[ Page 10569 ]

The House resumed at 6:38 p.m.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

Hon. J. Kwan: I call second reading of Bill 46.

HOMEOWNER PROTECTION ACT
(second reading)

Leave granted.

R. Kasper: It gives me great pleasure to welcome my son Aaron and my wife Doni, who are visiting in the gallery. Would the House please make them welcome.

I. Chong: I rise this evening to debate second reading of Bill 46, the Homeowner Protection Act, introduced to this Legislature on July 13, 1998, which at first glance appears to offer a degree of accountability to homeowners. But as with almost all legislation that this NDP government has previously introduced, one must scrutinize and look deeply into what is before us.

When one peruses the details of this legislation, we see that it's an inadequate piece of work. It is not so much what is included in this bill that makes it so offensive, but rather it is those issues that have purposely been excluded. When the Minister of Municipal Affairs announced that there would be a commission established to deal with the leaky-condo issue, we on this side of the House were skeptical -- and, it is now evident, with good reason. I believe many citizens who made submissions to that commission and those who found time to attend and make presentations were misled. They were misled that there would be a government who actually cared and who would actually listen.

We have before us, in Bill 46, an incomplete piece of legislation, because we have a minister who lacks the ability to understand the construction industry. How can anyone expect good government policy to be developed when we don't have a minister capable of understanding that? I find it shocking and I find it unacceptable. Bill 46 is all about regulation and not about problem-solving. It is about increasing the cost of housing to make it more unaffordable at a time when housing starts in this province are at an all-time low.

When I began my comments this evening, I stated that Bill 46 failed to address some very important issues, and for the benefit of those watching, for those listening or for those who may choose to read Hansard, I shall elaborate. Firstly, when the Barrett commission was established, we were led to believe it was to deal with leaky condos. There was never any indication that there was a problem with all other residential units.

Secondly, the leaky condos were identified as a problem in the lower mainland and in parts of Vancouver Island, due to the coastal climate. So why is it that every region in this province will now be impacted by this legislation? As the advocate for all municipalities in this province, it is the duty of this minister to represent them fairly and to recognize that there are regional disparities that exist, and that to provide solutions, she must take into consideration these differences. We expect this minister to possess the knowledge and the wherewithal to understand that one-size-fits-all solutions do not work. Has this minister considered the impacts of this legislation, the impact it will have on the interior regions, the northern regions and the eastern parts of this province?

Thirdly, another question is raised: has the minister identified the scope and magnitude of the leaky-condo problem? Just how large a problem is this, and what are the costs associated with this problem? We have no idea. The Barrett commission recommended a $250 million reconstruction fund while others have pegged the cost of the problem at close to $1 billion. That is a huge difference. So how did the minister arbitrarily decide to phase in the fund over a period of three years? How can the minister properly deal with this issue if she hasn't even begun to deal with identifying the scope and the extent of the problem?

I find it equally offensive and appalling that this legislation establishes two classes of condominium homeowners. This minister and this NDP government have absolutely no plans to offer any assistance to homeowners who have already paid out thousands of dollars to repair their homes. Those elderly citizens who have had to exhaust their retirement funds to repair their homes are out of luck. Those young families or first-time homebuyers who have had to borrow more from their friends or families, or even from the banks, to repair their homes are also out of luck with this government.

Essentially, all those homeowners who have already completed their repairs because they could not afford to wait any longer are not eligible for assistance. If I am incorrect, then I implore the minister to correct me when she offers her closing remarks on second reading. That is what I have seen in Bill 46. It abandons those homeowners who are desperate and had no choice but to proceed with repairing their homes. I thought the purpose of this much-touted Barrett commission was to deal with all owners of leaky condos and that government was prepared to help those who have already suffered as well as those who will continue to suffer from this dilemma. That doesn't appear to be the case in Bill 46.

We have one class of citizens who have repaired their condos and are abandoned by this government, and we have a second class of citizens who haven't yet repaired their condos and will benefit from this legislation, because maybe they could afford to wait it out until now. I don't think that is fair. As my colleague the member for Richmond East, the official opposition critic for Municipal Affairs, stated very eloquently last week. . . . There are some very valid concerns that she expressed.

[6:45]

I know that this government is able to offer a 7 percent PST relief. It's not a difficult thing to do, if they have the courage and the will to do so. I say that because not so long ago -- in fact, fairly recently -- this government turned over all of the PST that was collected from the sale of records, tapes and compact disks resulting from the tragedy of the death of Lady Diana last year. To turn over the 7 percent PST that was

[ Page 10570 ]

It is not on all materials and labour that they will be paying PST. It may only be a portion of those costs, because a portion which is labour, and strictly labour only, would only be subject to GST. It's not a huge amount that we're requesting for these homeowners. As I stated earlier, this government did show compassion in that situation. I would hope they would not want to benefit from this unfortunate instance and that they could seek the same kind of opportunity and afford this compassion to these people. Very simply, this government should not benefit from the misfortune of others.

As I stated earlier, this bill is all about regulation. It is not about homeowner protection, and that's why even its title is offensive. This legislation is about licensing residential builders to meet standards set by government -- a government that hypocritically eliminated the building standards branch. There's one very clear objective of Bill 46, and that is to raise the cost of buying a home in every corner of the province.

From my comments, I think that the minister and all members present here would gather that I am opposed to Bill 46. I state my disappointment with Bill 46 -- a piece of legislation that may have started out with good intentions but ended up as a dismal failure. It fails to recognize the magnitude of the problem. It fails to deal with all homeowners and their families who have been impacted by this leaky-condo issue. I thought that this government cared, but from my viewpoint this government got a failing grade when it introduced Bill 46. I will be opposing it.

J. Wilson: I welcome this opportunity to stand and say a few words in opposition to Bill 46. I think we all recognize the fact that somewhere along the line there needs to be some buyer protection out there, but the way this government is attacking this problem is absolutely ridiculous. The approach is totally wrong.

It is going to have a devastating effect. It has the potential of increasing costs in new dwellings by up to $5,000. It is impacting legitimate contractors all over this province -- people who believe in doing a top-notch job when they construct a dwelling or a condominium or whatever. All we have to do is stop and think for a minute. These people are already fleeing this province. They're going to Alberta, where the construction industry is desperately crying for qualified building tradesmen. They can go there; they can work, unhindered and unimpeded by government bureaucracy and regulation, and actually build with a building standards code.

It really becomes confusing when you look at what's gone on in the last month of this session. We've got three bills here. I really don't understand what this government has got against the construction industry in this province and against people buying homes in this province.

We look at Bill 35. It has the potential of increasing the cost of a new home by about $3,000, and this is going to be passed on to the buyer. We look at Bill 26. Suppose that you have a building going up that has a commercial component: we could be looking at a 30 percent increase in the cost of that building and those units. And now we have Bill 46, which has the potential of increasing the cost of a new home by another $5,000. Add this up. If it's a single-dwelling unit, we could be looking at an increased cost of $8,000 on $100,000. Under Bill 26, if it happens to be a complex with a commercial component, we could be looking at another 38 percent on the cost of that dwelling. No one can afford this. At a time like this, when our economy is in the gutter -- it's right down at the bottom -- people don't have money to invest. They need to cut costs here, not increase them. This has the potential of destroying the opportunity to ever own a home for thousands and thousands of young people in this province. That's terrible.

An Hon. Member: You can buy one in Calgary.

J. Wilson: We can go anywhere in Canada and buy a home cheaper than we can buy it in British Columbia today.

When you go back a little ways in time and look at what happened, this government can blame no one except themselves for the disaster that's happened with the condo situation in the lower mainland and the southern part of the Island. They didn't see to it that we had a set of National Building Code standards adopted in this province that would have prevented all this from happening. That is where the blame lies. You can't blame a few contractors. Well, yes, you can; they do a shoddy job. But they have no regulations there to say: "This is what you need to build by; these are the standards you need to go by."

So what do they do? They create another bungling bureaucracy: "House Renewal B.C." We've seen what happened to Forest Renewal B.C. It is the biggest bureaucratic nightmare that's ever existed in this province. Now we have another one in an infant stage -- that is just starting to develop -- and it isn't going to be any better than Forest Renewal B.C.

To start with, funding will be inaccessible. If you've put your own money into something -- you've taken your savings and invested them in trying to fix up your leaky condo -- you can't get any help to recover some of that. Nope, the only way you're ever going to get a nickel out of this bureaucracy is to declare bankruptcy -- become destitute -- and then maybe go to this administering body on bended knee and beg. You might get a little bit of help, but it probably won't be enough to plug all of the leaks.

We don't need more unwieldy bureaucracy creating unproductive jobs in this province. Just step back a minute and think about this. With a little bit of common sense you could solve the problem overnight: adopt a set of building standard codes. Let a building inspector approve the building as it's going up. We don't need a bureaucracy to tell people what to do, collect money from them, put it into an account and let it build. It creates more jobs. . .more in-your-face government invasion.

The other thing that really infuriates a lot of people in this province is the cookie-cutter approach they're taking with this. You go anywhere north of Hope. . . . Do you think people are happy when they see this piece of legislation? Not likely. Let me tell you something. Right now, when you go to the north, your building costs are already higher than they are in the south. You've got weather problems that are never thought of in the lower mainland. Insulation in a building is quite critical. You've got to construct a building to carry a snow load in the winter. These are things that you don't have to consider down here.

They do have some standards in most places. The costs there exceed the costs that exist in the lower mainland. To add another cost onto the people that want to build a new home is not right. That's wrong.

[ Page 10571 ]

J. Wilson: I'm really pleased to see that the Minister of Agriculture agrees with me that it costs more to build a house in the Kootenays than it does on Vancouver Island. That is nice to know. It really is good. Maybe the minister can step in here and intervene and save some of the people in the interior the hassle with the province that they're going to be faced with if this legislation ever goes through.

If I can recap a little bit here, we don't need a cookie-cutter approach in this province; we don't need added cost for homebuilders who don't deserve it. We do have a lot of people in the lower mainland and southern Vancouver Island who have been stung really badly. Who's to blame? None other than those members on the other side of this House. Perhaps some of these people should get a little help. Do you know where the help should come from? Some of those people have put their life savings into repairing the leaks in these buildings. Why don't some of the members opposite volunteer their pension fund to help stop some of these problems? What better use for that money could we ever think of than for these members to throw their pension plan into a project that would go towards fixing up some of these leaky buildings? After all, they are responsible for what happened here.

With that, I would like to voice my opinion here and say that I cannot in any way, shape or form support such a ridiculous piece of legislation.

[7:00]

In my particular riding we have many homes that have been covered with tarps for some time. I think of one particular block, which is there for persons on low income, that was a great development in its early stages. But over the last number of years it's been covered with tarps from one end to the other across the whole building. Likewise the seniors building next door to it, which is relatively new -- built since I came into the Legislature in 1991. Most of the other buildings were built just prior to that time.

One of the realities that is expressed by the leaky-condo definition is that it takes time for these buildings to fall apart, because the water seeps in and stays on the inside and gradually rots away, so the whole side of the building has to be torn apart. I've gone in to the centre courtyard of those buildings. Everyone there is working with a hardhat. There's water dripping down on the corridors and the walkways, the elevator is not working, and you have to go on bypass routes on the stairways that you usually take. It's just like a war zone inside the courtyard, where you're presumably protected from the street. Interestingly, this act has absolutely nothing for persons in those buildings. They have been working to reconstruct, to take out their own money and build back again the building that was there for them. This bill does nothing for them, because they will have completed most, if not all, of the renovations by the time this comes into effect.

What we have here is a paper tiger, a fictitious opportunity to meet the needs of our people. What we have here is another set of organization. . . . I've been part of activities in the general community. Every time they came up against a problem, they would set up a committee to study it. By the time the committee had studied it, the problem had either vanished or become beyond correction. So you would set up another committee to study what the first committee failed to study or to acknowledge the change that had taken place. Every time this government comes up against a problem, they want to establish another paper structure. They want to set up a bureaucracy of people to come in to do what the ministry should have been doing all along. They want to take it outside of the ministry and give it to some "independent persons."

Over the history of government, the best government has been that which has been able to do things as part of their everyday work. They don't need to pass it on to somebody else, but they do need to cooperate with those who have the ability, the skills and the knowledge in the community -- that is, to cooperate with the real estate, the building and the labour communities. Each of these has the opportunity to develop in a way that would meet these problems before they start. Given the opportunity to develop their pride and to use their skills, each of them takes pride in what they do.

What I'm suggesting is that we've gone about this in the wrong way, in this particular bill. Here we're trying to set up regulations, licensing, fees and examinations which have nothing to do with the everyday operation of building a building. It has nothing to do with those who plan and construct it within the local communities. It's another layer of committee structure. In another context, let me use the illustration of government in another area. We're all aware that the ministry was trying to help the children of our province. What they did was to build up a bureaucratic structure of some seven or eight layers. When this was pointed out, they said that they would change it because there were too many layers. So what they did was replace it with 16 layers, twice as many.

This is what's happening in this particular bill. We're adding bureaucracy onto bureaucracy without dealing with the problems. Even if this system were, in the final analysis, to have some positive elements to it, it would take at least three to four years before it could work through to develop the regulations and licensing and to spread these across the province. There would be thousands upon thousands of dollars spent in the very process. The money that they collect from builders, according to the regulations here, would go primarily into the system itself. Very little of it would be left to go to those who need it the most. In the meantime, the present practices will continue. At least, they'll continue from the point of view of what this bill is able to do about them. If they do not continue, it will be because of the builders and contractors themselves taking their own pride into account and beginning to take control of their agencies and their communities themselves.

For the most part, these are competent professionals. Not all of our buildings have been affected, except those buildings that were under new codes that they thought had been researched and studied even before they were brought into being. So many of our difficulties were not with persons disobeying the building codes that were provided for them;

[ Page 10572 ]

One of the recommendations that has come forward with this legislation is asking the federal government to forgive the GST on building products that might be used in remodelling and reconstruction. It seems strange -- the very government that is willing to ask the federal government to forgo the GST is not itself willing to forgo the PST, the companion amount of taxation. Then when the federal government says, "No, we're not willing to do that," they rail against them, and say: "Why not?" Probably for the same reason that the provincial government is not willing to do away with the PST. If we ask others to do things to help to rectify a situation, we must be prepared to do the same ourselves.

One of the realities is that the very people who have been involved most in the problem -- that is, those people who have leaky condos and leaky buildings -- are the ones who have been heard in part in the Barrett commission: but their comments are not reflected in this legislation. They are the very ones who are doing the building, and who reported to the Barrett commission; but their observations and recommendations are not reported in this legislation.

We would ask the ministry and the government to go back, re-read the presentations that were presented to them, and in the light of them, bring forth simpler, more down-to-earth, more practical legislation that enables people not to get caught up in dealing with administration, but to get on, in reality, with the job. This bill will not provide that opportunity.

J. Weisgerber: It's a pleasure for me to rise and speak to Bill 46, the Homeowner Protection Act. I want to do it from a northern perspective, from the point of view of a northerner looking at this problem, which is primarily one in the lower mainland and southern Vancouver Island. It's certainly a coastal problem as opposed to an interior or northern problem.

Let me start off by saying that I and, I think, most northerners have a good deal of empathy for people -- retired people and young families -- who invest their savings, perhaps their life savings, in a home, a condominium, and then find that it leaks, that it's not worth what they paid for it, that the condo fees and assessments have gone through the roof and they're looking at having to borrow money in order to make repairs to this home that's relatively new. We should all understand that that's a big problem; it's a serious problem. It's a horrific problem in some cases.

I've had some experiences here in Victoria in a condominium that I bought. It was ten years old; it was leaking. We were able to get it repaired, but it gave me a bit more understanding of the challenges that are faced by people who own these buildings. But I also have to reflect on. . . .

I'm glad to see that the Minister of Agriculture is here, because a year ago farmers were coming to this same government to say that not only their homes were at risk but their farms -- which represent their homes, their jobs and their pension plan all rolled into one investment -- were in fact at risk because of a series of weather conditions well beyond their control. And what did they ask the government for? They asked for a number of things, but front and centre for many of the groups was no-interest loans, zero-interest loans. Many of the farmers felt: "Gee, that would be fair; that would give us an opportunity to borrow and tide ourselves over." The government rejected that.

[7:15]

To the Minister of Municipal Affairs, I want to also say that I'm disappointed that she apparently chose to ignore Mr. Barrett's recommendation with respect to the application of his recommendations to coastal communities only. The minister shakes her head, so we'll have an opportunity to explore that.

Certainly, the Barrett report. . . . His recommendations were reported as applying only to coastal communities, and that would make a good deal of sense to me. I think that if Mr. Barrett made those recommendations, he made them wisely. In a northern climate where you have a lot of cold and low precipitation, you don't have problems with water leakage. You may well have freezing pipes, basements that crack because of frost that goes down seven or eight feet, water lines that freeze going into the house from the street -- those are all very real problems for northern homeowners. You may have serious heat loss because of a lack of insulation, you may have condensation in the house because of a lack of air exchange, but you don't have a problem with leaky condos in those cold, dry climates.

So I don't know and I'm hoping. . . . I have a sense that the minister will respond. I don't know how or why you would apply these higher standards to northern communities. If you're going to take this sort of one-size-fits-all approach, then let's require people in the lower mainland and Vancouver Island to make their houses frostproof for frost that goes down eight feet. It would make no sense. It would add significantly to the cost of the house, but why not? If we're going to apply one set of standards, why not apply those northern standards to coastal communities? If we're going to apply coastal standards to northerners, then tit for tat -- if one's fair, the other should be. I don't think someone buying a condominium in Dawson Creek should have to pay for water damages or for some new construction techniques in the lower mainland, and I don't believe that contractors in Dawson Creek should have to adopt the same programs as those in southern communities.

If I've misread the legislation or misinterpreted Mr. Barrett's recommendations, I will be happy to hear either one. I've read the legislation rather carefully, and I don't see any exemptions for people living in different parts of the province, so I can only assume that I have somehow misinterpreted Mr. Barrett's recommendations. But I think I haven't done that either; I don't think I've done either.

In closing, let me just hold out this hope: it's not too late for the government to bring in changes that would accommo-

[ Page 10573 ]

R. Thorpe: First of all, I'd ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

R. Thorpe: Joining us tonight is a good friend, Harvey Grigg, and I would just like to welcome him to the House and ask the House to make him feel comfortable.

It's a pleasure to speak to Bill 46. It's titled the Homeowner Protection Act, but in fact it really is the homeowner tax act. When you take money out of people's pockets, it's a tax. This bill, as the member for Peace River South said -- and I agree. . . . You know, we had thousands of people who had very, very serious problems; families were put into very, very difficult situations. And this government went through the sham of creating false hope for those families and those individuals.

Let us say here clearly that this bill does absolutely nothing to assist, to put out a hand, to show any caring for those families who have been hurt by the leaky-condo situation. This is not the decent way to help people who have found themselves in this situation.

This bill guarantees one thing: it will raise the cost of housing in every part of the province, from the north to Richmond to Penticton in the Okanagan. When you look at the increased fees and the licences and the taxes, it's upwards of $3,000 per home -- at a time when our economy is in recession, and the homebuilding industry is almost non-existent. The low levels of building we're at now are unprecedented.

So one has to ask oneself: what is this government doing? Why does it now want to destroy yet another industry in British Columbia, when it is trying to fool British Columbians that it is helping the families with leaky condos? Why would they want to do that? Why at this time would this government want to introduce more bureaucracy? We know that one of the spins they're going to try to tell us, as a result of Bills 43 and 44, is that they're going to streamline and cut red tape. This does exactly the opposite.

There's been absolutely no cost-benefit analysis done for this bill. There is no benefit to those who have been adversely affected. This bill flies right in the face of the first recommendations that were tabled, I believe, on July 8, by the first Business Task Force report on cutting red tape. It was chaired by the Minister of Finance, and the Minister of Small Business is on that committee.

And what have they done? Layered on the red tape. First of all they didn't cut any; now we've got more mountains of red tape. Soon people will be visiting British Columbia to see the red mountains. Why, why, why must this government always play politics? Why can it not just tell people the truth? "Sorry, we can't help you." Why do they now go and develop a bureaucracy that is going to cost who knows how much? Who knows what the real objective is? Maybe the minister over there does and won't share it with us.

The homeowner protection office. . . . No, it's a homeowner taxation office. But the board is going to consist of three appointed members. Will any of them be qualified, or will it just be some more friends and insiders at the trough, spending the money, taking the money? Who knows? I'm sure this minister will not be making any patronage appointments into this area -- I'm sure of that. They'll be MLAs. Some of them over there have building experience. But no, no, hon. Speaker, we want those with successful business experience to serve.

This homeowner protection office is yet another NDP off-load. This office will do the same services that this government eliminated just a little while ago: the building standards branch. But it really hasn't helped the families. That's what I thought the government was going through when they conducted that multi-week, costly -- I understand it must be around a million dollars -- Barrett commission to deal with the people's problems. But they haven't been dealt with. What we do end up here with is a bill that, once again. . . .

As our colleague from Peace River South said, the people that live in the Okanagan feel for the families that have been affected. But they're saying: "Why do I get to pay yet again? Why do I have to continue to pay?" You know, the housing industry in the Okanagan right now, to be kind, is struggling. People are struggling to be able to afford to buy a house today. And here we go: $3,000 more tax, more bureaucracy; nobody's helped in the leaky condos, the housing industry is getting killed and people are denied affordability in housing.

This bill is wrong on all counts. It's going to strangle the homebuilding industry that's on life support right now. It's going to affect the families and the suppliers, all because the politburo has decided we need more bureaucracy and more costs to load onto working families that are struggling.

This bill kills jobs. Really, it's a deathblow to the building industry -- one that's not acceptable. But most importantly, what I do want to say is that we do feel. . .we do share with the troubles that many of these families have had. Surely there is a better way than to introduce Bill 46, this homeowner tax act. I will proudly, on behalf of my constituents, stand against this bill, because it is fundamentally wrong. It does not help those who need to be helped, and it places further taxation on those who can least afford it.

D. Jarvis: I rise to say a few words on the Homeowner Protection Act, Bill 46, that this NDP government has now decided they want to foist on the people of British Columbia. It's an interesting fact that hundreds if not thousands of condominiums -- especially in the lower mainland -- underwent a phenomenon that over the past half-dozen years can only be considered a horror scene for the owners of these condominium units.

[7:30]

The condominium market in this province -- especially in the lower mainland -- is almost the bottom or the top of the

[ Page 10574 ]

Of course, we see that this leaky-condominium phenomenon, as I stated before. . . . When it started, the owners were left with a very tragic situation, and you can only appreciate it if you ever have seen one of those situations, rather than the pictures you see on television. How can they possibly repair the damage? The owners looked at it and said: "This is the normal sort of situation." Is it a caveat emptor situation, where it's "Buyer beware," where they are left on their own? Or would the contractor who originally built the premises come back and be there to rectify the damage or at least to ensure that no further damage would occur?

We know now that they were, in most instances, ignored and left on their own for various reasons. The question over this past year has been the culpability issue. Who is responsible? Who is accountable to the owner who makes a purchase in trust that their home is safe -- basically out of the rain? No one knows -- unless, as I said before, you've experienced it or have gone out and actually seen the damage that's been caused by some of these leaky condos -- what these owners have gone through, both physically and mentally. There's a lot of anguish out there.

The only group of people that I can consider not responsible for this situation are the purchasers themselves, the condominium owners. The original sort of home warranty law that we. . . . The first one that occurred was about 4,000 years ago, and that was either the code of Hammurabi. . . . You may recall that the code in those days was that if a builder built a house and it fell down and someone was killed, then he had his head chopped off. At the same time, if they built a house that was improperly constructed, the builder was required to go back and repair that house on his own. Four thousand years ago, that was the first warranty.

How have things changed? Our whole society has changed since those days, and it's not the builder that should be considered the culpable person in this instance. We have seen that there really is no specific culpability placed on the builders, the architects or the municipal inspectors who applied the bylaws that were put out -- the building codes -- on the subtrades and the moneylenders, the designers and the manufacturers of what we know today to be questionable or even shoddy products.

In most instances there really are no bad builders. There are good builders. There are flyers -- I was in the business for 18 years and I saw them -- but they are few and far between. As I say, there are good and bad builders, both union and non-union. When they construct a building, they are building to the specifications and designs that are dictated to them by the engineers, the contractors, the architects and the planning departments.

It's hard to really consider that builders and tradesmen themselves were wrong when it comes to the construction of these condos in question. In most cases they were simply following the specs that were given to them. They did this in a very professional or journeyman way, in most cases. If the building leaked, it was obvious that the design was wrong in the first place; it was designed wrong at the start. Therefore, where does the culpability lie? Who are the bad guys in this instance? Who could be held responsible? We can point the finger at many, but no one person can be held accountable.

It's an interesting fact that only a few years ago we didn't have any leaky condos. They were virtually unknown in this province. Until such time as government agencies -- federal, provincial and municipal -- started to more or less intrude into the building industry for reasons of their own, without much investigation or concern as to the results of their actions, we didn't have a problem of leaky condos. Planning departments and design panels at the municipal level pushed for the west coast design that was used in California. It was aesthetically nice to look at, but in a wet rain-forest climate it was very questionable. They pushed for the maximum square footage and for the building envelopes to be reduced -- i.e., for the removal of the eves in a lot of cases and the overhangs; all those were eliminated over a period of time. The materials used were never tested for the west coast environment. They did not take into consideration that the water penetration was evident. They used the acrylic stucco that absorbed water. Along with this, the inspectors were not aware of the potential problems; perhaps they relied too much on the professional credits of those doing the designing and planning.

So, as I said, the municipalities adjusted their guidelines on the square footage ratios for construction, and this in turn caused the reaction of designers and architects to change the overhangs of the roofs, etc. Building codes were changed for the sake of designs and the size -- actually for population control instead of for the improvement of the product itself. No concern was considered that California styles and materials did not apply to the rain-forest environment of the southwestern area of British Columbia. This government was aware that there was a problem coming. They'd had a study done about two or three years ago, and they buried it -- we have not heard about it. At the same time, the B.C. home warranty plan program did a study; they had a commission on it five years ago. That was buried; we haven't heard a word on it, either.

So everyone out there seems to be culpable, but you can't point a finger at a single person.

As I said, this industry provides $12 billion per year to the provincial economy. So when everyone got rid of the overhangs that stopped most of the rain, and they introduced the acrylic stucco that absorbed dampness, and they clad the inside of the building and the exterior walls, and they created the big vacuum that retained the water that comes out of all wood products unless you're building with an improved product that has been treated, we were then left with a condo that. . .all it can do is become a vehicle to absorb dampness and to rot. It won't keep the water out; it holds all the water in.

In the end, we don't know who was culpable, who was responsible. We can't really impose it on any individual or corporation or government. There's absolutely no outside solution available from those who in essence were responsible. So in the end it would almost have to be caveat emptor or "Buyer beware" in this instance. But that still doesn't help the poor people who were the innocent victims to start with.

It was this socialist government that brought in Mr. Barrett on his white horse to ascertain what was the cause and who was responsible. If you read the report carefully, you'll

[ Page 10575 ]

As I said, the plan is to control contractors to ensure the repairs so that the leaky condos that are not already repaired are fixed up. As I said, there was no culpability of the builders or the inspectors who didn't inspect the building properly. We haven't changed their bylaws. This bill will not do anything, in that instance, to control designers and architects. Nor is it going to ensure that the industry itself can possibly look after their own plan to ensure that something happens -- which should have happened anyway, and it's been mentioned before in the House. Once the government interferes, it'll cost the taxpayers nothing but money in the long run.

