condominiums today and would have been in their best interest. . . .

Recommendation No. 2: "Develop consumer education program and materials."

Recommendation No. 3: "Enhance the disclosure requirements for relevant documentation in real estate transactions for purchasers of both new and existing housing." These are good, solid recommendations. What happened? Why did this government choose inaction for more than 30 months?

Recommendation No. 4: "Request that the relevant ministries be asked to examine legislation for possible action to enhance consumer protection in real estate legislation and/or to include real estate in existing consumer protection legislation."

Recommendation No. 5: "Improve warranty protection for consumers buying new homes." There was a general endorsement to "ensure that warranty programs or alternatives, such as construction bonds, apply to all housing built in the province, particularly with reference to owner-built housing." And: "Recommend that warranty programs offer a minimum five-year water penetration guarantee."

[10:45]

When the minister gets to her feet, I would be delighted if she would tell us how much money was expended to have Mr. Barrett and the two panellists rehash recommendations that were strong, that were firm and that were avoided by this government more than 30 months ago. Again, I will very strongly make the point that the dollars that went into that commission should have been better spent by this government and today should be found in the hands of leaky-condominium owners, who need those dollars for their repairs. This is a very straightforward discussion, hon. Speaker.

There's the CMHC "Survey of Building Envelope Failures in the Coastal Climate of British Columbia." There is document after document. This one was dated November 22, 1996. What is new about the recommendations of the Barrett commission?

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

An unholy series of contradictions in terms of this government -- bills that are supposed to restrict the level of regulation and red tape, followed by bills that are only about regulation and red tape, are not about assisting the owners of leaky condominiums today. Frankly, this government should be ashamed of itself. Again, I come back to the point: who's the villain in this exercise? It's not the consumer; it is absolutely not the consumer. If any consumer today has completed the repairs on their building, they are eligible for zero.

The minister doesn't have the courage to stand up today and put in place PST exemption on building-repair costs for British Columbians who are now facing enormous financial hardship. It would take some courage, and it's absolutely what is required. There are individuals who have spent tens of thousands of dollars on repairs. To get 7 percent of that back in their hands would be the right way to proceed and the decent gesture. This government hasn't taken the one decent step that would make a difference today for owners of leaky condominiums.

I've canvassed the release and the report, and I have come to the conclusion that this government has not met its responsibilities to the consumer. The system has not met its responsibilities to the consumer. Just two days ago the Minister of Municipal Affairs said, when she was speaking on Bill 31, that cumbersome bureaucracy will be eliminated in Bill 31. It's not true. In fact, it's just moving over to Bill 46, which is only about cumbersome bureaucracy. Many condo owners believe they have been duped. Their issue was used as a smokescreen which allowed for the creation of a huge bureaucracy. They truly feel they have been duped by this exercise. This government and this minister raised enormous expectations, put some hope out there and offered some promise of a remedy or solution. What did they get? "Thanks for coming out. We were pleased to listen to your stories." That's not good enough, hon. Speaker.

I believe that this minister particularly and this government oversold the Barrett commission. To wade into the fray, holding out the promise of a solution, is terribly callous when no solution is forthcoming. This government has raised incredible expectations, which have now been dashed. Owners of leaky condos in British Columbia got an audience but not much else.

Let's return to the title of the Barrett commission: "Commission of Inquiry into the Quality of Condominium Construction in British Columbia." Condominium construction -- that was the task this minister chose to address and stated that she would address. Very quickly she forgot that commitment and moved on to overregulating the entire residential construction industry in the province, doing nothing for individuals who are living in leaking condominiums today.

Recommendation No. 1 of the Barrett commission. . . . He too quickly forgot his mandate, what he was supposed to be accomplishing as he sat as the commissioner. He recommended in recommendation No. 1: "Let's define leaky condos as any residential property in B.C. -- single home, duplex, multi-family." Why do you suppose that is? Frankly, in my view, it widens the net so they can charge everyone a $1,000 levy on each unit of residential construction. Again, it's not about assisting people who have problems today.

I contend that this commission very quickly lost its focus and abandoned the owners of leaky condominiums, who believed that they would be served and who were told time and time again by this minister that this commission would address their problems. Those are the people who came out to these hearings, people who were living in rotting, leaking buildings. The minister repeatedly said: "We will seek a solution; we will find a solution to this issue." Did that happen? Not by a long shot. Let's move to the recommendation that does exempt the cost of repairs from the PST -- a solid recommendation. It might be the only solid one in the whole bloody report, hon. Speaker. This is a huge concern to me, something I feel very, very strongly about. This is about assisting people today with some dollars in their hand. That PST exemption is a solid recommendation, and it's the one recom-

[ Page 10385 ]

When this minister rises to close debate, I demand an answer to that question -- as does every single British Columbian who lives in a leaking condominium today. Why indeed will this minister not place in their hand today the PST exemption -- at least a small portion of the cost of their repair? That would be the decent way to proceed. It could actually be helpful. It would be the right thing to do. She has refused to do that, and she will do the dance of saying that she can't take a decision independent of the federal government. Why? Why not be helpful? Stand up today, minister, and tell those people in the gallery what you have done for them -- other than raise their expectations.

