1998/99 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 36th Parliament
HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.
(Hansard)
MONDAY, JULY 12, 1999
Afternoon
Volume 16, Number 22
[ Page 14259 ]
The House met at 2:07 p.m.
Prayers.
B. McKinnon: It's a pleasure to welcome to the Legislature today Dave Hayer, who is a regional director of the B.C. Chamber of Commerce and a constituent of mine; Donna Bradley, who is a member of the Surrey Chamber of Commerce; and Bill Reid, who is now a member of the Cloverdale Chamber of Commerce, formerly the Cloverdale Board of Trade. I bid the House make them welcome.
L. Reid: Sherree Drummond is visiting us today from Brisbane, Australia, and she's joined in the gallery by Lori Liptrot and Terry Liptrot. I would ask the House to please make them welcome.
G. Hogg: Adding to the introduction of my colleague from Surrey-Cloverdale, I'd like to introduce the president of the White Rock and South Surrey Chamber of Commerce, Pam Glass, the vice-president, Fred Gorman, and the treasurer, Dave Rowan. They're all here for a meeting with the Ministry of Transportation and Highways with respect to an intersection at 32nd Avenue and Highway 99. I'd ask the House to please make them all welcome.
GOVERNMENT COMMUNICATIONS ABOUT MINING INDUSTRY
R. Neufeld: This government continually talks about working with industry to help it survive -- and to especially help the sagging mining industry, which this government has actually put on total life support. To accomplish this, the government has put its spin doctors to work. They've created yet one more pamphlet for their propaganda message. The Mining Association's initial response is: "Far from helping, the brochure seems only to have confirmed people's suspicion that the government cares more about the spinning and manipulation of communication messages than about explaining issues or enacting sound policy." Can the Premier tell us how they intend to improve relations with the industry when it suspects the government of spinning and manipulating communication messages?
[1410]
Hon. D. Miller: We simply put out a pamphlet. We thought it was important, given the changes we've introduced, that we broadcast them as widely as possible. Of course, we think bringing in a financial package worth $9 million a year to the mining industry for exploration, the mineral exploration code and a number of other changes are the right direction. We'll continue to promote that.
R. Neufeld: It's typical of this minister to walk into the House late and try to stand up and make out
The Speaker: Member
R. Neufeld:
The Speaker: Member
R. Neufeld:
Hon. D. Miller: We must be getting late in the session. The level of rhetoric is getting far worse.
Let me reiterate. There is no question that mining -- not just in British Columbia but around the world -- is going through a very difficult time. I know the member follows these issues very closely. He will be aware, for example, that BHP -- the major Australian company internationally -- has just shut down, I think, three mines and two smelters in the United States. There have been mine closures right across Canada and indeed right around the world. Part of that is exacerbated principally by the price of gold, which is really depressed because various governments around the world -- supported by the Canadian government -- are selling off gold reserves. The price is at a 20-year low. Copper, as well, is at a historic low compared to two or three years ago, when it was over $1.20.
Despite that, we have brought in a package of measures: a $9 million incentive package for exploration; a mineral exploration code; and legislation, passed in this House, giving compensation when claims are taken for parks and giving rights of access to claims. There have been significant initiatives. We're working now on doing a package with about four companies in B.C. to keep those mines in production. I would say that relative to what is happening internationally, we are just holding our own. Now, we clearly need a turnaround on the price of some of those minerals.
The Speaker: Minister, finish up, please.
Hon. D. Miller: I think that with that and with the fundamental base that I've just talked about, B.C. is positioned. We welcome and value investment in mining in this province. I think we've put our money where our mouth is, both in legislation and in financial packages.
R. Neufeld: We'd actually like the government to put their money where their mouth is and bring forward some legislation that will actually allow the mining industry in the province of British Columbia to start creating the jobs and the wealth that it has created through years when these folks weren't in government.
To blame the problems on the mining industry slowdown and on gold reserves just being sold off on world markets is absolutely ridiculous. As I understand, that's just taking place. It didn't take place in 1991, 1992, 1993 and 1994 -- all years that this government was in power. My question to the minister was: why don't you put out pamphlets that tell the truth? We're asking you to put out information that isn't spinning,
[ Page 14260 ]
isn't manipulative. That's what we're asking the minister to do: to actually tell British Columbians the truth about what this government has done to the mining industry. Will the minister tell us why he will not do that?
[1415]
Hon. D. Miller: In my view, there's a disturbing tendency in this House -- and it's not my job to call these. The member may disagree with the contents of the brochure he's talking about -- fair enough. Any suggestion that somehow that is not the truth ought to be hit very hard in these chambers, because it simply gives rise to people thinking that they can say that time after time, and it debases debate in this House. Quite frankly, in my 13 years in this Legislature, this did not used to be a practice that was allowed in this House. The fact isThe Speaker: Thank you, minister.
Hon. D. Miller: And if the member doesn't think that what goes around comes around, he ought to think again.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Would the minister please complete his answer. Minister, time is running out.
Hon. D. Miller: Just to quote from a release taken off the Net this morning, referring to the impact on gold
The Speaker: Minister, thank you.
Hon. D. Miller: Because they don't have environmental legislation, mining companies can do what they want. We see now that because of these commodity prices, mines are shutting down in those countries.
The Speaker: Minister, minister.
Hon. D. Miller: We've got a good regime in this province; it's sound. It protects the environment. It provides opportunities for people to invest and make money
The Speaker: Thank you, minister. Please take your seat.
Hon. D. Miller:
HOUSING STARTS AND PRICES IN B.C.
C. Clark: Well, there's more evidence that this government just cooks up statistics every day to try and support its claim that somehow the economy of British is recovering. All you have to do is look at the statistics to know that's not true. Look at housing starts in British Columbia. They are down by 31 percent; that's 7,800 jobs. In Burnaby they're down by 87 percent; that's 2,100 jobs in that community alone. Will the Minister of Municipal Affairs and housing tell us if this record drop in housing starts is her idea of an economic recovery for British Columbia?The Speaker: I recognize the Minister of Employment and Investment.
Hon. M. Farnworth: Thank you, hon. Speaker.
Interjection.
Hon. M. Farnworth: I won't even go where you can put a cap on, hon. member.
Anyway, we've seen so far this year that in the last two months housing starts have been up. We've seen how building permits are on the rise, which the member doesn't want to talk about. She doesn't want to talk about the fact that the economy's created 7,000 jobs this past month. She doesn't want to talk about that. She doesn't want to talk about the fact that CP Rail has just opened its largest private sector investment in western Canada today in our own area, in Pitt Meadows -- you know where that is -- creating hundreds of jobs. She doesn't want to talk about that.
The Speaker: Minister, finish up, please.
Hon. M. Farnworth: They don't want to talk about the good news that's happening in the economy, because to do otherwise would expose themselves to just how bereft of policy they are.
The Speaker: First supplementary, Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain.
C. Clark: Well, maybe I'll take the minister's advice and talk about a little good news. You know, if the minister wants to manipulate statistics on housing starts, he could take my community of Port Moody, for example. Here's the good news: if you compare June to June, very specifically, you'll find that housing starts in Port Moody have shot up by 33 percent. In 1998 there were three, and in 1999 there are four -- count 'em: four -- housing starts.
[1420]
But if you want to look at it on a year-to-year basis, that's a 72 percent drop -- 109 jobs lost in Port Moody alone. If you want to look at housing prices, Victoria and Vancouver are the only cities in Canada that have experienced a decrease in housing prices. Is this minister somehow going to interpret plummeting housing starts and decreasing house prices as a vote of confidence in this government's plan to recover our economy?Hon. M. Farnworth: You know, the economy's starting to turn around; we're seeing signs of it every day. We're seeing 7,000 new jobs this past month. We're seeing the CPR opening a major investment today.
But when it comes to housing, let's talk about leaky condos. Let's talk about restoring consumer confidence in a market that's been devastated. How much money did the Liberal Party receive from those people who built those leaky
[ Page 14261 ]
condos? Why don't they talk about that? Why don't they talk about the fact that they have never stood up and put an alternative in front and tried to help consumers? Not once, for example, have I heard that member talkInterjections.
The Speaker: Thank you, minister.
Hon. M. Farnworth:
Interjections.
The Speaker: Minister
Hon. M. Farnworth: That's what we need to restore confidence
The Speaker: Thank you, minister.
Hon. M. Farnworth:
COQUIHALLA CONNECTOR UPGRADE COST
S. Hawkins: The Minister of Transportation and Highways has decided to push ahead with the upgrade of the Aspen Grove-to-Merritt section of the Coquihalla connector. Well, hon. Speaker, this ministerInterjections.
The Speaker: Order, members.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Members, Okanagan West has the floor.
S. Hawkins: This minister says that his upgrade is going to cost $30 million to $35 million. Yet a study by a group of independent engineers says that it's actually going to cost as high as $57 million. So I ask the minister today, because he wasn't able to answer this question when it came up in estimates: will he tell us today whether his ministry has done an independent analysis and whether they have looked at the cost of the alternatives? Will he agree to make those reports public immediately -- today?
Hon. H. Lali: I want to point out to the hon. member across the way that the announcement I made earlier this year was for $10 million -- $5 million this year and $5 million next year -- to widen five kilometres of the 14 kilometres of the Okanagan connector that are still two lanes, to make it safe for the travelling public, to reduce the number of accidents and also, at the same time, to look at the congestion point that we're trying to get rid of.
The Speaker: First supplementary, Okanagan West.
S. Hawkins: That seems to be the problem with this government: we hear $5 million one day, and we hear $30 million another. We hear a $300 million cap, and $500 million from the Premier. No one seems to know the price of these things.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, members.
S. Hawkins: After this minister committed to $30 million for his highway upgrade, a ministry official named Jon Buckle stated that no cost estimates had in fact been completed on this project. So I ask the minister today: will he confirm that he is running around telling people a number that he's made up in his head, and that in fact he doesn't really have a clue how much this upgrade is going to cost?
Hon. H. Lali: The problem with the B.C. Liberals is that they get all their information from the media. That seems to be their best source of information.
The 14 kilometres of two-lane that is left from Aspen Grove to Hamilton Hill is estimated by the ministry to cost between $30 million and $35 million. What I said to the hon. member earlier -- and I'll repeat it for her benefit and for the B.C. Liberals -- is that there was a $10 million announcement that I made earlier this year: $5 million from this year's budget and $5 million from next year's budget. If there's any kind of information that the hon. member talks about -- some independents who have done this -- I'd be more than happy to have my staff look at it. So far, Mr. Mitchell from the Okanagan or the member opposite
[1425]
However, this Kingsvale cutoff option that the hon. member looked at was something that the Socreds did away with in 1988. They said at that time that it would cost $80 million. So I would like to ask the hon. member to rethink what she is saying and take a look at those numbers very closely.
Motion approved.
R. Thorpe: Hon. Speaker, I ask leave of the House to suspend the rules to permit the moving of a motion to adopt the report.
Leave granted.
R. Thorpe: I move the report be adopted. I would like to thank all of committee members and the various ministries -- the staff of those ministries that participated in the preparation of this report. Thank you very much.
[ Page 14262 ]
Motion approved.
MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 1999
The Animal Disease Control Act is amended to enable stakeholders to apply for and receive permits electronically. Similarly, amendments to the Fisheries Act will allow licence applications to be received by electronic means, increasing efficiency in the application and processing of licences in the fish processing and aquaculture sectors.
The amendment to the Highway Act will allow the minister to issue a permit in either electronic or written format to applicants seeking to perform work or erect structures on arterial highways within municipalities, thereby increasing the efficiency of the permit system.
The Assessment Act is amended to allow the phasing in of changes in assessed values for prescribed classes of major industrial property. The amendment is expected to provide a smoother transition, greater tax stability and more flexibility, given the unique nature of each major industry and its particular economic climate.
The British Columbia Wine Act is amended to change the B.C. Wine Institute from a wholly government-appointed board to a predominantly industry-elected board. This change responds to a longstanding request from the B.C. wine industry to give it more direct responsibility for industry development and management of industry levies.
The Builders Lien Act is amended to exempt construction improvements undertaken by the Ministry of Forests from the act. The legislation is not appropriate for projects undertaken by the Ministry of Forests, as the large majority -- 98 to 99 percent -- of improvements are undertaken on Crown land. It is not possible to file builders' liens on Crown land.
[1430]
The repeal of the Building Safety Standards Act necessitates changes to several statutes to remove references to this obsolete act, most of which was never brought into force. The statutes affected are as follows: Electrical Safety Act, Elevating Devices Safety Act, Fire Services Act, Gas Safety Act, Health Act, Hospital Act, Manufactured Home Act, Power Engineers and Boiler and Pressure Vessel Safety Act, Commercial River Rafting Safety Act.The Land Act and the Waste Management Act are amended to incorporate regulatory changes contained in the designated-acts regulation under last year's Business Paper Reduction Act.
A housekeeping amendment to the Community Financial Services Act will establish a minimum age limit of 18 years for depositors with B.C. Community Financial Services Corporation to stand as candidates and to vote in the election of members of the corporation's advisory council.
The Diking Authority Act, the Drainage, Ditch and Dike Act and the Environment Management Act are amended to repeal redundant provisions that will never be proclaimed.
The Employee Investment Act is amended to recognize tax credit changes made in 1996 with respect to equity capital received by employee venture capital corporations.
The amendment to section 12 of the Fire Services Act is a housekeeping amendment. The amendment will enable the Minister of Municipal Affairs to make regulations regarding the adoption of codes and standards relating to fire safety, instead of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.
The amendment to the Heritage Conservation Act will allow the minister to delegate administrative functions to staff. This will allow the ministry to more effectively respond to heritage registry information requests, issue permits to authorize activities at protected sites and notify local land title offices of the locations of the protected heritage sites.
Section 2 of the 1996 supplement to the Hydro and Power Authority Act is repealed to correct an oversight with last year's re-enactment of section 35 in the British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority Rate Freeze and Profit Sharing Act.
The amendment to the Land Title Act is in the nature of a housekeeping item to correct a statute revision error. Further to the housekeeping amendments to the Land Act noted earlier, amendments to the Land Act will expedite the appointment process while retaining authority with the minister. As well, the amendment streamlines debt collection procedures.
Amendments to the Library Act will make municipal bylaws dealing with the establishment of a library consistent with other municipal bylaws that come into effect either on adoption or on another date specified in the bylaw. Amendments will enable compliance with the requirement to appoint an alternative director to the library board if the primary member is absent or unable to act in cases where there is only one electoral participating area or part of one electoral participating area in the regional district.
The Mineral Tax Act is amended to allow mine operators to claim a tax credit for reclamation costs incurred even if there are funds in a reclamation fund, allow direct appeals to the mineral tax review board in addition to the commissioner, and remove a mailing address for appeals from the legislation.
The Ministry of Social Services and Housing Act is repealed. The act is no longer necessary, as the duties and responsibilities for welfare and housing under the act are now held by the Ministry of Human Resources, the Ministry of Advanced Education, Training and Technology, and the Ministry Responsible for Housing.
The Municipal Act is amended to provide local governments with more flexibility when dealing with terms and fees
[ Page 14263 ]
of business licences and will benefit both local governments and local businesses. The first amendment to the Vancouver Charter does the same. The second amendment is of a housekeeping nature.The Natural Products Marketing (BC) Act is amended to improve the British Columbia Marketing Board's authority to manage the conduct of appeals. The Seed Grower Act and Seed Potato Act are amended to repeal provisions made in 1985 but never proclaimed.
Amendments to the Travel Regulation Act will delete a reference to the tourism council, which has not been in existence for several years, and reduce confusion in the tourism sector regarding the council.
The Veterinarians Act is amended to expressly authorize the B.C. Veterinary Medical Association to seek civil remedies against persons conducting veterinary medicine in contravention of the act.
[1435]
Further to the housekeeping amendments to the Waste Management Act noted earlier, the act will be amended to clarify the definitions of "air contaminant" and "effluent."The Weed Control Act is amended to reflect changes in the way that Canada Post delivers certified and registered mail services and hence how notices may be delivered to property owners.
That concludes my second reading remarks.
G. Plant: Given the continuing tragedy around what's called the leaky-condo crisis, I suppose there is a certain irony in the fact that section 11 of Bill 74 will repeal something called the Building Safety Standards Act. The explanatory note for that says that section 11 repeals an obsolete act, most of which has never been brought into force. Irony aside, this won't be the occasion to debate that issue. There will be other occasions. There are one or two parts of this bill that will require scrutiny during committee stage debate, and the questions about them will be asked then. For now -- on this side of the House, at any rate -- we're content to let the bill pass.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Speaker, I understood that I didn't move second reading. I do so now.
Motion approved.
Bill 74, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1999, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration later today.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I call second reading of Bill 75.
RESIDENTIAL TENANCY AMENDMENT ACT, 1999
(second reading)
The amendments contained in this bill are intended to streamline and improve the accountability of the residential tenancy dispute resolution system. As I indicated to this House last year, we had commenced on a project to rewrite the Residential Tenancy Act in plain language. During the initial stages of that process, we received input from the key landlord and tenant stakeholders that substantive policy changes were required rather than just a rewrite of the existing legislation into plain language.
Our stakeholders told us that there was not enough consistency in arbitration decisions or consistency in how arbitration hearings were conducted. Stakeholders perceived the system as encouraging arbitration, as there were no policy guidelines to guide decision-makers or to assist parties to resolve their own disputes. Key stakeholders were also very critical of the arbitration review panel, telling us that they found it to be time-consuming, confusing, frustrating and poor value for money to the government.
We listened carefully to our stakeholders and over the past year have taken a number of steps to respond to their concerns and to improve the residential tenancy system. Rules of procedure for the conduct of arbitrations came into effect on March 31, 1999, and will provide predictability and consistency in how arbitration hearings are conducted. Policy and interpretation guidelines have been developed to ensure the consistency of arbitration decisions and to assist parties to resolve matters without the need for arbitration. Arbitrators have adopted a code of professional responsibility. An evaluation system for arbitrators is also under development. These non-legislative initiatives are all designed to respond to the stakeholder concerns and to improve the residential tenancy system for both landlords and tenants.
Other initiatives to improve the residential tenancy system are contained in the bill currently before the House. The first major change in this bill gives the director of the residential tenancy office the statutory authority to manage all matters and persons appointed under the Residential Tenancy Act. Although the residential tenancy system has many of the aspects of an administrative tribunal, there is no legislative authority for the director to play a management role such as that normally played by a tribunal chair. This amendment will give the director clear authority for the management of arbitrators, mediators and the dispute resolution process. This will help ensure the consistency of decision-making and the quality of the arbitration system that is sought by the stakeholders and by the ministry.
[1440]
The second major set of amendments contained in this bill eliminates the arbitration review panel and replaces it with a more streamlined process for review of arbitration decisions. The arbitration review panel was set up to provide a speedy, accessible and low-cost alternative to judicial review. While we have learned from some of its decisions, the arbitration review panel has not been successful. The review process is lengthy and time-consuming, with as many as three hearings required in order to get an arbitration decision overturned. The number of residential tenancy cases taken to judicial review has increased slightly rather than decreased, since the panel's inception. Some grounds for review, such as bias, are frequently claimed but rarely substantiated at the review hearing. In short, substantial resources are spent reviewing arbitration decisions that are rarely set aside, creating delays and a lack of finality and fairness in the process.The amendments contained in the bill will significantly shorten the process and the time line for review of arbitration decisions. The grounds for review have been narrowed to
[ Page 14264 ]
those most appropriate for reconsideration by an arbitrator. Consequently the new review process will also be significantly more cost-effective than the current process.In addition to the new review process, this bill also expands the powers of an arbitrator to deal with an obvious error or inadvertent omission in the arbitrator's decision. This expanded power will allow obvious errors or mistakes to be corrected without the necessity to apply for a review or a judicial review.
The third set of major amendments in this bill is intended to streamline and simplify the formula used to calculate a justifiable rent increase if the tenant disputes that increase. Hon. Speaker, in 1994 this government brought in legislation to protect tenants from unjustifiable rent increases. I am pleased to say that the legislation is working very well to protect tenants. However, some landlords have complained that the formula used to calculate a justifiable rent increase is too complicated and requires too much work on the part of the landlord. To respond to this concern, we have simplified the formula and reduced the information required from landlords to calculate the rent increase. The new formula will be easier for all parties to understand.
The last major set of amendments contained in this bill streamlines the act provisions concerning service of documents and expands the ways in which the documents may be served. Documents that initiate a process, such as an application for arbitration, will continue to be served personally or by registered mail. This is in keeping with the court rules for service of documents. Most other documents, including a notice of rent increase, will be able to be served in a variety of ways, including by ordinary mail or by fax. These changes will reduce the complexity of the requirements for service and make it easier for the parties to serve documents on each other.
The bill also contains other minor amendments, including amendments that will give the manufactured home park dispute resolution committee 60 days to complete the mediation of a manufactured home park dispute rather than the current 30 days, to give sufficient time to allow the dispute to be mediated, and will increase the maximum fine for contravening the general offence provisions in the act to $5,000 from the current $2,000.
We are confident that the amendments contained in this bill will streamline the residential tenancy process and make the system more effective, efficient and fair. That concludes my remarks.
G. Plant: Well, decision-makers occasionally defend their actions by arguing that since the advocates for the opposing positions are equally unhappy with their decision, they must have found the right solution. "I've made everybody unhappy," they say, "so I must have done the right thing."
[1445]
The current state of residential tenancy law is a bit like that. It's not working very well, either for landlords or tenants. Both groups are unhappy. They're unhappy with a set of legal principles about the substantive rights and responsibilities of landlords and tenants which has tended, over time, to reduce the quantity and quality of rental housing in British Columbia. They are also unhappy with a set of processes for resolving disputes which has tended to produce more, rather than less, uncertainty and unfairness.But this is not a situation where the government can take credit for having found difficult compromise solutions for the public policy dilemmas; rather, this is a situation where the government has, largely by inaction over time, simply allowed things to get worse. The current government has regularly acknowledged the need for a significant overhaul of the Residential Tenancy Act. But unfortunately, having acknowledged the problem, the government has just as regularly failed to do anything constructive about it.
Now, that's not to say that the current government has been completely inactive. Last year, as the minister himself just reminded us, the government gave us Bill 19, which had one or two relatively innocuous provisions but also contained a pernicious piece of idiocy called section 54(5)(f) -- which, read literally, would ensure that no tenant could ever be evicted for such trivial lapses as failing to pay the rent for six months, breaking every rule in the apartment building or damaging the suite beyond repair.
It's 1999, and we're back. We're back again with another partial kick at the Residential Tenancy Act cat. This time, having more or less given up on the government fixing their problems, the tenants and landlords got together, found some common ground and agreed on a few important steps to improve the situation. They've also succeeded in getting the government's ear -- at least with respect to changes in the processes for dispute resolution. Some of these ideas for change the Attorney General has referred to, such as
This is a small step, but it is a small step forward. I think that the provisions in this bill will in fact represent some progress in creating more stability, certainty and efficiency and, I hope, a bit more fairness and expertise in this complex business of arbitrating disputes under the Residential Tenancy Act. There will, I expect, be some questions on the details in committee stage. I know that one or two of my colleagues have some comments. But for me, sometimes part of a loaf is better than no loaf at all, and I would support this bill.
R. Coleman: I'm pleased to enter into the debate on Bill 75 this afternoon for a number of reasons. First of all, we face a rather unique situation relative to this bill. The two major -- if we can call them major -- tenant and landlord groups have actually come to an agreement on something that could be placed in a piece of legislation relative to residential tenancy in this province. However, the crisis still exists in this particular form of our industry. It has now been three and a half years since I brought it to the attention of the minister that a plain-language rewrite and some new changes need to be brought to this act that will actually address the issue for the long term.
Let's talk briefly about Bill 75 first of all. Basically, this reflects the filing of a brief to the Attorney General in 1997. There was a joint brief filed by both the tenant and landlord groups to the ministry. This comes out of that. They believe that these proposed changes offer a better system, a system that will allow for maybe solving some of the more serious problems in the adjudication sections of the act and in arbitration. It should also clear up some of the details of rules of procedures and some of the difficulties they've been having with solutions and, obviously, rules of evidence and things like that. Like I said, it is somewhat unprecedented that these two parties actually work together, because they've been at
[ Page 14265 ]
odds with each other for a number of years. Basically, I think they've both come to the realization that a sound rental market actually serves both parties -- serves both the landlord and the tenant. A sound rental market allows for stability in housing for both of those groups.
[1450]
My concern is this. We are still heading towards -- I've said this before, and I will say it again -- a rental housing crisis in British Columbia that will be almost cataclysmic at some point in time in our history. It could happen in the next 18 months to two years, simply because of two factors. The first factor is that we have built no new inventory. There's been no new rental inventory built in this province for an excessive number of years, because there is just not the stability that says that if you make an investment, you can get a return on that investment, and therefore you have that stability.We're presently in a cost-based system, a system that says -- similar to a quota system -- that if you don't use your quota this year, you will never be able to use it in years to come. So in down-markets, when I as a landlord have costs or a landlord has costs relative to the marketplace, I can't pass those on, because the openness of the market says: "Well, there are just not enough tenants, so we have to keep the price here." But my costs go up every year, whether it be my taxes, my utilities, my maintenance, my management or whatever the case may be. Under this system, I cannot recover those unless I recover them in the years that they are incurred, and I cannot carry those over.
What we've created now
That's a function of a system where we don't recognize that in the long term we are facing a crisis in this industry, and we've created it ourselves. In British Columbia, because we've had such a difficulty in the residential tenancy relationships for so long, we've actually scared investment away in this sector of our housing market. What'll happen when the housing market turns around or if the growth numbers of this province turn around is that we're going to wake up some day and find out that we have even less housing stock than we did five years ago. We will not be able to accommodate any growth in the requirement for rental housing in this province in the long term. We won't be able to do that simply because of this type of system, which is cost-based, rather than allowing somebody to have some carryover into their investment.
There are a number of sections in this act that will have to be dealt with at committee stage -- specifically sections 5, 12, 14 and 18 -- and that we'll get into some debate and some discussion on, I'm sure. There are some things in this where we increase fines from $2,000 to $5,000 for both landlords and tenants, to deal with the difficult people within the system. The fact of the matter is that I don't know if anybody can tell me when we've ever actually had a prosecution under the act where we've actually ever fined anybody, either landlord or tenant in this province, relative to breaching the act. So raising it from $2,000 to $5,000 doesn't necessarily accomplish very much.
The sad thing is that we have about 500,000 rental units in this province, and we're not spending any money on them. If you can imagine that there was a more incentive-based system, and every landlord in the province spent $1,000 per unit over the next 12 months to just upgrade their carpets or their doors or their windows or whatever the case may be, we'd put another half a billion dollars into the housing industry in this province. Imagine if that was $2,000 because there was an incentive to actually take care of and improve the quality of your building; we'd put $1 billion into the construction economy of this province by doing that.
The unfortunate thing is that the reverse is true. We run a disincentive system in housing, particularly in rental housing, where we say: "We will not allow you to pass those increases along unless you do them in the year that they're there. If the market changes, you'll never be able to adjust to the market." Therefore those who are in the market are somewhat stuck in the market by restrictions on being able to
I'm happy to see that there is some buy-in by both groups with regard to this portion of changes to the Residential Tenancy Act. But I do warn the minister. I will canvass and will continue to canvass this government to remind them that someday we're all going to wake up and find out that the real crisis in housing is going to be the lack of stock due to long-term policies, rules, regulations and legislation that have affected this marketplace. To start to change it a little bit is a step in the right direction, but long-term changes are going to have to come.
