[ Page 10757 ]

The House met at 2:08 p.m.

R. Masi: It is my pleasure today to introduce Michele McManus, a longtime colleague of mine from the Surrey school district and a longtime family friend. Would the House please welcome Michele.

J. Dalton: On behalf of my roomie and colleague the member for North Vancouver-Seymour and myself, I would like everyone to welcome our landlord from Japan who has come in for his annual visit, Mr. Ron Jones. Please welcome him.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'd like the House to join me, if we all could, in extending a very heartfelt thank-you to Jo-Anne Kern, the deputy chief of Hansard for this House. If everything goes according to rumour, this will be Jo-Anne's last day dedicated to recording the highs and lows of debates in this august chamber. Jo-Anne has worked well with Hansard since 1973, and her dedication and commitment to an accurate public record will be sorely missed.

There is good news, though. Jo-Anne is starting work as an investigator with the ombudsman's office, so she will continue to work on behalf of the members of the House and the people of British Columbia. On behalf of all of us, I extend our best wishes to Jo-Anne Kern.

Hon. P. Priddy: I actually have two introductions to make today. One of the people who recently joined my office is Steve Arnett, who has joined us as a ministerial assistant. He has some guests in the gallery whom I'd like people to welcome. They are his partner Cathy Rogers Arnett and their children, Matthew and Christopher, and some friends who are visiting from Calgary, Alberta -- Dan and Debbie Fehr and their children, Ryan, Jared and James. Would the House please make them welcome.

My second introduction in the precinct is the family of my other ministerial assistant, Donna Cameron. She has family visiting from Edmonton, and they are her daughter Amy Cameron, her son Fred Cameron, her daughter Lace Cameron and Lace's two children, six-year-old Katie and four-year-old Travis. They are accompanied by Donna's partner, Grandma Lynn. I'd ask the House to make them welcome.

M. Coell: There is a young man riding across Canada named Joe Hache, whom members may know. Having left Halifax on June 15, he will be in Victoria on August 21. He is infected with hepatitis C, and he is travelling across the country gathering support and signatures -- he's closing in on a million signatures now -- in support of victims of hepatitis C and tainted blood. I wonder whether the House would welcome him to Victoria now, as no doubt we won't be sitting on August 21. Could we please take the opportunity to do that.

J. Cashore: Today in the gallery we have the president of the Coquitlam-Maillardville constituency association, Mr. Len Werden. Would the House please join me in making him welcome.

Hon. J. Kwan: I also have a number of introductions to make. They are all staff, either from my office or from the ministry. First, visiting us in the gallery is Cindy Flesh, who is the person who answers the phone and greets everybody with a very warm welcome when you first come in. Also in the gallery, seconded from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, is Deanna Battle. She is replacing Margaret Boston, who had a minor accident about a month ago and happened to break her hip. But she is healing well at home, and we expect her back sometime soon. In the gallery, as well, are three other staffpersons: Diedre Wilson, Susan Hughes and Gail Fattore. Would the House please make them feel very welcome.

E. Gillespie: It gives me great pleasure today to say that visiting in the precinct is my partner Bruce Curtis and my daughter Kate Curtis. They are accompanied by her cousin Tara Gillespie from Edmonton. Would the House join me in making them all welcome, please.

The Speaker: Hon. members, in the gallery today are six very distinguished visitors helping us celebrate the 100-year anniversary of our building. We have a young Queen Victoria; Governor James Douglas; Francis Rattenbury; Hamish, the Scottish stonemason; Nellie Cashman; and I believe Amor de Cosmos is also there. Would the House make them welcome.

I will add that they have other names, and I'll read them in the same order: Sara Topham, Cameron Culham, Andrew Sawatsky, John Bolton, Cara Dick and David Brown. They will be visiting us all summer, six times a day in the precinct. One could have a conversation with them, should one wish to do so. I would encourage all of you, if you're here for the rest of the summer, to do that. We do indeed welcome them today. They are part of the Parliamentary Players and our 100th anniversary celebration. Thank you and welcome.

[2:15]

Oral Questions

CALL FOR NEW PROVINCIAL BUDGET

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. . . .

G. Campbell: My question to the Minister of Finance is: will the Minister of Finance admit the damage that her government's policies have done to the economy and prepare a new budget so that we can repair the damage that's been done by the NDP to British Columbia?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Speaker, the worst thing about our economy is the Liberal opposition.

[ Page 10758 ]

G. Campbell: Hon. Speaker, the worst thing about our economy is the NDP government, which taxes and borrows and spends and drives investment out of British Columbia. The worst thing about our economy is a government that tries to hide the truth from the people of British Columbia. The Minister of Finance cannot turn a blind eye to the thousands of British Columbians who've been driven out of work by this government's policies, to the thousands of British Columbians that have to leave their province to find work that can support their families and support their future.

Will the Minister of Finance accept her responsibility and prepare a new budget to repair the damage that's been done to our economy so we can create some hope in British Columbia again?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Hon. J. MacPhail: This opposition didn't like it when we were very prudent in our forecasts in the 1998 budget. That prudence has proven to have served us very well. This opposition didn't like it when we entered into negotiations with the forest industry to make sure that the forest industry was competitive not only in the area of stumpage but in the area of streamlining regulations. This opposition didn't like it. . .that we've been meeting with business groups on a regular basis to ensure that we're cutting the cost of doing business in this province. This opposition didn't like it when we gave tax incentives to the mining industry, to the film industry, to the oil and gas industry. They didn't like it when we worked with the agriculture industry to give tax incentives there. There is nothing that this government could do to satisfy the naysayers on that side, because all they're about is politics. They don't care. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, members. The minister will finish her comments.

Hon. J. MacPhail: This opposition is willing to risk all of the good economic work, the hard-slogging, down-at-the-roots economic work that our government is doing. . .

The Speaker: Thank you, minister.

Hon. J. MacPhail: . . .solely because the only thing they have is politics and not a single idea of their own.

The Speaker: Second supplementary, the Leader of the Official Opposition.

G. Campbell: This opposition didn't like it when the government didn't tell the people the truth about their budget position in British Columbia. This opposition didn't like it when the government ignored advice from people who invest in this province, and increased taxes. This opposition didn't like it when the government took away workers' rights and imposed a new labour bill which will drive thousands of British Columbians out of British Columbia. And this opposition doesn't like it that this government's policies have driven the forest industry to its knees, so that thousands of families are without work and support. Most of all, this opposition doesn't like a government that won't call an election so we can start repairing the damage to British Columbia.

So, hon. Speaker, let me ask a question of the Minister of Finance.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

G. Campbell: Will the Minister of Finance please, on behalf of all British Columbians, prepare a new budget that will give the people of British Columbia some hope and create jobs in this province, instead of driving them out?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yesterday the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin said that perhaps only the spirit of Bill Vander Zalm was here. Actually, I think he is here -- his hair's just greyer, that's all. I will tell you what this member is doing. This Leader of the Opposition is not putting forward any economic agenda that would make any sense in this province. We have put forward an economic agenda that is making sense. What this Leader of the Opposition is doing is trying to carve out some ideological position that distinguishes him from the Reform Party. It is as simple as that. And I will tell you, it's not working.

The message that he is trying to send is not working in Toronto; it's not working. . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, members.

Hon. J. MacPhail: . . .in New York. Those people, the people who are investing here, understand what this government is doing in these economic times. They understand that we're working with them to create jobs, to improve the investment climate and to cut red tape. They understand the hard work that's going into it each and every day. The only thing. . .

The Speaker: Minister, finish up.

Hon. J. MacPhail: . . .that will make our economy worse. . .

The Speaker: Finish up, minister.

Hon. J. MacPhail: . . .is the naysaying of the Reform -- Liberal opposition.

JOB LOSS IN FOREST SECTOR

Interjections.

G. Abbott: Now we hear. . .

[ Page 10759 ]

G. Abbott: . . .of a $100 million shortfall as a result of the failure in the forests. Can the Minister of Forests tell us how much worse he thinks it's going to get in our forests? Can he tell the forest families of this province how much worse it's going to get?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'm wondering. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Minister, I ask you just to wait a moment, please. Members, I'm just asking for order, and then I'll recognize the Minister of Forests.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Which analyst, which statistician, which forecaster is the opposition using. . .

An Hon. Member: Today.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yeah, today.

. . .for their convenience? They throw numbers around. In fact, they're not right about the numbers, unfortunately. When they talk about forecasts, they're exaggerating how much we're off the forecasts. We have said that what we will do is to take the forecast, take any new information available for analysis, and we will try to make mid-term adjustments, as we always do, because of the changes in the economy.

But you know, hon. Speaker, it is very difficult to sit here and not see that there's some celebration of the fact that because we have money in FRBC, we're employing 5,000 more people this year who would not have been employed. When will they quote the good figures that are out there? It just so happens that the latest survey of employment, payroll and hours shows employment up 2,000 in the forest industry last month. When will they tell the people that?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members. First supplementary, member for Shuswap.

G. Abbott: I'm glad that the Minister of Forests mentions FRBC. They haven't had a lot of success in getting those 15,000 unemployed forest workers back to work, but they're still finding very creative ways to spend their money. For example, this FRBC travel pack is one of those imaginative ways. We have in this travel pack, for example, a disposable comb made in the U.S.A., a disposable toothbrush made in China and disposable toothpaste made in Japan. In fact, the real genius of this FRBC travel pack is that it is entirely wood-free and it's entirely B.C. product-free. It's an amazing thing -- an absolutely amazing thing.

The Speaker: Your question.

G. Abbott: Now, I know that this travel pack may be handy for workers on their way to Alberta to try to find employment, but I want to ask the Minister of Forests: what value does a plastic travel pack from FRBC have in terms of putting forest workers back to work in this province and renewing our forest base?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The opposition opposes the whole idea of renewing the forests and renewing the forest economy. Not a single idea has come from that side of the House with respect to changes to the Forest Practices Code. That side of the House should come clean with the people of B.C. and tell them that they have no idea whatsoever on how you can improve forest practices and still. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members. Minister, will you conclude your remarks, please.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I can inform the opposite side that in its short life New Forest Opportunities, which is designed to take those people who are displaced at work. . .has already employed hundreds of people, and there's about a thousand registered who are taking training to be placed in jobs in the forest industry in British Columbia.

TOP-DOWN LAW ENFORCEMENT

There are a lot of British Columbians who want this matter nipped in the bud. Let me say that I think all of us want to keep abreast of the law in this matter. So, hon. Speaker, many people in British Columbia are angry that these women are not busted. My question to the Attorney General is: will he finally take charge and personally handle the busts? [Laughter.]

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, come to order.

LACK OF JOY FOR UNEMPLOYED YOUTH

Hon. D. Lovick: In the interests of giving a fair, complete and thorough answer, I'm going to let my colleague step up to the mike. [Laughter.]

[2:30]

JOB LOSS AND ENVIRONMENT MINISTER

[ Page 10760 ]

The Speaker: Your question, member.

C. Clark: Can the Minister of Environment, on what may be the last day of this session, tell us how it feels to preside over the loss of 20,000 jobs in British Columbia, and can she tell us, just so we know, how many more jobs she expects to kill through her incompetence over the rest of the year that's left to us?

Hon. C. McGregor: It's certainly my pleasure to be able to respond, in fact, to the most hypocritical statement that could have possibly been made by a member of that side of the House. As the member well knows, and as has been canvassed repeatedly throughout this session, on the question of how to better handle the matters related to job creation, commercial recreation tenure, leasing policies and so on, this ministry and this government took some very significant steps to address those problems. The members will know that there was a miscellaneous statutes amendment act that contained a provision that would allow us to move staff and to create a more streamlined process through which we could deal with these questions. And how did those members opposite vote? They voted no. Shame!

Hon. H. Lali: I request leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Hon. H. Lali: We have some constituents of mine from Merritt, who are touring the precincts: Debbie Barker and her two sons, Mike and Chris. Also, with them is Mr. Terry Michaels, who is a friend of mine who used to live in Merritt. Would the House please make all of these people welcome.

Tabling Documents

Hon. I. Waddell: I have the honour to present the annual report and audited financial statements of the B.C. Heritage Trust for the fiscal year 1997-1998. I'd like to thank the trust members for their good work.

Hon. P. Priddy: I'm pleased to table the annual reports of the Ministry of Health and Ministry Responsible for Seniors for 1995-96 and 1996-97.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I have two reports to table. One is pursuant to the Crown Proceeding Act for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1997. Pursuant to the Financial Administration Act, I am pleased to present reports for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1998, on amounts borrowed by government for making loans to government bodies, amounts borrowed in foreign currencies and amounts borrowed for authorized disbursements.

The Speaker: I have the honour to present the second annual report of the chief electoral officer, covering the period January 1, 1997, to December 31, 1997.

Petitions

R. Thorpe: I rise to present a petition, as I do with all petitions delivered to my office. This one is signed by 154 constituents, regarding fair and just treatment for victims of hepatitis C.

L. Stephens: I rise to present a petition from 59 constituents of mine who are requesting mandatory assessment rehabilitation programs for all drivers who display a drug dependency or an alcohol-abuse lifestyle.

Orders of the Day

TOBACCO FEE ACT
(continued)

On section 6 (continued).

R. Thorpe: Just prior to recessing, knowing that the amendment I had put forward had been ruled not acceptable by the Chair, and having listened to the comments of my colleague from Richmond-Steveston about the intent of the government. . .and an opportunity here to show British Columbians, to show the children of British Columbia, that we're committed, I asked that the ministry please take a look at this during the lunch break to see if they could come back -- because they have all the legislative resources -- and put into this bill, to show British Columbians that we are going to work together, that there will be a process that's committed to in this bill, and that we can work to save our children. We suggested it be through the select standing committee. I wonder if this government has had an opportunity to review it and bring back some positive, substantive amendments to this bill to show British Columbia that we are going to work together in a cooperative manner to save the future and the lives of our children. I'd like the minister's comments on that, hon. Chair.

Hon. P. Priddy: Yes, I did have discussions with staff about it. After those discussions, I am still satisfied that by setting out the purpose of raising this tobacco fee, as this bill does in section 6(1), we have imposed an effective restriction on the use of the money.

The opposition did ask this morning if the government is prepared to put its commitment in writing. I would submit, hon. Chair, that we have put it in writing in the strongest possible way, which means in legislation.

G. Plant: If the minister could perhaps answer this question or confirm my understanding of matters, is it the case that the licence fees, which will be collected under this act and

[ Page 10761 ]

Hon. P. Priddy: The answer is yes.

S. Hawkins: The minister doesn't give me any comfort that this money will go to the purpose that's stated in the bill. There is nothing legally binding in any of these subsections in section 6 and nothing that tells me that the money is going to go to that. It just says that this is the intent. The purpose of collecting the fee is to help defray the expense of setting up a strategy, but there's nothing in this section that binds the government to do that. Frankly, this minister might give her verbal commitment, but Ministers of Health have been changing from year to year. We've seen a new minister almost every year, so we don't know what the next minister might do.

It would give children who will benefit from this strategy, hopefully. . . . We know the government hasn't developed the strategy yet, because in the technical briefing we did ask for a document or a framework of this strategy. We don't have a business plan for this strategy; we asked for that as well, and we didn't get that. When we come to the bill, in section 6(1) it looks like the government hasn't quite developed this strategy, doesn't really know how much it's going to spend on this strategy, but wants to collect $20 million in licensing fees from tobacco companies to defray the cost of this strategy. There's nothing in this section that legally binds the government to actually use that money for that strategy. There's nothing in the section that says that.

The members for Richmond-Steveston and Okanagan-Penticton rightly point out that there should be something in this section that gives us comfort. If that is the reason that the government is going to set up this whole bureaucracy and collect $20 million in fees, then there should be some statutory provision in this section or somewhere in the bill that says that this money is precisely going to be used for that purpose and that the government will be legally bound. As we understand it, it goes into the consolidated revenue fund, which is general revenues, so it goes into a pool of money that the government can use for anything. I would ask the government again to consider putting an amendment in this section that will expressly state that there will be a statutory account set up for this fund and that the only purpose it can be used for is within the parameters of the tobacco strategy that's set up.

[2:45]

Hon. P. Priddy: Yes, we do.

G. Plant: Does the minister expect to spend the $20 million for the first fiscal year before the end of the fiscal year that we're now in?

Hon. P. Priddy: No, we do not.

G. Plant: Would the minister be prepared to provide to the opposition a copy or some sort of summary document or version that would give the opposition and perhaps the public some sense of what the minister's or ministry's business plan is around the expenditure of these funds, in order that there would be the beginning of a process of public accountability for how the government is implementing this strategy?

Hon. P. Priddy: As soon as it's available and in its final form, yes, we will.

G. Plant: Does the minister have a time line for the completion of this business plan?

Hon. P. Priddy: We will certainly have that completed by the end of the fall.

G. Plant: By the end of the fall -- is that sometime prior to the winter solstice? Is the minister able to give some target date that is a little earlier than that? My concern is that if, for example, we weren't going to get this plan until the middle of December, that would mean that the government hadn't actually finalized the plan. That would mean that the government would be spending something in the order of $20 million in the course of three or four months, which would be a pretty rapid rate of expenditure.

I think the minister is shaking her head rightly, because she reminds me that her answer to my earlier question is that in fact she doesn't expect to spend $20 million during this year. What does she expect to spend during the current fiscal year? And what will happen to the balance of the $20 million?

Hon. P. Priddy: Currently, we have budgeted, within our own budget, $6.5 million for these kinds of activities. I think we will approach this with some prudence, hon. member. We recognize the potential of a court case, so we will be prudent and probably hold some of those dollars in reserve.

But just let me give you a few examples, if you like, of what that plan both entails now and could entail with larger amounts of dollars. One of the examples is a critics' choice contest, which we've actually done before quite successfully with something like 30,000 students involved throughout the province, looking at the effectiveness of tobacco ads and/or anti-smoking ads -- both. It was very interesting. I can just say this. When the students looked at the ads that were selected, actually, from across North America, some were quite funny. I sort of chuckled when I saw them. But the ones the students chose as being most appropriate were really hard-hitting ones. They thought the ones that worked were really tough advertisements. So it was interesting to watch that. We would do that, but with a lower-age group of students. We'll do some work with "KidZone," the public television program for kids. We will have a launch of a whole new school development program with a significant amount of resources.

My concern -- and people are not unaware of this, both in this ministry and others -- is that we do a lot of work in schools, a lot of anti-drug, anti-alcohol, anti-smoking, anti-whatever programs, and I'm not sure we always measure the outcomes very well. We have 112 different curriculums -- or curricula, rather. This is intended to actually focus. . .measure outcomes to know what's effective. That would be an initiative that we would certainly partner with the Ministry of Education but which we would fund. We're looking at working with an advisory group of teenagers, who are probably the people who know best what actually works for 13- and 14-year-olds. Those are just some of the examples of what would be contained in the plan.

[ Page 10762 ]

The problem, as I see it, is this. We have scarce resources in British Columbia to do all the things we want to do. One of the old political science expressions is that politics is the allocation of scarce resources. Certainly that's the challenge we have here in British Columbia. We don't have enough resources to do all of the good things that we want to do, including convincing young people that they shouldn't take up the tobacco habit. What really troubles me about this bill is that contrary to the notion of getting more resources out there to fight tobacco consumption, I think what we're going to find as the reality of this bill sets in is that we are wasting scarce resources on a proposition which I think ultimately even this government will come to realize is unachievable. That's the first thing. I think we have to think about how this bill was conceived and why that conception is fundamentally flawed.

At one point the minister said: "Well, we're looking for $20 million to work with the tobacco companies towards beneficial purposes like convincing young people not to take up tobacco." That's a noble objective. I've got three kids, and I don't want them to take up tobacco. I don't want anybody else's kids to take up tobacco either. So that's a noble objective. The $20 million licence fee is not a problem, in my view, either. If you decide to impose that fee -- and I certainly would have preferred to see it go to a dedicated fund, as we recommended -- I don't fundamentally have a problem with the licence fee either.

Where I really get concerned, though, and where this bill goes awry, I think, is that the aim is not to impose a $20 million licence fee. That's part of it, but the important part is that the government intends to do this and at the same time limit or exclude the ability of tobacco companies to pass along the cost of that fee. The problem is: can we do that, and can we do it with the very limited resources which the Health minister claimed earlier we can? I'm sure we cannot. I'm not aware of any other product in the marketplace where the government has stepped in and said: "We are going to impose a licence fee, and further to that licence fee, we are going to ensure that this licence fee can't be passed along." Now, alcohol has its evils and problems when it's misused. We don't -- at least, as far as I know -- attempt to step into the marketplace and block them from passing along a price increase.

I think what's going to happen here is the scenario which we talked about earlier: that, in fact, the cooperation that the minister expects won't be there, and we're going to have a whole bunch of bureaucracy chasing around a proposition which is not going to work in the final analysis. What we're going to see is a waste of resources at a time when we desperately need more resources to fight these real problems. That is the problem. I think you can do the first parts that I talked about, but when you try to do the third, you run into a problem. Hopefully, the minister will find that enlightening.

Sections 6 to 12 inclusive approved.

On section 13.

Hon. P. Priddy: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 13 by deleting "section 12" and substituting "section 12, a decision of the director under section 9 (1) to not approve a price for a tobacco product or a calculation by the director under section 10 (3) (a)."]

Section 13 as amended approved.

Sections 14 to 21 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. P. Priddy: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved on division.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Bill 29, Tobacco Fee Act, reported complete with amendment.

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

Hon. J. MacPhail: With the leave of the House now, hon. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Bill 29, Tobacco Fee Act, read a third time and passed on division.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I call committee stage of Bill 30.

TOBACCO DAMAGES RECOVERY AMENDMENT ACT, 1998

On section 1.

[3:00]

[P. Calendino in the chair.]

Hon. P. Priddy: Welcome. I always welcome a new Chair, especially on the last day of the Legislature, when it's such a joyous occasion. Well, maybe. . . .

[ Page 10763 ]

M. de Jong: Maybe the minister will indulge me as I try to work through this definition. I'm beginning at the top of the page: ". . . 'manufacturer' means a person who manufactures or has manufactured a tobacco product and includes a person who currently or in the past" -- and now I'm dropping down to subsection (e) -- "is related to a person described in this definition and is engaged in, or causes, directly or indirectly, other persons to engage in the promotion of a tobacco product. . . ." Those words -- "promote" or "promotion" -- are further defined in subsection (h), where it says: ". . .includes, for a tobacco product, the marketing, distribution or sale of the tobacco product and research with respect to the tobacco product. . . ." It seems to incorporate the notion of distribution and marketing.

Hon. P. Priddy: This was included -- and if you need more, I know that you'll tell me. . . . This piece was intended to be able to cover what are, in many ways, shell corporations, which are indeed tied very closely to the manufacturer but are the ones doing the distribution. They are directly related to the tobacco manufacturers.

M. de Jong: Well, it's always helpful to know what was intended. Of course, those people who might avail themselves of this legislation in terms of launching an action, leaving the government aside. . . . For them the question is: does this legislation open up the possibility that they could include as a defendant a manufacturer that by the definition in this act could include the companies that are created solely for the purpose of distributing to various retail outlets? And we can get to the question of retail outlets themselves, but wholesalers. . . . It does speak in those terms. To signal where I might ultimately go with this, if we go to page 4, it's also an issue with respect to calculating market share, because that formula also speaks of manufacturers.

Hon. P. Priddy: I think the key in this piece is that they have to be directly related to the manufacturer. For instance, a wholesaler is unlikely to fall into the category of being directly related to a manufacturer. I think the key phrase is the direct relationship.

M. de Jong: With the greatest respect, the bill doesn't say that. It says in subsection (e): ". . .is related to a person" -- meaning a company, in this context -- or "other persons" and whose purpose is to engage in the promotion. . . . The bill assists us insofar as it defines "promote" or "promotion" as being the action of marketing or distribution. The bill is very specific about that, and I think it purposely expands the net to capture distributors and marketers. Those are the words it uses, so I think we need to know that. I guess the question I could ask is: what would the response be to a restaurant. . . ? We can talk about wholesalers. What is the response to a restaurant that finds itself on the receiving end of a lawsuit because it is involved in the distribution of tobacco products?

Hon. P. Priddy: Again, as I go back to the part about "related" being the key, in subsection (l) on page 3, it devotes most of that page to actually defining what is meant by "related."

M. de Jong: That's partially helpful, but. . . . Let me take this example, and this may incorporate elements of, for example, subsection (f). Tell me why a cigar club wouldn't be captured now by this legislation insofar as they might be an association engaged in the promotion of a tobacco product.

Hon. P. Priddy: I think the answer for that is found in the first part of the definition of manufacturer: that a cigar club. . . . Are there many? Just out of interest -- right?

Interjection.

Hon. P. Priddy: I'm asking. . . . Oh, the expert tells me: "Maybe there are." All right. I've read about it in the paper, though.

A cigar club would not fall into that category. If you go back to the very beginning of that definition, it also must include someone "who manufacturers or has manufactured a tobacco product and includes a person who currently or in the past. . . ." I don't think a cigar club falls under "has manufactured" or "currently."

M. de Jong: I think I understand what the minister is saying, but I'm not sure I agree with her definition. Where the bill reads: ". . .means a person who manufactures or has manufactured a tobacco product and includes a person who currently or in the past. . . ." What I think I hear the minister saying is that if you satisfy any one of all of the contingent conditions that are enumerated in (a) through (f), you must also presently be in the business of manufacturing a tobacco product. If that's the intention, then I think there's a drafting problem here.