Your commissioner didn't even have the foresight to make a few phone calls to see if his recommendations would receive support. Eighty-two open-ended recommendations aren't half as useful as 20 that might have been vetted -- that might have actually had some homework done to see whether or not they were even remotely plausible. That is what I expected from someone who is paid $725 a day to rehash two-year-old reports. That's what British Columbians expected, and frankly, minister, that is what owners of rotting condominiums today expected from this government.

The minister stated that she accepted all 82 recommendations and was delighted to receive the report. What we have today may in fact move on 47 of those recommendations. What happens to the other ones? They obviously haven't found a voice in the form of this Minister of Municipal Affairs, and that inaction is only hurtful to the owners of leaking condominiums. I reiterate that the consumer is not the villain, yet the minister has not found a solution for consumers today. In my view, this is only a push to increase red tape.

Those of you who understand the grocery store loss-leader. . . . That's what this is about. The thought of a solution brought people to the commission table; it brought them in the door. They expected something. They were told that this minister had their best interests at heart. There we are. We're in a really bad grocery store drama, and in this debacle the condo owners are the loss-leaders, the bait that got the government into the store. Once they're in the store, do they find a solution for those individuals? No. They want to reshuffle and rejig every shelf in the store. That is not about solving the problems for today's condominium owners. The indignities, the insults found in these recommendations: that to be eligible for a forgivable loan someone would need to declare bankruptcy, would have to be absolutely financially destitute and have a lien on their property. . . . Why would people line up to be treated with that level of indignity? Why indeed would people line up for that inhumanity?

I'm contending that this government has paid little attention to the owners of leaking condominiums today, and these are the same consumers who thought that the extension on the Barrett commission -- the fact that it was delayed -- would be worth the wait, that it would deliver a useful product. Why the wait, when the recommendations were already 30 months old? Why give an extension that paid people $725 a day, when we find today that it's not part of the solution?

The drama began in April; it wasn't ready until the end of May. The report came to us on June 18, and the legislation came to us in July. It has been four months, and the minister continues to oversell this report.

Let's be clear. Owners of leaky condominiums today won't get a PST rebate on the repair bills if this minister gets her way. That's the one thing they asked for. Owners of leaky condominiums today won't be eligible for interest-free loans if they have completed their repairs. If they moved ahead, took some initiative and got the repair completed, they're on their own, no matter if they have financially devastated themselves to do that. Owners of leaky condominiums today, who can demonstrate that they are bankrupt and who are prepared to have a lien on their property, may find that they are eligible for a forgivable loan. I'm not optimistic that a great deal of conscience has gone into the drafting of the report or the legislation. The mistake that leaky-condo owners made was their belief that the government was offering them something more than an audience. Shame on this minister, and shame on this government. Very little action has been taken; very little has been done. I'm alarmed, because there will be an enormous price tag for this enormous redraft that will indeed see regulation upon regulation, none of it to assist leaky-condominium owners today.

The money from the federal government, the $75 million, is a loan. They basically put on the table what this minister put on the table: $25 million a year for three years. The $75 million from the provincial government is a loan; $75 million from the federal government is also a loan.

I believe I can continue, hon. Speaker. I believe I will continue; I am the designated speaker.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, member.

L. Reid: In terms of commitment, it's basically putting off the problem. The federal government loan comes due and payable in the year 2003. We'll have to start paying it back, with interest. So was the federal government particularly delighted that it wasn't consulted prior to the report coming out? No. It would have taken a single phone call to find out if that was a plausible recommendation, to find out if British Columbia could take advantage of the federal government's largesse as a grant, not as a loan. Today this minister has indebted this province even more deeply. Nowhere in her press release has she indicated that this is indeed a loan that must be repaid with interest by the year 2003. An oversight? Did she forget to mention that to us? An enormous oversight. The money on the table, the $75 million that the minister has put up, is basically dollars that she will take from future consumers in this province, because those costs will be passed on. Again, I would ask any member opposite to rise to their feet and just once delineate a tax that was not passed on to the consumer.

[11:00]

[ Page 10386 ]

In terms of the Liberal opposition, we did present to the commission on May 12. We had some principles as we went into that presentation. Our first priority was to assist individuals who have been hit with a personal crisis, and this is a personal crisis of enormous magnitude. Principle number two for us was that no one should benefit from the misfortune of others -- and that includes government. They should not be garnering PST dollars based on someone else's misfortune. That one is fairly straightforward. Number three for us is that we all need to share in this solution in finding short- and long-term solutions. There was no consideration given to the offers made on behalf of this opposition to be part of the solution -- no consideration whatsoever.

We were very clear in our response, and we made a number of recommendations that I will put on the table this morning, because I think it's absolutely clear that these recommendations would do something immediately. They would do something today, which is why people are here today. They expect a solution -- today. In our options and recommendations, number one is PST relief. That is a decision that is in the hands of this minister and this government. You can't look anywhere else for that decision; it rests squarely on the members opposite. I trust that they will have the courage to stand up today and do the right thing: put in the hands of people a few thousand dollars, based on their repair bills. It would be the right way to proceed.