A plain-language rewrite of this act is absolutely, fundamentally important. Stability in this marketplace is going to be critical to its future. We can accomplish that by working together; we won't accomplish it by doing it piecemeal. We better be aware of the fact that we're going to be facing it in the years to come. When we face it, let's remember that we're going to have to deal with it. What a fundamental, major shortage of rental housing in this province means to all of us is more people without a place to live, and that's just not acceptable to any of us.
[1455]
V. Anderson: Regarding Bill 75, the Residential Tenancy Amendment Act, 1999, I just want to speak briefly about this, because it signals a possible change in the relationships regarding housing in our province -- a change which has been drastically needed. Over many years now -- actually, over a number of governments -- there has been almost a three-way fight between government, renters and landlords. The result has been that all have been in difficulty finding a good place to live, with stability and security and affordability. This has gone on far too long. Too many families have been damaged because of not having the safe, affordable kind of housing that should be available to them in our society.Unfortunately, governments in the past have not been able to bring together the common concerns of the landlords and the tenants, so that we could have a comfortable relationship that would make it useful for everyone. I have met many
[ Page 14266 ]
families that have had disastrous circumstances, because they could not find accommodation that was suitable in a manner acceptable to them. There seemed to be no way through this difficulty.It's interesting that the landlords and the tenants -- and in this case, the associations -- have come together. They have found a common cause with each other where they could share with one another, frankly and openly, at least the beginnings of a process to move into a new relationship with each other and with the government. It's a very small process and a very small step, but at least it's a major change into a new direction and a new possibility.
I simply want to say today that I commend this new possibility, and I hope we won't get so caught up in rules and regulations that we forget the reality of what we're about -- the reality of providing safe, affordable, available housing in communities where people and children can have the opportunity to grow up in comfort and security in their family life. I commend this new change in direction. I take it as a very small beginning and hope that we will continue to listen to each other much more in the future and can take larger steps from here on.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Without saying anything further, I move second reading.
Motion approved.
Bill 75, Residential Tenancy Amendment Act, 1999, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration later today.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 92.
ADULT GUARDIANSHIP STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1999
[1500]
As well, some current legislation will not yet be repealed, thus requiring amendments to ensure linkages to the new legislation. In 1989 a massive community-government process was begun to address the need for more modern approaches to adult guardianship. Thousands of British Columbians contributed to the extensive consultation that resulted in the passage of four acts in 1993.Following passage, hundreds of concerned citizens have been involved in drafting regulations, developing community response networks and creating public information guidelines. In 1996 the Minister of Health and I asked the member for Vancouver-Burrard to review the legislation and to recommend a schedule for proclamation. Hundreds of individuals and organizations were consulted and contributed to the report.
Unique to this legislation is a set of guiding principles. These principles are contained in the Adult Guardianship Act and influence all of the acts. They will promote self-determination and autonomy for all adult British Columbians, confirm that adults receive the least intrusive and most effective support, if support is needed, and provide for court-appointed decision-makers only when all alternatives have been considered.
The parts of four acts that will come into force on February 28, 2000, will allow adult British Columbians to make a representation agreement to plan for their future; provide for support and assistance for abused and neglected adults; encourage a coordinated community response to the issue of abuse and neglect, with new tools to assist where adults are refusing but need support; clarify consent to health care and provide for appeal to a review board; and create an advisory board and new investment powers for the public guardian and trustee.
Some sections of the legislation will not come into force at this time; rather, they will be the subject of further study to ensure that the appropriate balance is struck in this complex area. Those sections include the formal system of court-ordered decision-making that will replace the Patients Property Act, the admission of adults to care facilities, procedures for the use of restraints and the registry of representation agreements.
I would like to address some of the major features of the legislation we're bringing into force, as well as the amendments required to make it work well.
The Representation Agreement Act is innovative legislation. The act honours self-determination and autonomy for all adults, including people who are already experiencing some difficulty in managing their affairs, by providing the opportunity to plan for the future by making a representation agreement. The amendments we are making will ensure that adequate safeguards are present. Monitors will be mandatory for most agreements made with standard financial provisions. We will add a provision in the regulation to define routine management of the adult's financial affairs in order to ensure that such agreements are used only where it's appropriate to do so.
The representation agreement will be the new legal document that will allow adults to plan for a time when they cannot make decisions for themselves. In doing so, it will replace the more limited enduring power of attorney. Because many British Columbians have already made a power of attorney with an enduring clause, we want to ensure that existing powers of attorney can continue to be used, despite the fact that new ones will not be made. A six-month grace period has been allowed, during which time people can make either a power of attorney or a representation agreement while they become more familiar with the provisions of the new Representation Agreement Act. In anticipation of the Representation Agreement Act coming into force, many people have made a representation agreement. This bill specifically provides that even those representation agreements made before the act comes into force on February 28, 2000, will be valid if they were made in compliance with the act.
In summary, if people have planned for the future, either through the use of an enduring power of attorney or by making a valid representation agreement, their wishes will be honoured.
[1505]
Part 3 of the Adult Guardianship Act will come into force almost in its entirety and requires few technical amendments.[ Page 14267 ]
This part of the act promotes a coordinated community response to abuse, neglect and self-neglect. The act emphasizes the importance of support and assistance and provides new tools for intervening when abused or neglected adults are found to be incapable of seeking support. In order to ensure flexibility for agencies designated by the public trustee to carry out the goals of part 3, an amendment will allow the public trustee to limit functions in order to maximize the effectiveness of community service agencies.The new formal court appointment system contained in part 2 of the Adult Guardianship Act will not come into force at this time but will be the subject of further study. In the meantime, the existing system of formal court appointments set out in the Patients Property Act will be retained. Thus, we're making some transitional amendments to link parts of the new legislation with the existing legislation until it's repealed.
The Patients Property Act will contain a number of new provisions to ensure that pre-existing representation agreements prevail over a certificate issued under the Patients Property Act during this transition period, as long as the representative has been given adequate authority by the adult who made the agreement. This will ensure that an adult's wishes, contained in a representation agreement, will be honoured wherever possible. Of course, where a court order is necessary under the Patients Property Act, that order will prevail over all agreements. Together, these technical and clarifying amendments will ensure that the adult guardianship legislation will work smoothly with the partial proclamation and with the current legislation until it's repealed.
The third law that is part of the guardianship package is the Public Guardian and Trustee Act. This act modernizes the existing Public Trustee Act by improving the investment opportunities for the office on behalf of its clients. In addition, the act establishes an advisory board that will ensure strategic advice is given to the public guardian and trustee and his staff as they carry out their work.
The fourth piece of legislation is the Health Care (Consent) and Care Facility (Admission) Act and the amendments we're proposing to that act.
That concludes my remarks.
G. Plant: In 1993 the Legislature enacted four statutes: the Representation Agreement Act, the Adult Guardianship Act, the Health Care (Consent) and Care Facility (Admission) Act and the Public Guardian and Trustee Act. These are sometimes collectively referred to as the adult guardianship legislation. These statutes have sat on the statute books unproclaimed for six years. Ordinarily, a six-year delay in proclamation would be some evidence of either a serious problem with the legislation or some problem with its implementation. But what we have today, after six years, is at long last a statement and some activity by the government which makes it clear that some of these statutes will come into force. Bill 92, as the Attorney General has said, is the mechanism necessary to give effect to this partial proclamation. I believe that the government sometimes describes this as selective implementation.
The partially proclaimed acts will apparently come into force on February 28, 2000. The order-in-council to this effect has in fact already been made. I am told -- from my research and from the research of others -- that the partial proclamation, which the government is moving forward with, is supported by the stakeholder groups with whom the government consulted over a period of years in drafting the original statutes and with whom the government has continued to consult in attempting to implement these statutes. I congratulate all those who have participated on behalf of community groups and whose persistence has resulted in at least some progress towards implementing this legislation.
[1510]
As I understand it, the general thrust of the partial proclamation is that the provisions of the original statutes which were the most expensive and/or controversial are not being implemented -- at least, are not being implemented now. I've also been told -- and the Attorney General, in his remarks, suggested this -- that what we have before us today is only the first step in what is possibly an ongoing process of implementation. I suspect that some parts of the original statutes -- perhaps, for example, the representation agreement registry -- may never see the light of day, although time will tell. Others, I'm certain, the government intends to bring into effect in some form or another at a future date.I don't want to canvass here, with even the same degree of care that the Attorney did, the details of the four statutes that are being selectively implemented. But I will say this. When I look at the bills that we debate here -- and it seems to me that there are going to be lots of them over the next few days -- this particular bill and the implementation process will actually have more of an impact on the day-to-day lives of British Columbians than most of the rest of what we do here, with the exception perhaps of giving the government permission to tax and spend money. It seems to me that the introduction of representation agreements as a new planning tool is going to effect a very significant change in the way aging adults and other persons of limited capacity are able to plan, to maintain and to assign authority over decision-making in their lives. Representation agreements are bound to become a widely used planning tool, perhaps as familiar to British Columbians as, if not more so than, a will.
Moreover, I think the health care consent provisions that are coming into force are going to change the way health care consent decisions are made, by introducing rules about who can give consent for health care decisions and under what circumstances. The legislation has a statutory presumption of capability, and in particular, its definition is a very liberal one. I suspect that the attempt in this legislation to give a liberal definition to the idea of capacity will, over time, change societal attitudes about who is and is not capable of making decisions about themselves and their lives. While by no means last -- but last for the purpose of the list for now -- I think the procedures for reporting abuse and neglect of adults and for making applications to court for orders of support and assistance -- and I'm sure this is partly their intention -- may reduce the incidence of what we have come to know as elder abuse.
Bill 92, the bill itself, represents a largely technical series of provisions. There are some questions to be asked about the government's implementation plans, and those are questions that belong in the committee stage debate. This is one of those instances where an inadequately funded implementation might well be worse than no implementation at all. So in particular, I'm going to be interested in learning what the government's plans are in terms of a public education program about the existence of these statutes -- informing
[ Page 14268 ]
people. How does the government intend to inform people about the new rights that they have? How will the government ensure that there will be equitable access to the dispute resolution processes that are created by this legislation?The larger principles at issue here have been debated once before, back in 1993, when the forests statutes that are here being implemented were originally enacted. I have reviewed the debates back in 1993, and I have also looked at the legislation. I don't see any reason to second-guess the original intent of this assembly in 1993. Accordingly, I would let Bill 92 pass.
[1515]
V. Anderson: As indicated by the previous speaker, we did debate the principles of these bills very extensively in 1993. I had the privilege of being in on the debate and the questioning at that time.I've also had the privilege of being involved with many of those who worked on these bills for some ten years or more. I think this is one bill that we can really say is a people's bill, a bill that came from the grass roots, a bill that was an idea and a vision of some very far-ahead-looking persons who believed that if they came together and worked with each other, they could convince the government in due course that this was a wise move from which everyone would benefit. They recognized, of course, that there were always obstacles and difficulties in a new undertaking such as this, when the people themselves came together to say: "Not only is an individual capable of making a decision but we, the people of the community, are capable of being a part of those decisions on an ongoing basis."
The test of what is brought forward today in this new, innovative way of enabling people to care for themselves will be whether that community vision and expertise and involvement continue into the future. It would be unfortunate if at any time this became a government function rather than a people's function. This is one way in which the government is able to support, cooperate with and aid in what the people of the community have brought forward and worked out and agonized over for so many years. Over ten years, hundreds of people throughout this province have been involved in committee meetings again and again and again.
It was only five months ago that I met with some of these people, and they were despairing of it ever moving ahead. So many obstacles had been in their way over these years. So many promises had been made, the culmination of which was the passing of the bills in 1993. Then, five and a half years later, there was still uncertainty about whether it could go ahead.
What we have is a compromise, a step along the way. As has already been mentioned, some of the items are set aside for future undertaking. That's fine, because that two-stage process can be very helpful. I encourage all involved -- the community and the government members, all of the people of the Legislature -- not to relax at this point. As difficult as it has been over the last ten years to get to this point, it will be even more difficult to implement it, carry it through and make it creative and workable -- especially when there are even more difficult key issues yet to work upon.
I simply wish to say that thank goodness, after all this time, it has come to pass. The task is not 50 percent done but at the most only 25 percent accomplished, and the main task is ahead of us. I trust that both government and opposition will continue to work with the people of the province and that this will continue to be what it has been from the beginning: a people's bill with government cooperation.
The Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, I recognize the Attorney General to close debate.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Speaker, I move second reading.
Motion approved.
Bill 92, Adult Guardianship Statutes Amendment Act, 1999, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.
[1520]
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I call second reading of Bill 93.LAND TITLE AMENDMENT ACT, 1999
The fundamental reform contemplated by this bill is the introduction of electronic conveyancing instruments. The objectives of this reform are to streamline and reduce the cost of preparing conveyancing documents; to streamline and reduce the costs of transmitting them to the land title office for registration; to reduce the opportunities for fraud and forgery; to provide the same level of service to all British Columbians, especially those who do not reside in a city that has a land title office; to provide new service to the conveyancing public to enable them to reduce or eliminate errors in conveyancing documents; to better manage the registration process and facilitate closing-date requirements associated with complex business transactions; and to streamline the registration process by eliminating unnecessary procedural red tape.
The objective of the bill is to enable land transfer instruments, such as deeds and mortgages, to be created and filed electronically within the following two legal policy constraints. First, the bill must not alter the existing laws and legal practices respecting land transfer instruments. Second, the bill must not alter the existing principles of our Torrens title registration program. I'm pleased to confirm that the bill achieves both of these objectives.
Using the electronic filing system contemplated by the bill, a conveyancing instrument will be prepared on a computer in the usual way. A paper printout of the instrument will be signed by the transferor and witnessed by an officer, lawyer, notary or commissioner as required by law. Conceptually, the bill characterizes the printout as a true copy of the electronic original. Based on the executed and witnessed true copy, a lawyer or notary will sign the electronic original using an electronic signature. The electronic signature will constitute
[ Page 14269 ]
a certification by the lawyer or notary that the electronic instrument has been executed and witnessed in accordance with the law.The electronic signature of a lawyer or notary gives notarial effect to the electronic instrument in the same way that notarial effect is now given to paper instruments. In this way, the bill overcomes any existing law that requires a land transfer instrument to be in writing and to be signed by the parties.
The same principles will apply to property transfer tax returns. This bill proposes consequential amendments to the Property Transfer Tax Act to accommodate tax returns in electronic form. The bill also ensures that if a taxable land transfer is filed electronically, it must be accompanied by an electronic tax return and an electronic tax payment.
Interjection.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: That's the secret. In order to ensure the legal integrity of the electronic filing scheme, the bill contains specific rules for electronic signatures and for proving the contents of an electronic instrument. For example, the bill requires an electronic signatory to have possession of the executed true copy before using his or her electronic signature to certify that the electronic instrument has been executed and witnessed in accordance with the law.
The issue of proof is equally important. Remember that the original electronic instrument only exists as an encryption in a computer database at the land title office. The bill therefore declares that a copy of the electronic instrument that is certified by the registrar as a true copy is conclusive evidence of the original and is admissible in all courts to the same extent as the original. The bill also contains a provision to overcome any objections based on the hearsay evidence rule. These measures already exist for instruments stored on the land title office document image system, and the bill extends them to apply to electronic instruments.
[1525]
The bill also recognizes that legal effect may be given to the executed true copy of an electronic original. The general law requires that an instrument must be delivered before it binds the transferor. The Property Law Act also requires a seller to deliver to the buyer an instrument in registrable form. The bill ensures that the physical delivery of the executed true copy satisfies these legal requirements. The policy works because the electronic version does not assume the characteristics of an original until it's received by the land title office for registration. After the electronic version is received, the bill stipulates that any previously made copy is inadmissible in a court for any purpose except to prove the authenticity of a signature or other mark or impression.The bill also contains provisions to overcome the need to file what are known as supporting documents. An example of a supporting document is a certificate of full payment that is issued by a strata corporation, confirming that there are no outstanding levies against a particular strata lot. The existing law requires a certificate to be filed in the land title office every time a strata lot is transferred. The bill will enable a lawyer or a notary to use his or her electronic signature to certify the existence of a certificate and that there are no outstanding levies. In this way the certificate need not be physically delivered to the land title office for filing, because the electronic signature operates as a certification of the matters stated in the supporting document.
The bill has been carefully drafted to ensure that existing roles and responsibilities in the conveyancing business are not dislocated as a result of electronic filing. For example, it will not be necessary to be a lawyer or notary in order to gain access to the electronic filing system. The bill only requires that an electronic instrument be electronically signed. At the outset, only lawyers and notaries will be authorized to use an electronic signature. This is consistent with the role they now play in the conveyancing business. Paralegals and others who are currently and lawfully involved in the preparation of conveyancing instruments may continue to do so using the electronic filing system. Similarly, those persons who currently serve as agents for owners, lawyers or notaries for the purpose of managing the registration process may continue to do so using the electronic filing system.
I also confirm that the bill does not preclude the filing of a transfer instrument in its traditional paper form. Clearly there are many of us who are not computer-enabled -- like myself -- and have no business need to become so.
Interjection.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: That's not true for me.
The bill does not force anyone to do business electronically. While there is a reference in the regulatory provisions to instruments that must be in an electronic format, I can say that there is no intention of making the scheme mandatory at the time of implementation or anytime soon after that. However, it may be appropriate in the future to require legal and other professional users to do business with the land title office electronically or to require certain types of instruments, such as mortgage releases, to be filed electronically. The appropriateness of such requirements will not be considered until the electronic filing system has been fully implemented and there is an identified need to regulate such matters.
The feature of the proposed electronic filing system that makes it unique in Canada is the way in which electronic signatures will be managed. The bill provides for a recognition of a certification authority, whose primary function is to identify and authenticate persons eligible to use an electronic signature and to ensure that, once authorized, electronic signatories are governed by an appropriate set of standards and procedures.
[1530]
The use of certification-of-authority services of this kind is the principal feature in all electronic commerce legislation in North America. It is also consistent with emerging federal and provincial standards and policies regarding digital signatures. It is critically important to be able to link an electronic signature to a specific individual, and the bill positions a certification authority to do this.The electronic filing scheme contemplated by the bill will include the development of technology solutions appropriate for the management of digital signatures. While technical details will be left to regulation, I can assure the House that these will be developed by the ministry in close association with the Information, Science and Technology Agency, which is responsible for technology standards of this kind. For
[ Page 14270 ]
example, it will be important to ensure that the province does not end up with several types of digital signature management systems.Recognition of a certification authority for the purposes of electronic filing will depend upon the effectiveness of its management policies and its ability to administer them. The bill authorizes the director of land titles to recognize any certification authority that can demonstrate its qualifications. Again, recognition criteria will be developed in close association with the Information, Science and Technology Agency to ensure that they are consistent with emerging government policy.
I believe that this bill represents an innovative and responsible solution -- a very complex one, I might add, but simpler for other people who know computers -- to the legal and business issues that face all electronic filing proposals. It will benefit all those who use and rely upon our land title registration program, by making it more efficient and accessible. No longer will it be necessary to live in a city that has a land title office in order to avail oneself of prompt and efficient land title office services.
G. Plant: Madam Speaker, no doubt you'll be interested to know that I'll be the designated speaker on this particular bill.
This bill will facilitate a significant change in the technology of land registration. As the systems and processes contemplated by this bill are implemented, evidence of fee simple title and other interests in land will no longer consist of documents registered at a land title office -- pieces of paper which can be pulled out of a file, handled and studied. In their place will exist bits of information stored in computer chips. Soon we will be able to create a sort of virtual land title office.
Eventually perhaps we'll be able to create a sort of virtual government, which will be at one and the same time everywhere and yet nowhere. MLAs will be able to "appear" in the so-called capital by hologram. Question period will become a new form of interactive game show, which will probably run every night just before the reruns of "WWF Raw."
Ah well, in the meantime, the objective of the current exercise, one assumes, is to improve the efficiency of the registry system, reduce the burden of storage of paper documents and perhaps lower costs. Time will tell if these objectives can be achieved. For now, I think the question of principle which needs to be asked is whether the implementation of this technological change will change any of the basic principles or operation of what we call the Torrens system -- that's the land registry system. It's a system that has served us well in British Columbia for many, many years, and I am unaware of any urgent call for its reform.
In one or two respects, there will be some changes in the Torrens system necessary to give effect to the scheme created by this bill. First, it seems to me, there will be an increased burden on those who create registrable documents -- I mean specifically the persons referred to in the bill as the subscribers -- to ensure that the information in those documents is accurate, because it looks as though they will be subject to a form of warranty of accuracy with respect to that information. Secondly, since the technology in fact does not do away with the idea of originally signed instruments, it looks as though notaries, lawyers and others who witness the execution of land title instruments are going to have to manage the storage of increased numbers of documents. Perhaps these are questions for committee stage debate.
[1535]
Apart from these relatively technical questions, I see no significant change in the Torrens system, no change in the basic principles of security and certainty created by the idea that to be good against the world, title to and interests in real property must be registered.There is one important concern that I haven't mentioned. All of us hear stories every day about computer viruses capable of causing all sorts of harm to data banks and information systems. Clearly the last thing we need to do is create an electronic land registry system where computer hackers would be able to create and transfer ownership in land or bring commerce to a grinding halt. Those from government who have worked hard on the initiative that the Attorney General has described and who have briefed me on this bill assure me that all of this potential for harm will be guarded against by the use of technologies, including sophisticated encryption technologies. The lawyers, notaries and others involved in the business of registering and transferring title in B.C. are supportive of this initiative.
We have the possibility of achieving efficiencies and cost savings and perhaps of showing a bit of leadership in the development of information systems without sacrificing the traditional security and certainty of the existing system. It appears, in short, that the new system will be the functional equivalent of the present paper system. As a matter of principle, then, I would not oppose this bill. Shortly, no doubt, the electronic virtual image of me -- which television viewers of this proceeding may think is a depiction of my real self -- will, if called upon, appear to vote in favour of it.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I move second reading.
Motion approved.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I move that, by leave, this bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration later today.
Leave granted.
Bill 93, Land Title Amendment Act, 1999, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration later today.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I call second reading of Bill 85.
COMPANY ACT
[ Page 14271 ]
registry. For example, the new act will reduce the amount of paper that companies will be required to file and will eliminate duplicate filings where information is available to the public from other sources.Under the new Company Act, companies and the general public will have electronic access to the registry. It will allow companies to incorporate electronically and information to be filed and updated immediately. The corporate registry database will be the legal register. As a result, companies will be able to rely on their computer searches. As well, the new act will allow companies to keep their records in electronic form as long as their public records are accessible during business hours.
The new Company Act will provide greater certainty. It will clarify when corporate changes are effective and resolve a number of ambiguities in the current legislation. The provision of financial assistance is now expressly allowed, as is the ability of a subsidiary to purchase shares in the parent. The new act also clarifies the conflict-of-interest and indemnification rules for directors and senior officers.
The new Company Act will eliminate overlap where matters are already dealt with under securities legislation. For example, the concept of a reporting company will be phased out under the new act. As well, the scope of some provisions will be narrowed to exclude reporting issuers and other publicly traded companies that are already regulated under securities legislation.
The new Company Act will accommodate recent developments in corporate law. For example, shareholders of public companies will have the right to have their proposals considered at annual general meetings. Like other Canadian corporate statutes, the new act will no longer require that a company name a president and a secretary. It will also adopt the standard Canadian code for transferring corporate securities.
[1540]
The new Company Act will provide greater flexibility for companies. Court orders will not be the only option in the case of an amalgamation or restoration of a company. The new act will allow companies to also seek a registrar's order. As well, the procedures for liquidating and dissolving have been streamlined. Rather than meetings for creditors and shareholders, there will be a requirement to notify and have information available at a liquidation records office. The new Company Act will also provide more flexibility in holding general meetings, allowing for meetings by telephone and for a future meeting to be waived or postponed by the shareholders.Finally, the new Company Act is the result of significant input on the discussion draft of the act, which was released in February of last year. The new act attempts to balance the needs of management and shareholders, as well as the needs of the public to access appropriate information on the companies they deal with. The new act will not be brought into force for at least a year. This timing is necessary primarily to allow for the corporate registry to implement changes to allow for electronic filings.
I am pleased to move second reading.
G. Plant: The last major revision to the Company Act was in 1973. The existing act is regarded by corporate lawyers and others -- even Ministers of Finance -- as badly out of date. A discussion paper proposing amendments to this act was published and circulated in 1991. In 1997 a draft provision dealing with shareholder proposal rights was published and circulated for comment. Then in 1998, as the minister has indicated, a draft act was written and circulated for comment. The present bill incorporates some changes to the 1998 discussion draft, but its major features remain unchanged.
Unlike most of the other legislation which the government has introduced this session -- especially the legislation which the government has dropped onto the order paper over the last week or so -- the Company Act does represent the product of a significant amount of public consultation over a reasonable, if not lengthy, period of time. In particular, to a very considerable extent this bill is the work product of a volunteer committee of private sector lawyers, all of whom are specialists in company law. It appears to me that theirs was a non-partisan effort. I would like to thank them for their energy and commitment to the process of reform.
The bill as presented by the government does not reflect all of the recommendations of this committee. On some points of substance, the government has taken its own counsel and chosen a different path. I expect that we will pursue some of those issues in the committee stage debate of this bill.
That brings me to the bill, if not the idea of a Company Act as a whole. I would not call this bill a radical reinvention of the idea of a company. It seems to me and, at least, it has seemed to others whose work I have read that there are four basic features of a corporation. One is the idea of a distinct juridical personality -- that is, the idea that a company is different from the people who own it and who work for it; it has its own separate, distinct legal personality. The second basic feature of a corporation is the ideal of limited liability -- that is, that it's possible to limit liability in commercial transactions by using the vehicle of a corporation. The third basic feature of a corporation is the idea of transferability of shares -- that is, the owners of the company can change. They can sell their ownership interests to others, but the identity of the company as a company doesn't change. Perhaps the fourth basic feature is the idea that a company has indefinite duration -- that is, it will continue to exist even though those who own it or who manage it or who are its directors or who work for it may die or pass on in some other way; the company continues. Well, I think those are four pretty basic features of a corporation. None of them is changed by the present bill.
[1545]
A further typical, though perhaps not defining, characteristic of a company is the distinction in law between the owners of the company -- that is, the shareholders -- and those responsible for its management -- that is, the directors. The present bill maintains this distinction in pretty much the same form that we are accustomed to seeing it.Now, the interests of shareholders, particularly the interests of minority shareholders, in a company may not always be the same as the interests of the directors or the management, who frequently represent the majority ownership of a company. A good company act, it seems to me, should recognize the potential for tension among these competing interests and try to strike a balance -- a balance between the owner and the manager, between minority and majority, between director and shareholder -- which ensures that the company can function effectively and yet accords some respect to the interests of the minority shareholders.