Hon. P. Priddy: I just checked with at least two legal staff who are here with me. They believe that this is clear and that it does state our intent. They don't recognize a drafting problem.

Maybe you have a suggestion.

M. de Jong: Far be it from me to quarrel with legislative counsel. I should register for the record, then, my concern that other counsel, perhaps equally clever, will endeavour to utilize these sections to broaden the pool from which a plaintiff might be able to elicit damage payments and include those agencies involved in, as the act says, marketing and distribution, and further include facilities like the one I've mentioned -- the cigar clubs and those organizations dedicated to promotion of the use of tobacco products. I think the minister has indicated she differs, and I'm apparently not going to change her mind with respect to that.

On the third page of the bill, under subsection (k) of section 1, I note that the definition with respect to tobacco-related wrong has been changed. In particular, I note that the word "equitable" has been added: ". . .tort or breach of a common law, equitable or statutory duty. . . ." I note also that there is a drafting change where the legislative drafters have opted for the section to read "statutory duty or obligation owed by a manufacturer" as opposed to "committed." I think that the definition of the tort that gives rise to an action under this bill is worthy of an explanation by the minister.

[3:15]

[ Page 10764 ]

Hon. P. Priddy: In regards to your first question, yes, that's correct; that is the intent. In terms of the second part of that, I cannot give you a specific example of this. But it is a theoretical possibility that through some other arm of a corporate organization, a relationship might exist. That's what is intended, but I cannot give you a specific example.

M. de Jong: I think what the section contemplates is a relationship between two agencies that, on the one hand, is not arm's-length, but on the other hand, it might be seen as providing that second agency with a degree of control over the manufacturer. I presume that's what's being dealt with here: a relationship between the manufacturer and some other agency.

I'm wondering again about. . . . It seems to me that in drafting the section in this way, the drafters had some sort of relationship in mind. They were trying to capture something. I am concerned with respect to a bill, as the minister probably recognized from my earlier questions, that we be as clear as possible about who is going to be subject to an act that gives the state rather draconian powers by evidentiary and judicial proceedings standards. So any company, individual or agency that is going to be subject to those powers should know that and should not be surprised. Maybe in the time it has taken me to organize my thoughts and put them to the minister, her staff have been able to develop a little more information that would be helpful in expanding upon the notion that is reflected there.

Hon. P. Priddy: If the House adjourns today, I promise I will go to legal 101 this summer.

What we did in order to establish this piece of the legislation is consult a company law expert who looked extensively at tobacco companies and subsidiaries and how people were attached to each other. He provided us with a definition that he thought would appropriately capture those agencies that might derive some benefit from the profits of the manufacturer.

M. de Jong: Not to belabour the point, but distributors, for example, benefit and government itself benefits from the sale of tobacco products. I'm sure the expert that the government consulted had something more specific in mind than that.

That, by the way, gives rise to my concern around the definition of manufacturer. If I can turn, then, to sub-subsection (l)(5), where we come to the formula by which market share is going to be determined, really the only question I have here. . . . The minister has already indicated that she doesn't share my concern about the definition of manufacturer, which is key within that formula. But do I have the minister's agreement to this extent: that the wider the definition of manufacturer is, the more agencies and corporate interests you can include within that definition? That will impact the percentage that comes out the other end of the formula and therefore increase the liability of the defendant who is on the receiving end of any action. Is that, at least, a fair statement insofar as the formula is concerned?

Hon. P. Priddy: That's correct.

M. de Jong: Lastly, then, it would be in the plaintiff's and, if the government is the plaintiff, the government's interest to seek as broad a definition of manufacturer as is possible within the meaning of the act.

Hon. P. Priddy: I'm not sure that in the end this is the particular point that makes a difference. When we're talking about market share, there's only so much market share. You're only looking at the market share that's out there. So in some ways, it's really kind of a zero-sum game. It's simply the market share that exists.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

M. de Jong: I take the minister's point. But a distributor in the traditional sense, who is dealing with numerous brands, is going to be involved in a larger market share, perhaps, than a small manufacturer. But we don't have to go back there, because the minister says she disagrees on that point.

If we deal with the empirical evidence that is going to be required to plug into the formula, I ask the minister this: what would be the source of that data? What will the court be examining in terms of the defendant manufacturer's market share and the MM, as it is referred to here? Is that evidence that is brought before the court deemed to be conclusive, deemed to be determinative of what it purports to represent?

Hon. P. Priddy: In two ways: one, through the federal government, because we receive regular federal government information about this; and two, directly from the manufacturers themselves.

M. de Jong: In the existing act, the type of statistical evidence required to establish causation is referred to. I'm curious, though, for evidentiary purposes, will there be a requirement on the part of the plaintiff to establish the validity of the market share information that is being presented to the court, or is there some deeming provision here that I am missing that precludes the need for the plaintiff to do that? You can rest assured that the defendant in this case is going to go to great pains to ensure that the number that is attached to market share is the lowest possible.

Hon. P. Priddy: Obviously, from our perspective, we will have to prove that on a balance of probabilities. The manufacturing industry can certainly, amongst themselves, have some kind of determination about that. But we would, on the balance of probabilities, have to put that forward.

M. de Jong: I think one might logically assume that the defendants in this case are going to put the plaintiff to the strict burden of proof with respect to establishing that figure. Given some of the other things that appear in the act and the existence of the formula itself, I'm surprised, from an evidentiary point of view, that there wouldn't be some sort of deeming provision pointing to the source from which that information

[ Page 10765 ]

[3:30]

M. de Jong: I think, hon. Chair, I have been debating with the minister with respect to section 1, when what we've actually been debating is contained within section 2, so perhaps we should move off section 1.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

M. de Jong: I think the question I want to pursue here is -- and it might seem trite and obvious: is the minister convinced that the broader definition that is offered within this bill and that will become part of the Tobacco Damages Recovery Act sufficiently well defined to preclude the possibility that someone would name the Crown as an agency involved in the promotion and distribution of tobacco products?

Hon. P. Priddy: It would be the government that would name, through the court documents, who the defendants are. So it would be us who names those defendants, and we're not likely to name ourselves.

M. de Jong: The minister refers to one scenario, but I believe the act contemplates the commencement of an action by groups or individuals other than government.

Hon. P. Priddy: Of course, you're quite right. It does contemplate that, hon. member. In that case it comes back to the issue of whether the Crown would be seen as both fitting the definition of being related and having control. In which case, we would not.

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

M. de Jong: Maybe what we should do -- and my colleague will become involved in this as well. . . . If the minister is agreeable, let's take section 3 and discuss the notion of the reverse onus provisions that are included within this bill. I'd just like the minister to provide, on the record, the government's reasoning behind providing for that reverse onus that deems responsibility and leaves it to the defendants, in this case, to call evidence rebutting the presumption.

I'm just trying to read my notes, which were made some time ago. I think that more properly falls under section 5, so if we want to. . . .

The Chair: Shall sections 3 and 4 pass? The member for Okanagan West on section 3.

S. Hawkins: Just a question. Section 13.1(3) of this act is about the recovery of the cost of health care benefits. I know we asked the same question last year; I'm asking it again. As we mentioned, there's nothing in this section or in this bill that says that any damages recovered will go back into the Health budget. I wonder where in this section or this bill it tells us. . . . I believe the new title of the bill is Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act. If the government is indeed recovering health care costs, we would like the assurance that any damages recovered would go back into the health care system and not just into general revenues. I wonder where -- because I don't see it in this section -- it deals with recovery of cost of health care benefits. I don't see that here, and I wonder if the minister can tell me where in the act it will give us comfort and assurance that this money will actually go back into the health care budget for tobacco-related disease purposes.

Hon. P. Priddy: Looking both at this piece and at similar pieces that have been put forward in at least other parts of North America, what tends to happen is that you get a retroactive award. You may get it retroactive for five, ten or 15 years. You might end up with a retroactivity part of the settlement of -- I don't know -- $10 billion. You're not going to put $10 billion into the heath budget so that you can fiscally use it in that year. There's absolutely no question that this is intended as redress for health care costs, but I think that if you were to receive that in a lump sum payment, you wouldn't necessarily put it directly into the health budget for that year.

S. Hawkins: Well, this morning we heard the minister say we needed $20 million for a tobacco reduction strategy. Now I hear a figure coming from that side of the House of possibly $10 million or $10 billion, or whatever, in recovery costs. There's nothing here that tells me that any of the money is going to go back for the purposes for which it's being recovered -- none of it. Unless there is something in the bill that says that. . . . I don't find that anywhere.

Hon. P. Priddy: I think it is absolutely clear by the information in the act, by the title of the act, that we are recovering past dollars for health care damages -- for health care costs that this province has incurred as a result of tobacco-related illnesses. When that money is recovered, it may very well be more than is needed in one fiscal year, but the priority is for those dollars to be used for health care priorities, which is a priority for this government -- always has been and continues to be.

M. de Jong: I recall last year, when this legislation, the original Tobacco Damages Recovery Act, was tabled amidst much fanfare of a pending action. I'm not aware that an action by government has actually been commenced. Is that correct?

Hon. P. Priddy: That is correct, because the act is not in force.

M. de Jong: Is it contemplated by the minister that following passage of these amendments, the action that is contemplated by the act will be commenced by government?

Hon. P. Priddy: That's correct.

[3:45]

[ Page 10766 ]

Hon. P. Priddy: There has been significant work done on this recently. Obviously that probably won't be a public figure until the case is filed. It is difficult, when you look over the past 25 years, to do that kind of calculation. But we have had people hard at work doing that for some time. What we do know now is that we currently spend about $400 million a year treating tobacco-related diseases in the province.

M. de Jong: I'm just trying to get a handle on this. I don't know if there is a tobacco manufacturer that commands 10 percent of the market. But am I correct, as I work through this and apply the formulas, that if an action were commenced against such a manufacturer, they would minimally, if found liable, be on the hook then for $40 million times whatever period the court saw fit to apply to the case? I'm just trying to get a handle on what the calculation of damages recovery for government will be.

Hon. P. Priddy: In terms of magnitude, I don't know if it's order of magnitude that the member is trying to get a sense of or not, but the most we can do, other than our own calculations, is look at some other judgments that have come in. For instance, in Minnesota -- sort of the same population as we have, although the costs are split differently, because they only covered the government costs and not the huge private costs that you see in American health care -- it was a $6.8 billion settlement. So I think we can really only look at what probably a dozen court cases have shown us and use that as some kind of estimation.

M. de Jong: Does the government contemplate in the action, when it is commenced -- as apparently it will be -- naming all of the known manufacturers -- that is, all of the known persons that fall within the definition of manufacturer?

Hon. P. Priddy: I think that is information that really is part of the client-solicitor privilege, if that's what you want to call it, in terms of the case we're taking forward. I'm not sure this is the right place to debate that.

M. de Jong: I'm not sure I agree. It's a unique act insofar as it contemplates a very specific action by the government. It provides government with the means to do that in a way that no other plaintiff could, with the possibility of a significant return to government if it is applied and if findings are made in the way that I think the government hopes and anticipates they will be.

I'll try again. It seems to me that a case can be made that great efficiencies are served if the government takes that set of defendants that it says are captured by the new and expanded definition of manufacturer, and proceeds on that basis -- that the liability that each of those defendants are exposed to is related to their market share. So I am puzzled. . . . Does the minister think there are manufacturers out there that the government isn't aware of? If the minister is correct in her original statements, this is a fairly exclusive club we're talking about. Why wouldn't the government, if it intends to proceed with this action, deal with it all at the same time?

Hon. P. Priddy: What I would choose to say is: I thank the member for his comments and advice. But given that the claim has not been filed, I think that to indicate who the defendants would be is simply not appropriate at this stage.

M. de Jong: I wonder if I could ask the minister to comment with respect to the issue of damage assessment -- I'm not sure if that is the correct word. First of all, the government is going to be in the best, and perhaps the only, position to quantify the amount of money it believes it is owed with respect to health care benefits paid out with respect to damage or diseases caused by exposure to tobacco products. Now, this act deems that to be the damage, but there is a presumption that that is the correct figure and is the amount of money owed to the government, subject to market share calculations. But then it provides the manufacturer, the defendant, with an opportunity to reduce their proportion of the liability. So instead of the plaintiff in this case being confronted with the need to establish what the particular liabilities of individual defendants are, it's operating somewhat in reverse. Obviously that is a very purposeful decision on the part of government. Can the minister confirm on the record today the basis on which that decision was made -- insofar as it is something of a departure with respect to the assessment of liability that exists elsewhere in areas of civil law?

Hon. P. Priddy: As the member said a minute ago, the government probably has the best information about what the health care costs have been in the past -- that's correct. I think that shifting the onus from that is also appropriate, because the industry has the best evidence available respecting why people start and continue to consume tobacco products; they have the best information around that.

Sections 3 to 11 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. P. Priddy: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Bill 30, Tobacco Damages Recovery Amendment Act, 1998, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I call committee on Bill 21, hon. Speaker.

ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT ACT, 1998
(continued)

On section 12, section 38.

F. Gingell: Hon. Chair, could you please check to see where we got to? Section 10 was stood down. I don't know if the minister intended to bring that back first.

The Chair: Yes, member, section 10 was stood down. We're on section 12, section 38.

F. Gingell: I have no questions.

[ Page 10767 ]

I'd like to take a moment and review an issue that has come to my attention since we last debated this bill, which was, I believe, some six weeks ago. It's regarding 2222 Bellevue Avenue in West Vancouver. I'll put it into the record:

"The message today from the B.C. Assessment Authority is that this 32-year-old beauty should be bulldozed to the ground in order -- in Assessment Authority babble -- to make the highest and best use of the property. When owner Bill Lachman got his assessment notice earlier this year, he learned his 101 suites now have an average value of only $1,400 -- $146,000 for the entire building -- while the land on which they sit could fetch more than $19 million. Mr. Lachman's problem is that the Pink Palace has always been exclusively rental. With good-quality rental accommodations steadily diminishing. . . ."

"But what his 1998 assessment really told him was that he'd be a fool not to kick out all his tenants, demolish his unique West Vancouver landmark and build some monster tower of $500,000 condo units on his $19 million chunk of real estate, or else sell it to a developer who would do exactly the same. That's the carrot. The other half of the Assessment Authority's unspoken message is the stick. If Mr. Lachman insists on remaining a landlord, his annual tax will continue to be based on the $19 million-plus and rising valuation of the land for condo development. Little as he wants to sell, he wonders how long he can hold out under similar Assessment Authority pressure in the years ahead.

"Annually soaring taxes based on annually rising assessments have to be passed on to renters. Hikes were pretty steep even in my own time -- from $570 in 1982 to $1,300 in 1992. Over the past six years, I gather the relentless assessment-driven pattern has continued. So this is what the highest and best use of property boils down to the Assessment Authority's manual. It excludes any consideration whatsoever of social and community needs."

[4:00]

Hon. J. Kwan: The member raises an issue that's quite detailed in terms of that particular situation. I'd be happy to take that letter and refer it to the assessment commissioner for his attention so that he can look at the issue in detail and respond to it accordingly.

L. Reid: I thank the minister for that. I do believe that this issue is before the B.C. Assessment Authority today, and I believe it's also been copied to the ministry. But if it has. . . .

Interjection.

L. Reid: Yes, it has gone to the ministry, back on March 15 of 1998. A number of letters, actually. . . . A particular one I'll reference is from the city of Burnaby on the same question, the effect of current property assessment practices on the protection of the rental housing stock. So indeed, if there could be an answer forthcoming, all of these individuals would be very appreciative.

Hon. J. Kwan: I will have staff touch base with the assessment commissioner to find out what the status is.

[E. Walsh in the chair.]

Section 12, sections 38 to 41 inclusive approved.

On section 12, section 42.

L. Reid: On section 42, there are some issues around the level of information that has been shared and will now, under this. . . . This amendment will indeed not be available to individuals. I'd like to put some comments in the record from the British Columbia Association of the Appraisal Institute of Canada: "Our members rely heavily on assessment rolls and assessment sale records to properly prepare appraisals, which include appraisals for the provincial and federal governments. Should Bill 21 be enacted unamended, it will significantly and adversely affect our members' ability to practise and their livelihoods."

They make a suggestion in this documentation that I would very much like the minister to consider. I know it touches on a number of different sections, which is why I'm raising it now, to give them some time to consider as we move through. Their particular recommendation is: "When the regulations to the act are drafted, perhaps consideration can be given to deleting names from residential and farm rolls, the two classes owned by individuals for personal purposes, and leaving the names, mostly corporations, on the other rolls. This will protect the privacy of individuals and leave information related to business and/or corporate entities in the public domain." That is a concern that individuals have who work in the industry. I'm wondering if the minister has indeed considered that concern.

Hon. J. Kwan: In the bill, under section 68, it says that individual names would be deleted from the assessment roll. However, company names will still be there. One of the reasons why individual names are deleted is for protection of individuals per the freedom of information -- sorry, for the private. . . .

An Hon. Member: Respecting privacy.

Hon. J. Kwan: That's it, thank you.

Section 12, section 42 approved.

On section 12, section 43.

F. Gingell: I move the amendment that is in my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 12, to replace section 43(1) contained in section 12 as follows:

Property assessment appeal board

43 (1) The Lieutenant Governor in Council must establish a property assessment appeal board and appoint at least 6 persons recommended by the Attorney General as members of the board.]

F. Gingell: To just speak to this issue, hon. Chair, it is very important for the Property Assessment Appeal Board, which we've now decided to deal with, to be seen to be independent

[ Page 10768 ]

So my amendment just adds the words "recommended by the Attorney General" into subsection (1), so it would read: "The Lieutenant Governor in Council must establish a property assessment appeal board and appoint at least 6 persons recommended by the Attorney General as members of the board."

Hon. J. Kwan: I thank the member for his suggestion. We spoke about this amendment prior to it arriving in the House. While I understand some of the concerns that the member may have, I am not in agreement that there is an issue of conflict. We will, however, continue to monitor the situation and take the member's suggestion into consideration for the future.

L. Reid: I'd like to respond. Section 43(1) states: ". . .must establish a property assessment appeal board and appoint at least six persons. . . ." I have significant pieces of correspondence which indeed are asking the minister to consider particular skill sets when those appointments are made, particularly around rental housing and affordable housing. I put that on the record at this juncture for the minister's future consideration. Indeed, those types of individuals truly believe that that is what's missing today from the Assessment Appeal Board.

When those assessments are taken and decisions reached, the opinions of people who are less in a position to make those payments aren't considered, particularly when it comes to rental housing. Certainly that's the earlier case that I cited. Individuals who have experience and expertise around affordable housing issues and rental housing issues can be part of the group, because we all know that even though they are not the owners who pay the direct assessment, those costs are passed on to the people who pay rent.

I'm folding that into the discussion, because those individuals have made a very strong case that their ability to pay is often disregarded. Indeed, if the government's intent is to retain significant portions of affordable housing in the city. . . . Even the city of West Vancouver has gone on the record as having put to their council an entire list of suggestions on rental housing that makes sense for their corner of the province. It certainly makes sense for all parts of the province when bylaws are in place that do not permit the conversion of rental housing into strata title units. Once that prohibition is in place, someone has to have an eye on championing the cause of the renter. Again, those costs are indeed passed on to renters. I leave that for the minister's consideration.

Hon. J. Kwan: I'll certainly take the member's suggestion into consideration.

F. Gingell: The minister understands that my concerns relative to the reporting process and the Assessment Appeal Board are in fact issues to do with conflicts of interest or the ability to serve two masters. I don't have in my mind a satisfactory response from the minister on why the minister doesn't believe that it will be a more clear-cut situation if the appeal board in effect reports to. . . . That will be the subject of further amendments that I have placed in Orders of the Day. If the appeal board reports to the Attorney General rather than to her ministry, I would have thought that the minister would have welcomed the opportunity to ensure that there is a clear division between this quasi-judicial body and the same organization that is responsible for administering the B.C. Assessment Authority and this act. It is a quasi-judicial body, so why don't we treat it as such? Make it independent of the ministry and have them report to the Attorney General. It just seems to me that that removes completely any questions that might bring its bona fides into question.

Hon. J. Kwan: The reason I'm not in support of this amendment is that the board's independence as a decision-maker is actually firmly established and has not and will not be compromised. Bill 21, which is the bill we're debating today, will provide the board with more tools and enforcement mechanisms, which will also strengthen the board's role as an independent decision-maker. The ministry's key responsibility in the appeal system is one of assisting management procedures. We do not trespass on issues that involve individual matters. We will refer matters for the commissioner's consideration, but we do not interfere in that way. Reporting to this ministry as part of the assessment system in no way compromises the independent decision-making of the board. Of course, the key objectives of the assessment system are to ensure that market value is in place, that it is assessed accordingly, that the market value is one that is fair for everybody and that taxpayers and taxing jurisdictions will also have their fairness in the system.

So the role of this ministry is that of the manager of the assessment system, to ensure that our market value assessment system is working effectively and efficiently. Given that that is the situation, I do not feel that the reporting procedure necessarily compromises the independence of the process. In fact, I will say that it does not. Having said that, I will certainly take the member's suggestion into consideration and perhaps contemplate that over the next while to determine whether or not changes need to be made in the future.

[4:15]

YEAS -- 23
Sanders	Gingell	de Jong
Plant	Reid	Neufeld
Coell	Chong	Whittred
Jarvis	Anderson	Penner
J. Wilson	McKinnon	Krueger
Masi	Dalton	Barisoff
Symons	Stephens	Coleman
Hogg		Weisbeck

NAYS -- 37
Evans	Zirnhelt	McGregor
Kwan	Hammell	Boone
Streifel	Pullinger	Lali
Orcherton	Stevenson	Calendino
Goodacre	Randall	Gillespie
Robertson	Cashore	Conroy
Priddy	Petter	Miller
G. Clark	Dosanjh	MacPhail
Lovick	Ramsey	Farnworth
Waddell	Hartley	Sihota
Smallwood	Sawicki	Bowbrick
Kasper	Doyle	Giesbrecht
	Janssen

 

[ Page 10769 ]

[SECTION 12, to replace section 43 (6) contained in section 12 as follows:

(6) (a) Persons appointed under subsection (1) shall be appointed to a term of 6 years or until age 70 whichever is sooner.

(b) The member designated chair under subsection (3) shall be paid an annual salary of 75% of the class 12 management position and the other members shall be paid 1/200 of 80% of the amount determined for the Property Assessment Appeal Board chair per diem.

(c) The appointment of a member found not fit to continue with their duties may be removed for cause by the Lieutenant Governor in Council.]

F. Gingell: To speak to this issue, I truly believe that the Property Assessment Appeal Board in its current form does not have the absolute and complete confidence of the public that deal with it to be free and independent, as the minister suggests. To try and bring it independence and to make that apparent to property owners and agents and other people who deal with appeals in front of the appeal board, I suggested, first of all, the amendment that just failed -- that the board report to the Attorney General. But I think the second issue is that the appeal board members should have tenure. They should be appointed for a specific term. They should not be there at pleasure; they should not be there on good behaviour; they should not be there and allowed to continue to sit only if they behave themselves. How do we remove the possibility of appeal board members believing that they have to behave in a certain manner?

I sat on a quasi-judicial board like this many years ago and for some years -- the board of reference, which deals with appeals of teacher firings. My tenure was there because I was nominated by the president of the B. C. School Trustees Association. The teacher representative on that quasi-judicial body was nominated by the president of the B.C. Teachers Federation. The chairman was appointed by the Chief Justice. So although we were only appointed for each particular case, we were clearly independent.

Independence requires the members to have tenure. Therefore this amendment proposes, first of all, that the members of the appeal board shall be appointed for a fixed term: they shall be appointed to a term of six years or until they reach the age of 70. I put a maximum age in, because many of these people are people who have a lifetime of experience in the industry. They have been real estate appraisers or real estate agents or lawyers that have dealt in these areas. They tend to be appointed towards the end of their career.

Secondly, I put in a provision that the amount of money they are paid be a specific calculation. The calculation is a reasonable one, I can assure members of the committee: 75 percent of the class 12 management position for the chair -- it's not an absolutely full-time job, but it's a busy job when the appeals are there -- and for the other members one two-hundredth, as a per diem, of 80 percent of what is earned by the chair. That seemed to me to be a reasonable salary. It's not determined by the minister, not determined by order-in-council; it's determined by this legislation and subject to the normal changes that will take place as the class 12 management position salary level is changed in the British Columbia public sector.

Thirdly, of course, the minister or the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council needs the protection to be able to remove from the appeal board someone who isn't fulfilling their responsibilities, isn't acting in a responsible manner. But it has to be for cause, not because they've been coming down with too many decisions in favour of respondents or too many appeals in favour of appellants. That's a pretty straightforward situation.

So if the minister would agree to this amendment, at least we would give the appeal board some feeling of independence. They would be independent of being "at the pleasure of the minister." It is for that reason that I have made this amendment, and I would promote it. . . . That's not the word I'm looking for. But I ask the minister to consider agreeing to this amendment, as I think it would have positive results on the assessment appeal board process.

[H. Giesbrecht in the chair.]