We too expected CMHC loans to continue to go forward, and we believe that will happen. We know for a fact that the minister's letter about encouraging individuals not to foreclose has not been heeded. British Columbians today are in receipt of foreclosure notices on their properties. So the minister didn't make a deal; she didn't negotiate strongly. She sent a letter after the fact, hoping that banking institutions would consider her letter. What a terrible way to leave British Columbians, who today have foreclosure notices in their hands, hanging out there. It's absolutely heartbreaking, when one of the basic tenets of Canadian society is home-ownership. That is something we believe in and have supported. That is what liberalism is all about -- ensuring that people have individual rights and choices in society -- and the minister sends a letter hoping that will happen.

Get to the bargaining table. Get some decisions in place that are truly tangible for British Columbians today. We strongly believe in property tax deferral on this question. There's absolutely no way that individual British Columbians today should be paying property tax on the value of a property that has been devalued as a result of a leaking condominium. That should not be another rigorous paper exercise: to have an assessment, to wait in line, to join the queue to see if indeed you can pay next July 1. There was no flexibility around this July 1. There was no flexibility three weeks ago, when people were asked to pay, up front, the full cost of the property assessment that was based on the property's previous value, not on today's value.

People say: "Well, they can appeal. They can go back." These are people who, first off, don't have the time or the resources. They don't have a year to lend their money to the Assessment Authority in the hopes that they might get it back next year because they were erroneously taxed. In this instance, they have been erroneously taxed. They have been taxed on property whose value no longer exists. It's an enormous hardship, and I know it's an enormous hardship for people who live in your ridings, hon. members. You have to have individuals who have come to you in anguish about their financial circumstances. Those people live in my riding, they live in Surrey, they live in the lower mainland, and they live in many, many communities in this province.

I contend that this government has abandoned them and has, frankly, ignored recommendations that were 30 months old. I'm not proud of that, and I'm absolutely astounded that the minister takes some pride in that. There are members opposite who have sat as members of this chamber for seven years. This is not a new problem.

I will close with a comment. I don't believe that there are any clean players in this issue. The entire system has not met its responsibilities to the consumer. We must establish a viable solution and move forward. There are no winners, just losers. In my view, the consumer is not the villain, and this government should step up to the plate, rise to the occasion and deliver a tangible product -- a financial resource -- into their hands today.

G. Bowbrick: I'd like to begin today by saying that I certainly concur with one thing that the member for Richmond East, the Liberal critic on this issue, has said, and that is that condominium homeowners are certainly not the villains here. I think it's a little obvious; it doesn't even require stating. I represent an area, New Westminster, where the leaky-condo problem has been an enormous problem, and I've been in contact with hundreds and hundreds of those homeowners since I was elected in 1996.

One of the first things that the member opposite raised in her remarks was that the government is just playing politics with this issue. Let me say this: I raised this issue in this House long before it became fashionable to talk about it. In fact, I would venture to say that since the last election and until it became an issue that the media paid attention to in recent months, the opposition never once. . . . Not one member of the opposition got up and addressed this issue.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Order, members. Member, could you take your seat for a minute? Members, the member for New Westminster has the floor. Members have been listening quietly to the debate up until now, and I think all members have the right to be heard.

G. Bowbrick: I was up in this House over a year ago, raising this issue and talking about my constituents and their problems in this regard, in a private member's statement. I haven't seen any members raising the issue since that time, except when it came to question period and it became a more. . . .

Deputy Speaker: Excuse me, member. The member for Okanagan-Vernon is up on a matter.

A. Sanders: Point of order. I think that this House deserves the complete truth. If this member has not been present when this issue has been raised, then he has unfortunately missed the dissertations by the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove in this chamber in 1996 and 1997.

Deputy Speaker: That's not a point of order, member.

G. Bowbrick: Well, you know, hon. Speaker. . . .

Interjections.

[ Page 10387 ]

In any event, the point here is. . . . I mean, talk about politics. This is an issue that became fashionable only recently, and my point is this. I was out meeting with strata councils in my constituency. I was raising the issue in this House. . . .

An Hon. Member: And you were the only one, you think. Were you the only one?

G. Bowbrick: I would venture to say, in terms of a speech made in this House since the last election -- and I'll stand corrected if it's the case -- that I was the only one to get up and make a speech in this House about this on behalf of my constituents.

In any event, there are two things that have to be addressed here -- two things that were raised consistently: what do we do for current condominium homeowners, and what do we do to help future owners? What do we do to help restore consumer confidence in this industry? When it comes to current owners, I know that the opposition has made a number of references to a report that was done and released in January of 1996. Now, to my knowledge, that report doesn't do anything to address how to help the people who are already facing this problem. For the first time, we've got a piece of legislation -- a report and a piece of legislation -- that says we can do something to help those people. Out of the recommendations of the Barrett report, we have a recommended a reconstruction fund of $250 million. The province is contributing $75 million. I'm pleased to see that the federal government has come onside with $75 million. I note that thus far the industry is balking at any contribution, when in fact, at least as far as the constituents that I've talked to who face this problem. . . . They say over and over again that the people they hold responsible first and foremost are the industry as a whole, not government.