These are issues that can arise in the smallest of companies, as they can arise in the largest of companies. The task
[ Page 14272 ]
of a company act is to draw some principles which will work as ways of resolving these tensions in a variety of contexts, whether it's a small company that operates a little corner store or the largest corporation in British Columbia.Well, the bill that we have before us does make some changes to the details of the balance I've talked about. It tends in some cases to enhance the power of the minority, but in others it tends to enhance the power of the majority. I have tried to look at the various changes made to readjusting the balance between minority and majority shareholders, between management and shareholders and between the various interested parties in these debates. I've tried to see if there is a consistent theme.
It does not seem to me that the readjustment of this balance is all in one direction. There appears in fact to be some give-and-take in both directions on these important questions. For example, the provisions of this bill with respect to shareholder proposals are new; they enhance the power of shareholders. On the other hand, the provisions of this bill which deal with what are called special resolutions lower the threshold vote required to approve a special resolution from three-quarters to two-thirds of the votes cast, if the articles of the company so provide. This could be said to be an enhancement of majority or management power.
If you go through the act and examine the kinds of changes that it contains, which have been summarized by the minister, you'll find changes that, as I say, in some cases enhance the powers of management and in other cases enhance the power of the minority shareholders. On the whole, it does not seem to me that this bill tilts that balance unreasonably in either direction.
Perhaps more importantly, the bill removes the requirement that a company that wishes to indemnify a director or senior officer obtain court approval before doing so and provides more clarity around the scope of such an indemnity. These provisions are increasingly important in an era of expanded personal liability for directors of corporations. I give that as an example of the way in which the act can fairly be said to be an updating, a bringing up to date, of provisions which may have worked well in the business climate in British Columbia of 26 years ago but no longer function as efficiently as they should.
[1550]
This bill maintains what's called the contract model of incorporation. In practice, what that means is that those who wish to do business in British Columbia will have a choice: to incorporate under this bill with what are called articles of association or to incorporate by registering a company in British Columbia under the Canada Business Corporations Act. The bill in the government's approach here thus deals with one of the oldest arguments among company law theorists -- the argument as to which model of incorporation is better, really -- by just leaving it to those who wish to incorporate to choose among the available options. That's not a bad approach, I think.The bill does much more than this, but a great deal of what it does falls into the category of what I would call significant fine-tuning. That is, we should not underestimate the potential significance of these changes or the way they may impact in particular cases. In truth, when you look at the section of the bill that you've got before you and when you're asking yourself the question at hand, there are often arguments on either side of the question on how the law should approach this particular issue. If the real test is whether B.C. will, as a result of this bill, become a more attractive jurisdiction in which to incorporate, I expect that we will only see the results of that test over time.
There are some issues which will require examination during committee stage debate. In particular, I will want to ask the government about its decision to reverse a proposal in the discussion draft to remove the residency requirement for directors. That proposal, which was in the discussion draft, was well received. It is difficult -- at least at this point -- to appreciate the logic behind returning to the original act and reinstating a residency requirement.
There are some other questions which I may want to ask about the way the act deals with extraprovincial companies and the conflict-of-interest provisions which the minister referred to in her remarks. More generally, I want to say that while I appreciate that the registrar of companies may well be delighted to be relieved of the burden of maintaining files containing articles of association of thousands of companies, the fact is that the articles of association of a company are significant in a contract jurisdiction. The abandonment of a filing requirement -- that is, the abandonment of the requirement that they be maintained in a central file in the registrar of companies -- may be a decision based upon an unrealistic expectation of the abilities or the willingness of people who operate records offices, which sometimes consist of nothing more than a dusty old box in the back of an attic in the president's house, to maintain updated and accurate records. Although I have listened to attempts to persuade me otherwise, I see little in this act that will actually reduce the real burden of regulation on companies.
These are a few concerns. There are a few others, but none of these concerns warrant second-guessing the main thrust of an act which, on the basis of my own reading of it and the consultation that I've been able to conduct to date, is a significant and much welcomed improvement on its predecessor. I would let this bill pass.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I appreciate the members opposite's comments, and I look forward to committee stage where we can discuss these issues more thoroughly. With that, I would move second reading.
Motion approved.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I move, by leave, that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole for consideration later today.
Leave granted.
Bill 85, Company Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration later today.
[1555]
Hon. J. MacPhail: I call second reading of Bill 91.
UNCLAIMED PROPERTY ACT
(second reading)
[ Page 14273 ]
will better meet the objective of unclaimed-property legislation, which is to reunite owners with their unclaimed property.The Unclaimed Property Act responds to concerns expressed by the auditor general in his 1994 compliance audit of the Unclaimed Money Act. The act was found to be outdated and ineffective in protecting the rights of owners of unclaimed money. The new act will clarify that the act applies not only to government but also to business and corporate organizations holding a range of unclaimed property. It will modernize and strengthen the requirement for holders of unclaimed property to attempt to reunite owners with their unclaimed property.
The act will require both government and business to make reasonable efforts to locate owners and notify them that they are holding their unclaimed property. If the holder of the property is unsuccessful in locating an owner, the act will require the holder to place the name of the owner on a publicly available database of unclaimed property.
This bill provides for fair and equitable treatment of unclaimed property and protects the interests of owners, who are entitled to be notified by an organization holding property on their behalf. This act does not impose an undue burden on the business community but merely regulates what most would consider a service to the client. The regulatory approach has been developed in consultation with the organizations affected by the legislation.
I. Chong: I'm pleased to be the member responsible for responding to this particular act. I would like to begin by thanking the minister's staff for providing us with a number of briefings on this particular piece of legislation and also providing us with some of the comments received back from the stakeholder groups who are concerned about this piece of legislation.
I recognize that it was as a result of the auditor general's 1993-94 report that there was a requirement to make substantive amendments to this particular act -- or, barring that, to have a new piece of legislation brought forward to deal with the reunion, I suppose, of people's unclaimed moneys, unclaimed properties, that were building up in various business organizations, groups, bank accounts, etc. I think it's important to note that all of us would agree that we must find a simple approach to reunite owners with their unclaimed property, particularly since sometimes these owners, or their estates, are not aware that there is unclaimed money or property in existence.
I also note that in the past the old act, the Unclaimed Money Act, did provide for a database for those who were interested to search to find out whether or not they had unclaimed money available to them. It is not until more awareness is raised on this issue that people do recognize that there is a place to go and that they can facilitate the claiming of their moneys. I'm hoping that with this legislation, the awareness that has been raised will in fact generate more interest in this area.
I've had the opportunity -- and I want the minister to be aware -- to contact the stakeholder groups. Many of them, while supportive of this legislation, do have concerns in particular sections. I'm sure the minister is aware that I will raise those issues, those concerns, during committee stage of debate on this legislation. But I want the minister also to be aware that the concerns are particularly that of public accountability and of ensuring that this legislation does provide a mechanism for people to not necessarily go through more regulation and red tape to lay claim to their unclaimed property or moneys. I do also acknowledge that within this legislation -- within section 18 -- there is in fact a review process that has been implemented in the legislation to allow for that.
As I say, I would like to thank the minister and her staff for having provided us those briefings. I will more thoroughly canvass this during committee stage, and with that, I'll take my seat.
The Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, I recognize the Minister of Finance.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I move second reading of Bill 91.
Motion approved.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I move that, by leave, the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole for consideration later today.
Leave granted.
Bill 91, Unclaimed Property Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration later today.
[1600]
Hon. J. MacPhail: I call second reading of Bill 80.LIQUOR STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1999
(second reading)
This bill, the Liquor Statutes Amendment Act, 1999, updates British Columbia's liquor laws, striking a balance between the diverse priorities of liquor licensees and the larger needs of our communities. It fulfils the government's commitment to listen to the business community, local governments, police and community agencies. It implements the recommendations of the liquor policy review that was recently completed. It sets out a new framework for liquor licensing that will put our province in a strong position to move into the new millennium.
Before I speak about the bill in detail, I want to briefly outline the process that was followed in getting to where we are today. As hon. members might be aware, there have been three major reviews of provincial liquor policy over the past dozen years: one in 1987, another in more recent years and a third in the months leading up to today.
What sets this most recent process apart from what happened before was the way the interested parties were brought together. We recognized from the start that there were conflicting interests among some of the current groups of liquor
[ Page 14274 ]
licensees, and we recognized that the only way to balance these interests and come up with much-needed reforms that would be broadly acceptable was to bring people to the table and find compromises.Last November 28, a consultant, Jo Surich, was brought in to lead the process, conduct a review of liquor laws and make recommendations that would modernize liquor regulations and policies to meet four objectives: first, simplification of rules and licence classes to reduce the costs of red tape and regulation to the hospitality industry; second, evolution of the hospitality industry in a way that assists the development of the B.C. tourism industry; third, harmonization of B.C. approaches to the control of alcoholic beverages and the hospitality industry with those of neighbouring jurisdictions; and fourth, development of regulations that meet today's social and health objectives.
Mr. Surich sat down with the representatives of the many interested groups in the sector -- everyone from restaurants and cabarets to hotels, neighbourhood pubs, breweries, distilleries, wineries, U-brew and U-vin operators, local municipal governments and others. Working together, this group thrashed out the many issues and built a series of compromises that everyone could live with. They looked at all aspects of liquor licensing, from the structure of licences to the detailed regulations that have developed over the years, and from the licence application process to the enforcement of liquor regulations.
The result was a comprehensive set of recommendations that initially came to government in February of this year. At that point, we asked Mr. Surich to take the recommendations to local governments, police, and drug and alcohol social service agencies, to consult with them and make sure that there would be no unintended effects on B.C. communities. When this exhaustive process was complete, about 180 municipal governments and more than 300 other interested groups, including police and community agencies, had been consulted.
The recommendations were turned into legislative change, creating the bill that we have before us today. This, combined with a large number of regulatory changes to be developed and implemented over the next two to three years, will modernize British Columbia's liquor licensing system, eliminate needless red tape, strengthen our province's hospitality industry and strengthen protection against abuse.
This bill makes changes to approximately 60 sections and subsections of the Liquor Control and Licensing Act, along with a smaller number of changes to the Liquor Distribution Act. It is complex to read through, but its implications are really quite straightforward. It provides for a new liquor licensing framework, a framework that is less complex and a process that will be less time-consuming for applicants. It sets out new rules for retail sales, including allowing the use of credit cards in government liquor stores and the opening of a small number of government liquor stores on Sundays. It streamlines appeals made under the act. It allows for simplified licensing of wineries and more up-to-date rules for winery and brewery tastings. It provides for more straightforward and less costly regulation of liquor advertising, and it enables the government to implement advertising rules consistent with those in other provinces. It provides for the licensing of U-brew and U-vin operations to make sure they are operated responsibly. It requires liquor licensees to support the principles of responsible beverage-service training and to support designated driver programs and other measures to encourage responsible use of alcohol. It provides for clear new ways of enforcing rules related to liquor licences and public safety.
[1605]
Perhaps the most significant changes describe a new relationship between local government and the province in decisions around the issuing of liquor licences. Local governments will now have the option to be directly involved in the licensing process and will have input in many other areas, ranging from hours of operation to seating capacity. The bill will also allow the government to implement, through regulation, many of the other recommendations of the liquor policy review, including reducing the current ten licence types to two drink-by-the-glass types and three additional types for manufacturing and retail; eliminating the regulatory policies that serve no public health or safety purpose, such as regulations governing the number and size of televisions in bars and restaurants; simplifying licence approval, so processing time will be six to 12 weeks instead of up to 18 months; and preventing bootlegging and consumption by minors. These regulatory changes will be implemented over a two-to-three-year period, as recommended in the review's final reports.Our goal with this bill is to reduce red tape and needless regulation and to encourage a healthy tourism and hospitality sector. This is being accomplished while maintaining the sensible rules that we need to make sure that alcohol is not abused. This balanced approach is the result of thorough consultation with the industry, police, local governments, social service agencies and other interested groups, and it follows through on the commitment we made last November to act quickly and carefully to modernize our province's liquor laws.
[W. Hartley in the chair.]
This bill is good for British Columbia's hospitality sector, and it's good for our province. It meets the longstanding priority of many British Columbians that we update and modernize our province's liquor laws. And it addresses the concerns of those who want to be assured that other priorities, including input by local governments, are also addressed. There is no way that British Columbia's liquor laws could ever satisfy everyone, but this bill is the closest we're ever likely to get to accomplishing just that. The changes are positive, the changes are good for business, and they respect the priorities and special circumstances of British Columbia communities. This bill is the product of thorough consultation with affected groups, and I'm very pleased to speak in its support.
V. Anderson: I rise to speak on Bill 80, the Liquor Statutes Amendment Act. I've listened to the minister with interest, and having read through the bill, I can understand, from her point of view, the excitement and her conviction about the changes that are being brought. There's no doubt that major changes needed to be brought, and there are many persons who are concerned.
My particular question for the minister in this second reading is from the point of view of those concerned about those who are addicted to alcohol and about our young people who find ever-increasing opportunities to become addicted to alcohol in their lives. When drunk driving is such a difficult situation in our province, I just have to raise the question that it mystifies me that when this government is so
[ Page 14275 ]
concerned about smoking and the effects that it has upon families and individuals in our society, on the other hand, they seem to have no similar concerns about the use of alcohol -- or, for that matter, about the use of gaming. They have been called to account on the gaming issue, but so far there has not been a calling to account on the availability of alcohol in our community. Though the minister has suggested that there will be educational campaigns about the proper use of alcohol, I think it is important to register my concern, on behalf of many people in our community, that the expansion of opportunities for use of alcohol, even though regulated, is a growing concern.
[1610]
In short, I think what the bill does is give the government a blank cheque with which they can do whatever they want in whatever fashion they want. It is true they've done a study, and the study has suggested that certain things would improve the sale and distribution of alcohol within our province. But most of the items that are in that particular study and its recommendations are not in fact within the bill itself. There's simply the kind of basic stance that this government so often takes of giving authority to the order-in-council, and they'll pass regulations to do whatever they wish. I wish to express the concern of myself and many others in our province that the continued expansion of alcohol availability is not good for our young people and is not good for many of the adults within our province who have addiction problems.I would hope that the minister, in passing those regulations, would at least give us a major effort for the new-found income they'll receive as a part of this for education and for supporting and helping persons and families. I've seen whole families torn apart. As one young girl said to me one day: "I liked my father the way he was." We have to take these things seriously, and I would expect the government to take this responsibility even as they have taken responsibility in the situation with tobacco in our province. I simply raise that issue as a major concern.
R. Thorpe: The minister talks about the consultation, the process, and there's no doubt it's been an extensive one. Based on the documentation that I've been able to receive, the consultation process is going to continue, as I think the minister has acknowledged, for some two to three years going into the future. My concern is the process that has taken place to get us where we are to date. Undertakings were given in the January 20 meeting, and the minister has referred to Mr. Surich. The undertaking that was given to the various stakeholders at those meetings -- to put forward what was believed to be a compromise position in an effort to move this initiative forward
One item that does concern me as we move forward
The minister makes note that this is a very, very complex issue, and I believe it's a very complex issue. There are many historic traditions in our liquor system in British Columbia that are going to have to be weighed and perhaps modified slightly. In some cases, perhaps, opening on Sundays is a significant deviation from past practice in British Columbia. I hope that this government and the officials who are going to implement this bill after it passes this House -- if it should pass this House -- are going to listen carefully to those municipalities where Sunday openings are going to be put into place.
[1615]
I'm just going to give a few quotes with respect to some local governments. One is that there has been no provincial process for broader public involvement in the proposed new liquor licensing regulations and procedures, although the minister said that she felt there had been extensive consultation. With respect to an implementation schedule, it's going to have to be improved. It's going to have to be timely. The effective enforcement promise that is implied throughout this bill is a very, very serious question, because the liquor control and licensing branch has had tremendous difficulties in fulfilling its role as an enforcement agency in British Columbia. I think, if I can recall the figures correctly, that for their inspectors, to date only 28 percent of their time has been spent on enforcement. The industry has been crying for that to be improved for years. Unfortunately, the agency has had difficulty in moving forward. As this system of availability increases, I have a concern about the enforcement area, as does the industry.
The other concern I have
I hope that the minister and the staff are listening carefully, because it's the implementation that people in the industry are going to be counting on. They're going to want assurances that their voices are going to be heard, that their real priorities are going to be acted upon and that this is not going to end up in a tremendous bureaucratic exercise, as one would think could possibly happen when one looks through some of the work plans here. In particular, what is concerning me is that when I do look at the responsible beverage service work plan, the implementation date is not identified yet. That is a major concern to myself, the industry and people throughout British Columbia.
Licensing. We heard the minister say that one of the cornerstones here is cutting the red tape -- boiling down the
[ Page 14276 ]
number of licences. Yet the implementation date on the work plan has not been identified as yet. That is worrisome, to say the least. One of the industry's great concerns -- and, I think, of many members of this House -- is the compliance and enforcement issue. Again, the government, in its own work plan, is identifying those as only being completed in the late summer of the year 2000.Those are but a few of the questions we have. We are going to go through this in some detail in committee stage.
I also want to get it on the record
[1620]
It's a complex bill. A lot of new territory is to be covered in this bill and in its implementation. I look forward to committee stage of the bill, during which I, my colleagues and perhaps members of the government's own benches will take the time to ask questions of the minister and the staff on the implementation of Bill 80.R. Coleman: I'm pleased to enter the debate on this bill in second reading -- not from the standpoint of the collective will of an industry that has come together, oftentimes for self-interest in their own particular areas in order to either expand their marketplace or expand their issues, but rather from what this bill may mean to us as a society in the future.
One of the aspects of this particular piece of legislation is identifying 20 seats in every restaurant for alcohol consumption without food. What that effectively means is that today we're going to say that we have made every restaurant into a little mini-pub -- a mini-pub that now is going to serve liquor to people within those restaurants. If you look at the historical aspect of the restaurant, the people that are serving within those restaurants are young people. I'm very concerned about the peer pressure aspect of the serving of alcohol. When I think about the peer pressure aspect of the serving of alcohol, I have to think about the enforcement and the management of the issue. My colleague mentioned a minute ago that only 28 percent of the time of the staff is spent right now on enforcement relative to liquor distribution and liquor violations. How are we going to manage another so many outlets for alcohol?
One of the arguments I got, when I brought this issue up among people within the industry, was: "They're doing it now anyway. They're serving alcohol without serving food. Why don't we give them another 20 spaces, and we'll just call it the non-food section." My question is: so are they going to do 20, and then add another 20 where they're going to break the rules, because nobody's going to enforce and nobody's going to manage it? Now, why would I have that concern as a Member of the Legislative Assembly? Two reasons: one is because of the constituents that I've heard from in my riding, and one is a from a personal aspect.
Hon. Speaker, there is no greater carnage to society than the damage from the one legal drug that we have: alcohol. More family breakups and more drinking-and-driving accidents and injuries take place relative to alcohol than to anything else. The policing costs relative to alcohol are higher than the others. The cost of increasing these numbers of seats has to be measured somehow -- and not only measured; at the same time we must remember that if we're going to make these changes, we'd best police them and manage them and enforce them. If those aspects aren't there for me in the committee stage of the debate on this bill, I'll have a great deal of difficulty supporting this legislation -- simply because I've seen the death; I've seen the dismemberment; I've seen the injuries. I visited a friend's child on the weekend, who after two months is still only able to lie or stand. She is unable to sit because of a pinched nerve in her back from a car accident that was created because of alcohol. A young person's life may be affected -- in her education, in the long-term or the short-term. She's someone who today can hardly walk down the street, and we don't know how long the rehabilitation will take. I've seen the pressure on that family, and the pressure is on that family because of the pressure and the pain and suffering of the child. This is a young person. Alcohol was involved in the vehicle -- and she wasn't driving.
Hon. Speaker, I have had to go to too many funerals in the last four years: three, specifically, of friends -- of children -- that we have lost within my community because of alcohol. I have difficulty understanding why we would want to expand the seats for alcohol to be served without food in areas where we will not be able to police it, control it or in some way manage the consumption of the alcohol to a level that we know it won't bring this carnage to our streets. I also have the concern that in doing what we're doing in the restaurant sector, we may be affecting the assets of people that have made significant investments in the neighbourhood pub sector of the industry and who are going to possibly be affected by this, because all of a sudden their investment may be demeaned.
[1625]
But the biggest issue here for me is: how are you going to control that many more seats serving alcohol without food, in this province? How are you going to manage it? How are you going to enforce it? How are you going to take care of it? And how are you going to do that so that you can guarantee it to the constituents that have phoned my office and said: "We don't need this. We don't need this because we don't need any more pain and suffering from alcohol. We already have enough." In my community, they tell me: "Don't do this unless you can tell us how you're going to manage it and enforce it and make sure that it's well taken care of."That's my issue with this piece of legislation. I recognize the arguments about bringing forward the modernization of our laws, the reduction of red tape and those concerns that we have to address in this legislation. But as we do it, let's remember the social issues. Let's remember the social carnage that can come from this, and let's remember that if we're going to do this, we'd better have the backup within our system to manage it and enforce it and to take care of it properly.
[ Page 14277 ]
Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, we'll put the motion on second reading.Motion approved.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I move that, by leave, the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole for consideration later today.
Leave granted.
Bill 80, Liquor Statutes Amendment Act, 1999, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration later today.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I call second reading of Bill 82.
FORESTS STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1999
(second reading)
Existing provisions allow a free use permit to be issued for domestic firewood and scientific investigation and, with amendments debated earlier this session, Christmas trees for personal use. New provisions add another category that will allow free use permits to be issued for traditional and cultural uses. For the issuance of cutting permits and agreements, a new set of conditions is being added. The issuance of a cutting permit may be refused after an agreement is entered into if there is a failure to comply with the timber-marking and -scaling requirements or if there is a forestry-related theft.
The amendments also strengthen the grounds for refusing applications and ensure that people who have never entered into an agreement can be refused if they have contravened forestry legislation. New marking provisions recognize current requirements for marking stored timber, which have been in place since late 1997, following a recommendation of the auditor general and discussions with industry. This solidifies the ability of government and licensees to use timber marks to ensure the tracking of provincial revenue and the prevention of theft.
As a result of the Nisga'a final agreement, forest lands currently in forest licences will become Nisga'a lands. The allowable annual cut of these licences will be reduced to ensure the portions of them that are not affected by the treaty are not overharvested. Amendments are made to the Forest Act to enable this to occur. These provisions mirror those in part 13 of the act which deal with similar activities in relation to designated areas. Amendments also enable a regional or district manager to enter into a timber sale licence if, as a result of the treaty, an agreement holder or contractor or subcontractor loses the right to harvest Crown timber.
The amendments made to the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act by Bill 82 can be grouped into categories of enforcement, road use and pilot projects to test improvements to forest practices. Section 54 of the code is changed to ensure that road use provisions are applied consistently and maintenance levels are tied to the type of use being made of the road. Road layout and design provisions are clarified, and amendments are made to sections 56 and 57 to allow cost-sharing disputes to be resolved by the district manager. Amendments in the bill will enable peace officers, as well as officials, to inspect or stop vehicles or vessels where there are reasonable grounds to believe that forest products are being transported or where there has been a contravention of a forestry statute.
Amendments to provisions concerning the Forest Practices Board are included in the bill and have been the subject of consultations with the board. Provisions of section 128 are being amended to outline the procedure by which the board requests a review of a determination concerning the forest development or range use plan or an amendment to either. The period of time within which such a request must be made will be set by regulation in order that the board, government and interested parties can confer about an appropriate time frame on such a request. The amendments will also allow the board to sit in panels of one or more members. This will speed up the production of reports, because straightforward matters will not be required to be considered by the full board. Other amendments cement the mandate of the Forest Appeals Commission to hear appeals under the Forest Act and the Range Act and to report to the Minister of Forests annually on its work in these areas.
[1630]
Finally, at the conclusion of the Premier's summit in the Cariboo, the Premier announced the government's intention to introduce legislation to allow ways to test improvements to forest practices. The new part 10.1 of the code in Bill 82 provides for regulation-making powers that allow these pilot projects. The powers allow the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to order that specific provisions of the code, the Forest Act or the Range Act and any regulations under those acts do not apply to an agreement holder. But this can only be done if certain conditions have been met -- such as public review and comment on the proposed pilot, assurance of protection equivalent to that in the code, adequate management and conservation of forest resources -- and monitoring, review and evaluation components are included.Restrictions on the land base ensure that regulation powers are used only for pilots and that pilots are not concentrated in one or two regions. When a higher-level plan is not in place, the three ministers responsible for the administration of the code -- that is, the Ministers of Environment, Lands and Parks, of Energy and Mines and of Forests -- must agree on and sponsor a regulation that balances competing values and interests. The three code ministers may establish a local public advisory committee to review public comments about a pilot project and advise on the public acceptability of the project. Finally, the subject of a pilot must report annually to the code ministers, and the report will be made publicly available. These powers and the restrictions on them will lead to balanced pilots that both explore possible improvements and protect the public legacy of our forests.
Hon. Speaker, I move that Bill 82 be read a second time now.
G. Abbott: It's a pleasure to rise and to provide the opposition's comments with respect to Bill 82. The minister
[ Page 14278 ]
has certainly set out the contents of the bill. They do cover a wide range of areas and concerns, including the Forest Act, the Forest Practices Code, the Forest Practices Board and the Nisga'a final agreement implementation. So certainly the bill covers lots of areas. Quite a lot of what is in the bill certainly appears, at least, to be housekeeping, and in fact I think it is. But there are some important or noteworthy changes that we should point out today -- changes that we will be giving particular attention and, in some cases, particular concern to at the committee stage.Among those that merit particular attention and, in some cases, concern is, first of all, section 2. Section 2 makes provision for the use of a free use permit for -- and this is the addition to the Forest Act -- "a person who requires Crown timber for traditional and cultural activity and not for sale to others." Now, that may appear reasonable -- on the surface, it would appear to be -- but we will want to have a closer look at what's meant there. The briefing we had suggests that the scope of what's being proposed here extends beyond, for example, first nations or aboriginal use of this provision, so I'll be canvassing the importance of this in other areas.
The second point that goes along with section 2 is section 3(c), which brings a very considerable change in the volume under a free use permit and moves it from "a volume exceeding 50 m3, but not more than 250 m3." This is a very substantial change. At least where I come from, 250 cubic metres is five to six loads of timber, so I think we need to take a closer look at what is being proposed there.
[1635]
Section 14 is obviously critical for those interests that have been affected by the Nisga'a final agreement. Part 14 will give effect to a number of changes in the way in which the impact of the Nisga'a final agreement will be felt -- how licensees will be reduced and so on. Again, there are a lot of questions that can and will be asked around this in committee stage. I'll set those aside for now and get into them in detail then.
We -- the opposition -- will also have a number of questions with respect to section 15, which makes some changes to the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act. In particular, what section 15 does is add two new definitions to the code. One definition is "maintain," and it reads: "
The definitions may be straightforward -- perhaps not, but they appear to be straightforward. I guess the question is: why
We know from the Ministry of Forests' own internal documents that maintenance of Forest Service roads is a very big challenge. We know, again from those documents, that the estimated cost -- at least, to do it all and do it well -- is around $30 million annually. It is going to be met in 1999-2000 with a $7 million contribution from the Ministry of Forests and another $3 million from a combination of Transportation and Highways and Forest Renewal B.C. So the government essentially has $10 million to deal with a $30 million problem.