Hon. J. Kwan: I again thank the member for his suggestion on the amendment; however, we have actually taken a different approach to addressing some of the issues the member has raised, such as the issue of independence from the pleasure of the executive council for the appointment. What we have in fact done this year is that the five vice-chair positions are subject to a recruitment process based on merit. Advertisements were placed in the papers. They are highly technical positions, so these vice-chairs are being hired on a merit position with a base salary. The appointments will be made subsequent to the process; however, I think it addresses some of the issues that you have raised, and that process is actually now in place.

The Chair: Before I recognize the hon. member, I've examined the amendment, and it imposes a financial obligation on the Crown and involves expenditure of public funds, contrary to standing orders 66 and 67. So the amendment will be out of order.

F. Gingell: If I may ask your indulgence, does your ruling bring all of the amendment out of order, or just subsection (b)? Subsections (a) and (c) would not cause the Crown any expenditure.

[4:30]

F. Gingell: Why does it apply to (a)?

The Chair: Because it fixes the term.

F. Gingell: I appreciate that your rulings are not debatable. Having said that, when we deal with section (a), these people are already there. They're already appointed. This is just saying that instead of being at pleasure, appoint them for a certain term. There is no suggestion that this would require more people to be appointed than were previously appointed. It is purely and simply the length of time that their appointment is good for.

I was really pleased to hear in the minister's response to my amendment that they have gone through a process. They have advertised the position and gone through a process, so the position is going to be filled on the basis of merit. If I may be partisan for a moment -- even in the dying days of July -- it's a pleasant change for this government to make an appointment based on merit, and that's very, very good.

[ Page 10770 ]

The Chair: Before I recognize the minister, just so we're clear, the amendment has been disposed of. Section (a) places an obligation on the Crown, so we are debating. . . .

Interjection.

The Chair: It's a financial obligation on the Crown, hon. member.

Section 12, sections 43 to 45 inclusive approved.

On section 12, section 46.

L. Reid: In terms of section 46, my understanding of this section is that it's a new section, or at least the inquisitorial role is new. This looks at enlarging and expanding the role in terms of. . . . I guess the best example I can give is that the board and the review panel now have the ability to summon witnesses. That would be a specific example for me of the inquisitorial role. Is that the correct reading of the bill?

Hon. J. Kwan: They've always had the inquisitorial role and the authority to summon witnesses, and that's under section 51.

L. Reid: My question to the minister is: am I correct that section 46 is a new addition to this particular section?

Hon. J. Kwan: Section 46, entitled "General broad powers," is not new to the act.

Section 12, sections 46 to 48 inclusive approved.

On section 12, section 49.

F. Gingell: My first amendment having failed, the amendment in the Orders of the Day becomes irrelevant. So I would like to withdraw my amendment, because this one was to have the report come from the Attorney General.

But there is just one comment I would like to make. One of the problems that this Legislature deals with -- and it's getting better than it was -- is the time lag between the preparation of a report -- or the periods for which a particular government organization is reporting -- and it being available to the public. I would like the minister to consider -- I didn't prepare an amendment, but maybe there's some other way that it can be done -- that as soon as the report is prepared, it is delivered to the Speaker's office and deemed to be public. It seems to me that it is unnecessary for the Legislature to be sitting; we need to get this information out. We're still dealing with rather old-fashioned wording that would seem to restrict the publication of the report -- whenever it is ready -- until the Legislature is in session. I would ask the minister to find some way of getting that information out earlier.

Hon. J. Kwan: The suggestion the member makes is a sound one. We'll certainly put that into policy, and we'll endeavour to get the reports out as soon as possible.

Section 12, section 49 approved.

On section 12, section 50.

F. Gingell: Subsection (5), which deals with the ability of the chairman of the board, in their discretion, to allow a notice that has been improperly filed to be corrected, is permissive rather than compulsory. I wonder if there is any particular reason that the ability to make a correction in a notice to perfect it has not been made automatic but is left to the discretion of the chair.

Hon. J. Kwan: From time to time, generally speaking, individuals who file an appeal might be missing a piece of documentation with their larger appeal. This gives discretion for those individual pieces that might have been missing when it was first filed to be taken into consideration. Generally speaking, when that happens, it is my understanding that the appeal will stand. So this gives it the provision to perfect the appeal, if you will, and reasonableness is really the application here.

Section 12, sections 50 to 53 inclusive approved.

On section 12, section 54.

F. Gingell: Third parties talking to me about Bill 21 have expressed concerns about subsection (5). There is concern that this subsection never be used to deprive an appellant of the representation of their choice. I'm sure that that is not intended, but there was concern expressed to me that it could happen as a consequence of the current wording of this section. I wonder if the minister would like to comment on that.

Hon. J. Kwan: I don't believe. . . . I hope people who are utilizing this act would not abuse the intent of the act. But in the case that it is being abused, at the end of the day, rules of natural justice and administrative loss will still apply; there's a provision to deal with that. But it's really not intended to be there for people to abuse it, and I don't believe that the people who would be in charge of this act would abuse it in that manner.

Section 12, section 54 approved.

On section 12, section 55.

L. Reid: "Means of hearing appeals and notice of hearings." One of the issues that has come to me is in regard to interpretation. Individuals who come forward often find that the language of the hearing, if you will, or the process is a language they simply do not speak. Has any consideration been given to providing access to some level of interpretation service, some translation service, so that indeed the process becomes, hopefully, less time-consuming and more meaningful?

Hon. J. Kwan: The member raises a good point. Language issues are always a concern. I know that the Assessment Appeal Board has been working on issues around multiculturalism and ensuring that documents and information are distributed in a way that reaches people with different lan-

[ Page 10771 ]

L. Reid: The minister knows that most of these hearings are oral hearings, so that indeed when those individuals are present, their ability to communicate more effectively is certainly all to the good. My understanding from the briefing session was that the focus of this entire section is to customize it to individuals. Again, I thank the minister for her comments around bringing the issue forward, because language is a dramatic aspect of customizing the service.

[4:45]

On section 12, section 57.

F. Gingell: I move the amendment standing in my name in Orders of the Day.

[SECTION 12, to replace section 57 (1) (a) contained in section 12 as follows:

Powers and duties of board in an appeal

57 (1) In an appeal under this Part, the board

(a) may reopen the whole question of the property's assessment to determine in a consistent manner in the municipality or rural area whether,

(i) there is an error or omission respecting the name of a person in the assessment roll;

(ii) there is an error or omission respecting land or improvements, or both land and improvements, in the assessment roll;

(iii) land or improvements, or both land and improvements, are not assessed at actual value;

(iv) land or improvements, or both land and improvements, have been improperly classified;

(v) an exemption has been improperly allowed or disallowed.]

F. Gingell: This amendment proposes adding to section 57(1) the ability for the board to deal with all of the issues that come up within an assessment. My understanding is that as it's presently worded, section 57(1)(a) deals only with the question of actual value, but value is not the only issue that's involved in the preparation of the assessment roll. Therefore I've made an amendment that would add additional reasons why the board may consider an issue.

Hon. J. Kwan: I thank the member again for his suggestion. He clearly demonstrates that he knows the issues well. However, the amendment is actually not necessary, because the bill addresses the issue of accuracy. The word "accuracy" does in fact incorporate all of those items that the member has indicated. For that reason, the amendment is actually unnecessary, but thank you for the suggestion.

L. Reid: I would like to lend my support to my colleague from Delta South. The new section 57(1)(a)(v), "an exemption has been improperly allowed or disallowed," would certainly give the minister an opportunity to revisit the rental housing and affordable housing questions I raised earlier. Indeed, if there are bylaws in place in this province that require that rental housing not be changed to strata title, that would be an interesting place for the Minister of Municipal Affairs to explore such an exemption. I simply put that on the record for the minister's consideration. This would be a good decision in terms of doing some decent things for renters in this province who are frankly being taxed out of their properties. Again, if the mandate of the government is affordable housing, this would be a very, very fine opportunity for the government to act on that mandate.

Hon. J. Kwan: The issue of exemption that the member raises, I believe, is to allow exemptions for municipalities for the levying of property tax on affordable housing. That is already in place under the Vancouver Charter and the Municipal Act, in that local governments have the authority to exempt, if they wish. So this is not applicable to it.

F. Gingell: I'm not sure that I am fully satisfied that the word "accuracy" covers the series of issues that are included in my amendment. I don't happen to have a dictionary here, but one would need a definition. I think that by accepting the amendment, we would bring a little more certainty to the issue. As the minister knows, certainty in legislation is always to be preferred. I suggest that although "accuracy" may cover it, it's not a very satisfactory way. It's much, much better to have a more clearly defined process.

I appreciate that the government never seems to like accepting amendments, but I really do think that this amendment would add certainty and clarity to the act. If the minister will not go along with it, I'm pleased that we have on the record in Hansard the minister's commitment that "accuracy" will in fact cover all the issues that have been raised.

Hon. J. Kwan: To accept the amendment would actually throw in a lot of problems in terms of amending different components of the act to ensure that there's no confusion. If at a later date the term "accuracy" creates a problem, we can always make changes through an OIC to address that and to clearly define what accuracy is. But for the purposes of this act, accuracy means that the property is properly assessed. This includes: the owner's name is right, the value is right and the classification and the exemptions are right as well. So I hope that's satisfactory for the member's confidence that accuracy does indeed encompass the issues he has identified.

Amendment negatived on division.

Section 12, sections 57 and 58 approved.

On section 12, section 59.

L. Reid: My question to the minister is to seek clarification. It is my understanding that this is a new section: "(1) The board or a party to an appeal under this Part may apply to the Supreme Court for an order (a) directing a person to comply with an order or decision of the board under this Part. . . ." Could the minister elaborate on whether or not this is indeed a new section?

Hon. J. Kwan: Yes, it is a new section.

Section 12, section 59 approved.

On section 12, section 60.

[ Page 10772 ]

We had some discussion in the briefing regarding the costs of this process. The comments received that day were that costs were only awarded in cases of misconduct. My question around that would be: what is the definition of "misconduct"? It's a very subjective determination without some guidelines, some parameters. I appreciate there may be parameters that follow under regulation, but any one person who is late in this process could indeed be considered not to be conducting themselves appropriately and end up paying significant dollars. So I'm interested in the time process for this when someone is not conducting themselves appropriately and the penalties around that.

Hon. J. Kwan: Perhaps examples of misconduct could assist the member with her concerns. Some examples in which misconduct could be identified are where the action of a participant, or the failure of a participant to act in a timely manner, could result in prejudice to any of the other participants in the appeal process. Another example would be where a party unreasonably delays the proceeding. Sometimes information is being sought and is not forthcoming, and there is some unreasonable delay for the proceeding to move forward. Another example would be where a party fails to comply with an order or direction of the board or panel which results in prejudice to another party. Those would be some examples where there is blatant misconduct that delays the process and creates a level of unfairness towards another party within the proceedings.

L. Reid: I appreciate the examples. However, what I'm looking for are the parameters around "unreasonable." When is a delay conceived to be either appropriate or inappropriate? My contention when I began today was that this was a very subjective section. Indeed, someone may say a week is an unreasonable delay, and that person may have no ability to respond within a week -- i.e., they are out of town. I mean, are we going to see in the regulation some delineation of what an inappropriate time line might be -- in excess of two weeks, in excess of six months? I don't mind what it is. I want to know that this information is conveyed adequately to the people who will confronting this process. Unreasonable and reasonable are very broad, in terms of how people would define them.

Hon. J. Kwan: Perhaps a more concrete example could assist the member. Generally speaking, it's reasonable for the board to ask for documents 21 days before the hearing; and if 21 days later the material is not surfacing and therefore unduly delays the proceedings, that would be deemed to be unreasonable. Generally, the guideline is how complicated the reports are that are needed, but 21 days is the usual guideline that I understand is being used.

L. Reid: It's not my intention to belabour this section, but the minister will appreciate that there are a number of people who are very concerned about this section -- either they themselves or their clients. How will they know that indeed if they are. . . ? Is this something that will come to them in writing -- that they have 21 days to respond? If they're out of town or if they're not well enough to be at home collecting their mail, is there some process that triggers a different response than awarding them costs?

Hon. J. Kwan: If there was a board order, then they would receive the order in writing.

L. Reid: Has any consideration been given to having people sign for those orders, so that receipt has been verified?

Hon. J. Kwan: The process is such that the appellant normally provides to the proceedings a delivery address, so that there is no mistake in terms of where that information or any information pertinent to the proceedings should be sent. I think the onus is actually on the person to provide the accurate address, to make sure that it is sent forward.

L. Reid: I appreciate the comment about the address. My concern is if someone is out of town. I mean, there are people in this life who actually get holidays on a more extended basis than we individuals here. But it's not unusual for someone to be out of town for three weeks at a stretch. Upon their return, would they indeed have costs awarded where it was not their intention to be non-compliant and they simply were unaware that that expectation had been placed upon them?

Hon. J. Kwan: In the process of setting a time line to deal with the appeal matters, there is normally a discussion between the parties around the time line so that there are no surprises from that point of view. So if you're expecting something within a period of time, then there are really no surprises. If you were filing an appeal that you expected to be heard within the next month or two, for you to go on holidays simply wouldn't make sense. You would actually advise that for that period you would not be available and therefore try to reschedule your time accordingly.

[5:00]

Hon. J. Kwan: That's why the provisions are discretionary, and clearly the board will take into consideration illnesses or extenuating circumstances so that it's not a prescriptive time line but rather it takes the circumstances into consideration. Quite frankly, the word "reasonableness" does apply. If someone has fallen ill, that's not misconduct -- certainly not in my definition.

L. Reid: Just a reference to the parameters of cost.

Hon. J. Kwan: The board is actually working on setting up a tariff, so that the costs associated would be clearly set out.

L. Reid: So there will be some formalized approach to this -- i.e., the extent of inaction will generate X dollars in terms of the penalty. The minister is nodding her head. What I'm saying is that there will be a standardized approach to this, as opposed to this being done on an individual basis.

Hon. J. Kwan: The amount which would be charged would be standardized.

[ Page 10773 ]

Hon. J. Kwan: The board has instituted a new rule, and generally speaking, for residential appeals the turnaround time is around 30 days, and for more complex cases, mostly commercial, it's around 60 days.

Section 12, sections 60 to 62 inclusive approved.

On section 12, section 63.

F. Gingell: I move the amendment standing in my name in Orders of the Day.

[SECTION 12, to replace section 63 contained in section 12 as follows:

Amending the roll to reflect board decisions

63 (1) On receipt of notice of the board's decision under section 62, the assessor must

(a) subject to subsection (2) ensure that all amendments ordered to be made in the assessment roll by the board are made promptly, and

(b) ensure that a copy of the notice is available for public inspection during regular business hours.

(2) not withstanding 1 (a) the assessor shall not

(a) amend the assessment roll to reflect a decision of the board which increases the actual value, or change the classification adversely to the owner; or

(b) disallow an exemption

in the absence of an appeal of the assessment under section 50 by the assessor on that issue.

(3) If there is a conflict between the authenticated assessment roll and an amendment made under this section, the amendment prevails.]

F. Gingell: The reason for this amendment is this. The appeal board has inquiry power. It can vary an assessment either up or down. Although it surprised me, I was advised that people who deal with assessors are concerned about coercion. On occasions it has been indicated in fairly clear terms that if they appeal this particular thing, there was now reason that the assessor would go forward with a proposal to the appeal board for the value of the property to be increased. There is always new information becoming available. There are always property sales. At this particular time, with the way I understand the real estate market is, that may be going in a different direction. But in recent history that has not been the case.

This amendment proposes that the appeal board can only amend the assessment role to reflect the decision of the board, which either confirms the current assessment or reduces it unless the cause of the appeal is an appeal by the assessor to increase the assessed value.

If you go through and a change is made to a property to increase its value, one has to deal with all the issues of valuations being applied in a consistent manner. That would require you to go back and revalue all the properties within the neighbourhood and affect the valuation of properties and the taxes that are paid by people who were not the subject of the original appeal. The assessor always has the opportunity to make a change the following year, so we're only ever talking about one year. By making this change, you put in the protection that coercion can never be used as a means of speeding up the appeal processes and getting appeals settled. For those reasons, I commend this amendment to the minister.

Hon. J. Kwan: Again, I thank the member for his suggestion. However, I cannot support his amendment, and there are a number of reasons why. One is that the assessment process is really to ensure that the value is one that is fair and that is market value. When someone appeals the assessed value, the objective is to ensure that it is a fair value and the market value, and there should not be guarantees one way or the other in that instance. Otherwise, to do that would be interfering with the whole objective of that process, which is to find the market value, the actual value, and not to sway it one way or the other. I believe that the amendment, if it's there, could have the inadvertent potential of limiting it to saying that the assessed value can only go down and not up.

F. Gingell: Let's recognize, first of all, that the assessor has made the assessment and has determined the original assessed value. Let's recognize next that, for all the words we use about actual value, it isn't actual value. It's what we think a property might sell for. It's still a very subjective rather than objective process.

So the assessor has made the original assessment. We have been through the review panel, so if there had been a problem with the valuation, the assessor had the opportunity to deal with it at the review panel. If they were unsuccessful and it is the assessor who is appealing to increase the value, then of course it should be allowed, because that is the purpose of the appeal. It seems to me that we are putting the appellant in a position of double jeopardy. They could finish up, because of subsequent information that has come up, with this very subjective process that would cause the assessment to be increased.

That, to me, doesn't seem to be fair. It doesn't seem to me to be an unreasonable restriction, because it's always only for one year. If you change property A, you'll probably have to go back into the neighbourhood and change every other property that is close by. When this issue was first brought to my attention, I must admit that I was a little unbelieving. That's not quite the word, but I was a little. . . . Sorry, I'm getting old. I can't think of the right words.

I had to be convinced that coercion in fact takes place. I never believed that those kinds of things happen. I have been convinced by third parties who deal with the Assessment Authority that suggestions have been made to them that if they take an appeal to the appeal board, the assessor will push for the assessment to be increased. That would normally come from information that has subsequently become available, information that was not available at the time the assessment was made or the review panel heard the first appeal.

I believe that the change is reasonable. I think that if the minister looks at it and recognizes that it is only ever for one year and if we can remove any suggestion that coercion on the part of an assessor could take place, we will do a great deal of good for the process and bring more confidence to it. I know that the minister has confidence in the process as a major goal of this whole revision of the assessment and appeal process.

Hon. J. Kwan: It's interesting, actually. The member raises a scenario. If the member is aware of specific cases where somebody has been coerced or feels that they have

[ Page 10774 ]

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

Having said that, the balance here is this. Yes, we want to make sure that the system is one that people have confidence in. Part of the process in making sure that is in fact the case is to ensure that the integrity of the assessment process is in place. The integrity of the assessment process is founded on the principle of fairness. The principle of fairness, as it applies to property values, is one that is based on market value. Again, I am afraid that to limit it in terms of its ability to go one way or another would undermine the whole premise around the assessment process. As well, having said that, if an assessor is found to be in error -- and the assessor could well be found to be in error, one way or the other. . . . We cannot be bound to simply say that the assessor can make an error only on the side of decreasing property value and not the other way around by doing that. Again, I'm afraid that that could be an approach that could undermine the whole integrity of the assessment process.

[5:15]

If that is the subject -- if it's an assessor appeal -- of course it should be allowed. I mean, there's no question. But when the assessor makes an appeal, I would imagine he appeals and brings forward a specific sum. It is assessed at $100,000; it should be $125,000. He doesn't go to the appeal board and say: "It's $100,000; it should be more. What do you think?" The assessor goes forward with a specific sum. If that's the cause of the appeal, obviously it should be allowed. I mean, that's the way the world was. But it seems to me that you're putting the appellant -- the property owner, if it's the property owner -- in jeopardy unreasonably in a situation that can only be corrected 12 months later.

Hon. J. Kwan: I would suggest that the member is correct in that we would have to agree that we disagree. I'm not convinced that the amendment is necessary and that it does not undermine the process itself. The process is really founded on the premise of the best available evidence to determine actual value. That is the most critical piece to the entire assessment process, and I would not want to do anything to undermine that process. I believe we would agree to disagree.

I would also say, once again, that if the member or anybody in the community feels that they have been intimidated in the process or penalized in some way, I would absolutely encourage those individuals to please come forward. Those allegations will be looked into.

Amendment negatived.

Section 12, section 63 approved.

Section 12, sections 64 to 67 inclusive approved.

On section 12, section 68.

L. Reid: The British Columbia Association of the Appraisal Institute of Canada. . . . I will be moving an amendment, which is in the hands of the Clerk, and I hope is now in the hands of the minister. I want to put this into the record regarding Bill 21, Assessment Amendment Act, 1998:

"I write you on behalf of the British Columbia Association of the Appraisal Institute of Canada, an association which represents some 1,200 professional real estate appraisers in the province. As a professional association we support the intent of Bill 21, Assessment Amendment Act, being to protect the public from the unwarranted use of assessment information. However, the legislation that is presently drafted will preclude legitimate use of assessment and sales data by real estate professionals such as ourselves.

"Our members rely heavily on assessment rolls and assessment sale records to properly prepare appraisals, which include appraisals for the provincial and federal governments. Should Bill 21 be enacted unamended, it will significantly and adversely affect our members' ability to practise and their livelihoods.

"Regrettably, the British Columbia Association of the Appraisal Institute of Canada was not consulted during the preparation of the investigation report by the office of the information and privacy commissioner, which led to Bill 21. We are now compelled to seek an amendment in the legislation as now drafted and before the House. In this regard we note that section 68(4) is most specific as to the parties which may obtain assessment rolls and assessment sale records with names thereon. However, it precludes the government in allowing other legitimate circumstances for access where protection of the public is not threatened."

"We believe this amendment meets the spirit of the information and privacy commissioner's investigation report and will provide the government flexibility in applying Bill 21, while at the same time protecting the public."

Hon. J. Kwan: I cannot support the amendment, and there are a number of reasons. First of all, I also received the letter from the Appraisal Institute of Canada with regard to their concern about access to information. For the information of the members, the access to information is actually there in that we can continue to make the names available via B.C. OnLine. Information for the purpose of section 33 of the Freedom of Information Act is also applicable.

Having said that, this change is really on the advice of the freedom-of-information and protection-of-privacy commissioner to provide a level of protection for public individuals. On the balance of needing to provide for that kind of protection, the commissioner made the suggestion for these changes. I think those suggestions are sound, while balancing the need to provide information. For those reasons, I would not be able to support the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Section 12, section 68 approved.

[ Page 10775 ]

L. Reid: I believe that this is the section that the minister referenced earlier in terms of. . . . It came about as a result of discussions with the privacy commissioner. I would put on the record the discussion I placed on the record earlier regarding rural properties -- that individual property tax agents have indicated that they can continue to see the necessity for deleting residential property names and even farm property names. But they're wondering if the minister could confirm that information surrounding tax property corporate addresses. . . . I'll put on the record that there are instances where they believe that that's appropriate:

"In the case of corporate takeovers or reorganizations, we are often asked to search for records in a number of names for related entities to ensure that no assessments are mailed to addresses that are no longer valid. It is not clear if this information would be removed from land title records. If it is not, there will be no benefit to privacy, only a more difficult search for a person requiring information. Since creditors with a judgment are permitted to register the charge against interests and land, it is hard to understand how the system will work if owners' names will not continue to be available at land titles."

Hon. J. Kwan: For the member's information, the information is available at the land title office. If a person wants to seek that information, they can access that there. Also, there are a number of ways under section 68 in which the information can be accessed -- for example, B.C. OnLine, which was an example that I used earlier. As well, while individual names would not be on the roll, company names would be. So they would therefore actually be able to access that information.

L. Reid: They have just a couple more concerns that I wish the minister to address. Their contention is that the information is not available from the Assessment Authority records. Municipalities will become the main source and will have a significant increase in inquiries to process. Indeed, that will result in an increase in costs. Is that the minister's belief as well?

Hon. J. Kwan: The appropriate place to get that information is through the Assessment Authority, and people can still access that. That would not impose a cost to municipal government.

L. Reid: I referenced earlier that these property tax agents certainly spend all of their time working with assessment data on behalf of numerous clients. They also have issues around ports and airports in British Columbia and the B.C. Buildings Corporation. Will any of those see additional costs in terms of this decision to remove the names?

Hon. J. Kwan: If the question is whether that would be an additional cost for people to get information on a provincial property in terms of its assessed value, I believe the answer is no. They would go through the same process as for anything else.

Section 12, sections 69 and 70 approved.

On section 12, section 71.

L. Reid: My question around fines and penalties for offences is an interesting one. When I asked these questions in terms of the scope of the problem, I was told that no one has ever been fined -- number of charges; no convictions. Fines paid; none in living memory. So my question would simply be the necessity for this section if there isn't yet a problem -- i.e., no one has been fined, there have been no convictions and no fines paid. If the minister could reflect on the necessity for this section.

Hon. J. Kwan: The section is necessary in that it is a deterrent. If the question is whether a fine has ever been imposed, the answer is yes, a fine has been imposed. If the question is whether or not we've been able to get a Crown prosecutor to go through the process to yield the fine -- usually the fine is not a very large amount -- then the answer to that is no. Having said that, it does not mean, though, that it is not necessary to have a penalty clause in here.

L. Reid: I would simply disagree with the minister. During the briefing, I was specifically told that no fines have ever been paid under this section. I appreciate that it's a deterrent, but obviously one is not required at this juncture.

Section 12, sections 71 to 73 inclusive approved.

On section 12, section 74.