We ourselves, through our member for Richmond East, put forward a proposal to the Barrett commission. I think it was a very balanced report, and most of our ideas were included in the Barrett commission recommendations. It's not that, as I've heard it said, we are trying to protect certain individuals in this. I think the blame can be spread around quite a bit.

In the end, the Barrett report still didn't come out with any answers on how to build a residence in a rain-forest environment. To expect that there is a problem that can be answered by this government is taking a long shot at it. This government can only do so much. They've intruded into the equation now and created this new warranty plan that's going to cost the purchasers money in the long run. Yet no conclusive plan is down in writing so that these occurrences will not occur again. No true investigation was made of building standards and the outdated building codes, which if not changed will result in substandard building in the future. That won't keep the rainwater where it should be -- that is, outside of the house.

[7:45]

I think that this government went about the settlement the wrong way. They certainly didn't go after the federal government the way they should have. Anyone knows that the federal government, as mentioned by the Minister of Agriculture in question period today, doesn't come in and negotiate on interests or taxation. They come in if they see that it's a disaster. They'll come in and go in on the whole thing all at once. They don't come in piecemeal; they come in all-or-nothing.

We know the track record of this government in negotiating with the federal government. It hasn't been that good. As I said, the feds don't negotiate low interest or partial interest; if it's a disaster, they're going to come in. I know that the minister probably means well, but I don't think that she can negotiate her way out of a supermarket at this point. Maybe that's not a very nice thing to say, but let's face it: this government has had their opportunity to negotiate their way out of this with the federal government and perhaps bring better relief for the people in this province, but they don't seem to really care that much. If they were really interested in the homeowners and were really the compassionate government that they say they are, why does this bill exclude those that have already repaired their premises or their unit on their own? I mean, it's about being hypocritical. So on that premise, I cannot support this bill as it stands today.

R. Coleman: I am pleased to stand and speak this evening with regard to Bill 46, the Homeowner Protection Act. I want to sort of try to capsulize the previous comments of my colleagues into what this bill is really all about. What this bill is about is failure and about glimmer. It's about the failure of government to recognize its own culpability and what it did to the people who own condominiums in this province. It's about the failure of a government to recognize how they could help those people out in a time when they need help. It's about glimmer, because there is a slight glimmer in the Homeowner Protection Act that may or may not assist us with some construction difficulties in the future.

Having said that, we also have to remember it's about failure, because this is the government that shut down the building standards branch and is now going to re-create it in the form of the homeowner protection office. If the building standards branch had been in place, they would have been reviewing building codes and what have you back a number of years ago when they should have been reviewed in the first place. There are literally thousands of homeowners in the lower mainland who are affected by water penetration and water retention in buildings. The list of those who are responsible is lengthy. I want to tell you who they are. I want to tell you why they are, and then I want to tell you why government is failing the people of this province by not recognizing their own culpability in this problem.

Let's start out with the federal government. The federal government has a National Building Code which did not take into consideration the coastal climate of British Columbia. In having the National Building Code. . . . The federal government has an agency called the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. The CMHC approved mortgages on units on the west coast. They also insured mortgages on units on the west coast, and in doing so, they insured the residential construction of those units on the west coast. During construction, because CMHC had responsibility to the lender that they were insuring a loan to, and to the federal government, they inspected the projects. They approved the progress draws for the drawing of the mortgage against the units. And they signed off on those mortgage draws with their inspectors and approved the progress of the construction.

Where is CMHC today with their low-interest loans or loan guarantees for the people whose assets they want to cancel insurance on and seize? Where are they today? They're not in the equation, and they should be in the equation. That's their culpability.

On the provincial government level, this government failed to react years ago to recommendations to fix the problem. They failed to react to questions that were posed to them

[ Page 10576 ]

At no time, during estimates when we were looking at this problem or in discussions with the ministry, has the ministry at any time admitted their culpability for their own Building Code. They'll try to tell you that they're only responsible for health and safety issues in the Building Code. Yet they will adapt that code to snow loads in construction zones, like Whistler, that are applicable. They adapted it to this -- the way we wrap buildings -- and do not take responsibility for it.

What do they do? They're prepared to put up millions of dollars that somebody else has to pay back, by putting a tax on other units to be built in this province. They're not meeting their responsibility. The provincial government has a responsibility here. The Barrett commission missed that point, the minister missed that point in estimates, and we've missed that point in this particular piece of legislation.

On the municipal government level. . . . The Minister of Municipal Affairs is familiar with this, because she sat on a council that did this, that changed how the calculation of FSRs on buildings was moved from the footings to the eaves. The reason that was done was so that municipalities could push the industry into building a specific type of building with no eaves in a wet coastal climate -- something that looked like what you would build in San Diego, Los Angeles or other areas in California with dry climates.

The planning departments of those municipalities pushed that west coast design on the industry. They demanded the use of materials for aesthetic reasons -- i.e., stucco rather than climate-acceptable products. They placed demands on architects and developers that basically ensured inadequate designs -- particularly relative to the calculation of FSR, which effectively removed one of the most cost-effective ways of controlling water against the building. That would be the overhang. Taking the overhang off the buildings is one of the creations of the problem here.

Inspectors relied heavily on the seals of other professionals. As a matter of fact, in the city of Vancouver you can pay extra money and have a certified professional do the building inspector's job for you. The city didn't want to have to have the staff to do the job that was supposed to be done. Council pushed the building's looks first. They would sit with design panels in council, and they would look at buildings from an aesthetic perspective only and not from a practical application to the use of that building in a particular climate zone. When units were allowed to be built without overhangs, the problem was accelerated. That problem was accelerated because municipalities didn't want those overhangs. So there's culpability at the municipal level as well.

What about the developers? First of all, developers allowed for designs with the purpose of expediency. They oftentimes dealt with weak, first-year warranty support to the buildings. This is an actual responsibility, however. The developer is the builder's employer and has responsibility to that warranty, as well. If you look at the good developers in this industry, when a contractor didn't follow through on his warranty the developer stepped forward to the plate, because he felt that it was his responsibility to do so. That didn't happen in every case.

The architects bought into designs that did not work in a west coast climate. We had studies on this. They were sometimes weak on site inspections due to cost-cutting on the fees and the push of the industry to cut the costs of the professionals. Sometimes things would go by the wayside because they were weak on site inspections. The engineers drew working drawings, and they sealed their work. They have a responsibility for the completion of the actual construction to specifications, but sometimes those specifications can be changed -- and sometimes without the knowledge of the professional. That's a responsibility of the professionals who have responsibility for that.

The contractors run the job site. They actually build the building. They get on that site, and they see that the building gets built. They are supposed to build it to the specifications that are in the drawings drawn by architects and engineers -- structural, mechanical, etc. Their responsibility was not to cut corners, not to go away from the construction design that was laid out for them by the professionals that were hired. Oftentimes it happened when a corner was cut. Because the engineers or architects were not made aware of it, these things would slide through. But their responsibility was to that person.

They're not certified; they're not regulated. The Homeowner Protection Act moves in that direction, and the industry will have to adapt to this act to see if this works or to try and work with the act to see if we can deal with this. Contractors could set up shop without meeting any litmus test. There are good and bad contractors, which did directly impact on some of the quality of construction. But remember that they were building to the specifications of the National Building Code and of the provincial Building Code, which was set down by municipalities and designed for them by other professionals.

There was another player in this industry that has a responsibility today. That was the bonding companies. You know, if you were to go onto a job site and you were asking who built it and somebody said it was a bonded contractor, it would give you, in your mind, some sense of the level of quality. But all it was was that the bonded contractor would post a bond so they'd get security, thereby legitimizing the process of the project. But bonding companies were very difficult to deal with whenever there was a claim to respond to problems, and this often led to the fixing of the problem not being done to the level it should be.

Again, the subtrades. There are good trades, there are bad trades; there are union trades, there are non-union trades. But the quality of work in trades has always depended on the quality of the group or the individual doing the job. It has never, ever been because of who you belong to or who your friends were. In the cases of a good contractor and good engineers and architect, good trades were on the site as well.

[8:00]

[ Page 10577 ]

In self-managed buildings, which is where a group of homeowners decide not to hire professional property management to run it but to manage the building themselves, it's important -- as I was telling the Minister of Finance earlier today in another debate -- that they have some sort of a maintenance program put in place and that we go into a process of training those people so that they know how they should manage their buildings and they don't scrimp on their operating budgets, because they'll find out in the future that penny-wise will become pound-foolish and the repairs will be more expensive.

We also had a new-home warranty established to protect consumers. But more than anything else, all it did was make people feel comfortable. When you thought you were buying a warranty, it was nowhere near as comprehensive as you thought it was to actually protect the consumer from the problems that exist today. We're going to change that, too.

But the bottom line is that if you take that few short minutes' walk through the industry, everybody is culpable. The only people who aren't meeting their responsibility here are levels of government -- in particular the provincial government, which changed their Building Code and wrapped buildings differently, and municipalities who took eaves off buildings and made them leak. And that's the bottom line as far as the culpability is concerned: everybody's got a little bit here, and some just aren't standing up to the table.

You know, I think the priorities here are to find long-term economic solutions to this problem for those affected by leaky condos by establishing some financial formula for these homeowners. We haven't gone there. We've only gone to where if you become bankrupt, if you spend every dime you have, maybe there will be a fund there to help you.

We have to set future priorities and standards to minimize similar problems in the future. Now that goes back to this home owner protection office, and this home owner protection office, incidentally, is going to be doing things like reviewing the Building Code. And it's going to be subsidized by the industry that builds residential houses and condominiums in the province. But interestingly enough, the act is mute on whether the Building Code changes and recommendations relative to ICI and large commercial construction are also going to be funded by the homeowner of this province by having to pay for those reviews as well.

The other priority is to establish a system of better consumer protection through a more comprehensive new-home warranty program. . . . Now, some of these things cost money. They cost money, and the consumer will pay. The consumer will pay for what has to happen in the future because of the culpability and the mistakes of government in the past.

There ought to be some options and some recommendations here. I have to wonder out loud: where is the CMHC, to provide insurance for loans to homeowners, even based on a 25-year amortization for the repairs, so that they can get an insured loan and actually do the repair to the unit; where's their exposure if the unit doesn't get repaired and they already have an insured loan at a high-ratio mortgage on the unit, and if there's a foreclosure and the unit gets sold, or it has to be repaired later? They might as well be stepping into the breach today and working with these people, rather than sitting on the sidelines.

You know, if you have a rental unit that's a leaky condo, you've got tax deductibility on the repairs that you have. But this government has not even discussed, looked at or brought forward anything that would allow a person that's an owner of a leaky condo to have the same relationship to the tax structure as a person that owns a leaky condo as an investment.

Municipalities are going to have to relax some of their building envelope guidelines to allow for overhangs to be added to some of these buildings. Because even when you repair them, a lot of them are still going to have the same problem facing them in the future -- that is, acrylic stucco on tightly wrapped buildings with no overhang, in a climate they weren't designed to handle. They aren't from this climate; they're buildings that were not designed to handle this climate.

For seniors and those on a fixed income, has anybody thought about having payments and deductibility deferred to their estate, and seeing how we can help them out with somehow being able to fix the asset that's their retirement home, so they can live in comfort without the disease that's facing them in the walls, like the mould and the mildew and the smell? We left them out. We forgot about them, because all we want to do is politicize one little government office, rather than deal with the issue.

One of my colleagues said earlier that the government called for the federal government to forgive the GST on construction materials and labour for repairing the leaky condos. But do you see anything in any of their documentation that says: "We want to forgive the 7 percent sales tax on the repairs and the labour for the cost of leaky condos"? They can't even take that little, minuscule step forward to do something that's right, that would show the people who are sitting in this situation that they're paying attention.

I don't even know that you actually read the submissions to the Barrett commission. You couldn't have, because they asked for that. And yet you ask for the GST to be forgiven. You always want to pass it off to some other level of government. You never want to accept your own culpability. It was your Building Code, and it was your wrapping that sucked the water into those buildings. It was municipal governments like the one the minister sat on that changed the building envelope guidelines for FSR so there were no overhangs on those buildings, and they leaked.

Where was the discussion of property tax deferral? Not there. You know, it's amazing that this government has had all of these recommendations put forward to them, and they've acted on next to none of them. It's amazing that the federal government has been the same way. But at the same time, the minister wants the banks to step into the fray with a bunch of money. She wants somebody else to pay for her generous fund that nobody will have access to by putting a thousand-dollar charge on every single unit that's going to be built in the province, whether it's built in a wet climate or a dry climate, until such time as that fund is paid up.

Then who's going to get access to the money? Your rigidity on the qualifications is such that you might as well be

[ Page 10578 ]

[The Speaker in the chair.]

You've got the reports -- some of them you've had for three to five years -- that tell you how to fix the building envelopes in coastal climates. Some reports, ironically, were done by CMHC, who are the people that did inspections on the west coast and insured loans -- reports done by this government of their own committee, which recognized the problems as early as the summer of 1995. Yet they haven't been acted upon. You should be acting upon those reports, because even if you do have the new homeowner protection office, if you don't have the building and code changes that affect this. . . . By the way, when you make those changes, don't forget to say that they're only for health and safety, because you wouldn't want to take any responsibility for anything that got built in this province.

You have to adopt some of these things, like the best-practices guide for wood frame construction in coastal climates. You have to look at these things, because these things were done. They were done for a reason. They were done because people recognized the difficulty we had in the industry long before the government was prepared to recognize it and after they shut down the building standards branch -- which, as far as I can see, is all that they've done. You could tighten up disclosure requirements which will come with the new Strata Property Act.

Ironically, it's the Minister of Finance who brings forward an act that's been in draft form and asked for in this province. . . . It went through an extensive public consultation process, and it was in draft form in 1994. We dealt with that legislation in July of 1998.

Interjection.

R. Coleman: My colleague asked me: "What's four years?" Four years is about 60,000 more leaky condos built in the province, because nobody reacted to the reports and the requirements in this province.

The bottom line is this: there have got to be some self-funding recommendations and some licensing and training. I agree. But at the same time, the hon. minister, the ministry and the government have to come up to the plate and recognize their own culpability. Not to do so is a fraud on the people of British Columbia who are sitting out there and suffering with this issue, having sat through the Barrett commission, having sat through this thing and realized that all they got was a forum to talk. Nobody was listening. Nobody was paying attention, and they wouldn't even admit that it was their Building Code changes that started the problem in the first place. They won't recognize it today, they wouldn't recognize it in estimates, and they certainly haven't recognized it in this particular bill.

There are no clean players in this issue. The entire system has not met its responsibility to the consumer. We have to establish a viable solution and move forward. You haven't done that. We've had to react before, with urea formaldehyde foam in the construction industry many years ago. We've had to react before to other issues within our province and within separate industries. There are no winners here; there are just losers. The biggest losers are the people in the situation; the saddest losers are a government that will not recognize their culpability. This provincial government turns their back on those consumers like they don't care. That's the big loser; the loser is the reputation of the NDP government of British Columbia, because of their incompetence in dealing with leaky condos.

G. Farrell-Collins: I don't profess to have the intricate and in-depth understanding of construction methods and the background on how this issue came to be the crisis that it is that my colleague the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove, who spoke just before me, has. But I do have a bit of insight into the problems that this issue has caused for the people who have been unfortunate enough to end up owning a home -- a condominium in this case -- that leaks.

The problems that are associated with that are severe. For many people it means health problems; it means stress on the family, stress on relationships, uncomfortable if not unsafe and unhealthy living conditions. Ultimately, it means a huge financial expenditure on their behalf. In many cases that financial expenditure is beyond what those people can afford. They simply cannot afford to fix the home that they live in -- the single largest purchase that they'll probably ever make in their lives. They simply can't afford to pay for the repairs that would allow them to live in their homes in a safe and comfortable manner. So they have to give them up; they end up losing their homes. They end up renting -- walking away from their lifetime of savings. Some people are retirees who have put all of their life savings into their home and find it gone -- washed down the drain.

[8:15]

Members have talked about the two reports that were issued on this issue in British Columbia. One by CMHC -- the federal housing lending agency -- was completed on November 22, 1996, almost two years ago. It made a series of recommendations to deal with the problem, which had been in existence for some time at that point. Nothing was done.

Then there was the report that predated that one by almost a full year. That was the report of the B.C. government's own Ministry of Housing, Recreation and Consumer Services task force into the leaky-condo problem. It started in the fall of 1995 and issued its report on January 31, 1996.

If the recommendations in either of those reports had been followed, or at least acted upon at the time they were made, hundreds of people across this province -- hundreds of people in my constituency of Vancouver-Little Mountain, on the slopes of False Creek and down by Granville Island -- would have had this problem dealt with. They would be living now in homes that are safe, homes that don't leak, homes that are comfortable. They would not be facing repair

[ Page 10579 ]

When this finally appeared to become an issue for the government, I hoped that they were actually going to do something with it. Every year in the estimates process -- last year, the year before and the year before. . . . The member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove, who is our Housing critic, raised this issue on behalf of all the members of the opposition caucus -- myself included -- each and every year in the debates in this Legislature, urging the government to take action. He highlighted the problems with the construction methods; he highlighted the problems, as he just did a few minutes ago, with the Building Code. He highlighted the problems that people were facing in communities right across this province and called on the government to take action to deal with them. Every year, he asked them how they were doing. Every year, if you go back and read the debates that took place, he was assured by a variety of ministers that in fact action was taking place -- the problem was being dealt with.

And then all of a sudden. . . . I don't know what happened, but all of a sudden, this year the Premier grabbed it as an issue that he thought he could score some political points on. He decided to commission an inquiry -- another inquiry and another report -- into the leaky-condo issue. Who did he choose to do the inquiry? He chose probably the most highly partisan politician to grace this building in the modern era: Dave Barrett. Trying to take an issue -- and as the Premier said, he didn't want it to be a partisan issue; he didn't want it to be a political issue -- and have Mr. Barrett, with all due respect, take on that role made it clear from the beginning exactly what it was. It wasn't designed to solve the problem. It was designed to fix a different problem that the government had, and I'll talk about what that problem was towards the end of my comments this evening.

I hoped that the government was really going to make a difference, that it was really going to solve the problem in the future -- but, as importantly, help the people retroactively who are faced with this huge burden, a financial burden, a personal burden. I really wanted to support Bill 46. I know that my caucus is tired of hearing from me about it, but in my constituency, Vancouver-Little Mountain, about two-thirds of the people who live there live in condominiums. That's probably the highest number, percentagewise, of any constituency in the province. So I wanted this to work. I wanted to see a piece of legislation that was going to do something for people, to stop this from happening in the future -- something we should have done a number of years ago -- but that, just as importantly, was going to deal with the people who are facing this crisis. They call my constituency office, they come in to see me and they write to me, telling me about their problems. I was hoping there was going to be something here. And it's not there; it's just not there for them.

For those people in the future, who are somehow going to have this problem solved. . . . Well, what is the government going to do in this bill? They're going to establish the homeowner protection office, which is now going to oversee a huge bureaucracy that is going to go out there and regulate every single person who has anything to do with the industry. It is going to put a huge amount of regulatory burden on them, which I doubt very much is going to make a heck of a lot of difference to the type of construction that goes on. I hope it does, but I'm not convinced of it.

It's also going add to or improve upon the home warranty. That's something it could have done two or three years ago, three months ago -- or today. But it's going to improve the warranty system -- something everybody had been calling for. The builders had been calling for it, for heaven's sake. It's going to improve the warranty system, starting January 1 of next year.

So as we're sitting in this House in the middle of July debating this, there are condominiums going up in my constituency which are probably going to leak and won't have the warranty, because of the delays in bringing that provision into reality. That's a tragedy. We know the problem; we've known it for a couple of years. We're debating it now; we're dealing with it finally. We've agreed that we're going to improve the warranty system, but we're not going to make it apply to the buildings that, this very day, probably had stucco slapped onto them or had a roof put on them. That's just negligence. Those people who are going to end up living in those condominiums will have every right to come back to the members of this House and demand accountability for that at some time in the future.

Lots has been said about who's to blame for the problem. When this issue happened, it was the height of partisanship coming into an issue that need not have been partisan. The Premier said that Mr. Barrett's job was to go out and find the bad guys, to find out who was to blame for this. He said -- and I couldn't believe he said it: "No doubt the bad guy will be a Liberal."

Well, hon. Speaker, is that what this is about? Is that what this piece of legislation is about? Is that what the Barrett commission was about -- some revenge, some personal vendetta on behalf of the Premier toward some imaginary individual, who the Premier thinks was a Liberal, who built the condominium that somebody's living in? Is that what this is about? Is that what government in British Columbia has come down to? These are people with real problems, and they need real solutions. They don't need comments like that from the leader of our province; they need solutions.

There is more than enough blame to go around. There's blame for the municipalities and the Building Code; there's blame for the province and the Building Code; there's blame for the province for eliminating the building standards branch, which was responsible for that. As other members have said, there's blame for CMHC, which approved loans. There's blame for builders -- absolutely. There's blame for subcontractors -- absolutely. There's even a little bit of blame for people who purchased buildings without doing a proper inspection. Not all of them were brand-new. Some of them were used, and people bought buildings that weren't brand-new -- that had a leaking problem, and they didn't get them inspected -- and as a result, they inherited a problem. So there's responsibility and blame enough to go around for everyone. So let's stop pointing fingers as to whose fault it is that these buildings leak. Let's find a way to deal with the people who are in crisis around repairing their homes and make sure that we do whatever we can that's reasonable, that makes sense and that's going to be efficient in solving the problem in the future. And let's do it in a reasonable length of time.

What is it that people are looking for? The people who are in the crisis situation are looking for a few things. They're looking for tax deductibility on their repairs. As other colleagues have said, if it's a rental that somebody owns, they can deduct the cost of repairing the damage to their condominiums from their income. There's a tax saving -- a personal cost saving -- to them based on that.

There's also been requested -- in fact, Mr. Barrett recommended it -- an exemption from the PST, the provincial sales

[ Page 10580 ]

I know that the minister responsible doesn't believe that that should happen, because she spoke out strongly and wrote a letter to the federal minister asking for a GST exemption -- a 7 percent reduction on the federal sales tax. She thought that was appropriate, but she's not willing to give the PST deduction on the cost of labour and materials for those repairs. So neither government should be benefiting from the repairs that have to take place. They shouldn't have to bear the brunt of the burden, but they certainly shouldn't be benefiting from it. Under this legislation, the province makes money; the government of Canada makes money based on this. Municipal governments: people have to go and get building permits and repairs to fix the thing, and they're going to pay building permit fees to municipal governments. Municipal governments are going to benefit; the provincial government is going to benefit; the federal government is going to benefit. That's completely contrary to what it is we're trying to do here. And what about those people who are really in trouble -- those people who have paid tens of thousands of dollars into their homes to try and repair them? What are we going to do about them?

Under this bill, those people have to be bankrupt, they have to have expended every single penny they have access to -- their RRSPs, their savings, their retirement funds, anything they've managed to put away. . . . They have to have exhausted it completely before they can get any compensation from the government, any aid at all from the provincial government. That's not an aid package; it's forced poverty. At the same time, the provincial government's going to be pocketing the 7 percent.

You have to ask yourself: who does this benefit? Does it benefit the condominium people -- the people who are in these condominiums now? No, it doesn't. It really doesn't. The vast majority of them are going to see no difference in what they had to deal with before. This has done absolutely nothing for them, and it has done nothing for those people in the future whose homes are being built right now, because they won't be covered by the new warranty. Only those buildings constructed after January 1 of next year are going to have the improvements in place.

As much as I want to, as much as I'd like to, as much I'd love to be able to tell the people in my constituency that we managed to come to some agreement and bring in a piece of legislation that was going to compensate them, was going to help them repair their homes, was going to help them stay out of the poorhouse, was going to make sure they didn't have to raid their savings, and -- for those in the future -- was going to make sure that the warranty was in place as early as possible. . . . As much as I'd like to be able to tell them that that's what we've come to an agreement on, I can't; it's not there. None of the aid and assistance that the government promised when the Barrett commission was struck is in this legislation. And the warranty doesn't kick in until next year.

On top of it, there's going to be $1,000 or more per unit -- it could be up to $4,000 per unit -- charged to the people that are going to buy these homes in the future to pay for the government's administration of this whole bureaucracy. So the people that have had to save as much as they could to buy a house in the first place now have to face another $2,000, $3,000 or $4,000, depending on the home, on top of what it was they already had to pay, in order to fund the bureaucracy that's going to be running this program.

[8:30]

I see the members opposite smiling, because that's exactly what the goal was in the first place. I firmly believe that the only reason the Premier of British Columbia started this holy war on condominiums -- the only reason he dusted off those reports, the only reason this became an issue -- is because he knew he had to deliver on the other half of the construction Labour Code changes, and he knew he couldn't do it in Bill 26. He thought an easier way to do it would be to set up a straw man and then knock him down with this piece of legislation.

That's exactly what they've done. The only people who will benefit in any significant way from this piece of legislation are the same people who benefited from the Labour Code changes that this House just passed for the industrial sector. It's the only part of the bill where all the work went, where all the dollars are going and where all the bureaucracy is going to support.

No matter how you measure it -- if you take this bill apart and put it back together, if you stack it up or lay it in a long line. . . . However you look at this piece of legislation, it's clear where the benefits are going. They are not going to the people of my constituency; they are not going to the people in the condominiums that are there now or will be there in the future. They are clearly going to benefit the same people this government tried to benefit with the Labour Code changes in the industrial part of the construction sector.

This bill isn't worthy of support. The people in my constituency who've been begging for some help believe it's not worthy of support, and I won't be supporting this piece of legislation either.

The Speaker: Seeing no further members to participate in the debate, I'll call on the Minister of Municipal Affairs to close debate on second reading.

Hon. J. Kwan: I am delighted to close debate on second reading of the Homeowner Protection Act. You know, as I listened to the members opposite talk about this act. . . . It's disappointing for me, quite frankly, that they will not support the bill. What is clear from the comments of the members

[ Page 10581 ]

Let me just talk a little bit about what the Homeowner Protection Act is and what it does. It provides for licensing residential builders to ensure that there will be quality construction in British Columbia. It requires strong, mandatory warranties on new homes: two years on materials and workmanship; five years on building-envelope defects, including water penetration; and ten years on structural defects. It establishes the homeowner protection office, which is self-financed, to provide for the licensing program, to do education and research, and to enhance the residential construction industry in British Columbia. The homeowner protection office provides for the authority to audit and inspect construction sites to ensure that builders are in full compliance with new laws and regulations governing residential construction. It provides for assistance programs to affected homeowners in greatest need. It provides for a new dispute resolution mechanism for those who are now faced with this problem, as an alternative to the court system. As I said earlier, it provides for a mechanism for research and education to benefit folks who are now working in the field. There are many other components to this bill. I won't go through each and every one of them, but those are the highlights of this legislation.

What I heard the members opposite say. . . . They are on record as opposing the Homeowner Protection Act. They are on record as opposing the mandatory home warranty and licensing of residential builders and the self-financing scheme of the homeowner protection office. They are on record as opposing government balancing the need to manage taxpayers' money with the need to provide for assistance for those who are in greatest need. They are on record as opposing providing assistance to individuals who need that loan program. They are on record as opposing the notion that homeowners should have access to the Homeowner Protection Act in terms of future protection for homebuyers, as well as to the reconstruction fund.