Naturally, I want to be assured by the minister that the definitions that are being provided here and perhaps some of the other changes that are being suggested later in this section are not going to be changes which will lead directly or indirectly to an off-loading of costs onto others. Somehow we've been able to get along for the past few years without these definitions. Perhaps it's only a coincidence that the new definitions come at a time when there are these major question marks about Forest Service road maintenance. Perhaps it's coincidence; perhaps it's not. But we'll certainly be looking for powerful assurances from the minister that this is not the prelude of an off-load of this responsibility to industry or others.
Section 17 as well, I think, is something that deserves much attention. Certainly we need a full discussion of the implications of the changes in road use which are contemplated by section 17, and again, we will be directing those to the minister at committee stage.
[1640]
The last area I want to comment on briefly is section 36, otherwise known as part 10.1, which is an addition to the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act. It is entitled, as the minister has noted, "Pilot Projects to Improve the Regulatory Framework for Forest Practices." Now, I don't want to go through the whole section, but there are three points -- perhaps four points -- that I want to make about it. First of all, the scope of this. I'll just read subsection (1): "The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations respecting pilot projects to experiment with ways to improve the regulatory framework for forest practices." That's excellent and welcome.
The other points in here
"So the government -- and rightly so -- has said that they're going to be cautious in the implementation of this proposed pilot project, and it has to meet certain tests around the act in order to be acceptable.. . . the Lieutenant Governor in Council considers that the proposed pilot project"(i) will provide at least the equivalent protection for forest resources and resource features as that provided by this Act and the regulations made under this Act,
"(ii) will be consistent with the preamble of this Act, and
"(iii) will provide for adequate management and conservation of forest resources."
Bill 82 goes on to say:
"(4) All pilot projects, in a forest region, must not account for more thanIt also goes on with a further qualifier:"(a) 10% of the total of all allowable annual cuts in effect in the forest region on the coming into force of this section."
"(5) A pilot project may be established only in an area that is subject to a higher level plan, or an area subject to a regulation made under subsection (7)(f) for balancing competing values and interests."The concern I have with the number of qualifiers is that that may, in the end, be contrary or counterproductive to
[ Page 14279 ]
achieving the goals of, presumably, innovation, flexibility and accountability, which, hopefully, we want to see more of in the Forest Practices Code. Clearly this section 36 is part of the broader debate that we've been having in this province for a few years now around the reform of the Forest Practices Code. This side of the House and, I think, even others on the other side of the House certainly want to see the Forest Practices Code move from the highly prescriptive, process-oriented Forest Practices Code that we've had and continue to have in British Columbia to a results-based code. I think this is part of that debate. We have called for greater flexibility and accountability, and I think there is some hope here -- at least a prospect here -- that with these changes to the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act, we could see some greater flexibility and accountability in the code.
This is, I think, a step in the right direction. It is, if not half a loaf, perhaps 10 percent of a loaf, as that appears to be the
An Hon. Member: Slice.
G. Abbott: A slice of a loaf, as my colleague says. But the 10 percent limit on pilot projects, while it sort of may have some attraction from the perspective of caution, seems to me to be arbitrary at best and perhaps, in fact, a stifling of the intent of this section.
We know that proposed pilot projects, as I've noted, must meet tests set out in subsection (3)(b), and I've been through those. If we had a proposal that met those tests set out in (b) but which accounted for perhaps 11 percent or 12 percent or 15 percent of a region's AAC, perhaps because it made sense in the physical or other context of that particular region, would we want to see that proposal rejected for that reason only -- that it exceeded the 10 percent threshold or 10 percent figure? I don't think we would want to reject it simply for that reason. So we'll be pursuing the question of whether the 10 percent makes sense or whether that will have the effect of limiting opportunities for innovation.
[1645]
This is, hon. Speaker, a proposal that's in the right direction, because it offers an opportunity to move in the right direction -- that is, toward greater flexibility and greater accountability in the act. But in setting out that 10 percent limit, it may limit or circumscribe opportunities for innovation excessively and therefore defeat the purpose that is set out in the bill. Now, I certainly hope that's not the case. I suspect that the government will proceed with this bill as it is, so I hope that it's successful. But I suspect we will find in a year or two or less that there are good reasons to build in more flexibility, given the tests that we have put in place for this under subsection (3)(b).At any rate, those are my comments with respect to Bill 82. As I say, we will be pursuing these and many other questions in the committee stage of Bill 82.
Motion approved.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I move that Bill 82, by leave, be referred to a Committee of the Whole House later today.
Leave granted.
Bill 82, Forests Statutes Amendment Act, 1999, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration later today.
Hon. M. Farnworth: I call third reading of Bill 71.
FINANCE AND CORPORATE RELATIONS STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1999
Bill 71, Finance and Corporate Relations Statutes Amendment Act, 1999, read a third time and passed.Hon. M. Farnworth: I call third reading of Bill 72.
WATER AMENDMENT ACT, 1999
Bill 72, Water Amendment Act, 1999, read a third time and passed.Hon. M. Farnworth: I call second reading debate on Bill 87.
EDUCATION STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 1999
The amendments made to the School Act by this bill provide clear authority to the Minister of Education to assign personal education numbers or PENs to students in kindergarten-to-grade-12 and set out the purposes for which PENs may be used. These identification numbers are unique identifiers assigned to students when they enrol in an educational program.
[1650]
Personal education numbers have been used by the Ministry of Education for over ten years for a variety of administrative purposes. They have been used for administering provincial exams, for issuing Dogwood Certificates and transcripts and for making sure that students are accurately counted for funding purposes. By explicitly setting out the permitted uses of PENs in the statute, the amendments provide transparency for ministry activities and ensure that the uses of this information conform to freedom-of-information and protection-of-privacy legislation.The amendments to the School Act also authorize the Ministry of Education to assess individual students as part of the annual assessment program and to report that information on individuals and groups back to school boards and, through boards, to parents. The mechanism to collect the student-level data will be the personal education number, the PEN. Including PENs in the annual assessment will improve the ministry's ability to monitor and report on student performance and to provide more information on how individual students are doing -- both to parents and to students themselves. The annual assessment of students' foundation skills -- skills in literacy and numeracy -- enable the ministry to better assess the effectiveness of the core provincial curricula.
Parents want to know how their children are doing in relation to provincial norms. This increased ability to monitor and report on student performance will improve the ministry's communication and accountability to parents. The ministry has been making significant strides towards doing a better
[ Page 14280 ]
job of communicating regularly with parents, and these amendments will further enable the education system to give information to parents on how their children are doing in school.Through the use of PENs, the ministry will also gain accurate information on the performance of specific groups of students -- for example, ESL students or aboriginal students -- and that will enable us to gauge the success of educational programs and to identify areas that need improvement. The significance of this advance needs to be stressed. By using PENs, we'll be more accountable to the needs of our students and better equipped to track their performance and to make the necessary adjustments required to ensure that they succeed.
The amendments made by the bill to the various public post-secondary acts establish a statutory framework for the implementation of the personal education number project, the PEN project. The government is accountable to the people of British Columbia for the public post-secondary system. To meet that responsibility, the government must ensure that the education offered by our public post-secondary institutions is relevant, accessible and fiscally responsible. The PEN project is an initiative of the Ministry of Advanced Education, Training and Technology that will assist the ministry to measure its success in these areas and to identify where improvements are required.
The use of PENs will enable the tracking of student cohorts -- groups of students -- over time and across institutions, from kindergarten to grade 12 and through to post-secondary education. We will have more accurate and complete information about post-secondary students: who they are; where they come from; how they did in high school and how that experience affects their post-secondary experience; what their completion rates are for different programs; how much time is required to complete different programs; which programs enable students to obtain the employment they want; and how students make use of post-secondary services over time.
The PEN project will improve accountability by ensuring that the most accurate and complete information is available, first, for the reporting of post-secondary activity, and second, for program planning decisions and assessments of unmet student demand for courses and programs. The post-secondary institutions will themselves find PENs to be a valuable tool, both for administration and research purposes. It is anticipated that PENs will streamline application and registration procedures and allow post-secondary institutions to transfer data among themselves more easily. It will also allow them to do internal analyses of where their students come from, which will help with marketing plans.
To create the statutory framework to implement the PEN project, the bill amends the School Act and six post-secondary acts: the College and Institute Act, the Institute of Technology Act, the Open Learning Agency Act, the Royal Roads University Act, the Technical University of British Columbia Act and the University Act. The provisions of the University Act that are amended also apply to the University of Northern British Columbia.
[1655]
The PEN framework is created by providing the boards and institutions with both new powers and obligations. The boards of the various institutions are authorized to require that students and applicants provide the personal information the institutions need to obtain a personal education number -- a PEN -- for the student from the Ministry of Education. The boards are then required to provide that information to the Minister of Education to obtain a personal education number for each student. A complimentary obligation is imposed on the Minister of Education by the School Act amendments, requiring him to provide public post-secondary institutions with a PEN for each student.Students who have been enrolled in the kindergarten-to-grade-12 system since 1990 or who have sat for a provincial exam between 1985 and 1990 already have been assigned a personal education number, and the Minister of Education will identify that PEN and provide it to the institution. If the student is from another jurisdiction or was not assigned a PEN while in K-to-12 in British Columbia, the Minister of Education will assign the student a personal education number and provide it to the institution.
The amendments also authorize the Minister of Advanced Education, Training and Technology to require that the institutions provide personal information about students, including the PEN, upon request. Amendments to the School Act and the post-secondary acts provide for the exchange of student personal information between the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Advanced Education, Training and Technology for research and analysis purposes.
I want to emphasize that to protect the privacy interests of students, the Ministry of Advanced Education, Training and Technology is prohibited from using the personal information that it collects from the institutions or from the Ministry of Education to make decisions about individual students. This also reinforces that the ministry interest is in ensuring the relevance of programs and the efficient use of government funds in the post-secondary system. Of course, all of the safeguards of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act will apply both to the ministry and to the institutional use of personal education numbers.
The information and privacy commissioner originally recommended legislative amendments following his review of the privacy impact assessment prepared by the Ministry of Advanced Education, Training and Technology on the PEN project. The commissioner has reviewed the draft legislation and supports the proposed collection, use and disclosure of post-secondary students' personal information to create or validate PENs for program administration or for research or analysis as "reasonable." As well, organizations representing universities, colleges, institutes and students have been consulted, and all are supportive of the proposed expanded uses of PENs in the post-secondary system.
The PEN project is another example of the government's commitment to ensure a relevant and accessible advanced education for British Columbians and to ensure that it is delivered in the most effective and cost-efficient manner. The research and analysis that the use of PENs will facilitate will enable the government to make better decisions about kindergarten-to-grade-12 and post-secondary program planning and funding.
G. Hogg: I'm delighted to hear the comments that the minister has just read into the record with respect to Bill 87. I'm not vain enough to believe that the many conversations we had with respect to evaluation and accountability that recently took place in the estimates process resulted in these proposed changes that are taking place.
[ Page 14281 ]
An Hon. Member: Take a little credit.G. Hogg: My colleague says that I should in fact take full credit for the changes that are taking place. So I will therefore take some small credit, along with my colleagues, for the discussions we had with respect to the issues of evaluation, accountability and research, which we felt needed to take place.
[1700]
The issue of the PENs and the principles that are being put forward in terms of our ability to evaluate programs, to make some decisions about what we want our educational system to be able to provide us and to hold the system accountable at the individual school, school board and ministry levelsThe concern would be that there has to be, as the minister has pointed out, reasonable constraints on government authority and its ability to intervene in the lives of individuals and in the lives of people running the school districts. Some of the concerns certainly would be, in terms of that principle, in the management of reasonable constraints -- that there is the ability in this legislation for that to occur by way of order-in-council, rather than by having a full debate within the Legislature, as to how that might be exercised.
Also within the principle
In terms of the principle of being able to track students and being able to evaluate, manage, control and organize programs based on data that we're able to gather, I certainly support that principle. I'm interested in looking at how we ensure that we manage reasonable constraints on the intervention of government and build towards a more effective education system through these proposed changes.
J. Weisbeck: I just want to add a few comments to those made by the member for Surrey-White Rock. I guess there's no doubt that having a personal education number is a huge advantage. It allows us to track students as they move through the education system. It obviously would be invaluable tool for measuring outcomes and for future planning for our education system. Unfortunately, the feedback that I've had from various organizations is that there is an opportunity for abuse of the information. I think a lot of attention has been brought to light lately, particularly by the federal government, on issues of privacy, with the advent of Bill C-54 and whatever.
There is a report called "Privacy: Where Do We Draw the Line?" done by a House of Commons standing committee. I just want to read a couple of paragraphs out of the Chair's foreword:
"Privacy is one of the most comprehensive of all human rights -- broad, ambitious and valued around the world. Traditionally understood as the 'right to be left alone,' in this technological age, privacy has taken on new dimensions. To experts, privacy is the right to enjoy private space, to conduct private communications, to be free from surveillance and to respect the sanctity of one's body. To the average Canadian, privacy is a question of power -- the ability to control one's personal information and to remain anonymous by choice.I just thought it was interesting. One of the concerns put forward by the B.C. Freedom of Information and Privacy Association is that this bill is too broad. It leaves the opportunity for abuse of the information. I think one of their concerns was that it lacks the ability of consent. In other words, a student has to give this information to get his PEN, and he has no ability to opt out of this information request. I think that there are a number of concerns that we'd like to look into during committee stage. That concludes my remarks at this point."Privacy, however, is not an inalienable right. Where do we draw the line? Where is the balance between social and economic needs, such as crime and fraud prevention -- health services and business practices on the one hand and the protection of our private lives on the other? These questions have become all the more critical because once lost, our personal privacy can never be recaptured."
[1705]
G. Plant: I also want to speak to the privacy issue in Bill 87. I noted that during the course of his remarks, the Minister of Education made reference to the fact that this bill, I guess, had been taken out for a walk around the office of the information and privacy commissioner. Although it's a bit of a digression, I just want, for a moment or two, before dealing with the implications of that statement, to remark on the fact that the present occupant of the position of information and privacy commissioner in British Columbia is near the end of his term. As I recall, one of the features of the statute under which the information and privacy commissioner operates is that the holder of that position cannot be reappointed.I want to say -- in what may perhaps be the only public opportunity I will have to do this -- that I think that British Columbians have been well served by the work of David Flaherty over the past number of years. Mr. Flaherty and I have disagreed privately and publicly on a number of matters along the way, but that has not at any point undermined my sense that we were, as a province, pretty lucky to have someone of Mr. Flaherty's background and knowledge in what was for us a brand-new position. He has left a good legacy for British Columbians with the work that he's done, both to give effect to the access side of the statute he administers and also to the protection-of-privacy side of the act. Perhaps there are always arguments about room for improvement, and we'll see as time goes on whether or not it is in fact possible to make a good thing better. I just didn't want the moment to pass without saying that I thought Commissioner Flaherty has done a good job, and he needs to be commended for it.
That takes me to the particular provisions of Bill 87. I say what I am about to say mindful of the fact that the commissioner's office has apparently given its general seal of approval to what's in Bill 87. My colleague has pointed out the
[ Page 14282 ]
issue of consent. I think that most privacy codes would contain in them, as a principle around the protection of personal privacy, the principle that says that I am not entitled to infringe on the privacy of someone else without their consent. That's a good principle. I consider its application to the present case
[1710]
Moving on now to another aspect of what's before us, I want to look specifically at what will be section 170.1 of the School Act, and that's in section 12 of this bill. It's the section that defines a personal education number and gives the minister the power to assign such a number to various persons in the school system. Subsection (3) then goes on to say that the personal education number of a person referred to in subsection (2) may only be used for the following purposes; and then there's a list of those purposes.
[The Speaker in the chair.]
It will always be possible to argue about whether or not those purposes are stated with sufficient clarity. I suspect that we'll visit that briefly in committee stage debate and that the minister will explain why, from his perspective, each of those subparagraphs does in fact express something with sufficient clarity that the risk that this information will be abused is kept to an absolute minimum. That is the right thing to be mindful of -- that is, the risk that this information, once gathered, might be abused.
The information we're talking about is pretty powerful information. I dare say it's information which -- detached from any coordinated, organized way of assembling it with personal education numbers -- is nonetheless information that, over the course of many years, the system of public education and the other education authorities may not have been as careful with as perhaps they have become over the last few years in the administrative era of having to comply with the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. It would be a shame to do away with, unintentionally, some of that good.
I do intend to pursue the minister on the question of subparagraphs 170.1(3)(a) through (h), but I want now to put the minister on notice that I think the problem is subparagraph (3)(i) and subsection (4). The problem is this. The minister or the government -- having drafted the balance of the section in a way that is at least relatively precise, relatively confined -- then goes on to provide in these subsections that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council will have the power to "make regulations prescribing additional purposes for which the personal education number of a person may be used under this section." My concern is that that is unreasonably open-ended, discretionary authority.
If the minister knows now what other purposes a personal education number could be used for which could be expressed with the requisite level of precision, then we should make the list of particular purposes longer and stop there, rather than to use this admittedly convenient device of a basket clause, which is there in subsection (4). There are lots of contexts in which this issue of regulation-making power arises. On opposite sides of this House, we could have a debate about when it's appropriate that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council have broad discretion and when it's not appropriate.
My concern is this. When we are talking about privacy rights, I think that this is the place to have the tug-of-war about whether the balance has been correctly struck, rather than inside the cabinet room. The way that the provision that we've been looking at here works is that there are some specific purposes that these personal education numbers can be used for, and we can argue about whether or not the language describing those is sufficiently specific enough. But having achieved that goal, I think the government overreaches what it needs to do by going the one step further.
[1715]
Hon. Speaker, those remarks that you've just heard are, in a way, remarks that might ordinarily be more suited for committee stage debate. But on this occasion I want to impose upon the minister to hear the concerns that I have. At the moment, unless the minister proceeds otherwise, it will be my intention to move an amendment to this section -- when we get to it in committee stage debate -- to remove temptation from the grasp of the cabinet by repealing the offending provisions of that section.That is the issue that concerns me in the context of Bill 87. Like my colleagues, I do not generally quarrel with the proposition that a properly administered system of recording personal education numbers and using them to obtain certain types of information is a good step forward in terms of gathering the data that would help the minister and the government to administer the public education system and also help his colleague the Minister of Advanced Education and minister for the post-secondary system.
I am generally supportive of the initiative. It just seems to me, I suppose, a shame to taint what is otherwise a reasonably good initiative with what I think are a clause or two that overreach. Those are my last remarks.
J. Dalton: My colleagues have hit upon my particular concern about this bill. I just want a couple of things to be on the record. I see that the minister is taking some notes, so perhaps he will be prepared to address these concerns at the committee stage.
My colleague from Richmond-Steveston has just commented about one of my concerns in section 12 of the bill, which is the new section 170.1 of the School Act, and that is, as he put it, the sort of overstretch of the authority given to the minister under subsection (3), given that, as the member for Richmond-Steveston pointed out, subsection (4) allows the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to add even further to a list of eight itemized items which are in subsection (3). Certainly I would be very troubled to see any more authority being granted beyond that.
My other particular concern lies within subsection (3) of 170.1. I realize that this is second reading, hon. Speaker, but I want to flag this for the minister. Our critic, the member for Surrey-White Rock, pointed this out. I am particularly troubled by subsection (3)(d), because this would allow the
[ Page 14283 ]
minister
Perhaps just before I get into that
So I will be listening intently at committee stage and perhaps asking some questions on this issue, because I think, certainly from my point of view, that this is central to the concern I had when I read through this bill. Other than that, we will await further comment and see how this plays out at committee stage.
[1720]
The Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, I recognize the Minister of Education for closing remarks.Hon. P. Ramsey: Thank you, hon. Speaker -- only a couple of very brief closing remarks. I think the comment has been very thoughtful. Indeed, this is exactly the balance that this act has to strike, and that's the balance between collecting information and using it to improve the education system, on the one hand, and protection of the privacy of those from whom the information is collected, on the other hand. I think this act seeks to strike that balance. I look forward to discussing with members opposite the various provisions of the bill at committee stage.
With that, I move second reading.
Motion approved.
Bill 87, Education Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1999, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.
Hon. P. Priddy: I call third reading of Bill 58.
PENSION BENEFITS STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT, 1999
K. Krueger: Well, this is a sad day. In the lengthy period of time that has passed since we concluded the committee debate on Bill 58, I had actually begun to allow some false hope to arise within myself that the government had changed its mind about this particularly odious piece of legislation and had relented. So it's a sad and shocking day, because this is a shocking bill. It's an attack on pensioners, on seniors and on working people who think they have a hope of enjoying a pension and pension benefits one day.There's a familiar expression to describe people who have lost their moral compass or who perhaps have never had a moral compass. The expression is that they'd sell their own grandmothers. This is a bill that does that. It attacks and sells out grandmothers, grandfathers, pensioners and workers. It attacks them; it attacks the security they thought they had. It attacks the things that they believed they could depend upon in the years when their earning potential declines. It attacks those rewards that they set by for themselves through the hard labours of their working lives.
What has emerged over the past number of weeks, through the course of second reading debate and committee debate on Bill 58, is that Bill 58 is indeed what it appeared to be. It is just as obnoxious and nasty and objectionable and reprehensible as it appeared to be.
Governments should create and protect the security of the citizens that those governments represent. Democratic governments should be reliable and never attack people's security, never undermine them, never participate in the wrongful breach of contracts that those citizens had in place to protect themselves at any time in their lives, let alone as seniors. Governments should never, ever be changing the rules in this manner, when people have spent their lives believing that they can depend on certain things, on certain financial securities that they negotiated for themselves and that they have paid into for themselves. A government should never betray the trust of its people the way that Bill 58 does.
What are people supposed to do? Many of the people that this legislation attacks have very small pensions. The building trades unions' pensions apparently average just over $500 per month for those pensioners who are being attacked by this legislation. Nobody could live on that amount. The minister has quoted amounts of $20,000 to $30,000 per year for pensioners when he's dealt with the concerns over this bill on public radio talk shows and in his newspaper releases. But the fact is that many of these people are only receiving in the neighbourhood of $6,000 per year, and many of them receive less than that -- amounts as small as $240 per month.
Those pensioners now see that little bit of security that they thought they had being shattered. They believed, when they took their pensions, when they agreed to so-called early retirement, that they would be able to subsidize that income with the earnings they would make, doing what they were good at, doing that thing that they trained for and worked at all their lives and became experts at. Suddenly, along comes an NDP government -- of all people -- and pulls that carpet out from underneath them, eroding the security they thought they had, destroying their life plans and the things they thought they could depend upon.
[1725]
We asked the NDP whether they were really prepared to die on this hill, whether they really were going to support a piece of legislation that has these sorts of consequences for people's lives, that gives rise to the kind of concerns that have been expressed to this government in the many faxes, letters, letters to the editor and phone calls that I know the minister has been receiving. I've certainly been receiving copies of them.We tried various means to allow the government a graceful exit from this wrongful path that it launched itself upon.
[ Page 14284 ]
We tried a hoist amendment, and the members opposite stood up en masse and withdrew that opportunity for themselves. They refused to allow a hoist amendment. They refused to allow this bill to be taken out to the public and be re-examined.
The Speaker: Hon. member, with some hesitation I interrupt, but I need to remind you and members about third reading debate and the nature of that debate. It is to be confined precisely to the provisions of the bill. So, in a sense, its sections
K. Krueger: I'm sorry if I didn't make it clear that that's what I'm doing. The most specific focus of concern in this bill is section 48 and subsection (c) of section 48, and that is what I am particularly alluding to. We thought that at least the government might consider a motion to avoid retroactivity of this very objectionable provision. My colleague the member for Vancouver-Quilchena moved an amendment to avoid that retroactivity, seeking at least to provide comfort to people who have already taken early retirement not to have the big guns of this legislation come to bear on them. But no, this government refused to allow that retroactivity to be avoided. This government refused to support the amendment. And once again, every NDP MLA opposite stood up and voted against grandmothers, grandfathers, pensioners and workers.
In fact, the minister referred to my colleague's amendment as a grandfathering amendment. It was the minister who introduced that term -- grandfathering -- to this debate. And rightfully so, because many of these people are grandfathers and grandmothers. You don't get to be a pensioner without generally having put in a good many years of your labour: 20 years, 30 years, 35 years. There are people who have put in that number of years and are still in their fifties, and who are going to be affected and are already being affected by this legislation. Some of their cases have been made very public in recent weeks.
The minister's term "grandfathering" wasn't a bad term to describe the amendment that we tried to bring in to protect grandfathers, grandmothers and pensioners. But the NDP caucus, once again, voted against that amendment. We ask them again: why are you attacking grandfathers and grandmothers, pensioners and workers? Why is this happening? Has the NDP lost its mind? It's very unclear to people how this could possibly be. There have been letters to the editor published by people who were founding members of the NDP -- people who went door to door building that party and who just cannot believe that section 48(c) of Bill 58 would be introduced, let alone passed, by an NDP government.
I'm advised that even building trade unions -- individual unions -- are opposed to this legislation and shocked that the government would bring it forward. Certainly there are a couple of building trades unions -- notably the carpentry workers' pension plan and the sheet metal workers' pension plan -- that wanted this legislation. It seems to us that possibly this government was under the mistaken belief that all of the building trade unions wanted it, but apparently that's not the case. Apparently the Building and Construction Trades Council is disavowing any desire to have had this legislation brought in. So one wonders why the government continues to march over the edge of the precipice and into this particular abyss. Is it just pride that this government insists on proceeding with legislation that has caused so much alarm and will cause so much hurt in people's lives? It's unclear to us -- and to the public -- whether this government has, in effect, lost its mind.
People consider these pensions the property of the pensioners who earned them. These people probably, in many cases, joined their unions believing that a good reason to do that was that they would enjoy a decent income and security in their old age -- the security of a pension -- and some benefits along the way. What a betrayal for those individuals to now have some of their unions and this NDP government take that security away from them, take away those rights that they knew were negotiated for them way back when they made the decision to join a union in the first place.
[1730]
We have had 35 NDP MLAs stand up, time and again, on the opposite side of the House and proceed to push on with this legislation regardless. We want to be clear on the record that the B.C. Liberals will repeal this odious and objectionable legislation when we form the government. We will not stand for this abuse of seniors, grandmothers, grandfathers, pensioners and workers. We will not stand for this erosion of the security that people are entitled to and believe that they're entitled to, as citizens of British Columbia -- the people who elect us and the people who elected the members opposite.This is a desperate move by a desperate government -- and very, very ill advised. This government is already at record low standings in the polls. When the security people thought they had is attacked by provisions such as section 48(c) of Bill 58, then what little support this government continues to enjoy from those stalwart union members who thought the NDP was their party vanishes. I would not be at all surprised if the government's popularity in the polls is reduced from the low standing it already has to single digits by that provision alone.
Once again, this government is attempting to fulfil the agenda of its friends by enacting ill-advised legislation which will actually hurt the very organizations -- the building trades unions -- it thought it was setting out to help. And it will do so at the expense of the people of British Columbia and our economy. People across Canada look at British Columbia and think: "What a wing-nut government! How could any government possibly do something as ill-advised, wrongheaded and ridiculous as attacking pensioners' rights?"
It has been illegal in B.C. up until now for people's pensions to be suspended in this manner. It's illegal right across Canada. This is not allowed. This is the only jurisdiction that has marched into this territory, and now British Columbia is again a negative standout.
Interjection.