L. Reid: Under section 74(2)(j)(iii), "prescribing information, undertakings and other matters that must be included in or covered by a forest management plan, which information, undertakings and matters may be different for forest reserve land and other private land, for different sizes of land and for different uses of the land before the plan applies," my question to the minister is: does she foresee any sort of problematic issues arising in the future as a result of the treaty negotiations currently underway?

Hon. J. Kwan: I don't actually have the answer for that in terms of treaty negotiations and what the ramifications are, but for the member's information, this section is not a new section. It is one that already exists and is simply just there under the current bill.

L. Reid: I appreciate that it's there, but the treaty negotiation process is new. If the minister could send me some clarification regarding that issue, I would look forward to receiving that.

[5:30]

Sections 13 to 35 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. J. Kwan: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Bill 21, Assessment Amendment Act, 1998, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. J. Kwan: I call committee stage on Bill 31.

[ Page 10776 ]

LOCAL GOVERNMENT STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1998

On section 1.

L. Reid: There are a number of issues that I wish to canvass, and I believe that I've given some of that direction to the Chair, and I will proceed. One of the issues in terms of the purposes of the act. . . . We talked a little bit about an independent, accountable, responsible order of government. I wonder if the question of how this might impact on the ongoing discussions around treaty negotiation today has been broached with the minister.

Hon. J. Kwan: The UBCM has not raised this issue with us to date. However, I know that in the upcoming UBCM meeting, it is the intent of the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs to engage with the UBCM in discussing the Nisga'a treaty matter.

L. Reid: I certainly appreciate that perhaps the UBCM has not raised it. This legislation will, I believe, have an impact on all British Columbians. They are all part of some municipal or regional district undertaking. Even though the UBCM may not have addressed this issue, numerous British Columbians have thought this through in terms of how this will impact. They know that the UBCM is not addressing it at this juncture, but they simply wish to put their concern on the record, particularly around terms that are new in the act, I believe. I'm on page 5, under the definition of "manage": ". . .with respect to land, improvements, personal property or other property, includes conserve, use, develop, construct, improve, operate, administer and maintain, as applicable." They see those examples, if you will, of definition having a great deal to do with future applications around community forests, on and off reserve -- all of those kinds of questions.

So if the minister can direct us to a particular person who we can continue to have discussions with, around this new definition in the act. . . . We believe it will have a broader application than it's had in the past.

The Chair: The Chair would like to clarify, member. You're on section 5?

Interjection.

The Chair: Yes. We're on section 1, the purposes. If we could stay with section 1, going through sections 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. . . . Okay?

Sections 1 to 4 inclusive approved.

On section 5.

The Chair: The member for Richmond East has asked the question, and we're waiting for an answer.

Hon. J. Kwan: If the members have specific questions around this issue. . . . I should first of all say that there will be lots of opportunities to discuss the Nisga'a treaty issue. If there are specific items that the member wants clarification on from my staff, I'd be happy to get that list from her, and that way I can pass it on to my staff and direct them to discuss them with you.

L. Reid: I appreciate the offer. The dilemma is that once this act is passed, there probably will not be future amendments as we proceed perhaps this fall through a discussion of Nisga'a. So again, I would simply ask the minister for the person within the Ministry of Municipal Affairs who's going to be stickhandling the management aspects of the land base as it would pertain to Nisga'a. I would assume that there's probably been someone designated. Let's not be as specific as Nisga'a; let's say the broader application of land use around the province, on and off reserve.

Hon. J. Kwan: Perhaps this would clarify it, then. The term "manage" does not mean for the provincial government to manage local government land. The term "manage" references local governments' management of their land. Therefore the province does not manage local governments' land. Municipalities or local governments themselves manage their land. For the purposes of this act, the term "manage" just encompasses all the different kinds of instances where that management would apply. It could apply to land, to improvements, personal property, etc.

L. Reid: As the minister knows and agrees, local land is managed locally. The overlay now will be the treaty process that will be directed by the province and the federal government. That is the question. That's the distillation, if you will, of how I got to that discussion. In that this is a new section of the act, it will, in our view, have a greater application and will be juxtaposed against the ongoing treaty negotiation, which could go on for 20 or 30 years. This bill will probably be in effect for an equal length of time. So who in the ministry is going to be responsible for advising on these questions as we proceed?

Hon. J. Kwan: In that instance my deputy minister, Suzanne Veit, would be the best person to contact.

L. Reid: I thank the minister.

I have two more questions on page 6. One is regarding the partnering agreement, which I also understand is the new portion of this act. It means an agreement between a local government and a person or public authority under which the person or public authority agrees to provide or manage a facility, etc., or provide a service. Can the minister give some clarification on the necessity for that new portion?

Hon. J. Kwan: The premise of the changes around Bill 31. . . . A lot of it focuses in on public-private partnerships, and the partnering-agreement definition is relevant to those instances, as an example.

L. Reid: The last on this page is: ". . .'public authority' means any of the following" -- and there's a very enormous list of them. Could the minister give some clarification regarding public authority? Are there any unintended consequences for this particular section, or is it the minister's belief that every possibility has been captured by this section?

Hon. J. Kwan: We have listed all the possibilities that we can think of. If we have missed one. . . . Section (g) gives you the ability to add any unintended omissions, if there are any.

Sections 5 to 9 inclusive approved.

[ Page 10777 ]

L. Reid: I referenced this discussion in the second reading debate on this bill. There was a report commissioned by the ministry to look at ward systems within the province, particularly referencing the city of Vancouver. That has been a contentious issue. Certainly, during the minister's term in office in Vancouver, I believe it was highly contentious. First off, my question will be about the desire to fund the report. I realize it was the minister's predecessor who engaged the researcher and the professor to examine those issues. But is that a direction of this government that we now will see reflected in this act, in that the dollars were expended on behalf of the ministry to hire those individuals?

Hon. J. Kwan: Patrick Smith and Kennedy Stewart of SFU were not commissioned to do the report, nor were they specifically commissioned to look at the issue of wards. They were given a grant by my predecessor to look into matters regarding public expectations of local government accountability. Out of that process, the report has two parts to it: one deals with non-electoral accountability issues; and the other, the electoral base. Those items in the report are what the research of Patrick Smith and Kennedy Stewart has found. So from that point of view, it was never the intent of government -- nor of my predecessor, I believe -- to specifically commission someone on the issue of wards; rather, it was to look at the broader issue of local government accountability.

[5:45]

L. Reid: I appreciate the minister's clarification. The commentary in the press certainly was that the report had been commissioned by the individuals. If the minister believes it's a grant, I accept that. Is this a first part in a series of work that will be requested from these individuals? Is this the first and only report, or is this work that is ongoing?

Hon. J. Kwan: This report that came out has two parts to it. It is the only grant that the ministry has provided to SFU to conduct research under the issue of accountability for local government.

The Chair: Member, I just want to clarify for the members that we have passed sections 1 through 9, even though they do contain sections within them. . . . Now we're on section 10, which refers to section 36.1 of the Municipal Act. We're all on agreement on that.

L. Reid: In her last comment, the minister indicated that these individuals are not going to be participating in ongoing work. Are any other individuals today examining the ward system on behalf of accountability in local government?

Hon. J. Kwan: The answer is no, nor was anybody hired to look at the wards issue. I just want to be very clear for the record. Patrick Smith and Kennedy Stewart were given a grant to look at local government accountability issues. Through their own research, they came up with a two-part report that dealt with electoral issues and non-electoral issues. But at no time did the government commission anybody to look at the issue of wards, nor do I intend to.

L. Reid: Just on that juncture, did both aspects of that report -- both parts that the minister has referenced -- come out at the same time?

Interjection.

L. Reid: So both parts are the same report. Thank you very much.

Sections 10 to 13 inclusive approved.

On section 14.

L. Reid: My understanding on reading this section and from some discussions I've had is that this is the same approach that's taken in terms of crafting provincial election rosters, if you will. I would simply ask the minister to clarify for a number of individuals who are very concerned about this: is the social insurance number of the applicant, in terms of crafting this registration of the owner. . . ? Are there any other opportunities, any other avenues that have been pursued under section 14, which is amending section 51(7)? Under 51(7), a registered owner who's consented to the registration. . . . Is there another way to look at that level of registration, or is this indeed the best alternative that's been found?

Hon. J. Kwan: The section that the member references is simply to amend a cross-referencing section. I think it's the next section that the member is asking about -- the application of the social insurance number for electoral purposes. I wonder if the member could clarify her question for me at the next section. I missed the end of the question because we were trying to find out what section you were referring to.

L. Reid: I'm on section 14. Basically, I ran them both together. I asked a question about section 14; I think that's fine. Then I asked a question about section 15. I thought that the actual information would probably apply to both sections in terms of -- the registration, I believe, is the last six digits of the social insurance number of the applicant -- whether the same registration process would apply to all applicants. That's my understanding. Hopefully, I'm correct.

Hon. J. Kwan: The answer is yes, it applies to all applicants, and it is consistent with provincial elections.

Section 14 approved.

On section 15.

L. Reid: I would simply ask the minister if any individuals have come forward indicating their displeasure at the social insurance number. Or are the letters I have in my office a small fraction of British Columbians?

Hon. J. Kwan: To clarify, a person can use either their birthdate or the last six digits of their social insurance number. What we have heard complaints on is when the full social insurance number is being applied, but not the last six digits. We haven't heard any complaints.

[ Page 10778 ]

On section 35.

L. Reid: If the minister could assist me in terms of some clarification. . . . This is amending section 159(3), which is repealed and the following substituted: "A bylaw that requires the assent of the electors may be amended or repealed without the assent of the electors if the minister approves." Could the minister provide some examples?

Hon. J. Kwan: An example would be a loan authorization bylaw in a specific or specified area that would apply.

L. Reid: So an example, then, would not be the Prince George water fluoridation question of yesterday evening. The MEVA would not be the mechanism by which the minister approves not going to the electorate.

Hon. J. Kwan: The answer is no.

G. Wilson: The minister just indicated that a loan authorization bylaw is an example of something that could be amended or repealed. To what extent can a loan authorization bylaw be amended with the permission of the minister? Surely it's not to increase the amount or the terms and conditions of the loan. So if that's the example, can the minister tell us precisely what could be amended in a loan authorization bylaw that a council and a minister might be able to approve and that local electors would not?

Hon. J. Kwan: Take this as an example: in a specified area, if the boundary increases but the terms of the loan authorization do not change, then in that instance this clause would apply.

G. Wilson: Just for the record, then, will the minister confirm whether this is or is not so -- that is, yes or no? Can this section be used to amend a loan authorization bylaw to increase the amount of the loan?

The Chair: Minister, noting the hour.

Hon. J. Kwan: The answer is no.

Noting the hour, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. J. Kwan: I move that the House recess until 6:35 and thereafter sit until adjournment.

Motion approved.

The House recessed from 5:58 p.m. to 6:39 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Hon. J. Kwan: I call committee stage on Bill 31.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1998
(continued)

Section 35 approved.

On section 36.

L. Reid: What I'm happy to do is reference the sections within section 36 to make it easier. I have some questions around section 176, which is contained within section 36.

Section 36, sections 173 to 175 inclusive approved.

On section 36, section 176.

L. Reid: A significant change is before us in terms of broadening the corporate powers through municipalities. I understand that they are now going to be granted more broadly. Is it also the interpretation that those will be interpreted more broadly? Are the decisions taken as they relate to this section truly in place to empower municipalities to go forward and make the decisions which they believe are in their best interests?

Hon. J. Kwan: Yes.

L. Reid: I am now referencing subsection 176(c): ". . .to provide assistance for the purpose of benefiting the community or any aspect of the community." If the minister could perhaps give some examples and some clarification regarding that. For me, it's certainly a much broader definition of assistance, comparing it to the previous. I would assume it includes grants-in-aid. I am wondering if it now includes grants in lieu of taxation. Are those possibilities under this section?

Hon. J. Kwan: The definition of assistance is under section 181, which includes "an exemption from a tax, fee or charge." The form of assistance is also further defined under section 185(1), which includes: "(a) disposing of land or improvements, or any interest or right in or with respect to them, for less than market value; (b) lending money; (c) guaranteeing repayment of borrowing or providing security for borrowing; (d) assistance under a partnering agreement."

L. Reid: For my clarification, if the municipality owns a transition house and they wish to offer it to a society, they can sell that property for, say, $1. Is that correct?

Hon. J. Kwan: Yes.

L. Reid: So beyond the community interest property dispersal -- i.e., moving away from a transition house as the example -- are there any parameters around other types of property? Business and commercial properties could be released for less than their market value.

Hon. J. Kwan: Under section 182, there are some limitations that would apply. It would be limited to providing assistance to industry, commercial or business undertakings, with the exception of where there is a partnering agreement, which is under section 183.

[ Page 10779 ]

On section 36, section 180.

[6:45]

Hon. J. Kwan: Another example would be sewage services of the Fraser Valley regional district for Washington.

Section 36, sections 180 to 184 inclusive approved.

On section 36, section 185.

L. Reid: Section 185 says: "(1) A local government must publish in a newspaper its intention to provide any of the following assistance. . . ." My question is around the word "must." If indeed they are unable or unwilling to do that -- if that does not transpire -- is there any penalty?

Hon. J. Kwan: If someone takes it to a court challenge and the act has not been followed, then clearly the court will rule accordingly. Like many of the bylaws as they exist right now, normally they're in place. And if someone challenges it in court, then it's subject to court decisions.

Section 36, section 185 approved.

On section 36, section 186.

L. Reid: My comment on this will be brief. This exemption is new, I understand. I'm wondering if they're indeed. . . . We discussed dispersal of land. What about land swaps? Does that allow school districts to exchange parcels of land more readily than in the past? I know that's a sincere interest on their part -- that if there's commercial land in the district or in the municipality, they can swap those items and craft a better place to build X, whatever X happens to be.

Hon. J. Kwan: Yes, and that's prescribed under section 186(2)(c).

Section 36, sections 186 to 189 inclusive approved.

On section 36, section 190.

L. Reid: "Disposal of utilities and water and sewer systems." I have correspondence on these items in terms of municipalities which believe that other dollars are now part of that construction project -- i.e., a federal infrastructure grant that produced. . . . My colleagues need to pay attention to this debate.

Indeed there are discussions, and I can probably give you two examples: water and sewer discussions today which individuals tell me were partially funded by federal infrastructure grants, partially funded by a society. Someone has given X dollars to a community service of some description that resulted in a physical plant of some sort. Is there a different process to dispose of that asset in that there is a variety of owners of that particular facility?

Hon. J. Kwan: No, there isn't a different process. The disposal of assets acquired under provincial grants is under section 189, and for that it's a different process.

Section 36, sections 190 to 193 inclusive approved.

On section 36, section 194.

L. Reid: This is a specific question. Someone has posed it to me in terms of a tree-cutting permit, when local government must by bylaw establish procedures for such a reconsideration. So if the person doesn't get the decision they required, is there a process? And what does that look like in terms of the likelihood. . . ? The individual who posed the question to me was asking in terms of the likelihood of success.

Hon. J. Kwan: Essentially, it's up to the local government to decide what kind of procedure or process needs to be in place and, ultimately, to decide the success or the probability of success. However, this section clearly requires that there must be a procedure in place. I cannot dictate what that procedure may be. It's up to the local government to decide.

L. Reid: Is it conceivable that the process would involve the provincial government, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, at any juncture? Could the process be structured so that your ministry is part of that process?

Hon. J. Kwan: No.

L. Reid: I'm fully in support of local decisions affecting local individuals being paramount in this discussion. The contention around something like forestry practice, cutting permits and all of that. . . . People have asked me if there is another avenue that they could pursue if they are unable to reach resolution at the municipal level. Is this the end of the road in terms of how a decision is reached, or are there other avenues that they might pursue?

Hon. J. Kwan: They could go to the ombudsman's office.

Section 36, section 194 approved.

On section 36, section 195.

L. Reid: "A local government must not incorporate a corporation or acquire shares in a corporation without first receiving the approval of the inspector." Much discussion has come up from our Forests critic around community forest projects. What do they really look like in terms of definition, and will the inspector have that same responsibility and overseeing ability? I reference this back to the comments I made earlier about land management. I think it does broaden their ability to look at land management. So are we now investing greater powers in this inspector as a result of that?

Hon. J. Kwan: This section is exactly the same as the current act and therefore does not vest the inspector with greater powers or special powers.

L. Reid: Again, I would reference the minister to my earlier comment regarding treaty settlement. Will there now be a different level of inspection, if you will, as a result of what will be a different order of government on reserve and off reserve?

[ Page 10780 ]

L. Reid: The individual who asked the question will actually be pleased. He was not looking for a standardized application; he was looking for an individual application of any of these inspector skill sets. So I appreciate that.

Maybe just a philosophical moment in terms of municipalities today. . . . They see themselves as a third order of government, yet I know members opposite have referred to the new aboriginal treaty discussions as a third order of government. What's going to happen to just that broader definition of order of government? Are we going to see a different title arrived at now for municipal government?

Hon. J. Kwan: In the preamble, what we have done is recognize local governments as an independent, responsible and accountable order of government within their jurisdictions. When people say third order or fourth order or whatever, that's the debate out there. But for the purposes of local governments, for this act, the definition is as prescribed in the preamble.

L. Reid: In terms of government, my understanding is, through the entire discussion and the briefings and the symposium I attended in February, that municipal government is still a creature of provincial government. Within that understanding it's accountable, responsible and independent. Has that broader definition changed? I know we've always considered the federal government and the provincial government. . .with municipal government as a creation of the provincial government. Does this act fundamentally change that broader definition?

Hon. J. Kwan: I appreciate what the member is trying to get at. However, we're not in a position to change the constitution. As the member knows, the province of British Columbia cannot amend the constitution to establish local government as a constitutionally recognized order of government. It would require at least the amendment of section 92 of the constitution, and the amending formula would have to be ruled by a specific formula: at least 50 percent of the population of seven out of the ten provinces in support. We don't have the authority to do that. The definition that we have arrived at is in agreement with the UBCM, given that there are those understandings of that being an acceptable definition from the UBCM.

L. Reid: I appreciate the minister's comments, and in fact, we agree at this juncture. I think the confusion lies in the fact that. . . . I think the UBCM executive understands this in great detail. I think the individuals who are not part of the working groups that crafted it saw the word "independent" and now see themselves as a third order of government. The minister and I still see ourselves understanding that it's federal, provincial and municipal directly as a creature of the provincial government. If that's the minister's understanding as well, I'm pleased.

Hon. J. Kwan: I think what's crucial here is that the definition is such that it is independent within its jurisdiction. All levels of government have their jurisdictional rights. It's the same thing with the provincial and federal governments. Through the symposium -- what I heard from representatives there -- my understanding is that the importance is the issue of independence. We have always said that the level of independence must be clearly defined to limit it to its jurisdiction.

Section 36, sections 195 to 206 inclusive approved.

On section 36, section 207.

L. Reid: Just for clarification, it's my understanding that this part is not being reviewed this year and that it's going to be reviewed in the year 1999-2000.

Hon. J. Kwan: Yes.

L. Reid: My concern is to know whether or not there are issues that will perhaps become the unintended consequence of doing this in parts -- doing portion 1 for 1998, portion 2 for 1999 and the third part in the year 2000. Are there aspects of this that will be problematic because it's been done over a three-year time line?

[7:00]

Section 36, sections 207 to 236 inclusive approved.

On section 36, section 237.

L. Reid: A number of individuals have raised some concerns with me regarding how the appointment process works. Certainly the ministry in the past has been involved with brochures, information packages -- best-practice guides, if you will -- on a bunch of different issues. Will that kind of information still be forthcoming? I know that the UBCM does some of that, and I know that the orientation in service does some of that for people who are brand-new to council and to other committee work. It seems that the smaller regional districts, the smaller communities, are the ones that have the biggest concerns about how that process unfolds in terms of people having some skill sets. Is there a best-practices guide in the works for how this process should unfold? Is the ministry going to establish some guidance around educational programming?

Hon. J. Kwan: This section is being reviewed, and changes may be made next year or in future years. Generally speaking, the ministry is always there to provide assistance and support to local government, so there's that access there. We are preparing some standard manuals and guidelines for local government on the overall changes in Bill 31.

Section 36, sections 237 to 256 inclusive approved.

Sections 37 to 50 inclusive approved.

On section 51.

L. Reid: Section 306, "Establishment of municipal forest reserve," is on page 52. A number of individuals have come to me regarding how that works in terms of comparisons to perhaps a community forest and indeed if the Ministry of

[ Page 10781 ]

Hon. J. Kwan: There is no change with this section. It is the same as in the current act.

Sections 51 to 69 inclusive approved.

On section 70.

L. Reid: In terms of comparison to the Revised Statutes of British Columbia, 1996, section 70 was repealed. Then it looks as if section 78 -- 458.1 -- is amended. Now, that's my take on that. The portion I want to reference is: ". . .without the assent of the electors." What's being substituted is: ". . .without providing a counterpetition opportunity." I am on section 70, bottom of page 58. My remarks, in fact, cover the next couple of sections. In terms of section 70, which repeals the old 428(3), "Power to agree with other taxing authority," could the minister indicate why that section is being repealed?

Hon. J. Kwan: Section 70 allows for specific types of agreements, and because that's basically being covered off in the broader agreement areas, that's no longer necessary.

Sections 70 to 73 inclusive approved.

On section 74.

L. Reid: Section 451 is "Liabilities beyond the current year." I'm wondering if indeed issues that will now have an extended life span -- i.e., an ice rink lease that could extend over 40 years. . . . Is that still something that must go to a vote for electoral assent across all municipalities, and does that include regional districts?

Hon. J. Kwan: If it's more than five years, then they need to go through a counterpetition and not electoral assent.

Sections 74 to 101 inclusive approved.

On section 102.

L. Reid: In section 102, section 526 is amended. Basically, I need just a little bit of discussion on what the intention was around that. My reading of that is that it now looks at hospitals, health centres and services, the board and management of health institutions, ambulance service. . . . Indeed, numerous MLAs receive correspondence inquiries around these services. Is it the minister's intention that more responsibility for these services will now be borne by municipalities? If so, is this where complaints may now lie, or is this just the infrastructure requirement?

Hon. J. Kwan: The purpose of this section is to eliminate specific authorities to acquire, accept, manage and hold property. It is essentially consequential to the new part 5, "Corporate Powers and Their Use." Specific authority is no longer needed, since part 5 provides broad authority to acquire and manage property.

L. Reid: I thank the minister. I agree that it allows for broader powers. Is there anything that would not be part of this new broader power arrangement?

Hon. J. Kwan: This section does not change the service authority, if that's the concern of the member. In terms of the service to the community, it doesn't change the service authority. I think that's her concern -- that it might change the structure in terms of the service authority to local government.

L. Reid: The minister is correct. That has been the concern that has been raised in terms of people who truly wonder -- wonder is the best word in this instance -- if indeed the hospital health care situation will somehow be impacted by this new structure. Their biggest concern, frankly, is that they will no longer be able to access an appeal process, a complaint process, to the provincial government -- that once they do that, they'll always be shifted back now to either the regional health boards or a municipal government.

The concern that was specifically raised with me was around provincial responsibility for this service. Individuals who have read this see that as somehow diminishing the provincial responsibility. If the minister could simply confirm or deny that assumption.

Hon. J. Kwan: This doesn't change the provincial responsibility, nor does it change the service authority that municipal governments currently have.

Sections 102 to 129 inclusive approved.

On section 130.

L. Reid: I'm on section 610(1)(b): ". . .may, under an agreement with another local government for the joint undertaking. . . ." The discussion around another local government is basically around responsibility and liability. Let's understand that maybe they're going to craft something, create a service, that will jointly serve both. In terms of liability and responsibility for that undertaking, will the province have, under this act, the ability to regulate that liability?

Hon. J. Kwan: The province won't actually have a role in this. It would be up to local government as they enter into agreements with whatever partners to lay out those clauses.

Sections 130 to 202 inclusive approved.

On section 203.

L. Reid: One of the issues that's continually raised is around development cost charges. It's my understanding that they cannot provide assistance by waiving or reducing a charge under this section. Yet in earlier sections we talked about the ability to exempt a tax. Many individuals see a development cost charge as a tax, and they're concluding that there is indeed inconsistency in whether or not a variety of municipalities may choose to use this language differently -- whether we're talking a development cost charge or an exemption on a tax.

[7:15]

L. Reid: I appreciate what the section says, but in earlier sections we talked about the ability to exempt a tax. There are many individuals who see a development cost charge as being

[ Page 10782 ]

Hon. J. Kwan: This is the only exception to which it would apply in terms of the ability to exempt. Because it is applicable to a small group of taxpayers, if you will, in terms of a levy and for the purposes of this act, in the area where there's a specific exemption that would have to, of course, be taken in conjunction with the larger, broader rules. But in terms of exemptions, this is the only area where that exemption would apply.

L. Reid: I appreciate the minister's response, but this is one of the most contentious issues in terms of individuals who have brought their concern forward to me. They truly see this as an opportunity to remove the level playing field around the DCC discussion. They truly believe that in some municipalities, individuals will be exempted to the exact cost of that DCC to get around this waiving of the DCC. In some municipalities that construction will be a gift, if you will, and in others it will be a cost. Is the minister clear in her mind that this prevents that from happening?

Hon. J. Kwan: It prevents the exemption of development cost levies. If municipalities wanted to provide a grant-in-lieu, they would have the mechanism to provide a grant-in-lieu. But this section specifically exempts the ability to waive development cost levies.

Sections 203 to 288 inclusive approved.