Interjection.

G. Bowbrick: The member for North Vancouver-Seymour wants to heckle me on this. I'd suggest that there aren't many leaky condos in his riding compared to mine. Compared to New Westminster, it's a minor problem, if at all, in North Vancouver-Seymour.

In any event, hon. Speaker, what this fund will do is aid those who are in the most difficulty. I think what we have to try and do is help those who are at most risk in terms of losing their homes or in terms of health problems. We've seen horrendous problems out there. We've got children living in condos where there's mould and bacteria growing on the walls; they have respiratory problems as a result. Those are the people who need help and who have to be at the top of the list of priorities.

I've said in this chamber before, and I'll say again, that I'm always impressed by the reasonableness of the average person in this province. They don't expect government to promise -- or to give them, quite frankly -- the sun, the earth and the moon; their expectations are more reasonable than that. They understand that with this government, as with any government in this country, there are always issues of limited finances and of trying to address a problem at the same time as trying to address the legitimate concerns and demands of the public. In this case, that's what we're trying to do: offer assistance for current condominium homeowners, particularly when they're not in a position to get any further assistance -- they've gone to the banks, to a credit union, and to friends and family, and they cannot get money; they don't have savings; and they're in a position where they may lose their home. That's an appropriate circumstance where government may be able to help.

We should be able to help constituents like. . . . When I raised this issue over a year ago in this House, I referred to a constituent who was ill with cancer. She wasn't able to work. She had a very limited ongoing income, and there was no way that any bank was going to lend her money to help her deal with her problem. By the way, it was a problem which she was holding the builders and developer squarely accountable for. In any event, I felt, and I think this government feels, that government has an obligation to try and step in and help. That's what we're trying to do.

[11:15]

If you're an opposition that sees itself as a government-in-waiting, and you want to present yourselves to the people of this province as a government-in-waiting, then you've got to be more realistic in your suggestions than that. Your suggestions should be comprehensive. So if more money should be put out, tell the government. Assist me and my colleagues in government and tell us where the revenue is to come from. And if it's not about that -- where is the revenue to come from? -- then tell us where we should make the cuts. It's a very simple equation; it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out. I think it's a reasonable request to make of this opposition during the course of this debate.

The other issue would be: exactly who should qualify? Should it be people with condos worth half a million dollars who have high incomes and have the means to pay for some of the repairs? Should they qualify? Where should the line be drawn? Should we step in and help everybody who says they've ever had a problem with a leaky condo?

You know, hon. Speaker, I lived in a leaky condo at one time and spent $2,000 or $3,000 to try and fix that. I managed to come up with that out of my own pocket, and I'm not going to expect government to pay for that or to repay me. I take it from the remarks of the opposition critic, who said that people who have already paid or who have found a way to pay should qualify for this assistance, that I too will qualify for $2,000 or $3,000 in assistance, even though I'm not asking for it. I understand that there are limitations on what government

[ Page 10388 ]

It's a funny thing, because traditionally, this opposition, in terms of their political philosophy, argue against things like universality when it comes to the medicare system or what have you. But now they're in a position to argue for universality in condo relief, which is an interesting concept.

I noticed that while the opposition critic was criticizing the province quite heavily -- that's fine; that's her role, in large part. . . . But the problem is that she was exclusively critical of the provincial government; and not once did she mention the role of the federal government in this situation. I hope that as the designated speaker she may be able to come back to that. But she didn't mention the role of the federal government; there was no criticism of her federal Liberal cousins. Here is a member who is criticizing this government saying we're playing politics with this issue, yet she reserves all of her criticism for the provincial government.

Does the member opposite have a point to make?

Deputy Speaker: The member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale is rising on a matter.

K. Whittred: I seek leave to make an introduction, hon. Speaker.

Leave granted.

K. Whittred: I just noted in the gallery a very old and very dear former colleague of mine, one of this province's leading historians and teachers of history. Please welcome Mr. Fred Lepkin.

G. Bowbrick: In terms of the lack of criticism of the federal government, I find it puzzling, because just last night I was speaking to the president of the Quayside Community Association in New Westminster, which is the area where we have the greatest leaky-condo problem. He came right out and said that there's a high level of resentment amongst leaky-condo owners towards the federal government, which they feel has done little for them. In fact, the argument they put forward -- and I'm just expressing their sentiments here -- is: "Well, what about a federal government that is quick to aid people in eastern Canada when there's a problem?" What happens when we have a situation where there's a crisis for homeowners in British Columbia is that the federal government isn't nearly as quick to react and certainly doesn't react as generously as they do in some parts of the country. I think it's important to raise that kind of sentiment in this House, which has been expressed to me by my constituents.