K. Krueger: The minister will have his chance, I'm sure.
The Speaker: Members
K. Krueger: Once again, he's red in the face.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Members, come to order, please. The member for Kamloops-North Thompson has the floor and knows the rules about third reading debate.
[ Page 14285 ]
K. Krueger: This bill installs the mechanism for the expansion of section 48(c) and its provisions to other pension plans as well. The minister and I canvassed that in committee debate, and he finally came around to the point of agreeing that it's a very simple process from here to expanding these odious provisions to other pensions in this province. Every pensioner in this province should be concerned about the potential for that happening. None of these pensioners thought that an NDP government would ever attack them in this way. Why would any pensioner of any other plan administered by the laws of British Columbia not fear that the very same provisions could be brought to bear against them and their security and the security of their families?What are the ramifications, for example, for public sector pension entitlements? What relationship will there be between this bill and the public sector pension bills that are before this House and have yet to come up for second reading? We hear the advertisement of the B.C. Federation of Labour, using senior citizens' voices to suggest that that legislation is a good idea. Those pensioners will be having the very same qualms that I'm having, I'm sure. Just as they don't want to believe that a government would ever attack public service pensioners' rights, the pensioners of the building trades unions never thought this would happen either.
[1735]
Mr. David Lord -- whose case has been very prominent in demonstrating the effect on people's lives -- never, ever expected that an NDP government -- or his union, for that matter -- would attack his security and his rights. He told me so himself. He voted NDP for 30 years and would never, ever do it again, because this is the party that has set about attacking the rights of pensioners -- with the unions and the NDP collaborating on this, to the shock of union membership across this province and former NDP supporters throughout British Columbia. Nobody trusts the assurances of this government. Nobody believes that this government wouldn't also attack them in the same way that the pensioners of the multi-employer pension plans, as admitted to by the minister thus far in this debate, have been attacked.The government tried to sneak this through. The bill was introduced at first reading as a measure to protect pensioners. The minister stood up at the beginning of second reading debate and said that he didn't expect any debate on the subject, of all things. He's enacting legislation that is unique in British Columbia and that attacks pensioners' security as has never been allowed before. The minister stood up and said he wasn't expecting second reading debate. When we asked why pensioners would have to go work to supplement their meagre pension benefits, the minister called out: "How about greed?" Of all the shocking things! It does not demonstrate greed for a pensioner to go out and work with his or her hands and try to make some additional money to supplement their pension benefits after they've retired. It doesn't demonstrate greed; it probably demonstrates need. It certainly demonstrates initiative and the ability to perform a service that's valuable in the economy and valuable to that pensioner and to his or her family or dependents.
There was no exposure draft of this legislation. It was never put out in White Paper form for people to have a look at beforehand. Why would that be? We believe it was because the government didn't want to have to face the consequences that it has faced in public opinion around section 48(c) and others. This minister continues to desperately try to hide the truth about section 48(c). I refer to his publication in the Vancouver Sun, which makes points like this: the legislation he has proposed, he says, will not allow the government to take away the pensions earned by employees. The explanatory notes on the page facing section 48(c) make it very clear that it is the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council that will enact the regulations that will suspend these people's pensions.
The minister claims in this same article that this legislation will not stop people from working in non-union jobs. He must be saying that with his tongue in his cheek. I guess he's rationalizing that they'll stop themselves because they don't want to lose their pension, so it isn't the government that's stopping them. The fact is that this legislation will put them in a position of forfeiting their pension if they're caught working in their particular trade and skill, so it indeed does oblige them to stop working if they're going to continue enjoying their pension benefits. The minister said it will not stop them from working in their own businesses. The way that it's worded, it certainly will. That is their trade and industry, and that's what the legislation refers to.
The minister has indicated to us that there will be regulations that clarify all this. But this legislation has been on the books for years. This same provision was in Bill 44, which was hoisted in 1997. The minister has had plenty of time, and so has the NDP, to draft any such regulations to give people those assurances. In fact, there's no reason why that detail couldn't have been included in this legislation if the minister is telling the truth. But we believe that people have cause for concern in all these areas.
Interjections.
K. Krueger: Now I hear the members opposite calling out that it will be the trustees that ask for suspension of people's pensions. Well, the legislation doesn't say that. It's not anywhere in the legislation at all. The minister called that out, as well, all throughout the second reading and committee debate. It will not be the trustees; it will be the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council who will make the decisions about whose pensions are suspended.
The minister says in this article that this legislation affects 33 multi-employer pension plans out of almost 1,000 plans in place in our province. But then he went on in the committee stage debate to admit how very easy it is for people's pension plans to come within the scope of so-called multi-employer plans and thereby be subject to this legislation. Regardless, we've seen over and over again how this government will do what it wants to, as the Forests minister described it, and will retroactively give themselves the authority -- conclusively deem themselves, as they have said -- to do such things.
[1740]
The Speaker: Member, Bill 58. The specific provisions of Bill 58 are what third reading is about -- specific provisions of the bill.K. Krueger: I seek to clarify the effects on people's lives of section 48(c) of Bill 58. That is specifically what this minister was writing about when he published this article in the Vancouver Sun.
The Speaker: The provisions of the bill, hon. member.
K. Krueger: Yes, hon. Speaker. The minister says that a person opting for early retirement will take benefits for a
[ Page 14286 ]
period not covered by the payments made to the plan. That's very debatable. These people negotiated a certain salary; they negotiated for pension entitlement. These people believe that they have paid the price up front in reduced salary in exchange for the pension entitlements that this minister is now attacking. That isn't a valid point at all. The minister goes on to say that they will guard against abuse of this optionThe Speaker: Member, the provisions of the bill are what the debate in third reading is to be about. It is limited to the provisions of the bill. Simple repetition of the number of the section isn't sufficient. Member, confine your remarks, please, to that area.
K. Krueger: When we consider section 48(c) and the fact that under the provisions of that section people's pensions will be stopped, we ask ourselves obvious questions such as: how will they ever start them again? Will there be any appeal ability? What will be the mechanics of these things? None of those questions are answered properly by this legislation, because the wording is very brief and to the point. It specifically sets out this government's ability to suspend those pensions. It doesn't say how the people will get them back.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Members, order, please.
K. Krueger: It's interesting to hear the hostile reaction from across the way, hon. Speaker, isn't it? There's a great sensitivity around this matter.
The fact is that it is the government which will suspend people's pensions; that is what the bill says. It won't be the trustees; it'll be the government itself. It set out to do this deliberately. The government knew, as it turns out -- or the government certainly should have known, because the carpentry workers' pension plan had published on the minister's own web site the fact that it had been actively suspending people's pensions for some time, wanted to continue to do so and was annoyed at this government for not enacting a provision such as this earlier to give the carpentry workers' pension plan the ability to suspend people's pensions
We asked the minister whether he was willing to advertise to those pensioners who had had their benefits wrongfully suspended. The minister said no, he wasn't. Instead, he ran a bunch of ads promoting the government's view of this legislation. He spent $20,000, he told us -- I wouldn't be surprised if it was more -- promoting this government's propaganda on Bill 58 instead of alerting those pensioners to the fact that they were ripped off.
The minister admits that
There was a grudging commitment during the debate from this minister to help those pensioners who have been ripped off by that illegal practice up until now. But it's very questionable, the level of energy that the government has put into that. Apparently it has devoted its advertising budget instead to this advertising, promoting Bill 58 on its own behalf.
[1745]
This does attack all the confidence that people have -- what confidence they have left -- as residents of British Columbia that their interests are protected by this government. It's incredible to me and incredible to many that an NDP government would ever have resorted to anything as wrongheaded and goofy as this. These pensioners have been ripped off, bullied, coerced -- and why? Why would a government ever allow and sanction, let alone legislate, something like that? Why aren't there any regulations for a piece of legislation that's been in the works so long?The minister essentially said: "Trust us." He finally handed over a little Mickey Mouse document that contained some alleged principles of the contemplated regulations, a shabby little document. When we tried to ask questions of him, he was very shy on the details. He eventually got annoyed and refused to provide more detail.
Will there be pension police? Who will catch these pensioners? Who will go out and find them working when they're already on their paltry pensions? Who will do that job? Will people travel around in surplus photo radar vans with tinted windows and snoop on them? Will they spy on them with telephoto lenses?
The Speaker: Member, please. I encourage the member to elevate the language usage and the attitude that's described here.
On the specifics of the bill -- this is supposed to be very limited debate.
K. Krueger: Looking at section 48(c) and the unions' ability and the government's ability to implement it, the way that pensioners will be identified, the way that they'll be dealt with -- these are the kinds of details that people are asking for throughout this province, and those answers have not been emerging.
The B.C. Liberals warned the NDP: "You'll never know what hit you if you enact this legislation. You will lose what little support you have left in this province." But instead of listening to that, the government is moving against pensioners. And when it passes Bill 58 at third reading today -- if it does
We have tried to help the government back away from this, as I mentioned, with the hoist motion and with the non-
[ Page 14287 ]
retroactivity amendment, because we believe this is appalling. It is penalizing pensioners for having the initiative to go out and contribute to the economy and to their families by doing what they're good at. It's discriminatory, it's unfair, and it's very arbitrary and entirely contrary to generally accepted principles of pension administration throughout this great country of ours. It is hardly protection of pensioners, as the minister has repeatedly characterized it.It's a gift, we believe, to those few building trade unions who were advocating for it, and the other building trade unions are very concerned about it. The term that I heard from them is that their membership is ballistic over this. They're offended that their rights are being attacked by a New Democratic Party government. These provisions are described as draconian and appalling and shocking.
The B.C. superintendent of pensions only last year won a court case in the B.C. Supreme Court against a union that was using these very pension provisions against its members. And instead of rewarding her, instead of backing her up, instead of commending her, this government introduces legislation to make that objectionable practice legal.
[1750]
There are ties into the HCL structure and its rich pension fund as part of this legislation. The minister confirmed to us in committee debate that many pensioners from HCL-model employment will never be able to collect any pension money, despite the fact that the taxpayer is paying $3.05 per hour for each hour they work on HCL projects into the HCL pension fund. The minister confirmed that all of that money will be rolled over into building trade union pension funds, yet those people will be disentitled to claim any of that money if they don't get over the thresholds that Bill 58 imposes as part of the mechanism for ensuring that HCL funds continue to flow to the benefit of building trades union pension funds.There are so many aspects of this pension suspension provision and the bill that enshrines it that are objectionable to people. It's shocking to me and to many that any NDP MLA would ever agree to vote for it.
We look at some of the commentary that we've read with regard.
The Speaker: Member, on the bill, directly on the bill -- not external information but just on the bill.
K. Krueger: Yes, hon. Speaker.
Bob Coldin, the business manager for the Sheet Metal Workers Union, that very pension plan which gave rise to a lot of the publicity around this case, that took Mr. David Lord's pension benefits away from him and led to the court case last year in the Supreme Court
The Speaker: The hon. member will notice that the red light is now on; your time is up.
Interjection.
The Speaker: You're the designated speaker. Thank you, member.
K. Krueger: As I was saying, that very union -- the sheet metal workers' pension plan -- which brought all of this illegal activity to light last year, has an employee named Bob Coldin, the union's business manager, who has publicly said that he would personally like to see the provision expanded to include other sectors, such as police or firefighters, who he said sometimes take poorer-paying jobs as security guards or construction workers on their days off or in retirement.
Jim Sinclair, the new president of the B.C. Federation of Labour, said that he doesn't
The Speaker: Member, on Bill 58. I'm not sure that the quotes have anything to do with the bill. So please, on the bill. They are not quoted in the bill; they're not part of the bill.
K. Krueger: I just haven't made it clear to you why they are related to the bill, but they specifically relate to section 48, because these people are the people who brought on Bill 58, section 48. They're the people that this minister's trying to serve by bringing in this legislation, and they're talking about expanding it. The minister has said that he doesn't have those intentions. He doesn't intend to apply these odious provisions to public sector plans, but the B.C. Federation of Labour's newly minted president and Mr. Bob Coldin, the
The Speaker: On the bill, member.
K. Krueger:
We know that at the end of the Second World War, when it was clear that Germany was losing the war
The Speaker: On the bill, member.
K. Krueger:
The Speaker: Hon. member, relevancy, please. On the bill.
K. Krueger: I'm suggesting that this minister and this Premier, in asking the NDP MLAs to vote for Bill 58 -- and most specifically, section 48 -- are asking those NDP MLAs to commit electoral suicide. Nobody will want to vote for a government that has enacted provisions like this -- precedent-setting provisions in Canada, the only government that has moved to make it legal to suspend pensioners' pension rights in this country of ours -- an NDP provincial government, of all the unlikely choices.
Interjection.
K. Krueger: I hear the member for Comox Valley shouting out her support for this legislation. She will be taken to account for it by the pensioners, the many people in her constituency
The Speaker: Member, on Bill 58. On the provisions of the bill, member. Otherwise, your comments recently are just irrelevant.
K. Krueger: We're talking about suspension of people's pension rights. This is the pension suspension bill. There is not a person in British Columbia, I believe, who doesn't hope that one day, when they approach old age -- when they approach
[ Page 14288 ]
the day when they're no longer able to work to support themselves -- they will enjoy the security of the pensions that are supposed to be in place for them, whether they're public sector pensions, whether they are the social security pensions that people enjoy or certainly whether they are pensions that they have paid into all of their lives, as many of these people have. There's a bitter disappointment out there. Members like the member for Comox Valley, who refused to address the injustice and wrong of this bill, of this specific section, section 48(c)
[1755]
I. Chong: I too would like to rise to offer some comments on third reading. I am mindful that third reading debate is limited to the scope of the provisions of the bill and the contents of the bill. I would like to raise some concerns regarding those things that were discussed at committee stage as well.
I am pleased that the members on this side of the House, during committee stage, were able to offer and have the government accept three amendments to this legislation. Those amendments, while they may appear minor and insignificant on the surface
We all acknowledged during committee stage debate and second reading that the most difficult section of this piece of legislation was indeed section 48, which dealt with the suspension of pension benefits for those who would seek to exercise their option for early retirement. While we continue to disagree with that, what was not raised during the committee stage or at second reading, I believe, was the issue of seeking approval of those 10,000 members who this legislation will be affecting. I don't believe that that area was canvassed and that that viewpoint was thoroughly expressed. As I understand it, we should be able to discuss that and have the minister consider that when this bill is implemented.
We understand, as I've stated, that 10,000 members are affected by this, and they have not had the opportunity -- through whatever consultation process was in place -- to have their concerns raised. We understand that the debate on this was limited and that pension members -- current members and those who have already exercised their option for early retirement -- did not have the opportunity to provide input. That is what the member for Kamloops-North Thompson, our Labour critic, tried to express: what would have been important is for an exposure draft, a discussion paper, a White Paper, to have been released to allow for that consultation, to allow for that input.
As was stated by the previous member, we know that the reason for this pension legislation was to provide for the suspension of benefits as a result of a court case that was not successful -- not successful in the eyes of the government but certainly successful in the eyes of the applicant. For that reason, I want to raise once again that this was a piece of legislation that we believe was hurried through, as opposed to having the benefit of a pension industry-wide consultation. We also know that many people who are going to be affected by this piece of legislation do feel that the Pension Benefits Standards Act, being highly complex and extremely technical, will run into some more difficulties in the years to follow as a result of this particular piece of legislation.
I can only hope that those who are responsible in drafting pension regulations, which I know will come forward, will in fact limit the ability of pension managers to suspend benefits to those who seek early retirement and that they will take into consideration all those things that were raised in debates at committee stage and at second reading.
I wanted to conclude that while we all acknowledge that this piece of legislation was a desperate move by this government, we will have to wait and see what occurs. We will listen to those pension members that come forward and ask us to consider repealing this when we form government.
[1800]
On that note, I would like to say that noting the hour, I move adjournment of debate and ask to reserve my place when the debate resumes after the supper hour.Motion approved.
Hon. P. Priddy: I would move that the House, at its rising, stand recessed until 6:40 and thereafter sit until adjournment.
Motion approved.
The House recessed from 6:01 p.m. to 6:41 p.m.
[The Speaker in the chair.]
Hon. D. Lovick: I move, by leave, that the following bills at committee stage be considered in Section A of Committee of the Whole, to be considered forthwith -- namely, Bill 91, Unclaimed Property Act; Bill 80, Liquor Statutes Amendment Act, 1999; and Bill 82, Forests Statutes Amendment Act, 1999.
Leave granted.
Hon. D. Lovick: In this House, I call third reading of Bill 58.
PENSION BENEFITS STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT, 1999
(continued)
Many people have worked and contributed to a pension plan for a long time -- in some cases for 35 years, as one of my constituents did. Every hour they spend working, they make a contribution which is often and most times matched by an
[ Page 14289 ]
employer. People think that they're vested in a pension so that when they retire, whether it be early retirement or at the age of 60 or 65, they are going to get that pension. It's their pension; it's their property. They're the ones that contributed into it; they're the ones that are vested. Their concern is that somebody can claw that back from them.My concern is for the people that are outside the box, as to what Bill 58 can do to them. Because of that, I really don't feel very strongly that the consultative process was complete on this particular piece of legislation. I can't understand why, when reviewing legislation relative to pensions across this country, we didn't send this bill out for a consultative process so that we could come to a piece of legislation that would work for and take care of those concerns of people.
I know you can't get into specific names or whatever in third reading debate, relative to legislation. An example is someone whose spouse gets cancer after they've retired at 55 or 57, who can't find work at the hiring hall relative to the union because of their age and their inability to do so. Then they go back out and under section 48 lose their pension. This would be unacceptable to me. That's the human factor of this legislation that hasn't been canvassed outside of this House. To bring a piece of legislation to the floor of the Legislature that doesn't take care of the worries and concerns of the people that have invested their money in these pensions is a concern that I have relative to Bill 58.
[1845]
I don't see that as a greed factor. I don't see that as a factor of people abusing a system. Oftentimes things in life change, and people have to beWhen I think about it, the other concern I have relative to this bill is: is this bill really about the people that have invested in pensions and about protecting those people and giving them what is theirs? Or is this about taking care of groups of people that have been running pension plans and have invested them badly? Today they can't pay the full benefits, so rather than admit their mistakes and go out and raise the contributions that are necessary to make those pension plans viable today, they claw it back from the people that have worked for 25 or 30 or 40 years to get those pensions. They'd rather take it out of their pockets than get the people that are actually working in the industry to pay their contribution to up the stakes.
If this is about bad investments and careless management of pension funds and trying to protect that, this bill is wrong. It's absolutely wrong from that perspective. If this is about clawing back from people who have pensions and need limited and fixed incomes to live on so that you can augment the mistakes of the investment of a pension plan, that's wrong.
I believe that is what this is about. I believe that this particular piece of legislation has missed the boat, simply because it doesn't have a consultative process. It has scared people out there in the public. They are concerned that they're about to lose what they've contributed to, and they are concerned about how this affects them.
In addition, I think this is about bad management. It's about making allowances for the bad management of pensions by putting in place a piece of legislation to protect a group of people that haven't managed the funds of the people who fundamentally put their own money into pension funds that have been badly managed. Now the deemed benefit is being affected. When their deemed benefit is affected, it's wrong to claw it back from them. They're the wrong ones to claw it from. Why don't we open it up to the fact that pensions should be open and transparent? The investments of these pension funds should be open and transparent, and the people that are contributing should be able to find out exactly what's happening to their money.
Bill 58 is a gross attack on people who don't need to be attacked. It's a gross attack on their rights; it's a defence of some mistakes of the past. Rather than fixing the mistakes of the past in investments and what have you by having the industry effect that, we'd rather take it off the backs of the people that need it the most. That's why I'm opposed to this piece of legislation.
The Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, I recognize the Minister of Labour for final comments before we put the vote.
Hon. D. Lovick: It is sorely tempting for me to respond to all of the points that have been made in this House in the last hour, save and except for the 35 minutes during which we recessed. But I think that if I did, I would probably be abusing the very rules that I would accuse others of having abused, so I'm going to resist the temptation.
[1850]
We have canvassed this bill and the issues therein at great, great length. Some passionate words were exchanged on both sides. I am certainly as guilty as any of the passion of the debate. Much of the passion was based on the proposition that I introduced -- namely, that the opposition members, the critic more specifically, were not accurately representing what this bill is indeed about. Rather than rehash that at this point, I think what I will do -- in keeping with the purpose and principle of third reading -- is simply extend a public invitation to anybody who is concerned about what this bill is and is not and what it does and does not. I would invite them to (a) read the legislation and (b) read the entire debate, second reading as well as committee stage. I think they will receive all the assurances that I could give them.This bill is not what the members opposite suggest it is. It is not an attack on pensioners; it is not an attack on seniors and grandparents, as we heard. I am distressed that anything to do with working people -- more specifically, anything to do with trade unions -- is apparently seen by the opposition as a reason to rise up in righteous indignation and speak out and suggest that everything that is done from this side of the House is simply a favour to union bosses, thugs, goons -- whatever the term happens to be across the way that week. I am saddened by that, because that's not what debate in this chamber is supposed to be about.
I stand by everything I have said in this chamber about this bill. I suggest that members opposite would not have as much comfort doing so -- as the record, and a clear analysis of the record, would show. With that, hon. Speaker, I move third reading.
Bill 58, Pension Benefits Standards Amendment Act, 1999, read a third time and passed on the following division:
[1855]
[ Page 14290 ]
| YEAS -- 35 | ||
| Evans | McGregor | Kwan |
| G. Wilson | Hammell | Boone |
| Streifel | Pullinger | Lali |
| Stevenson | Calendino | Walsh |
| Randall | Gillespie | Robertson |
| Priddy | Petter | Miller |
| G. Clark | Dosanjh | MacPhail |
| Sihota | Lovick | Ramsey |
| Farnworth | Waddell | Hartley |
| Smallwood | Sawicki | Bowbrick |
| Kasper | Doyle | Giesbrecht |
| Goodacre | Janssen | |
| NAYS -- 28 | ||
| Whittred | Farrell-Collins | Plant |
| Abbott | Neufeld | Coell |
| Chong | Sanders | Jarvis |
| Anderson | Nettleton | Weisgerber |
| J. Wilson | McKinnon | J. Reid |
| Dalton | Barisoff | van Dongen |
| Symons | Thorpe | Krueger |
| Hansen | Stephens | Coleman |
| Hawkins | Hogg | Nebbeling |
| Weisbeck | ||
RESIDENTIAL TENANCY AMENDMENT ACT, 1999
The House in committee on Bill 75; W. Hartley in the chair.[1900]
Sections 1 to 11 inclusive approved.On section 12.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I move the amendment to section 12 standing in my name in Orders of the Day.
[SECTION 12, in that part re-enacting section 57 (7) by striking out "section 46 or 47" and substituting "section 37, 46 or 47".]On the amendment.
G. Plant: Would the minister be kind enough to explain the significance of this amendment?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: In addition to the other sections -- sections 46 or 47 -- the amendment refers to section 37, which is also one of the sections that's impacted.
G. Plant: Could the minister elaborate on that a little bit -- perhaps referring less to the numbers and more to what's actually happening -- so that we don't have to get the act out and find out what section 37 says for the purpose of this issue?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Subsection (7) of section 12 refers to orders of possession under sections 37, 46 or 47. Section 37 wasn't mentioned earlier. It's now being included, and it simply indicates that those orders may not be filed in the court until the expiry of the time limit for application for review under section 60.
Amendment approved.
On section 12 as amended.
R. Coleman: My concern with section 12 of the act is about some of the timing issues -- basically the portion of this section where the appeal for review can't take place until the decision is received. If I'm not mistaken, this is the section that allows that
My concern is: how are we going to control the excess of 30 days for arbitrators to make a decision? I think the intent here is to tighten it up so that decisions are made in a prudent, early and quick manner. My concern is that we're still leaving the door open for long delays relative to arbitration decisions.
[1905]
Hon. U. Dosanjh: The hon. member makes a reasonable point, but it is difficult to say to an arbitrator: "You must hear a particular case within a certain time limit." That kind of time limit is very difficult to impose. I know that most cases are heard on time, and I know that the hon. member is talking about a particular case, which I won't talk about. I'm told that there is a particular case. With respect to that kind of matter, I'm told that the ministry is going to provide some guidelines and put them in place. But you can't put a time limit on, for instance, the courts or on arbitrators as to what time limit there has to be in terms of hearing a case.
R. Coleman: Perhaps in understanding the situation
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I think there are two issues here. One is whether or not one places a limit on the time period within which an arbitrator has to hear and conclude a case. We're then talking, as well, about a time limit within which the arbitrator
Just because you have jurisdiction ongoing after you've heard the matter doesn't mean that you can leave the matter pending without a decision. But the earlier time limit that the hon. member was talking about is: within which time period does the arbitrator have to hear a particular case? I don't believe we can impose that kind of time limit. I think we can
[ Page 14291 ]
provide some guidelines for them to work through; and if there are unreasonable delays, obviously we may have to revisit the issue.
I know the hon. member is talking about a particular case, and I'm told that
G. Plant: Well, I'm not going to ask about a particular case. What we have here is a situation where the statute is going to impose a mandatory obligation on arbitrators. The obligation is to give their decision or order without delay and, in any event, within 30 days after the hearing. Then we have a form of qualification on that obligation, if you will, in that the failure to comply with the obligation won't result in a loss of jurisdiction.
Speaking as a lawyer, I suppose I can understand the dilemma that the government faces. It's probably a worse result to have an arbitrator hear a matter and then delay more than 30 days and then lose jurisdiction, which would require the whole thing to be started all over again. I'm sure it's a good example of trying to choose the lesser of two evils. Nonetheless, each of them is a bit of an evil.
The question that I think my colleague was pursuing in a more general way was: what will the ministry, the branch, do to try to monitor the extent of compliance with the first of the obligations? For example, if the government were to let it be known that the failure of an arbitrator to issue a decision within 30 days -- unless there was a really, really good reason -- was an example of whatever the equivalent is of conduct unbecoming an arbitrator, then I suppose we would have a form of monitoring, of accountability, that would ensure that the basic obligation is honoured and respected, which I think is the concern that those who support this initiative have.
[1910]
Hon. U. Dosanjh: In this bill, we are providing the director of residential tenancy with enhanced powers to actually manage the arbitration process in a much more streamlined fashion. I think that would be the source of some discipline imposed on the arbitrators. We didn't have that power before in the hands of the director.G. Plant: Let me just get this particular assurance, which has thus far been elusive. It is a matter of concern to people who read these provisions that subsection (2) qualifies subsection (1) in a way that creates a risk that the policy that they wish to have implemented will not be in practice. At the least, I think they are entitled to ask of government: "Well, are you going to keep track of the extent to which arbitrators are or are not complying with the time line requirement?" Perhaps the minister could give us that assurance.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I'm told that the intent is in fact to give the director more powers to both monitor and manage the performance of the arbitrators.
R. Coleman: I think my colleague from Richmond-Steveston has covered it. I think that the minister perhaps misunderstood. I was only picking out an example; I could go to files of lots of examples of different delays of arbitrations. I just wanted to quote one as an example of what can happen, and that's what we're trying to address here.
I was concerned that we wouldn't have some mechanism to make sure that we're actually monitoring and trying to keep this standard of practice in place for the arbitration system -- that we were just going to have something that would become willy-nilly. That was my concern.
Section 12 as amended approved.
On section 13.