On section 289.

Hon. J. Kwan: I move the amendment to section 289 standing in my name in the Orders of the Day.

[SECTION 289, in the proposed section 39(1) of the Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act (No. 2), in paragraph (2) of the definition of "prescribed partnering agreement" by deleting "before the date" and substituting "before June 4, 1998, being the date".]

Section 289 as amended approved.

Sections 290 to 292 inclusive approved.

On section 293.

Hon. J. Kwan: I rise to advise the committee that the government members will be voting against section 293.

Section 293 negatived.

The Chair: The section is deleted.

Sections 294 to 326 inclusive approved.

On section 327.

Hon. J. Kwan: I move the amendment to section 327 standing in my name in the Orders of the Day.

[SECTION 327, by deleting "before the date on which this Act is given First Reading" and substituting "before June 4, 1998, being the date on which this Act was given First Reading".]

Section 327 as amended approved.

On section 328.

Hon. J. Kwan: I move the amendment to section 328 standing in my name in the Orders of the Day.

[SECTION 328, by deleting "before the date on which this Act is given First Reading" and substituting "before June 4, 1998, being the date on which this Act was given First Reading".]

Section 328 as amended approved.

Sections 329 and 330 approved.

On section 331.

Hon. J. Kwan: I move the amendment to section 331 standing in my name in the Orders of the Day.

[SECTION 331, by deleting section 331 and substituting the following:

Commencement

331 (1) Section 53 (a) is deemed to have come into force on January 1, 1998 and is retroactive to the extent necessary to give it force and effect on and after that date.

(2) Sections 1, 3 to 52, 53 (b) and 54 to 329 come into force by regulation of the Lieutenant Governor in Council.]

Section 331 as amended approved.

On the preamble.

L. Reid: Just a closing comment. I know that the municipalities and the working groups across this province have put a great deal of effort and thought into this, and I believe they've been ably assisted by the staff within the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. I thank them for that. In terms of this being part 1, we very much look forward to being part of the discussions around parts 2 and 3. Hopefully, by the turn of the century municipalities in this province will have a simplified, streamlined document. We're not there yet, in my view. There is a great deal of work to be done, and I look forward to the ongoing discussions.

Preamble 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.

[ Page 10783 ]

The Speaker: When shall the bill be read a third time?

Hon. P. Ramsey: With leave, now.

Leave granted.

Bill 31, Local Government Statutes Amendment Act, 1998, read a third time and passed.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I call Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 38.

PENSION STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 1998

Hon. P. Ramsey: Sections 1 through 4 are to be stood down by mutual agreement, so I would advise that we move to section 5.

On section 5.

G. Plant: The section before us amends the Pension (College) Act by repealing the definition of spouse and substituting a new definition. The new definition expands the category or the number of persons who can claim to be spouses for the purposes of the pension plans and the other entitlements that apply to spouses in the pension plan under the Pension (College) Act. This is an expansion of the definition of spouse that will include and apply to persons of the same gender who live in a marriage-like relationship with that other person -- that is, probably the contributor for the two-year period immediately preceding the relevant time. Presumably, there are some people in the public service who, as a result of this if it passes, will be in a different situation than they are now with respect to their pension entitlement.

I recall seeing in the original press statements around the announcement of these amendments the statement by the government that these changes are not expected to affect pension contributions. I also recall seeing statements by the Attorney General to the effect that these changes would not cost taxpayers one red cent. Were those statements correct?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand that these benefits may cost something to the pension plans but not to the taxpayers.

G. Plant: The taxpayers contribute to these pension plans indirectly through the employer contributions, do they not?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: They're the ones who receive the pensions as well. I'm talking about taxpayers exclusive of those who may be entitled or may be contributing to these pensions.

G. Plant: I'm not sure that that is responsive to my question. My understanding is that this particular pension plan is a pension plan to which the employer makes contributions as well as the employee. Is that right?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I missed the last question. However, the information is this: there is going to be no additional cost to government. The pension fund may have some incremental cost to itself in terms of the benefits having to be paid. There is going to be no cost to government or to other taxpayers.

[7:30]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: That could be. but they'd be minimal. Those pensions are already being administered. I understand from the actuarial figures which I was given some days ago at some point that there would be no increase in the premiums either.

G. Plant: So these changes which the government is proposing aren't going to cost government virtually anything. Is that correct?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes -- virtually nothing.

G. Plant: So it wouldn't cost anything more to expand the category of persons entitled to include the categories of persons who would be caught by the definition of domestic partner which I discussed in second reading debate, would it?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: There would be some incremental costs to the fund. I don't know what they would be. I have not looked at them as of yet. I'm given to understand that when one talks about extension of these benefits to the private schemes, which is where they should go actually -- all of these, including the ones that the hon. member is talking about -- I'm sure that there will be costs to the private pension schemes, as the hon. member might see. These benefits aren't being extended to people in private pension schemes; they're being extended only to the public pension schemes. If you take a policy decision to extend these benefits to other potential beneficiaries along the line that the hon. member might suggest, there might not be much cost. That's a larger policy question.

This is not only a cost question. The larger policy question is: are we going to expand and extend benefits to people who otherwise haven't been given benefits in the past? These people -- gays and lesbians -- ought to have been granted those benefits in the past. It was clearly discrimination, using the kinds of factors that we used to determine benefits in the past. If we were right and just, we would have extended them the same rights. We didn't. We are now dealing with that anomaly, and we're eliminating that. What the hon. member is saying is one further jump from that -- from ending discrimination to expanding rights.

I think that's a larger question. We need to have a debate. I am not opposed to it unalterably. The questions is: do we want to do this as a society or don't we? One view is that we should. I'm prepared to look at that; this government is prepared to look at this, but we're not going to resolve that today.

G. Plant: No, we're probably not going to, but in order to understand where the government is going with the amendment that is before us, some of these questions need to be explored. First of all, the Attorney General starts talking about the implications of further expansion for private sector pension plans, and I didn't think we were having a debate about private sector pension plans. I thought we were having a debate about Bill 38. Bill 38 isn't about private sector pension

[ Page 10784 ]

I think that what the Attorney General has said is that if there was this further expansion of these public sector pension plans, which is all that is before us, then there would be no significant additional cost to those plans. We can debate the other public policy questions that arise, some of which the Attorney General has talked about, in terms of the arguable difference between correcting discrimination on the one hand and something else. Let's have that debate in at least a context where we understand the implications of what might be involved in it. I'm pretty sure that there really aren't any cost implications. Cost would not really be a legitimate factor in terms of either accepting or rejecting the notion that the proposal by the government here be expanded one step further.

The Chair: I'll just remind both members that the principle of the bill was discussed in second reading, and we are now discussing section 5 of Bill 38.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Well, let me just very briefly sum up the issue as I see it, and then we can move on. The hon. member has put his views on the record.

This is about ending discrimination. There might not be much incremental cost if we extend these rights in public pensions to other dependents that the hon. member is talking about. But the question is: are we prepared to make the same jump in private pensions? That is the question.

Interjections.

The Chair: Order, members.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: That is the question, because at the end of the day, if we're not prepared. . . . This is about ending discrimination, not extending rights to people who weren't otherwise entitled to those rights. That's a whole separate debate. If the hon. member wants to have that debate, we can have it for the next year running. This is not the place for it. This is about ending discrimination. I have said that we're prepared to look at extending those rights to others who otherwise weren't entitled to those rights, but one would have to take into account whether or not that has a serious impact on private pensions that it might not have on public pensions.

The issue is that: when one does it for public pensions, one is going to have to do it for private pensions as well. We're prepared to move on that in the next year or so. On this issue -- eliminating the discrimination in private pensions as well. . . . Whether or not we're going to extend those rights to relationships other than what has been the case in the past is a separate question. I have not given serious thought to that issue at length. I don't have all of the facts and figures with respect to that. I'm prepared to consider that; this government is prepared to consider that. Archbishop Exner is prepared to deal with that.

We're talking about apples and oranges. We're talking about ending discrimination. The hon. member is now talking about expanding the categories of people that should be entitled to these rights.

G. Plant: There may, in fact, be discrimination issues involved in the expanded categories of persons. We haven't really given much thought to that question here. We're focused on ending discrimination with respect to one category of relationships.

Let me say with respect to section 5 and the definition of spouse which the government is putting forward, that I had not fully appreciated until this moment that, in effect, what the government is doing here is not simply saying, "We're going to change five public sector pension plans," but saying that this is step one. What the government is doing here is leading the way, so that next year the Legislature will be called on to essentially make the same changes with respect to private sector pension plans.

Really, what we're debating here, and what we were debating last night, from the point of view of the principle of what's at stake, is both public and private sector pension plans. In terms of understanding it clearly on the Attorney General's terms, what's before us now has to be seen in the context of its implications for what the government intends by this. And the government intends to set an example -- which we'll return to and be given another opportunity to vote on in another context a year from now. So I think cost is a relevant issue here. If there are apparently no cost implications for government in respect of these amendments that the government's putting forward, will there be enormous cost implications in the private sector when, next year, we do what the government will want us to do and expand these definitions into the private sector?

Let me just make sure, for the benefit of the Chair, that we understand the relevance of that. Up to this point, I had been thinking that we were legitimately dealing with an item that was, in its fullest possible sense, not going to involve the expenditure of much money. I want to be sure that we are not setting a precedent here which will have no cost for government, but rather that next year, when we come back and we're asked to complete the puzzle in respect to private sector pension plans, there will be enormous cost implications. Is the Attorney General saying that when we come back next year to correct the discrimination in private sector pension plans in relation to relationships between same-gender couples, there will be enormous cost implications?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I have not looked at that question. There might well be enormous expenditures. But one issue deals with ending discrimination -- and if ending discrimination is expensive, so be it. The other issue the hon. members have raised is about expanding the coverage to others who wouldn't have been entitled to it under the law; the other is about changing the law. This is about complying with the human rights legislation and with the Charter of Rights.

The Charter of Rights and human rights legislation would not force us to expand the categories to which the hon. member is seeking extension. The Charter of Rights and human rights legislation will force us to do what we are doing today and will force private pensions to follow suit. I have urged the private pension schemes to look at that. Some private pension funds are already dealing with this issue, and others may be forced to by law. If we don't do that next year or the following year, the Charter and human rights legislation will dictate it.

When you have a question of ending discrimination, cost is very important. But it is also irrelevant at the same time, because cost cannot stand in the way of one's fundamental rights.

[ Page 10785 ]

[7:45]

I hope that the government, before it introduces the next round of pension benefits reform, will explore all of the fiscal consequences of the range of options that are available and have a comprehensive picture of those fiscal consequences -- put them in the context of the discrimination that exists, or may hereafter exist or may not exist -- so that we get the whole picture, and we get it from the perspective of people who know about pensions and how pensions work, as well as from the perspective of people who are committed to justice and equality. We're not getting that now, and I don't think the debate is going to get anywhere. Because of that, frankly, we're not going to advance the discussion any further.

What we know, though, from the Attorney General is that the proposal to expand the definition of spouse in section 5 of this bill -- as it will apply to the Pension (College) Act -- will not cost taxpayers one red cent. Is that correct?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I've answered that question before, hon. Chair, and I'm not going to answer questions that I've already answered. We should move on.

G. Plant: I'm sorry -- I didn't want to jump the gun, hon. Chair. I just wanted an opportunity to try and close the circle on that. We can recall the Attorney General's earlier answer on that issue.

For the reasons which I tried to explain at some length last night, I think that there is a better solution -- maybe not a perfect solution, but a better solution to the many complex public policy issues that are presented by the government's project of reforming the public sector pension plans -- than the government's solution. I think that the better solution -- at least in terms of principle -- is the solution which is found in the amendment that I have placed on the order paper, an amendment to section 5 of the bill. I think that the general principle of what is encompassed or caught by the new definitions and new words that are proposed in the amendment is a way of ensuring that we can meet the requirement of equality, meet the requirement to end discrimination, ensure that there's fairness and, in fact, ensure that we spread equality and fairness around in an even fairer way. I'm not going to elaborate further on the point, because I did that last night.

At this point, I move the amendment to section 5, standing in my name in Orders of the Day. What I would propose doing is deleting section 5(c) of the current definition of spouse as proposed by the government in the bill and adding a definition. The term that is being defined is "domestic partner." It reads like this: " 'Domestic partner' means in relation to another person, if there is no person to whom 'spouse' applies, a person who lived with that other person for the two-year period immediately preceding the relevant time in a close personal relationship that is of primary importance in both person's lives and which has the attributes of permanence, sharing and interdependence."

I think that there is a definition in substantially the same language standing in the name of the member for Peace River South. What I want to say about that amendment is that I actually had the opportunity to read that amendment before I tabled mine. Reading the amendment drafted by the member for Peace River South made it apparent that mine wasn't as good as it could be, and so I revised mine. The revision is important in one respect: it means that this term "domestic partner" would only come into play if there was no person who was a husband or wife or if there was no person in a common-law relationship. Essentially, it is a matter of ensuring some kind of clarity. That is a better approach than the approach I was taking in one of the drafts I was playing with.

I also want to refer to the fact that I got some help from reading the amendment by the member for Peace River South for this reason. As I said last night, I don't claim pride of authorship or perfection in terms of what's being done technically here. If there are those, including the Attorney General, who think that this amendment could be improved upon, I would certainly welcome that input. The key objective here is the objective in principle, the objective in substance, as opposed to particular words. I don't discount the importance of words, but I think that words should be our servants rather than our masters. That's what we're trying to do.

With that, I move the amendment standing in my name in Orders of the Day.

[SECTION 5, in reference to section 1 (1) of the Pension (College) Act to add the words in boldface and to delete the words in strikeout as follows:

"spouse" means, in relation to another person,

(a) if there is no person to whom paragraph (b) or (c) applies, a person who at the relevant time was married to that other person, or

(b) a person who lived with that other person as husband and wife for the 2 year period immediately preceding the relevant time; or

(c) a person of the same gender who lived in a marriage-like relationship with that other person for the 2 year period immediately preceding the relevant time;, and

[ Page 10786 ]

and to add the following definition:

"domestic partner" means, in relation to another person, if there is no person to whom "spouse" applies, a person who lived with that other person for the 2 year period immediately preceding the relevant time in a close, personal relationship that is of primary importance in both persons' lives and which has the attributes of permanence, sharing and interdependence;.]

M. de Jong: Point of order. We've not heard from the Attorney General. If the Chair is going to make a ruling along the lines that I'm anticipating, I'm going to suggest that in order to make that ruling, we at least need to hear from the Attorney General.

The Chair: On the point of order, hon. member, the Chair has the right to make a ruling -- should no member rise to their feet -- as I will continue to do.

The Chair has reviewed the amendments on the order paper in the name of the hon. member and has considered the extensive comments made by both parties in second reading last night. It is my view that these amendments, if passed. . . .

Interjection.

The Chair: The member rises on a point of order.

M. de Jong: With respect to the amendment that the member for Richmond-Steveston has tabled today, I'm at a loss to understand how you can be considering comments made a day ago. If the Chair is about to make a ruling along the lines that I think she is going to, that requires a submission from the Attorney General -- or the Chair is not in a position to make that ruling.

The Chair: Hon. member, second reading last night, and the comments made by the parties last night during second reading of the bill. . . . In light of some of the comments made during the debate and the discussion during second reading. . . . They are contrary to what the intent of the bill basically states.

Interjections.

The Chair: Hon. members, order.

It is my view that these amendments, if they are passed, would clearly extend the application of the bill. They are out of order as being contrary to the intent of the bill as agreed to at second reading.

G. Plant: I certainly don't challenge the ruling. So where are we? Well, we're in the position where the Attorney General says that there is a valid, legitimate issue for public debate and discussion, which I assume means we could have that debate and discussion here. We certainly had it last night. No one actually suggested last night that that debate and discussion was out of order, although I understand that different rules apply.

What I think arises is an opportunity for the government to ensure that we do have the chance to debate this issue here on the floor of this Legislature. Given that opportunity and the importance of the issue, both here in this chamber and for the public, I would invite the Attorney General to take advantage of this opportunity and ensure that we do have a chance to debate this amendment, and I ask, if he thinks it consistent with the principles that he espouses, that he move the amendment.

G. Wilson: I wonder if, just before the Attorney General does that. . . . I listened very carefully to the Chair, and I wasn't clear on. . . . It was clear to me that the Chair felt that this amendment was out of order, but it wasn't clear to me what it was about the amendment that made it out of order. I wonder if the Chair might be more specific with respect to the wording of the amendment. Specifically, what aspect of the wording of the amendment actually moves this beyond the point of which it is in order?

The Chair: The Chair has made the ruling.

G. Wilson: Well, with great respect, hon. Chair, I'm not challenging the Chair. I'm simply seeking clarification from the Chair in the event that we may wish to reword this amendment to make it in order.

The Chair: The Chair has made the ruling on the amendment.

G. Plant: I extended an invitation to the Attorney General a moment ago, and I want to put that invitation into a slightly larger context. Last year, a year ago, we had a debate on the Family Relations Amendment Act, Bill 31. There were amendments that in substance were similar to those that are in Orders of the Day now. Those amendments were in order. They were debated, and they were voted on.

I certainly don't want to suggest that that would be a precedent that anyone might look to as being in conflict with the ruling of the Chair, even though they are awfully close to being on point. But it does, it seems to me, afford the Attorney General this further opportunity to consider the issue. Having had a situation where we debated this issue pretty fully last year in a different context, it would be, I think, a good move on the part of the government to seek to encourage the possibility of that debate here in this chamber this year. So I repeat the invitation I made to the Attorney General.

[8:00]

The difference of opinion last year was different from this year. Last year when we were talking about Bills 31 and 32, if I remember the numbers correctly, an effort was made to whittle down the significance of the amendments that we were making. For the first time in the history of this continent, we were enshrining in legislation rights for families -- for same-sex families. An attempt was made to dilute that impact and to make a similar amendment to one that is being attempted today.

In addition to that particular view that I had then, I also add the following: there is a difference of opinion in this chamber. It was clear last night and it's clear now. We are trying to end discrimination in the domain of public sector workers. We will urge the private pension providers to do the

[ Page 10787 ]

The issue around extension of the same rights to people who don't live in marriage-like relationships is a different issue from that of ending discrimination. The opposition says -- and I won't question the motives of the opposition -- that we should do all of that in one fell swoop, and we are saying. . . . First of all, I have not considered the consequences, not just to the public pension funds, which might not be significant at all -- I agree with the hon. member. But if you then follow that principle of extending those rights to others in private pension funds, I certainly wouldn't want to burden private pension funds with an obligation that I haven't looked into. It's a question of the opposition saying: "We want to move all the way right now." Without questioning the motives of the opposition, I'm saying: "We're moving a little bit."

We are prepared to look at extending the same rights in the private pension area in the next year or two. We certainly have to do that to end discrimination. But the issue of providing pension benefits in other dependent relationships is an entirely different issue and takes us in a new direction. I'm not suggesting that that's a bad thing to do, but the hon. members have to admit that that is something that we had not contemplated until Archbishop Exner started the public debate -- except for the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast, who has said that in the past, and he maintains that position. But we have not had a public debate on that. We have not looked at the cost implications. So that's where the difference is.

In terms of these particular amendments that are being introduced, whether they are being found to be proper by the Chair or not -- I will not comment on that -- they certainly extend the scope of the coverage into areas that are not contemplated by this particular piece of legislation.

G. Plant: Let me add one thing to the context of this debate, which is not a point that anyone has made so far. The phrase in clause (c) of the definition in the government's bill is "marriage-like." It's a pretty open-ended phrase. Some courts may find that in order to qualify as a marriage-like relationship, there is a requirement of physical sexual intimacy. If that interpretation were adopted, that would exclude same-gender couples who are not physically intimate, even though they may be in close personal relationships. They may be in relationships that in the eyes of the outside world are about as close and personal, long-term, durable, stable, interdependent and caring as you can imagine. One of the problems I have here is that I actually don't think the Attorney General's definition -- the idea of "marriage-like" -- is a completely certain, adequate and clear achievement of the public policy objective that he sets for himself and the government.

I hate to have fights in court where people are arguing over pension rights on the basis of whether they slept with each other in the same bed or in different beds. I don't think that makes for a better society. I'm afraid that the phrase marriage-like, in the eyes of some people, is going to invite that debate. In the eyes of some people, there's going be a debate. People are going to say: "You're not entitled to part of my pension benefits. We may have lived together. We may have shared a house together, but we didn't sleep together. We didn't have a marriage-like relationship; there was no physical intimacy." Yet in the eyes of the outside world, of many people, in fact they would have had all the other attributes of a close, personal, sharing relationship except that one. I'm certainly not going to pass judgment on what the courts are likely to say. . . .

Interjection.

G. Plant: Well, actually I'm not having another kick at the can. I'm now saying that, among other things, I'm not certain the definition offered by the Attorney General will actually achieve the public policy purpose that he sets for himself. I'm pretty sure mine will. I'm pretty sure mine would capture all of those relationships -- relationships between a man and a man or a woman and a woman that are close, that are personal, that have stood the test of time, that are interdependent -- all of those things that don't require the courts to investigate the issue of physical or sexual intimacy. So among other things, I wish I were as confident as the Attorney General is that the language he is using is in fact going to achieve the purpose that he sets for it. And it's partly in that context that I have less confidence in his approach.

Let's be clear about one or two things. First of all, this amendment represents the view of the B.C. Liberal opposition on the correct way to move forward on this issue at this time. I don't know whether this precise amendment represents the view of the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast. Last night he said that the issue is worthy of discussion but that he wasn't passing judgment on the details. He can speak for himself. Do I take it that it is the position of the government that the amendments which we have proposed are not the appropriate way to proceed at this time?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Chair, I'm assuming that the hon. member is talking about the amendments which he has introduced.

That is the view of the government at this time. I made it very clear yesterday in debate and very clear today -- without questioning the motives of the opposition. We do present these issues and these amendments in this chamber for many reasons. The ultimate objective that the hon. members are seeking is a laudable one -- that we should be able to provide pension benefits to all relationships in which there is permanent dependence upon each other. I think the difference is that I don't believe we are ready to move to that extent.

We are ready to move to end discrimination at this time in the public sector pension area. We are certainly going to look at extending the same benefits to the private pension area based on same-sex relationships, because that is ending discrimination -- and I've said that.

Going back to the issue of whether or not the definition that he has provided is more appropriate than the definition that we're using, we've used the "marriage-like relationship" definition as a result of long years of experience based on the existence of common-law relationships. Common-law relationships have been defined by courts as essentially marriage-like relationships. In our view, gay and lesbian same-sex relationships are of that kind -- marriage-like relationships such as common-law relationships. We said last year, when we did amendments to the family relations legislation, that that was our view: that we wanted to put common-law as well as same-sex relationships on the same footing with heterosexual relationships in some issues such as custody, access and maintenance for children, as well as for spouses.

We are using the same logic here. There's no magic; there's nothing different. There are no sinister motives here: we're just trying to do the right thing. We may not be pre-

[ Page 10788 ]

G. Wilson: Listening to the Attorney General, I have a few questions on this section. I guess the first and most obvious question that comes to mind is: why? Why would we not want to move forward? I mean, it doesn't take much to sit down with actuaries and people who are involved in the delivery of pension services. It was interesting last night -- and I don't want to go back and revisit that debate, for a whole bunch of reasons -- listening to the member for Richmond-Steveston, in the sense that we've followed the same road, virtually. We've talked to virtually the same people -- some different people, but virtually the same types of people, and we had, in fact, even talked to some of the same people.

The information that I heard from people who are professionals in the field suggested that if the government were to move, as the Attorney General says, all the way on this question, the actual cost to government would have been nil or negligible -- certainly no more than what the language is here. That's what they're telling me. These people are professionals in the field. So you really have to ask the question: are we going to look at dependency as the key? The real philosophical issue here, I think, is: should we or should we not have pensions transferable at all? Should you be able to transfer your pension to anyone? If the answer is yes, you should, then there has to be a test for whom you are able to transfer that pension benefit to, if we're going to do that. I'm assuming that that test, if we go back to the standard law as it has applied prior to these amendments, is based on dependency. The dependency has been linked to what we have called spousal pension benefits, which is people who are married.

I'm giving a bit of a long preamble to get to my question, because I don't want to have to go through 17 questions. I'd sooner just get to the question and get my preamble out, if that's acceptable to the Chair. What seems to be getting lost in all of this debate is that the reason people were allowed to transfer their benefits at all in the first place had to do with the fact that the partner was financially dependent upon the primary wage earner. I believe that the test of the marriage-like relationship in the vast majority of cases was the progeny that came from the relationship: they had children. It was pretty obvious that they must, on at least one, two, three or four occasions, have slept together. I think that's pretty obvious. So that test is there.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

[8:15]

I guess my question to the Attorney General is: if that's the case, and given the fact that people in the industry themselves are prepared to provide some statistical evidence for the fact that the cost implications are really negligible, why would the government not decide to simply make that extra step and therefore be as inclusive as possible with respect to the principle of pension transfer?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The hon. member has made that argument before, and I've heard it. We have agreed on this side of the House that we're going to move to the extent that we are. The hon. member can perhaps give me the names and addresses and telephone numbers of the people that he's been talking to, and we'll certainly be happy to speak to them and move in the direction that the hon. member is saying we should move in if at all possible.

I caution the hon. members: what the hon. members are now talking about are changing the basic rules. What we're saying on this side of the House is: let's end discrimination based on the rules that we have. We haven't considered, in any kind of a thoughtful way, changing the rules. We're prepared to take a look at that.

G. Wilson: I completely agree with the Attorney General that it means changing the rules. The only reason I say that is because I laboured hard and long and tried to do what I could to find a way to bring in an amendment to this particular bill that would accommodate my concerns. I couldn't find a way to do it and have it be in order, precisely for the reasons that the Attorney General just said. Not only has he changed the rules of the act but he has changed the rules and application with respect to the pension law and process itself. I agree with him. I agree, and that's why I couldn't bring in an amendment -- which was a great chagrin, because I thought that it would have been something worth doing.

I will accept the Attorney General's offer to sit down and put together a group of people who are professionals in the field to start to work out ways in which we can, in fact, modernize this whole question. There really are people who are dependent on others who should be eligible to receive those pension benefits and who currently are not. It creates enormous hardship if untimely death occurs and these people are left out there with absolutely nobody to look after them. It's something that does need the attention of government, and I will take up the Attorney General's offer on that. I hope he can move forward with it.

Section 5 approved.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper, adding section 5.1.

[SECTION 5.1, by adding the following section:

5.1 Section 15 (2) is amended by adding "or there is filed with the commissioner a written agreement or court order made under Part 5 or 6 of the Family Relations Act with the same effect" after "specified by the commissioner".]

The Chair: Members, there were a number of sections -- sections 1 through 4 -- that were stood down. We'll go back to those.

On section 1.

G. Plant: I move the amendment standing in my name in Orders of the Day.

[SECTION 1 (a), in reference to section 1 of the Legislative Assembly Allowance and Pension Act to add the words in boldface and to delete the words in strikeout as follows:

"spouse" means, in relation to another person,

(a) if there is no person to whom paragraph (b) or (c) applies, a person who at the relevant time was married to that other person, or

(b) a person who lived with that other person as husband and wife for the 2 year period immediately preceding the relevant time; or

[ Page 10789 ]

(c) a person of the same gender who lived in a marriage-like relationship with that other person for the 2 year period immediately preceding the relevant time;, and

and to add the following definition:

"domestic partner" means, in relation to another person, if there is no person to whom "spouse" applies, a person who lived with that other person for the 2 year period immediately preceding the relevant time in a close, personal relationship that is of primary importance in both persons' lives and which has the attributes of permanence, sharing and interdependence;.]

SECTION 1 (b), in reference to section 1 of the Legislative Assembly Allowance and Pension Act by deleting the amendment and substituting the following:

(b) by repealing the definition of "surviving spouse" and substituting the following:

"surviving spouse or domestic partner" means the surviving spouse of a member who has married to a member immediately before the member's death, or the surviving domestic partner of a member who was in domestic partnership immediately before the member's death, as the case may be.]

G. Plant: What clarification of such a thing exists? The Chair is saying that the amendment is out of order. Is that correct?

The Chair: That's correct.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

On section 3.

G. Plant: Is this amendment still necessary, given what the government of Canada has said it is going to do to the Income Tax Act?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The hon. member is correct. Because of the decision of the federal government to not appeal the Ontario decision, this amendment is no longer necessary. It was necessary when the bill was introduced.

Section 3 negatived.

Section 4 approved.

Sections 6 and 7 approved.

On section 8.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 8, by deleting the proposed section 20(4.1).]

Section 8 as amended approved.

Section 9 approved.

On section 10.

G. Plant: I move the amendment standing in my name in Orders of the Day, which would alter the definition of spouse and add the definition of domestic partner.

[SECTION 10, in reference to Section 1(1) of the Pension (Municipal) Act, RSBC 1996, c. 355 to add the words in boldface and to delete the words in strikeout as follows:

"spouse" means, in relation to another person,

(a) if there is no person to whom paragraph (b) or (c) applies, a person who at the relevant time was married to that other person, or

(b) a person who lived with that other person as husband and wife for the 2 year period immediately preceding the relevant time; or

(c) a person of the same gender who lived in a marriage-like relationship with that other person for the 2 year period immediately preceding the relevant time;, and

and to add the following definition:

"domestic partner" means, in relation to another person, if there is no person to whom "spouse" applies, a person who lived with that other person for the 2 year period immediately preceding the relevant time in a close, personal relationship that is of primary importance in both persons' lives and which has the attributes of permanence, sharing and interdependence;.]

Section 10 approved.

On section 11.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 11, by deleting the proposed section 11 and substituting the following:

11 Section 17 (2) is amended by adding "or there is filed with the commissioner a written agreement or court order made under Part 5 or 6 of the Family Relations Act with the same effect" after "specified by the commissioner".]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Chair, can we go back to section 9 and have it defeated, vote it down? It's no longer required.

The Chair: We'll go back to section 9.

On section 9.

G. Plant: Just for clarity, what section 9 does is amend section 26 of the Pension (College) Act by adding subsection (5). It is that addition that the Attorney General is suggesting is no longer necessary and that it be defeated -- is that correct?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.

Section 9 negatived.

The Chair: Shall the amendment to section 11 pass?

Amendment approved.

Section 11 as amended approved.

[ Page 10790 ]

On section 14.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I move the amendment to section 14 standing in my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 14(c), in the proposed section 22(5.1) by deleting "subsection (5)" and substituting "subsection (2)(a)(ii)".]

On section 14 as amended.

G. Plant: Clause (b), which amends section 22 of the Pension (Municipal) Act, refers to the Income Tax Act of Canada. I suppose my question is the same: is that provision necessary?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Can we revert to section 14? I move that we delete clause (b), which was going to amend section 22.

The Chair: Shall the amendment to delete clause (b) pass?

Amendment approved.

Section 14 as amended approved.

On section 15.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I move that section 15 be deleted.

Section 15 negatived.

On section 16.

G. Plant: I move the amendment standing in my name in Orders of the Day, which would alter the definition of spouse as proposed by the bill and add the definition of domestic partner.

[SECTION 16, in reference to Section 1(1) of the Pension (Public Service) Act, to add the words in boldface and to delete the words in strikeout as follows:

"spouse" means, in relation to another person,

(a) if there is no person to whom paragraph (b) or (c) applies, a person who at the relevant time was married to that other person, or

(b) a person who lived with that other person as husband and wife for the 2 year period immediately preceding the relevant time; or

(c) a person of the same gender who lived in a marriage-like relationship with that other person for the 2 year period immediately preceding the relevant time;, and

and to add the following definition:

"domestic partner" means, in relation to another person, if there is no person to whom "spouse" applies, a person who lived with that other person for the 2 year period immediately preceding the relevant time in a close, personal relationship that is of primary importance in both persons' lives and which has the attributes of permanence, sharing and interdependence;.]

G. Plant: Is the Chair saying that this amendment is out of order?

The Chair: Yes.

Section 16 approved.

On section 17.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I move the amendment to section 17 standing in my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 17, by deleting the proposed section 17 and substituting the following:

17 Section 18(4) is amended by adding "or there is filed with the commissioner a written agreement or court order made under Part 5 or 6 of the Family Relations Act with the same effect" after "specified by the commissioner".]

Section 17 as amended approved.

Section 18 approved.

On section 19.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Chair, I move that we delete clause (a) in section 19.

Amendment approved.

Section 19 as amended approved.

Section 20 approved.

On section 21.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I move that section 21 be deleted, as well, for reasons as previously explained with respect to similar sections earlier in the bill.

Section 21 negatived.

On section 22.

[8:30]

[SECTION 22, in reference to Section 1(1) of the Pension (Public Service) Act, to add the words in boldface and to delete the words in strikeout as follows:

"spouse" means, in relation to another person,

(a) if there is no person to whom paragraph (b) or (c) applies, a person who at the relevant time was married to that other person, or

(b) a person who lived with that other person as husband and wife for the 2 year period immediately preceding the relevant time; or

(c) a person of the same gender who lived in a marriage-like relationship with that other person for the 2 year period immediately preceding the relevant time;, and

[ Page 10791 ]

and to add the following definition:

"domestic partner" means, in relation to another person, if there is no person to whom "spouse" applies, a person who lived with that other person for the 2 year period immediately preceding the relevant time in a close, personal relationship that is of primary importance in both persons' lives and which has the attributes of permanence, sharing and interdependence;.]

Section 22 approved.

On section 23.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I move the amendment to section 23 standing in my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 23, by deleting the proposed section 23 and substituting the following:

23

Section 16(3) is amended by adding "or there is filed with the commissioner a written agreement or court order made under Part 5 or 6 of the Family Relations Act with the same effect" after "specified by the commissioner".]

Section 23 as amended approved.

Section 24 approved.

On section 25.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I move that subsection (a) of the amendment be deleted.

Motion approved.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I move the amendment to subsection 25(b) standing in my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 25 (b), in the proposed section 21 (3.1) by deleting "subsection (3)" and substituting "subsection (5) (a)".]

Section 25 as amended approved.

On section 26.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I move that section 26 be deleted for reasons explained earlier.

Section 26 negatived.

On section 8.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I move that subsection (a) of the amendment in section 8 be deleted for reasons explained earlier in other cases.

Motion approved.

Section 8 as amended approved.

Title approved.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Bill 38, Pension Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1998, reported complete with amendments.

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

Hon. U. Dosanjh: With leave, now.

Leave granted.

Bill 38, Pension Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1998, read a third time and passed on the following division:

YEAS -- 54
Evans	Zirnhelt	Kwan
Hammell	Boone	Streifel
Pullinger	Lali	Orcherton
Stevenson	Calendino	Goodacre
Walsh	Randall	Gillespie
Robertson	Cashore	Conroy
Priddy	Petter	Miller
G. Clark	Dosanjh	MacPhail
Lovick	Ramsey	Farnworth
Waddell	Hartley	Sihota
Smallwood	Sawicki	Bowbrick
Kasper	Doyle	Janssen
Sanders	Gingell	C. Clark
Campbell	de Jong	Plant
Abbott	Reid	Coell
Chong	Whittred	Anderson
McKinnon	Symons	Stephens
Hawkins	Hogg	Weisbeck

 

NAYS -- 10
Coleman	Thorpe	Barisoff
Dalton	Masi	Krueger
J. Wilson	G. Wilson	Penner
	Neufeld

  Hon. J. MacPhail: I call Committee of the Whole to debate Bill 39.

PUBLIC EDUCATION COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT ACT

[8:45]

A. Sanders: We come to the end of the session, and to me probably the most important piece of legislation that we've had to deal with is Bill 39. It's this piece of paper here. I think there are a couple of important things to look for in section 1 before we start. The first is that this side of the House knew that this particular bill would be legislated three months ago.

[ Page 10792 ]

With that reference in mind and to let people know that there is a place they can go to look for the information that is the substance of this piece of paper that will affect our families, our children, our school districts, our trustees and our teachers for the next three years, I'd like to start by looking at the definitions under section 1 of this Bill 39, the Public Education Collective Agreement Act. The first one that I would like to canvass is under 1(a), the agreement-in-committee. The agreement-in-committee is defined as the agreement signed on behalf of the government and the BCTF on April 17, 1998.

First of all, I had to procure copies of this agreement for members of my caucus, and I am positive that that side of the House has not read the agreement. Copies of the agreement were not available in this building. They had to be procured from the Ministry of Education. They were not in the Clerks' office, and they had to be procured for members on this side to read. Therefore I am positive that when this group of people got up to vote for this bill, they hadn't even read the legislation that we are debating -- something that will affect 600,000 children for the next three years in the province.

My first question with respect to 1(a) is: are there any changes, any differentiations that occur from this agreement -- the agreement-in-committee that I first obtained through the education black market a number of months ago because it wasn't available to me through the ministry? Are there any changes that this House does not know about that are not contained within this signed agreement-in-committee?

Hon. P. Ramsey: It's good to be debating this bill. I do agree with the member on one thing: the issues that are contained in the agreement-in-committee, which this bill brings into force as a collective agreement between trustees and teachers in the province, was indeed canvassed thoroughly during the estimates of the Ministry of Education. People can clearly look at the Hansard for the debates of those estimates and discover some startling differences between this government and the opposition, and the benefits of adding 1,200 teachers to the system, the benefits of reducing class size in kindergarten-to-grade-3, the benefits of the teachers moving forward with freezing wages for a couple of years and accepting a limited wage increase in the third; and the benefits of ensuring that kids throughout the province have access to the same level of non-enrolling support -- teacher-librarians, ESL specialists and the like. That has been thoroughly canvassed; the member is quite right.

I am surprised to hear the member saying that it was difficult to obtain a copy of this, since, if I remember estimates correctly, both she and other members of the Liberal caucus were referring to this very document -- over two months ago. I assure the member opposite, for her information, that this side of the House has had copies of this document since it was initialled by representatives of the government and the BCTF. It has been widely distributed. It's been the subject of extensive discussion with trustees, superintendents and all members of the education community, and the provisions are widely known. Just with that, the member asked whether there were any changes to this agreement. The agreement is what the agreement is, and this legislation brings it into force as a collective agreement.

A. Sanders: If there's anything that this minister agrees with me on, then I haven't done my job. I can't find a thing in education that he and I share in common. That is for the better.

My question about whether there are any changes is a very important one. The school secretary-treasurers -- those people who handle the money in the school districts -- have recently received a letter from Rick Connolly. I see Mr. Connolly sitting here; I don't remember him having a seat within this Legislature. Yet on someone's authority, Mr. Connolly has written to the secretary-treasurers, those people who have the responsibility for providing the dollars for our school districts with respect to this agreement-in-committee that comes in with Bill 39. Mr. Connolly says: "Given the likelihood that the British Columbia teachers' collective agreement will soon be finalized, government has announced a K-to-3 class-size reduction initiative which will see 1,000 new classrooms built over the next five years. . . . On this basis it is important that school districts review [existing capacity] based on the reduction in K-to-3 class sizes to 18 students by 2002-2003."

My question to the minister, based on the definition in 1(a), "Agreement-in-Committee," which is the signed agreement, and this information -- which has absolutely nothing to do with the agreement-in-committee and yet has absolutely huge financial and monetary implications for our school districts and for the secretary-treasurers who are now developing five-year capital plans -- is: where did this information come from?

I know that Mr. Clinton has made a similar promise, and I know that this Premier often gets his spin doctors from Mr. Clinton's group in Washington. But specifically with respect to these individuals who are planning their capital construction processes, which do integrally tie into the agreement-in-committee, where did Mr. Connolly, based on the agreement-in-committee, develop the mandate that he can write a letter to the secretary-treasurers telling them that we're going to have 18 students in the year 2003, when we have nothing in the agreement-in-committee that even mentions those numbers? In fact, those numbers are startlingly different from what we are talking about today.

One question and one comment. Number one, this minister who brags about all the teachers he's hiring should remember that it is his government that sucked $200 million out of the public education system since it came into power. It is his government that in fact has been responsible for the incredible deterioration in education over the last seven years while he has been involved in government. Really, we'd have been a lot better off over the last seven years if we'd had the Socreds here -- if that's something we even want to talk about. So number one, we're in a situation where he is trying to take credit for what he has taken away, which totally doesn't count in this chamber.

Number two, if this is the agreement and this is what we're basing our capital projects for the next five years on, where in the agreement-in-committee is there anything about 18 kids in a classroom in British Columbia? And who gave Mr. Connolly the mandate to write a letter such as that to our secretary-treasurers? They have enough trouble trying to plan how many classrooms they're going to have and how many portables they're going to drag onto their school grounds come September 1998. Who gave Mr. Connolly that mandate? Was it this minister, or did it come -- as it has before -- directly from the Premier's Office?

[ Page 10793 ]

Frankly, her first question about the objective of 18 students per classroom surprises me. This matter was canvassed during estimates. I said quite clearly to committee then and will say it again in this House: it is the goal of this government to reduce average class size to 18 in kindergarten-to-grade-3 over the next five years. The agreement-in-committee that we have before us will take us part of the way there. Mr. Connolly, who is with us in the chamber and is director of the school finance and capital planning branch of the ministry, sent the letter on my authority to make sure that school districts were beginning the planning both for the initial batch of additional classrooms that will be required and for subsequent years.

In estimates, we thoroughly canvassed this government's capital plan for implementing this. We recognize that we will require about 1,000 classrooms across the province to accommodate a reduction of K-to-3 class sizes to 18 -- 1,000 classrooms over the next five years, with 500 of those to be built in the next two years. Mr. Connolly, in the ministry, is beginning the work of planning for that construction project with school districts, which is quite substantial -- $370 million. Mr. Connolly has written to school districts, saying: "Look, this is part of what's going to happen. The first steps are obviously contained in the collective agreement which will be in place in September of 1998. Government is moving forward on this as part of a larger plan to reduce class size to 18 from kindergarten-to-grade-3."

The Chair: Members will recognize that the Chair has given enormous latitude in this debate thus far. I would remind members that we are dealing with section 1 definitions.

A. Sanders: I appreciate the Chair's comments. The importance is to actually ascertain whether we're dealing with this document that was signed by one part of a collective bargaining unit, one part of a marriage, and not by the other one. It was completely -- 87.7 percent -- rejected by the other part of the marriage and has been shoved down the throats of British Columbians by this minister. We are looking to make sure that when we look at the agreement-in-committee, there haven't been any changes in the definition -- going from the fact that this month the minister has put out a letter from his ministry, from his assistant deputy minister, saying that we have a class-size ratio in the year 2002 that no one in this province has even heard of. I think that it's very, very important.

My only comment to the minister at this point is that it's an absolute shame, for a man who considers himself educated, that he doesn't read his own work. In the ministry's own meta-analysis of 1,200 documents on class size, there is no difference in class size in terms of education (a) unless there are 17 kids in the classroom or less and (b) if the classroom does not change the style of teaching.

Not only has the minister not reached his goals in terms of the numbers he's projected, but he's put a tremendous cost on the province of British Columbia without any perceptible gain and, in the agreement-in-committee, has taken away from the classroom teacher the option of having 23 children in a class with a teaching assistant. We had that option in the old agreement. This agreement that we are discussing tonight takes that away. If you have 23 children in a classroom, the entire school will have to organize. That child will have to be bused out of their district, away from where their brothers and sisters go to school in older grades, or they will have to form into 2-3 splits or K-1 splits or whatever the school can accommodate. We will not have the learning outcomes that this minister has said we will.

Not only does he not know his own literature, not only does he not use the literature that is on his desk that the ministry itself had asked to be done, not only has he not learned it -- he has not ingested the cognitive processes, in terms of processing that and looking at what's good for kids -- but he's also taken away in this agreement the ability of our classrooms to reorganize into a classroom plus a teaching assistant.

[9:00]

I'd like to move on to section 1(b) in the definitions. Section 1(b) says that the memorandum of agreement, the kindergarten-to-grade-3 part of the agreement. . . . There are four or five different sections, and in this definition it says that this part of the agreement is one of the defined issues. We need clarification of this particular definition, section 1(b), for a very solid reason.

The memorandum of agreement contained in this document states some objectives for kindergarten-to-grade-3 in terms of class sizes. Also, on June 10, we have a second signed agreement between this deputy minister, Mr. Avison, and Kit Krieger, the two gentlemen responsible for this agreement -- which should have been written in crayon right from the start, because that's the level of sophistication in the agreement. Mr. Krieger has said some things that are very, very different from the definition in section 1(b). The definition in section 1(b) says that we follow this agreement. Mr. Krieger's letter, signed by himself and Mr. Avison, says something very, very different. I quote from the letter: " 'All reasonable efforts' in respect of the "Memorandum of Agreement, K-to-3 Primary Class Size" includes any organizational option(s) available to the board, including (i) the hiring of additional staff to create additional classes, where allocated funding [is] provided by the government" -- incidentally, we already know from the estimates that a lot of that funding won't be provided to make the difference between the collective agreements that are rolled over and the initiatives of K-to-3 -- "(ii) the creation of split and/or combined classes, (iii) school boundary adjustments [and]" -- guess what -- busing.

This will become the buzzword in the school districts around British Columbia in September 1998, and it will increase by October 1998, because that's when this agreement will kick in big-time. Now, what Mr. Krieger has done is sell out the people that he went in and did this deal with -- in the back rooms with the Premier and the Premier's staff. I know that the minister wasn't there for a lot of that and wasn't involved in a lot of that; I know from the estimates that the minister was actually probably kept in the dark and told -- along with the janitor -- about what was going on.

[ Page 10794 ]

My question to the minister is very simple: which is it? Is it the agreement-in-committee that was signed by Mr. Krieger and the deputy minister and the Premier's Office, all back-slapping and high-fiving each other? Or is it the sell-out agreement, where Mr. Krieger says: "Well, you know, maybe we're going to have some trouble, so I'm going to kind of renege on some of the stuff"? Which of these two is it, hon. Chair, that we're talking about in section 1(b)? Is it this piece of paper here, or is it this one here?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Hon. Chair, I would ask you to allow me some of the same latitude that you have allowed the member opposite in dealing, in a rather sweeping. . . .

The Chair: Excuse me, minister -- if I could just interrupt you for a minute. I realize you're asking for latitude, and the Chair has given latitude. But, really, we are dealing with the definitions section, and I would prefer that all members keep their comments within the definitions section.

Hon. P. Ramsey: The memorandum of agreement specified in Bill 39 is the memorandum of agreement attached to the agreement-in-committee. That's what we are enacting through this act. That's the short answer, and that's the accurate answer.

A. Sanders: I'm just a little bit confused. So for the record, because this is important to many people, is it the little tiny one, or is it the big one? It's as simple as that.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Since we seem to have some difficulty understanding the memorandum of agreement, let's run through it. The memorandum of agreement sets maximum class sizes for kindergarten-to-grade-3 in each year of a three-year agreement. And it says: "These are the targets that we expect to achieve over the life of this agreement." That's what it does. Section 4 of the memorandum of agreement regarding kindergarten-to-grade-3 class. . . . Those are maximums; actuals will of necessity be lower.

Further, it specifies in section 8 the quantum of money that this government will commit to that initiative: $5 million additional to base operating grants in year 1, an additional $20 million in year 2, and on top of that, another $20 million in year 3 of this agreement to hire 700 more teachers across the province to reduce class size in kindergarten-to-grade-3 and to make sure that every student -- whether they're beginning their school years in Nakusp or Fort St. John or Port Alberni -- has the same maximum class size to deal with.

Now, the other thing that the member asked about is the letter that Mr. Krieger has implemented. Frankly, I find her question odd. On the one hand, she says that this is a grievance goldmine; on the other hand, she attacks this letter signed by Mr. Krieger that says very clearly that they have no intention to make the implementation of this difficult and, indeed, specifies exactly that reasonable efforts are what need to be made. That is what this agreement is about.

Let's talk very quickly about this section of the letter signed by my deputy and Mr. Krieger that says there are options available to the board to meet the class-size maximums, including hiring additional staff -- and they will hire 700 more over the next three years -- split or combined classes, school boundary adjustments and transportation provisions. Hon. Chair, these are exactly the provisions available to school districts now as they seek to accommodate students within current class-size maximums. Whether the upper limit of a class size is 25 or 23 or 20, school districts have to work within that. Virtually every school district reaches a maximum class size in their collective agreement, and school districts have to make adjustments -- either within schools or between them.

What do they do? They do exactly what they do now; they adjust boundaries between schools, they look at how they create combined or split classes, and yes, they look at transportation. Now, it's interesting that the member chose not to quote the very next line of this letter, which says: "Notwithstanding 2 above, 'all reasonable efforts' would not require a board to exceed any existing obligation and/or practice regarding the transportation of students to schools in communities other than those in which they reside." The Liberal opposition can do all the fearmongering they want about students being shipped from Vancouver to Cache Creek to attend elementary school, but that is not reality.

A. Sanders: Let's get back to the truth here, and then things will be a lot easier. Number one, this minister who's bragging about all the teachers he's hiring. . . . Half of those teachers would have been hired anyway. We've got 8,000 new kids in this province, and half of those teachers will come there. Number two, we're not talking about students being bused out of their community. We're talking about kids being bused in their community. In other words, their brother goes to school next door but that kindergarten child, whose single-parent mom was hoping they would go to school with the brother and have some supervision, is going to go to school on a bus in the neighbourhood in the community -- for example, Malakwa and the neighbouring communities in the Salmon Arm area. But they're going to go 25, 30 or 40 minutes on a bus. We have letters already from families who have three separate kids going to three separate schools on three separate buses, and parents making six trips a day to pick up kids at different times and places. This minister knows that's going to happen, and it's a moot point now. I don't even prefer to argue about it, because it's going to happen. That's the way it is.

Number three, the minister has told us that he and Mr. Krieger have agreed that the school boards will have a practice regarding transportation in communities and they will stay in the community, and that the objective is to use the funds to hire as many people as possible. The boards will therefore spend all the money allocated by government. Well, there are two points there.

First, Mr. Krieger is one person, and I can tell you that when the problems hit the fan in my school district, they're not going to look to Mr. Krieger. They're going to look to whoever their shop steward is in the Vernon school district. They're going to go there, and that area is going to be responsible for whether they have a grievance or not. Quite honestly, they don't really care what Mr. Krieger says, because they're looking to look after their own -- and rightfully so -- within the school district where they live.