If the members opposite actually had read the Barrett report, they would know that we are in fact doing 47 of the 82 Barrett recommendations. These provisions that have been enacted. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Hon. J. Kwan: Thank you, hon. Speaker. Courtesy is something that I know members opposite sometimes misunderstand. But that's okay.

If you reference the Barrett report. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, many of you have spoken already. . . .

Interjection.

Hon. J. Kwan: Yes, indeed -- I will absolutely tell the truth.

If the members opposite actually read the Barrett report, they would know that pieces of people's lives and their stories are in it. What are we doing with the Homeowner Protection Act? We're enacting their recommendations. I want to actually refer to a couple of pieces from the report. Condo owners say that, in general, they find it difficult to understand how a four-year-old, multimillion-dollar building built by a supposedly reputable builder could have problems of this magnitude. They don't understand how you can have a five-year new-home warranty that does not cover the costs of needed repairs. That's what this legislation is doing: it ensures that there is quality construction in British Columbia and that there is a mandatory home warranty that actually works to provide the kind of protection that members of the community expect.

I want to talk about some specific issues that have been raised during this debate. The question was raised about cooperating with the building industry. You know, for two years my predecessor had been working hard to try to cooperate with the building industry, and members opposite wonder why it is taking so long. Well, I'll tell you why. My predecessor, in trying to work with industry. . . . What they've consistently said is: "Yes, we want mandatory home warranty. Yes, we do want a licensing program." But the terms under which they want these components to be in place are actually not the fullest and best protection for the people who need it. They said, "Let us self-regulate," and they continue to say that to this day.

Well, the fact is that they have had self-regulation for all these years, and look at the problems we have today. With a mandatory home warranty. . . . The fact is that they say three years is sufficient for water penetration. Yet we've heard through the Barrett commission that many people say that the problems won't surface until after three years, and that we need stronger mandatory home warranty provisions. That is the problem in terms of the industry. I want to cooperate with industry, but they need to cooperate with government, to provide the best protection for the community.

The question of pride in the industry was raised -- and it was actually talked about -- in terms of the work that they do. Let us be sure and clear: I want the industry and all of the people within the system to have pride in the work that they do. But, of course, the industry also has to demonstrate that there is pride in the work that they are doing, and we've got to fix this problem to ensure that confidence in the residential construction industry is being rebuilt.

There was a question about a project that Dave Barrett was a component of when he was Premier in 1973. Yes, that project was built by the Barrett administration, and it was built in 1973. But you know what? After the project was built, there was a change in government. The Socred government came in, and what did they do with that project? They decided to sell it, no longer ensuring that the project was maintained for affordable housing. They sold the project, and it was made into a rental unit.

Interjections.

Hon. J. Kwan: Actually, it was a question that the member for Richmond East raised, and I'm responding to her question with respect to this issue. That's what it has to do with second reading of the Homeowner Protection Act.

On this issue, the project was sold to a private developer who then rented it out and later sold it as a strata unit. Now, in 1998, they are finding problems with this project. The question is asked: is it the people who developed it at the time, or is it maintenance issues that were raised? I know that people who are reasonable and know the history of this project will know that it is not the people who developed the project but rather the maintenance question.

[ Page 10582 ]

The Speaker: Members, the House will come to order. All members will come to order.

Hon. J. Kwan: I'm responding to some of the issues that have been raised, and there is another issue that is very pressing indeed and that I feel I must respond to. That is the issue around the tax measures. Members opposite say that the government is not prepared to provide for the GST component, and let me just be very clear about that. I have said to the federal government time and again that I want to work with them to create a tax relief package and that the Ministry of Finance is prepared to work with them on that front.

What the Barrett recommendation calls for is tax relief in the area of GST, PST and RSP -- in terms of not imposing a penalty on those who want to withdraw their RSP for repairs -- and tax relief retroactively for homeowners who have paid for repairs and who actually live in their home, in the condo unit, as opposed to those who have rented out their unit. I'm prepared to work with the federal government on all of these issues to create the tax relief package. I would actually appreciate members opposite talking to their Liberal federal government cousins and asking them to come onside with the provincial government in the tax relief measures.

What is actually very interesting is that when the members opposite talk about what is needed, all of their comments have been focused on what the provincial government should do. Fair enough, because the provincial government has taken leadership in dealing with this issue, and we are indeed addressing it. But they have also called on the taxpayers to pay for all of the systematic failure issues that have been identified. Not once did any of those members across the floor call on industry to step up to the plate; not once did they call on the banking institutions to step up to the plate. In his report, Barrett clearly identified that this is a systematic failure and that everybody has a responsibility. Yes the provincial government has stepped up to the plate. Where are those other people? Why aren't the members opposite calling for them to step up to the plate as well?

[8:45]

Do you know what, hon. Speaker? It was, in fact, the Leader of the Opposition who actually asked for protection for the city of Vancouver -- to have no liability whatsoever, even if they were found to be at fault. It was the Leader of the Opposition who moved a private member's bill to ask for exemption from all liability for municipalities, even when they may have been found to be liable.

I will work with local governments on these recommendations relating to liability and others, through the UBCM. I believe that those who are liable should be held accountable, and that's what the Barrett report identified. The provincial government has stepped up to the plate to do our part. Industry and the banking institutions need to step up to the plate. All the people who have been identified as a component of the systematic failure need to step up to the plate.

I want to close with two other items. One is with respect to the coastal-communities issue in terms of the application of the Barrett report. It is my intent to apply the spirit of the Barrett report in terms of the coastal communities and the application of the fees, and for the leaky condos that are now in the lower mainland, in the southern part of the province, to be financed by that. I want to be clear that the intent of the Barrett report is in fact the Homeowner Protection Act.

Finally, I want to close with this notion. I've been in the Legislature for about two years now, and I've seen the members opposite flip-flop. They change their minds every single day, so they are no longer really credible in what they say, in my opinion. The fact is that a release put out by the Liberal opposition said that condo homeowners should pay for the lion's share of this problem, but now they've changed their mind -- just like that. They say that taxpayers should pay. Fair enough, because my heart does go out to the people who have suffered. That's why we took action. That's why we appointed Commissioner Barrett to undertake this work. That's why we're introducing the Homeowner Protection Act. That's why we're going to make accountable those builders who have abused the system. That's why we're bringing in mandatory warranty provisions. That's why we're doing what we're doing we're doing, and that's why we tabled Bill 46.

With that, hon. Speaker, I'd like to move second reading of Bill 46.

Motion approved on division.

Bill 46, Homeowner Protection Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

HOMEOWNER PROTECTION ACT

On section 1.

L. Reid: The minister will know that I asked many, many times during the course of the estimates debate the cost of the process which spawned this bill. I would ask her to commit to the record today the cost of the process which spawned Bill 46.

Hon. J. Kwan: What the member opposite is asking for is, I presume, the cost of the Barrett commission. My ministry has not received that documentation. As well, for the member opposite, the information in terms of the receipts and so on would actually go to the Attorney General.

L. Reid: The minister is more than aware that this material has been promised to me for probably more than eight weeks now. So if indeed this is an issue of credibility, I would suggest that the minister actually act on some of the promises that have been made during the estimates process.

In terms of the definitions section, "new home. . . ." I simply want to reference the decision around definitions that was taken by the Barrett commission, which talked about a condominium in the mandate statement. . . . If you go to recommendation 1, it expands it to include any residential construction in the province. I would simply ask why.

Hon. J. Kwan: A new home is defined as a single-family dwelling, a multifamily dwelling -- for example, a duplex, a triplex condominium -- as well as common property, com-

[ Page 10583 ]

L. Reid: The title of this inquiry, the Commission of Inquiry into the Quality of Condominium Construction in British Columbia. . . . Certainly the minister's sense that it was appropriate to expand the definition does nothing for owners of leaky condominiums today. In fact, it removes any scrutiny and moves beyond where they believed their issues would be addressed. The explanation is weak. I trust that the minister can perhaps clarify.

Hon. J. Kwan: I will tell the member opposite again that through the Barrett commission's work -- and he has heard from many people: some 250 oral presentations, with over 700 written presentations -- relating to the leaky-condo item. . .through his work, he has identified that the leaky-condo issue is applicable not just to condominiums but also to some residential homes. Because of that, he has expanded the definition of leaky condos to include those other components.

L. Reid: The minister concluded her remarks by saying that she understood the angst and the anxiety and the anguish experienced by many condominium homeowners. Does she appreciate that in fact this report misses their issues, ignores their issues? Again, I'll come back to the title: Commission of Inquiry into the Quality of Condominium Construction in British Columbia. Recommendation 1, contrary to the title says: "A leaky building is any residential building within British Columbia. . . ." Does the minister understand that the owners of leaking condominiums today truly feel that this commission has ignored them?

Hon. J. Kwan: On a point of order, I'm wondering whether we're debating the Homeowner Protection Act or the report from the Barrett commission.

The Chair: We are debating section 1 of Bill 46.

L. Reid: Is the minister answering the question?

Hon. J. Kwan: I'm wondering whether we are debating the Homeowner Protection Act or the leaky-condo issue.

The Chair: Order.

L. Reid: The Chair did answer your question. I would ask that you answer mine.

Hon. J. Kwan: I ask the hon. member to repeat her question.

L. Reid: I will go slowly for this minister. When we talk of the title -- Commission of Inquiry into the Quality of Condominium Construction in British Columbia -- and we go to the definition in the act -- Bill 46, and I'm on page 2, for the minister's information -- there is a contention that this bill abundantly ignores the concerns of condominium owners today. I am drawing your attention to approximately the fifth line: ". . .'new home' means a building, or portion of a building, that is newly constructed and intended for residential occupancy. . . ."

The concern that has been shared with me repeatedly -- and I know it's been shared with this minister -- is that this bill ignores owners of leaking condominiums today. Does the minister understand that what she has done is to ignore owners of leaking condominiums?

Hon. J. Kwan: I would disagree with the opposite member's comments.

L. Reid: For the ministers' information, I'm on the top of page 3, clause (d): ". . .any building or portion of a building of a class prescribed by the regulations as a new home to which this Act applies." I will need some definitive information on that section in terms of the minister's understanding of a commercial building or a mixed-use building that has a residential component. What happens to that construction under this particular clause?

Hon. J. Kwan: They're included.

L. Reid: The minister will know that that is contrary to the answer she has given in the past, when she indeed said that commercial buildings were not part of this. Indeed, if we go back to residential construction, we have some difficulties around definitions, and certainly I cannot be the only person who's asked this question. The minister, I trust, has more information she would wish to share.

Hon. J. Kwan: To clarify: it's the residential component that's included.

L. Reid: There is also a reference to a manufactured home: ". . .does not include a manufactured home unless otherwise prescribed." Why?

Hon. J. Kwan: Because manufactured homes have not been identified as an item with major problems. If those issues do arise, there will be opportunities for us to make changes to deal with those matters.

R. Neufeld: I appreciate what the minister said: that manufactured homes may not be as big a problem as some of the condos. But if we go around the province and we look at many of the residential houses, they're not leaking either. So I can't quite get the correlation there. That's one question.

Secondly, if someone has a manufactured home -- many people do, and they build additions onto them -- how does the act apply to that?

Hon. J. Kwan: The components relating to manufactured homes, as I said earlier, have not been identified as a major problem. However, residential homes have, through the Barrett commission, albeit it appears that the problems are not nearly as significant as with the condominiums. . . . But residential homes, in terms of single-family homes, duplexes, etc., have been identified as an issue. What this legislation does is address those components that came up through the Barrett recommendations.

[9:00]

[ Page 10584 ]

Hon. J. Kwan: The answer is no.

L. Reid: The definition of "residential builder" is "a person who engages in, arranges for or manages all or substantially all of the construction of a new home, and includes a developer and a general contractor." The concern expressed is that builder, developer and contractor are terms that are used interchangeably, and they are not terms that are used interchangeably in the industry. They're used interchangeably for the purposes of this piece of legislation, but not anywhere else. I would wonder why the minister would choose to wrap all of those items together.

Hon. J. Kwan: The purpose of this act is to identify one key person in terms of accountability -- we have done it within this definition -- and to define it as broadly as we can, to encompass the needs of the act.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

L. Reid: Under the purposes of the act -- "to improve the quality of residential construction. . . " -- it would appear that subtrades today don't have to be licensed, or in fact that that's not going to happen now but that cabinet may in future do so. I'd like some background on that, in terms of the extent of the subtrade that will be involved. Are we talking about the person who comes to look at your pool? Are we talking about someone who in fact is putting in concrete at the front of your house? What exactly are we looking at? How big is this package of regulations, and how much will it encompass before this is all said and done?

Hon. J. Kwan: This piece of legislation does not include subtrades; however, it does provide for cabinet to bring in some legislation at a later date if there are problems arising out of subtrades. But at this time, it is not applicable to subtrades.

L. Reid: Could the minister explain to this House how subtrades would differ dramatically from renovators, who do require licensing under this act?

Hon. J. Kwan: The act does not actually call for renovators to be regulated in this act, although, again, cabinet could actually bring in changes through an OIC around that.

I want to highlight the difference around renovators, as reported through the Barrett commission. He has identified the need to concentrate on renovation components, especially with respect to fixing the current problem today. What needs to be done is to ensure that those who are doing the renovation work do it in such a manner that it does not re-create the problem. So the interim CEO has been instructed by me to look at the renovation component as one of the top priorities of his work over the next while.

L. Reid: If the minister could confirm this: has she indeed said that renovators will not be regulated under this act for the next, let's say, six to 12 months?

Hon. J. Kwan: Renovators would be brought in through regulation, in terms of regulation of their work.

L. Reid: I thank the minister for information she has basically already shared with us. The question was that they may require licensing at some future point. I am asking for a time line as to what that future point looks like. I believe that this piece of legislation is onerous, in that the power will be found in the regulation, and the regulation has not yet been written. The minister was not able to provide information on what this regulation may attempt to accomplish. So indeed, if this is going to be a superficial discussion, and once this bill is passed the net widens to include every person who ever sets foot on your property, it would be prudent to share that information with the public at this juncture.

Hon. J. Kwan: As I advised the member earlier, the work is actually being taken on by the interim CEO, and it is a priority for the interim CEO to address the issue of renovations.

L. Reid: Did it not seem odd for this ministry to appoint, hire and pay an interim CEO prior to the legislation being passed? Did it not seem like they were putting the cart before the horse?

Hon. J. Kwan: There are many pieces of the work that need to be done, including setting up the office to allow for the work of the homeowner protection office. The interim CEO has been hired to undertake that work. We have a very tight time line indeed to get the work done, and the intent is to get the office up and running by October 1.

L. Reid: "A further purpose of this Act is to establish a Reconstruction Program to provide financial assistance to eligible homeowners for home reconstruction" -- perhaps we can spend some time on this section. It is our contention that this will not help owners of leaking condominiums today unless, frankly, they have declared bankruptcy or are prepared to have a lien on their property. Is that the minister's understanding?

Hon. J. Kwan: The reconstruction fund would be dealt with by the homeowner protection office, which will actually administer the reconstruction fund. Again, part of the work of the interim CEO is to prepare the criteria under which individuals can access the loan program. I've said that the priority for the loan program would clearly be those who are in the greatest need -- those who risk losing their homes and those who are faced with health and safety issues.

L. Reid: Under whose authority would the funds be expended today to pay for this interim CEO?

Hon. J. Kwan: The interim CEO is paid for by the ministry at this time.

L. Reid: Where would I find that item in the budget that was debated?

Hon. J. Kwan: It's part of the operating dollars that will be coming out of my ministry.

L. Reid: I would ask the minister to be a bit more specific about her budget. Exactly where in the budget were those dollars found to hire this individual who has not yet received a legislative mandate?

[ Page 10585 ]

R. Thorpe: Did I understand the minister correctly to say that she wasn't sure which line this came out of, but that if she could find some money in one STOB, she'd take it from there, and if she found some in another STOB, she could take it from there? Surely the minister could be specific. What STOB number did the salary and the expenses for the interim chief executive officer come out of in your budget?

Hon. J. Kwan: I actually don't have the budget line items in front of me, but I can tell the members opposite that the funding for the interim CEO will be coming from my ministry.

L. Reid: I asked a question of the minister a few moments ago regarding eligibility for homeowners for the home reconstruction fund. The minister was very clear in the documentation that went out at the press conference as to who would be eligible. If that has changed, it's interesting that we may now have this discussion at this very juncture, which is indeed appropriate and relevant for section 2(2). It seemed at that point -- I can quote the minister's words from her press release -- that she talked about people who had declared bankruptcy and who would have a lien on their property. If the minister is now saying that the decision about eligibility will be determined by the interim CEO, that would be interesting for us to learn. Frankly, if she's prepared to withdraw her earlier remarks, that also would be interesting.

Hon. J. Kwan: In my presentation and announcement of the Homeowner Protection Act and the work that the government is doing to respond to the Barrett recommendation, I was very clear in saying that the interim CEO, along with myself, would work on the criteria to be established for the loan program. I was very clear in saying that there would be some examples -- especially that those in most need would have priority, including those who are faced with health and safety needs as well. . . . So there was no misleading in terms of my comments at the press conference and today.

L. Reid: Frankly, I disagree with the comments that the minister has just made, and I am more than prepared to send this information over for her consideration. It's fairly clear that there were guidelines in her mind, just as there were guidelines in the mind of Dave Barrett when he took on this task. The preconceived notions of both the commissioner and the minister abound, in terms of any other information she might provide around home reconstruction, if indeed. . . .

Has the minister indicated to Mr. Ramsay that he will have some responsibility to interact directly with experts in the field around setting up eligibility, that he will need to meet with homeowners around setting up eligibility requirements?

In her closing remarks, when the hon. minister talked about putting the challenge forward to the federal government, she didn't indicate why she's not prepared to act independently of the federal government. The comments I made in second reading debate, where I said, "Find me where this government has waited for an opportunity to act in concert with the federal government in the past. . . ." In this situation, that is not a fallback position for this minister at this juncture. So the question to the minister is: why will she not act independently and put in place today the 7 percent GST exemption and/or rebate for owners of leaking condominiums?

Hon. J. Kwan: I actually have a copy of my speech notes from the press conference, and I'm looking back where it touches on the issue around the zero-interest loan program. It clearly states that on a priority basis, those who are faced with the risk of losing their home, health or other related matters will be dealt with and that the interim CEO will actually set up the criteria and have them in place by October 1.

With respect to the question around the tax measures, as I said earlier, I've met with Minister Gagliano; I have spoken with him on a couple of occasions now on this issue. I've urged them to work with my ministry and with the Ministry of Finance to develop a tax package. A lot of the measures actually need the federal government's and Revenue Canada's cooperation to provide for the tax relief. Unfortunately, the minister turned that down. I would certainly welcome the members opposite pressing their federal colleagues to support the provincial government in coming up with a tax relief package as per Barrett's recommendations.

L. Reid: The question that I posed directly to the minister was why she has not made an independent decision in this province today, with this government, who are responsible for the provincial sales tax, to accept recommendations 79 and 80, I believe, of the Barrett commission. This minister has not convinced me that those two items are inextricably linked. I do believe that this minister and this government have the ability to move forward today and to put that relief into the hands of owners who have leaking condominiums that require repair. I would ask for the answer to the question.

[9:15]

L. Reid: Since the minister referenced the document, I will put the recommendation into the record -- recommendation 79: "For purposes of reconstruction, all GST and PST, payable on qualified repairs and renovations, be repealed. In this way, the owner-occupier is treated by taxation the same way as the owner-landlord." It seems fairly straightforward. Recommendation 80 says: "All GST and PST that has been paid on renovations should be refunded to homeowners."

Let me pose the question to the minister again: what prevents the minister from being of assistance today to British Columbia owners who have expended provincial sales tax on their repairs?

Hon. J. Kwan: The tax relief measures identified by the Barrett report have a range of components to them. To effectively have these tax measures work in the way in which Barrett had envisioned, we do need the federal government to work in cooperation with us. I have made the offer to the federal minister on a couple of occasions now to sit down and look at those measures, to work with the Ministry of Finance on them. Unfortunately, the federal government has turned us

[ Page 10586 ]

Clearly, the provincial government cannot do it alone. We do need those who have been identified as a component of the systematic failure of the residential construction industry in British Columbia to also step up to the plate with the provincial government to deal with these issues.

L. Reid: What I didn't hear the minister say was that, frankly, she doesn't want to move unilaterally -- which is the only answer. There is no technical issue that prevents this minister from putting 7 percent of the cost of their repair bill into the hands of British Columbians today. So this minister should get to her feet and tell me why this government -- any government -- should benefit from someone else's misfortune. Why would this government choose to take in 7 percent of somebody else's misfortune -- the cost of their repair? I will commit this to the record: there is nothing today that prevents this minister from making a unilateral decision in the best interests of people who reside in this province. To hang your hat on what's happening in the federal government. . . . Never before have you, minister, chosen to do that. Why would you choose this opportunity to neglect homeowners in British Columbia?

Hon. J. Kwan: I reject the notion that the provincial government has neglected homeowners with respect to the leaky-condo issue. We have taken action. We have appointed a commission which actually came up with very good recommendations, 47 of which we have implemented through this act, which I understand the members opposite are actually opposed to. The other recommendations involve different partners as well. Those partners do need to step up to the plate -- the federal government, the banking institutions and the industry. I welcome their participation with us. The federal government was gracious enough to participate in the reconstruction fund by providing $75 million as bridging funds for the loan program, and I welcome their participation in that. I also await their participation in the tax relief measures.

Any one of the measures in and of itself would be insufficient to deal with this systematic failure. The provincial government has an offer on the table with the federal government that we will work with them on a tax relief package, of which one component is the PST component. But that in and of itself is not the measure that needs to be in place. We need all of those tax measures in place. I would encourage the members opposite to encourage their colleagues at the federal level to change their position on the tax relief measures.

L. Reid: The minister has probably figured out by now that we don't accept what she would have us believe is the rationale. She said that it is a very good recommendation by the Barrett commission. Agreed -- so act on it.

She would have us believe that there is something that prevents her from making a decision in the best interests of homeowners today. There is absolutely nothing that prevents this minister from being of assistance to the owners of leaking condominiums. She has said that somehow these measures, if acted on alone, are insufficient to deal with the problem. I am prepared to line up the owners of leaking condominiums today and find one that would say "No, thank you" if you offered them 7 percent on the cost of their repairs. Frankly, I don't think that your remarks would find themselves on fertile ground -- for you to continue to carry on saying that it's insufficient to deal with 7 percent. It would be a decent start, hon. minister. Why are you refusing to make the start that would put some dollars today into the hands of owners who have leaking condominiums?

Hon. J. Kwan: My answer is the same as the previous answers I have given.

L. Reid: Let the record show that the minister has refused to answer the question regarding direct assistance today to owners of leaking condominiums; let the record show that the minister has refused to answer the question. She would continue to allow the public to believe that she is somehow prevented from taking that action. That's absolutely untrue, and she knows it. Leaking-condominium owners know it, and the public at large knows it. We're not impressed, hon. minister, that you would continue to let people down when you have in your power the ability to make their lives better today. That's what this is supposed to be about: good governing -- to assist them without benefiting from their misfortune. You would continue to benefit from the misfortunes of these owners, hon. minister, and I think it's a bloody disgrace.

R. Coleman: I agree with member for Richmond East. I'd like to go back to the reconstruction program and ask the minister if she could tell me how many of the recommendations from the commission report, relative to the funding of the reconstruction program, have been adopted and what they are?

Hon. J. Kwan: On the reconstruction program, the question is: "Which pieces of the reconstruction program have we acted on?" Of the 82 recommendations, we have implemented 47. Of those 47 recommendations, we have implemented a number, and those recommendations would be. . . . If you will give me a minute, I will read the recommendation numbers for you.

The reconstruction fund is recommendation 70, which is: "That a reconstruction fund for homeowners be established through the homeowner protection office to provide financial resources to those most adversely affected by problem buildings." But that's one specific recommendation relating to the reconstruction fund. Clearly, that recommendation also references the establishment of the reconstruction office, which falls under a different recommendation. So there are some overlapping components to the Barrett recommendations as well.

R. Coleman: The minister just said that recommendation 70, which allows for the establishment of the fund. . . . I guess my question is: where is the revenue coming for the fund? Are there any recommendations that you're going to use to raise those revenues from, that you're going to apply to this reconstruction fund, when the entire recommendation is not being applied on the revenue flow?

Hon. J. Kwan: I'm sorry -- it took us a little while to find within the 82 recommendations the one that the member is asking. Recommendation 24 is actually the one that specifically refers to the special levy in the Barrett recommendation. In our legislation, what we have provided for is the ability to issue a levy, and we will engage in discussions with industry around that issue prior to us implementing the levy in the legislation.

R. Coleman: So the only revenue that's coming into this reconstruction program, this fund, is coming from a special levy -- would that be correct?

[ Page 10587 ]

R. Coleman: Is the $75 million from the provincial government in the form of a loan to the reconstruction fund, or is that an actual grant to the fund that is not repayable to the province? Or are you going to be paying it back from the levy over a number of years?

Hon. J. Kwan: It is bridging dollars, as a loan.

R. Coleman: So in actual fact, the provincial government isn't making one dime's worth of commitment, in reality, to the owners of leaky condos from the taxpayers of British Columbia, other than to use money for bridging this program, waiting for revenues to come from another source.

Hon. J. Kwan: What the provincial government is doing is balancing the need of the general taxpayers on the leaky-condo item, to provide for measures that deal with future condo issues and also some relief to the current homeowners.

R. Coleman: I'll ask the question a different way: is the government of British Columbia -- your government, your ministry -- committing any dollars to the leaky-condo fund that are not being paid back to the government from another source? If that's the case, how much would that be?

[9:30]

R. Coleman: It's interesting that one portion of the Barrett commission report that requires a loan program can somehow be put into the funding for the reconstruction plan. But we can't put the PST into the revenue stream or the reconstruction program, because we want to tie something else in and not actually dig into our pockets. We want to hide behind some sort of relationship that says we have to have somebody else putting in the dollars as well. If the federal government is coming to the table, why did you put in your $75 million? The banks haven't come to the table with their $10 million. The other people you're expecting the revenue streams from haven't yet come to the table with their dollars. Why would you take that step and not take the PST step?

Hon. J. Kwan: With respect to the reconstruction fund, we have been very clear in saying that we need to build the $250 million up, starting with the provincial government's share. On the tax issue, we actually do need the federal government to work with us on those tax measures. If you've read the Barrett report, you will know that the tax measures are manifold, and for that package to work we need to include all the components in it. A lot of that work needs to. . . . We need to have the cooperation of Revenue Canada. We'll continue to press the federal government on these matters.

The Chair: Hon. members, I'd just like to remind you that we have gone through second reading of the act. Now, for the purposes of debate, it should be specific to the wording of the act.

R. Coleman: Well, hon. Chair, I respectfully submit that I am being specific to the wording of this act, because I'm dealing with the reconstruction program.

The Chair: I'll remind the member not to argue with the Chair.