G. Plant: I don't intend to ask detailed questions about 13 and 14, although my colleague may.
I want to say here only this: these provisions reflect a recognition by government that the arbitration process could benefit with a bit of certainty and an enhanced level of expertise applied to the problems that come before arbitrators -- the same considerations and objectives underlying the process of creating the policy directives and the rules of procedure that are going on outside the scope of this legislation. If there is a consistent theme to the complaints that I have heard about the Residential Tenancy Act processes -- leaving aside the substance for a moment -- it is a kind of recurring sense of arbitrariness that I think could perhaps be remedied by the initiatives that are underway here. I hope that these new processes, which are dealt with throughout the bill -- sections 13 and 14 are some of them -- will be implemented with that in mind: to continue to remove this sense that the arbitration review process is happenstance, is arbitrary, is the luck of the draw, is a pig in a poke, and to replace it with a sense of expertise and professionalism and consistency of practice, which I know the arbitrators themselves are probably as desirous of attaining as anybody else.
I suppose that's almost an estimates kind of remark. I just hope that this bill can achieve what it sets out to, and I want the Attorney General to have the benefit of my thoughts on that subject.
[1915]
R. Coleman: Are we still on section 13 at this point in time?The Chair: Yes, member.
R. Coleman: I think I'll reserve my questions on these two sections, then, to section 14. I'll allow section 13 to pass.
Section 13 approved.
On section 14.
R. Coleman: Just a couple of quick questions relative to section 14. It goes back to a couple of issues. One is rule 11.4 of the arbitration rules and procedures. In those arbitration rules and procedures, it requires that all the evidence be given to the other party at least two days in advance of a hearing in order to be able to prepare and respond. In this section, I have some concern with the wording. Subsection (5) says: "An application" -- which would bring new evidence -- "may be made without notice to any other party
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I think that the hon. member raises an interesting point; however, I don't think that it impacts on
[ Page 14292 ]
anyone's rights. This is an application that's made to the director for a review. If the director decides that, then the director has to decide whether the matter has to be heard by the same arbitrator or by a different arbitrator. At that point there would be full disclosure to the other party, and then the other party could bring all the particulars. I don't think it goes against the spirit of what's in the policy guidelines, because no decision would be made on the merits of the case without full disclosure to either side.
R. Coleman: I guess the concern would be that the director would be making a decision on new evidence. There was no opportunity to rebut to the director before it went back to review. My concern is that you get new evidence, but the other party to the issue
Hon. U. Dosanjh: In fact, this step is actually intended to avoid unnecessary attendance by the other party. If the matter goes to the arbitrator, the arbitrator would look at the matter and say: "I've already decided this matter. I'm not going to rehear it. That's the end of it." The other party is not put to any expense. If the arbitrator decides that this matter should be reviewed and heard again, then of course the other party would be notified, would get full disclosure and would be able to make the case. I think that it's in fact intended to save unnecessary expenditure and attendance by the other party.
R. Coleman: Given that, I'd just like to have the assurance from the minister that this section doesn't give us some sort of a conflict with section 55(3) of the act itself, which deals with the statutory right of rebuttal under the Residential Tenancy Act, and that we've taken that into consideration in developing this section of the act.
[1920]
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I don't believe there is a conflict there at all.
R. Coleman: The only other concern is, again, back to
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I'd like some clarification from the hon. member. There are time limits established in section 60 -- that's the new section 60 -- and they relate to different issues. The time limits are two days, five days and 15 days.
R. Coleman: My understanding of the time limits for applications to review are in that section, but the actual time frame that the review would take place within is the concern, mainly because, as I understand it, no judicial review relative to this can ever take place by courts until such time as this review is complete. My concern is to delay the length of review taking place and whether we're going to put guidelines or some standard of practice or something in place so that the marketplace out there can rest assured that if it does go to that process, it's not going to be tied up for extended periods of time.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I believe that the assurance I have given earlier applies to the question the hon. member asks. I think that the director would monitor and manage the arbitration process. If there are any further changes that need to be made after the enhanced powers of the director can be utilized for a little while and monitored
Sections 14 to 17 inclusive approved.
On section 18.
R. Coleman: The only concern I have with section 18 is that there probably should have been another subsection, (i), added to this section of the act under the section 87 portion -- one that would have allowed, for manufactured home park tenancies, the landlord to enter the manufactured home park between a period of time
[1925]
Maybe I can just help out here, for the minister. Maybe I could propose an amendment that would bring that back in order, just by adding another section -- (i), in section 87 -- that would state that for manufactured home park tenancies, the landlord may enter a manufactured home pad between 8 a.m. and 9 p.m. for the purposes of giving notices under this act.Hon. U. Dosanjh: Since these are very technical issues relating to the matter that the hon. member has been talking about, it took me a moment to understand. I understand that currently there is a right in practice to be able to do what the hon. member says should be included as amendment (i). I also understand that the guidelines are going to be amended to more specifically include that right. Therefore this discussion did take place as to whether or not to include the particular amendment that the hon. member is referring to in the current section, as we're proposing. It was decided not to do that, because having it in the guidelines and clarifying it would serve the same purpose. All of these -- (a) to (h) inclusive -- are available to the persons that the hon. member is talking about, and they will be amplified and clarified by guidelines.
R. Coleman: In this particular one, because we've had this in practice and have it in our documentation and on forms that the government is providing, I think it would make more sense to put it right in here. I don't know why we didn't. I'd like to know the rationale behind that, other than the fact that these other processes are available to these people. I don't see why you wouldn't lay that guideline down if you have it in your own guidelines now.
[ Page 14293 ]
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand that the legal view of the ministry was that it wasn't necessary, because this covers that practice. It would be amplified and clarified by the guidelines. That's why it isn't here. I understand there have been no cases on point where there have been any problems. One shouldn't sort of unnecessarily keep adding to legislation something that's not required.The Chair: The question is on the amendment.
G. Plant: Point of order. I can't claim to have perfect recall. My sense was that the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove was making a suggestion for consideration. The matter having been discussed and the Attorney General having indicated his perspective on the matter -- at least for the time being -- I don't think my colleague is going to the trouble of moving an amendment in the formal sense.
[1930]
The Chair: The member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove, for clarification.R. Coleman: It's amazing what I can do without even moving my lips.
It was a suggestion for an amendment, hon. Chair. Although I'm not satisfied with the answer, I obviously recognize the difference in votes on both sides of this House. I recognize that I've made my point and that my point has been made on behalf of the industry. I believe it should be there; and if the minister is not prepared to accept it as a friendly amendment, I'm prepared to live with it.
Sections 18 to 24 inclusive approved.
On section 24.1.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I move the amendment standing in my name in Orders of the Day:
[Continuing jurisdiction of Arbitration Review Panel and members for purposes of transitionOn the amendment.(24.1) For the purposes of transition, the Arbitration Review Panel as it was constituted immediately before the coming into force of the amendments made by this Act and every person who was a member of the panel immediately before the coming into force of those amendments continue to have all the same powers and duties including jurisdiction to hear and decide any review for which an application was filed before the coming into force of those amendments.]
G. Plant: I take it that this is purely transitional -- that is, to preserve jurisdiction of arbitrators, the arbitration review panel as it may have been constituted to deal with particular matters for the time being and to ensure that as new matters arise after proclamation of these amendments, they will be dealt with under the new procedure. Is that a fair characterization of the intention here?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Correct.
Section 24.1 approved.
On section 24.2.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I move the amendment standing in my name in Orders of the Day.
[Power to make regulations for transition respecting applications for rent increase(24.2) For the purpose of providing for transition in respect of applications for a rent increase, the Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations the Lieutenant Governor in Council considers necessary or advisable for meeting or removing any difficulty arising in bringing into force the amendments enacted by this Act, and, in particular, to provide
(a) that the Residential Tenancy Act as it read before the coming into force of those amendments continued to govern any application for a rent increase that is to have effect before the coming into force of those amendments, and
(b) that the Residential Tenancy Act as amended by those amendments governs any application for a rent increase that is to have effect after the coming into force of those amendments.]
On the amendment.
G. Plant: This is a long enough amendment that I'm going to impose upon the Attorney General to give the layperson's brief summary of what's intended here. It looks like transition around rent increase applications, but perhaps the Attorney General could summarize it in his usual precise way.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: This is simply a transition with respect to applications for rent increases. Old applications under the old system continue to be determined under the old system. Once the new law comes into place, the new applications will be dealt with under the amendments.
G. Plant: So transition applies in respect of anything that has matured into an application for a rent increase, but not otherwise.
Section 24.2 approved.
Section 25 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.
[1935]
Bill 75, Residential Tenancy Amendment Act, 1999, reported complete with amendments.The Speaker: When shall the bill be considered as reported?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Now, by leave.
Leave granted.
Bill 75, Residential Tenancy Amendment Act, 1999, read a third time and passed.
[ Page 14294 ]
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I call committee stage on Bill 92.ADULT GUARDIANSHIP STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1999
The House in committee on Bill 92; W. Hartley in the chair.G. Plant: As it happens, we were debating Bill 92 in second reading earlier today. The minister will recall from my second reading remarks that I am concerned about the issue of the funds available to ensure that the partial implementation, or the selective implementation, of this package of legislation that is being authorized by Bill 92 -- that there's enough money available to do what is contemplated. I have to say that pursuing that question is important to my sense of whether or not to give approval, if you will, to the details of the bill. While it may be that the questions I'm going to ask are not specific to section 1 of Bill 92, they are the kinds of questions that will help get us through the whole bill.
Could I impose on the Attorney General to indicate what he sees as the implementation budget, in terms of one-time-only expenses and also in terms of annual expenses? And how does he foresee spending that money?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: These amendments would be proclaimed effective February 28, 2000; that's when the package becomes effective. I believe there is $200,000 set aside for implementation and education between now and then. The annualized cost of the implementation would be $2 million a year. That is obviously available and would be made available.
G. Plant: Can the minister break down the $2 million a year into categories of expenditure in the broadest possible sense at this point? I'm sure that's not a completely unfair question given that, as I understand it, implementation costs have been one of the government's ongoing questions about the implementation itself. That's partly why I want to pursue it just a bit further.
[1940]
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I believe that $1.5 million would be for staffing in the public guardian and trustee's office to meet the needs of the implementation, $250,000 would be required for the health care consent tribunal and $250,000 would be for community response networks.G. Plant: Let's deal with those in reverse order. Is the minister of the view that sufficient community response networks are already up and running, or will be by February 28, to make meaningful their role in the implementation of this legislation and its ongoing administration? What is it that the $250,000 is going to do?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand there are about 65 response networks already in place in British Columbia. On average, I'm told, they're being given $3,000 to $5,000 each per year to deal with the cost of meetings and the like in their communities, for them to come together through different organizations -- police or elder abuse or people with disabilities coming together to try to deal with their needs. I understand that's about all the response networks that we might require in the province; there might not be any more needed.
G. Plant: I think it follows from what the Attorney has said that the funding that is to be made available, which he's talking about, is not going to include funding to staff the networks. Is that correct?
Interjection.
G. Plant: What is the $250,000 a year that's being set aside for the health care consent part of this package going to be spent on?
[1945]
Hon. U. Dosanjh: That $250,000 would cover the operational and travel costs of the health care consent tribunal and costs of possible expert witnesses and the like that might be required.G. Plant: So this is the cost to operate the board, which used to be a bunch of boards and that's now one board with potentially a number of panels, and, as the minister said, the costs of perhaps providing expert witnesses. What about, I suppose, the issue of representation for persons whose interests are being affected in these decisions? I can imagine that there will be cases where people will want that representation. I can imagine that this is one of those areas of legislative initiative where there is going to be some tendency over time to -- I won't say legalize the process -- begin to do that thing so people are going to require an expertise in dealing with these issues. Does the $250,000 include any funding for that? If not, how does the minister see that working?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: The hon. member foresees this process becoming somewhat adversarial at times and therefore requiring legal representation by individuals or family members. That may or may not happen, depending on how the tribunal functions. There is no money for legal representation within the $250,000, but I would suggest that the tribunal -- the chair -- may have to make some difficult decisions with respect to someone who really seems to need legal representation to make a case. At this time, legal aid may not be available. Legal aid has limited resources in terms of the Legal Services Society itself, but over time they make some decisions that might positively impact the need here.
[G. Robertson in the chair.]
G. Plant: The Attorney General mentions legal aid. I suppose that's a reasonable place to go in terms of understanding this, because there is
[ Page 14295 ]
exercised. If there aren't, then there will be a real tension between the apparent existence of this process and these rules intended to ensure fairness, contrasted with what in practice on the ground may be an expensively inaccessible or unworkable regime.I wonder if the Attorney General has any response to those general expressions of concern. It may not be enough just to give effect to these laws without, at the same time, at least being thoughtful about what the implications are likely to be for other social agencies like legal aid.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I think the hon. member is right. We do make changes in some areas that sometimes impact adversely on other resources in other areas that are already earmarked for some very difficult issues that need to be dealt with.
[1950]
I am told that there will be encouragement to the health care providers and facilities to assist with dispute resolution to the extent possible. To begin with, the public trustee, on at least a one-time basis, will make available $50,000 for projects related to the protection of rights and to legal advocacy in health care services. That may take us through the first year or so -- the implementation at least -- and gradually we may see a pattern or patterns evolving and then can meet the needs as they arise. But I can't foresee a huge legal aid or legal services need arising from this process. Although I agree that the process may have to be adversarial at some point, I would encourage all of us to recognize that we are actually moving away from adversarial processes. In personal injury cases, in construction cases and in family cases we're trying to do conciliation and mediation. So why should this be any different, if at all possible? I think we should be encouraged to move in that direction as well.G. Plant: I share the Attorney General's view that every effort should be made to avoid this becoming an adversarial process. I just want to be realistic about the possibility that that won't be completely avoidable. Some "adversariality" is going to arise in some cases.
But before we get all the way down to the business of hiring lawyers, perhaps, I want to ask about one other aspect of getting up and ready. There's going to be an increased demand for advice about process and policies, even for laypeople. There may be a need to train some people in order to learn how to make the right decisions. Is this budgeted for? How does the Attorney General see this happening? Will there be publications and manuals, information guides and that sort of thing?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I believe that information materials have been actually prepared. There have been 14 two-pagers on different aspects of the legislation. There is a representation agreement guide, as well as highlights of the proclamation package, of course, and all of that is ready for distribution through community response networks, health authorities, professional associations and other organizations. So that work is being done. Much of it has been done, and we'll complete that.
G. Plant: Does the information that the Attorney General is talking about here extend to the whole range of the issues dealt with in the four statutes, so that there'll be public information about representation agreements as well as about health care consent, adult guardianship support and community response network stuff?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.
G. Plant: Lastly, if I may, is the $1.5 million for staffing what will become the public guardian and trustee's office. Could the minister outline what these new staff will do?
[1955]
Hon. U. Dosanjh: The two major areas of responsibilities would be
G. Plant: The latter example, relating to health care
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes -- where there is no court-appointed representative and no family.
G. Plant: So the expectation is that by expanding the process slightly, I guess, there will be a demand for more business. Not to put it so crassly, but it sounds like that is what the expectation is.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I don't believe that's the conclusion one would reach. Under the system that we currently have, if there's no family and no court-appointed process -- no representative -- the public trustee has to make an application for committeeship. This would simply make that process easier, less cumbersome and less expensive. We may spend some money here; we will save it in other areas, in terms of having to make applications and the like. The treatment would be more easily accessible and available to people who need it.
G. Plant: I may not have been listening closely enough, but it almost sounded as though the Attorney General was advancing an argument for there not to be any need for more money, because there may be an offset. There may be less recourse to the court-appointed process, which is expensive and cumbersome, and more recourse to less expensive processes. This takes me back to the question: why does the public trustee need $1.5 million?
[2000]
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I think that there are some new responsibilities, such as the representation agreements. There is a new process, obviously, in place of the committeeship. Whereas I understand that the trustee may have a couple of hundred committeeships a year, under the new system it could be that with any of the four million British Columbians, the trustee would be asked to step in, be the guardian and deal with these issues. Obviously you need more staff because[ Page 14296 ]
of the new responsibilities. Some of these are new responsibilities that didn't exist before. Others are old responsibilities that have been transferred to the trustee under the new system, because we've eliminated the need for committeeship and the like.G. Plant: So that $1.5 million -- as the minister began -- is an amount to add additional staff within the public guardian and trustee's office to fulfil the expanded range of responsibilities that the public trustee and guardian will have. Leaving aside the $50,000 one-time-only amount that the Attorney General referred to earlier -- which has to do with dispute resolution and the like -- I take it that the $1.5 million is not a pot of money through which the public trustee and guardian will be funding initiatives or implementation outside the trustee's office. It's really just money for the trustee and guardian to hire and to create the administrative infrastructure for the hiring of the staff needed for the implementation of these acts.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: It's true that the $1.5 million may, in all likelihood, be used for additional staffing and the like, but it may also be that there might not be $1.5 million worth of staff needed. The public trustee may be able to then funnel money into community resources. That money is available to the public trustee to utilize to reduce the need for this kind of staff or to have staff if needed.
G. Plant: I wish the public trustee and guardian well in sorting out how the money will be spent. This is the kind of legislation that my colleague called a "people's bill" earlier today. There are a lot people who are interested in this legislation. Having just been told that the public trustee will be sitting on a $1.5 million pot of money, I can imagine that there will be many ideas presented to the public trustee by the community about useful ways to spend that money. Perhaps in that context I will again make the point I made earlier about what seems to me to be almost inevitable, apart from the adversariality issue -- the need to ensure that the people who are going to work with these statutes on a day-to-day basis have the knowledge and the tools they need in order to make the statutes work. I suspect that there are a lot of people outside the public trustee and guardian's office
[2005]
Hon. U. Dosanjh: The trustee's office is already providing resources and will continue to provide resources out of the $250,000 that's earmarked for resources for the community. As well, the public trustee's office will continue to function as a source of information, expertise and guidance for people who are constantly making their decisions -- when and as they need help. They'll be able to call in and determine what can or can't be done and what the possibilities are. I think that will continue. In a sense -- in terms of assisting the community and in terms of self-help -- there will be more than $250,000 worth of work being done, although that's the only money that would go directly to the community.
[W. Hartley in the chair.]
G. Plant: No doubt, if the world unfolds in one particular way, we'll have the opportunity sometime next spring to get a progress report on the early stages of implementation.
I have two other general-type questions. One is with respect to that which is not being implemented. The Attorney probably knows that all the people who are sitting beside him and those who help him have prepared a very comprehensive package explaining what is being implemented by order-in-council and what is not. In some cases, the statutes are being amended to give effect to selective implementation. In one or two cases, there are other changes being made to the acts to, I suppose, implement them in a way which, after five or six years of looking at them, looks like it will be more practical than it did five or six years ago. Is the Attorney General of the view that the implementation of the remaining portions of these statutes continues to be a matter of interest to him and a possibility -- that is, we're not dropping things off the table for all time here? This is a sequenced event, so that we may yet see, for example, a representation agreement registry. We may yet see the implementation of the care facility agreement provisions of whichever act that is -- the Health Care (Consent) and Care Facility (Admission) Act. Could the Attorney General just give an overview of that general issue?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: It's my hope that at some point in the future we may be able to implement the remainder of the package that was legislated in British Columbia. Whether it's in the current form as it stands or whether it may be amended is another thing. There are no time lines, but I have not given up hope. I believe that at some point we will proceed in that direction. At this time, we did this particular partial package because of many other considerations, including the fiscal consideration, and I'm hoping that at some point we may be able to do the entire package.
G. Plant: Would it be fair to suggest that for the time being, pending the actual implementation of that which we have before us, there will be no active work done to implement the unimplemented portions of these acts?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Correct. I understand there is a three-year mandatory review under the Public Guardian and Trustee Act. That may be the time to look at the experience, three years hence, and see if we want to move further and in what form.
[2010]
G. Plant: The last sort of general issue has to do with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. When I went back and had a look at the debate in 1993, this was not an issue that I saw canvassed. In a variety of ways, these statutes create processes which can affect the liberty of individuals. It may be that by the creation of rules that work and achieve some certainty, the effect of the statutes is, in a sense, to enhance liberty rights by making them more certain. So I'm not going to make an argument here that these statutes deleteriously impair the liberty rights of people who may be subject to them. I don't necessarily want the Attorney General to give me a legal opinion here now, either, or to disclose whatever legal advice may have been obtained at some point along the way. But I do want to ask this question: is the government satisfied that these bills, as they are being implemented by the bill that's before us, will not offend the Charter rights of persons who may be affected by them?Hon. U. Dosanjh: I wouldn't be able to give the hon. member an opinion even if I inadvertently wanted to, because
[ Page 14297 ]
I didn't shepherd these bills through the Legislature at the time; I wasn't the Attorney General. But just looking at the legislation and the way it's been crafted, I think it in fact provides more rights than previously existed under the regime that we had. Therefore I think they will better be able to withstand any Charter issues and concerns than was the case before.
G. Plant: I want to thank the minister for his indulgence in allowing me to ask these very general questions. I have one question on section 3, but it can take the form of a general question. When the minister looks at section 3 and the sections that follow
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Correct.
Sections 1 to 6 inclusive approved.
On section 7.
G. Plant: How many more times during the current legislative session will we have the opportunity to amend section 112 of the Estate Administration Act? We have actually already amended it twice in one bill, and I do have to ask: what is the difference between this one -- No. 3 -- and No. 2?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: The technical difference is that it retains the reference to committees, whereas the previous one wouldn't have.
Sections 7 to 14 inclusive approved.
On section 15.
G. Plant: I have in mind, in particular, section 15(a), which will add paragraph (d.1). It will give the right to request a review of a health care consent issue to the health care provider caring for the adult who is, I guess, the subject of the decision. This is a new provision. I understand that it is only available in cases of substitute decision-makers. Could the minister briefly explain the rationale for introducing this element into the legislation?
[2015]
Hon. U. Dosanjh: What this does is allow a health care provider -- for instance, a doctor -- to request a review in case the health care provider disagrees with the decision that may be made by a family member. So this is a further safeguard on behalf of the person that's the subject of the treatment.G. Plant: It doesn't apply where the disagreement, if any, exists between the health care provider and the adult who is capable of being a decision-maker. It only applies when there is a substitute decision-maker for the adult or the patient.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Correct.
Sections 15 to 21 inclusive approved.
On section 22.
G. Plant: There are two comprehensive sections which I think are made necessary because, while the idea of representation agreements is being given effect, the Patients Property Act is not being repealed at the other end of the scale. Is it possible to explain in laypersons' terms what the new sections 19.1 and 19.2 are, generally speaking, intended to do?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: The basic distinction, as I have been able to understand it, is that section 19.1 enables the public guardian and trustee to determine
[2020]
Let me retrace my steps here. With section 19.1, where there's a certificate that's a limited certificate and there is a Patients Property Act matter, the public guardianship and trusteeSection 19.2 deals with the universal agreement, where all property -- all matters -- are covered; then 19.2 says that that universal certificate takes care of everything. The public guardian and trustee doesn't have a role in determining what prevails.
G. Plant: That latter situation was in the case of committees by certificate, not committees by court order.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Correct.
Sections 22 and 23 approved.
On section 24.
G. Plant: I have a note that I made during the course of the briefing on Bill 92. It may not be the right place for the note, but the note is that after September 5, 2000, representation agreements will become the planning document. I think the flip side of that is the observation that new enduring powers of attorney made after September 5, 2000, will not be effective.
Interjection.
G. Plant: I would be happy to move to section 27.
Sections 24 to 26 inclusive approved.
On section 27.
G. Plant: One of the parts of this provision is going to change what is one of the clauses of the standard provisions section of the Representation Agreement Act. It's 7(1)(b): "In a representation agreement an adult may authorize his or
[ Page 14298 ]
her representative to help the adult make decisionsIs it the intention that the regulations in question will be drafted and take effect on February 28, 2000?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Correct.
Sections 27 to 29 inclusive approved.
On section 30.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Chair, I have an amendment, notice of which has not been given, and you have a copy:
[SECTION 30, by deleting the proposed section 30 and substituting the following section:30 Section 13 is amended
(a) by repealing subsections (2) and (3) and substituting the following:
(2) A representation agreement must be executed by the adult and by each representative and each alternative representative named in the agreement.
(3) The persons referred to subsection (2) need not be present together when they execute the representation agreement, but each of them must execute the agreement in the presence of two witnesses.
(3.1) If an instrument executed by a representative under a representation agreement made under section 9 of this Act is to be effective for the purposes of the Land Title Act,
(a) one of the witnesses to the execution of the agreement by the adult must be an officer as defined in section 41 of the Land Title Act, and(b)
the execution of the representation agreement by the adult must be witnessed or proved in the manner required for instruments by Part 5 of the Land Title Act., and
(b) by adding the following subsection:The amendment clarifies that the adult and the representative have to each execute the document in the presence of two witnesses but do not have to do so in the presence of each other. That is, the adult and the representative can execute it separately.(7) if there is a defect in the execution of a representation agreement, a person named in the agreement as a representative may apply to the court for an order under section 31(4) that the agreement is not invalid solely because of the defect.]
Amendment approved.
Section 30 as amended approved.
Sections 31 to 39 inclusive approved.
Title approved.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.
Motion approved.
[2025]
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.Bill 92, Adult Guardianship Statutes Amendment Act, 1999, reported complete with amendment.
The Speaker: When shall the bill be considered as reported?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: By leave, now.
Leave granted.
Bill 92, Adult Guardianship Statutes Amendment Act, 1999, read a third time and passed.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I call committee stage of Bill 74.
MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 1999
The House in committee on Bill 74; W. Hartley in the chair.Sections 1 and 2 approved.
On section 3.
T. Nebbeling: A brief question on this particular section. It is related to the fact that if a major plant in the jurisdiction acquires an increase in value under this section, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council has the ability to defer the added value or spread that added value of the property over a period of up to three years. Has the minister considered any consequences that this will have on the ability of municipalities to collect property tax? If the real value would indeed be available for assessment, obviously that would have a serious impact. When the municipality could, in year one for example, only assess on a one-third basis and, in years two and three, on a one-third basis, they would then be able to assess the property on its full value.
My second concern is that if indeed that property in a particular year increases so much in value that the cabinet deems it necessary or appropriate to use this section, what would happen if in year two that property again increases in value, thereby of course again eliminating further opportunities for a municipality to collect proper property taxes? Has the minister considered this aspect?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Can we stand this section down and proceed to the next?
The Chair: By agreement, we'll stand down section 3.
Sections 4 and 5 approved.
On section 6.
[2030]
G. Plant: What section 6 does, among other things, is continue the B. C. Wine Institute. In what is section 2 of the British Columbia Wine Act, the statute identifies the composition of the board of directors of the institute. One of the voting directors is to be appointed by the minister, a fact that apparently has caused a small amount of interest in the industry. I[ Page 14299 ]
think the provision that is of more concern is -- if I could impose on the Attorney General just to move ahead a couple of sections -- section 9 of the bill. You'll see that that gives the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council the power to issue a direction to the institute, and such a direction must be complied with. I must admit that this is not an issue that I'm directly familiar with, but my understanding of the concern is that section 9 of the bill will in some way undermine the independence of the institute. If that's an issue that the Attorney General can assist with, I'd be grateful.Hon. U. Dosanjh: Section 9 seems to be innocuous. I'll read the explanation that I have. Current section 5 authorizes the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to issue a direction to the institute or its members, specifying the factors, criteria and guidelines that the institute or members must or must not use in exercising their powers. So that's the current section.