The other thing this legislation does is it addresses future owners, and it addresses the situation from this point forward. What we need, and what I think everyone agreed to, is a good, mandatory warranty program which is independent of the developers. Until now, far too many of these warranty programs have actually been run by the developers themselves. People recognize that there's an inherent conflict of interest. So in this legislation, we are requiring mandatory warranties. They will be run by third parties. They'll be independent.

The other thing we're requiring is licensing of residential builders. Essentially, if you're a fly-by-night operator, you need not apply. If it's proven that you're ripping off people and you're building leaky condos, then you need not apply. You will not get a licence if it's demonstrated that you have been building leaky condos.

Interjection.

G. Bowbrick: I hear a member opposite say: "More regulation." What we hear is, I think, an apologist for the builders and for the development industry in this province. They're the ones who say there that should not be any. . . . I'm sorry -- they don't say that there shouldn't be any regulation. They say it should be entirely self-regulated. So let's let the developers and the builders look after the condo owners of this province, just like they have for the last 20 years. Is that a good idea? It seems to be what I'm hearing from the opposition, when they say: "This is just more bureaucracy. This is just more regulation." It's patent nonsense, hon. Speaker. Members opposite are shamefully demonstrating how beholden they are to certain interests in this province when they speak that kind of nonsense.

The other thing that is provided for in this legislation is provision for compulsory certification of trades and occupations. Once again, I can't find any constituents of mine, certainly any of those living in leaky condos, who say it's not a good idea to have proper certification of trades and occupations in the industry that builds things which are the biggest purchases that most of us make in our lives.

I've just made reference to the complaints from the industry. Really, they're very short-sighted complaints. The industry is saying: "It's more regulation. You're taxing us out of existence." Consumer confidence in the condo industry is at its lowest, at least in recent memory, or perhaps it's at an all-time low. Ironically, just a few weeks ago in New Westminster, a story ran in our local paper that said single-family house sales in New Westminster are way, way up over this time last year, but condos are way down. What that tells us is that there is no confidence in the condo industry in this province. So developers and builders would be well-advised to work with us in order to try and restore confidence in this industry.

I'm pleased that we are taking action. I know it's not everything that everyone wants, but it's a good step. It's a step further than any government in the history of this province has ever taken. It's a good step; it's a step in the right direction. I talk with my constituents at strata council meetings, I talk with them on their doorsteps, I deal with them through mailings, I talk with them on the phone, and I had, overall, a very favourable reaction to the recommendations of the Barrett commission. I want to reiterate that they're reasonable people. They understand the limitations of what government can do. For the most part, they are very angry at developers and builders. But what we have to do is move ahead and try and address this from this point forward. They are happy -- and they will tell me this -- to see the B.C. government acting to do something, which is more, as I referenced earlier, than many of them feel they can say about the federal government.

It's interesting that the opposition has come out so vociferously against this legislation. The question in my mind is: "What is this really about?" I think that it's important that people who are following this debate understand that often the emotions that drive these debates aren't necessarily due to exactly what is in the bill in front of them, but that they may be in terms of some of the internal politics that go on in the opposition caucus or the government caucus. I think there's a high level of frustration on the other side of the House. I think part of it is because they have such an amalgam. They've got federal Liberals; they've got federal Reformers; they've got a former provincial Reformer, a former provincial Social Credi-

[ Page 10389 ]

Interjection.

G. Bowbrick: Yeah. One way of putting it is, as one member puts it, is: "They want to get rid of us." I suggest that that's just another way of saying: "We thirst for power." That's what brings them together. As an example, we have probably the most historic issue that this province has faced in quite some time, the Nisga'a agreement, and there are huge divisions in that caucus. I have no doubt that there are true federal Liberals over there. This is relevant, because it goes to what motivates the debate and it comments on the other side of the House. There are huge divisions over there on that issue, just as an example. No doubt it's because they've got Bill Vander Zalm pushing them from the right, and they've got a leader that wants to move further to the right, who wants to appeal to maybe the uglier side of some people. Yet I know that there are members of that caucus -- federal Liberals in particular -- who are quietly biting their tongues and saying: "I can't believe we're moving in this direction." They want to support something like this. So what do they do?

Well, on this bill they've received permission to come out and say: "We want to spend more. We want to show our true federal Liberal colours. We want to spend more." I'm assuming they're not saying that they really want to cut government programs in order to offer $500 million or $1 billion in relief to condo owners. They've been given permission by the power brokers within their caucus to come out and say that they want to spend more on this one. The opposition critic, in particular, has been told she's allowed to do this, that it's harmless. But I think her instructions were probably: "Make sure you argue against it, because it's something the B.C. government is doing, and therefore it must be bad. Argue against it, but in terms of the politics of this and whether anyone's playing politics with it" -- to get back to the original point that the member for Richmond East made "-- make sure in the end that you vote for it." I think maybe the members opposite will vote for it.