[ Page 10795 ]

As a result of that, they're going to have objectives to fund as many people as possible. I mean, this is a friendly amendment between Mr. Krieger and Mr. Avison. This is a golf-partner amendment to the agreement. This is not going to stick in the real world. The teacher on the front line is trying to look at this agreement that she or he feels has been done by their association, when they've not taken a pay raise. . . . They want this agreement to work, because they've sacrificed a pay raise for it. There will be grievances; you can bet your boots. Teachers will want better working conditions, because they have sacrificed on the monetary side for the working conditions in this agreement. Mr. Krieger can write and sign all he wants. When it comes down to the abilities and the job of the local teaching group, they're going to do what they need to do in terms of grievances -- and I'd like to point that out to the minister.

[9:15]

So we know and this minister knows -- if people want to go back through the Hansard of that time -- that somewhere at the end of December or January, that money was released by cabinet. Just out of interest as to whether this is cynical or whether there is going to be a real move on this minister's part to bring BCPSEA back into the fold after they spent somewhere around -- who knows? -- $8 million over the last four years looking first at going to provincial bargaining and then looking at making a provincial collective agreement over the last 18 or 20-some months now. . . . The Premier rolled the agreement over last time, because he wanted to have an election, and it was really inconvenient for the teachers to go on strike during the middle of his election campaign.

Does the definition of employers' association actually mean that this is in fact the bargaining agent for the school trustees? What do we have in this chamber, what guarantee, what precedent do we have from this minister, to show that the employers' association is, in fact, BCPSEA, and that they will have some mandate to bargain on behalf of the school districts? What evidence can the minister give me before we go into passage of this bill? This will be legislated. This government does have a majority, and as we know, they can do whatever they want. We've seen good evidence of that this session, more than any session since I've been here. How do we know that there's any validity to BCPSEA being the employers' association?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The legislation that designated BCPSEA as the employers' association remains in effect. This act specifies that it is the employers' association for school trustees in British Columbia for the purposes of this agreement, and they will be involved in contract administration of this agreement.

I must, regrettably, go back just a little and correct some of the record. The member says that all the teachers hired under this agreement would have been in classrooms anyway. That is totally inaccurate, and anybody watching should be informed that it's inaccurate. There are around 8,000 more students expected in the fall of 1998 than were in our schools in the fall of 1997. The $105 million lift to school district budgets, which is contained in the estimates that we passed recently in this chamber, will accommodate the hiring of some 400 teachers and 300 non-teaching personnel to meet those 8,000 students when they show up in classrooms this fall.

In addition, this agreement provides for the hiring of some 351 additional professionals. Counsellors, librarians, English-as-a-second-language teachers, special education resource teachers and learning assistance teachers will also be there in schools this fall to meet our children when they return in September. Beyond that, there will be 100 or more new kindergarten-to-grade-3 teachers to accommodate the first year of the kindergarten-to-grade-3 class size reduction initiative. That's what this agreement provides for, and that's what we'll do.

I must say -- and I will try to keep this measured and short -- that I am profoundly disappointed by this member's attitude towards smaller class size. Contrary to what she says, the research shows, I believe conclusively, that smaller class size does have benefits for students, particularly in primary classes.

I want to quote from a recent research study, It was actually completed this month by the U.S. Department of Education, which summarized 20 years of research on class size. It concluded the following:

"1. A consensus of research indicates that class-size reduction in the early grades leads to higher student achievement. Researchers are more cautious about the question of the positive effects of class-size reductions in fourth through twelfth grade. The significant effects of class-size reduction on student achievement appear when class size is reduced to a point somewhere between 15 and 20 students" -- we've already agreed that's the goal of this government -- "and continue to increase as class size approaches the situation of a one-to-one tutorial.

"2. The research data from the relevant studies indicate that if class size is reduced from substantially more than 20 students per class to below 20 students, the related increase in student achievement moves the average student from the fiftieth percentile up to somewhere above the sixtieth percentile. For disadvantaged and minority students the effects are somewhat larger.

"3. Students, teachers and parents all report positive effects from the impact of class-size reductions on the quality of classroom activity."

[ Page 10796 ]

Two, if we're looking at class size, the minister needs to read the literature. I will provide it for him, because I have read the literature. If classes have fewer than 17 students there is a demonstrable improvement in the classroom performance of the individual child. We're not even anywhere near that. But you know what those studies show as well? They show that if you have 25 kids in a class and a couple of teaching assistants, the outcome in that classroom may be quite significantly higher than a classroom of 17 with one teacher. This minister's agreement takes that option away from teachers. We no longer will be able to have one child over the maximum number in a classroom with the addition of a teaching assistant, and that's bad for children.

This minister shakes his head. I've been in those classrooms. This minister, as far as I know, has not. He taught adult education. I've been in those elementary classrooms, and I know that two adults in a classroom, a teacher and a teaching assistant, with 23 kids is a whole lot better for a group of grade 1 kids -- absolutely -- than having 22 kids with one teacher and putting the twenty-third kid on a bus to some school out of their neighborhood. I have the baseline experience of having been there, and I stand by that.

The other thing this minister has mentioned and glossed over is in looking at grades 4 through 12. What this agreement does for school districts is force them to pack, to the maximum of their collective agreement language, the number of kids in grades 4 through 12. As a result of that, the rest of us parents who have kids in grades 4 through 12 are going to have larger classes or maximal size classes. Under the collective agreement language for classes in grade 1 to 3, it's 20 or 22 kids, which is not a bad thing, but it's not within the statistics and the research in terms of being better for kids. It's not the magic number. Not only that, we're in a circumstance where those children are going to have to go to school elsewhere.

The Chair: Excuse me, member. The Minister of Fisheries has a point of order.

Hon. D. Streifel: I understand the rules around debate in committee and the rigidity of the rules. We're 20 minutes or so into a philosophical debate based on second reading standards, and I would ask that the Chair bring the debaters to order.

The Chair: Thank you, member. I have made cautions in that regard. We are dealing with the definitions section, and I would ask all members to make their remarks apply to that.

A. Sanders: I have no other points to make on the definitions, other than to say that class size is important, but it's within certain numbers, and the magic number is 17. It's better to have 18 kids in a class, and an additional adult to help that class out in terms of learning assistance, than to have one additional class or have the whole school shifted.

Second, we've got some problems in that we're going to have to sacrifice class size in grades 4 to 12, because this government has not provided the funding necessary to roll over the collective agreements and the initiatives for K-to-3.

Third, the most important thing that this agreement no longer has that we used to have is something called flexibility. The most important thing that our school districts and our individual schools had was flexibility, and this agreement brings about the death of flexibility.

What I'd like to do at this point, before we move on to section 2, is to provide an opportunity for anyone else who has questions on the definitions to come forward.

R. Masi: In reference to the agreement-in-committee, I'd like to look at the section on pay and benefits for teachers on call. I see that there are six items relevant to this topic. I'd like a clarification. I have a question or two on the daily rate -- item No. 5 in the section on pay and benefits for teachers on call. In that section, it says: "Effective July 1, 2000, teachers on call shall be paid an additional compensation of $3 over daily rate in lieu of benefits." Could the minister explain the definition of the daily rate?

The Chair: Minister -- as it applies to section 1.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I guess it applies to section 1. It's a point of clarification under 1(b), I assume. The daily rate is whatever is in place at the time, obviously depending on the school district and the teacher's qualifications and experience.

R. Masi: This is why I want the clarification. Is that the daily rate per substitute, or the daily rate per regular teacher?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Per substitute, per teacher on call.

[9:30]

Hon. P. Ramsey: This is getting a little bit into committee debate. What it does provide is a payment above the daily rate in lieu of benefits. That's what the agreement says; that's what is provided for teachers on call.

The Chair: Sorry to caution you, members, but what we're dealing with here is probably more appropriate under section 2. Maybe I could just ask if there are questions from members specific to section 1.

G. Wilson: I'm going to try and stick very specifically to the language of what's in here and not delve into the philosophy of the agreement, because in order to get into the discussion on the agreement, one would actually be bargaining. And you know, I believe in free collective bargaining, not in having legislation done in this chamber. It's somewhat different. So I'm not going to do that. But I'm curious. The definition under the agreement-in-committee is critically important, because the agreement-in-committee in the next section is what constitutes the collective agreement. So it's very important that we understand exactly what this agreement-in-committee is.

Under section 1(b), "the Memorandum of Agreement, K-to-3 Primary Class Size. . . ." Is it the understanding of the minister that that constitutes the memorandum of agreement

[ Page 10797 ]

Hon. P. Ramsey: In the memorandum of agreement, kindergarten-to-grade-3 primary class size on page 4 has signatories on behalf of the government and the BCTF.

G. Wilson: Under 1(b), "the Memorandum of Agreement, K-to-3 Primary Class. . . ." Within that memorandum of agreement -- and this is the way it reads -- it says: "The term of this memorandum of agreement shall commence on ratification of the collective agreement and conclude on June 30, 2001." This is a critical point, because the next section that we're going to talk about says that this constitutes the collective agreement. What is the minister's interpretation of ratification? What does that mean? And then we'll talk a little bit about the Labour Relations Code.

The Chair: Minister, as far as it pertains to section 1.

Hon. P. Ramsey: We shall try. Hon. Chair, this really is part of section 2, where it specifies that the agreement-in-committee -- which constitutes all of this -- constitutes a collective agreement in place between the parties effective July 1.

The Chair: Perhaps the Chair could suggest that we move to section 2.

G. Wilson: I can tell you that there's nothing I would like more than to move to section 2 and get right through this and get this wrapped up. I can assure you that I'm not attempting to do anything except to get clarification here.

The reason this is important -- and it could be that in the drafting of this bill, there has been an oversight -- is because what this essentially says is that the definition defines the memorandum of agreement of K-to-3 primary class size, which cannot have commencement, according to this, until ratification of a collective agreement is made. The collective agreement itself is deemed to be this K-to-3. . . . My question to the minister is: when does the minister anticipate that the collective agreement that will be talked about in the next section will in fact give authority to the section that we're now talking about the definitions? When is this ratification vote? That's what the Labour Relations Code talks about. When is it going to happen?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I understand the member's question. It is an interesting point he raises. This legislation deems the agreement-in-committee to constitute a collective agreement in place between the parties -- right now we're into section 3, actually -- and says that the act comes into force on July 1, 1998. It's retroactive to that date.

G. Wilson: We'll get to that in section 3. I don't want to debate it now; I just want to get the minister on record saying that there has been no ratification and there is no attempt for ratification, notwithstanding what this K-to-3 class size says in terms of commencement within this agreement. If you have a commencement date prescribed within this agreement and this agreement becomes part of a collective agreement, then presumably the commencement date stated in this agreement is going to prevail. That would be my reading, and I think that's the reading of most people who read labour law -- so they tell me.

Having got that on the record, let's leave that, move on and talk a little bit about the dates that are established in here. The commencement date spoken about here. . . . Again, it's just for clarification; I don't want to get ahead of myself. When they talk about a commencement date. . .coming into force on July 1, 1998, they have got established dates in this agreement-in-principle. On May 15 the Ministry of Education is to provide each district with their estimated funding in writing. On May 30 of this year -- and it says not later than May 30 -- districts have to submit staffing plans to the ministry with copies to the local BCTF. Then within ten days. . . . It goes down and talks about several days with respect to June 15 in terms of the provisions of this agreement.

Can the minister explain how it is that the provision of time lines within this agreement can in fact be forced upon the school boards when those time lines are earlier than the commencement date of what is supposedly a collective agreement?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The member is accurate in stating that some of the dates contained in the agreement-in-committee have passed. As the member may be aware from reading newspapers and from debate in this chamber, a ratification by the BCTF and voting on the agreement by school trustees didn't actually conclude until June 18, if memory serves. I'm sure that the member also notes under section 2(2) that the agreement-in-committee can be varied by agreement between the parties. The parties are currently discussing what those dates and time lines should be and will agree, I'm advised, in the very near future on the implementation dates.

G. Wilson: The minister has now confirmed that there was no ratification with respect to the memorandum of agreement specifically on K-to-3, that the dates prescribed within the collective agreement are in fact earlier than the commencement date of the collective agreement, and that the law that we're about to pass talks about a commencement date which now is presumably forcing the two sides into having to collapse those dates, so this agreement, which we are now citing as a collective agreement, will be already in need of amendment prior to the implementation of this bill. Am I on track so far?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Let me repeat it. The representatives of the BCTF and the representatives of BCPSEA, the employers association, are in active discussion on the implementation of this agreement -- on all aspects of it, including what dates should be adhered to for the provision of information by school districts, by the BCTF and by the ministry.

G. Wilson: Now let's just move. . . . I just want to have clarification here. Does this mean that the British Columbia Public School Employers Association is the same employers association which the act that regulates and governs it says is the exclusive bargaining agent for the school trustees? Is that one and the same employers association?

Hon. P. Ramsey: As I said in response to an earlier question from the member for Okanagan-Vernon, this definition refers to that association under the legislation which governs it.

G. Wilson: I wanted that clarified. In the event that the two parties -- defined as the BCTF and the employers association -- cannot agree on commencement dates that are spelled out in this, and given that the commencement dates will no

[ Page 10798 ]

Hon. P. Ramsey: The parties are very close to agreement on an implementation time line, including all dates.

G. Wilson: I'd really take comfort in that, except that we heard that in terms of the negotiation on this agreement for, like, a year and a half, and now we've got a legislated collective agreement.

I just have one last question on the definition section, because I think it's important. Can the minister spell out, just for a moment. . . ? Section 1(c) says: ". . .the article entitled 'Salary Determination for Employees in Adult Education' signed on behalf of the government, the employers' association. . . ." In looking at the documentation with respect to salaries, it would seem that those salaries are going to be a determinant, in large measure, with respect to adult education on the basis of the numbers of assigned adult ed teachers spelled out in this agreement. Can the minister clarify that? The language seems to be at least somewhat confusing here. Is there a prescribed salary determination that will be part of this collective agreement, or will the previous collective agreements -- which we'll talk a lot more about in section 2 -- prevail? There are going to be inconsistencies with respect to what is recommended in this agreement-in-committee and what already exists in established collective agreements, which will have a grandfather effect.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I assume the member is referring to the document headed "Salary Determination for Employees in Adult Education" and signed by parties as of May 7. What this agreement does is put employees in adult education on the grids for teachers that apply in districts around the province.

J. Dalton: I need some clarification of some of the organizations -- we'll have to call them that right now -- that appear in the agreement-in-committee definition and some other terminology in section 1. Under "Agreement in Committee," we see that, of course, the agreement was signed on behalf of the government and the BCTF on April 17. The agreement-in-committee says the government will recommend ratification to BCPSEA. So we know, of course -- many colleagues and the people in the opposition have pointed out -- that the employers organization was cut out of the bargaining process. The first question I have is: is the government, under part A of the agreement-in-committee. . . ? Is the minister saying that the government was acting on behalf of the employers association, even though that same association refused to ratify this agreement? Is that the correct interpretation?

[9:45]

J. Dalton: Of course, we do understand why we are here this evening. Bill 39 is the only way the government could in effect impose this agreement on the employers association -- which was invited to ratify it, and 87 percent said: "No, thank you, we will not ratify it." Of course, when you look at page 7 of the agreement-in-committee, there are no signatories from the employers association, because they weren't even at the table on that infamous day. All right.

When we go down to (B), (C) and (D) of the same agreement-in-committee, it's interesting that you'll see the government and the BCTF mentioned in part (B) -- the memorandum and K-to-3 class size attached to the agreement-in-committee. Then suddenly, the employers association reappears under parts (C) and (D). So they're not there for half of it, and they're suddenly reinstated. Perhaps that's the way to look at it. I just wanted to make that observation.

The other question I have centres around the definition of "parties." Now, we see that we're presumably getting back to a collective agreement which will have two parties, one being the BCTF representing teachers, and the other the employers' association representing the trustees of the province -- the ones who refused to ratify the contract; hence Bill 39. Why is the government not mentioned as a party under this definition?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I would refer the member to section 2 (2). This is a collective agreement between the parties: the BCTF and BCPSEA. I've already been asked about whether the employers association is in place, and it is.

J. Dalton: This will be my last point. In effect, what the minister has conceded is that the government stepped in and imposed this so-called collective agreement and invited the employers association to please ratify it. They said: "No, we cannot ratify it, because in the best interests of education, this is unacceptable." So then they bring in Bill 39, and they've imposed a collective agreement on the parties. One of the parties was not at the bargaining table at the conclusion of this. That, of course, is the main point that we've objected to from day one on this whole thing. This is an imposed agreement that has nothing to do with a collective agreement. This is not a collective agreement; this is an agreement created in the Premier's Office on April 17. That's all I have to say.

G. Wilson: I have a very quick question to the minister. In response to my question on salary determination for employees in adult education, I believe I heard the minister say: "You mean the one signed on behalf of the government employers association on May 14."

Interjection.

G. Wilson: Right. The bill says May 7. Perhaps we might just want to get clarification on those two dates.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I think on the bottom of the last page it says May 7, 1998.

G. Wilson: I wonder if the minister might send that across, because I don't have that -- where it says May 7. It would be rather terrible if we ended up with an agreement that was, in fact, ratified on May 14, and then the bill stipulates one on May 7. Who knows? One could just write a whole new agreement -- right? We wouldn't want to do that.

Section 1 approved on division.

On section 2.

[ Page 10799 ]

My first question is on section 2(1). It says: "Effective July 1, 1998, the Agreement in Committee is deemed to constitute a collective agreement between the parties." This does follow from what my colleagues have said previously. How can this be a collective agreement when 87.7 percent of the trustees have voted against it and, in fact, have not signed the memorandum of agreement? How can this constitute a collective agreement?

Hon. P. Ramsey: By action of this Legislature.

A. Sanders: I think it's appropriate and important to recognize at this time that this minister is legislating this agreement, is forcing this agreement, despite the fact that half the parties in a party of two do not wish to have this agreement. That in itself is very important and appropriate.

The terms of the agreement-in-committee are laid out at the very start. I think the first thing that's important to clarify for those who do follow the proceedings of this House is that the salary agreements are laid out as a zero-zero-and-2-percent raise over three years. Would the minister clarify that this is in fact a zero-2-and-zero-percent arrangement based on the pay-outs of those salaries for the teachers in British Columbia?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The specific dates for salary adjustments are laid out in section (B)(1) of the agreement-in-committee.

A. Sanders: Again, the minister hasn't answered the question, but in fact it's a moot point. If we're looking for clarification and truth, the raise for the teachers is actually in the second year, not in the third year, of the agreement.

The second question is on adult education teachers. I'm just going through page by page, and this is page 2 of the agreement-in-committee. My question to the minister is the following: with respect to adult education teachers, will the government be picking up the difference in costs if adult education teachers are organized by the BCTF?

Hon. P. Ramsey: All educators covered by collective agreements will be placed on the grid, and government will assume the costs.

A. Sanders: I think that translates into no. If it does translate into yes, it's different than what the trustees have been told in the memorandum that they have sent to me. It will be interesting to see which, in fact, it is.

My second question is on the staffing formula. This has to do with the outline for special education and what we call the non-enrolling teachers. For the information of those who aren't up on the lingo, these are teachers who don't have a home room. These are the teachers who teach English as a second language or special education. They do not come to a home room where they have a number of students for which they are responsible. They come into classrooms as a kind of pilot fish and pull children out as is necessary in order to fulfil requirements in English as a second language or special education.

For the staffing formula that we will be ratifying under this Bill 39, would the minister clarify for the benefit of the House that the memorandum under this agreement only guarantees the money for the first year? This is a three-year agreement. With respect to the non-enrolling teachers, it is $20 million the first year, $5 million the second and $5 million the third. For the K-to-3 initiative, it's the other way around: $5 million the first year. Will the minister just inform and clarify for the House that only the first year of funding is the one that is guaranteed in this memorandum? The other two will be dependent on what's necessary for the budgets that come down in the years following.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Government budgets will provide the amounts specified in this agreement.

A. Sanders: The minister does know that he certainly cannot tie the hands of ministers and Treasury Board in the future to provide for an agreement that is signed in the memorandum for one year only. The money is there for one year; there is no guarantee it will be there for three.

Would the minister also clarify that if the money is not put back into the base, then in fact this agreement actually will not work -- unless the money from year 1 is put into the base for year 2 and then following for year 3? Will the minister clarify whether that is in fact the circumstance?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The money required for this agreement to work is $150 million of incremental funding to the K-to-12 system over the next three years. That is the money that will be required. That's the money the member is referencing that's specified in this agreement, and that's the money that will be provided.

A. Sanders: Again, the minister cannot -- beyond his mandate -- tie the hands of Treasury Board beyond this year of the budget, and he full well knows that. In fact, this agreement will not work if that money is not put into the base funding.

With this agreement, what we're getting is an increase of 2 percent for the teachers on April 1 of the second year of the agreement. Does the government intend to change the proposed monetary mandate framework of zero-zero-and-2 for all public sector employees so that all employees will receive a compensation increase in the second year of their agreements, based on the agreement-in-committee?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The number of agreements brought in under the mandate given to government negotiators including this agreement, the one with the health sector institutional employees and the one with the direct public service. . . .

A. Sanders: The staffing formulas are worked out based on a form called the 1530, and again this is obviously a very unreliable document. The reason it's unreliable is that for example, based on the 1530s of this year, the number of new students anticipated in British Columbia was around 4,500. The number the government has estimated is around 8,000. We won't get into that perhaps those were inflated for the purpose of saying that more money would be required, which would then be clawed back. We won't even get into that part of the potentials.

[ Page 10800 ]

[10:00]

Hon. P. Ramsey: Just let me clarify that these forms are not based on projections of enrolment or of staffing but on reporting of actual enrolment and staffing as of. . . . Well, they had to be completed as of the fall of 1997 -- November 25. That's a very important form, and I expect school districts to take it with importance. It says right in the form that the reports in these forms enable school districts to compare levels of services, as well as to provide information for funding formula reviews.

Some variations have been identified. School districts have said that they believe that there were some variations between actual staff and the numbers they reported. We are working with school districts to verify any variations from the numbers they reported.

A. Sanders: Just to give an example, to exemplify the gross abnormalities in this section, the numbers generated that the minister has given us, on which this entire Bill 39 is based. . . . These are the teacher-librarian ratios. We'll probably just put this entire section over there somewhere. That's about what it's worth.

Let's look at Surrey, for example, in that appendix which is no longer of any use to anyone. One area in there reads that the ratio in '97-98 for ESL teachers in Surrey was 33.4 teachers to ESL students. A second number in there reads 79.6 teachers to ESL students. Since the time that this sterling information was put together, has the ministry gone back and looked at those numbers and done some housecleaning to make sure that the numbers they are using for the entire basis of funding the districts. . . ? Has this been cleaned up since we dealt with it in estimates?

K. Krueger: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

K. Krueger: I'd like to introduce my best friend, my wife, Debbie Krueger, and my daughter, who's a grade 11 student at Kamloops Senior Secondary, Keturah Ann Krueger. She's here to watch the Minister of Education and trust that her future is in good hands. I ask the House to make them welcome.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I do not intend to go through district by district, in spite of the member's wishes. I have said what I need to say. There are clearly some issues with the 1540. We're seeking clarification to make sure that it's as accurate as possible as we move forward with implementation. Some of those issues have resulted from district misreporting of numbers. We're seeking to ascertain exactly what the numbers are.

A. Sanders: It's actually the 1530, for the minister's edification, not 1540 -- just so he knows, in case he ever looks at one, that that's not the right number.

Based on the 1530, all of the calculations have been done for all of the teachers -- special ed, librarians, etc. I wasn't intending in even the remotest way to canvass all the districts. I was looking specifically at one very serious example, and that was Surrey, with the differences of. . .whether they get 33.4 teachers or 79.6. Richmond, in fact, is in the same circumstance, where their two ratios were 1 to 74 or 1 to 44. And even one month before school goes back in -- we're now at the end of July -- the administrators who are actually trying to fill these classrooms have no ideas what the numbers are. This is a very serious problem, because one of the boo-boos the minister has made is that he forgot that we need classrooms for all those teachers. Imagine that.

So what's happened as a result of this major boo-boo by the minister is that in Surrey, for example, we need 30 more portables -- $50,000 a portable; $15,000 a year to light, heat and keep clean; $20,000 a year to move onto the site. In Richmond we need somewhere around 70 more portables in one month. You know, there's $2.5 million unaccounted for and more. What we have is based on a 1530. This is to really show the amateur nature of this agreement. Here we have a bunch of numbers that need to be on the floor, because that's where they belong, which are generating numbers in the province. In one month school secretary-treasurers. . . . Not in one month. In one month the kids are going to be there, the classrooms are going to have to be full, and there are going to be 70 portables in Richmond and somewhere around 30 in Surrey. There is no money in this agreement for the moving, custodial services and purchase of those portables because the Premier told us that in five years we're going to have half as many portables as we had in British Columbia before the agreement. He promised us that, and if the Premier has promised us that, surely it must be true.

What we have is a very serious problem here, where we are being asked tonight to ratify the agreement-in-committee with ratios based on a form that generates several different numbers, which are, in some cases, 50 percent less than the numbers the school districts say they need. We have the purchase of millions of dollars' worth of portables for which nobody knows where the money is coming from. We have a Premier who has promised us that there will be a whole lot fewer portables in B.C., yet right off the bat we have to purchase somewhere around 100 extra portables in two school districts out of 60. These are very serious concerns.

My question to the minister on the agreement-in-committee with respect to looking at the staffing formula with respect to. . . . In this case, let's look at the teacher-librarians. Many districts have done everything they could to keep their

[ Page 10801 ]

Hon. P. Ramsey: This matter has been canvassed thoroughly in estimates. I've said very clearly that there will be variable impacts on the resources provided to various districts around British Columbia. For the information of the member, the school district of Richmond has looked at this agreement, then discussed its staffing needs with the ministry and has requested no additional portables next fall. In fact, they anticipate having fewer.

A. Sanders: Well, if they are going to have fewer, that means that they've come to an agreement with the Richmond teachers that they will be having ESL teachers teach within the classroom when there is another class going on. That's how they are going to do it. So we're talking about two teachers teaching two different things in one classroom, if that is in fact the truth.

The agreement-in-committee sets certain target levels of service for special education teachers. This is based on the total number of students in a district rather than the number of students with special needs. So instead of looking at different districts and how many special needs kids there are, they've said: "Well, if this is the size of the district, this is how many special needs children there must be." We all know that certain districts do attract special needs children, because they live near a children's hospital or they have special programs within their jurisdiction. Does the government understand that this particular way of targeting service levels. . . ?

Interjections.

The Chair: Order, members.

A. Sanders: Does the minister understand that this way of looking at service levels -- looking at entire districts rather than the number of children -- will fail to address the needs of students in districts where there is a much larger proportion of kids with special needs? It will in fact cause districts with smaller proportions of special needs kids to perhaps misuse those funds. Why did the government not base service levels on the number of students with special needs, rather than on the entire district? Does the government recognize that the district may be required to maintain special ed teachers even after those children with special needs have graduated and are no longer in the school district? This will be to the detriment of the other children in the school district who do not have special needs, but that money has been targeted based on total numbers.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I'm surprised by the member's question. During estimates, she was most concerned that we were not adequately providing teachers to deal with special education students. Here we have an agreement that establishes a clear floor and says: "This is the minimum that we should have anywhere." Districts get additional funding particularly for high-needs, low-incidence and special needs kids, as the member well knows, and they hire additional staff.

A. Sanders: My interest was that the staffing was appropriate for the needs of the district, not based on some Mickey Mouse numbers generated by a 1530 form that doesn't work. That was my concern. We want to have teachers hired where they're needed, and those who have kept their librarians should be rewarded for that, not punished. Those who have higher-needs or special needs kids should have the teachers in those areas for it. They should not be in a retroactive circumstance where in fact it's to their detriment.

On to the ESL teachers. . . . I mentioned the abnormal and variable numbers that are generated by the 1530s. In Richmond we'll need 44 ESL teachers by September 8 to fill the requirements of the agreement-in-committee. Can the minister tell me where those teachers are going to come from?

Hon. P. Ramsey: There is a pool in this province of people who have the qualifications to be teachers in this and other areas and are seeking employment. There are currently nearly 6,000 people who work as substitute teachers in our public school system. Many of them would prefer to work full-time rather than on an occasional, teacher-on-call basis. That doesn't take into account all of the graduates of teacher training programs that have come into the employment market this spring.

[10:15]

I think these are the things that this agreement really hasn't thought out, and it's a shame. I think it's too bad. I really wish that the minister, three month ago, had taken up the plea of this critic: "Leave the money on the table, hon. minister. Have the BCTF and the school board members go to the table and come up with an agreement that meets the needs of our kids, our teachers, our trustees and our families." We've had three months when we could have done that. The government had already released the money.

If it hadn't been a back-room deal and we had allowed those two parties to come together and solve the 105 issues on the table that we have not dealt with in this agreement, that we have not even approached, that we have left unsolved -- things such as workload, cultural diversity, whether teachers have knowledge of content, instructional ability, preparation

[ Page 10802 ]

Hon. P. Ramsey: Point of order.

The Chair: Excuse me, member. The minister rises on a point of order.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I fail to see how this particular line of speech has much to do with the section we're debating. These are both matters that have been canvassed in general estimates. They have little to do with the act before this committee. I thought I heard the member say in her opening comments that these matters had been canvassed in estimates and that she had no desire to recanvass them here. We seem to be engaged in precisely that. I'm willing to respond, but I must say that this is not the purpose of this committee.

The Chair: Hon. members, we should all direct ourselves to section 2, the matter before us.

A. Sanders: You know, this agreement is going to change the way public education is delivered in the province of British Columbia. From a historical point of view, we have moved from local areas in charge of the bargaining of their teachers, where groups of trustees and groups of teachers got together in their community and decided what the community wanted. . . . We have moved towards provincial bargaining. I'm not here to argue whether that's right or wrong. . .

An Hon. Member: It's wrong.

A. Sanders: . . .or whether it's good or bad.

An Hon. Member: It's bad.

A. Sanders: There's an echo in the chamber.

But what is important to recognize with the agreement-in-committee, and why this is relevant, is that we had a huge number of issues on the table that were not resolved. These are issues that were incredibly important to every single person who has a child in school, and they were important to every single teacher who on September 8 is going to walk through that classroom door. Those people wanted the certainty that was necessary by having those issues resolved. What this one piece of paper does not do is resolve any of those issues. It says: "Forget about those. The Premier's got a good deal for you. Let's just bury those under this agreement, bring in a whole bunch of other stuff, stick it on top, wrap it up with a bow, shove it through the mailbox so that it's there at the beginning of school and pretend that this is a good deal for everybody."

Well, it's not a good deal for everybody, and there isn't a single person with children in the public school system who doesn't want to know what went on to get this single piece of paper. Those 105 issues, of which I brought up three or four or ten, are what is buried inside this one piece of paper. Although we can talk about ESL and special needs and so on and so forth, it's critically important for us to remember that the 105 issues that were very important to teachers and families and children have not been resolved in this piece of paper.

There are a couple of other areas that need to be canvassed beyond the staffing formula in special education, the ESL and the K-to-3. Two of them are early retirement and teachers on call. I would just defer to my colleague from Delta North to do that.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Just very briefly, I understand the member's need to revisit second reading and estimates and the rest of the Liberal critique of this government's initiative on education. That's fine, but to somehow pretend in this huge rewriting of bargaining history that these parties, the BCTF and BCPSEA, were in any way making progress is to ignore the reports from both sides at that table, which I'm sure the member had as I did. This was a process that has been fatally stuck, and contrary to what the member said, the number of issues on the table is probably far more than 105, because there are quite a few issues that the teachers also wish to see addressed which are also not addressed here.

R. Masi: I believe that in the early part, when I was up before in the debate, we had a few questions on the teacher-on-call section. I'd just like to capsulize it by asking the minister if in fact a teacher on call can be paid more than the regular teacher in the classroom -- the person that the teacher on call is substituting for.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Surely it's possible, particularly if the teacher on call has higher qualifications and experience than the teacher that he or she is replacing.

R. Masi: I would like to just pursue for a minute the staffing formula and the discussion on non-enrolling staffing ratios. In the agreement-in-committee, the employee staffing ratios in each category shall not decrease below the number reported. I would ask the minister if there's been a second thought on that position, given the discussion between Mr. Krieger and the other parties involved on flexibility relative to this agreement.

It would seem to me that a number of districts have worked very hard to lower their ratios in those non-enrolling areas, and they are sitting quite a bit below the floor now imposed by the ministry on this. Given the very tight situations that have been established in the K-to-3 area now, and given the districts that have worked very hard in terms of lowering their support staff areas and the general area of teaching, it would seem to me that there should be some flexibility permitted there in terms of that other ratio if you're far below the floor -- or above the floor or whatever way you want to put it.

It seems to be an inequitable situation when some districts have worked very hard to establish a very low position -- that pupil-teacher situation there -- and the other ones are going to be in a very high situation. So what you've done is in fact freeze districts that have worked very hard to give their teachers and their students a low ratio. If this were done, it would probably allow for more flexibility in the 4-to-12 area, which will be somewhat affected by the tight agreement in the K-to-3 area.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I can only commend school districts that have sought to have even a lower ratio in these non-enrolling areas. What this agreement does is establish a floor for all students in classrooms. It is focused on ensuring that students have access to these specialized teachers, to some

[ Page 10803 ]

R. Masi: Having discussed this area with a number of school trustees, they feel very strongly that they're being penalized for doing a good job over the last three or four years. It seems to me that there should be some form of flexibility or perhaps some form of motivation for districts to do a good job, and this certainly doesn't give them the motivation. In fact, what they're saying is: "Why should we work hard and do good work, and then be put in the noose that we're in now?"

Hon. P. Ramsey: I recognize the concerns that the member raises. I'm not sure it has a lot to do with debating the content of this particular clause in the act we're debating. The member is right that some school districts feel as he describes. Other districts feel that they are benefiting quite substantially from this agreement. It does have variable impacts around the province, as does virtually every other provincial initiative that you try to do. What you try to do, when you're sitting in the position I find myself in and working with ministry staff, is find out what people have done across the province and, hopefully, take some things that are good and ask others to model on them. Sometimes you do it through policy; sometimes you do it through a variety of initiatives.

People that have led the pack at times do feel that now that everybody is benefiting from the stuff that they've established, they should get some special credit. I recognize that feeling, but it's very hard to do sometimes.

R. Masi: I just have a concern that my district, the district of Delta, may be in a position a year or two from now of having to find work for the member for Burnaby North -- if in fact we'd like to have that flexibility in place there.

At any rate, let's turn to the public sector accord on early retirement and teacher career transition. First of all, I'd like to ask: is this in fact part of the agreement, and is it in force now? Or will it be if this bill goes through?

Hon. P. Ramsey: That document is not referred to in this piece of legislation.

G. Wilson: I'd like some clarification on that point. The collective agreement, notwithstanding the fact that it deals with the agreement-in-committee, is going to bind the existing collective agreements that are rolled over and govern the whole range of teacher services. . . .

Interjection.

G. Wilson: But the point is that to suggest that this isn't a legitimate question in this committee is, I think, false.

[10:30]

V. Anderson: Just a couple of clarifications. . . . I've heard the minister comment on this a number of times, but I'm not sure about it. With regard to the class size of 20 for kindergarten, which is a mandated class size at this point until September 30, I think I've heard the minister say that there's rigidity to September 30. But after that date there's freedom and the rigidity is not there anymore. I'm not sure I understand what happens then or what rules apply after September 30 that are different from the early part of September.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I refer the member to page 3, section 9(f) of the "Memorandum of Agreement" regarding kindergarten-to-grade-3 primary classes. It says: "In the event that additional enrolment after September 30 makes it impossible to comply with the maximums set out in paragraphs 4, 5 and 7" -- and those specify the class sizes that we referred to -- "within the resources made available, then in those circumstances only, the provisions of previous collective agreement shall apply." Obviously that includes any provisions on flexibility.

V. Anderson: If I understand the minister, if a school district had in their agreement some flexibility clauses, they would fall back onto the clause they had in their agreement. What effect does it have upon them if they do not have flexibility clauses in their agreement?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Then they will do what they currently do.

V. Anderson: Another part of the discussion that I heard this evening was the discussion between two schools of thought, one being that students will be better off in their educational environment by having a smaller class size with no additional teacher help in the room, and the other being that they would be better off having a larger classroom with, say, a half-time teacher in their room, working together as a team and being able to give more personal time to more students, and particularly those with special needs.

Can the minister indicate to me whether studies have been done on those two separate scenarios? Which would give the better education for the most youngsters, and which would be the most financially efficient in the area? In other words, is it more financially effective to provide more capital construction costs and maintenance costs for extra rooms, or to provide half-time teachers where there is a larger classroom and have at the same time the double teaching experience? The comparison, both educationally and financially, of those two scenarios. . . . Both have been put forward as being effective -- in different ways, but still effective -- for the children.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I think we've had all the discussion on that point that I intend to engage in. It is an interesting pedagogical issue. We debated it in estimates. We debated it a little bit here tonight. I suspect we'll continue to debate it. Frankly, it does not really impact on the bill that we have before us.

V. Anderson: I would raise two extra questions with the minister. One would be that since at least some areas are going to require extra room space -- whether it's one, two, three or four rooms will be debatable, with the different extras. . . . But

[ Page 10804 ]

Hon. P. Ramsey: I would reference our discussion earlier about the $370 million project to build 1,000 new classrooms to accommodate lower, kindergarten-to-grade-3, classes. We announced the first initiative under that, the first 200 classrooms, some weeks ago. We are working with school districts to determine their need for any additional portable classrooms in the first year of this agreement and will be finalizing that and making sure they have them at government expense.

V. Anderson: I think people will be glad to hear that and to know that if they have any doubts, they can come back and you'll deal with it.

Just one other comment that came out of the discussion earlier. . . . On a number of occasions and tonight, the minister has indicated that part of the reason for undertaking this particular agreement and for the government getting involved was that the government did not feel that the BCTF and the B.C. Public School Employers Association were able to come to an agreement. I hear that clearly, because it's been said a number of times. Has the minister examined why that situation may have come about at this time? Since we have been doing that for generations here -- teachers, pupils and trustees have been able to come to agreements -- can the minister indicate. . . ? Is it because of changes in the system of bargaining, changes in centralization, or the change in boundaries and number of school boards? Can the minister indicate why this has come about? That's going to be relevant not only for this contract but for where we go from here.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I suspect there are probably as many analyses of why the parties are unable to bargain successfully now for the second time without government intervention at a provincial level as there are members in this chamber. It is very clear that in neither 1996 nor 1998 were the parties actually able to engage and to work out an agreement among themselves. I have already said that I think this system of bargaining and the impediments to the parties reaching an agreement need to be examined this fall. If there are changes needed, they need to be brought in.

The Chair: Members, this is very interesting, and I'm sure that all members have a strong interest in this subject, but we are dealing with section 2 of this bill.

G. Wilson: I'm going to stick strictly with the process, because -- just by way of a very, very slight digression -- I think that when the member for Vancouver-Langara asked the question about why they couldn't come together. . . . I note that it seems to have happened since an NDP government took away local bargaining rights and put people into provincewide collective bargaining. That's kind of when everything fell apart. Anyway, having said that, I want to. . . .

Well, we're into an important section. Section 2 is an important section because we're writing history in British Columbia here. This is a new way of collective bargaining; it's called the Sinatra style: "I'll do it my way and just sort of legislate it."

This is a historic agreement, because to my knowledge it's the first legislated collective agreement. I'm interested to know, when the language here says: "Effective July 1, 1998, the Agreement-in-Committee is deemed to constitute a collective agreement between the parties. . . ." This is an important point, because it says, under "Terms and Continuation" in the agreement, that the conditions of a previous collective agreement -- and there's a whole bunch of them out there, as the minister knows -- are included "except where a term or condition is amended or modified in accordance with this agreement." Then there are some exceptions -- for example, if smaller class sizes existed in previous agreements and so on. There are some exceptions to how that works.

The reason I think that this is important is because of section 2(2). Section 2(2) is one of those Henry VIII-type clauses that this government has become very fond of. It says: "The Agreement in Committee may be varied by agreement between the parties." Then it goes on, under subsection (4): "The Labour Relations Code and the regulations under it apply in respect of the matters to which this section applies, but if there is a conflict or inconsistency between this section and the Labour Relations Code or any other enactment, this section applies." In other words, the minister, basically, is saying through this legislation that this legislation will prevail over a ruling of the Labour Relations Board. I'm assuming that's what it's saying. It's saying this can go over and above the Labour Relations Code.

[10:45]

G. Wilson: That's true for section 2(4), but it isn't true for section 2(3). We'll come to that in just a second. The Labour Relations Code has a section that deals with bargaining in good faith, it has a section that has to do with ratification, and it has a section that deals specifically with the imposition of collective bargaining on one of two parties. That's what it has. I asked the minister specifically whether he believed ratification had occurred with respect to kindergarten-to-3, and you could argue that for the entire section. I think the minister's response was that no, it didn't happen; the two parties couldn't ratify.

So, through this legislation. . . . I just want to make sure. As I say, this is groundbreaking stuff. This is a new way of collective bargaining. It's called this: the minister sitting down and dictating how it is going to work. We've got a bunch of BCGEU workers on strike tonight -- tonight -- who could very well fall under exactly this kind of legislation. It's important for them to know how this government could legislate the BCGEU workers, the health care workers -- how they could be next in line to be legislated back to work.

I need to know from this minister: does the minister believe that all aspects of free collective bargaining were followed as per the Labour Relations Code with respect to the

[ Page 10805 ]

Hon. P. Ramsey: Again, this has little to do with the act before us, but the member has already stated, and I think I've agreed with him during estimates, that neither mediation under the Labour Relations Code nor the industrial inquiry commission was employed in these negotiations.

G. Wilson: Neither was arbitration. Now, can the minister tell me, with respect to section 2(3) -- and I'm coming very close to the end of my questions, which everybody will be very happy about. . . . It says: "Despite subsection (2), a provision of the Agreement in Committee that creates obligations for the government must not be varied unless the minister approves the variation." That is in addition to the effective date of July 1, 1998, which essentially binds the parties into the next year's budget, presumably. I'm assuming that that's what that does. Now, tying those two together and knowing that the Surrey school board has an action before the Labour Relations Board, can the minister tell me: if the board rules, which will prevail -- the ruling of the Labour Relations Board or this minister via this act?

Hon. P. Ramsey: We're really mixing up a couple of things here. Let's try to separate them. Section 2(3) does indeed say that the parties, under subsection 2(2), may vary the agreement between them by mutual agreement. Section 2(3) says that they can do that as long as they don't vary something that imposes an obligation on government, unless there is agreement by government. The most obvious one, for example, would be to agree on the further hiring of staff or ratios or anything else that would impose an additional financial cost on government. That's the most obvious one.

As for the second issue, my understanding of this act and the deeming of this agreement by this Legislature means that that would prevail over a Labour Relations Board ruling.

G. Wilson: So, just for the record and clarification. . . . I think that this will probably be my last question on it -- depending on how the minister answers it, of course. The onus is on the minister if I have to get up again. Here's what I understand: this labour government minister, this New Democratic government minister, is telling us that this bill says that the government, by legislation, will prevail over labour legislation that is already on the books and is regulated by a supposedly independent body called the Labour Relations Board. The minister is saying that he's comfortable. Well, in fact, will the minister tell me: is he comfortable introducing legislation that says the government can, by fiat, override the ruling of a Labour Relations Board and bind it on public sector employees?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I'm worried about whether I'm going to get the answer right, so that this member will not have an additional question.

Let me say only that the act makes it quite clear that in the matter of providing this agreement-in-committee as a collective agreement, this legislation prevails over the Labour Relations Code.

G. Wilson: My question is: is the minister comfortable with that legislation? Will he stand in the House today and say this is good labour legislation? Will the minister stand and say that?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I understand what the member is attempting to do. Let me just say very clearly: I said when I introduced this act that I wished I did not have to introduce this act. That's what I said then; that's what I meant then. I do believe, however, that it is essential to get this agreement behind us and get stability in our schools this fall.

G. Wilson: I sensed a reluctance on your part, but I appreciate the fact that you'll give me one last comment. The one thing, hon. Chair -- through to the minister, who will not stand up and say that he's comfortable, who will not say that this is good labour legislation, because it isn't; it's disgraceful legislation -- that is essential about this legislation is the fact that this government has now de facto made education an essential service and eliminated the possibility of free collective bargaining between duly elected school boards and teachers in British Columbia. Will the minister admit to that?

B. Barisoff: I just wanted to carry on where the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast left off. I think the minister should answer the question as to whether this is exactly the trend that is going to take place. What's going to happen with future negotiations between BCPSEA and the BCTF in British Columbia? Is it going to continue, or does the trend have to take place where the government has to legislate contracts from this point onwards?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I sincerely hope that we will not have a future act like this before the Legislature. I want to be absolutely candid with you. I said before that we have now had two rounds of bargaining under the structure of the BCTF on one side and BCPSEA on the other. Both sides got pretty much fatally stuck both times. They got unstuck only with government intervention. I do not consider that a model for good collective bargaining in British Columbia.

B. Barisoff: What changes is the minister going to introduce, then, that would make it so they would actively have collective bargaining again, the way this government is proposing, and so the trustees' associations would act on behalf of the constituents of their local school boards throughout the province? What's taking place right now. . . . If 87.7 percent of the school boards voted against it, you have taken that authority away from the school boards of British Columbia. I'm asking the minister: how is he going to reinstate the fact that the school boards have the authority to negotiate the contracts with the BCTF in British Columbia?

The Chair: If members have completed their questions in regard to this section, perhaps we should move on. The member for Vancouver-Langara on this section.

V. Anderson: I would just have one question which follows up. The scenario that's here in sections 1, 2 and 3 is that when the two parties are in a bargaining arrangement and either one of them -- either the employers association or the teachers -- comes to the stalemate position, then under the new precedent that has been set by this government twice now. . . . By the words of the minister tonight, it was essential that a decision be made. He set his own time frame as to when that was essential: prior to school opening.

[ Page 10806 ]

Hon. P. Ramsey: I'll say it one more time -- and profoundly hope -- that this is indeed an exceptional case. Frankly, hearing lectures on labour relations and the sanctity of collective bargaining from this Liberal opposition is a bit much. I accept it from the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast, because I believe he is a strong advocate for collective bargaining. But this group, on the other hand, shows its disrespect for the labour movement every day they stand up in this chamber.

The Chair: Member, strictly on the section, please.

V. Anderson: I'll respond strictly to the minister and say, on the section, that it has to do with the bargaining and how you solve. . . . When the solidarity movements were challenged by the Social Credit government, I was on the platform with them. I stood in the PNE with them, and I went around the province with them. I resent the minister's implication that I am not in favour of good labour relations.

A. Sanders: Just in summary for section 2, I think it's important and appropriate for us to look at the four sections very quickly. Subsection (1) says that this is deemed to constitute a collective agreement, and it's important for us to remember that 87.7 percent of half of the agreement voted against it. Subsection (2) says: "The Agreement in Committee may be varied by agreement between the parties." There has never been agreement between the parties. Subsections (3) and (4), the minister has basically agreed, are a de facto essential service for the length of this agreement -- which is three years. That's what we've had with respect to bargaining within the education area ever since this government came in.

This is a very serious agreement, and I think it's appropriate and important for the minister to know that we'll be watching very closely when this agreement goes into action in September and October. He will have to be there to stand up for what he has said are the good attributes of this agreement. I look forward to that engagement.

Sections 2 and 3 approved on division.

Title approved on division.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I move that the committee rise and report Bill 39 complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

[11:00]

YEAS -- 36
Evans	Zirnhelt	Kwan
Hammell	Boone	Streifel
Pullinger	Lali	Orcherton
Stevenson	Calendino	Goodacre
Walsh	Randall	Gillespie
Robertson	Cashore	Conroy
Priddy	Petter	Miller
G. Clark	Dosanjh	MacPhail
Lovick	Ramsey	Farnworth
Waddell	Hartley	Sihota
Smallwood	Sawicki	Bowbrick
Kasper	Doyle	Janssen

 

NAYS -- 27
Sanders	Gingell	C. Clark
Campbell	de Jong	Plant
Abbott	Reid	Neufeld
Coell	Chong	Whittred
Jarvis	Anderson	G. Wilson
Weisbeck	Hogg	Hawkins
Coleman	Stephens	Thorpe
Barisoff	Dalton	Masi
Krueger	McKinnon	J. Wilson

 

The Speaker: Hon. members, the Administrator is in the precinct and will be in the chamber momentarily. I advise all members to remain in their seats.

His Honour the Administrator entered the chamber and took his place in the chair.

Law Clerk:

Workers Compensation (Occupational Health and Safety) Amendment Act, 1998

Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act, 1998

Assessment Amendment Act, 1998

Mental Health Amendment Act, 1998

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1998

Family Relations Amendment Act, 1998

Labour Relations Code Amendment Act, 1998

Tobacco Sales Amendment Act, 1998

Tobacco Fee Act

Tobacco Damages Recovery Amendment Act, 1998

Local Government Statutes Amendment Act, 1998

Oil and Gas Commission Act

Forests Statutes Amendment Act, 1998

Education Statutes Amendment Act, 1998

Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority Act

Muskwa-Kechika Management Area Act

Pension Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1998

Public Education Collective Agreement Act

Income Tax Amendment Act (No. 3), 1998

Business Paper Reduction Act

Regulatory Streamlining Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 1998

[ Page 10807 ]

Homeowner Protection Act

Strata Property Act

BC OnLine Act

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 3), 1998

Vancouver Foundation Amendment Act, 1998

Victoria Foundation Amendment Act, 1998

Clerk of the House: In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Administrator doth assent to these acts.

Supply Act, 1998-99.

In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Administrator doth thank Her Majesty's loyal subjects, accept their benevolence and assent to this act.

His Honour the Administrator retired from the chamber.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Speaker, I move that the House at its rising do stand adjourned until it appears to the satisfaction of the Speaker, after consultation with the government, that the public interest requires that the House shall meet or until the Speaker may be advised by the government that it is desired to prorogue the third session of the thirty-sixth parliament of the province of British Columbia. The Speaker may give notice that she is so satisfied or has been so advised, and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated in such notice and, as the case may be, may transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned to that time and date. And moreover, in the event of the Speaker being unable to act owing to illness or other cause, the Deputy Speaker shall act in her stead for the purposes of this order.

Motion approved.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Speaker, at this hour and at this date, the end of July, I would wish everybody. . . . Even though the debate has been partisan, much has been accomplished and much has been achieved for all members of this House. It's now time for us to go home to our families and our friends and our constituents, and rest. And we'll see each other again. With that, I move that this House now adjourn.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:14 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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