The new section 5 re-enacts the existing section but substitutes the terms "registrants" and "board of directors" for the term "member." The change makes a direction of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council apply to the institute, its registrants and its board of directors. It reflects the establishment of the board of directors as the governing body of the institute. So really, in a sense, it's housekeeping.
G. Plant: Or to put it another way, it's intended to ensure that when the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council issues a direction, it's binding on the institute, its members and the board of directors -- which, I suppose, is the thing in between the institute and its members. It makes the general intent of the provision more all-embracing and effective. Is that a fair summary?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Correct.
G. Plant: At the risk of imposing too much on the minister's notes, is there some justification or explanation for including a voting director appointed by the minister on the board of the B.C. Wine Institute -- the corporation? This is what will become section 2(2)(c) of the British Columbia Wine Act.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: The ministerial representative, the director appointed by the minister, seems to be non-voting.
Interjection.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Let me take a look at it. I don't see it in section 6 as it's here in the act, but if the hon. member says that in the new board of directors, as it would be, there would be a voting director appointed by the minister
[2035]
G. Plant: The way the statute works is that there will be one non-voting director appointed by the minister from among the minister's staff and one voting director appointed by the minister. I suppose the intention -- it looks as though there are still going to be ten directors in total -- is to perhaps give the minister a more-than-usual loud voice at the table but not control, obviously, over the deliberations of the board. Who am I, standing here tonight, to deny the minister a voice in the deliberations of the B.C. Wine Institute?Sections 6 to 51 inclusive approved.
On section 52.
T. Nebbeling: I'm a little confused about section 52, primarily because this section will now allow a five-year maximum for business licences to be issued to businesses at the discretion of councils. First of all, can the minister explain why the five-year period when other jurisdictions, such as the city of Vancouver, have a maximum of two years? I think that in the attempt to streamline all kinds of rules and regulations, to have a maximum period of two years for a business licence in one jurisdiction -- whereas in this section municipalities will be allowed five years -- is kind of confusing. Is there a specific reason for that difference?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Could I prevail upon the Chair to ask that sections 52 to 57 inclusive and section 63, which deal with the Municipal Act, be stood down? We're looking for the minister responsible. She may be here.
[2040]
Sections 58 to 62 inclusive approved.Sections 64 to 69 inclusive approved.
On section 70.
M. Coell: Sections 70, 71 and 72 of the Waste Management Act
Hon. U. Dosanjh: The hon. member seeks too much expertise and knowledge from the Attorney General, which the Attorney General doesn't have in this area. But I can try and indicate to the hon. member what the section is meant to do. It is meant to negate the current interpretations that have been placed on these terms by the court. If that indicates to the hon. member what the meaning of this section is -- and he's satisfied -- that should be fine.
This section is added to clarify the definitions of air contaminant and effluent. The new subsection makes it clear
[ Page 14300 ]
that it is not necessary to prove that an air contaminant or effluent is capable of causing harm subsequent to discharge or that people, organisms and life forms were present in the environment at the moment of discharge. This clarification is necessary to negate the recent interpretation of these terms by the courts.M. Coell: I understand what the Attorney General is saying. The concern I have -- and possibly he could clarify -- is that it narrows the ability of the industry and the regional district to prove that their discharge isn't harming the environment. If you take an instance where the discharge is at the point of discharge, it may be a contaminant. But 20 feet out in the water, it is diluted enough that it is no longer harmful to the environment. One would be easy to prove in either instance, and I'm just requesting clarification, more than anything, that it's not changing the ability to deal with those two separate issues.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I think the hon. member asks a question which I answered. This particular note says that after these amendments, it would not be necessary to prove that an air contaminant or effluent is capable of causing harm subsequent to discharge, which is what the hon. member is asking. So if it's capable of causing harm at the point of discharge, that should be it. Whether or not it can cause harm subsequent to discharge
[2045]
M. Coell: I think we could discuss this at quite some length. But I also understand what the minister is saying, and I am satisfied with your explanation. Although I probably don't agree with you, I understand what you're trying to accomplish here.Sections 70 to 75 inclusive approved.
The Chair: Now, we have some stood-down sections.
By agreement, members, we'll have a couple of minutes' recess here. The committee stands recessed.
The committee recessed from 8:46 p.m. to 8:50 p.m.
[W. Hartley in the chair.]
On section 3.
T. Nebbeling: As I stated earlier on, my problem with this particular section is that when the British Columbia Assessment Authority establishes the value of a plant to be an increase that is, according to cabinet, of such a nature that it merits a phasing in of that increase and thereby giving the firm or company that is the owner of the plant a bit of a break as far as taxation is concerned
Now, I do not believe that what is happening is what I think the minister is trying to tell me. It is that the Assessment Authority sets a rate or a value on a property, and then cabinet actually devalues that property again to a level that represents only a third in that particular year and then a third increase the following year and a third increase the next year. Once the B.C. Assessment Authority has established the value of that property, then that is the real value that under any circumstance municipalities would use to establish the property tax for that particular parcel. So does the minister agree with me that indeed it is the B.C. Assessment Authority that sets the value of a property that would be considered by cabinet for a flexible increase in that value?
Hon. J. Kwan: The major industrial property manuals establish how properties within that arena are being assessed. They're assessed on the basis of how much it would cost to replace these properties. The Assessment Act in this instance authorizes the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to prescribe the various formulae as they relate to the use of this manual, but that is actually being done, although the assessment would be still be done through the Assessment Authority. Where there are major fluctuations to allow for and to protect major industries that would be faced with, let's say, a major change with respect to their assessed value, it allows for a phased-in period for those taxes to be paid, therefore providing some level of stability for those industries should those incidents and occurrences take place.
T. Nebbeling: I understand that if indeed this section passes, that will give cabinet or the Lieutenant-Governor-in-council the authority to come up with a formula to give a company a break. We are talking to what it is today. I do not believe that an order-in-council by cabinet today can indeed arbitrarily set a reduction in value in order to accommodate a company's desire to pay less property
But the real question, of course, is that when the order-in-council takes place and the value is being reduced for taxation purposes -- and I don't think it is for any other reason -- somebody else will have to pay the price. That price is obviously paid by the municipalities or the local government jurisdiction where a plant is residing. So my point is that if indeed cabinet wants to be so generous -- if government wants to be so generous -- as to give a plant a tax break, how is cabinet going to deal with the consequences that a municipality has to deal with? And is there a cash-in-lieu provision so that, at the end of day, the municipality is not the one that will suffer the consequences of the generosity that government wants to give to these plants?
[2055]
Hon. J. Kwan: What necessitated this section, I believe, is not the fact of the lower value of the assessed property, but rather the sudden increase of the assessed value. The thrust of this is to ensure that there is a formula and a phased-in opportunity for those industries that are faced with a sudden increase in terms of their assessed value, so that they would be able to pay for it. In most instances, the menus would list the improvements of the property, and it is based on those improvements that the value would actually increase. By the increase of those values, the impact would be on the industry if they're faced with huge increases, so the phase-in would actually allow them to pay it in a manner that is amenable to them. So I don't believe that it would be the municipality that would actually lose property dollars; rather, the municipalities would likely have an increase in the assessed and the mechanisms, accordingly, to provide for industries to phase in the payment of property taxes.T. Nebbeling: I still maintain that the generosity of the government is a good thing as long as it doesn't have to be
[ Page 14301 ]
picked up by municipalities; I still maintain that's the case. There are many other properties today that for some reason or another face dramatic increases in assessment; and as a consequence, these properties pay more taxes. I don't see any other provision for other high-valued properties to have that kind of an assessment break as well.
I do not think that what the minister is saying is correct. If there is indeed an increase in value and government decides to spread that increase over a three-year period, which then goes against the assessment
Hon. J. Kwan: I think that we would all be in agreement that it would be in the interests of not just the provincial government but also local governments to ensure that the industry can survive and be viable. One of the ways in which to ensure that industries can continue to survive and be viable is to provide for flexibility and stability in their taxation in terms of property taxes. As I said, the thrust of this section is to ensure that those industries will have the opportunity to stay viable and flexible by allowing for a phase-in approach with respect to how their taxes are being paid to the municipalities.
T. Nebbeling: At least now we hear the real reason: the government has decided to help some companies that are in a financial struggle to make ends meet, I take it. But the fact that municipalities, at the end of the day, will pick up the tab is wrong. Considering that over the last four years we have seen a $150 million reduction in grant money to municipalities -- costing jobs, costing opportunities for policing -- it is just not acceptable that, through the back door, municipalities will have to pick up even more of the gifts that this government likes to hand out. So again I would ask my colleagues to vote against this.
[2100]
Section 3 approved on division.Hon. J. MacPhail: 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.
Committee of the Whole (Section A) reported Bill 80, Liquor Statutes Amendment Act, 1999, complete with amendment and Bill 91, Unclaimed Property Act, complete without amendment.
The Speaker: When shall Bill 80 be considered as reported?
Hon. J. MacPhail: By leave now.
Leave granted.
Bill 91, Unclaimed Property Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.
The Speaker: When shall the committee sit again?
Hon. J. MacPhail: At the next sitting, hon. Speaker.
Hon. J. MacPhail moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 9:02 p.m.
The committee met at 6:47 p.m.
UNCLAIMED PROPERTY ACT
On section 1.I. Chong: I have some questions on section 1, dealing with these definitions. If I could get these clarifications from the minister, it would be most helpful.
I do also want to state at the very beginning that the briefings that we received were very helpful, and at that time we tried to raise as many concerns as we could so that we wouldn't have to go over some of these same issues, but once the legislation was introduced
The definition of "holder," subsection (b), is: "an individual who holds property on behalf of an owner and who is one of a prescribed class of individuals." I'm wondering if the minister can advise how an individual would consent to holding property in the context of holding unclaimed property, unclaimed money. Clearly, in subsection (a), it makes sense; you've got corporations, partnerships and sole proprietorships. But in cases of individuals -- you know, neighbours, friends or what have you -- how would an individual actually hold property, and how would that be established, as to someone who would consent to holding property? Can we get a bit of clarification on that?
Hon. J. MacPhail: The only ones we've identified in that group are pension administrators.
I. Chong: Then I would take it that those who are in the prescribed class at this point are just pension administrators. But that could be expanded, could it not?
[ Page 14302 ]
Hon. J. MacPhail: It's by regulation, but we've done a thorough canvass and that's where we're at right now.I. Chong: The other section I'd like to move on to, then, is the reference to "owner." I don't see where the reference to "owner" would state that that would be restricted to residents of British Columbia. Can the minister advise whether there is such a restriction?
[E. Walsh in the chair.]
Hon. J. MacPhail: The restriction is in section 8, about application. The application is to last known address being in B.C.
[1850]
I. Chong: So that would indicate that if someone left the country or the province and moved down to the States but then came back up on holidays and happened to, for some reason, surf the Net or the database and found out that they had unclaimed moneys, they would still be considered as owners of that unclaimed money, and they could still access the unclaimed money. Is that correct?Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes -- as long as their last known address is in B.C., then the act applies to them.
The committee recessed from 6:52 p.m. to 7:04 p.m.
[E. Walsh in the chair.]
I. Chong: I was going to move on in the section to the definition dealing with property, but before I do, I want to go back very quickly
The Investment Funds Institute had also picked up the definition of holder in the area of an individual. Although the minister did say that currently the prescribed class of individuals would only encompass pension administrators, the one area that was raised was that of mutual fund agents, who are also individuals. Has that been removed as a possibility -- of not being included in the prescribed class? Can the minister confirm that?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes.
I. Chong: Now moving on to the definition on property
[1905]
Hon. J. MacPhail: If one issues a deposit, for instance, on a couch, and if you then cancel the order for the couch and the contract says you have a right to receive the deposit back, that is prescribing that circumstance.
I. Chong: That would make perfect sense, and I do understand that. What was raised by another stakeholder group, the credit unions of B.C., was that they had picked up on the right to receive as well. They were referring to various trust or custodial funds. Their concern was that the holder of the right to receive an amount distributable from a trust is a beneficiary, not the trustee. It would appear that this act could in fact be backwards in those cases. Could the minister or staff assist in providing a clarification on that? It has to do with the right to receive an amount distributable under various trust or custodial funds -- and that's specifically from the credit unions.
Hon. J. MacPhail: The definition of owner includes the beneficiary, so if there's a trust held by the credit union, it includes the beneficial owner -- the beneficiary.
I. Chong: So that would confirm that the holder of the right to receive an amount distributable from a trust is in fact the beneficiary and not the trustee. That's really the confirmation that I'm seeking, and if the minister would like to just nod and acknowledge that, then
The last area that I would like to ask about on section 1 in terms of the definitions is where we have the unclaimed property special account established under section 7, which I know we will ask about. Can the minister advise, for this unclaimed property special account, that an amount has been established? I know it will be prescribed, but is there an amount that she can advise us of at this time that it would be at the very beginning?
Hon. J. MacPhail: In the working draft it's listed as $5 million.
Section 1 approved.
On section 2.
I. Chong: Section 2(1) states: "All money that is held by the government on behalf of an owner becomes an unclaimed money deposit if the owner does not claim the money within the applicable period prescribed for the purposes of this section." Could the minister advise what the applicable period would be?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Five years.
I. Chong: That's fine.
Section 2 approved.
On section 3.
I. Chong: This particular section has actually raised a number of concerns in some of the stakeholder groups. Again, it's because there appears to be phraseology that is not as definitive as it could be, I guess. Where it states in section 3 that "the minister must make reasonable efforts to locate the owner and to notify the owner about the money," the reasonable effort, I guess, is causing some doubts in people's minds as to who is going to set the parameters and what the definition of reasonable efforts would be.
[ Page 14303 ]
[1910]
Is reasonable efforts referring to a time period? Is it referring to the amount -- the number of times, for example, that the holder of the property is going to undertake to reunite the moneys with the owner? So I'm asking, hon. Chair, if the minister, through her staff, can give us some idea of what reasonable efforts would entail.Hon. J. MacPhail: When we met with the stakeholders and consulted with them, they said: "Look, as this law develops, the reasonable effort will be defined by the course of our actions, and we would prefer that you leave that up to us initially." The concept of reasonable person is defined in law, and that's the base. The stakeholders have said: "We'll establish through our actions what reasonable efforts are, and if it doesn't work out, then you can choose to more clearly define that in law." But we have said: "We will live with your actions initially."
I. Chong: So what I understand the minister to be saying is that the stakeholders will be permitted to consult regularly with ministry staff in an effort to develop what those reasonable efforts will be and that those regulations will change accordingly if and when the need arises. I see the minister nodding, so for the record, that is fine.
The other part of section 3 refers to notification of the owner about the money. Again, whether there are specifics that are prescribed or intended to be prescribed as to what notification would entail, would that be notification by way of regular post mail, by registration of mail or by some other forms of telecommunication? I'm not sure what the notification requirements would be. Also related to that notification is the cost that would be associated with that. Can the minister provide more clarification on that?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Again, notification is not defined; it will be the test of reasonableness and whatever the stakeholders see. It will be subject to the test of whether it works or not as the law is implemented.
I. Chong: I will accept the comments by the minister, as I know it's a difficult area to canvass in terms of what is reasonable and what notification is. I would hope, as I stated earlier, that there will be cooperation with the stakeholder groups to develop what will work best in the reuniting of the moneys with the owners.
The concern that was raised
Credit Union Central is particularly concerned that, ordinarily, credit unions would have to reveal information that is regarded as confidential. Under the provisions of the Financial Institutions Act or under the general duty of confidentiality imposed under a deposit-taking institution by the common law, it can create a difficult problem. If those things are also considered in light of the reasonable efforts and notification, I certainly want to just put that on the record so that the drafters of the regulations will take that into account.
[1915]
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, thank you for that. I agree.Section 3 approved.
On section 4.
I. Chong: The database that is being referred to here: "The minister must (a) maintain an electronic or other database
Hon. J. MacPhail: Printed form.
I. Chong: What I'm presuming is that those who have the ability to set up an electronic database will do so. Those who are still working back in the more archaic times and have
R. Thorpe: Less resources.
I. Chong:
Hon. J. MacPhail: Indeed, you're exactly right. We have the capability of linking databases. But we don't want to impose that upon stakeholders who may not have the capability to participate -- or to impose a linked database either.
I. Chong: Under section 4, it states: "The minister must
Hon. J. MacPhail: It will be available through the Internet. If they don't have access to the Internet, they can call the office of the Ministry of Finance, and the Ministry of Finance will access it.
I. Chong: What I understand is that the proposed database will not be for general public distribution -- if I'm incorrect, I hope the minister will correct that -- and that it would only be searchable by single name for an individual who is an owner or who is acting on behalf of an owner. Is that correct?
Hon. J. MacPhail: The way to search the database is by an individual name -- yes.
I. Chong: The concern that has been raised -- again, by Credit Union Central -- is that there appears to be no way of preventing someone from searching under the name of another. Are there any protection mechanisms that could be in place? Or are those regulations that are still to be drafted?
[ Page 14304 ]
Hon. J. MacPhail: Again, we have reviewed all this with the FOI commissioner. Secondly, if one does type in a name and the date, and the name and the date appear, that's it. Then there has to be further contact in order to find out the information behind that.I. Chong: Also in that context, the Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association -- the office provided me with a contact person there -- were also concerned about the availability of the database. They also felt it was very important to stress that their industry was concerned about privacy guidelines. They would want to ensure that those who were searching would actually be searching specifically for a name of someone in their family -- a family member or what have you -- and would not necessarily be searching and looking for names that appear on a list. Those owners would be upset if their names were available for others to look at. On that, I think that clarification is sufficient.
Section 4 approved.
On section 5.
I. Chong: In section 5(1), it states: "If satisfied that a person is the owner of all or part of the money that became an unclaimed money deposit
[1920]
Hon. J. MacPhail: We set our own standards for what's a reasonable requirement for proof. If there's an error made, thenI. Chong: Oops.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yeah, exactly. I accept the member's advice on how that should come about, but we're dealing in the hypothetical now. We will set every reasonable standard in order to ensure against fraud.
I. Chong: It's not that I don't respect that the staff and the minister will work to develop good, sound standards to ensure that there will be no cases of mistaken identity. I'm not looking specifically at the case of fraud. I mean, there are a lot of John Smiths out there, for example. Someone could think that they are the one with unclaimed money or that it was through their family or their estate -- that a John Smith, their grandfather, existed -- and the moneys are paid out.
I note in subsection (3) that once made, a payment discharges the government from liability. So I'm just curious: if the government is able to discharge an owner and itself from liability, and a mistake is made -- and someone proves that a mistake was made and that it was made innocently, as opposed to any kind of fraud -- then what recourse would the true owner have in terms of seeking some kind of indemnity?
Hon. J. MacPhail: This is not a new issue. This issue arises under the current statute. There's due diligence; there's no problem. If there's a mistake made, we pay out twice.
I. Chong: So that would mean that if the government permitted a discharge, it would then be held accountable for the second payment, not the owner who has received the discharge. Is that correct?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes.
I. Chong: The last subsection in section 5, subsection (4), says: "The minister may delegate any of the minister's functions under this section to an employee of the ministry." I note that it's very specific -- "to an employee." Was that done for some special reason, so that there would only be one person that this could be delegated to, as opposed to a group of persons in the ministry staff?
Hon. J. MacPhail: No, it wasn't intended to be just one person.
I. Chong: So that means that if more than one person in the ministry had been delegated the authority, then we would see the change -- the amendment, I guess -- to this subsection through the legislation. Is that correct?
Hon. J. MacPhail: An employee doesn't mean one employee; it means an employee. It's not limited to one.
Section 5 approved.
On section 6.
I. Chong: In section 6(2), it states: "A public body that has custody or control of information to which the minister is entitled under subsection (1) must disclose that information to the minister on request." Again, I would just like to receive clarification whether receiving that information on request
Hon. J. MacPhail: The test of reason applies. It's a legal concept.
I. Chong: In subsection (3) of section 6, the public body must meet the standards set by regulation. Again, I'm just wanting to confirm that those standards set by regulation would be in consultation with those various public bodies, as opposed to all stakeholder groups, because every public body perhaps has more distinct requirements. If the minister would agree that that's what is meant by that
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes.
Section 6 approved.
On section 7.
[ Page 14305 ]
[1925]
I. Chong: I've already received from the minister an answer on subsection (2) of section 7. However, subsection (3) says: "The following must be paid into the special account: (a) all money that, after the coming into force of this section, becomes or is deemed to be an unclaimed money deposit." Does this imply that those moneys that have now been established as unclaimed are not subject to this and that is all moneys that are deemed to be unclaimed henceforth that will be subject to this requirement under subsection (3)?Hon. J. MacPhail: That's covered in the definitions section, where the money that's already unclaimed falls into the unclaimed-money section.
Section 7 approved.
On section 8.
I. Chong: On section 8, again, I received a concern from the Investment Funds Institute of Canada. They state that section 8 purports that the act will apply to a holder of property if the transaction was entered into or arranged in B.C. and that at the time the transaction was entered into the holder either carried on business in British Columbia or was incorporated in that province, regardless of the location of the property. They go on to state that instead of focusing on where the transaction takes place, in section 8(a) the residence of the holder should be the determining factor. Can the minister provide more clarification on why that was not the case?
Hon. J. MacPhail: All the stakeholders asked us to make it the last known address, so we responded to their concerns.
I. Chong: I think that the concern is not that the last known address
Hon. J. MacPhail: This arose as a result of the stakeholders asking us to do that. The original did focus on the property. They asked us to switch it to the last known address of the owner.
Sections 8 and 9 approved.
On section 10.
I. Chong: Section 10(2) makes reference to: "If the prescribed circumstances exist but the value of property held by a holder does not on the applicable date prescribed by regulation meet or exceed the prescribed amount, the property becomes unclaimed on that date." It seems a bit contradictory that there would be prescribed circumstances for determining when property becomes unclaimed and that it states that if it doesn't by regulation meet or exceed the prescribed amount, the property would still become unclaimed. I would have expected that if it doesn't meet the prescribed amount, the property doesn't become unclaimed. Perhaps there was a drafting problem, or perhaps the staff mean something else by that.
Hon. J. MacPhail: There's a dividing point. If the amount is over the minimal amount, then they have to take reasonable efforts and advise and search out. If it's under, they don't have to do that.
Section 10 approved.
On section 11.
I. Chong: In section 11(d)(ii), it talks about the retention of records. I'm wondering if the minister can provide more clarification as to the rules on retention of records.
[1930]
Hon. J. MacPhail: Section 6 refers to what the guidelines will be for record retention periods. That's what we're starting with.
I. Chong: What I'm referring to here
Hon. J. MacPhail: We can share those with you.
Section 11 approved.
On section 12.
I. Chong: In section 12(1)(c), it states that "the minister consents to the transfer." What would happen, should the minister not consent to a transfer -- or would that ever occur?
Hon. J. MacPhail: We're not going to take on the responsibility for records that are inappropriate or not complete, so if they want to transfer that information to us, they have to meet certain minimal standards, which we will advise them of.
I. Chong: So in section 12, I understand from the minister's response that when a holder wishes to transfer unclaimed property to the minister, if in fact the ministry is not satisfied with the appropriateness of the records and the information being transferred to allow the ministry to continue its search for the owner, the minister can withhold consent in receiving that property. That would therefore mean that the holder would have to continue holding that property. The only difficulty I have with that is that if the holder then wishes to go out of business or whatever, we have a situation where no one wants to take responsibility. Would the minister then have to agree to consent, or do the funds end up with no accountability in that respect?
Hon. J. MacPhail: All I'm doing is reiterating what the technical staff are telling me. I apologize if you didn't get this information out of the briefing. But we'll do the best we can to make sure that the rights of the consumer are upheld and that the records are proper. In any event, the Company Act does apply.
Sections 12 to 14 inclusive approved.
[ Page 14306 ]
On section 15.I. Chong: We're almost done. Section 15(2), states: "A holder who receives a request under subsection (1) must comply with the request." Again, I would just like the minister to advise, if possible, the requirements in terms of a time period in which a holder would be required to comply. Whenever a "must" is used in legislation, I think the minister knows, it's quite demanding on taxpayers or stakeholders. Could she could provide some clarification on that?
[1935]
Hon. J. MacPhail: Again, the test of reason for mandatory is the test.
Section 15 approved.
On section 16.
I. Chong: I don't really have a question on section 16, which the minister must be grateful for, except that I'm curious as to the offence section that is stated in this legislation. It makes a lot of sense. As I say, I have no questions, but it makes no reference to what kinds of penalties there are once an offence is committed. I'm wondering if there's something else to follow, if there are amendments or if that will all be covered off in the regulations. It's more a question on that section as a whole.
Hon. J. MacPhail: No, it's contained in the Offence Act -- $2,000 or six months in jail.
Section 16 approved.
On section 17.
I. Chong: In section 17 we have a number of areas where the power to make regulations by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council occur, specifically under subsection 2(h): "
Hon. J. MacPhail: So far, after a thorough review, we've only got businesses that are exempt under the GST regulations. Nothing is contemplated beyond that at this point.
I. Chong: Under subsection (2)(j), where the holders are required "to establish and make available to the public written policies," I'm curious as to what form of written policies the ministry is expecting holders to provide. Again, I know this has been through the business lens, and the idea is not to have a huge impact on these businesses and therefore not to have a huge cost to holders. If holders are required to provide written policies to the public, that can be more onerous than was originally contemplated -- unless the ministry is going to be a leader here in helping to draft those written policies so that everyone just fills in the blanks and then has that available for the public. Can the minister advise what is being contemplated here?
Hon. J. MacPhail: We're going to assist the stakeholders in developing a best practices guide. We'll work with them on that. We're not saying anything other than: "You have to let the public know what your best practices are."
I. Chong: That would be a very helpful move that the ministry would make in terms of providing that best practices guide. Some of the smaller groups of holders certainly don't have the financial resources to start developing written policies and issuing them out to the public.
On subsection (k) of this section, "requiring holders to make information respecting unclaimed property available to the public," I understand making that information available by way of a database and forms. Does this section also refer to when this information should be made available, such as during normal business hours? Is this going to be what paragraph (k) is referring to?
Hon. J. MacPhail: It's referring to the policies and procedures and the targets that they'll be setting for themselves.
[1940]
I. Chong: I only raise that because everywhere else we make mention that when information is available to the public, it's by way of database. Sometimes the public also makes demands as to when they should have access to information, and those who don't have databases
The last paragraph in this section that I would like to ask the minister about is paragraph (n). It says: "
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes.
I. Chong: Can the minister advise what is contemplated in the prescribed fees? Is it going to be a percentage? Is it going to be a flat amount? How will this change from time to time?
Hon. J. MacPhail: We haven't determined that. I'd be appreciative of your advice later on.
I. Chong: If the minister would like to allow me that opportunity through her staff, I think that we can ensure that the prescribing of fees is reasonable in terms of reuniting people with their funds.
That's all I have on section 17. Just for the benefit of the Chair, I have no other questions on sections 18 through 22.
Sections 17 to 22 inclusive approved
On section 23.