Will they vote for this bill? Do I see anyone nodding? Well, I guess we're going to have to wait and see, but my strong suspicion is that the members opposite, while they'll argue vociferously against this bill, as they do with so many others, will end up voting for the bill. I say, hon. Speaker, that is the height of cynicism. That's what makes people cynical about politics. I ask the members in all sincerity: do the right thing. If you really think this is wrong, if you want to argue against it, then vote against the bill. I know that my constituents would like to know where you stand on this. Vote against this bill if you think that it's bad and you're going to argue against it. Don't argue vociferously against it and then quietly get up in the final analysis, when it comes time to vote, and vote for it.

That concludes my remarks. I'll be pleased to support this legislation. It's the right legislation. I know my constituents are very supportive of it.

[11:30]

This bill sets up the homebuilding equivalent of the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia. This approach has failed time and time and time again for this NDP government, but here we go again. After a couple of years, when other havoc has been created by this act in the homebuilding industry in British Columbia, along will come "Homes Renewal B.C.," a Crown corporation with more hacks, flacks and bagmen appointed, patronage appointees -- purportedly to clean up the mess, but really to create more bureaucracy and levy more fees.

Never, ever does this NDP government embrace 1990s solutions to the problems of the day or the problems of the past that are compounded today. It's silly for anyone over there to suggest that people on this side of the House don't care about the consumers who are stuck with leaky condos or the issues that they're struggling with: the horrendous expense, the heartache of having their life savings tied up in something that is worse than a lemon, something that's not saleable. It's probably the largest expenditure they'll ever have in their lives, the largest investment of their life savings. We care; of course we care -- every one of us.

It's also stupid to suggest that it's a political issue for us -- that we're trying to protect one group over another. We're concerned about all groups; we're certainly concerned about the consumers who are stuck with the problem. But we're concerned that this government not move to make the problem worse, as it is doing. This is a frontal assault on legitimate homebuilders in British Columbia. It's going to have obvious consequences of driving homebuilders underground, of causing people to run around the province proclaiming that they are owner builders, as the legislation sets out -- people who will build in the underground economy, black-market builders, people who won't be subject to anywhere near the constraints and professional business practices that established homebuilders in this province are right now.

Just look at the act. There is a two-part definition of "owner builder." The government has made a weak stab at working on the problem I've just enunciated by including subsection (b): ". . .has not, within the previous 18 months, built or undertaken the renovation of a dwelling unit or building referred to in paragraph (a)." How will that be policed? I hesitate to even ask, because this government's always quick to want to create more such jobs. How will the government make sure that that doesn't happen? Part 7, the "Owner Builders" portion, is a brief little portion. It doesn't show us how that will ever be enforced. What will happen is that fly-by-night operators will build as owner-builders. Who's to stop them from building more frequently than every 18 months? How will that be stopped? It won't be. These people will build in their girlfriend's name, their boyfriend's name, their mother's name, their father's name or their children's names. They'll get around this regulation as thoroughly as if it wasn't there at all. It's another sieve, another completely leaky NDP regulatory boondoggle.

This government played a large part in the creation of the leaky-condo problem in the first place. My colleagues have already discussed the elimination of the building standards branch and the way this government has of ignoring its own expert reports. Why was the 1996 report ignored for 30 months? Why did things have to come to such a pass as this for the many condo owners who have been stuck with the

[ Page 10390 ]

Referring to rain-forest country, once again we come down to this problem that when the lower mainland and Victoria have a problem, interior residents are called upon to pay for it. Here again we're going to have this massive overburden of regulation, licensing fees and expenses imposed on the people of my constituency, Kamloops-North Thompson, and of the neighbouring constituency, Kamloops. I hope my colleague from Kamloops has the courage to stand up and speak against this legislation, because it's going to add substantially -- at least $4,000 per dwelling unit, by most people's calculations; arguably $6,000 by other people's calculations -- to the cost of new homes throughout the interior and throughout British Columbia.

Why? It's not that the money's going to go into a fund to help the people who already have the leaky-condo problem -- not at all. It's going to go into regulation, red tape, bureaucracy. Once again the government tries to hold that it's dealing with the tremendous problems that people have in this province, but it actually follows its same old tired approaches of instituting more red tape and creating more patronage positions, and tying up legitimate people -- those payroll payers and those taxpayers who fuelled this economy in the past and who would like to fuel it in the present and in the future but are increasingly just driven out of business by this government. Whether it's Bill 14, the Workers Compensation (Occupational Health and Safety) Amendment Act, 1998, or Bill 26, the Labour Relations Code Amendment Act, 1998, imposing all these new regulations, offices and bureaucracies on the building industry; or whether it's the coming charges for school construction. . . . It's as if this government has decided to declare war on the homebuilding industry. That's how it feels to those people. They're going to respond in the classic manner of businesses throughout British Columbia: they're going to respond with their feet. They are going to leave this province, and those who build homes will tend to be those who build one home at a time and call themselves owner-builders. Some of them will be; many of them won't be. They will just be flipping these homes. They won't be paying GST. They'll find ways to avoid paying PST. They won't handle their employees according to the Employment Standards Act regulations. Everything will be under the table; everything will be hidden. Legitimate builders throughout this province -- members of the Canadian Home Builders Association -- are going to pay the horrendous price of this, because consumers can't afford it.

Already people aren't buying homes in British Columbia. Housing starts are in the basement. Our economy is in a shambles. It's in ruin, as a result of these very approaches by this NDP government. It's the same thing every time. You have a problem? Use it as an excuse to tax more, regulate more and interfere more in labour-management relations. We've seen it time and time and time again, and here we see it in Bill 46. This is an utterly ill-advised, stupid, wrong-headed approach. It's phenomenal to us, on this side of the House, that the government could consider it to be anything else.

My constituents already heavily subsidize the lower mainland in dozens of different ways. For decades, resource revenues have been sucked out of the Kamloops and Kamloops-North Thompson constituencies and all of the constituencies throughout the interior. The money comes down to the black hole of Victoria, and the people don't see it going back. Roads are falling apart; there hasn't been rehabilitation and maintenance of our roadways. Government programs are deficient; government jobs disappear. The MLAs' offices are treated as government agent offices by constituents these days, because there's no where else to go. The money comes down here and it stays here. It pays people to sit at desks in places like Forest Renewal B.C., the homeowner protection office and in all of these little bureaucracies and growing bureaucracies -- huge bureaucracies, in many cases -- that this government has created.

Now interior residents, on every new home other than those built by the so-called owner-builders, are going to have to pay these massive additional levies. The member for New Westminster keeps barking: "Are we going to vote for it?" Read my lips, hon. member, through the Speaker: I am not going to vote for Bill 46. I would never vote for Bill 46. It is an absolutely stupid move, a destructive move, and it attacks one of the few areas of this economy where there is still some sign of life.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

The members opposite are so proud that after years of protracted struggle they've allowed the Six Mile project near Kamloops to proceed. I see you questioning how that relates to Bill 46, hon. Speaker: it is a housing project. Every home at Six Mile Ranch will cost at least $6,000 more than it would have without Bill 46. This bill is relevant to all new-home construction and renovation in British Columbia henceforward. It's obvious that members opposite just don't grasp that there are huge ripple effects to every one of these pieces of legislation.

The members opposite should talk to constituents. Ask them: how is this going to affect your business? They will tell you, member for New Westminster, when you ask why we're smarter than you. All we have to do is listen to our constituents. They're the smart ones. That's where the genuine input comes from. What this government cannot seem to learn is that when you do a consultation process -- as they are so fond of saying they're doing -- you're actually supposed to pay attention to the results. When you have a consultation process, where people put in the time and tell you what their problems are and what solutions they think make sense, and when you have a recommendation at the end of that consultation process, you're actually supposed to listen. It helps, if when you appoint a commissioner, you appoint one who has some knowledge of the subject matter, rather than a former NDP Premier at a handsome salary, which could have been spent helping the leaky-condo owners. It helps if you appoint people who know what they're doing.

Whoever you appoint, the government really should listen to his recommendations and do the things that the constituents who spoke through him recommend be done to deal with the problem -- not follow these failed, ancient NDP approaches of overregulating, overtaxing and interfering in labour-management relations. This bill will discourage legitimate homebuilders in British Columbia. It will cause them not to build homes. They won't have customers for their homes. Once again the NDP is taking a wrecking ball to the economy of British Columbia. There isn't that much of it still standing; it's not an easy target.

Interjection.

[ Page 10391 ]

This government must learn not to attack the law-abiding people of British Columbia every time it enacts a new piece of legislation. It shouldn't be going after the legitimate homebuilders and imposing layer upon layer of new regulation on them. It should be looking at itself and the mistakes it made in eliminating the building standards branch and in not paying attention to the 1996 report it had. It should be talking to the municipalities about their building codes. It should be examining all the many reasons. . . . There are villains across the board on the leaky-condo issue. I think most people agree that there are problems with the way many people did their jobs in these construction projects that have led to the situation we find ourselves in. Why not deal with the problems rather than creating new ones?

This is the forest practices code of homebuilding. I know this government was proud of the Forest Practices Code and has since realized that it made a tremendous mistake in introducing such a process-driven code rather than a results-driven code. What would have been wrong with allowing the builders to come up with a self-regulation approach for the approval of this legislative chamber? Why does the government always have to create something like this -- another massive act, another huge imposition on the industry, rather than practising a 1990s approach to problem-solving: genuine consultation.

[11:45]

Interjection.

K. Krueger: One of the members from Vancouver says that it has to rain first before you have a leaky condo, and that's true. That's a prerequisite. We get rain, but we have eaves in Kamloops. The rain runs off the roofs and into the gutters, and it goes where it supposed to go. We don't have leaky condos in Kamloops, and we don't want a $6,000 price tag per new condo because the lower mainland has them. It would be a different consideration if some of this money was actually intended to go to people with problems, although even there, there's a question about whether future homebuilders should pay for the problems of consumers who purchased in the past.

That's a totally separate issue, because this bill does nothing for the people who've already incurred the cost of leaky condos, and it does precious little for those who still have to incur those costs in doing their repairs. You practically have to be destitute to come under the provisions of this act for some assistance. It's another shameful piece of work, another creation of NDP patronage jobs under the pretext of doing something for victims, when it isn't going to do that at all. It attacks legitimate homebuilders and consumers, rather than striking at the heart of the problem or even seriously trying to. It's another NDP one-size-fits-all approach to a problem. One size never fits all. We and constituents, members of the public and the electorate all over British Columbia, wish with all our hearts that this government could learn that one-size-fits-all solutions do not work.

It should not impose new legislation like this on the entire province because of a localized problem. It's a huge problem, no question about that. It's not helping the leaky-condo owners in the lower mainland at all to slap a $6,000 charge on each new dwelling unit throughout the interior from now until the Liberals get a chance to fix this, along with a lot of the other shoddy pieces of legislation that this government has enacted.

It does hit the same people as Bill 26 and Bill 14, and they are reeling. They don't know how they're going to continue to do business in the face of the legislation that has been enacted in this session of the B.C. Legislature. When you look at the expensive changes to workers compensation regulations, look at the incredible act that the government has just imposed on British Columbia with Bill 26 and its intrusion into sectoral bargaining for labour in British Columbia and now look at this, it hurts our constituents. It hurts industry to be considered the enemy by the government in this war on what the industries legitimately have been making their living at for decades in this province.

The member for New Westminster said a kind of comical thing that I think illustrates how very different it is being a member on this side from being one on that side of the House. He talked about which of the Liberal members would have permission to speak to the bill. I don't need permission from anybody to speak to the bill or any other bill, hon. Speaker. My constituents not only gave me their permission but their mandate in 1996. That's what I'm here to do. I don't have to ask anybody's permission. If the member for New Westminster does, I feel sorry for him; that's really wrong. Maybe, again, that's part of the problem.

We're talking here to a minister who hasn't paid attention, so far that I've been able to see, in this House. She didn't listen to the critic; she isn't listening to me. I don't think she even listened to the member for New Westminster. Reading the set of papers. . . . Clearly she doesn't understand the problem, the issues or the consequences of this bill. She probably won't be able to tell me how in the world she expects to be able to identify a person who says he's an owner-builder and is flagrantly running around building homes far more frequently than every 18 months, is paying his employees under the table, is not complying with the regulations, is not paying GST -- in other words, is abusing the system nine ways to breakfast. That's what he'll be able to do, because this act is so weak in how it deals with the owner-builder question.

But the legitimate builders -- the people who've built up a family business, who have a payroll, who pay employees, who have an association, who are members of the chambers of commerce, who are good corporate citizens and good citizens in every way in my hometown of Kamloops and throughout British Columbia -- are the ones who are going to come under the oppressive yoke of this legislation, and that is wrong.

[ Page 10392 ]

K. Krueger: Once again, responding to the heckles and challenges from the government benches, I will definitely be voting against this legislation.

When the member for New Westminster said that a fly-by-nighter need not apply for licensing -- he won't. I assure that member the fly-by-nighters won't be applying. They're out there now; they're a problem. They attack our whole tax base; they attack our sources of revenue, because they don't pay taxes or proper wages, and they don't have warranties. The fly-by-nighters won't be applying, I can assure him. They will not be applying, as he told them they need not apply. They'll just go ahead and build. Their numbers will blossom, because once again -- as with so much that this government has done -- this act will eliminate honest business people and good, legitimate businesses in this province, and instead it will cause the underground economy and black-market housing and illegitimate business operators to flourish in the vacuum created by the disappearance of legitimate business.

Interjection.

K. Krueger: Once again, hon. Speaker, we're talking to closed minds. We're talking to a minister who clearly isn't listening. We have one government member who has shown the courage to stand on his feet and talk, and the things he said didn't make sense, and now he's heckling. Once again we know that they'll troop in like a bunch of trained seals at the end of second reading. They'll show up -- between 35 and 38 of them -- and they'll all bark on cue and vote for Bill 46. They'll cram it down the throats of British Columbians and add $6,000 in costs to every new home built between the time this act is proclaimed and the time the NDP are turfed out of office, which mercifully won't be very long. The day is coming when nobody in this province is going to feel that there is any reason at all to invest in anything, to build anything, to make any kind of an economic move in British Columbia, because of the foolishness of this government and their stupid, bullheaded way of following these same old tired practices: overregulate them, overtax them and jerk them around on their labour-management relations. It doesn't work; it hasn't worked for seven years. It has driven our economy into the ground. The results are all around us: we've gone from the best economy in Canada to the worst economy in Canada. It's getting worse every day. And will they do anything about it? Will they change their ways? Bill 46 tells us one more time that they haven't learned a thing.

Hon. Speaker, I see the members opposite are thinking about their lunch. They appear to have thought very little about the things that I'm saying. I move that the House do now adjourn.

The Speaker: Hon. members, I want to clarify that the motion is to adjourn the debate. Am I correct, hon. member?

K. Krueger: Having awakened the sleeping members, hon. Speaker, in the way you just did, I will amend my motion and move that we adjourn debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. D. Streifel moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:55 a.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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