R. Coleman: Okay. I will just continue asking my questions.

I'm dealing with the reconstruction program to provide financial assistance to condominium owners. I'm asking where those revenues will come from, to provide that financial assistance. I'll continue on with the minister. The minister just made the statement that we need cooperation from Revenue Canada and the federal government in order to do a rebate of the provincial sales tax to condominium owners on materials for repairs on their condominiums.

I'd like to know why the minister feels that that's necessary, because my understanding is that people doing provincial sales tax returns submit them to the provincial government, not to the federal government. Where do the federal government and Revenue Canada come into the equation to stop us and to not enable us to deal with the provincial sales tax at the provincial level relative to this issue?

Hon. J. Kwan: What I said was that we need the federal government to provide for the tax relief measures as a package, according to the Barrett report. The Barrett report deals with a number of components to the tax relief measures. The province has made it very clear that we are more than willing to work with the federal government in developing that package, which would include the GST component, the PST component, the RSP component and the retroactive component relating to current homeowners who would want to write off their repair costs to the units.

R. Coleman: I guess the reaction to that is: well, unbundle the package and deal with each one of the components of the package in a manner that you can deal with here without having to rely on another level of government and hide behind it.

The question, back to the $75 million that the government's putting in. . . . You mentioned a loan program. Is this not also a loan from the provincial government to the fund that will be paid back by the special levies or by the other revenue streams you're going to get? Is the $75 million actually a double loan? It's going in, it's being lent out to condominium owners who will pay it back to the fund, but it will also be paid back to the fund by the revenue stream from the special levy.

Hon. J. Kwan: The legislation calls for the provision for a levy to be in place to repay the reconstruction fund, so that it would not become a burden on the general taxpayers. In terms of the loan program, the province is providing bridging dollars too, as well as the federal government. Those are

[ Page 10588 ]

R. Coleman: The answer is that the money is going to be paid back from the levy. My question is: when the reconstruction fund is paid back by the levy, will the levy then disappear? Will the levy no longer be required for this particular financial assistance fund, because the money that was the seed money has been paid back? Or will we continue to collect the levy after the fund has been paid back this particular amount of money?

Hon. J. Kwan: The levy will be in place for as long as we need the levy in place to provide for the reconstruction program.

R. Coleman: I would just ask the minister -- I got only a portion of that answer -- if she could repeat the answer, because there was, frankly, a little bit of noise on my side of the House that made it impossible for me to hear the full answer -- so I can follow up.

Hon. J. Kwan: To repeat for the member opposite, the levy that applies to the reconstruction fund will be in place for as long as we need it to be in place for the reconstruction program.

R. Coleman: The minister earlier mentioned the $250 million figure, with $75 million coming from the federal government, chasing some money from the banks and dealing with RSPs, etc. What is the amount of money that needs to be collected by the special levy for this fund before there is no longer a requirement for the special levy? It's not a matter of how long a piece of string is; it's a matter of what projections you have made relative to the levy and how long you're going to need the levy, based on the number of units you're going to be levying against.

Hon. J. Kwan: As I said earlier, the levy will be in place for as long as we need it and require it to be in place. In terms of the amount, Barrett recommends $1,000. I am amenable to discussing that issue with the industry through the interim CEO, to see if we can come up with a formula that's agreeable to both sides. But if not, then we'll look at some other mechanism to deal with that. Therefore the formula is actually not yet established, although the legislation clearly provides for cabinet to take action on that.

R. Coleman: Do I understand the minister to say that we're going to have the levy for the special fund, but we don't know how much money we're going to need or how long we're going to have the levy because we've done no projections to determine how long. . . ? Don't we have some projections that would give an indication to both the consumer and the industry out there of how long and how much? Are we going to collect $1,000 a unit on 40,000 units a year for the next 20 years? We may only need $250 million. Was this a projection of the ministry earlier? I really think it's important that you've put some thought into this. . . . You should be able to tell us how long the special levy is required.

The Chair: Hon. member, I'd like to remind you that levies and the questions that you are directing toward the minister right now are covered under sections 24, 25 and 26. So I would suggest that you would possibly like to direct those questions at that time.

R. Coleman: I will have some questions relative to those at that time, but right now I'm dealing with the actual fund and how the money is coming into the fund.

The Chair: No, hon. member, you are not. We are on a "Purposes" subject here, and that is section 2. So I will ask the hon. member to continue and to direct his questions and comments to section 2.

R. Coleman: Section 2(2) says: "A further purpose of this Act is to establish a Reconstruction Program to provide financial assistance to eligible homeowners for home reconstruction." Can the minister tell me what criteria are required to be eligible for financial assistance and to become a homeowner eligible to receive funds from this reconstruction program?

Hon. J. Kwan: That work is being done by the interim CEO.

R. Coleman: So we're going to have a reconstruction program in a piece of legislation that's going to provide financial assistance, which we've lent $75 million to, and nobody knows who's going to be eligible for that. At what time will the homeowners in this province know what the eligibility is for application to that fund and what the eligibility factors are to receive funds from this particular reconstruction program?

Hon. J. Kwan: October 1.

R. Coleman: I think what we're going to do is move on, but I judge by the answers of the minister that a committee debate that was going to take an hour is probably going to take four or five, from what I can understand, because I don't see that we're getting the answers to our questions. As a result of that, I see that we're probably going to be here a long time. That's the choice of the minister, and that's fine by me, because I've got all night.

Having said that, I'll lay out my concerns relative to section 2. There's $75 million going in -- not one dime of permanent dollars from the province -- and an inability of the government to recognize that the 7 percent sales tax contribution to the fund could have been made. They want to hide behind federal relationships rather than deal with the issue at hand.

Hon. J. Kwan: I simply want to say clearly that I disagree with the comments of the member opposite.

L. Reid: When we canvassed this section with the minister just moments ago, she indicated that renovators may require licensing but that there is no plan in place to ask them to do that. I would simply ask the minister to review the letter she wrote to Shayne Ramsay, the interim CEO, that continues to be highlighted throughout this discussion. She assigns this individual three tasks. "The third task is to develop strategies to address the Barrett commission's recommendations dealing with the licensing of residential renovators and providing for warranties to cover their work." So moments ago, there was no plan in place. Now it's a very specific task that's been assigned to the interim CEO.

[ Page 10589 ]

Hon. J. Kwan: Just to point out, this is not part of section 2. Notwithstanding that, I want to say very clearly -- and the member is welcome to check Hansard -- what I talked about with respect to renovations. I made it very clear that while it is not in this legislation right now to make renovators comply to regulation, the authority is within the legislation for cabinet to act. I have made it a priority for the interim CEO to look into that matter. There is no confusion about those comments I made.

[9:45]

The Chair: Hon. member, I'd just like to remind you that the mandatory home warranty is covered under part 8, section 22. We're on section 2, hon. member.

L. Reid: Yes, and I'm speaking directly to section 2(1)(b).

The Chair: Hon. member, section 2.

L. Reid: Exactly: ". . .(b) to improve the quality of residential construction" -- which the minister said in her remarks would include renovators. That is why I am addressing it at this juncture.

The Chair: Hon member, it is covered under section 22 in part 8.

You're standing on a point of order, hon. member?

G. Farrell-Collins: The member is trying to ask a question about the definition of renovation and renovator. It clearly falls within section 2. If there are further details that are to be examined at a later date within the bill, then that's the prerogative of the member to ask them. We're in the purposes section of the bill, and that's what this is all about. So if there's further detail, the member can ask that later on, but certainly they can ask those questions within the purposes section of the bill. If the minister would answer the question, we could move on and get on with the rest of the legislation. It's a simple question.

The Chair: Hon. member, that is not a point of order. Section 2 is on the purposes of the act; definitions were in section 1 of the act, which has already been passed. I will ask the members to keep their comments and questions to the purposes of the act.

L. Reid: I am speaking on section 2(1)(b): ". . .to improve the quality of residential construction. . . ." The reason I'm addressing this at this juncture is that the minister raised it earlier on, and we had a discussion that said that renovators may indeed require licensing at some future point -- and left it open. My contention at this very moment is that that is now a priority for this commission, that they indeed. . . . "The third task is to develop strategies to address the Barrett commission's recommendations dealing with the licensing of residential renovators and providing for warranties to cover their work." Now, if the Chair is not comfortable, we don't have to discuss the warranty portion, but residential renovators is the issue under discussion. I would ask the minister to respond to the example I have placed before her.

Let's again take the example of a heritage home in Victoria. If a renovator comes in and renovates a portion of that home, what happens to that renovator, first off, in terms of his licensing? Does his renovation licence now cover the entire property, or is it specific? Or will the devil be in the detail when it comes to the purpose of this act, which is only to craft huge and enormous regulation? What is the purpose of this section?

Hon. J. Kwan: Just for the information of the member opposite, section 18, "Licensing of other persons," states: "If a residential subcontractor or residential renovator is required by the regulations to be licensed, a reference to 'residential builder' in this Part is deemed to be also a reference to 'residential subcontractor' or 'residential renovator', as the case may be." What I said at the beginning, for the member's information, is this -- relevant to renovations, subtrades, subcontractors or others: right now, in this piece of legislation, there is no requirement for them to be licensed. However, there are provisions in the legislation that say that cabinet can undertake to make those changes.

On the issue around renovations, I've stated very clearly that it is a priority issue. There are concerns, as identified by the Barrett report, to ensure that renovations are done and to prevent the same problem from happening again. As such, I have highlighted that as a priority for the interim CEO to look into this matter.

G. Farrell-Collins: It's a very simple question to the minister: is it the purpose under section 2 to ultimately include individuals or renovators who would be doing renovations to homes that did not directly relate to a leak problem?

Hon. J. Kwan: Section 2 may ultimately allow for the inclusion of renovators, subcontractors, etc. The specific provision in the act that deals with that is section 18; that's what I stated earlier.

G. Farrell-Collins: Section 18 does have some details about renovators. The question under section 2, "Purposes of the Act," though, is whether or not it is the purpose of this legislation to broaden the scope of what requires licensing to deal with other issues that are not directly related to condominiums. If that's what the minister is saying, that in fact the purposes of this act and this section are to have a very broad-ranging umbrella set up over top of the entire construction sector -- in residential in particular, and more particularly. . . . I'll wait until the minister is paying attention, because it's hard enough when she is paying attention.

[ Page 10590 ]

Hon. J. Kwan: Clearly our priority is to deal with leaky-condo issues, in terms of this legislation. It is not our intent to bring in legislation that will deal with, let's say, renovation of some heritage home, with respect to a kitchen being needed to be renovated. I know that criteria will be established through the interim CEO and the work that he will do on this to set up some parameters and target as our priority the issues relating to leaky condos.

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

R. Coleman: We're now on the homeowner protection office section of the bill. My first question is about this office that is going to be established, consisting of a board appointed under section 4(1). I'd like to know from the minister what the criteria are for the members of the board who would be appointed under section 4(1).

Hon. J. Kwan: Just to clarify, if the member's question is on section 4, then perhaps we can pass section 3 and then go to section 4.

R. Coleman: There's a lot more things in section 4 than just my first question. I guess what I'm asking is: you're going to establish a homeowner protection office and a board -- who will sit on that board and what are the criteria for their selection?

Hon. J. Kwan: That's a decision that cabinet will make.

R. Coleman: So in the preparation of this legislation, at no time has the minister thought about the makeup of the board that's going to affect the housing industry in British Columbia -- whether they're going to be people that know the industry, whether they have a background in the industry, whether they're going to understand finance, or other criteria. You're just going to establish a board by cabinet, and there have been no criteria thought of, as you went through this legislation, relative to the recommendations that came out of the other reports and commissions that led to this legislation. No criteria whatsoever have been thought out or discussed relative to the selection and appointment of this board.

Hon. J. Kwan: With respect to advice from industry, labour and, I'm sure, others on the various components of this act, there is a provision for an advisory council to be in place. The advisory council clearly states that there would be participants from the residential construction industry, including architects, engineers, owners and local government. So there is provision for those with technical expertise to be a component of that, relating to the board. Again, that's a decision that cabinet will make. I have not brought forward my recommendations to cabinet for their consideration.

R. Coleman: I guess we'll come back to this under section 4 in a few more minutes or in 20 minutes or an hour, or however long it takes to finish section 3. The purposes of the office are going to be to license residential builders and other persons required to be licensed under this act. I'm going to give you three questions, and for once, maybe we can speed things up a little bit. What are the criteria for licensing? How are they going to be determined? And how are you planning on doing the education aspect relative to licensing and determining their qualifications?

Hon. J. Kwan: The licensing of residential builders is under section 14. It would be by cabinet order in terms of the criteria.

R. Coleman: The more I read this legislation, the more smoking guns I see. First of all, there's the board, and now there's the licensing. How are you going to do the research and education aspect of residential construction in British Columbia, and how are you going to administer the program? I guess the first part. . . .

The Chair: I'll remind the members to direct their comments through the Chair.

R. Coleman: Thank you, hon. Chair. I guess we will be here awhile.

The area of the research and education aspect, respecting residential construction in British Columbia: has the minister thought about what institution or what agency might conduct that education? I can't see it. A homeowner protection office that is the size that this is, with only a CEO being able to handle this. . . . Has the minister looked at the Urban Development Institute? Has the minister looked at the urban land economics program at UBC? What are we looking at to decide how we're going to do the research and education that's obviously going to lead to some criteria for the qualification of these particular individuals?

Hon. J. Kwan: The three questions the member asked. . . . First, on the criteria issue, it would be, as I said earlier, determined by a cabinet order. The other piece, in terms of how it would be determined through the work of the HPO and the interim CEO. . . . It would be in consultation with industry. And on the education component, we would work with the existing institutions and professions to deal with the education and research component.

R. Coleman: Could the minister please give me a couple of examples of some of those institutions and organizations that they plan to work with on the educational and training side?

Hon. J. Kwan: As examples, AIBC, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the engineers.

R. Coleman: This is to license residential builders in construction, and the minister never mentioned any builders or any organizations that understand the building industry as being people who would be involved in the training and criteria. She mentioned everybody else. Is the industry itself, the people in the industry. . . ? Would it be the Canadian Home Builders Association? Or is somebody else going to be involved? Is the minister going to give them. . . ? Would the minister tell them tonight whether they are going to have any opportunity to participate in this or whether they're just shut out of the process altogether?

Hon. J. Kwan: To my knowledge, they are already participating. They've already had several meetings with the

[ Page 10591 ]

R. Coleman: I already knew that some of those industry people had met with the CEO. I didn't know if the minister was aware of it, because she eliminated them. I think she probably could have said that in a lot fewer sentences, and we could have dealt with that issue a lot quicker. On the real estate side, the urban land economics program at UBC has served them well relative to training and upgrading. I'm just wondering if there have been any discussions with any of the faculties like that with regards to training in the future.

[10:00]

L. Reid: In section 3(7) it says: "The Public Service Act and the Public Service Labour Relations Act do not apply to the office or to a member, officer or employee of the office." My question is a simple one: is it the intention of this minister and this government to do away with postings as they would normally apply to a government agency?

Hon. J. Kwan: I'm sure that the hiring practices would be normal hiring practices. What this really references is that it would not be part of the Public Service Act within the ministry.

Section 3 approved.

On section 4.

L. Reid: Section 4 references the composition of the board: individuals will be appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. I am referencing section 4(3)(b): ". . .if the member is not a member of the Legislative Assembly or a public servant, remuneration at rates set by the Lieutenant Governor in Council." My questions will pertain to whether or not it is the intention of this minister to appoint a member of this Legislature to this agency.

Hon. J. Kwan: As I said earlier, I have not made my recommendations to cabinet with respect to the composition of the board.

L. Reid: With all due respect, that was not the question. Is it this minister's intention to appoint a member of this Legislature to this agency of the government?

Hon. J. Kwan: No decision has been made.

Section 4 approved.

On section 5.

L. Reid: I'm on section 5(2): "The chief executive officer may act as the registrar or the director of research and education, and may perform the duties of either of them." If this office is going to have these functions vested in this particular individual, can the minister give us some assurance that indeed it will be someone who has some expertise, someone who truly understands how this industry works and, frankly, someone who is interested in the best interests of the consumer?

Hon. J. Kwan: I have appointed Shayne Ramsay as the interim CEO. I understand that the industry is very happy with his appointment to this position. He is well versed on issues around housing and construction in British Columbia -- in fact, not just in British Columbia. In terms of the permanent CEO, that is a matter that I will undertake when the term of the interim CEO is completed. I will make determinations as to what are the next steps.

L. Reid: The question was more specific than that. Today, if indeed it is Shayne Ramsay that you are vesting with this title, is that one person fulfilling two separate functions: the registrar function and the director of research and education?

Hon. J. Kwan: That is not what I said at all. What I said was that Shayne Ramsay is the interim CEO who will be working on this project for the next six months, and that until such time as his term is completed, I will make determinations as to the next steps.

L. Reid: That's all very interesting, but totally irrelevant to the question I asked. The minister referenced the interim CEO, Mr. Shayne Ramsay. The question was very specific, and I will try it one more time. Is the function of registrar and is the function of director of research and education today vested in one person, Shayne Ramsay? Yes or no.

Hon. J. Kwan: The work of the interim CEO is to actually establish the office -- to fill the positions within the office. He'll make that determination and recommendation with respect to setting up the office. Those positions, as it stands right now, are actually not in existence; that work has not yet been done by the interim CEO.

Section 5 approved.

On section 6.

L. Reid: I am finding this one -- "Financial administration of the office" -- fairly humorous: "The office must establish and maintain an accounting system satisfactory to the Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations. . . ." That is not a standard that I would suggest is in the best interests of individual British Columbians. I would ask the minister to reference the standards in place for this office.

Hon. J. Kwan: Clearly, with respect to the financing pieces, the homeowner protection office must meet various criteria. That's what section 6(1) deals with.

L. Reid: Again, the devil's in the detail. At some point we will learn what those standards and criteria are, but indeed the regulations are yet to be thought about by this minister. This minister will know that I've spent a great deal of time during my tenure as an MLA talking about benchmarks and accountability questions. I don't see that reflected in this section, "Financial administration of the office."

[ Page 10592 ]

Hon. J. Kwan: If the member looks beyond section 6(5), she will note that under section 6(7) it clearly states: "The financial statement and reports referred to subsection (5) must be laid before the Legislative Assembly by the minister as soon as practicable."

The question about the other piece around standards was asked as well. I want to point out for the member's information that section 6(4) states that the auditor general must also "(a)audit the books and financial affairs of the office at least once in each year, and (b) report to the office" as well. As you know, the auditor general will do that function to ensure that the criteria are met accordingly.

L. Reid: My question was very specific: why would this report not come directly to the Legislature? Why is it detouring its way through the minister's office, when this minister has said repeatedly that there's not a cent of taxpayers' money in there? Why is that a ministerial function? Why could there not be credibility on this question by having that report laid directly before this Legislature?

Hon. J. Kwan: This is standard practice in terms of government agencies. The CEO reports to me, as the Minister of Municipal Affairs, and the report which they submit will be tabled in the Legislature as per section 6(7) of this bill.

L. Reid: The minister will know that the tabling of these documents in the Legislature is not done in a timely way by her administration. Typically, we've had two, three and four years of delay before that information has come before us. So do I expect a speedy report to this House? No. In terms of where the minister has been in terms of bringing this back to us, there's no reason for this not to come directly to the Legislature. They can continue to bob and weave. I would simply ask the minister if she intends to alter any report from this agency before it reaches this Legislature.

Hon. J. Kwan: I actually find that last question quite offensive -- to imply that I would alter the report before it goes to the Legislature. Clearly I would not do that, and I find it offensive for the member to even suggest that.

Section 6 approved.

On section 7.

L. Reid: Section 7 is on the registrar. For the minister's benefit, I'm on page 6: "The chief executive officer must designate a person as the registrar of residential builders. . . ." I need to know the background and the expertise of that person who will become the registrar of residential builders.

Hon. J. Kwan: That position will be filled by the CEO. The interim CEO is working on this component, and he will set the criteria, the qualifications, etc., to meet this position.

Section 7 approved.

On section 8.

L. Reid: My concern regarding section 8 is that, again, the devil will be in the detail. All of these qualifications and duties will be spelled out in the regulations. As British Columbians, we have no way today of knowing whether or not the net is going to be broadened to include absolutely every person who ever lifts a hammer in the province. Will they have to deal with this registrar, who may or may not have any expertise? I'm putting my concern on the record.

I've certainly learned from my questioning of the minister so far that there is no answer to these questions, because the homework simply has not been done. We don't know how much difficulty people preparing to build something in this province will now face as a result. Based on what the minister has said to date, we don't know whether or not anyone's life as a homeowner will somehow be improved as a result of this legislation. The minister will get to her feet and say that these issues have yet to be determined.

I believe that there need to be some parameters which this minister must have in mind when it comes to what she expects this legislation, this regulation, to look like when it's complete. I would simply ask that she commit at least one thought to the record on what the future holds around this level of regulation.

Hon. J. Kwan: The work will be completed, as I said earlier, by the interim CEO, and we will have all of those criteria in place and will have builders licensed by the January 1,1999. I have every confidence that the interim CEO will indeed do a good job on these matters. That's what he's been hired to do.

Section 8 approved.

On section 9.

L. Reid: I have a number of queries on section 9. I'm talking about this registrar who we yet. . . . We may learn at some future point what this person's skill set truly is, but now we have them entering and examining any premises. I need to know from this minister if indeed that's an enforceable option. If the occupant. . . . Let's refer to section 9(2): "The registrar or person authorized by the registrar may only enter a place occupied as a private residence with the consent of an occupant." If that consent is not forthcoming, what is the next step that this mythical registrar may yet take?

Hon. J. Kwan: I assume that it would be on a complaint basis. If there was no complaint, why would you not approve the applicant's request? But as I said, the work that has been delegated to the interim CEO is to address these issues and to bring them all back and have it ready to go for January 1, 1999.

L. Reid: The minister will need to provide some clarification. She is suggesting that this section will work on a complaint basis. My question was regarding the occupant who has refused entry to this registrar. Who does she anticipate will be putting forth a complaint?

Hon. J. Kwan: As an example, if someone came forward to complain about a homebuilder to the registrar, he or she would then look into that matter to determine his next course of action. So it would be a potential homeowner, as an example, who could possibly launch the complaint.

L. Reid: Just to get clear with this minister on this section, if I am the owner-occupant, and I have asked a builder to come into my home and then I am unhappy with the work he

[ Page 10593 ]

[10:15]

L. Reid: I'm on section 9(4): ". . .a warranty provider must provide reports respecting. . .the risk profile of persons required to be licensed under this Act. . . ." I would like a definition of risk profile -- how it works in this section.

Hon. J. Kwan: Risk profile would be, as an example, how many claims the warranty provider has had on homes built by a particular residential builder. That would be one example.

L. Reid: Could the minister continue to define "other prescribed information"?

Hon. J. Kwan: Another example would be, you know, that local governments could possibly provide information that this particular builder might not have had the necessary approvals at the municipal level. That would be another example.

Section 9 approved.

On section 10.

L. Reid: I'm on section 10(1): "The registrar must collect from residential builders and other persons. . . ." That is where I wish the minister to direct her attention. My read of that means it could include absolutely everyone: subcontractors, renovators and strata property managers. Is that the intention here, to again widen the net and capture absolutely everyone under this section?

Hon. J. Kwan: That section states not just "other persons" but "other persons required to be licensed." Other persons who may be required to be licensed would be, as an example, under section 18, where we referenced earlier renovation work that's being done, or subcontract work, etc.

L. Reid: Section 10(2) says: "Money collected by the registrar under subsection (1). . . ." I have some concerns in terms of exactly where these dollars that come from the licensing will go. We know that the bridge funding from both the federal and the provincial governments will somehow form part of a reconstruction fund that may or may not assist British Columbians. The licensing fees will be enormous: certainly it's been speculated anywhere up to $1,000 per builder. Frankly, a whole lot more than that has been speculated for the initial registrar process, and then an annual fee somewhere in the neighbourhood of $300 or $400. So from all the folks building in the province of British Columbia, that's an enormous sum of money. The cost of running that office will probably not use all the dollars available. What is the intention for the remaining dollars -- the difference between what is brought in from the licensing fees and what the actual office expenditures are?

Hon. J. Kwan: The licensing fees would actually go to finance the homeowner protection office. It is not part of the consolidated revenue fund. Those dollars will simply be there to finance the office and the work that needs to be done through the office.

L. Reid: Let me try this question one more time: what will happen to the difference between the fees collected and the operating costs of the office?

Hon. J. Kwan: As I said, the dollars that are collected will simply go into financing the homeowner protection office and the work that is required through the homeowner protection office. The fee has not yet been set. I'm sure the interim CEO will work out the fee schedule accordingly, to ensure that the office is one that is self-financing.

Sections 10 to 12 inclusive approved.

On section 13.

L. Reid: My concern is the fact that this is fairly broad and does not specifically address the concerns of my hon. colleague from Fort Langley-Aldergrove, when he talked about who indeed has been asked to participate.

My question will be specific to the length of term for these individuals. Again, if I am not able to receive an answer this evening, because it's probably not been done yet, I accept that. But as soon as the information is available, I trust that it will come forward. There are lots of people who believe that they have been excluded from this process already. Yet the minister says that it hasn't happened yet and in fact that none of this will happen until October 1. I question that comment made by the minister. I think that there would be enormous powers placed in the chief executive officer. Frankly, I'm questioning whether or not owners of leaking buildings today will be better served. I don't believe this has anything to do with the people who are affected today. If the minister believes differently, I'd simply ask her to put that on the record.

Hon. J. Kwan: The advisory council is the CEO's advisory council. It is not one which I appoint, nor does cabinet; rather, the CEO will make that appointment. It is my understanding that the interim CEO intends to appoint an advisory council to deal with some of these matters, and he will act accordingly, within the parameters that have been given to him under this legislation.

L. Reid: Can the minister tell me what has been done in terms of responding to the issues around regional representation? What part of the province will we see these individuals come from, in terms of participants, owners, local government, etc.?

Hon. J. Kwan: It is my understanding that the interim CEO has not taken any action on the composition of the advisory council, and I'm sure he'll take your comment into consideration.

L. Reid: Is it the minister's intention, then, in that this bill now impacts the entire province of British Columbia, to advise the interim CEO that it is her wish to see some regional representation found among these advisers?

[ Page 10594 ]

Section 13 approved.

On section 14.

L. Reid: For me, this section is truly the legal framework for a very extensive regulatory overlay. Certainly there are a number of issues that have been raised by a number of different individuals who, from the recommendations of the Barrett commission, truly believed that there would somehow be differences when they were talking about multifamily construction or single-family construction.

That is absolutely not the case here. Everybody has been rolled into the same discussion, yet the expertise required is different if someone is building a single-family home or if someone is building a multifamily residence -- e.g., 800 units in a condominium development is dramatically different from a single-family home. I would hope that the minister can respond to the concerns that have been raised around that licensing request placed upon the registrar. Who makes the recommendation that delineates the skill set required for someone building an 800-unit condominium or a single-family home?

Hon. J. Kwan: Although this work, as I said, will be done through the interim CEO and his appointment, it is likely that we would break it down into different categories as they would apply to the different kinds of builders. The conditions which would be set would be established by cabinet. We would take advice from the interim CEO and work with him on that. He will eventually have an advisory council as well, who will also give him advice with respect to that.

L. Reid: Again, on section 14(7): "Subject to the regulations, the registrar may impose conditions on licences issued or renewed under this Part." Are we to understand that these future regulations will restrict the number of units, whether they be single-family or multifamily, that any builder can build in any given year?

Hon. J. Kwan: That's a possibility.

L. Reid: This is a very alarming section for many people in the building industry today. Your response that it's a possibility will not bring them comfort. We would trust that somewhere before this debate reaches a conclusion, the minister will be able to indicate, if that possibility exists, what the parameters are for that possibility. Would it be based on a certain number of complaints, if you will? Will it be based on a site visit? What exactly will someone's future life and livelihood be based on under this legislation?

Hon. J. Kwan: Clearly the intent of this section is to deal with developers who have shown problems. The intent is not to deal with good developers who have not proven to be problems in the residential construction industry.

L. Reid: If that information is forthcoming, that would, hopefully, allay some of the fears that individuals have about what could be a very onerous section. Unless the minister can indicate at some point how this will have a positive and dramatic impact on the owners of leaky condominiums today, we have some questions as to its viability. Has the minister given some thought as to transitional regulations? Are there opportunities for people to be phased in, in terms of a particular skill set or production phase?

Hon. J. Kwan: Yes. That's under section 36 of the act.

Section 14 approved unanimously on a division. [See Votes and Proceedings.]

[10:30]

L. Reid: On section 15(b) -- "if the residential builder has made a false statement on a material matter. . ." -- could the minister give an example of what that false statement might look like?

Interjections.

The Chair: Hon. members, we do have debate ongoing, so could members please leave quietly from the chamber while they go about their other business.

L. Reid: I have asked the question, but I'm more than prepared to pose it to the minister again. I'm on section 15(b): ". . .if the residential builder has made a false statement on a material matter. . . ." Could the minister give us an example of what a false statement on a material matter might look like?

Hon. J. Kwan: As an example, let's say a residential builder states that he or she has taken a course on particular training, and he or she may not have done so. Or, alternatively, as an example, a residential builder says that he or she is certified, and he or she may not be. That would be an example of a material matter.

Section 15 approved.

Sections 16 and 17 approved.

On section 18.

L. Reid: I'm simply referencing section 18 because it does allow for underregulation for the residential subcontractor and residential renovator. I would simply ask the minister if those individuals who currently have expertise in those areas will be invited to participate on this advisory council. There was no mention of them earlier. In that it's now fairly apparent that the regulation will capture all of those individuals, will the idea receive some consideration by this minister that they indeed be asked to participate in the regulations that govern them?

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

Hon. J. Kwan: As I said earlier, the advisory council is not my advisory council; it is the advisory council of the CEO and the interim CEO, for the duration. . . . I'm sure that the interim CEO will take that into consideration.

Section 18 approved.

Sections 19 to 21 inclusive approved.

[ Page 10595 ]

Hon. J. Kwan: I move the amendment to section 22 that is in the possession of the Clerk.

[SECTION 22,

(a) in the proposed subsection (1) by adding "provided by a warranty provider" after "is covered by home warranty insurance", and

(b) in the proposed subsection (3) by adding "provided by a warranty provider" after "is covered by home warranty insurance".]

On section 22 as amended.

R. Neufeld: On section 22(3), I just want to explore this a little bit further. The member for Richmond East had earlier. . . . The minister referred us to this section. The issue -- and I know it's described as "if required by regulations"; but that tells me that it's probably going to be. . . . "A person must not undertake a renovation or offer for sale or sell a renovated home unless the renovation is covered by home warranty insurance." I have some real problems with that, because I don't know to what extent. . . . If we're talking about someone updating their kitchen in an older home, spending probably $30,000 or $40,000 on a kitchen -- which can happen -- does that mean that the whole house has to be covered under the new-home warranty -- with ten years for structural and five years for water penetration, as described earlier in the bill? Would that be something that would be required? Is that anticipated?

I hope the minister isn't going to tell me that the CEO is going to make this decision, because this is a pretty tough part of this piece of legislation. There are an awful lot of people who buy older homes and renovate them. There are people who do all kinds of work like that. I just don't know how in the world you can contemplate putting the whole structure of a house, let's say, that was built in 1910 under a home warranty program, if all that's done is some internal work. How does that work? I say again that I hope it isn't up to the interim CEO.

Hon. J. Kwan: It clearly states under this section that if required by regulation. . . . Regulations are established by cabinet, not by the CEO or the interim CEO. Our priority in terms of renovations -- I've stated this earlier -- is to ensure that leaky-condo issues are dealt with effectively, and renovation may well be a component of it. If later on down the road it's demonstrated that changes are required to provide for a warranty provision in this area, cabinet has the authority to do that. Clearly, our intent is not to go after people who make renovations to people's kitchens or bathrooms or whatever the case may be. I've stated that earlier as well.

R. Neufeld: So I could be comforted by the minister's words that this section is intended to apply to the renovations in leaky condos only and that there is no intention to go any further than that.

Hon. J. Kwan: That's actually not what I said. What I said was that on the issues around renovations as they relate to the leaky-condo issue, there is authority within the cabinet to set regulations to deal with warranty provisions. In his report, Barrett has very clearly identified that the leaky-condo syndrome is not just restricted to leaky condos; rather, it applies to residential construction in terms of single-family homes, duplexes and other forms of structure as well. The intent here is not to deal with renovations that normally take place in the course of everyday life in terms of minor upgrades, etc. But it does deal with the larger substantive issues, such as that of leaky condos, that we have seen and experienced in British Columbia. This provision allows for cabinet to take action accordingly, if necessary.

Section 22 as amended approved unanimously on a division. [See Votes and Proceedings.]

On section 23.

Hon. J. Kwan: I move the amendment to section 23 that is in the possession of the Clerk.

[SECTION 23, in the proposed subsection (7) by adding "provided by a warranty provider" after "is covered by home warranty insurance".]

Section 23 as amended approved.

On section 24.

L. Reid: The only thing that's missing from section 24 is a commitment on behalf of this government to put in 7 percent PST. I'd ask the minister one last time to rise up and say something that's actually a positive return for owners of leaking condominiums today.

Hon. J. Kwan: The tax measures are actually not part of the reconstruction fund. The reconstruction fund as it was established through the Barrett report clearly states the different contributors to it, including the provincial government, the federal government, the banking institutions and the industry in terms of their contributions to the fund. The tax relief measure is a separate component to the reconstruction fund. As I stated earlier on the tax relief measure, the provincial government would be prepared to enact our component within all the different pieces if the federal government was prepared to step up to the plate and work with us on that.

Sections 24 and 25 approved.

On section 26.

Hon. J. Kwan: I move the amendment to section 26 that is in the possession of the Clerk.

[SECTION 26, in the proposed subsection (4) by adding "issue or" before "renew, or to suspend, cancel or impose".]

L. Reid: Just some clarification. . . . Are we to understand that the minister left out the actual issuing of the permit? That is the amendment. You had them renewed, suspended, cancelled -- or imposed restrictions -- but no one was actually issued a permit. Is the intent of this amendment to actually issue individuals with permits?

Hon. J. Kwan: Indeed, staff had left out the amendment that provides for the authority to refuse to issue a licence to residential builders who do not pay an assessment.

Amendment approved.

[ Page 10596 ]

Sections 27 and 28 approved.

On section 29.

Hon. J. Kwan: I move the amendment to section 29 that is in the possession of the Clerk.

[SECTION 29, in the proposed subsection (1) by deleting "the construction of new homes," and substituting "the construction of homes,".]

L. Reid: I am seeking some clarification on the amendment. Why would it now read "the construction of homes" -- they've now deleted "the construction of new homes"? What is the minister's intent by the deletion of the word "new"?

Hon. J. Kwan: The amendment is to eliminate the unintended limitation that only disputes about newly constructed homes could be resolved under the mediation or arbitration regulations enabled by this legislation.

Amendment approved.

Section 29 as amended approved.

Sections 30 and 31 approved.

On section 32.

R. Neufeld: I have two questions on section 32. Subsection (2)(a) says: ". . .defining, for the purpose of paragraph (d) of the definition of 'new home' in section 1, a class of buildings or portion of a building, including a manufactured home, as a new home to which this Act applies." The bill specifically says "manufactured home." When I asked the minister specifically about this section -- the definitions part -- she was very clear in saying that manufactured homes were not covered. Can the minister tell me why we now mention them as a class of new homes?

Hon. J. Kwan: As I said earlier, manufactured homes are not part of this legislation. This section does provide for the authority of cabinet, if required by OIC down the road, to bring in regulations relating. . . . It's very similar to the issue around renovations. We're not intending to bring in all of the legislation that is in place now. We would look to see -- if, at a later date, these issues do arise as a problem -- that we have a mechanism to deal with that.

R. Neufeld: I understand what the minister is saying. But why in the world would you have it excluded under definitions to start with and then include it later on in the bill? Why wouldn't you just leave it out of the definitions -- and deal with it in a straightforward manner? I mean it's obvious, when you read this whole bill, that you get one answer at the start of the bill and another answer partway through. No one's sure whether it's the minister, the cabinet, the interim CEO, the new CEO, or who in the world's going to make up the rules and regulations around this. It's darn confusing, and I think it's just poor drafting of legislation. To tell me very quickly at the start that manufactured homes are not included, and then later on say, "Oh, but they may be," is just a bit -- I can't say dishonest, but a bit misleading, I think, and this whole bill tends to make one think that.

Hon. J. Kwan: I would clearly disagree with the member opposite. In the definition section, under section 1(d), it clearly states: ". . .any building or portion of a building of a class prescribed by the regulations as a new home to which this Act applies, but does not include a manufactured home unless otherwise prescribed." As I said earlier, the provisions that are in place, unless it is otherwise prescribed, give the authority to cabinet that if problems do arise down the road, there would be a mechanism to deal with those matters.

R. Neufeld: Well, I very clearly remember the minister telling me that manufactured homes weren't a problem. She very clearly stated in this House, just about a half-hour ago, that manufactured homes were not a problem. So they're not included in the act. That was your response. Now we're down to section 32(2)(a), and all of a sudden they could be a problem; they may be a problem. Well, could, may, have and whatever. . . . It's bad legislation when you start writing it that way. Either be straightforward with people and tell them what you're dealing with or don't do it at all.

The second question I have is under section 32(2)(f)(v): ". . .exempting areas of British Columbia from the application of all or any portion of this Act and the regulations." Now, this isn't under the purview of the interim CEO -- I don't think so, but it might be. This deals with regulations. Can the minister maybe enlighten us a little bit about what areas of British Columbia she's talking about, or is this something to be determined completely in the future?

Hon. J. Kwan: I made it very clear that in the cases where the legislation is actually in place to deal with it, it would immediately take effect upon the three stages of this piece of legislation being passed in the House. I stated very clearly, too, that if problems should arise in other areas, cabinet would have the authority to deal with these matters. The manufactured home component is one of them; the renovation component is another example.

On the issue around subsection (2)(f), it is within the authority of cabinet to deal with this matter through OIC; on the issue around exemptions, it is within the authority of cabinet to determine what kind of exemptions would be applicable. The last piece that really ties into your question relating to this matter is the transition component as well. Dealing with the leaky-condo issue is a priority of this government. Where construction is outside of the southern part of the province, we would apply regulations when those areas show problems relating to residential construction -- where, as an example, we would apply the levy that was mentioned earlier by another member.

[11:00]

Hon. J. Kwan: No, the levy is actually not defined in the act; it would be defined in regulations.

G. Farrell-Collins: I think the member for Peace River North makes a valid point: either include mobile homes in the

[ Page 10597 ]

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: And exemptions work the same way.

Mobile homes have been around for a long time. Either there's a problem or there isn't a problem. If there's no problem, then don't put them in the legislation. If a problem arises in the future, come back to the House and ask for approval to change the legislation, and we'll change the legislation if that's what's required. But to draft legislation that is designed around problems that the minister isn't even aware of yet is pretty ridiculous. What's the point? The only rationale that one can find for having it there is so that at some later date when the regulations are drafted and the levy is determined and assigned, the levy can be applied to a broader range of homes than what is currently contemplated or what was initially contemplated by the leaky-condo legislation.

This whole idea, this whole bill, was structured around a response to leaky condominiums. Now what the government is doing is enabling themselves to cast the net far and wide on any abode in the province, through some change in regulations, without having to come to the House, just quietly doing it on their own, to establish a levy on mobile homes, residential houses, condominiums, renovations, summer homes, cottages, pup tents -- who knows? Essentially, anything can have a levy. Maybe even the 1,500 new campsites are going to have a $1,000 levy on them -- who knows? But clearly, what the government is doing -- the only reason for having this here -- is to cast the net far and wide to increase the revenue from the levy. What other possible reason is there for it? There are no problems that the minister has been able to identify to this House with regard to mobile home construction. So why is it there in the first place? What imaginary problems does the minister contemplate to need this catch-all? The House is not in the habit of giving ministers of the Crown legislation and powers that they don't require but feel they might need some time in the future. That's not the way it works.

Hon. J. Kwan: As the member opposite knows, the residential construction industry is very complex. The problems identified through the leaky-condo commission by Dave Barrett have identified a whole range of areas and also clearly indicate that the leaky-condo problem is a very complex item as well. In the Barrett commission's work, they found that there are issues dealing with leaky condos, but not restricted to them, and he has indeed expanded the definition of leaky condos to include other sectors as well. The purpose of this act is to meet those different issues that have been identified through the Barrett report and, where necessary, to provide for cabinet the authority to deal with problems that come up.

G. Farrell-Collins: Can the minister tell me where in Dave Barrett's report he makes reference to leaky mobile homes? Which recommendation?

Hon. J. Kwan: Specifically with respect to the manufactured home items, it was actually identified by industry as an issue for us to look at. They advised my staff that they would want this to be included. So it's a provision for us to deal with.

G. Farrell-Collins: Certainly no representation has been made in public that I've ever seen. Certainly none of the presentations to Mr. Barrett's commission nor Mr. Barrett's report indicated a demand or a public outcry or a necessity to include manufactured homes in this legislation. Where's the public outcry to have this? I don't hear the consumers complaining about that. I certainly don't hear the public at Mr. Barrett's hearings complaining about it, and there was certainly nothing in Mr. Barrett's commission report about it. Despite the wide range that Mr. Barrett set up in his report, he did not include manufactured homes. So why do manufactured homes appear in here? The minister claims that someone in industry asked for it to be there? Who?

Hon. J. Kwan: This legislation is not just an enactment of Barrett's recommendations. It includes other consultations with other people throughout the number of years in which this work has been done. The Barrett commission is the thrust, I should say, in terms of the report, but it is not the only component to this legislation. And staff, through the different tables, have consulted with industry, and manufactured homes was identified as an issue.

G. Farrell-Collins: I'm not going to belabour the point, but I'm sure that the member for Malahat-Juan de Fuca would agree with me that there are a lot of problems in the manufactured home field in the province of British Columbia that need to be addressed. I'm just shocked that this appears here, because leaky manufactured homes isn't one of them. There are other problems about residency, there are other problems about access, but this isn't one of them. I have never in the time I've dealt with manufactured homes. . . . When I was the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove, I had two large parks. I can never recall construction being a specific issue that came to me, although I must say I had lots of representations and lots of dealings with people from manufactured home parks. So I don't know where this came from, other than somebody sitting there drafting just came up with it on their own. Or, which I think is probably the more likely one: who all can we tack this levy on? If we need money in this fund and we need to pay for this bureaucracy and administration, let's find as many places as we can to put the levy.

Essentially, what can happen here by regulation is that cabinet can decide to include manufactured homes in this, and every manufactured home that is built -- or, probably, imported into the province -- would be subject to a levy that would have to go to this fund to pay for the bureaucracy that the government's setting up. It would seem to me that one of the reasons people choose manufactured homes is affordability, and the government is going to tack on $1,000, $2,000, $3,000, $4,000 to a manufactured home, and people who generally can't afford to go out and buy other options for homes are left holding the bag to solve a problem that isn't a problem for them. Why would the government choose to burden lower-income people who are choosing a type of housing that is affordable for them? Why would the government choose to protect them from a problem they don't have and bill them for it?

Hon. J. Kwan: As I stated earlier, this has nothing to do with levying a fee. It is to do with homeowner protection. That is what this is about. If there are problems that surface from communities or areas -- or categories of types of buildings, if you will -- then a levy will apply. But the fact is that the member opposite, it would appear to me, is trying to manufacture a fear in the community in terms of increased cost -- and that's simply not the case.

[ Page 10598 ]

Hon. J. Kwan: What I have said very clearly, time and again, is that in the areas where there would be a problem and if it's been highlighted as a problem, there would be regulations, warranty provisions, that would be applicable to it. If those areas have not been identified as a problem, then those regulations would not be applicable to them, including the levy.

The Chair: Members, I think we're getting repetitive here.

G. Farrell-Collins: I'm merely trying to get a clear answer to a clear question. The question is evolving as it goes along -- as we corner the rabbit, I suppose you might say.

Can the minister assure this House that no levy will be applied to manufactured homes unless the manufactured home owners come to the government and say that they have a problem, and that the levy that is applied to them will only apply to manufactured homes? Can she assure us that the owners of manufactured homes will not be swept up in some other broader problem that the government has and end up becoming part of these regulations and having to pay a levy at some time in the future for a problem that does not apply directly to manufactured homes? Can she assure us that that will not happen?

Hon. J. Kwan: It is not the intent of this legislation to apply it to areas where there would not be a problem relating to protection for homeowners, including manufactured homes.

G. Farrell-Collins: As long as there are no problems with manufactured homes, there'll be no levy and no regulations for manufactured homes. Is that correct?

Hon. J. Kwan: Yes.

R. Neufeld: Back to subsection (2)(f)(v). Can the minister tell me -- and again, I know this is something that cabinet will decide in the future -- if they are contemplating covering federal land and aboriginal land within British Columbia? How will this act apply?

Hon. J. Kwan: This does not apply to aboriginal lands.

R. Neufeld: Will this apply to federal land within British Columbia?

Hon. J. Kwan: On any housing built on federal land but not reserve land, this would be applicable.

R. Thorpe: With respect to regulation, on July 8 of this year the Business Task Force recommended that all new regulations go before a committee for review prior to the implementation of such regulations. Is it the minister's intention to take these new regulations, which are going to be produced, and put those through a committee for review before they're implemented?

Hon. J. Kwan: No.

R. Thorpe: So this government, which has received a report from the Business Task Force, which the Minister of Finance is the chair of, on cutting red tape, streamlining doing business in British Columbia, making it easier to operate, is not going to adhere to the first recommendation of that task force. Is that correct? I wasn't sure that I heard the answer I want to hear. Will these regulations go before that joint government and business community committee for review before implementation?

Hon. J. Kwan: The answer is no.

[11:15]

Hon. J. Kwan: The licensing fee would be based on the cost of the licensing program itself. It may fluctuate depending on the different categories of residential builders.

R. Coleman: I just want to ask a question relative to subsection (2)(j), and that is with regards to the requirement of "municipalities and regional districts to collect assessments under section 26 from applicants for building permits, and to forward to the office the amounts collected." Is the office going to pay any of the costs of labour and administration that are applicable back to the municipalities in order to collect that fee -- for their staff time in order to collect that and forward it to the office?

Hon. J. Kwan: Subsection (2)(j) is, again, something that cabinet may enact. Right now it is not our intention to enact that subsection. In any event, if it were to be in place, the costs would be very minimal and would be in conjunction with local government processing the building permits.

R. Coleman: At the peak period, there are 44,000 residential units constructed in British Columbia in a year. I would think that the administration of the collection of fees on 44,000 units, even in the downside of the market at 22,000 -- where we are today -- is a substantial cost for somebody to have to collect, process and forward that fee to the office. If you have no intention of enacting the regulation to collect the fee, how do you plan on getting your money otherwise? How can you say "may or may not" when you're already planning to collect it? How are you going to collect it if you don't use this section to do so?

Hon. J. Kwan: The HPO actually collects the licensing fees, not the municipalities.

R. Coleman: I guess the point we should make and what we should probably tell the public tomorrow is that this is another download on municipalities from this government relative to the administration costs that they're going to have to put forward on behalf of an agency of the government. I'd like to know how the Minister of Municipal Affairs is going to justify that to the mayors and councillors across the province when they find out that all of a sudden they have to do another administrative duty for the provincial government, to collect fees.

Hon. J. Kwan: I thought I was clear in saying that the fee would actually be collected by the HPO and not the municipalities.

[ Page 10599 ]

Hon. J. Kwan: Let me try this one more time. What I said was the annual fee would be collected by the HPO and not the municipality.

Interjection.

Hon. J. Kwan: And if I may continue, because a member says. . . . That's not what it says. What it says is that cabinet may enact by regulation this subsection, and what I'm telling the members opposite is that it is the intent of the government to have the HPO collect the assessment and not for municipalities to make that collection.

G. Farrell-Collins: This is one of the more bizarre pieces of legislation I have ever seen in the time I've been here, and it happens from time to time throughout here. . . . The whole set of regulations that the government may pass. . . . The minister is telling us that she has absolutely no intention of doing any of them. Why is it in there? This one is a full two pages of regulations that the government can pass, which the minister has no intention of passing, of implementing. Why are they there? Why not come back to the House when you need them?

It seems to me that either the government doesn't have a clue what it's doing around this, or it just wants a wide-open range to be able to do whatever they want. It's like somebody sat down and drafted your dream legislation. If the minister was all-powerful and sat on a throne with a magic wand, what powers would she have? These are the ones. Then, sort of after the fact: "Well, then I'll go back to cabinet and see if they'll actually give it to me. I'll see if I can get the charges with my magic wand."

The point is: why put all these here if you have no intention of asking for them? Why are they there in the first place? What's required, if the minister has no intention of asking for those powers? Why are they here?

Hon. J. Kwan: With respect to subsection (j), it is not the intention of the ministry to enact or recommend to cabinet to enact this piece of legislation. The question is asked: why is it there? Well, because circumstances may change down the road, and if that should happen, there's a provision to enable those actions to be taken. But specifically on subsection (j), it is the intent of the ministry to have the HPO collect the fees.

G. Farrell-Collins: The way it normally works is the minister comes and asks for the powers that he or she needs in order to do the things that he or she feels they need to do, and they ask the Legislature for that power. We talk about it, we debate it, we vote on it, and the minister does or doesn't get it. You don't come here with a wish list of what you might do if the sky turned red tomorrow, what you might have to do to respond to that. . .

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: . . .or as the member said, if a manufactured home started leaking. This is a sort of in-any-case scenario -- any scenario that could possibly be imagined by the ministry is contained in this legislation, although the minister has no intention of ever implementing them unless, you know, "situations may arise." Well, we might be invaded tomorrow by, I don't know, Russia, and we might need some home improvement legislation at that time, but come back and ask for it then. Why do you need it now? It's ridiculous. It's absolutely the most asinine thing I've ever seen: two pages of regulation power being asked for by a minister who has absolutely no intention of implementing them. It makes absolutely no sense to put them here unless the government has every intention of implementing them and just doesn't want to be upfront and tell people the truth.

Hon. J. Kwan: The purpose of the legislation and some of the provisions here is to make sure that it is a comprehensive piece of legislation that deals with homeowner protection for British Columbians.

R. Coleman: Let's be really clear here. What we have is section 32 regulation, which is a giant smoking gun that says we're going to try to get a fee out of manufactured homes whether they're built in this province or in another province. In the case of manufactured homes, they're also built to different qualifications and standards relative to CSA, and what have you, because of their mobility. We're going to go after them. We're going to prescribe renovations. It could be the kitchen in the heritage house, because we haven't made up our minds yet what it's going to be. So, look out, renovators. Look out, manufactured home builders. Look out, subtrades. Look out, subcontractors and anybody else that may walk on a property.

The next thing you're going to say is that landscapers are going to have some impact on the leaking in the basement of a house, and therefore we're going to throw them into this regulation somewhere. This is absolutely ridiculous. You want to throw it all in here, but you don't have the foggiest idea where you're going to apply it. You've told the whole industry: "Look out, we're coming after every nickel and dime we can get out of you on a levy or a fee, and by the way, municipalities, we're going to make you collect it for free." That's what that tells me in this section. If you can walk away from here and implement all this, that's what you can get away with.

L. Reid: Still on subsection (2)(j), if this minister actually reads this section, what it says is that the dollars that were normally retained within municipalities from building permit costs are now being forwarded to the homeowner protection office. I can tell you that mayors and councillors in this province look at this as a section that's only about theft. They do not see anything else happening under this section other than that this gives this minister the opportunity to take dollars from them that they previously retained within their municipalities.

I would ask for her to get to her feet and bring some comfort to municipalities and councillors across this province who truly see this as an opportunity for this homeowner protection office to garner dollars that they previously held in their accounts. To follow up on my colleague from Fort Langley-Aldergrove, the cost of this collection and disbursement will be fairly large. Again, the minister has made no consideration for the costs of that collection. How does she respond to both of those questions?

Hon. J. Kwan: I know the hour is late, and there are a lot of conspiracy theories going on, but with respect to subsection

[ Page 10600 ]

Interjection.

Hon. J. Kwan: That's what it says: ". . .from applicants for building permits" -- not building permit fees. I want to state that very clearly for the member opposite, who seems to have some thoughts around conspiracies around this issue.

As I've stated earlier, in terms of the assessment collection issue, the levy would be collected by the HPO; it would not be collected by municipalities. Therefore they would not actually incur any expenditure to that effect.

G. Plant: I understand we're talking about the collection of assessments under section 26. We're talking about the power that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council is going to be given, if this section passes, to make regulations that would require municipalities and regional districts to collect those assessments. The minister is essentially saying that it's the intention of the government to have those section 26 assessments paid to the HPO. I don't want to pretend that I am in any way an expert on this statute, but I can't find the provision in the statute that authorizes the payment to the HPO directly without the regulation.

[11:30]

G. Plant: Actually, unless I'm missing the particular line in section 25, section 25 talks about the office. Once they've got the money, the office then has to pay it to the credit of the program. It says that once that money is paid, then it's the property of the office. But it doesn't have anything in it that obliges anybody to pay the money to the office, unless I'm missing it again. Maybe the minister can try one more time and tell me why I'm wrong or tell me the other place that that obligation arises.

I'm sure that it will become important, because there's bound to be at least one person in British Columbia who's not going to pay this assessment, or not going to want to. I'd hate for the government to have to go off to court and have the court say: "Well, interesting question, but there doesn't seem to be any obligation here that requires the assessment to be paid to the office."

Hon. J. Kwan: The reference from section 25 actually refers to section 26, which states that a licence fee be payable under section 14(2). If you go to section 14(2), it states that the fee that's levied will be payable to the office, which is the homeowner protection office.

G. Plant: I see. So we shouldn't have looked at section 25; we should have looked at section 26(1), and the assessment is going to be part of a licence fee payable under section 14(2). Is that the way it's going to work?

Hon. J. Kwan: You should look at section 25(1)(b). From section 25(1)(b), then you should go to section 26(1), and from section 26(1), you should go to section 14(2).

G. Plant: I wish I were helped, but now I see a regime set up that talks about licence fees and assessments being included in all of that, and then it says: no, we need to have regulations requiring municipalities and regional districts to collect assessments.

I guess the question is: is the assessment going to be part of a licence fee or not? Or does the government have any idea at this point?

Hon. J. Kwan: The assessment is part of the licence fee, which is why it is being dealt with through the HPO.

R. Coleman: That's unbelievable. You just said that the assessment is part of the licence fee. Does that mean that a builder is going to go get a licence every time they build a unit and then pay the levy, or are you attaching the levy to the builder's licence because he needs a special licence? Frankly, you've just confused me substantially on this one, and I'd like you to run back through this for a second.

You referred to section 25(1), then you went over to section 26, and then you went to section 14(2). Section 14(2) says: "On application to the registrar, a person may be issued with a licence as a residential builder. . . ." What does that have to do with the fee -- with the assessment on the unit that is going to the reconstruction fund -- and how are you getting a reconstruction fund payment and then the licence fee? I see there's two collections taking place here. One is a licensing fee, and one is the levy. Your statement was that the levy will be collected under section 14(2), and section 14(2) deals with the licensing fee for a contractor.

Hon. J. Kwan: The licence fee is the fee that would apply for a builder who has to demonstrate to the registrar of the HPO that he or she is qualified to build. Therefore there would be a once-a-year licence fee that would apply. The assessment, however, would be configured differently, and the assessment of the dollars that would be the levy for it to go into the reconstruction program. Barrett suggested as an example that it be a $1,000 fee on a unit basis. As I said earlier, what we will do is engage with industry to discuss a formula for that. Through the interim CEO, I would engage in discussions with them. That's how the assessment component would apply.

The question was raised: who would collect these fees and how does it link back to the different sessions? Who would collect the fees would be through the homeowner protection office.

R. Coleman: Maybe we could go back to the convoluted description that brought us to the licensing fee, which is an annual fee for a licence. Could the minister tell me where the authority is for the homeowner protection office to collect the levy? I'll call it a levy so that we're not confused. The levy is the assessment. The licence is the licence. Where is the authority for the levy -- not for the licence, which is what we referred to in section 14(2)? Where's the authority for that office to collect the money? There's authority to deal with the money. Where's the authority to collect the money?

Hon. J. Kwan: Section 26(1).

G. Farrell-Collins: Section 26(1) says: "For the purposes of the program, the Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations prescribing an annual assessment that must be paid by prescribed categories of residential builders as part

[ Page 10601 ]

Hon. J. Kwan: On the issue around a licence fee. . . . That is, a builder who is seeking the authority to build has to go the HPO to demonstrate that he or she is a qualified builder. There will be an annual licence fee that would apply. It would not, I imagine, be that the builder would go to the homeowner protection office to pay for their annual licence fee and, in addition to that, would also pay for the assessment in terms of the levy that would apply to them. That would be under a separate formula, and the collection of that would be at a separate time when the licence fee is being applied.

G. Farrell-Collins: Section 26(1) is clear. It says: ". . .as part of a licence fee. . . ." So the individual builder is going to go in and apply for a licence. The minister says that that's done on an annual basis. So as part of that licence fee. . . . I'm there; my licence fee is -- I don't know -- $1,000 or $500 or $20. I don't know what it's going to be. I'm also at that time requested to pay an assessment based on the number and types of units that I am going to be constructing. The minister is telling me that I would be doing that at another time. Then it's not part of my licence fee. It's not part of the licence fee if you're paying it some other time down the road. It's a separate collection, and it shouldn't be. . . . It's not done the way the minister is telling us that it's to be done under section 26(1) and section 14(2).

Hon. J. Kwan: The collection of the fees. . . . The member opposite raised one scenario where a builder could pay retroactively back to the number of units they had built and then pay the licence fee at that time. Alternatively, it could be under a different scenario, where a person would actually agree to pay but pay at a different time until the completion of the units or some other time which would be agreed upon. That's the work that would be done in consultation with the industry, in conjunction with the formula that would apply to the levy.

R. Coleman: Let's try and straighten this out. You have an act here that's premised on the fact that people aren't going to build in British Columbia unless they're a registered licensed builder. That means they have to be licensed. So they get a licence under section 14(2). Now, the minister just said that they could get their licence retroactively and pay their assessment retroactively, which means you have a group of people who haven't met your qualifications that you want to allow to go build houses or condos and then pay everything at the end. This means that your operation will be totally in contravention of the bill you've brought to the House, because you won't be doing what you said the bill is supposed to accomplish.

You have a licence fee. Somebody gets a licence for a year; that's a given. Section 14(2) deals with that. We also have a levy, and let's, for lack of a better description, go back to the recommendation of the Barrett report and say $1,000 a unit on construction of a residence. Now we have this $1,000 levy. A builder is going to build a condominium project of ten condominiums -- that's $10,000 in fees. Where is the authority to collect that $10,000 in fees, and when and how are you going to collect those fees? If you're going to do it retroactively, how are you going to protect yourself against the title when you've had the unit sold and you're waiting for the fee to come in from a builder who you may not even have licensed, because you just talked about retroactively licensing him as well? Let's get clear on exactly how you want to operate here: when do you want to license the builder, when and how do you want to collect the fee, and who has the authority to collect the fee?

Hon. J. Kwan: To the question about what section would apply to collecting the levy, that is section 26(1). It provides for the ability to collect the licensing fee as well as the assessment fees. There are different scenarios in terms of how and when that could be done. One example would be to do it retroactively; one would be not to do it as a retroactive component. The parameters in setting out the details of how and when those fees would be collected will be worked through with industry in conjunction with when the formula on the levy will be established. We're open to listening to them, to what their suggestions may be. We would have the authority on this when the licensing program is in place on January 1, 1999.

[11:45]

Now, the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove has just illustrated that the minister can choose to say: "Okay. Once a year, the individual is going to come in and pay their licensing fee, and as part of that licensing fee, they're also going to pay the assessment retroactively, determined by the number of units that they built in the preceding year." That would be one way. If the minister has another way. . . . Let me put it this way: if you do it that way, it won't work, because the individual will already have built the units that you're asking them to be licensed for. So that won't work.

The other alternative is this: the individual goes in and pays a licensing fee and then has to pay an assessment for units that they may build in the future. The individual doesn't know how many units they may build in the upcoming year, and therefore you can't do it that way. The way this bill fails is in subsection 26(1), where it says that the assessment needs to be "part of a licence fee." There is no feasible way to collect the licence fee and the assessment at the same time, with the assessment as part of the licence fee. There is no feasible way to do that and still ensure that you're achieving the purposes of this bill: to protect the consumer and to ensure that those assessments are paid into the fund. There is absolutely no way to do that and at the same time ensure that you have a licensed builder who has followed the guidelines to register. What the minister is asserting simply cannot be done with this legislation. It cannot be done.

[ Page 10602 ]

Hon. J. Kwan: Actually, for the member, they voted in favour of section 26 as well. Having said that, though, I'm confident that the legislation provides for what we need to do and what the intent of this bill is in terms of the licensing fee and the assessment levy.

The Chair: The Chair would suggest that we've probably made as much progress as we can on this section, unless the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove has something new to add.

R. Coleman: I will reduce my comments slightly. I guess you're making progress when you're going in reverse. I guess you're just not going anywhere here. All I can say to the minister is: remember the Builders Lien Act of last year, with a section that absolutely shut down an entire act's ability to perform. I think you've got three or four sections in this act that just shut you down. You have inconsistent language and an inconsistent relationship, and I'm still not even sure that you've actually entrenched in your legislation the authority to collect the money when you can collect the money other than the licensing fee, but you still haven't tied it right back to the home protection office. So I guess we can move on. We have a flawed piece of legislation that is so inconsistent and inaccurate that we're going to be back here next year discussing some way to rewrite this or do something with it.

Section 32 approved on division.

On section 33.

R. Thorpe: Can the minister advise whether the regulations she contemplates making under this section will be sent to an independent committee for review prior to their implementations as was recommended in the first report of the Business Task Force, submitted to this government on July 8?

Hon. J. Kwan: That is for the minister's determination, and I have not made up my mind on that matter.

R. Thorpe: I realize that it's ten to 12, and I realize that this is fairly complicated, but could the minister please explain to me why she hasn't made up her mind about what to do with the regulations here? She had clearly made up her mind with respect to the previous section, where she said no. I'm just wondering why we would have that inconsistency as it pertains to section 33.

Hon. J. Kwan: All of those decisions are up to cabinet. In this instance, it is the minister's decision. Because these sections are not actually in place. . . . When and if regulations are in place with respect to this section, I will determine whether or not I would want to refer to a committee on these matters.

R. Thorpe: There was a bit of noise from the far corner in the House, and I wasn't sure if the minister said that she would send them for possible review after they were in place. Is that what I heard? That's what I thought I heard, and I was just wondering if I could ask the minister to clarify that.

Hon. J. Kwan: With respect to section 33, the question is whether or not I would send it to a committee for review, and the answer is that I may or may not do so. Given that section 33 is not enacted, I have no regulation in place at this time. I have not made any determination as to what I may or may not do given that section 33 is actually not enacted.

L. Reid: In that this is the section that allows the minister to actually do something, I would simply ask what she intends to do under this section that would be of benefit to the owners of leaky condominiums today. Certainly the legislation has not addressed their issues. They got an audience from this government, but not much else. Again, if the minister has something that might have a positive impact, I would ask her to share it with us now.

Hon. J. Kwan: Section 33 provides the minister with the authority to make certain technical regulations necessary to implement the act. Amongst other things, it also provides for the minister to establish the information which must be made available to the public about licensees.

Sections 33 to 43 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. J. Kwan: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Bill 46, Homeowner Protection Act, reported complete with amendments.

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

Hon. J. Kwan: By leave now.

Leave granted.

Bill 46, Homeowner Protection Act, read a third time and passed on the following division:

YEAS -- 35
Evans	Zirnhelt	McGregor
Kwan	Hammell	Boone
Streifel	Pullinger	Lali
Orcherton	Stevenson	Calendino
Goodacre	Walsh	Randall
Gillespie	Robertson	Conroy
Petter	Miller	G. Clark
Dosanjh	MacPhail	Lovick
Ramsey	Waddell	Hartley
Sihota	Smallwood	Sawicki
Bowbrick	Kasper	Doyle
Giesbrecht		Janssen

[ Page 10603 ]

 

NAYS -- 25
Farrell-Collins	de Jong	Plant
Abbott	Reid	Neufeld
Chong	Whittred	Jarvis
Anderson	Penner	G. Wilson
Weisgerber	Weisbeck	Nebbeling
Hogg	Hawkins	Coleman
Hansen	Thorpe	Symons
van Dongen	Dalton	Krueger
	McKinnon

Hon. J. MacPhail: I call second reading of Bill 50.

[12:00]

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT (No. 3), 1998
(second reading)

This bill contains amendments to 15 different statutes. I will now provide a very brief description of each amendment.

Interjections.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Maybe not so brief, hon. Speaker.

An important health care issue respecting organ transplants is addressed by this bill. The Human Tissue Gift Act is being amended to give cabinet the authority to make regulations that will specify standards and protocols related to transplantation of organs and tissues. There will be two facets to these regulations. First, the regulations will set out the terms and conditions for the manner in which efforts are made to seek a consent to organ donation. Second, the regulation will establish a mandatory requirement for the notification of an agency, such as the British Columbia Transplant Society, when the death of a possible donor has occurred or is imminent.

At this time I would like to take a moment to thank the hon. member for Rossland-Trail for being such a vocal supporter of organ donation and for helping prompt these amendments to the Human Tissue Gift Act. Twice a transplant recipient, the hon. member recently stated: "I'm alive today because of organ donation, but many British Columbians are still on wait-lists. It's essential that the supply of suitable organs for transplant be increased, and these protocols will be a major step in this regard."

Bill 50 also amends section 97 of the Ministry of Land Act to expand the authority of the Minister of Environment to delegate certain ministerial powers to a government corporation. This is an administrative housekeeping matter that will lead to major improvements in the timely processing of applications for tenure on provincial Crown land. Environmental policy, which remains unchanged, will continue to be directed entirely within and by the Ministry of Environment.

Section 105 of the Land Act is similarly amended to extend the right to enter Crown lands and premises to employees of a government corporation designated under an amended section 97 of the act.

Bill 50 also amends the Lands, Parks and Housing Act and the Perpetuity Act to protect the provincial government's investment in affordable housing. These amendments will ensure that affordable housing that has been developed with the help of provincial subsidies cannot be used for other purposes or converted into private equity. The amendments will apply to about 1,200 units that are currently being developed under Homes B.C., the provincial government's housing program, and future affordable housing developments that receive financial assistance from the province. This will ensure that assets acquired by non-profit societies and cooperatives through government housing programs continue to be devoted to providing affordable housing when properties are transferred or redeveloped. Protecting affordable housing will ensure that people with low incomes, including families with children, seniors and people with mental or physical disabilities, have decent housing today and in the future. This is part of the provincial government's affordable housing strategy to help build diverse, sustainable communities.

Amendments to the Liquor Control and Licensing Act will provide the general manger with the power to provide an exemption to the tied-house and anti-inducement provisions of the act, so that liquor suppliers and a very few large licensed establishments with a sport or cultural focus may enter into arrangements in which the supplier's product is given prominence in the establishment. These types of facilities are very expensive to build and operate. The amendment will allow these facilities to generate additional revenue to permit them to feature sport and cultural events for British Columbians.

Bill 50, together with other interim measures that the provincial government is taking in the months leading up to the introduction of new gaming legislation, is a necessary step in the provincial government's commitment to meet the goal of organized gaming. The amendments contained in this bill have been the subject of questions in question period, debate in the newspapers and other media. Therefore I need say no more, other than just two very brief things.

Interjections.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The hon. member might want to grieve if he's sorry. This is not the place for it.

I have elaborated on the amendments with respect to gaming before, and I will do so again. With the amendments contained in this bill with respect to gaming, we have attempted to rectify an error that was contained in the establishment of the Gaming Commission right from 1986-87. In reliance upon those arrangements, government levied fees and collected about $100 million over the last 12 years or so. Obviously those moneys became part of the revenues collected and part of the expenditures incurred by governments -- five different administrations over the last 12 years or so.

To protect that revenue, these amendments are being made retroactively -- as well, to protect charities. If anyone could sue the government, so could the charities be at risk of being sued.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, the minister has the floor. Opportunity for debate will occur shortly.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: So it is important for us to make sure that charities ought not to be at risk of losing over $1 billion that they have collected from gaming over the past 12 years.

[ Page 10604 ]

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, it's difficult to hear the Attorney General's comments. Hon. members, the opportunity for debate will occur shortly, and I'm sure you all will want to be part of it. Let us hear the minister's remarks.

Interjections.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Speaker, I am very comfortable. If I wasn't comfortable, I wouldn't be standing here.

Let me spend a little more time on this issue -- more than I wanted to, perhaps, just to answer some of the criticism. We have in the opposition opposite individuals who don't recognize that retroactive legislation has been used by governments for decades -- as long as the institution of parliament has been in place. The Motor Fuel Tax Act of 1990 is a recent example of that which corrected an error with respect to motor fuel tax collected back in 1975 and '76. Are we going to say that. . . ? The federal government has used retroactive legislation. The government of Alberta has used retroactive legislation recently to deal with mining issues. The question is: are we going to say that a government that has collected levies and fees over the last 12 years -- five different administrations -- where they acted in good faith, and now that an error is discovered. . . ? They acted in good faith. That revenue is being used. . . .

Interjections.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: These members opposite say that we should now have to pay that revenue away. If we don't protect that revenue and along with that we don't protect charities from similar attacks, these members would stand up tomorrow and say that this government has been irresponsible and has not acted.

K. Krueger: They need protection from you.

The Speaker: Hon. member for Kamloops-North Thompson, please. Interventions that are useful might be helpful. In the meantime, the Attorney General has the floor.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Moving on to other amendments, the Municipal Act and the Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act are amended in the following ways. The first amendment will clarify municipalities' authority to adopt bylaws that prohibit smoking in various premises such as restaurants. The second amendment will validate lease agreements assumed by local governments and other airport bodies when they accepted the transfer of airport lands from the federal government.

The third amendment will validate an agreement under which Pitt Meadows leased municipal land for the construction and operation of an ice arena. This amendment is in keeping with the approach being taken in Bill 31, the Local Government Statutes Amendment Act, 1998, to remove obstacles to public-private partnerships. Bill 31 eliminates the lease restrictions that are at issue in the agreement.

[12:15]

Bill 50 also amends the Pension (Public Service) Act. These amendments are necessary to implement portions of the pending contract agreement with the British Columbia Government and Service Employees Union. As part of the tentative agreement between the BCGEU and the Public Service Employee Relations Council, a number of changes to the public service pension plan were agreed to. Some of these changes require immediate legislative amendments to the Pension (Public Service) Act, which governs the public service pension plan.

An amendment to the Public Education Labour Relations Act will help ensure that the government's original objectives of improving collective bargaining practices and procedures and promoting positive working relationships in public education are more fully met. The amendments are necessary to confirm government's original intent that the Public Education Labour Relations Act provide accreditation to the British Columbia Public School Employers Association as the sole bargaining agent for school boards across British Columbia. This amendment clearly delineates that British Columbia Public School Employers Association is the accredited bargaining agent for support staff as well as teachers in the public education sector. It is consistent with the collective bargaining practice of support staff unions, school districts and employers' associations from the introduction of the act in 1994 to December of 1997.

It was in December 1997 when the Labour Relations Board ruled that the language of the act was not clear enough to invest the employers' association with exclusive bargaining authority for support staff. This amendment clarifies the language in the act.

The proposed amendment will help ensure a coordinated approach to the complex bargaining at a time when the vast majority of support staff employees will be working under expired collective agreements. School districts will continue to be delegated the authority to negotiate collective agreements that will be given final ratification by the employers' association. This will ensure that the unions are given the opportunity to negotiate equitable agreements and that school districts can be fully informed in regard to support staff bargaining by the employers' association. This amendment will help ensure that support staff bargaining practices minimize the number of potential disputes.

Amendments to the Public Service Labour Relations Act amend the definition of "employee" in a variety of housekeeping ways -- for example, by deleting the named positions that no longer exist. The definition of employee is changed by reducing the period during which an individual can be retained without being considered to be an employee for the purposes of the act.

These amendments provide the status quo in relation to the makeup and jurisdiction of the bargaining units within the

[ Page 10605 ]

Finally, the amendments require that strike action needs only a majority of the bargaining unit members that used to vote as opposed to the current requirement for a majority of the members of the bargaining unit. This amendment is consistent with the strike vote requirements of the Labour Code of British Columbia.

A statute revision correction respecting the Social Service Tax Act will make express reference to certain transitional refund provisions which were not included in the new, revised version of the Social Service Tax Act when the statutes of British Columbia were revised last year. Expressed reference to those provisions is being included in the revised version of the Social Service Tax Act as a result of concerns expressed about the need to make known the continuing availability of the transitional refund provisions. This inclusion will make it clear that the transitional refund provisions remain available to those who may still qualify.

Recent legislative initiatives in North America to encourage greater competition in the electricity sector have resulted in a rapidly changing electricity market in the jurisdictions which are B.C.'s major electricity trading partners, such as the Pacific Northwest states, California and Alberta. The province supports independent power producers as suppliers to meet B.C.'s domestic electricity requirements. In particular, there is a role for independent power producers in cogeneration -- whether fuelled by wood, residue or natural gas, small hydro and other generation types -- where private developers offer real benefits to British Columbia. Independent power producers supplying power is the first step in the introduction of competition in the electricity generation business in British Columbia. In a competitive electricity market, the resource acquisition process would require less oversight by the B.C. Utilities Commission.

Amendments to the Utilities Commission Act allow government to exempt energy supply contracts entered into with independent power producers from B.C. Utilities Commission review. Independent-power-producer projects are generally selected because they meet the broader public interest after rigorous request for proposals in competitive bidding processes. With independent-power-producer-purchased power, the need for traditional regulation is diminished as the electricity market becomes more competitive and less monopolistic. In a competitive environment, consumer interests would be protected more by market forces than by a monopoly regulator. These amendments are a key part of the government's commitment to making our economy more competitive, creating jobs throughout the province for British Columbians and reducing red tape.

The final amendment in this bill is made to the Vancouver Charter to give the city authority to designate areas of the city as business premises regulation areas. This will allow the city to set certain hours of operation for certain classes of businesses in certain areas. This authority responds to a request by the city, the Vancouver police and certain community groups for authority that would allow the city to deal with problems that are seen as linked to the 24-hour or late-night operation of certain types of businesses in certain neighbourhoods. That concludes my remarks.

E. Conroy: I'd like to begin by thanking the Attorney General for his kind remarks at the beginning. As many of you know, this is an issue that's very emotional for me. The Human Tissue Gift Act is one into which I've put a lot of time and energy to try and bring about. I'm very pleased to be here speaking to this issue tonight.

I want to maybe deviate from what I do normally -- and not that often. I want to speak from notes, because I think it's critical with an issue like this that I'm able to communicate with people out there in television land. I know many of the members opposite and many of the members on this side understand the implications of the Human Tissue Gift Act, but I want to take this opportunity to communicate with the people of British Columbia about what the exact implications of this act are.

As we sit here, 443 British Columbians are on waiting lists for solid organ transplants. Approximately 500 others are waiting for corneal transplants. Most of the 443 are waiting for kidneys, and they're relying on renal dialysis to survive day to day. Their mobility is severely restricted as they undergo treatment three times a week. This is a very difficult time for all British Columbians on organ transplant waiting lists, and their families, because all they can do is wait and hope. Waiting for an organ transplant is truly one of the most stressful experiences imaginable. The anxiety builds as the patient's condition worsens, and they know an organ donation could save their lives. Organ donations are saving lives; we know that.

I would just like to talk for a moment about my situation and why this particular amendment to the act is so critical to me. As I think many of you know, I came within a week of death because an organ wasn't available. I feel very fortunate to be here speaking on this issue tonight, because within that week an organ became available. When I think of the British Columbians out there who weren't quite as fortunate as I to be able to go through the experience I went through and actually live through it. . . . People are dying out there because of our inability to get organs for transplant. This is about getting more organs for transplant. This is about saving the lives of British Columbians.

We must do all we can to increase the donation numbers. It is estimated that at least one-third of solid organs that could be available for transplant are lost because of difficulties obtaining consent from next of kin. Yet studies show that 96 percent of family members are willing to give consent when they know their loved ones wished to be a donor. Clearly we must continue our public education efforts. The Transplant Society estimates that if we double the number of organs, we might eliminate the transplant wait-list. Since four out of every five British Columbians, when asked, say they would consent to donating their organs after death, I believe this is a realistic goal.

Our strategy to increase the supply of suitable organs for transplant continues with these amendments to the act. Dead or dying persons are not always identified as potential organ donors, because health professionals aren't currently required to ask if this is the case and they aren't sure how they should seek consent from next of kin for organ donation. These amendments will allow government to draft clear protocols for health professionals, eliminating any uncertainty by outlining the process for seeking consent from next of kin if that person has not yet joined the organ donor registry. Hospitals and health professionals will also be required to inform the Transplant Society of the death or imminent death of an individual to determine whether this person is a registered organ donor or a potential donor.

In other jurisdictions, this way of dealing with the situation has at the minimum increased organ donation by 30

[ Page 10606 ]

I began by thanking the Attorney General for his kind remarks. Before I end, at this point I'd like to thank the opposition for what I'm hopeful will be a positive response, which is the way they've dealt with this issue so far. This is an issue that all of us here in this building can gather around. In my dealings with this whole thing, it's one that the opposition has been very, very cooperative in, and I thank them for that very much. Again, I hope that all members will join me in supporting this important bill. For some, it could truly mean the difference between life and death.

[12:30]

In totalitarian states, the history books are rewritten to expunge the unpleasant truths that tend to interfere with the smooth operation of government in a dictatorship. What happens is that names are erased, places are renamed, accounts of events are thrown out, and then they're replaced with versions that are more palatable to government. The past is made to disappear and then it is reinvented, and the public is prevented from challenging the new so-called truth.

Well, we all know these stories, and we all think these stories happen somewhere else. We all think these things could never happen here in B.C. But I say, with respect, that this is what Bill 50 is all about.

In Bill 50, the history of the last dozen years of government regulation of gambling in British Columbia is erased; it's made to disappear. It's renamed, it's reinvented, and then the public is prevented from challenging it. Every aspect of the way in which Bill 50 deals with the subject of lotteries and gambling makes my point for me.

I can begin with section 9. Everything the government has done to regulate gambling for 12 years is in section 9, "conclusively deemed" to have been done correctly. Under this act the Attorney General is "conclusively deemed" to have had the authority to conduct and manage lottery schemes over that period. Every licence issued for the last 12 years under other legislation is now "conclusively deemed" to have been validly issued under these new provisions, and every fee imposed for a dozen years is "conclusively deemed to have been validly imposed." And that is only the beginning. It's gets worse, because woe betide those who think that there is a defect in this new scheme -- this new attempt by this NDP government to try and regulate gambling in British Columbia. Bill 50 has a message for those who might think there's a defect. Bill 50 says that this scheme "must not be construed as lacking effect, whether retroactive or otherwise." What that means is: if you think there's a problem with it, there isn't, because the bill must not be construed as lacking effect.

And it gets worse yet. No one who ever suffered loss because of any defect in the old scheme is allowed to even try to recover that loss. Bill 50 makes government immune from any legal action for any legal remedy in respect of anything it has done in the area of gambling for a dozen years. It doesn't matter if the government acted unlawfully. It matters not if government trampled on the rights of citizens. It matters not if government abused the rights of the volunteers who run the societies which hold our communities together. None of that matters, because the government is immune.

That's what Bill 50 is about. It's about rewriting history and refusing to accept the consequences of error or wrongdoing. I listened to the Attorney General this evening. I'm listening for a defence, and I don't hear one that persuades me even part of the way down the road. Bill 50 is an attack on democracy. Bill 50 is the kind of bill that I thought happened somewhere else, not in British Columbia. Bill 50 makes me ask this question: if the government can take away these rights and freedoms today, what freedoms will we lose tomorrow?

Our parliamentary democracy is founded on the idea that government is not above the law. That idea goes back a long way. One of the great leading textbooks on English constitutional law, which is regarded as a foundational textbook for the constitutional law of Canada, is Dicey's lectures, "Law of the Constitution," first written in 1885. Dicey gave for us who followed him a full conception, for the first time, of the idea of the rule of law and what it means to live in a society based on the rule of law. Here is something he said about that: ". . .we mean when we speak of the rule of law as a characteristic of our country, not only that with us no man is above the law, but what is a different thing, that here every man, whatever be his rank or condition, is subject to the ordinary law of the realm and amenable to the jurisdiction of the ordinary tribunals."

He went on to say this later, on page 215. . . . He talked about the rule of law as a fundamental principle of the constitution, and he said it had three meanings. This was the second meaning: "It means, again, equality before the law, or the equal subjection of all classes to the ordinary law of the land administered by the ordinary law courts. The 'rule of law' in this sense excludes the idea of any exemption of officials or others from the duty of obedience to the law which governs other citizens or from the jurisdiction of the ordinary tribunals. . . ."

Bill 50 is a slap in the face to these basic principles. And you know what is unfortunate? We actually don't have, in this jurisdiction, as long or as honourable a tradition of respect for these principles as we might think. In fact, British Columbia was one of the last jurisdictions in the Commonwealth to enact a Crown Proceeding Act, which ensured that the Crown could be sued in the courts of British Columbia virtually as though it were an ordinary citizen.

[ Page 10607 ]

A famous example of that problem -- in fact, it may have been the precipitating event for the enactment of the Crown Proceeding Act in 1974 -- was the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Calder case. As everyone knows, in the Calder case, six of the seven judges of the Supreme Court of Canada decided that the idea of aboriginal title had been -- and for three of them, still was -- a part of the common law of British Columbia. But a seventh judge said that the case -- which the Nisga'a had brought all the way from the Nass Valley to the Supreme Court of British Columbia, to the Court of Appeal of British Columbia and then to the Supreme Court of Canada -- had to fail. It failed because the Nisga'a had not obtained a fiat. Three of the six other judges agreed with that seventh judge, with the result that in the eyes of the law of the day, if not in the eyes of succeeding jurists, the Nisga'a lost the Calder case. They lost it because of a rule that said that there are special ways in which you sue the Crown, and if you don't follow those, you will not be allowed access to the courts of British Columbia.

So what happened? Well, that was fixed by bringing into the law of British Columbia the Crown Proceeding Act. You know, there's a certain irony -- it's one of those wonderful little ironies that seem to crop up all the time with this government -- in that the Crown Proceeding Act was in fact brought into force and enacted by an NDP government. It was introduced by Alex Macdonald.

An Hon. Member: That's an applause line for you, by the way.

G. Plant: That's right. It's an applause line for the NDP. It was introduced by Alex Macdonald, the then Attorney General of British Columbia. On March 18, 1974, during the course of second reading debate on that bill, the Attorney General, Alex Macdonald, said this:

"We seek to abolish in British Columbia a relic of the medieval age when the King could do no wrong. The doctrine of the fiat system where the subject had to go on bended knee to seek from ministers of the Crown the right to sue the Crown is a relic of the time of the divine right of kings and should have no part in our modern jurisprudence. We are in this bill correcting an agelong inequity. We are providing that there shall be no special privilege in the eyes of the law accorded to big government that is not accorded to the littlest citizen or the biggest corporation."

Recognizing that our own history of respect for the basic principles of equality is, I think, a fragile one in British Columbia, it's all the more disheartening to see the attack on them in Bill 50. Bill 50 is about making government unaccountable. It's about denying responsible government; it's about putting government above the people. This is reprehensible; it's disgraceful. It has no place in a parliamentary democracy; it has no place in British Columbia in 1998. It is a disgrace.

Yes, this government appears to have had all kinds of trouble complying with the Criminal Code. So let's imagine this scenario. A political party, which for years has stood for the moral principle that the state should not sanction gambling, becomes government, but it obtains power on the basis of a cynical lie -- that it has balanced the budget. So what does it do? Well, like the worst addict, desperate to get its hands on the people's wallets, it embarks on a strategy to expand gambling -- and not just a modest expansion. It passes a regulation which a Supreme Court judge of British Columbia said earlier this year "encourages and facilitates a massive and unparalleled expansion of charitable gaming in British Columbia and then enables government to take the largest piece of this greatly enlarged pie."

[12:45]

Caught with its hand in the cookie jar, this government introduces a bill which simply rewrites all of that history. "See that hand in the cookie jar? Well, it's not my hand. And, you know what? It's not a cookie jar. And you know what? It never was my hand. And you know what? It never was a cookie jar. And you won't ever be able to go to court to prove me wrong." Well, that's a great way to hold yourself accountable and responsible for the fact that you as a government can't even comply with the provisions of the Criminal Code.

The NDP government has often been accused of high-handed arrogance and for lots of good reasons: budget lies, election laws that restrict free speech, cutting access to government information, expropriating assets of charities, making inappropriate telephone calls to judges -- the list goes on. But this time the NDP has gone beyond arrogance. This time the NDP has taken a major step in depriving all of us as citizens of what I say is a fundamental right: the right to sue our government. In a free country, if you believe that you have been wronged by the government, you should have the right to go before an impartial, independent judge and have your case heard. You may lose, but at least it isn't the government or a government hack making a decision.

Instead, we now have Bill 50, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 3), 1998, an act that can't even be honest about what it calls itself. It's a frightening little piece of tyranny. Under the title "Immunity from legal action," the provincial government rewrites 12 years of history.

[ Page 10608 ]

But, you know, this issue is bigger than one man; it is about all of us and about all of our rights in a free country. One of the greatest little bits of theatre in all of this is the Attorney General standing up and telling people that what this bill is about is protecting charities. Well, I guess that's right. Right is wrong and up is down. In fact, if the government truly had some concern for the liability exposure of charities, they could easily have passed a bill that granted immunity to charities, and charities alone.

I'm sure that during committee stage debate, the Attorney General will be able to point to the dozens upon dozens of claims that have been made against charities, which are the reasons that the government is taking this measure. If there weren't any such claims, then I would have some concerns about the legitimacy of the government's claim that this is what is at stake here. So I'm waiting. I'm sure that during committee stage debate, the Attorney General will be able to say: "There are lots of people out there. They're lining up at the courthouse to sue the charities." He may even have an opinion that says that government. . . . In fact, the thing that I find odd is: who would be the most likely to sue the charities? I mean, the party most likely to sue the charities would be the government.

An Hon. Member: You mean you've got a billion dollars? We want some of that.

G. Plant: We want some of that billion dollars.

I'm sure we're going to hear about the dozens of claims that people have made against charities, and I'm sure we're going to hear the Attorney General talk about all the jurisprudence that explains how people are not entitled to rely on the acts of officials and that there are all kinds of real potential for exposure here. It's not the law that I understand. I thought there was this idea. . . . I think it's called the de facto doctrine. It's certainly technical stuff, but I would have thought that the charities were in pretty much a slam-dunk position, that there would really be no way anyone could sue them to try and recover the money that they obtained, relying in good faith upon the acts of an official of government.

I would have thought that the claim against charities was so preposterously without merit that it meant that there was in fact no legitimacy whatsoever to this government's pathetic attempt to defend an attack on the basic principles of equality and fairness, by saying: "Oh well, we're just doing it to protect the charities." Maybe the Attorney General will return to those themes. Maybe during the committee stage debate the Attorney General will explain why it is that the government is really not taking itself outside the law here but somehow staying within the law, that the government is not sending a message that there's one law for government and another law for everyone else.

Maybe the Attorney General will stand up and give us that time-honoured NDP message: "It's okay, we've got the best interests of the public at heart. Don't worry about a little process. Don't worry about these minor details. Trust us; we know what we're doing. We're in charge. It's okay; don't worry about equality, rights or fairness. Just let us run this show." Maybe that's the way the government is ultimately going to have to defend this travesty of a bill.

I went looking around, because I sure didn't want to think that I was the only person who had these views about immunities and the use of retroactive legislation. I found a text by Peter Hogg called Liability of the Crown. In fact, the works of Peter Hogg and his knowledge of constitutional law have already been the subject of some mention in this chamber earlier this week. In the very opening pages of his textbook on the liability of the Crown, he says this: "Sometimes the term 'constitutionalism' is used to emphasize the subjection of government to law. The political theory that is basic to these ideas is that government ought to be under the law and not just any law but the same law as applies to everyone else. In that way, government is denied the special exemptions and privileges that could lead to tyranny." It looks to me like Professor Hogg has pretty well captured the problem here. I must say I agree.

We're talking about immunity; we're talking about retroactivity. Lots of people have written about retroactivity, and yes, from time to time government has to act retroactively. Government has to make decisions and pass laws retroactively. But they don't have to do it all the time, and they sure don't have to do it here.

Retroactivity, just so we understand it. . . . Here are some of the problems with retroactivity. Textbooks on statutory construction say that in order to comply with the law or rely on it in a useful way, a person must know what the law is prior to acting, and must also trust that it will not undergo unfair or arbitrary change. The retroactive application of legislation makes it impossible for the law to be known in advance of acting. The content of the law becomes known only when it's too late to do anything about it. This sort of tampering with reality is inherently arbitrary. I could go on. All of the textbooks talk about this problem.

We have passed retroactive bills in this House already this session, and we will do that again. We have opposed retroactive bills in this House in this session. But I don't think I've ever seen a bill that attempted to rewrite 12 years of history and then create an immunity to ensure that no one could challenge it. It is the accumulation of the attacks on fair process that makes this bill so offensive.

Time after time we have seen lots of evidence that the NDP believe that they have the right answers and that the rule of law is nothing more than an obstacle to the truth. In fact, one of the challenges here is that there is way more to Bill 50 than this issue. Bill 50 isn't just a poison pill; Bill 50 is a bag full of poison pills. I'm sure that during the course of debate, some of my colleagues will identify some of them. I want to identify one other before I come back to the main theme that I have been talking about.

Another thing that Bill 50 does is eviscerate the Utilities Commission. It takes away any pretence of accountability in respect of electricity supply contracts and moves the decision-making power in respect of those contracts out of the public utilities board and into the hands of the minister. I think that's bad legislation; I think that's public policy. I think it's wrong to take apart this institution that has served British Columbia well in terms of providing a benchmark, some forum for public accountability, some test and check against the arbitrary exercise of power, the abuse of its monopoly powers in respect to the ownership of B.C. Hydro.

[ Page 10609 ]

So we've taken out all of that accountability. The accountability that existed in respect of the Utilities Commission -- we've taken that out. We haven't even replaced it with the Legislature; we haven't even replaced it with the cabinet table. Now the special deals will get made behind the closed doors of the minister's office.

You know, hon. Speaker, one of the most interesting things that the Attorney-General said a few months ago -- has said over the course of the last year -- was when for a moment he put his consumer protection hat on. . . . That's part of his responsibility. He's the minister for consumer protection issues. He talked about some of the models used in some jurisdictions of North America to ensure that large-scale economic enterprises, particularly economic enterprises that are in a monopoly position in respect of matters like electric power or banking. . . . They may not be in a monopoly position, but the banks certainly have lots of power in the marketplace. He talked about the ways in which we could ensure that there's greater accountability, that we could ensure that the ordinary citizens had more of a voice in being protected from the abuse of power that can occur when there is no accountability, no responsibility for issues -- the kinds of decisions that can be made by large-scale economic enterprises.

[1:00]

An Hon. Member: Let's do it retroactively.

G. Plant: Well, my colleague says: "Let's do it retroactively." And you know what? We may have to do that, because the same Attorney General who was musing out loud about the value of the idea of citizens' utility boards just stood up a few moments ago and introduced for debate a provision which virtually eviscerates the one citizens' utility board we have in British Columbia that has been working relatively well for the last number of years.

Sometimes the aroma of hypocrisy becomes a stench. I mean, I don't get it. When the Attorney General talked about the desirability of citizens' utility boards, was he making it up? Or was he prepared to sacrifice that principle because someone else said: "Oh no, let's not worry about citizens' utility boards in the context of electric power, because we want to be in a position as government to make special deals that" -- now get this -- "trust me, will be for the public interest. Those are the kind of special deals we want to make. We like making those special deals, because the time when we feel as NDP cabinet ministers that we can generate the most trust for what we do is when we're sitting in our office with the door closed, hidden from view, unaccountable, invisible, making a deal." In this case, it's a deal for the supply of energy.

I am mystified that an Attorney General who could say things that I think he meant in the context of protecting consumers could introduce a bill which is completely contrary to the real process, the real way that you protect consumers from the power of monopolies, and that way is to give them a voice. That way is to ensure that decisions are not made in secret; that way is to ensure that decisions are not made behind closed doors. That way is to ensure that decisions are made in public, in the open, in a forum where everyone has the opportunity to make their views known, where people have the opportunity to say: "I think that way is wrong, and I'm going to persuade you of that view." But no, citizens won't have that in respect to the electricity supply contracts that are at issue in Bill 50, because this government is not interested in accountability. This government is not interested in letting citizens have a voice. This government is not interested in responsible government. This government is not interested in ensuring that there is equality or fair play. This government is not interested in even doing anything to create or foster the impression that government is equal to the people.

What this government believes passionately and acts on day after day -- and this bill proves it more than anything I've seen -- is that it's above the people. This government believes that the people are below it. This government believes that people are mere objects to be used or abused in the pursuit of their larger collective goals. This government believes that people and individuals are fundamentally instruments of their grand design, not people who have individual rights to be respected -- the right to have access to the courts, the right to test government, the right to challenge in the courts the decisions made by government and to challenge government policy on electricity supply in a public utilities commission. "No, we don't even want that right. We don't even want to have to explain ourselves in public on the issue of electricity. Let's just do it behind closed doors."

Let's go back to the stuff that I started with -- the gaming stuff. Bill 50 was introduced as a tiny little, modest housekeeping bill on a private members' day in the middle of summer. What a cynical insult to the people of British Columbia! "We have a couple of bombshells we want to lay on you. But you know what, people? We're not going to really let you in on that. We're going to wait until everyone's happy with summer and has stopped paying attention to politics, and we're going to introduce this bill called the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act."

[E. Walsh in the chair.]

It's the kind of bill that's usually called a housekeeping bill -- the kind of bill that corrects punctuation and corrects references to section numbers in statutes, which occasionally can be used to clarify an ambiguity in the interpretation of a provision of a statute, where everybody knows what the policy objective is and no one has any serious quarrel with it. It's the kind of bill that can be occasionally used to advance public policy in a modest way on some fronts where, frankly, it would be an inefficient and unwise allocation or use of the resources of the House to introduce ten separate bills.

That's what miscellaneous statutes amendment acts can legitimately be about. But that's not what Bill 50 is, even

[ Page 10610 ]

But no, that's not what happened. The government actually had this neutron bomb that it was holding in reserve, waiting for a quiet day, hoping that no one would pay attention, waiting for an opportunity to spring this little surprise on the citizens of British Columbia. In my observation, they've been caught red-handed.

You know, one thing I have done over the last few days since the bill was introduced is listened and talked to people. I've read what they have to say; I've read the newspapers; I've read the editorialists. I've actually even listened to the open-line radio shows. I haven't actually heard anybody defend Bill 50. What I've heard is that lots of people understand what Bill 50 is all about, and I have heard the anger, the outrage and the indignation. The citizens of British Columbia say: "How can government do this to us? How can government set itself apart from us? How can government say, 'We have maybe made an error, but we will cure the error retroactively; we will deem it to have been corrected conclusively, and we will ensure that no one gets the opportunity to complain about it'?" People say: "How can government do that?"

The answer is simple -- tragically simple. The Minister of Forests got it right. The Minister of Forests had one of those beautiful, crystalline, lucid moments when the curtain, the veil, that obscures all the smoke and mirrors behind the façade of this government was torn aside and we saw into the heart of the government. The Minister of Forests said: "Don't forget, government can do anything it wants." This government clearly believes that it can do anything it wants. Bill 50 is all about a government that believes it can do anything it wants.

Let me say this. I have talked about what I am certain is the intent of these provisions, because that's my reading of them. But you know, they may not work, because the courts don't like retroactive legislation. They don't like it when the government creates immunities, when the government tries to set itself up on a pedestal and establish a special regime of rules for itself. The courts don't like it when the government passes a bill that says: "We conclusively deem these regulations to be valid."

An Hon. Member: How arrogant.

G. Plant: How arrogant, as my colleague says. It is the height of arrogance. And you know what else? It's also the height of fear. If these amendments -- I'm not speaking now about the retroactivity provision. . . . If the new scheme for regulating gambling and lotteries in British Columbia were a good scheme, were in fact a scheme that the government had confidence in, then they wouldn't need to enact a provision that conclusively deemed these new rules to be correct and valid and lawful.

We have provisions that are intended to bootstrap the whole enterprise by saying that all of these licence fees, these regulations, these rules, these applications -- all of this -- will be conclusively deemed to be correct. They might think, because someone is probably going to challenge this. . . . Someone is going to say that these provisions are unsuccessful in achieving their obviously intended purpose. As I said, the courts don't like these kinds of provisions, so no doubt we're going to have an argument in a court somewhere, probably sooner rather than later. People are going to scrutinize these words to see whether there is any possible way through the words, whether somehow or other the draftsperson of these words made a mistake, somehow or other the person who wrote all the words in this bill didn't get quite enough armour-plating around this scheme. And if there is the smallest possible crack, the courts will find it. I urge everyone to look for that crack. I hope we find that crack, because it is the height of arrogance, the height of cynicism, the height of every possible offensive thing I can imagine, for the government to attempt to build this wall around itself. Yet they may have failed. Time will tell.

I certainly wouldn't want to be taken as expressing the opinion that these clauses will succeed, but I do know what the government is intending by these clauses. What they are intending is offensive; it strikes at the root of our sense of equality and fairness. It's what they intend by these provisions that, I think, strikes at the heart of our understanding of the rule of law. They go way too far here. They go further than they need to fix a problem -- a problem which they won't even explain.

We talk about the Carpentier lawsuit from time to time. We've talked about the judgment of Mr. Justice Owen-Flood. That doesn't concern a regulation made in 1986. The Carpentier lawsuit doesn't concern a law or regulation made in 1986. The Carpentier lawsuit, the Nanaimo Commonwealth Bingo Association lawsuit, was a challenge to a regulation made by this government, the government elected in 1996. It was a challenge to a regulation made as part of this government's massive expansion of gaming in British Columbia -- a regulation made in 1996, I think, but it may have been 1997.

[1:15]

An Hon. Member: It was full of Nanaimo bars. That's what it was.

G. Plant: My colleague observes that the cookie jar is filled with Nanaimo bars.

So that's the problem that the government had. The problem the government had was with a regulation that was of its making, a regulation that was made by a greedy, careless government that didn't read the Criminal Code, that thought they could get away with it and no one would dare challenge them. They thought that all their sanctimonious claptrap about how this is all about protecting health care and education would intimidate people out of actually testing the legitimacy of their regulation. But it didn't, so there was a court challenge.

The court challenge succeeded. The court challenge demonstrated that the government's new scheme was unlawful, but the government, altogether apart from whatever it is that happened in 1986 -- and I'm sure the Attorney General will

[ Page 10611 ]

I think what this is all about is that the government got caught in the lawsuit, got caught breaking the Criminal Code of Canada, got caught with an illegal lottery scheme, and the government doesn't want to admit it and accept the consequences. So instead of practising a little accountability, a little responsibility, a little democracy, what this government does is say: "We'll make special rules for ourselves. We'll protect ourselves; we'll immunize ourselves. We're not like all the rest of those ordinary citizens. You can't sue us; we'll make darn sure of that. We'll rewrite history. We'll change 12 years of history if we have to. Then we'll conclusively deem that that history never happened. Then we'll conclusively deem that everything we've done for the last 12 years is entirely legitimate and lawful, and don't you dare challenge it."

Hon. Speaker, this is a bill which demonstrates that this is a government that has lost all touch with the basic principles of democracy. It bodes ill for citizens who expect that government should be respecting their rights, or at least have a judicial system that can be counted on to protect those rights. Bill 50 is a disgrace; it's an insult to democracy and to all citizens. I call on the government to vote against this dreadful, dreadful piece of legislation.

G. Abbott: I too rise to speak to Bill 50, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 3). As everyone will recall, this bill was introduced on a quiet Friday morning -- two or three weeks ago now. As it turned out, Bill 50 was the last bill to be introduced in the current session, and once we had a good look at it, we understood why. This bill must be the most embarrassing thing that this government has done for some time. I'm not surprised that they delayed its introduction until the last moment in this session. In many, many respects, it certainly is a bill to be ashamed of, and it's not surprising that they saved it for last.

As the title implies, Bill 50 does contain numerous provisions in a variety of areas. It starts out beneficially enough. The first section deals with the Human Tissue Gift Act, and that certainly is a commendable change -- one which, as it's been indicated, it's likely that all members of this House will support. Regrettably, Bill 50 goes sharply downhill from there. In fact, it is kind of an unusual bill in that it goes from best to worst in a fairly consistent fashion, and certainly by the time we get to the end of it, I think disgust is the dominant emotion which the reader has to feel on reviewing this bill.

There are a couple of particularly troublesome sections which I want to make note of tonight. Section 39 is one which I suspect we're going to look back on and say: "That section had enormous implications and is something which was entirely wrong, and we now appreciate that." So I want to talk a few moments about that.

Section 39 amends section 22 of the Utilities Commission Act. It allows the minister to provide exemptions under section 22 of the Utilities Commission Act to persons who enter into energy supply contracts for the provision of electricity. I don't intend to go into detail here; I know our critic will do that when he deals with this. But it's important to think for a moment about whether this is a provision that we would like to trust this NDP government with, and clearly it is not a provision that we should trust them with.

Virtually everything this government has done has been destructive of the economy of British Columbia. They have been the parents of far too much ill-conceived and ill-advised legislation. This is going to be an opportunity for them to do a whole lot more stupid things and to further undermine the economy of this province, without having to be accountable to anyone for it. That's what's going to happen here: this amendment is going to remove a very important barrier to further ill-conceived projects by this NDP government.

The Utilities Commission forces project proponents to think twice before they try to move ahead with a project, and I guess the Site C example leaps to mind here. This provision is undoubtedly going to allow the NDP to advance some of their pet political projects, which may make political sense from their skewed perspective, but which certainly won't make any sense from an economic perspective for the people of British Columbia. Regrettably, the barrier is going to be lost there. It undoubtedly means more foolish decisions from this government, and in a very direct way it will mean higher B.C. Hydro rates for all consumers of electricity in this province.

Is that the worst thing in this bill? I don't think so. It goes on, and it gets much worse. Clearly the term "poison pill" is classically suited to Bill 50. The real poison pill in Bill 50 lies in sections 42 and 43. Someone asked me the other day: "What do you think is the worst, most disgusting, most despicable thing that this NDP government has ever done?" It caused me to think, because it's a tough thing to sort out. Obviously there are just so many possibilities to consider when one is looking at what is the worst, most disgusting, most despicable thing this government has done.

We can think back on a great many things. For example, we might think back to the two phony, cookbook budgets that emerged coincident with the 1996 election. That certainly was disgusting, despicable -- all of those things. To pretend that a government had produced two surplus budgets while at the same time producing two very considerable deficit budgets is certainly a shameful thing -- no question about that. But it's not the only thing.

We can think of a more recent example, from just over a year ago: the gross and callous deception that was involved in the jobs and timber accord, pretending that the government was going to create tens of thousands of new forest jobs when in fact their forest policies were entirely destructive of those jobs. And, of course, we see today the fact that we've lost probably in excess of 15,000 forest jobs since that callous and cruel deception called the jobs and timber accord was foisted on the people of British Columbia.

In order to come to some conclusion about the most disgusting thing, we really need to narrow down the question. I think we need to narrow it down to this: what's the most disgusting, most despicable thing that the NDP has done through statute? That narrows it down a little bit. Up until a couple of weeks ago, if I'd been asked this question, I probably would have pointed to Bill 2.

Bill 2 was one we did back in 1997 in this House, as everyone will undoubtedly recall. Bill 2 made some arbitrary, unilateral gutting of the Local Government Grants Act. As I'm sure you will recall, there was no notice or consultation around this. The NDP simply went ahead and removed all the certainty, stability and predictability in the Local Government Grants Act, which it had introduced only a couple of years earlier. Without any kind of notice or consultation with local governments, they simply went ahead and did that gutting of the Local Government Grants Act. What it produced was a $116 million ripoff of municipalities by a government that is

[ Page 10612 ]

But looking back on it now, Bill 2 looks quite modest on the disgusting meter compared to Bill 50. It really looks pretty modest compared to Bill 50. What the government proposes to do through Bill 50 is provide immunity from legal action "against the government, the British Columbia Gaming Commission or any other person, for compensation, damages or any other remedy because of anything done or omitted, between May 27, 1986 and the coming into force of this subsection. . . ." Then it goes on to obviously detail that.

What the bill also does in section 43 is attempt to further reinforce this dubious proposition. For example, section 43(1) says: "The Lottery Act as amended by this Act, this section and sections 7 to 11, 42 and 46(3) of this Act must be applied to and must be given effect in every action or proceeding, whether commenced before, on or after the date this Act receives Royal Assent." And section 43(2): "The Lottery Act as amended by this Act, this section and sections 7 to 11, 42 and 46(3) of this Act must not be construed as lacking effect, whether retroactive or otherwise, in relation to any matter because of making no specific reference to that matter."

In short, the NDP is trying every possible way to cover themselves against their own ill-advised actions of the past. In sections 42 and 43, this is an absolutely shameful measure that strips away the legal and democratic rights of British Columbians. Bill 50 is fundamentally wrong. I think it's also a shameful attempt to hide the NDP's disastrous mismanagement and deception with respect to their gaming policies and the distribution of gaming revenues.

The NDP's reckless and massive expansion of gambling has been well documented, and their contempt for volunteers and charitable societies is also well documented. Clearly the NDP is a government that is drunk with power. This is a government that thinks government can do anything it wants, and they are fundamentally wrong. This government thinks anyone who dares challenge its dictatorship must be stripped of their legal rights, and they are doing it here in Bill 50. It's cynical and devious enough to do this, but to claim -- as the NDP claims here -- that they're doing it to protect the interests of the charities takes the matter absolutely beyond belief.

[1:30]

They're going to do the same with all of the other gaming and gambling revenues that they are pulling in. They may do things to try to dress it up to sell it to people initially, but mark my words, it'll be gone. This is a government that's starved for cash to cover up their deceptions of the past, and we'll see them ripping away money in the future as well. They love to say that everything they do is to protect health care and education, but this is a government that loves to take a page out of George Orwell's book every time they can and simply pretend, through their various smoke-and-mirror devices, that they're doing something for the people of British Columbia. They are not; that they are doing is simply protecting themselves.

In conclusion, this is a government that has lost its moral compass. This is a government that has lost any moral or political sense. To strip away the legal rights of people, as they have done in Bill 50, is fundamentally wrong. I hope this government wakes up to the fact that what they're doing is fundamentally wrong, and if we don't see the defeat of this bill, I hope that in the very near future we see the defeat of this government.

T. Nebbeling: I too wish to speak to some of the elements contained in Bill 50, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act. I have no doubt that right now there are some people walking the corridors who are very embarrassed about the fact that Friday, a week ago, there was actually an attempt to fool the people of British Columbia once again by coming in with this bill, pretending that it contained nothing more than some irrelevant corrections of existing acts and that we should actually not even bother to look at it. "Trust me" -- that kind of attitude. . . . So the embarrassment must clearly be there, because the moment this bill was presented to the House -- we just went through it -- we saw how blatantly this government was trying to undermine one of the most fundamental rights that British Columbians have, and that is to find their day in court when they feel they have been wronged by government or by any other party.

Why it must be embarrassing for the government to have this debate going on right now is that a fundamental principle that British Columbians -- be it the littlest citizen or the biggest corporation -- have the right to find their day in court is based on a bill that was introduced in 1974. My colleague from Richmond-Steveston spoke briefly on that bill. That was the Crown Proceeding Act, and it was introduced by Alex Macdonald. Not only did this bill eliminate the need for an incredible dose of humility in order to be heard by Crown ministers seeking justice on issues, what it really did and why it was such an important bill is that it truly gave people -- regardless of their background, regardless of their wealth, regardless of the size of the corporation, regardless of being just themselves and nothing else -- the right to challenge the government in case they felt they were wronged by the government. Until then, that was not the case. So the 1974 bill introduced by Alex Macdonald really set the stage for Jacques Carpentier -- and we're going to talk more about Jacques Carpentier -- to take the government to task on what became the famous Bingogate issue.

To now see another NDP government again trying to sneak through amendments to the Lottery Act, which will eliminate the right of people to challenge the government when they know they have been wronged, eliminate the right to a hearing in front of an independent judge who will look at the facts and then decide if the claim is right or wrong. . . . To see that being eliminated is so fundamentally rotten that the attempt to bring it in front of the House is a horrendous act by itself and should be seen as despicable. I just cannot see, once we have finished debating these sections that pertain to the Lottery Act, that this government can demand the moral right to pass these sections and deny British Columbians from now on the right to speak up when they have been done wrong.

Why is this happening? The government is claiming that it is an altruistic attitude toward bingo operators or charity

[ Page 10613 ]

The second argument was, then: "Listen, we have to take care of the taxpayers. We can't afford to spend $100 million of taxpayers' money, because just think what it will do. What schools are we going to have to close? What hospital beds, and how many hospital beds, will we have to shut down?" Well, none of those arguments were used by the government when they handed over $340 million to Skeena Cellulose to bail them out. No consideration was given to what that $340 million could have done as far as opening new schools, new hospitals, or having proper staffing. So I don't buy that argument.

I definitely did not hear the same argument made last week when we debated Bill 39, the collective agreement that the government mandated for school trustees after a deal was made with -- and, I think, buying the loyalty of -- the B.C. Teachers Federation: $150 million. I didn't hear any concern that this would mean that hospital beds would not be opened -- none of that.

Of course, the same argument goes for the tens of millions of dollars that we see being spent by this government annually to buy media time, trying to fool British Columbians into believing that things are really great in British Columbia, trying to make British Columbians believe that indeed we are creating jobs in British Columbia, when all the facts are showing the opposite. Nobody on that side has ever expressed concern about the fact that tens of millions of dollars that are being spent on media advertising to promote the government's actions. The actions themselves are certainly not promoting much goodwill. I've never heard anybody talking about how, if we didn't spend that money on this phony campaign, we could use that money for school classes, for hospital beds. So why now, suddenly, in this particular case, with the Lottery Act. . . ? The $100 million cannot be paid out if we have been found to be wrong and if we indeed took this money illegally from charity organizations and taxpayers. I do hear now the argument that we can spend this money on hospital beds, on new school classes. I think it is a phony argument.

Ultimately, the people involved with the charity organizations are taxpayers too. The bingo players and the volunteers are taxpayers too, and these are the people from whom the government took the money. And they are saying today: "We want it back." I think they have the right to ask for that money to come back. If the courts indeed agree that they are right and that the money should be paid back by the government, no underhanded amendments to any Lottery Act should ever give the government the right to block what has been going on in this province. I will certainly oppose this part of the bill.

I would like to speak for a couple of minutes on section 39, which applies to the Utilities Commission Act. When we had the debate in the House on Bill 6 this year. . . . Bill 6 gave cabinet the right to overrule any decisions made by the Utilities Commission when it came to setting rates, rate reductions or rate increases. At that time, obviously, much concern was expressed by residential and commercial users that by doing this, the users truly would lose the ability to have an independent body keeping some control over a Crown corporation -- B.C. Hydro, in this case. With section 39, the government has gone a step further. They now basically will have deregulated B.C. Hydro, if this bill passes, because B.C. Hydro will no longer have to go to the Utilities Commission when it comes to selling power to projects that the Premier is -- on a daily, weekly, monthly basis -- trying to entice to come to British Columbia. Of course, when we entice businesses with extremely cheap power, the danger is that somewhere along the line, somebody will have to pay the bill. In order to create more power, as we do not have a surplus of power in this province, as has now been proven, we will have to build more infrastructure, more dams, more co-gen projects. We will have to bring in more gas; that means more pipelines. The cost of that infrastructure will be a liability to the users of B.C. Hydro, and those do include the residential users and the commercial users in this province.

[1:45]

Again, this is a very serious section that just shouldn't pass in this House, because it will hurt British Columbians.

There's a trend in British Columbia right now. It started with the no-fault ICBC debate: government is trying to take away the right of citizens to a fair hearing on issues that they believe they have to be heard on. No-fault tried to do it; it didn't succeed. Today we see the Lottery Act being amended, doing exactly the same thing again: trying to take the right away from British Columbians to seek fairness and equal treatment with anybody else through the courts. We have to stop this one as well. We see a third attempt by the government to undermine and eliminate the right of British Columbians to deal with a Crown corporation. Their strategies, how they will sell their product and at what cost, and who is going to pay the price. . . . These are three elements of eliminating the fundamental democratic rights of British Columbians.

For that reason, I hope some members opposite will have the guts to stand up and vote against this bill as well, because it will do nothing but damage to the communities throughout British Columbia. These are the communities that these members are representing as well.

S. Hawkins: I'm pleased to rise in debate of Bill 50 at 1:45 a.m. It was described as an unusual bill, introduced on an unusual day -- private members' day -- for unusual reasons, I'm sure. I always get nervous when I see these miscellaneous statutes amendment acts, because they're supposed to be just housekeeping kinds of amendments. They used to be a nightmare when I used to have to do some legal research and look for amendments to acts and whatever.

[ Page 10614 ]

I was very happy to see this section in this legislation, because when the Transplant Society contacted me last year, they were under the understanding that the member for Rossland-Trail would be bringing in a private member's bill. I explained to them that a private member's bill might take forever to get through the House: "If you want it to go through, you should bring it through a cabinet member." I'm glad they lobbied and were successful in bringing it through a cabinet member and putting in on the order paper and into this bill.

I'm disappointed, however, that the changes are going to be under regulations. I'm aware of other jurisdictions that have done this, and the changes are quite extensive. They cover all kinds of stuff, from who will be authorized to report under the legislated referral of organs, to what kind of training is required for those who are required to report, to who will be authorized to investigate and obtain permission for donor organs. There are liability considerations. There are police and emergency personnel responsibilities. There are even offence sections in the legislation that has been enacted elsewhere in North America -- not in Canada; this will be the first jurisdiction in Canada to enact this. It's been mostly states in the United States that have enacted it, and I think this is modelled on the Pennsylvania model.

I am very disappointed that these extensive changes to the Human Tissue Gift Act are going to be enacted by regulation, because it would have been nice to have seen them in the act and to have debated them in this House, so that we knew exactly how this very important change to this legislation would flow. I'm pleased to see it in there, but I guess I'm always wary of regulations. In law school, I remember a law professor saying: "Beware the hidden law." The hidden law is regulation. It would have been nice to see changes like this up front and in this bill, so that we could have all seen what kinds of provisions the government was considering with respect to changing this. I will be scrutinizing the regulations when they come out, because they're very, very important, and we have to make sure we do those right.

Well, section 1 was kind of a pleasant surprise; it sort of went downhill from there. From there we got to other sections. . . . I've heard other members speak about the poison-pill section, and for me, the poison pill section in this bill is sections 42 and 43, which talk about immunity from legal action. Frankly, I'm not happy with those changes. I think the retroactivity parts of those changes are repugnant, reprehensible and just plain wrong.

They take away the rights of non-profits, of charity organizations, of volunteers who felt for years that they were wronged by this government. They feel the need to find some redress for the loss of gaming revenues that are owing to them, and this government is taking away that right from those organizations in a very undemocratic way. We know that the government acted illegally for 12 years. We know that because the charities challenged the government in court, and in his decision, Mr. Justice Owen-Flood stated very clearly that the government was in breach of the Criminal Code of Canada. So what does the government do? The government fixes this problem for itself by legislating away the rights of others -- the fundamental right of the people to sue the government. This just shows flagrant arrogance.

We've heard this before. The government has the gall to stand up and say that they're doing this to help charities. Imagine that: the government says that they would do this to help charities. Well, it's not going to help charities. They say that they're doing this so that no one can sue the charities. I think members have stood up and said: "Well, who's suing the charities?" Does the government know who's suing the charities? Is there a whole lineup of people around the corner saying: "I'm suing this charity; I'm suing that one"? I mean, the courts must be absolutely backlogged with cases of groups that are suing the charities. Well, I don't think so. I don't know anyone that's suing the charities over this issue, and I don't think anyone on this side of the House knows anyone. Frankly, if the government is trying to help charities, I have a suggestion: don't help them. They don't need any more of the government's help; they don't need help like that. In fact, they're saying to us: "Thank you very much, but no thanks." They don't need help like that; that's not helpful. The government has not helped the charities by taking away their rights.

Interjection.

S. Hawkins: My colleague says: "Thanks but no thanks." That's what they're saying.

What we've seen from this government is an unprecedented attack on non-profits, volunteers and charities. We've seen that in the way of expropriating their assets. Certainly, in the Health Authorities Amendment Act passed in the House last year, we saw this government forcing amalgamation and expropriating the assets of charities. What did the charities do? The charities went to court.

We have a very high-profile charity suing the government in Comox Valley, the Glacier View Lodge. Here's another case where the little guy was a non-profit charity. They felt the need to go to court and stick up for their rights, because they felt the government had been wronging them for years. They built up an organization to look after older people, seniors, and they were very fortunate to get a piece of beautiful land up on a rise overlooking the city. I'm sure that that land is worth millions of dollars and that anybody would want to get their hands on it; it's very valuable land. Well, I wonder why the government would want that land. The government wants that land because they think they own it, and they don't. The charities own that land; the non-profit organization owns that land at Glacier View.

That isn't the only organization that's taking the government to court. We have another charity in Parksville-Qualicum, Arrowsmith Lodge, another non-profit organiza-

[ Page 10615 ]

So this charity in Parksville-Qualicum, Arrowsmith Lodge, set up a home for seniors. They set up that home in 1979, I believe, and they never got a penny from the government -- not until about eight or ten years ago. That's when they got the money from the government. And you know what? They only got operating costs from the government. They never got any capital costs, land acquisition costs or anything like that. All of a sudden, the government comes along and says: "We're taking your assets." They said: "No, you're not." They got a lawyer, and unfortunately, from those hard-earned dollars that they get donated to them, they're having to apportion a part of that to pay to fight the government.

I think that's disgraceful, because the government has a lot of resources available. They have all the taxpayer money available to them. That's what they have: they have all the taxpayer money available to them, and they can use that money to squash charities. They're doing that. We're seeing them do it around the province. Frankly, what is so disgusting about the new sections in this bill is that the government is taking the rights away from charities. Once in a while the little guy, David, fights Goliath and actually wins. They actually win. That's what happened with Mr. Jacques Carpentier. That little David took big Goliath to court. And you know what? He won big, and they didn't like it at all. And now -- this is absolutely unbelievable -- they've decided that they don't want little David nattering at them. It's like a mosquito or a fly buzzing around; it's a nuisance. They don't want that nuisance. Do you know what they're going to do? They're going to legislate that nuisance away.

[2:00]

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

I'll tell you, charities in my town are prepared to fight this government, and they've always been prepared to fight this government. Even if this government enacts these provisions, they will still be challenged in court. Unfortunately, taxpayers will be fighting that battle, because it's the taxpayers' resources that the government has. They'll be fighting the little charities.

It's unbelievable to me, hon. Speaker, because this is the government that I thought always stuck up for the little guy. I grew up in a province where the NDP ruled for years, and that's what I grew up believing -- that it was the NDP that stuck up for the little guy, that helped the little guy. Since I moved here to B.C. seven years ago, boy, have I really learned a lesson. This is not a government that sticks up for the little guy; this is a government that covers its own butt.

An Hon. Member: They stick it to the little guy.

S. Hawkins: They stick it to the little guy, my colleague says. I've seen that over and over and over again. Frankly, I don't know how any of the members across the way can lift their heads high and vote for these sections in this bill. I just don't know how they can live with themselves, doing that. These are not sections that I would take great pride in and say: "This is what my government did. My government, of which I was a member, expropriated from charities. That's something that makes me really proud. My government took away the right of charities to sue the government. My government removed those democratic rights. Yes, I'm very proud of that."

You know, there are a lot of people across the province that are looking at this government and saying: "Holy cow -- what have we got here?" We've got the most arrogant, the most repressive, the most undemocratic government we've seen for years in this province. That's what we've got here. Frankly, I will be watching to see how many of the members opposite can stand up and hold their heads high and vote for the sections in this bill. I'll be watching for that, and I'll be making sure that all the charity groups in my riding know which members did that. The voters do have a very long memory.

I think that this will probably be one of the last nails in the coffin for the members sitting opposite. When you start taking away democratic rights, when you starting expropriating from charities and when you start acting the way this government does, in the arrogant, non-caring manner that it has shown in this session, by trying to slide in a controversial bill like this at the end of the session -- Bill 50 came in right at the eleventh hour, right under the gate there -- people do take notice. I think that people will remember, and certainly the charities will remember. This government will pay; they'll pay big-time. They might not pay by getting sued, perhaps, but I think they'll pay where it really counts, and that's in the next election. I think this is the kind of thing that makes people stand up and take notice. People will remember how ungracious, how totally undemocratic, this government was to the little people that they say they represent.

I think it will be a point that the government won't be able to turn back from. Who knows what they'll do from here on? We've seen this government certainly do whatever it wants. Like the Minister of Forests predicted, government can do whatever it wants, and we've seen that over and over again. Certainly this bill is a very, very good example of that.

There are provisions in this bill that I can live with. The first section of the bill, on the Human Tissue Gift Act. . . . In principle, I think that's great. I think that legislating the referral of organ donors is something that perhaps we are ready to embark on in this province. Perhaps we will get the success rate that some of the states did when they legislated changes to their human tissue acts. Again, it's a big disappointment that it's all coming under regulation. It would have been nice if we had seen the government actually put some thought into this, actually put down in black and white what it is, what changes were going to occur, so that the House could have debated it and perhaps we could have moved forward on it this session. As it is, the regulations have yet to be done. Who knows how long that's going to take? Frankly, when it is done in regulations, it is the hidden law, so I will be searching for it once it's done. Anyway, that's probably about the only good thing I can say about the bill.

There are sections of the bill that are troublesome, there are sections of the bill that greatly concern us, and there are

[ Page 10616 ]

D. Symons: I too wish to speak to the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 3), 1998, which, in the seven years that I have been in this assembly, I find to be the most repugnant of all the legislation that this government has brought forward. I say that very sincerely.

It's not, as other members have said, just the fact that this was introduced on a Friday, during private members' day, when the press wasn't around and things were quiet, when newspapers weren't going to be reporting on the things that went on; it's not just that this act happened to come through on a Friday afternoon in the middle of summer. It's not by accident, either, that we are discussing in second reading the import of this particular bill, the last item on the order of business for Tuesday. . . . We're now into Wednesday. It's not by accident, I believe, that we're now having this discussion in the dead of night, when people are not really paying attention too much to what's going on here. The whole thing has been engineered, because this bill just smells; it's odorous -- the things that they bring in.

One of the things that I find most odorous about it is the fact that we find something extremely good in that section on the Human Tissue Gift Act. I appreciated the member for Rossland-Trail bringing his personal experience into it. I too, through a very good friend of mine who had a young daughter who was barely in her teens when she had kidney failure and who really had to go through a long period of dialysis and was at times fighting life and death. . . . She managed just recently to have a transplant, had close to a failure on that and, fortunately, through the anti-rejection drugs, managed to survive a couple of bad incidents. She was saved by the fact that somebody, somewhere along the line, was able to donate the tissue that was needed to keep that young lady alive. She's a vibrant high school teenager now and is doing extremely well, and is a wonderful person. Tissue donations have helped that young lady stay alive.

What I find repugnant, as I said, about the fact that that's here is that the government does not have the guts to really bring it in as a separate act so that we on this side of the House can vote for it and agree with it -- because we will vote for that section. But everyone in this House knows what this government does. They take these miscellaneous statutes acts, and they put good things and bad things in them. I think this act is a wonderful example of their way of engineering things. So in the end, because we cannot support the bill as a whole, they will go out and say, "Oh, the Liberals didn't support human tissue gifts," whereas we do. They will say it because we voted against the bill. They did it, they've done it before, and they'll do it again, you know, because this is really a government that does things in that manner.

Interjections.

D. Symons: Now we hear them. They're denying that they'll do this. I would hope that with such an issue as this, they would not dare do that. But, you know, when you look at the further issues in this act, you really begin to wonder if there's anything they wouldn't dare do.

We find the second section, on the Land Act, is not that bad either. There's no problem with that. We get into sections 4, 5 and 6, which deal with some changes to the Liquor Control and Licensing Act, which by and large. . . . I think the companies that are involved in both the manufacture and distributing and supplying to liquor establishments. . . . By and large, most of them have to agree with it. Some happen to disagree, but by and large, the industry accepts and wants those changes. So, you know, up to section 6 we're going along quite well indeed; these are sections that have no problems. I say section 1 is a terrific one.

But then we get to section 7, which is really where most of us on this side of the House are finding some real fault with this bill. There are other sections later on that I'll talk about as well. But this is the killer; this is the one that I think is the most repugnant of this particular bill.

It's a self-serving, reprehensible, arrogant act on the part of this government to rewrite history. You know -- as we're dealing with this at two in the morning -- if you go to a Third World country, it's the knock on the door at the middle of the night that people fear, because that's when people disappear and are never heard of again in those dictatorships. I'm not surprised, with this government, that indeed this sort of bill is one that they're doing in the middle of the night also.

It's just something where you're rewriting history. I'm reminded, in rewriting history, of George Orwell's 1984. You may remember that in that particular story there's a fellow named Winston Smith. Winston begins to question the state of the country he's in, the constant war the country is supposedly in with some other power out there. He begins to question this. Eventually, he is led into a trap of self-incrimination during the process of questioning this. He actually gets to the people who are controlling the whole situation. But at the end, anyway, after that, he's arrested. He is basically brainwashed into loving Big Brother -- that is, big government, which is controlling his life. Winston, toward the end of the story, weeps when he sees Big Brother's picture on the TV screen. After that, Winston is exterminated, and he disappears. The whole history of the existence of this person is rewritten; he never existed.

In that one sense, this act -- as far as the Lottery Act goes, sections 7 through 11 -- is doing precisely the same thing. It's rewriting history. We have to look, I suppose, hon. Speaker, at why. Why are they trying to rewrite history in this sort of way? We find, really, that what happened is that the government found a year ago that they'd got into some problems. Indeed, they have been trying to rake more off of the lotteries in this province. They increased the hours which the casinos could work; they have increased the maximum bet. They did a lot of things that would increase the take from the various casinos and Lottery Corporation in this province. In doing so, they also decided they would take a bigger portion of those proceeds for themselves, rather than the dividing process they had before that.

Well, some of the organizations that were involved in raising funds for their non-profit organization took exception to this and took it to court. During the process of taking it to court, the government was found to be acting illegally in what they were doing. It broke the law.

That really explains why we're here tonight at a little after 2 a.m., discussing a bill that is rewriting the law that this government found that it was breaking. The reason they want to rewrite it, of course, is that they're on the hook for large amounts of money that have been collected illegally over a number of years by this government and previous governments. They're using as an excuse. . . . The minister responsible got up and said: "Well, we're protecting the charities. We're not protecting our own backsides; oh no, we wouldn't do that. It's the charities we're protecting."

[2:15]

[ Page 10617 ]

It's interesting, because what they would be protecting the charities against, I guess, are the people who lost money through the various methods of lotteries or gaming that these charities were getting their money from. The individuals who lost money could go back to the charity and say: "I bet five bucks there and lost it, and I want to sue you to get that back." By and large, the only other party interested in suing them would be the government. I guess the government would feel a little awkward, going back and saying: "We're going to try and sue these non-profit organizations that are doing good in various communities, and that's why they're using the lottery as a means of raising money -- to do the good they are doing in their communities." The government doesn't want to do that, so basically they're saying: "What we'll do is change the law. It will prohibit the charities from suing us to get back the fair share they really deserve from the profits in the past and the illegal fees they were paying, beyond the costs of licensing." The charities are entitled to these things by the way the law is written, but this government has decided to rewrite the law.

In section 9, section 2.1, we find that they're going to change it to say:

"(4) Each of the Provincial Secretary and Minister of Government Services, the Attorney General and the Public Gaming Control Branch is conclusively deemed to be and to have been between May 27, 1986" -- that's 12 years ago -- "and the end of March 31, 1987, and the British Columbia Gaming Commission" -- because these other things are rolled over into that -- "is conclusively deemed to be, and to have been since March 31, 1987" it's consecutive here, you see: one authority is then rolled over into a new authority -- "an authority to whom the discretion under subsection (1) to license persons to conduct and manage lottery schemes" -- I like that word "schemes" -- "in British Columbia has been delegated by order under subsection (2).

"(5) A licence or purported licence is conclusively deemed to have been validly issued under this section on the date of the licence or purported licence if the licence (a) was issued by. . . ."

Again, I think the schemes are what this particular government is doing in this section of Bill 50, to try and rewrite the history of lottery legislation in the province of British Columbia.

It goes on further into -- and I must get the section right here -- section 11. . . . Section 7(6) of the Lottery Act is going to read:

"Every licence fee or purported licence fee, in respect of a lottery scheme, imposed or purported to have been imposed by (a) the Provincial Secretary and Minister of Government Services, the Attorney General or the Public Gaming Control Branch between May 27, 1986 and the end of March 31, 1987, or (b) the British Columbia Gaming Commission, between March 31, 1987 and the date of Royal Assent to the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 3), 1998" -- in other words, this act is covering everything up to the point when royal assent is given with this act -- "is conclusively deemed to have been validly imposed by regulation. . . "

Everybody, of course, has brought in. . . . The Minister of Forests has said that governments can do anything, and this is certainly proving that fact. This government would stoop to do anything, and in particular stoop to deny justice, to deny the courts to those non-profit organizations that feel they have been wronged by the government. They're being denied the access -- to be able to go to the courts, raise that issue and have the court decide.

But this government doesn't want the courts deciding. That wouldn't be appropriate, you know. The government might lose. And wouldn't that be terrible? Wouldn't it be terrible if the government found that indeed what it has been doing was illegal and that they were going to have to pay back the moneys that were wrongly collected? It must say something about a government that would feel so strongly determined not to pay back moneys wrongly collected that it would change the law retroactively for 12 years back.

I can see correcting little slips that have been made a year back or something of that sort. But this is not a little slip; it's a major change that they're making. It's going to deny rights. Most of the time, when legislation is legislated, it's not denying somebody the rights that this one is -- the right to go to court. So I have a lot of problems, as I said, with these particular sections of the act, sections 7 through 11.

There are other sections in here that I'd like to make a few comments about as well. The next sections I'd like to refer to are sections 30 through 34, which deal with the Public Education Labour Relations Act, which is being amended. What I find happening in those sections. . . . What the government basically seems to be doing here is making the Public School Employers Association be the bargaining agent for school district support staff. I have no problem with them doing this. Indeed, it seems that the support staff were left out of that when the government brought in provincewide bargaining and basically bargained with their individual school boards. This seems to be correcting, I guess, an anomaly in that sense.

But, you know, it's rather interesting, in a sense, that they are now making BCPSEA the bargaining agent responsible for the school district support staff. It's interesting, because we just passed a bill recently that basically was undermining the authority of BCPSEA. In Bill 39, they basically said: "Well, hey, the government can go and negotiate, but not through proper negotiating with the BCTF. Rather, we'll simply circumvent BCPSEA, and we'll have a government negotiator go in there and cut a special deal with them." And they bring in an education authority act to enact their private little backroom deal with the BCTF, which circumvented BCPSEA. Here they are now, saying: "Well, this is the bargaining agent." Just a short while ago, they removed them from being the bargaining agent. The government can't seem to get its act together. One day it is the bargaining agent; the next day it doesn't matter if it's the bargaining agent. "We'll ignore it."

Section 36 is another section I'd just like to take a few minutes to speak about. I think there are some issues with section 36, as well, that deserve some consideration, because it also involves the Public Service Labour Relations Act. It's what is being amended, and basically the government is going, in this case, I believe, to add in a group of employees to the bargaining unit that's done through the BCGEU. They're going to add a group that was excluded from that before, and

[ Page 10618 ]

A major reason for the licensing of professionals at all, and perhaps the major reason, is to safeguard the public by ensuring that qualified professionals -- this is as it currently stands -- are obliged to conduct themselves according to established professional standards consistent with public health and safety. In other words, what this professional group is saying is that they should be excluded from the obligations they might owe to a union when it comes to performing their duties, with the withdrawal of services as a main concern.

Including licensed professionals as a minority in a far larger bargaining unit of employees who are not subject to licensing regulations or a licensing regime jeopardizes the professional's ability to comply with his or her statutory responsibilities. When a union votes to strike, individual members of the union may be required to withdraw their labour, regardless of other considerations, and these licensed professionals believe that they may have other considerations. Failure to take a union's direction can result, and has resulted, in sanctions against employees, including loss of membership and even deprivation of work. They don't want to be put into that position, but this bill would do precisely that for anybody new who is becoming licensed and who was not licensed prior to this particular section of Bill 50 being enacted.

I think it's something that the government should be careful about doing, because they can cause some problems for themselves. Certainly it's causing some real problems for members of the Professional Employees Association that are going to be affected by that particular section of this bill -- another onerous one that is, in a sense, unionizing a group of people who have their own particular organization and don't care to be included in another one. This is going to achieve that end through the back door, in spite of their wishes.

The final thing I would like to mention -- which has been mentioned by a few others this evening, as well -- is section 39. It deals with the Utilities Commission Act. We have here, again, this government taking the checks and balances -- I guess you could call them -- that govern the operations of the electrical utilities in this province -- the pricing of it, the companies that get involved and produce and sell power and so forth. . . . They're taking those checks and balances out of the hands of the public utilities commission. It's simply placing more decisions as the cabinet's choice -- in fact, it is not even the cabinet; I think it's the minister in this case -- where they can make decisions unilaterally, and they're not responsible to anybody.

The public utilities commission serves a very, very useful purpose for the people of British Columbia, because it gives an opportunity for people to speak up and to question any changes that are made in utility rates in the province. That's the place where concerns can be aired. It is a place where different policies can be discussed and a decision can be made by a group that's independent of government, the power producers and, in a sense, the public. It makes its judgment based on the case as put to it. That will no longer exist with this particular act. It means, simply, that the government and the minister can decide at will what they will do with the power, what rates they may care to charge and what rates they may care to pay for the power that's produced.

We are going to have a power shortage fairly shortly in this province. They talked recently about freezing power rates. You know, hon. Speaker, that freeze wasn't a plus in power rates for the people of British Columbia -- not if you can believe what the government is telling us. The government has been telling us: "We have surplus power. We want to bring one, two or three aluminum smelters into the province to use our surplus power." If they have that much surplus power, what they could be doing is reducing rates. Throughout North America we're finding that power rates are being reduced; there's a glut on the power market in North America. When they froze rates, they weren't putting a ceiling on them; they were putting a floor below which rates wouldn't go. Now they're going to end up taking away the authority of the Utilities Commission to look at power rates, to look at the cost of power and the selling of power in the province, and that is not good. That is not good news for the people of British Columbia. If they are going to give incentives and very cheap power to induce companies to come and produce aluminum or whatever, and it's going to be cheaper than the cost of production, somebody has to pay for it. I can tell you that if they're going to do that for companies -- to give them cheap power -- it's the homeowners of the province who are going to be dinged for the extra costs of giving somebody else a special bargain on power.

The opportunity for doing that will be there when the Utilities Commission is not able to judge those cases on their merits and look after the interests of the people. This government is basically doing away with the consumer protection that we have through this particular commission. They don't believe in consumer protection anymore. They believe they will look after what they consider the greater need, and consumers can go to hell.

[2:30]

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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