I. Chong: I just want to seek some clarification on section 23 where it amends the Employment Standards Act. Subsection (4) says: "If the director cannot locate an employee within
[ Page 14307 ]
one year after receiving the employee's wages under this section, the director must transfer the wages to the Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations in accordance with the transfer schedule set by that minister." I'm presuming that there has not been a change in the language and that it has always been the situation that the director had to transfer those unclaimed wages to the Minister of Finance after a year.Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, but it wasn't transferred as unclaimed money. This act now applies to it.
Sections 23 to 25 inclusive approved.
On section 26.
I. Chong: In section 26, where it makes the consequential amendments to the Insurance Act, section 71 is being changed. Subsection (5) says: "A payment made under an order under this section discharges the insurer to the extent of the payment." I would like, if possible, the minister to provide some clarification on why it would discharge the insurer to the extent of the payment. Is there something more specific that requires this change to the Insurance Act? Can the minister advise?
Hon. J. MacPhail: The payment is being made into court, so they can't be held responsible for the payment themselves.
Sections 26 and 27 approved.
On section 28.
I. Chong: I know that the members are anxious to see this piece of legislation pass -- just a few more questions.
Section 28 amends section 34 of the Legal Profession Act. Subsection (8) of this section states: "The foundation must indemnify the society for any claims paid under subsection (6)
[1945]
Hon. J. MacPhail: I'm sorry. It's highly technical. It has to do with the requests of the Law Society and the Law Foundation. I'd be happy for staff to give you a briefing separate and apart from here; but if you want to hold up the bill in order to have that briefing, I'm happy with that as well.Section 28 approved.
On section 29.
I. Chong: On section 29 -- the Municipal Act change -- referring to a surplus, I'm presuming that the surplus that remains unclaimed three months after publication is transferred to the Minister of Finance. I'm presuming that that surplus refers specifically to some sort of transaction. Can the minister advise what that would be?
Hon. J. MacPhail: It's money from a tax sale.
I. Chong: I did think that was what it was, but I just wanted that clarification.
For the benefit of the Chair and for the minister, that would conclude all the questions I have, so we could pass all the remaining sections. Before I take my seat, I do want to again express my gratitude for the cooperation of the ministry staff in providing me with those briefings and also to the minister, who perhaps feels that I have been looking in detail
Sections 29 to 33 inclusive approved.
Title approved.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I move that the committee at its rising report the bill complete without amendment.
Motion approved.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I call committee on Bill 80.
LIQUOR STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1999
The House in Committee of the Whole (Section A) on Bill 80; E. Walsh in the chair.On section 1.
R. Thorpe: I'd like to move through this as quickly as we possibly can. I'd like to thank the minister, the minister's staff and the staff from the liquor control and licensing branch for their cooperation to date. A number of these questions have come up, and I know the minister wants these stakeholder groups to have questions and, more importantly, to have them answered. So let me move quickly through these.
[1950]
Will the review, the update, the stakeholder process that the branch is going to go through include reviewing golf courses with respect to the nine-hole courses, refreshment carts, ski hills and resorts, billiard clubs, video arcades and charter boats, including dockside operations?Hon. J. MacPhail: Any business that's in the food, hospitality, beverage or entertainment sector will be reviewed.
R. Thorpe: Thank you. They'll all be happy to hear that and, I'm sure, look forward to participating.
What role will Mr. Surich play as we move forward, and at what cost to the taxpayers of British Columbia?
Hon. J. MacPhail: He chairs the implementation committee, which is a diverse group of stakeholders that includes municipal government, police and the industry representatives. So as he works, he will be subject to a standard government contract, which I'd be happy to provide the member with.
R. Thorpe: That would be helpful in moving the process along.
Last week, minister, I wrote you a note suggesting that the British Columbia Hobby Brewers and Vintners Association be included as a member of the panel. I would just ask that you give that note that I sent you due consideration. This
[ Page 14308 ]
is the first time that we're going to have regulations and legislation that pertains to them. I think it's important that this small business organization of some 350 outlets across British Columbia have some meaningful representation.Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, we've been heartened by the number of people who want input into the implementation, and we'll consider all of them.
R. Thorpe: That's good. What role do you see the advisory panel having with respect to the legislation and regulation?
Hon. J. MacPhail: The staff within the branch will do the initial public policy review of what they deem to be appropriate regulations. Then for the very first time ever, those draft regulations will be put before the implementation committee, and the implementation committee will decide whether that meets what had been the public consultation and the agreement.
R. Thorpe: That's good. I'm glad to hear that, because that has been one of the concerns from the stakeholder groups -- as, Chair, I'm sure you're aware of, and I know the minister is. The stakeholder groups were not necessarily linked now with the people that are going to be doing the work, and they were very concerned. So I'm glad to hear that. Let me just move along, because that answers a couple of questions.
What level of involvement, then, will the stakeholders have in the detailed consultation process? Will it be meaningful inputs? I'm not going to take the minister's head sign there; I'm going to wait for a verbal answer. And then the second part of that same question is: if and when there are differences, how is it envisaged that they'll be resolved?
[1955]
Hon. J. MacPhail: What we learned from past reviews of liquor policy is that unless there's a follow-through with the stakeholders and local governments to implement it, it doesn't work. So the implementation committee is extremely important and has a lot of authority. We know that it will be the work of the implementation committee that brings about success and change -- change that's meaningful for everybody. If there is a dispute, then I would suggest, as the minister responsible, that that dispute, with the many sides being articulated, be brought forward to cabinet for a final decision by the executive council.R. Thorpe: Just one follow-up on something the minister said, which I think is very important. You've acknowledged that you are the minister responsible for the legislation, but I took it as implied that you're now going to be the minister responsible to make sure that all this has happened. Did I make the correct assumption?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Actually, it's a team of the Minister of Small Business, Tourism and Culture, the Minister of Finance and the Attorney General which has worked very successfully so far.
R. Thorpe: Time will always be the judge.
Section 1, as we've been moving through it
Hon. J. MacPhail: They're actually caught within the general licensing provisions, which are listed under section 12.
R. Thorpe: Are U-brews and U-vins also captured as licensees under section 12?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, in section 12.1.
R. Thorpe: The word "advertise" -- is it envisaged that price is covered by the definition of advertising?
Hon. J. MacPhail: It's captured in the definition, and prices are not allowed to be advertised.
R. Thorpe: Will U-brews and U-vins be subject to the same rules and regulations as all other licensees are with respect to advertising?
Hon. J. MacPhail: U-brews and U-vins will only be allowed to advertise services and will be consistent with the rules that apply to the advertising of liquor.
R. Thorpe: "First nation" -- is it envisaged that this definition treats first nations exactly the same as regional and/or municipal governments?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes.
R. Thorpe: This definition does not envisage any differences whatsoever.
Hon. J. MacPhail: No.
Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.
On section 4.
R. Thorpe: What is the overall intent of the new section 11.1(1)?
Hon. J. MacPhail: For the first time, it's entrenched in law that the general manager has to make local governments and first nations councils or governments aware of liquor licence applications.
R. Thorpe: With respect to (2) underneath that, what happens in the areas of British Columbia where the first nations lands are part of a community?
[2000]
Hon. J. MacPhail: We're dealing with the local authority, whether that be a local government or the local first nation, over land use. There can be no overlap; it's one.R. Thorpe: Can you tell us what happens when a community recommends no to a licensee application, whether it's new or a renewal?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Let me separate the two. For new licences, new applications -- if the community recommends against it, the general manager would have to only reverse that decision after a public hearing, public consultation. In renewed applications, the test of reason has to apply.
[ Page 14309 ]
R. Thorpe: Could the minister advise quickly what happens when a community says yes? Does it automatically go through?Hon. J. MacPhail: The general manager must give weight to the municipality's or the local government's point of view, but the test of public interest still applies after that.
R. Thorpe: When the minister says the general manager must give weight to the community's opinion, I would assume that's going to be significant weight.
With respect to 11.2(4), what is the significance of the 60 percent hurdle point?
Hon. J. MacPhail: This is the current test that applies, but it's now entrenched in law. This is the higher test if the general manager is going to give consideration to reversing the local government's decision. It's not just a simple majority that's required.
R. Thorpe: One concern from the UBCM is that throughout section 11, things can be prescribed that will affect the local government's scope of involvement. What would be useful to them is some assurance that regulations will not merely be drafted so as to limit a meaningful role for local government. Can the minister just share her views with respect to that?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Again, as I stated earlier, there are two stages to the development of regulations. One is the internal workings of the bureaucracy about appropriate draft regulations. Local governments have been invited to participate at that level amongst the working group. Then, of course, they sit with a couple of seats on the implementation committee as well, so they're well covered.
R. Thorpe: I guess the minister would say that their concerns about the continuity, from the meetings with Mr. Surich and that group through to this implementation and the fact that they're on that panel
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes.
R. Thorpe: With respect to 11.4 and fees, are these new fees?
[2005]
Hon. J. MacPhail: Again, these are fees that can be imposed by the local authority, whether that be a local government or a first nation. Their ability to recover costs has never been enshrined in legislation. We've given that ability to the local authorities here. Indeed, some local authorities have imposed fees before, but it will beR. Thorpe: I guess, then, for the most part these would be incremental to current provincial fees and not potentially new fees.
Hon. J. MacPhail: This is one of the areas that the local authorities asked for, because they've never had the statutory authority to impose fees. Many of them do impose fees. So we are entrenching current practice. But yes, it's now possible that local governments could impose fees; that's true. They requested that.
R. Thorpe: Of course, they would be incremental, because a lot of people asked for a lot of things. Some people got some things, and some people didn't get some things. I don't suppose, though, that the
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, the fees will be restructured. It is possible that some fees could be lowered.
R. Thorpe: We look forward, I'm sure, on behalf of all the small business operators throughout British Columbia
Moving to section 11.5, what is the intent of the moratorium on licensee applications?
Hon. J. MacPhail: This is to give local governments, by their own volition, the ability to control the changeover to the new licensing system. They can put a moratorium on a certain class of new licensing, dependent upon what they feel may bring pressures to the community or the ability of the community to flourish in a certain area. It's local government control.
R. Thorpe: So that would be for each
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes.
Section 4 approved.
On section 5.
R. Thorpe: What is the significance of the adding of the words "or category"?
[2010]
Hon. J. MacPhail: It's a housekeeping component to make it consistent throughout the act.R. Thorpe: I guess we just had classes of the licences before. Now it looks like we're going to have classes and/or categories. Am I reading that correctly?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, that's the status quo. This particular section didn't refer to both, so it is housekeeping.
R. Thorpe: With respect to (b) and the reference to section 12(3)(j), (k) and (l), could you just clarify the intent of these additions to the legislation?
[ Page 14310 ]
Hon. J. MacPhail: These provisions are found in the current act. This just allows the general manager to take responsibility for preapproval of the sponsorships. But it's the status quo.R. Thorpe: If there were any industry trade practices infractions, does this not have any impact? Or is that not envisaged as part of this?
Hon. J. MacPhail: This is the section that will allow for the development of a code to deal with appropriate or inappropriate trade practices.
R. Thorpe: Is the intent of any of these three that I've referred to -- (j), (k) and (l) -- to have more restrictions on signage and sponsorship? Let me just add a second part to that question: is there any linkage to the streamlining and advertising approvals?
Hon. J. MacPhail: The intent is for less restriction, but they are linked to the streamlining practices.
R. Thorpe: In those areas, there is a commitment to work hand in hand with the industry on this. I think this is one of the things that some sectors of the industry were looking for some quick action on. I think it's been talked about for several years.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, and the first meeting will occur on Wednesday of this week.
Section 5 approved.
On section 6.
R. Thorpe: What is the current status of regulation development with respect to U-brews and U-vins?
Hon. J. MacPhail: It's ongoing, and it's going very well. There will probably be draft policies, procedures and regulations to be put before the implementation committee very shortly.
R. Thorpe: What licence fees are envisaged that this licensee group will have to pay, how will they be established, and what will those funds be used for?
[2015]
Hon. J. MacPhail: We're going to work in consultation with the industry to set the fees. They'll be cost recovery for the cost of the program.R. Thorpe: Then, if I understand the minister correctly, it's anticipated that this sector's fees will be self-funding -- if that's the correct word -- for whatever enforcement and compliance programs are envisaged. Do we have an estimate, or a ballpark estimate, of the gross amount at this point in time?
Hon. J. MacPhail: The member is correct about it being self-financing. No, we don't have a ballpark figure at this point.
R. Thorpe: In the development of the operating regulations, and knowing that many of these operations are located in different types of buildings -- strip malls, malls, freestanding, etc., etc. -- will you be regulating the hours of operation, or will there be some flexibility there?
Hon. J. MacPhail: I expect there will be maximum hours set.
R. Thorpe: I want to put this on the record and ensure that it is considered at the appropriate time. If some of these organizations are in malls, with part of their lease that they are compelled to be open certain hours
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, we'll consider that.
Section 6 approved.
On section 7.
R. Thorpe: Is this the responsible beverage service? Is this what the intent of this section is?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes.
R. Thorpe: I assume that the Serving it Right training is a priority of all who are in the alcohol beverage business. If training is a high priority, then why has the implementation date of the training programs not been identified at this point in time on the material that I've received a copy of?
Hon. J. MacPhail: We are working with the council responsible for this kind of training. We're seeking advice from them on their ability to implement this.
R. Thorpe: Is this anticipated to be a cost recovery from the individual licensees for the training of their staff throughout the province of British Columbia?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Cost recovery will be status quo. It's now borne by the individual. Whether that individual gets any recovery is in his or her relationship with the employer.
Sections 7 and 8 approved.
On section 9.
R. Thorpe: What is the overall intent of section 16(1)? Is there an appeal process?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, there is an appeal process that exists now. This is really a rewording of the current law.
R. Thorpe: In the definitions earlier -- unless I missed it -- I didn't see the definition of the word "entertainment." Where is that, and how is that going to be defined?
Hon. J. MacPhail: There is no definition in the act. It can be defined by regulation if need be.
[2020]
R. Thorpe: I'm a little bit troubled by the minister's answer. I'll just ask for a little bit of clarification, and I'll throw[ Page 14311 ]
in the word "hospitality." What I'm troubled about is the minister saying, "if need be." Is it not envisaged that it would be good to define these things to the best of our ability with theHon. J. MacPhail: More red tape?
R. Thorpe: I'll let the minister answer.
Hon. J. MacPhail: The implementation committee will be working on defining the new licensing scheme. That will be part of the new licensing scheme, by consensus.
R. Thorpe: I stand for cutting red tape, but a clarification
Hon. J. MacPhail: Again, that will be determined through the application of the licensing scheme, but there are certainly possibilities to have establishments defined as not being hospitality or entertainment.
R. Thorpe: So I would assume, then, that both nine- and 18-hole golf courses could be defined as both hospitality and entertainment venues. Would that be correct?
Hon. J. MacPhail: It's possible. I'd sure love to have the advice of the member about his views on it.
R. Thorpe: Well, I'm sure, Chair, that you noticed the seriousness with which the minister said that. Of course, I would appreciate being involved with the golf course owners and operators in British Columbia in what would be defined as entertainment and/or hospitality locations.
Section 9 approved.
On section 10.
R. Thorpe: With respect to unpaid penalties, what has given rise to this section? Have we had a problem to date? Or is this something new that's come up?
Hon. J. MacPhail: These did exist before, but they were unproclaimed. This is another tool that's advisable in order to meet enforcement requirements.
A Voice: Aye.
R. Thorpe: Just take it easy. Yes, aye.
Section 10 approved.
On section 11.
R. Thorpe: With respect to subsections 18(c) and (d), what is the purpose of these in this section 11? What is the purpose of these two additions?
Hon. J. MacPhail: This is the tied-house provision. This is to prohibit a holder of a licence to be related to a U-brew or U-vin licence.
R. Thorpe: Could you explain (2.2) of this section, please?
[2025]
Hon. J. MacPhail: This is housekeeping. It carries forward the current act.R. Thorpe: Is there a potential or an unknown liability that we're attempting to limit? Is that what we're trying to do here?
Hon. J. MacPhail: No, this is status quo. This is contained in the current legislation, so there's nothing added here.
R. Thorpe: Just with respect to (c) and (d), what impact do they have on brewpubs?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Nothing.
Section 11 approved.
On section 12.
R. Thorpe: With respect to (c.1), it says: "
Hon. J. MacPhail: Guidelines will be provided for the licensees. But at the end of the day, it will be the courts that decide.
Section 12 approved.
On section 13.
R. Thorpe: Is there currently a prescribed schedule of penalties?
Hon. J. MacPhail: No.
R. Thorpe: Who will prescribe the new schedule of penalties?
Hon. J. MacPhail: They'll be prescribed by regulation after the implementation committee has reviewed them.
R. Thorpe: So is it fair for me to conclude, and is it fair for the various stakeholders to conclude, that they are going to have a very meaningful role in the development of what this schedule of penalties will be?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, they will. I note for the member, though, that the report itself calls for more effective enforcement of all of these aspects.
R. Thorpe: Yes, I appreciate that. What is the purpose of (f) in this section?
Hon. J. MacPhail: This legislates current practice. It's where the owner of a licence can transfer it to a new operator when they've been held in non-compliance. It allows them to do that.
[ Page 14312 ]
Section 13 approved.On section 14.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I have an amendment, if I could table it, please. It amends section 14 as follows:
[SECTION 14, in the proposed section 20.2.3 of the Liquor Control and Licensing Act, by deleting the proposed paragraphs (a) and (b) and substituting the following:(a) $50,000 for a contravention of section 38(1), and(b)
$25,000 for any other reason referred to in subsection 1 of this section for taking action against the licensee.]
[2030]
On the amendment.R. Thorpe: Thanks for answering my first four questions. That takes out the difference between an individual and a corporation. Do the penalties stay at the same amounts, or have they increased?
Hon. J. MacPhail: These are new penalties.
R. Thorpe: The fines were envisaged at $25,000 for an individual under section 38.1. Do I read this correctly, now, that they've been knocked up to $50,000 from $25,000? Is that how I read this, or am I reading it incorrectly?
Hon. J. MacPhail: There's a difference between licensees and individuals. I'd be more than happy to provide a technical answer for you on that.
R. Thorpe: I'll take the minister up on that. We can deal with staff later, as long as we get it on the record. I'm sure the minister will want to do this in the spirit of moving forward -- that this is not ratcheting up the individual fine from $25,000 to $50,000.
Hon. J. MacPhail: This confirms the status quo.
R. Thorpe: In subsection (2.7), the flow of funds, why do all the penalties flow through to the consolidated revenue fund? Why not through to the LCLB, especially when we
Hon. J. MacPhail: There is a legal prohibition against administrative penalties flowing to fund the agency. There's an institutional bias if that occurs. But let me be clear. The targeted funding of agencies through penalties could perhaps undermine the agency, as well, if the revenues aren't enough.
Amendment approved.
Section 14 as amended approved.
Sections 15 to 17 inclusive approved.
On section 18.
R. Thorpe: I quote: "In accordance with regulations, the advisory panel will participate in the development and the implementation of these regulations." Is that correct?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes.
Sections 18 and 19 approved.
On section 20.
R. Thorpe: By repealing subsection (9), I think we're eliminating the appeal to the Court of Appeal of a decision or order of the Liquor Appeal Board. Why are we doing that?
[2035]
Hon. J. MacPhail: It makes sense from an efficiency and cost point of view to challenge through the Supreme Court rather than the Court of Appeal.R. Thorpe: So what is the appeal process, then, if one wants to appeal a Liquor Appeal Board decision?
Hon. J. MacPhail: They would apply to the Supreme Court for judicial review based on an error in law or a lack of due process.
Section 20 approved.
On section 21.
R. Thorpe: What is the validity of this clause, given the court challenge on the Liquor Appeal Board's authority under the act?
Hon. J. MacPhail: We don't understand your question.
R. Thorpe: With the minister's approval and support, perhaps I'll take that up in a detailed technical briefing with the staff at a later date.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Great.
Sections 21 to 23 inclusive approved.
On section 24.
R. Thorpe: The designated-driver program -- I assume that this recommendation came out of the Surich process. Is that correct?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes.
R. Thorpe: To me, it will "establish, maintain and promote
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, that's correct.
R. Thorpe: I guess those are some of the concerns. Any licensed operator I know
[ Page 14313 ]
to work? Are we going to have one-size-fits-all, or are we going to have some flexibility throughout the different regions of British Columbia?Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes to both of those. They'll have meaningful input, and there will be flexibility.
R. Thorpe: I suppose when we establish in legislation, in (b), "a reasonable price
Hon. J. MacPhail: That will be part of the consultation process and then implemented in regulation.
R. Thorpe: How do we envisage enforcing that?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Through inspection.
R. Thorpe: One of my concerns has been the ability of the branch to adapt to the changing environment in the marketplace -- the ever-changing marketplace -- in the regulations, etc. How confident are we that we're going to be able to put those inspection changes in place in a timely and meaningful way -- that we are going to be able to supply the enforcement and the monitoring of what you just spoke of?
[2040]
Hon. J. MacPhail: One of the primary purposes of this reform is so that the application of officials' services can be away from licensing and toward enforcement.
[R. Kasper in the chair.]
Section 24 approved.
On section 25.
R. Thorpe: Section 48: "Offences and penalties." What flexibility exists, if any? Does that amendment now kick up into this area, or do we have the same concerns here with the individual and the corporation?
Hon. J. MacPhail: There is no relationship between this and section 14. These are court action penalties.
R. Thorpe: What flexibility, if any, is in these interpretations? If a family has formed a corporation for tax planning, tax efficiencies or any other reason, is there any flexibility whatsoever, or is it just going to be the court's rule?
Hon. J. MacPhail: The court's rule.
Section 25 approved.
On section 26.
R. Thorpe: With respect to adult entertainment signage, what is the definition of adult entertainment, for these purposes?
Hon. J. MacPhail: This is streamlining; we haven't defined adult entertainment.
Section 26 approved.
On section 27.
R. Thorpe: "Soliciting orders for liquor." What is the purpose of this section?
Hon. J. MacPhail: It's a general offence provision for anyone who does something in violation of the act in terms of buying or selling liquor.
R. Thorpe: Section 51.1 -- could you please explain the advertising of liquor there, just quickly?
Hon. J. MacPhail: This is the section that takes away the pre-approval process and deals in regulation with the streamlining of advertising.
Sections 27 and 28 approved.
On section 29.
R. Thorpe: What is the intent of the sponsorship section?
Hon. J. MacPhail: This is a companion section to the other elimination of pre-approval. This applies to the elimination of pre-approval for sponsorship advertising.
R. Thorpe: Is there any intent here of narrowing sponsorship?
Hon. J. MacPhail: No.
R. Thorpe: Subject to regulations again, all of the stakeholders that have impact with respect to sponsorships will have very meaningful involvement in the development of these regulations. Is that correct?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes.
Section 29 approved.
On section 30.
R. Thorpe: In (b), "
[2045]
Hon. J. MacPhail: This is merely to allow you to share a cup of your homemade wine with a friend.R. Thorpe: I don't know what it is, but the minister seems to be getting a little testy. Perhaps the minister needs a cup.
Sharing is wonderful. Is the intent for the sharing of off-home, or off-your-own-premises
Hon. J. MacPhail: It can't be public, can't be licensed. Otherwise there's no restriction.
[ Page 14314 ]
[E. Walsh in the chair.]
Sections 30 to 32 inclusive approved.
On section 33.
R. Thorpe: My read of this is that this pertains to the rice wine difficulties we're having or experiencing. If this is such an important issue, why, in the implementation plan, is it not going to be addressed before the fall of 1999?
Hon. J. MacPhail: We're going to deal with this as expeditiously as is possible. It's a high priority.
R. Thorpe: That's my concern. If it is such a high priority, why aren't we saying that it is going to be dealt with by, like, September 1 of 1999?
Hon. J. MacPhail: I look forward to working with the member to ensure that all of the issues that need to be addressed get addressed as quickly as possible.
Sections 33 to 37 inclusive approved.
On section 38.
R. Thorpe: You need a road map to get through this one. What is the purpose of section 38(g), section 84(2)(u) at the bottom of page 16?
Hon. J. MacPhail: This is to permit for alternative use of an establishment. Currently when an establishment is closed, it can't be used for an alternative use. This is to permit for the ability to do that.
R. Thorpe: What is the purpose of section 38(g), section 84(2)(w)? Is this more red tape?
Hon. J. MacPhail: No, it's housekeeping.
R. Thorpe: Let's hope that the housekeeping doesn't include using a lot of red tape.
What is the intent of section 38(g), section 84(2)(y)?
Hon. J. MacPhail: It's on the face of the legislation. The language is clear. There's nothing other than the intent that's specified.
R. Thorpe: With respect to 38(g), section 84(2)(z) -- "respecting liquor pricing in licensed establishments" -- what pricing are you talking about?
[2050]
Hon. J. MacPhail: This was agreed upon by all members of the review. It's to have minimum prices and regulate prices around happy hour, etc.Section 38 approved.
On section 39.
R. Thorpe: What is the intent of section 39, section 84(2.2)?
Hon. J. MacPhail: This is to give regulatory power to the multitude of issues that may be faced in the transition from the old licensing scheme to the new licensing scheme.
Sections 39 and 40 approved.
On section 41.
R. Thorpe: Section 41(a) -- what is this clause for?
Hon. J. MacPhail: It's housekeeping, because there was a subsection (3)(a) added.
Sections 41 to 48 inclusive approved.
On section 49.
R. Thorpe: I wouldn't want staff to come all this way and not have to answer some questions. How many store openings are we looking at under this provision?
Hon. J. MacPhail: We don't know. It will be in consultation with the local governments, the local wine and beer stores, the tourism industry, the hospitality industry and the implementation committee.
R. Thorpe: Is it fair to say, then -- because the minister has given this very sincere commitment about consultation with everyone that's in the beverage alcohol business in British Columbia -- that the same rules the LDB puts on other people for proximity
Hon. J. MacPhail: There will be no moving of stores.
R. Thorpe: That wasn't actually the question. I didn't ask if any stores would be moved. Let me just ask you: will the 1.5-kilometre rule apply both ways -- to licensed operations in British Columbia and also to the LDB -- with respect to the relationship to other licensed establishments in British Columbia?
Hon. J. MacPhail: The 1.5-kilometre rule doesn't apply to opening hours; it applies to the moving of licensees. Believe you me, this will be done with the greatest of care.
R. Thorpe: You know, isn't that comforting.
Hon. J. MacPhail: God forbid that one actually opened.
R. Thorpe: Actually, minister -- just for you -- there's talk at the stakeholders group that there are going to be six to eight of them, so I'm surprised that government isn't aware of what the number actually is.
What role will municipalities have with respect to Sunday openings of LDB stores?
Hon. J. MacPhail: They'll be consulted.
[ Page 14315 ]
Sections 49 and 50 approved.Title approved.
R. Thorpe: If I could, hon. Chair, through you to the staff -- both the LDB and liquor control and licensing -- thank them very much. I look forward to being
Hon. J. MacPhail: What about me?
R. Thorpe: I'll save the best till the end. Just pay attention.
I would like to make sure -- because the minister has given many assurances here today, and that's encouraging -- that the consultation process will be meaningful and ongoing. I would ask that the minister make sure that the official opposition is kept up to date with the implementation of this program. Thank you very much to the minister for her fine cooperation.
[2055]
Hon. J. MacPhail: I very much appreciated the expert advice of the member opposite throughout this long process.I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 8:56 p.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]
Copyright © 1999: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada