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.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, JULY 14, 1999

Volume 16, Number 25

[ Page 14405 ]

The House met at 2:09 p.m.

Prayers.

G. Campbell: I would just like to recognize the return of our colleague and friend from Delta North and say: welcome back.

The Speaker: Indeed, welcome.

K. Whittred: It is my pleasure today to welcome to the House my husband Don Whittred. Would the House please make him welcome.

[1410]

You've heard a lot about Hollywood North this week, but we shouldn't forget our own B.C. documentary filmmakers. There are two of them in the gallery here today. Cari Green is a veteran documentary producer; she's joined by Steve Carruthers, who is with Nimpkish Wind Productions. Both Cari and Steve are active members of the Canadian Independent Film Caucus. They will be joining me at 3 o'clock this afternoon to make an important announcement affecting documentary film producers in British Columbia. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. C. McGregor: I'm very pleased to introduce two good friends who are visiting in Victoria today from Kamloops: Derek Cook, who's an instructor at the University College of the Cariboo and teaches political science, and his friend and partner Isabel McLeod, who teaches at Kwantlen University College. Would the House please make them welcome -- up there in the corner.

B. Barisoff: Today I'd like to introduce the wife of my colleague from Okanagan-Penticton: Yasmin Thorpe. They're down here for their anniversary, so would the House please make them welcome.

G. Campbell: I would just like to recognize four of our staff members in the gallery today who've worked very hard for us over the last number of months: Nicki Doggett, Letitia Bavinton, Rishi Sharma and Jocelyn Stanton.

Oral Questions

FOUR CORNERS BANK PERFORMANCE AND GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I guess the fact that the bank is serving one of the poorest communities in Canada, the fact that deposits are up in the bank, the fact that Maclean's magazine did an article on the bank about how innovative it was and the fact that it's been successful in meeting the needs of the poorest neighbourhood in Canada. . . . Four Corners bank is a success, and it's an initiative that this side of the House is proud of.

The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for Vancouver-Little Mountain.

G. Farrell-Collins: I hear the minister say. . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

[1415]

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, come to order so I can recognize the Minister of Employment and Investment.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Four Corners bank has a business plan which sets out a goal for where it wants to be in four years, which is to start to break even and start to turn a profit. There's been an aggressive campaign to increase the number of deposits, to expand the services that the bank offers so that we can get more deposits and more people and more account holders. You know what? We're being successful.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Come to order, members. You are making it difficult to hear.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Yes, there's a Crown corporation on deposit there. There are churches, and there are labour groups, and there are community groups, and there are individuals, and there are people from other provinces. You know, if we judge it by the standards of the opposition -- the standards of humongous banks -- that's not the thing to do.

[ Page 14406 ]

The Speaker: Thank you, minister.

Hon. M. Farnworth: And, hon. Speaker, we're going to continue, because there's a business plan in place that's on track for 2004.

The Speaker: Second supplementary, the member for Vancouver-Little Mountain.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

G. Farrell-Collins: Well, in fact, what that side of the House represents is humongous screwups, and we've got another one.

Can the Minister of Forests tell us why, of the scarce resources of FRBC, $10 million -- half of the deposits in this community bank -- has come from Forest Renewal B.C.? Can he tell us why he thinks that's appropriate for Forest Renewal B.C.?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The Forest Renewal board makes decisions to invest dollars in a number of places. They have invested money to assist municipalities in putting forth infrastructure programs. They have invested money in a number of places, and it is appropriate that a government agency assist poor people in areas in Vancouver. It is a deposit, and Forest Renewal expects that it will have its deposit kept in good order.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members. It's difficult to hear.

I. Chong: Among the fascinating tidbits buried in the financial statements is the fact that $32,000 in services from the provincial government agencies was given to the NDP bank for "no consideration." Can the minister tell us why Four Corners is being subsidized by the government in order to hide its red ink?

Hon. M. Farnworth: You know, once again the opposition is showing its true colours. They're complaining because Forest Renewal B.C. has an account there with $10 million. They don't like that. They think it should be in a regular bank, because they don't like the fact that this bank serves the poorest neighbourhood in Canada.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. . . .

Hon. M. Farnworth: Do you know what, hon. Speaker? If it was "Humongous Bank," which is where they'd like FRBC to put its money, it would receive a lower rate of interest. FRBC gets more money because it's got it in Four Corners Community Savings; they get a higher rate of interest. We're enabling the poorest neighbourhood in Canada to get the services they need. . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, come to order.

Hon. M. Farnworth: . . .which other financial institutions weren't willing to provide. That's why we're standing up for the poorest neighbourhood in Canada.

[1420]

Hon. M. Farnworth: Clearly they're not.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members. Members, come to order.

The Chair would be happy to recognize the member for Oak Bay-Gordon Head when there's some order in the chamber.

I. Chong: I hope the minister has had a chance to read the financial statements or the business plan. But in case he hasn't, I'll provide him with some more interesting facts. The 1999 business plan states that in total. . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

I. Chong: . . .six senior staff people were seconded on an informal basis from the Ministry of Employment and Investment and from the Ministry of Human Resources. These six staffers included a corporate secretary, a senior marketing strategist, a marketing representative, a senior marketing coordinator and his assistant and an investment officer. Can the minister explain why government ministries are being forced to cover labour costs to prop up the NDP's latest financial fiasco?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order! The member for North Vancouver-Seymour will come to order.

Hon. G. Clark: The line of questioning by members of the opposition says a lot about their party and about them as individuals. The downtown east side of Vancouver had and has a serious problem with banks vacating the field; and if members there would like to go down when welfare cheques are issued, they will see people lined up for blocks in the rain. They will see people lined up at cheque-cashing operations. They will see the crime that goes along with that, when people have to cash their welfare cheques and go to a bar or go down the street with all of their monthly income.

Most of the people in the downtown east side had no bank accounts. We are trying to deal with a very serious

[ Page 14407 ]

We have set it up so that we are attempting to secure $80 million in deposits -- it's true -- at commercial interest rates. There is no subsidy to that bank from Forest Renewal or any government agency. The money is deposited in that bank. It is paid commercial interest rates. They then buy mortgage money. They take the difference on the spread; that's why you need $80 million to make it self-financing. We're working towards that. What members opposite should do is tell their corporate friends to deposit in this bank at commercial interest rates. Then we'll break even. Then we'll help the people who live in the downtown east side.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members. Order, order!

[1425]

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members, so we can hear the question.

G. Plant: Is this part of a deliberate plan to inflict British Columbia taxpayers with an endless series of disasters? Or is this just one more example of his government's complete incompetence?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Hon. G. Clark: If we have seen a better display of how elitist the members opposite are, I don't know what it is. I want those members and the Leader of the Opposition to know what it's like. These people have never had a bank account. They have a welfare cheque. It goes to deposit at the beginning of the month; at the end of the month there is nothing left. That's why banks can't make money in the downtown east side, and that's why we're trying to solve that problem.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members. Member for Vancouver-Quilchena, come to order.

Hon. G. Clark: People who have never had bank accounts -- whose bank account at the end of the month goes to zero -- the banks don't want. That's why this is a serious social problem for the people in the downtown east side.

I want the members to know that for welfare recipients who get rolled, we replace their cheque. You're probably opposed to that as well. But we replace that money if it's stolen from them.

This is not just an economic initiative; this is a social initiative. This is an attempt to do something innovative and different in the downtown east side that saves money, saves society money and makes life better for the people in the downtown east side. Any independent analysis would show that.

The Speaker: Finish up, Premier, please.

Hon. G. Clark: Hon. Speaker, I don't care if it costs us some money, because it's the right thing to do for the people in the downtown east side and for British Columbia.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, come to order. Members will come to order.

First supplementary, member for Richmond-Steveston.

G. Plant: So if the cause is good, the promises are irrelevant. If the idea is a good one, then it doesn't matter whether you manage it into the ground. If it's for a cause that the Premier likes, then damn the torpedoes. Who cares what it costs?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. . . .

G. Plant: It's unbelievable. Why bother with a business plan when you don't have the slightest intention of following a single line of it?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, come to order. The member has a question. The member is going to put the question right now. The member said that he was going to ask his question, so he is to ask his question.

G. Plant: Is the Premier saying that when his pet project designs a business plan, it's intended to be completely irrelevant? Is the Premier saying that not one single financial commitment matters when it's his own reputation on the line? Is the Premier saying that even though this project is not fulfilling anybody's reasonable expectations, he'll stand here at the end of his career and defend it?

Hon. G. Clark: How do you know it's not fulfilling the expectations of the people of the downtown east side? Have you ever been there, hon. member? Have you ever been there and talked to them? Hundreds of people have bank accounts now who didn't have them before, who weren't serviced by the banks, who had to line up with loan sharks and cheque-cashing agencies, who were rolled.

[ Page 14408 ]

[1430]

The Speaker: Member for Richmond-Steveston, you have asked your question.

Hon. G. Clark: This opposition will oppose every single step to help the poor citizens of British Columbia. This is a significant. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members will come to order on both sides of the House. Premier, finish up, please.

Hon. G. Clark: If the members opposite would like to attend a meeting where they vote to elect the majority of the advisory board of the bank, they will see how proud they are of this institution, which is making a contribution to the social and economic life of the people who live there. This is a significant innovation in public policy. Instead of criticizing. . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. . . .

Hon. G. Clark: . . .as they do every single initiative to help the poorest people in British Columbia, they should be trying to work. . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. . . .

Hon. G. Clark: . . .to help to make this a success. Instead of supporting $2 billion in tax cuts for the richest 4 percent of the province, they should support $2 million for the poorest citizens of British Columbia.

Hon. D. Lovick: Madam Speaker, on a point of order. . . . I'm wondering if, by leave, we might suspend the rules of the House to extend question period.

The Speaker: I think we've got plenty on our plates now.

Tabling Documents

Orders of the Day

Motion approved.

Hon. J. MacPhail: For the information of the members, Committee of the Whole will consider Bill 98; Bill 96, Electoral Districts Act; and Bill 94, Fee Statutes Amendment Act, 1999.

In this chamber, I call second reading of Bill 89.

[1435]

PENSION STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1999
(second reading continued)

The Speaker: Hon. members, we will resume second reading of Bill 89, and we're in the middle of a hoist amendment. Seeing no further speakers on the amendment. . . . Is there a minister who wants to close debate on the amendment? No? Thank you. Then we'll put the question on the amendment.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS -- 32
Whittred	C. Clark	Campbell
Farrell-Collins	de Jong	Plant
Abbott	L. Reid	Neufeld
Coell	Chong	Sanders
Jarvis	Anderson	Nettleton
Penner	Weisgerber	Weisbeck
Nebbeling	Hogg	Hawkins
Coleman	Stephens	Hansen
Thorpe	Symons	van Dongen
Barisoff	Dalton	J. Reid
McKinnon		J. Wilson
NAYS -- 37
Evans	Zirnhelt	McGregor
Kwan	G. Wilson	Hammell
Boone	Streifel	Pullinger
Lali	Orcherton	Stevenson
Calendino	Walsh	Randall
Gillespie	Robertson	Conroy
Priddy	Miller	G. Clark
Dosanjh	MacPhail	Lovick
Sihota	Ramsey	Farnworth
Waddell	Hartley	Smallwood
Sawicki	Bowbrick	Kasper
Doyle	Giesbrecht	Goodacre
	Janssen

The Speaker: On the main motion, seeing no further speakers, I put the question on second reading of Bill 89.

Second reading of Bill 89 approved on division.

Bill 89, Pension 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.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I call second reading of Bill 95.

[1440]

PUBLIC SECTOR PENSION PLANS ACT
(second reading)

[ Page 14409 ]

The 1994 amendments established advisory boards that have provided a structured approach to managing pension issues. These boards, which have equal representation from plan members and plan sponsors, have made recommendations on many pension-related issues over the last six years. The boards believe it is important to continue to take steps to improve the management of the public sector pension plans. I'm pleased with the goodwill and cooperation that the parties have brought to the process leading to the recommendations contained in the bill.

The bill has two primary purposes. First, the bill provides a restructured, modern pension statute. Noteworthy in this regard are changes that provide for plan rules to be enacted through regulation, making it easier to administer the pension plans by allowing the plans to be updated in a more effective and efficient manner. Any changes to plan rules will have to be recommended by the appropriate pension board. The bill also provides that the budget of the plan administrator and the investment manager will have to be approved by the respective pension boards. As well, the bill provides for the appointment of a trustee for the public service pension plan, consistent with the other public sector pension plans.

[1445]

The bill provides for the possibility of transferring full responsibility for the operation of each of the public sector pension plans to a board of pension trustees, which would have equal representation from plan members and plan employers. The transfer of this responsibility will result in the pension plans being operated at arm's length from government. The legislative framework for discussing possible joint management of the public sector pension plans is set out in this bill.

In addition to this legislated framework, the government has advised the major public sector unions of the principles that must be considered in any joint-trusteeship agreement. These principles include equal sharing of responsibility for the management of pension assets in the best financial interests of plan beneficiaries, agreed-to sharing of plan member and plan employer contributions, equal sharing of responsibility for any unfunded liabilities generated during the period of joint trusteeship, equal ownership of any surpluses generated during the period of joint trusteeship and protection of the plan from unilateral actions by plan sponsors or plan member groups.

It is important to note at this time that no agreement has been reached, nor have discussions been initiated, with regard to the implementation of a joint-trusteeship agreement for members of the municipal pension plan, the public service pension plan or the teachers pension plan. The bill simply provides a framework and a process for reviewing financial governance and other related issues necessary to implement joint trusteeship. That process will commence when the parties determine that the time is right. As I noted when the bill was introduced, the government has reached an agreement with the College-Institute Educators Association and the British Columbia Government and Service Employees Union on joint management of the college pension plan. The joint-trusteeship agreement with the college plan member representatives adheres fully to the principles that I have just described to you as being a necessary starting point for discussions with plan members in other pension plans.

[1450]

The bill establishes the British Columbia Pension Corporation and the British Columbia Investment Management Corporation. Establishment of these agencies is an essential step in building the organizational framework for joint trusteeship. An arm's-length relationship to government is necessary, since the pension trustees must have the unfettered ability to determine the quality and timeliness of the service provided to plan members in order to carry out their responsibilities.

The British Columbia Pension Corporation will be the successor organization to the Superannuation Commission. It will provide pension plan administration services to the four statutory public sector pension plans and will continue to provide pension administration services to other pension plans currently administered by the Superannuation Commission. The British Columbia Investment Management Corporation will be the successor organization to the office of the chief investment officer. It will provide investment management services to the public sector pension plans and other non-pension clients.

In conclusion, I would note that the four statutory public sector pension plans cover over 220,000 public sector employees working with approximately 800 public sector employers. Currently, 71,000 individuals receive a monthly pension. The invested assets for these plans currently exceed $30 billion. The public sector pension plans are a very valuable component of an employee's compensation package, as they provide part of the means by which the employee can prepare for a financially secure retirement. The changes that are being proposed in the bill are progressive advances in the way in

[ Page 14410 ]

I. Chong: I am pleased to rise in response on second reading of Bill 95, the Public Sector Pension Plans Act. I thank the minister for her opening comments and for outlining what the two basic changes in this plan are for.

The first one I would like to discuss is the option for joint trusteeship, which she has indicated is to provide for the comanagement of public sector pension plans. As stated in a previous bill that was introduced yesterday, Bill 89, the idea and concept of joint trusteeship is not a bad idea. In fact, it is a progressive idea, provided that the plan members are in agreement that this is what should occur. So we on this side of the House want to ensure that plan members have the benefit of making that decision and have the benefit of working towards a joint management agreement which would move towards joint trusteeship. Unfortunately, that hasn't occurred. It didn't occur in the amendments that were introduced in Bill 89, and now I see, in Bill 95 also, with these four statutory pension plans, that this has not occurred.

However, it has occurred for one of those statutory pension plans, and that's the one under the Pension (College) Act. I think I can applaud the ministry and, in particular, the superannuation commissioner, Mr. Cook, for allowing that to proceed and take its normal course. It ensured that the process was duly completed and followed, it ensured that all plan members had knowledge of what was happening, and it ensured that they had a voice in how their pension plan would be administered. For that reason, certainly the component in Bill 95 that implements what has been agreed upon should in fact proceed.

I was curious as to why that was not introduced in isolation, on its own -- and for the other three pension plans to come forth in due course when they have also done their due diligence and proper consultation.

As I mentioned, I believe the trustee agreement for the college pension plan has been drafted. There was extensive dialogue. There were meetings held with the various provincial college boards; there are a number of them. I understand that the draft legislation was looked upon, and all those who had interest in this were able to provide their input to allow for changes. Therefore the uniqueness of their plan is important, because they have been the drafters of that. So the sections contained within Bill 95 will allow for unique treatment for the college pension plan.

Unfortunately, it's not so for the other three plans. There have been no detailed consultations regarding proposed legislation for those other three plans, and I think those other three plans. . . . The membership are looking to see how this particular plan evolves over time. I'm sure that if it is successful, then there will be no difficulty in having the necessary legislation brought forward. It would be appropriate for this government or for a successor government to bring forward such legislation, because it would have had the full extent of consultation and the full acceptance and canvassing of its members to allow for legislation to be brought forward.

[1455]

I know that I myself did receive two booklets. One, of the college pension board, was prepared, I believe, at the end of April. That was provided to its members. The second booklet that I received is, I believe, from the public service pension plan, which was drafted at the end of May and circulated to some of its members. After it was published, I'm not sure how many members actually received this. I hope that a number of them did and that they are also paying attention to this piece of legislation. But again, being at the end of May, perhaps with a delivery date of sometime in June, it's hard to imagine that there would have been an opportunity for those plan members to review their pension plan's proposed changes.

I note that I received, as well, the "Public Service Pension Plan 1998 Annual Report." As the minister stated, this particular pension plan has 54,000-some active plan members, of which, I think, 22,000 are pensioners. That also begs the question of whether the pensioners have been privy to some of these informal discussions or whether they were aware of informal discussions occurring. Also, there are some 9,000 inactive or invested and deferred members -- those who are no longer employed but who still have money in the plan. How have they been contacted, and how have they been informed as to some of these changes that have been proposed?

In respect of the public service pension plan, I'm concerned that the proposed legislation that will enable the joint trusteeship to proceed doesn't provide, as I mentioned, the necessary involvement of all those plan members -- the retirees, excluded managers, etc. -- for their ideas to be considered. If in fact we were to decide to proceed, you would think that it is important that all those who have that interest in their pension plan would be given that opportunity to offer any possible changes.

The concern that I've also heard back -- in regard to the public service pension plan, in particular -- is the fact that the agreement will be negotiated by the three unions represented. They are the BCGEU, the PEA, and the Union of Psychiatric Nurses in B.C. That begs the question, as well, of those plan members who are not a part of these three particular unions. They are concerned that the negotiated trustee agreement will, in fact, leave their voices unheard.

There will be no representation provided for the interests and concerns of those excluded government staff, of the retired government employees or of other possible minor union groups. They will not have their voices heard through these three unions. Also contained within this legislation. . . . Although it sets out the framework and is in fact enabling legislation, once established, there is no guaranteed representation for the retirees of Crown corporations or boards of directors as well. That is of great concern to those people, who have paid into this plan.

I have had the benefit of speaking to a number of individuals who have contacted me. As I stated earlier, all of them are in agreement that if we were to move ahead in the direction of joint trusteeship, it warrants full consultation, and that if it is in fact presented to them as a good idea, there should be no delay. There should be ample opportunity for this to proceed quickly. But again, they need to have their voices heard.

[1500]

[ Page 14411 ]

I am also aware of other jurisdictions -- as the minister is also aware -- that have a joint-trustee situation in place, primarily in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec. Not very many organizations or government bodies in British Columbia have a joint trusteeship. The only one that I am aware of -- and that I was informed of -- is the Workers Compensation Board. It appears to be, as I understand it, working well. If that is the case and it has been in joint trusteeship for a number of years, you have to wonder why we haven't moved to this sooner. Were there in fact concerns raised at some point? Have we addressed all those concerns? I know the minister will allow me an opportunity for a full canvassing of this during committee stage should this proceed through second reading. But as I stated, I am concerned about those issues, particularly that of representation.

I am also concerned about the cost factors of the pension boards that will be established. I question whether or not the idea of two new agencies being created is the appropriate mechanism to follow -- whether, in fact, it's appropriate to have a new agency formed and to have a new Crown corporation evolve. Often, when a new agency or a Crown corporation is established, the questions naturally occur and arise as to who is going to be on the boards of these agencies or Crown corporations. I guess I am somewhat comforted, after having spoken to staff, that there will in fact be an opportunity for people to be elected to these boards -- as opposed to appointments, which is what has occurred in the past. As long as the plan members have an opportunity to put their members forward for representation to protect their interests, I think that would be a good thing. If that were not to occur, then I think we have some very serious problems. Once again, more control has been lost by the plan members.

I also want to read into the record a comment from someone who wrote to me concerning Bill 95. What the minister alluded to in her comments was that the changes in Bill 95 allow for changes to be made to pension plans through regulation. I guess that is somewhat of a concern for those who feel that a change to pension plans should be brought in through legislation, where there is a full airing of those views and where we in this House can in fact debate those changes on behalf of pension plan members. But when changes are brought in through regulation to pension plans, again, I think we diminish the decision-making that should rightfully be in the hands of the pension plan members.

So those are some of my concerns. Those are the concerns that I hope perhaps the minister is willing to address if we do move into committee stage. But I do believe, as I've stated in the comments I made on the previous bill, that we are moving too quickly on this piece of legislation. I do feel that we should in fact allow for appropriate consultation, an appropriate full airing of the views.

It is for that reason that I am prepared at this time, again, to move an amendment to this bill. The amendment I would like to move is as follows: that the motion for second reading of Bill 95 be amended by deleting the word "now" and substituting therefor the words "six months hence."

The Speaker: I take due note of the amendment. If you wish to speak to the amendment, of course, you may proceed.

On the amendment.

I. Chong: I will speak briefly on it, because I am sure that the minister has heard my comments on second reading, and she is fully aware of why I am proceeding in this manner. It is no different than the procedure I took for Bill 89. I feel that members on this side of the House do in fact feel that although Bills 89 and 95 may appear worthy in the eyes of government and may appear to be beneficial, we don't know that.

We need to allow the appropriate time for consultation. I do believe a six-month time frame would allow for that. I do believe that those who are currently away on holidays would benefit from this six-month delay or hoist of this bill. Those who would return in the next few months would be able to provide the information that they think is necessary, or that is lacking, to the minister and to the staff, to ensure that we have the appropriate legislation in place to ensure that their pension plans are in fact being protected.

[1505]

We believe that we need to assist by protecting the rights of pension plan members, whether they're current as active members, whether they're retirees, whether they're excluded members or whether they're managers and professionals. Each and every member of a pension plan needs to have their voice heard, regardless of what their membership in a plan is in proportion to other members in that plan. Without that, I feel that they have not had their democratic rights protected.

I'm hoping, again, that the minister will support this motion, but I won't be surprised if she does not. With that, I'll conclude my comments on the amendment.

[1510]

YEAS -- 30
Whittred	C. Clark	Campbell
Farrell-Collins	de Jong	Plant
Abbott	L. Reid	Neufeld
Coell	Chong	Sanders
Jarvis	Anderson	Nettleton
Penner	Weisgerber	Weisbeck
Nebbeling	Hogg	Coleman
Stephens	Hansen	Thorpe
Symons	van Dongen	Barisoff
Dalton	J. Reid	J. Wilson
NAYS -- 36
Evans	Zirnhelt	McGregor
Kwan	G. Wilson	Hammell
Boone	Streifel	Pullinger
Lali	Orcherton	Stevenson
Walsh	Randall	Gillespie
Robertson	Conroy	Priddy
Miller	G. Clark	Dosanjh

[ Page 14412 ]

YEAS -- 36
Evans	Zirnhelt	McGregor
Kwan	G. Wilson	Hammell
Boone	Streifel	Pullinger
Lali	Orcherton	Stevenson
Walsh	Randall	Gillespie
Robertson	Conroy	Priddy
Miller	G. Clark	Dosanjh
MacPhail	Sihota	Lovick
Ramsey	Farnworth	Waddell
Hartley	Smallwood	Sawicki
Bowbrick	Kasper	Doyle
Giesbrecht	Goodacre	Janssen
NAYS -- 30
Whittred	C. Clark	Campbell
Farrell-Collins	de Jong	Plant
Abbott	L. Reid	Neufeld
Coell	Chong	Sanders
Jarvis	Anderson	Nettleton
Penner	Weisgerber	Weisbeck
Nebbeling	Hogg	Coleman
Stephens	Hansen	Thorpe
Symons	van Dongen	Barisoff
Dalton	J. Reid	J. Wilson

[1515]

Hon. J. MacPhail: I call Committee of the Whole to debate Bill 84.

CHILD, FAMILY AND COMMUNITY SERVICE
AMENDMENT ACT, 1999

On section 1.

L. Reid: The questions I have relate to section 1(b), "plan for independence." I would just like a little further explanation as to what that might include and whether or not there's going to be any priority placed upon children who are currently on the street and those who are at risk for that lifestyle -- if that will be taken into consideration when those plans for independence are devised.

Hon. L. Boone: The plan for independence will be worked out with youth to determine what they need to give them the ability to move on into the world. If you've got a 16-year-old, he or she may have to be upgraded and perhaps go through some educational programs. They may need to have some ability to go into a rehab program so that they can deal with some addiction problems. It may mean that they have to work out some counselling problems, so they may need to go into counselling. So there will be a plan that is put together with the youth and the worker to say that this is the. . . . It's almost like a contract with the worker that says: "This is what you will do in order to receive certain services." Those services may be independent living on a temporary basis, or what have you. So it's a plan to move them out so that they're not constantly in the control of the state -- in government care, actually.

[1520]

Hon. L. Boone: Yes, of course. That's what this whole legislation is for: to work with those kids, the street kids. But it has to be with kids who are willing to work with us to make sure that they have an agreement in place, so that they say: "Yes, I want to change my life. I am willing to do certain things. As a result of that, will you support me? Will you give me some help?" It is aimed at those street kids there.

L. Reid: So a "plan for independence" and a "plan of care," which are in section (1)(c) -- are those terms going to replace what we currently understand to be a voluntary care agreement?

Hon. L. Boone: This is something entirely different from voluntary care agreements. Voluntary care agreements will still be in place for a small number of people: some of the younger people, people who are in need of coming into care. The plan is to return them to their parents, ultimately. This is a separate item for those kids who won't necessarily be returning to their parents but who will be moving on to independent living themselves.

L. Reid: The minister will know that it's that particular aspect that is causing great angst among family members today. They see this new aspect, if you will, taking precedence over voluntary care agreements. I think the minister did suggest that in fact there would be fewer children who will now participate in voluntary care agreements. So maybe we can canvass that for a moment or two. How many children today are on voluntary care agreements, and how will that number differ as a result of this legislation?

Hon. L. Boone: It's not really the intent of this debate here to canvass the number of kids in voluntary care agreements. We did that in our estimates. That's not the bill. The bill will enable us to work into an agreement with a youth, rather than taking a youth into care. Currently we have no ability to enter into an agreement. If there's a disagreement between a youth and his parent and the parent comes to us and says, "I cannot cope with this youth anymore. He or she is not listening to rules, regulations, etc. I can't have him in my house anymore," then the only option that we have is to take that child into care and place him into a foster home or a group

[ Page 14413 ]

L. Reid: The issue, I think, for clarification for families in this province today. . . . What I believe the minister is saying is that in the past, it was parents who entered into voluntary care agreements on behalf of their children. What this bill will allow is those very same children to enter into agreements in partnership with the ministry without being in the care of the ministry. Would the minister confirm?

Hon. L. Boone: Yes, that's true.

L. Reid: So again, if I might just reference this for the record, the parental concern today is that children who will now be denied voluntary care agreements under the ministry are in no position to live independently and that the agreement they now reach with the ministry will see them having far more independence than they've been able to handle in the past. There are a number of parents today who don't see this initiative as a good thing. They have serious concerns. I'm asking the minister how she might mitigate that level of concern in her response to me.

[1525]

L. Reid: Certainly, if that's the case and these children are not supported to live independently, what is their option at that juncture?

Hon. L. Boone: If these individuals are already sufficiently independent, they may in fact just receive some support through Human Resources. But they wouldn't be receiving support from us as a ministry to say that they would get the extras, the support in terms of educational support or drug rehab or counselling. We believe very strongly that there must be some accountability and that youth who are coming into this agreement must be accountable. This is the way that we can in fact hold them accountable.

As I said in my opening remarks, we also believe that we will be able to save substantial dollars by not putting them into a more expensive group home type of setting and that we can transfer those resources into providing supports for these children, whether it be through additional counselling services, rehab, parenting counselling for them and their own parents or whatever is necessary to assist them in moving them on toward independence.

L. Reid: The minister did not respond when I asked about the number of voluntary care agreements, and I'm happy to receive that information at a later time. I think the issue is valid: is this an enormous philosophical shift in terms of what percentage of children today under voluntary care agreements will somehow find themselves affected by this particular legislation? I will await that information.

My understanding is that there are approximately 3,000 children today on income assistance -- young people under the age of 19 -- through the Ministry of Human Resources and that this particular tenet of this act will attempt to address somewhere in the neighbourhood of 300 to 500 of those young people and to provide that extra layer of service, if you will. Is that the minister's understanding?

[1530]

L. Reid: I thank the minister for that. I think that was the information provided. It was certainly a range. It was somewhere in the neighbourhood of 300 to 500 young people. So I have no difficulty with that.

For confirmation, as indicated that day, does the price tag for this intervention under the act still remain at $18 million?

Hon. L. Boone: The number given during the briefing was $18 million.

D. Jarvis: Minister, I feel that. . . . Let me put it this way. I guess you don't have enough beds or places to put these children in as it is now. We're probably short; I assume that I can assume we're short. How many beds are we going to require down the line if we have, say, a maximum of 300 to 500 children out there that go into care on a voluntary basis and that need this? Those that don't go into it -- where's the room for them? Do you know what I'm trying to get at? I wonder if you could respond.

Hon. L. Boone: We're not going to be building hostels or anything like that in order to accommodate these youth. When they go into independent living -- whether it's semi-independent or what have you -- they may be supported in their own apartments or basement suites. Some individuals may do what university students do: get a room someplace

[ Page 14414 ]

D. Jarvis: In a previous bill, you put forward that you were going to add approximately another 70, plus or minus, detox beds of various degrees. Has that been included in what you're now offering for these children?

Hon. L. Boone: Those are some of the support programs that we need to have in place for these kids. It's not part of the program. I mean, everything is part of the program, but it's not where we will be housing these youth. They will be housed, as I said, semi-independently or independently. But certainly the resources that we need are the alcohol and drug programs and all of those things that will help these kids get back on their feet and into a normal life.

D. Jarvis: If we have about 300-plus children in care now and we're not going to try to expand to meet the potential 500 out there, it seems to me that we're going to be maybe 100 to 200 short accommodation-wise. Where are these coming from? If we haven't got enough beds or locations for children who are out there now, where are we going to get the new ones from -- other than having to go out and build a place?

[1535]

D. Jarvis: How about I put it this way? This is strictly a voluntary program. . .

Interjection.

D. Jarvis: . . .and that means a lot of accommodation, as my associate is yelling at me. As I say, it's voluntary. What if these children are sort of non-conformists and don't want to go into the program and therefore revert back to the ministry group homes? I'm not getting through to you properly, I guess. It's not being explained to us as to the. . . . The proposal right now, I guess, is that. . . . We have about 300 children in care now, and we feel that with this new program coming in, we could possibly go up to 500. So there's a shortage out there.

Hon. L. Boone: These kids wouldn't be going into group homes, because they are not children in care. We only put children in care into foster homes; we only put children in care into group homes. These children would be separate; they would not be children in care. They are not in. . .by voluntary agreement. They are in a youth agreement, which is totally separate from any other kind of care agreement that we have. If somebody says, "I'm out of here. I'm not abiding by these rules. I'm going back to live with so and so," then that's what they would probably do. So be it. But they would not be coming into a group home. They would not be a child in care, because we wouldn't be protecting them.

D. Jarvis: What percentage of these 500 children do you anticipate will require drug and alcohol treatment?

Hon. L. Boone: This is sort of conjecture, because I don't know. I would say that a good portion of the kids we're dealing with. . . . We're talking with high-risk kids, we're talking with kids on the street, and we're talking with kids who have been on the streets. A good portion of them would in fact need alcohol and drug treatment. That's one of the reasons why we've actually increased our alcohol and drug program -- so that we can have some of those resources available for those kids, whether it be off-site counselling services. . . . Not all of them need rehab beds. It may just mean counselling services. That's why we've increased it, and that's why we need the new resources -- so we can continue to build on those programs.

D. Jarvis: Do you anticipate having to go out and get some more contracts? I understand there are centres out there that will take children, which are having very good success with regard to alcohol and drug treatment. I was quickly going through my papers to find the name of one in particular, because I'm going to visit there one of these days.

If the ministry hasn't got any more, are they going to start expanding again as far as trying to find contract places to place children?

Hon. L. Boone: I think we've only just put out the contracts, so we will deal with that right now -- get those contracts up and running -- and see how that meets our needs. At that time we would be dealing with it at Treasury Board, but right now this is what we have. We have no intention right now to expand on those.

[1540]

Section 4, section 12.1 approved.

On section 4, section 12.2.

L. Reid: I'm going to make my remarks with reference to subsections (7), (8) and (9), for the minister's clarification. Subsection (7) reads: "An agreement made by the director under this section with a youth is enforceable against the youth." I need some explanation on what that means.

Hon. L. Boone: Subsection (7) gives us the legal right to enter into an agreement with a youth.

L. Reid: I'm seeking this clarification because I believe that this might have some bearing on the Infants Act that was debated in this House some years earlier. I think that at that juncture we gave children those opportunities to make those decisions. Does this coincide? Is this reconciled with what the Infants Act currently says?

Hon. L. Boone: Yes, it's consistent.

[ Page 14415 ]

Hon. L. Boone: We wouldn't want an agreement to prevent us from coming in to do protection orders, if in fact there was a protection issue, or to do a restraining order -- any legal order. This basically says that this doesn't hinder us from doing those orders.

L. Reid: So everything that this act will do will be considered a youth agreement, as opposed to a voluntary care agreement. I believe we've canvassed that fairly extensively. If the minister could confirm.

Hon. L. Boone: If you look back, I very clearly said that there will still be voluntary care agreements. There may be situations. . . . They have to be taken into consideration. Each case will be considered separately, but there may be cases with younger youth where we want to return that youth to his or her family. Then it may be a case for which a voluntary care agreement is the correct procedure.

Each case will be taken individually. This is another tool for us to use with those children who are needing protection and who we think we could service better through a voluntary care agreement.

L. Reid: I think the minister and I might actually agree. I'm saying that this bill refers to youth agreements separate and distinct from voluntary care agreements, which are contained in other aspects of legislation. She's nodding. I'm going to assume that that's the case.

The last one I want to query on this section is subsection (9): "For the purpose of this section, youth includes a person who (a) is under 16 years of age, and (b) is married or is a parent or expectant parent." I know that in the briefing we discussed children who may come to this country as part of an arranged marriage situation. Are there any other examples that would allow someone to qualify under this section?

Hon. L. Boone: No, there's nothing else. It's everything that is mentioned here.

L. Reid: So the jurisdiction of this act pertains to people resident in British Columbia. It's in no way tied to citizenship or landed immigrant status. If you are resident in British Columbia, the tools in this particular act could come to your aid.

Hon. L. Boone: I guess you don't necessarily even have to be a resident. You just have to be here. But it would be pretty hard to be here and not be a resident, wouldn't it? It could be somebody. . . . I don't know whether you consider somebody that's living on the street as having a residence, you know. That's the. . . .

Interjection.

Hon. L. Boone: Or vacationing, yeah. So as long you're in British Columbia, this act could apply to you.

Section 4, section 12.2 approved.

[1545]

L. Reid: Section 12.3(3) says: "The agreement may be renewed or the parties may, after an interval, make another agreement under this section, but, whether one or more agreements are made. . . ." My question is around the interval. Is that an extended period of time? Could that be more than a number of months, more than a number of years, where the child would come back, enter into the agreement and have the services that were provided carry forward?

Hon. L. Boone: This section actually pertains to extending beyond the age of 19. So it could be any interval within that period after the age of 19. It could be a couple of months; it could be two or three months. The end term we have is that it can't go past 24 months, and no agreement may extend beyond the person's twenty-fourth birthday. So we're putting an end limit on this. But it could be any time; you know, there's no set interval period in there.

L. Reid: So my understanding is that these agreements could be as long as 24 months and cannot go beyond someone being 24 years of age. Is that correct?

Hon. L. Boone: Yes, that's what it says.

Section 4, section 12.3 approved.

On section 5.

L. Reid: Section 5, which is amending section 13, has in (1.1): ". . .(b) coerced or inveigled into engaging in prostitution." Now, even the B.C. Civil Liberties Association has a query about the term "inveigled." So I would like an explanation as to how that ended up in this particular act and if there is a synonym for that particular term.

Hon. L. Boone: Good question, and one I'm glad to get the answer for myself. It means fooled or co-opted. But surely your legal mind to the right of you could have told you this.

Interjection.

Hon. L. Boone: Yeah. He's not your legal mind, you say.

Sections 5 to 7 inclusive approved.

On section 8.

L. Reid: I'm on section 8(a): ". . .authorize the director, a police officer or a person specified in the order to, by force if necessary, enter the premises. . . ." The concern that was raised to me directly by a number of parents in the province and that I raised at the briefing was that parents want the ability to activate this mechanism. If it's going to be useful and their child has not had contact with a social worker or with the justice system up to that point, why is it that they cannot make a call and have this process unfold for them -- as it would, according to the briefing information, for a social worker?

Hon. L. Boone: The section you're talking about doesn't actually relate to that. It's further on. This deals with the

[ Page 14416 ]

[1550]

If I can do only one thing today in terms of putting this on the record. . . . If the ministry, perhaps in other areas of service delivery, can recognize that most parents don't want their child to be in the heartland of prostitution before services are in place. . . . They want to be able to access drug and alcohol services prior to their children coming into such dire straits. What this says is that once you're there, a number of things will be activated. But until you're there, you have no priority for drug and alcohol beds -- for the points that my hon. colleague for North Vancouver-Seymour was raising. I'm not expecting this particular bill to answer all things for all time But I simply want to put on the record that that's the concern that I know the minister has received, because it's a concern that's come to my office readily -- that most families don't wish this to become a full-blown child protection issue before their child receives some sense of priority. They truly believe, as do I, that the very fact that they're a child places some priority on the fact that these services should be available. I simply put that on the record because I indicated that I would do so and to give a heads-up to the ministry that that's the issue when future legislation is drafted: that no one wishes it to come to the point where it's crisis intervention. People want the ability as parents to activate some services long before it reaches this particular stage. That is my comment.

Hon. L. Boone: This section doesn't actually deal with that at all. In fact, one of the reasons that we did the first section, the youth agreement, was so that we could act in an intervention effort and so that we could provide services before it reached a crisis situation. This is dealing strictly with sexually exploited youth and trying to prevent them from being lured into the sex trade. That's the entire intent of this portion of the bill.

L. Reid: I appreciate the minister's comment. But if they're sexually exploited, it's too late. They've already been lured into having sex before they were over the age of 14 in many, many cases. So I will leave the point on the record because I believe that the point is valid.

Sections 8 to 13 inclusive approved.

On section 14.

L. Reid: The question I have is on section 14, section 36 (d)(2.1): "The director must, if practicable, inform the following of the time, date and place of the presentation hearing relating to the child's removal under subsection (1): (a) the child, if 12 years of age or over. . . ." My understanding during the briefing was that that would be a verbal communiqué if the child were under 12 and would be somehow different if the child were over 12. I simply want some clarification.

[1555]

L. Reid: The discussions that I've had surrounding that. . . . Maybe it's just children of that age, no matter their circumstance. Is there any way to put that information in writing to them? Is there any way to remind them of those kinds of hearing dates etc., other than just verbally communicating that? I'm not suggesting this population over any other adolescent population, but there seems to be some difficulty with young people being in the right place at the right time in terms of participating in those presentation hearings. Is there any consideration given to ensuring that that information is communicated more effectively?

Hon. L. Boone: I'll consider it. I'll look into that issue for you.

Sections 14 to 24 inclusive passed.

On section 25.

L. Reid: I'm on section 25, and again, I'm seeking clarification regarding the discussion in the briefing. The sense I had was that the intention of this section was to provide a clearer path for consent. It seems somewhat convoluted as it's laid out. That may be simply drafting language. Can the minister, for my clarification, just walk me through what the path of consent would be and how it's improved as a result of this section?

Hon. L. Boone: In the past we had to get written consent from all of these individuals that were listed here. If we didn't get that, then we didn't get the order, and the judges said that this was too high a test. With the changes that we're making here, we will try to get the written consent, and we will advise individuals that we're going for the order. If they do not object, then I guess the judge will consider that as consent given, and the order would proceed. But it is not necessary for us to get the written consent from everybody.

L. Reid: So when I referenced verbal consents in section. . . . Does this section also allow for verbal consents, as opposed to written consent?

Hon. L. Boone: If the person is there and present, but not otherwise.

Sections 25 to 33 inclusive approved.

On section 34.

The Chair: Member, I believe there is an amendment on the order paper.

[ Page 14417 ]

[SECTION 34 (a) (1) (c), to delete paragraph 1(c).]

[1600]

L. Reid: Numbers of these issues come up in the realm of civil liberty issues. We did contact the B.C. Civil Liberties Association, and this is their comment in terms of the delicacy of that particular section: "(1)(c), 'has otherwise exploited, abused or intimidated,' is much broader and could include a host of behaviour having nothing to do with prostitution, even behaviour which is perfectly legal." So our take on that was that the problematic term in subsection (1)(c) was "has otherwise exploited." If you look at 34(a)(1)(b), "has inveigled or coerced, or is likely to inveigle or coerce, a child or youth mentioned in paragraph (a) into engaging in prostitution," you have in fact covered off very well in (b) the prostitution question. The fact that it refers to prostitution-related behaviour in (c) is redundant. And to the extent that it does not, it is problematic.

That is their discussion; that is the discussion that I am prepared to have with the minister today. So perhaps she can start by convincing me that there is indeed a necessity for (c). My argument is that (b) covers off all aspects of the prostitution question which this bill is intending to remedy.

Hon. L. Boone: This is pretty well the part that was in the act prior to this, and this is what we need to enable us to protect not just those children that are being drawn into prostitution but those who are abused or exploited otherwise. For example, if there's a child in a group home and if someone they know is a sexual predator comes to that home or if they know that this child has been abused by a certain person, and we want keep that person away from that child, then this is necessary for us to do that protection.

This is similar to what was in the act prior to this. The only thing we've done is add the section above, which was to make it so that we could do the protection order against people who inveigle or coerce somebody into the trade.

L. Reid: So the minister is basically saying that the child protection section, (c), has simply been attached to the prostitution sections (a) and (b). Frankly, (a) and (b) stand alone, as I read this. So if indeed the minister is looking to suggest that the child protection piece makes sense under that section, I would query that. But not being a legislative drafter. . . . I mean, the entire section refers to prostitution and looks at that, and then there's (c): ". . .has otherwise exploited. . . ." I'm curious as to why it would be found as (c), in that it has basically no relation to (a) or (b). If the minister could explain.

Hon. L. Boone: We've got it all around. . . . The prostitution stuff has been added to this bill. The bill currently has restraining orders -- a section that says: "The court may make a restraining order if there are reasonable grounds to believe that a person is likely to exploit, abuse or intimidate any of the following: (a) a child in care; (b) a child in the custody. . . " etc., etc. So we have added the section that deals with prostitution and coercion into prostitution to this bill to enable us to expand our protection orders, not just to those children who have somebody that may abuse them -- who is stalking them, etc. -- but to those who are being coerced into the sex trade.

[1605]

Hon. L. Boone: Yes, it is. Section 98, which is the section that's being amended, is the section that deals with restraining orders and has a whole list. . . . The sections that deal with sexual exploitation -- or inveigling, coercing, etc. -- have been added in to strengthen this bill.

L. Reid: We have no difficulty with the child prostitution aspects; we have no difficulty with the coercion and inveigling aspects. We do have some difficulty with that particular term, "has otherwise exploited," being left in that particular section. I would simply call the question on my motion, and my motion is to delete that section.

Hon. L. Boone: I can't support that, because if we were to delete this section, then we would, in fact, be leaving all of those children who are at risk of being stalked. . . . It would leave us without the ability to protect children in group homes or any of those kids that are requiring those. If this section is deleted, then that takes out the ability to do that. I'm sorry -- I really can't support this amendment.

Amendment negatived on division.

Sections 34 to 42 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. L. Boone: I move the committee report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Bill 84, Child, Family and Community Service Amendment Act, 1999, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

The Speaker: Members, I think we'll take a few moments' recess to sort out which is the next bill for committee.

The House recessed from 4:10 p.m. to 4:14 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I call committee stage on Bill 100.

[ Page 14418 ]

DEFINITION OF SPOUSE AMENDMENT ACT, 1999

G. Plant: I would ask if, by leave, we could stand down sections 1, 2 and 3 and begin the debate with section 4, after which we would return to section 1.

[1615]

On section 4.

G. Plant: This is a bill to amend five statutes of British Columbia to change the definition of spouse. It happens to be a bill about which I have said all that I want to say in second reading debate, including all that I really need to say about the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. I have explained, during second reading debate on this bill, why I think this amendment would be a good step. I have actually also talked about the ideas represented by this amendment in other contexts, when other bills have been debated. For all of these reasons -- in particular, for the reason that I think the introduction of this additional term would be a way of improving Bill 100 -- I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 4, (section 1 of the Estate Administration Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 122) in subparagraph (b), by adding the following definition:

"domestic partner" means a person who has lived with another person, for a period of at least 2 years immediately before the other person's death, in a close, personal relationship that is of primary importance in both persons' lives and which has the attributes of permanence, sharing and interdependence;]

[1620]

[1625]

YEAS -- 59
Evans	Zirnhelt	McGregor
Kwan	G. Wilson	Hammell
Boone	Streifel	Pullinger
Lali	Orcherton	Stevenson
Walsh	Randall	Gillespie
Robertson	Conroy	Priddy
Petter	Miller	G. Clark
Dosanjh	MacPhail	Sihota
Lovick	Ramsey	Farnworth
Waddell	Smallwood	Sawicki
Bowbrick	Kasper	Doyle
Giesbrecht	Goodacre	Janssen
Weisgerber	Nettleton	Anderson
Jarvis	Sanders	Chong
Coell	L. Reid	Abbott
Plant	de Jong	Farrell-Collins
Campbell	C. Clark	Whittred
Weisbeck	Nebbeling	Hogg
Hawkins	Stephens	Hansen
Symons		J. Wilson
NAYS -- 8
Coleman	Krueger	Thorpe
van Dongen	Barisoff	J. Reid
Penner		Dalton

On section 1.

G. Plant: Substantially all of this statute deals with the definition of spouse. It's not entirely all of this statute. That is, there is one subsection that I believe deals with another issue. That is subparagraph (a), which amends section 51 of the Cemetery and Funeral Services Act by adding the phrase "or cremated remains" after the words "human remains." Could the minister explain the purpose of this particular amendment?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I'm given to understand that human remains, in practice and in law, do not include the cremated remains. For that reason. . . . When human beings are cremated, only the cremated remains remain. There is sometimes an issue as to who should get the cremated remains so that they can be disposed of. In some cultures, as it is in mine, they are disposed of in a particular way, and therefore it's an important addition.

G. Plant: The intent of the additional language is to ensure that the provisions of section 51 of the Cemetery and Funeral Services Act, which currently apply to human remains, are extended to be sure that they also apply to cremated remains. Is that correct?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: That's correct.

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

[ Page 14419 ]

Title approved.

[1630]

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Bill 100, Definition of Spouse Amendment Act, 1999, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I call committee on Bill 96.

ELECTORAL DISTRICTS ACT

G. Plant: This act is moderately particular about the way it comes into force, and I want to ask a question about that. The commencement section, which is section 18, says that sections 1 to 6, 15 and 16, come into force on the day the thirty-sixth parliament is dissolved. Well, we are here in the thirty-sixth parliament, and the question -- which, I suppose, is asked in practical terms -- is: will the new electoral districts in fact apply in the next general provincial election? It appears to me that the operation of section 18 means that the answer to that question is yes, but I want to have the minister's view on that. Will the electoral districts that are the subject matter of this bill -- the 79 new electoral districts -- be in force for the next general provincial election?

[1635]

G. Plant: The next question I have is a question that should probably be asked after the amendments are made to schedules 1 and 2. I'm assuming that a question will be in order when we get to the amendments to the schedules. So we can move to the schedules.

Sections 1 to 18 inclusive approved.

On schedule 1.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand that there is an amendment in my name which is in your possession, hon. Chair, and I believe the opposition has copies. I move those amendments to schedules 1 and 2.

[SCHEDULE 1, by deleting "Burnaby-North" and substituting "Burnaby North".

SCHEDULE 2,

(a) in the proposed description of the Abbotsford-Clayburn Electoral District, by deleting "Commencing at the intersection of the centrelines of Gladwin Road and Highway 1;" and substituting "Commencing at the intersection of the southerly prolongation of the centreline of Gladwyn Road and the centreline of Highway 1;",

(b) in the proposed description of the Abbotsford-Mount Lehman Electoral District, by deleting "Commencing at the intersection of the centrelines of Gladwin Road and Highway 1;" and substituting "Commencing at the intersection of the southerly prolongation of the centreline of Gladwyn Road and the centreline of Highway 1;",

(c) in the proposed description of the Alberni-Qualicum Electoral District, by deleting "Lot" and substituting "District Lot", by deleting "Lots" and substituting "District Lots", wherever they appear,

(d) in the proposed description of the Alberni-Qualicum Electoral District, by adding "and the said middle line produced" before "to the intersection with the northerly boundary of the watershed of the streams flowing into Cowichan Lake;",

(e) in the proposed description of the Burnaby-Edmonds Electoral District, by deleting "Dufferin Road" and substituting "Dufferin Avenue",

(f) in the title and in the proposed description of Burnaby North Electoral District, by deleting "Burnaby-North" and substituting "Burnaby North",

(g) in the proposed description of the Burnaby North Electoral District, by deleting "thence northwesterly along the centreline of Inlet Drive" and substituting "thence northeasterly along the centreline of Inlet Drive",

(h) in the proposed description of Burnaby-Willingdon District, by deleting "Dufferin Road" and substituting "Dufferin Avenue",

(i) in the proposed description of the Cariboo South Electoral District, by deleting "Townships 19" and substituting "Township 19",

(j) in the proposed description of the Cariboo South Electoral District, by deleting "then in generally" and substituting "thence generally",

(k) in the proposed description of the Chilliwack-Sumas Electoral District, by deleting "old Clayburn Road" and substituting "Old Clayburn Road",

(l) in the proposed description of the Comox Valley Electoral District, by deleting "Lot" and substituting "District Lot" wherever it appears,

(m) in the proposed description of the Cowichan-Ladysmith Electoral District, by deleting "thence northerly and easterly along the westerly and northerly boundaries of the said Block 1079 to the easterly boundary thereof;" and substituting "thence northerly and easterly along the westerly and northerly boundaries of the said Block 1079 to the westerly boundary of Block 1028, Dunsmuir and Cowichan Lake Land Districts;",

(n) in the proposed description of the Kamloops-North Thompson Electoral District, by deleting "thence southerly along the westerly boundaries of said Section 7 and Section 6" and substituting "thence southerly along the westerly boundaries of the east half of said Section 7 and the east half of Section 6",

(o) in the proposed description of the Maple Ridge-Mission Electoral District, by deleting "Alouatta River" and substituting "Alouette River",

(p) in the proposed description of the Maple Ridge-Mission Electoral District, by deleting "Kanakas Creek" and substituting "Kanaka Creek" in both places,

(p.1) in the proposed description of the Maple Ridge-Mission Electoral District, by deleting "thence easterly to and along the westerly prolongation of the northerly boundary of said District Lot 6110 to the northeast corner thereof; thence southwesterly along the shore of Pitt Lake" and substituting "thence easterly along the said westerly

[ Page 14420 ]

prolongation of District Lot 6110 to the easterly shore of Pitt Lake; thence southwesterly along the easterly shore of Pitt Lake",

(q) in the proposed description of the Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows Electoral District, by deleting "northerly boundary of Lot 6110, Group 1, New Westminster Land District; thence easterly to and along the westerly prolongation of the northerly boundary of said Lot 6110 to the northeast corner thereof; thence southwesterly along the shore of Pitt Lake" and substituting "northerly boundary of District Lot 6110, Group 1, New Westminster Land District; thence easterly along the westerly prolongation District Lot 6110 to the easterly short of Pitt Lake; thence southwesterly along the easterly shore of Pitt Lake",

(q.1) in the proposed description of the Nanaimo Electoral District, by deleting "to the westerly boundary of Block 1079, Cowichan Lake Land District;" and substituting "to the westerly boundary of Block 1028, Cowichan Lake Land District;",

(r) in the proposed description of the Nanaimo-Parksville Electoral District, by adding "the northeasterly prolongation of the middle line of" after "thence southeasterly along the prolongation of the centreline of the Strait of Georgia to an intersection with",

(r.1) in the proposed description of the North Coast Electoral District, by deleting "lying due South of the to a point lying thereon due South of the southwest corner" and substituting "lying due South of the southwest corner", and

(s) in the proposed description of the Peace River South Electoral District, by deleting "Highway 97 the northwesterly along" and substituting "Highway 97; thence northwesterly along",

(s.1) in the proposed description of the Port Coquitlam-Burke Mountain Electoral District, by deleting "Lot 1720" and substituting "District Lot 1720", and by deleting "Lot 1721" and substituting "District Lot 1721" wherever they appear,

(t) in the proposed description of the Port Coquitlam-Burke Mountain Electoral District, by deleting "Lots 1721 and 1720" and substituting "District Lots 1721 and 1720",

(t.1) in the proposed description of the Prince George North Electoral District, by deleting "easterly boundaries District Lots" and substituting "easterly boundaries of District Lots",

(u) in the proposed description of the Prince George North Electoral District, by deleting "Philip Creek to District Lot a point lying due North of the middle line of Philip Creek at the confluence of Philip Creek into Nation River; thence due West to a point on the natural boundary of Nation River," and substituting "Philip Creek to a point lying due North of the middle line of Philip creek at the confluence of Philip Creek into Nation River; thence due South to the middle line of Philip Creek; thence due West to a point on the northerly boundary of the watershed of Nation River;",

(u.1) in the proposed description of the Prince George-Omineca Electoral District, by deleting "to a point on the natural boundary of Nation River, lying due West" and substituting "to a point on the said watershed of Nation River, lying due West",

(v) in the proposed description of the Prince George-Omineca Electoral District, by deleting "thence in general easterly, southerly and westerly directions along the northerly, easterly and southerly boundaries of Philip Creek" and substituting "thence in general easterly, southerly and westerly directions along the northerly, easterly and southerly boundaries of the watershed of Philip Creek",

(v.1) in the proposed description of the Prince George-Omineca Electoral District, by deleting "along the middle line of Nechako Rover to the to the centreline of Foothills Boulevard;" and substituting "along the middle line of Nechako River to the centreline of Foothills Boulevard;",

(w) in the proposed description of the Saanich North and the Islands Electoral District, by deleting "Hall Island and Secretary Island;" and substituting "Hall Island and Secretary Islands;",

(w.1) in the proposed description of the Shuswap Electoral District, by deleting "thence southerly along the westerly boundaries of said Section 7 and Section 6" and substituting "thence southerly along the westerly boundaries of the east half of said Section 7 and the east half of Section 6",

(w.2) in the proposed description of the Surrey-Panorama Ridge, by deleting "The Surrey-Panorama Ridge is all that portion" and substituting "The Surrey-Panorama Ridge Electoral District is all that portion",

(x) in the proposed description of the Vancouver-Point Grey Electoral District, by deleting "thence easterly to along said prolongation of the centreline of 18th Avenue West" and substituting "thence easterly to and along the centreline of 18th Avenue West",

(x.1) in the proposed description of the Vancouver-Quilchena Electoral District, by deleting "thence easterly to along said prolongation of the centreline of 18th Avenue West" and substituting "thence easterly to and along the centreline of 18th Avenue West",

(y) in the proposed description of the West Vancouver-Garibaldi Electoral District, by deleting "The West Vancouver-Garibaldi is all that portion" and substituting "The West Vancouver-Garibaldi Electoral District is all that portion",

(y.1) in the proposed description of the West Vancouver-Garibaldi Electoral District, by deleting "thence northwesterly along the westerly boundary of the said watershed and continuing southeasterly along the easterly boundary of the watershed of Pitt River; thence due West to a point lying due East of the northeast corner of Lot 1720, Group 1, New Westminster Land District;" and substituting "thence northerly along the westerly boundary of the watersheds of Harrison Lake and Lillooet River to an intersection with the easterly boundary of the watershed of Pitt River; thence in a general southerly direction along the easterly boundary of the watershed of Pitt River to a point lying due East of the northeast corner of Lot 1720, Group 1, New Westminster Land District;",

(z) in the proposed description of the Yale-Lillooet Electoral District, by adding "thence due north to the said southeast corner;" after "thence westerly along the northerly boundary of said District Lot 2897 to a point lying due south of the southeast corner of District Lot 287, Similkameen Division of Yale Land District;", and

(z.1) in the proposed description of the Yale-Lillooet Electoral District, by deleting "thence in generally westerly and southerly directions along the northerly and westerly boundaries of the watershed of Yalakom Creek" and substituting "thence generally westerly and southerly along the northerly and westerly boundaries of the watershed of Yalakom Creek".]

G. Plant: Actually, I suppose what we have before us is the amendment. . . . The amendment to these two schedules, I take it, is to correct certain errors that have been identified in Bill 96 as it was presented to the House for first reading.

[ Page 14421 ]

Amendment approved.

On schedule 1 as amended.

G. Plant: Let me ask this. There's an amendment to schedule 1. We've done it. There's an amendment to schedule 2, which we are about to do. When both of the schedules have been amended as proposed by the minister, will the names and the boundaries of the 79 electoral districts -- as set out with considerable precision and detail in Bill 96 -- accurately and completely conform in all respects to the names, boundaries and descriptions of the electoral districts contained in the amended report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission, which has been endorsed by this legislation?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The deputy chief electoral officer advises me that that's her understanding, and I stand by that.

Schedule 1 as amended approved.

On schedule 2.

Amendment approved.

Schedule 2 as amended approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

[1640]

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

Hon. U. Dosanjh: By leave, now.

Leave granted.

Bill 96, Electoral Districts Act, read a third time and passed.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I call committee stage on Bill 78.

MOTOR VEHICLE STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1999

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

D. Symons: Just a brief question to the minister. I note, in section 2, section 30.1(1)(a), that you are now substituting "335, 344, 354." The number 344 was not in the old act, where you're substituting; it's been added in there. I'm wondering if the minister might just give me a little clarification as to why that particular section that deals with the Criminal Code is being added now, since it wasn't there before.

Hon. H. Lali: This was added in there because it gives us the debt collection remedies against those who may have committed an offence under the statute.

Sections 2 to 12 inclusive approved.

On section 13.

D. Symons: You're repealing section 39(3) of the Motor Carrier Act. I'm wondering, since subsection (3) refers to safety, why that particular section is being repealed.

Hon. H. Lali: All we're doing is removing the reference to freight, because we're no longer regulating that.

Sections 13 to 16 inclusive approved.

On section 17.

[1645]

Hon. H. Lali: The vehicle identification numbers, regardless of whether it's a new part or an old part, would have to be stamped on each one of those parts. Or else, if you're applying for a brand-new number, all of those could be eliminated, and the new number would then have to be on all of those parts.

Sections 17 and 18 approved.

On section 19.

R. Neufeld: My question is about the documentary proof satisfactory to the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia for an applicant for a licence. What is required? What is acceptable?

Hon. H. Lali: There are two pieces of ID that are required: primary ID such as a birth certificate, plus one other secondary one, which could be a passport or driver's licence.

R. Neufeld: Why would a passport not be a primary ID? It's picture ID. You can travel all over the world on a Canadian passport, but ICBC won't accept it as a primary piece of identification.

[ Page 14422 ]

R. Neufeld: This issue has come forward quite a few times in my constituency with people trying to obtain a British Columbia driver's licence. They're Canadian citizens, have a driver's licence from another province, come to British Columbia and have a passport, and that's not accepted as a primary ID. The minister says that a passport may not have your correct name on it. Yet just recently I went and reapplied for my passport to bring it up to date again. You have to have your birth certificate, and you have another piece of identification to get your passport.

[1650]

Hon. H. Lali: With all due respect, what the hon. member is talking about today is not what we're changing as a result of these amendments. We're simply making the changes to provide for the address.

R. Neufeld: With all due respect to the minister, what we're doing is. . . . It's in the bill that we're dealing with in this section. I know it's already in place, and the regulation is with ICBC. I thought that this would be pretty good place to bring up this issue with the minister. We can't seem to get anywhere with ICBC. I'm not the only one that's experienced this kind of problem. Others on my side of the House have experienced this kind of problem in their constituency offices.

I guess what I'm doing is asking the minister for some kind of assurance that he will look seriously at the issue around using a passport -- which is accepted by just about any other place that you want to go to -- as a primary piece of identification to get a driver's licence in British Columbia. There's already a problem with a lot of people with ICBC, and when ICBC starts telling people: "We don't care whether you've got a passport or not, it doesn't count with us. . . ." It would be some reassurance to me and to my constituents if the minister would stand today and say: "Yes, we will look seriously at this issue and start thinking that if you can obtain a Canadian passport, the least we can do in British Columbia is have ICBC accept it as a primary piece of identification to obtain a driver's licence."

Hon. H. Lali: I think the hon. member has a good suggestion, even though subsection (b) says: ". . .documentary proof satisfactory to the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia of the applicant's identity." But the suggestion that the hon. member makes is a good one, and certainly I will talk to the Minister Responsible for ICBC about having a serious look at this.

Sections 19 to 21 inclusive approved.

On section 22.

R. Neufeld: I got a bit ahead of myself. We got in a big hurry to get back into the House here and do this bill. I earlier discussed with the minister the issue around engine numbers under a different section, and that's why I was quick to acknowledge his answer. Actually, it's dealt with in this section -- section 22, section 58(2) -- and it has to do with vehicle identification numbers. Again I'm going to ask the minister: if someone changes. . . ? It says here that you're not supposed to change the engine number in your vehicle without the express permission of the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia. I basically understand why that's there; I mean, it's so people can't dismantle vehicles and change VIN numbers and all those kinds of things.

But what I don't want to have happen is someone actually purchasing a new engine for their car, and they get it put in, in the garage, and it's got a different number on it than what was originally in the vehicle. Who's responsibility is it? Would we ask the person or the shop that put the engine in to actually inform the owner of the vehicle that they should change that identification so they're not in contravention of the act? Or is it just something that everyone should know because it's fairly important, and they should do it on their own?

[1655]

R. Neufeld: How do we notify the owner that this is actually in force? How would an owner of a motor vehicle know that when they went to change the engine in their car, they actually had to get some kind of a form from ICBC and submit it so that the vehicle identification was consistent, as ICBC would like it to be?

Hon. H. Lali: It's standard practice for the brokers to know the information, because that's what the law is. But certainly we'll have to do a communication plan around this as well.

J. Weisgerber: I'd like to know where you'd record the information. ICBC has no record of engine numbers on any of the vehicles that are insured. Only the manufacturer has a record. It seems to me like an enormous bureaucratic waste to suggest that owners have to advise ICBC of a change in information that they don't already have. Can the minister give me some assurance that there's some practical application for this? It seems to me totally redundant.

Hon. H. Lali: The VIN numbers are on the owner's certificate. If there's a change, then you have to update the certificate.

J. Weisgerber: Well, the VIN number is on the vehicle; the VIN number is on the registration. The VIN number has absolutely no relationship at all to the engine-block number. There are a number of identification numbers on the vehicle, but engines blocks are assembled entirely separately. There's no reference at all in the registration to the block number in the car. I can't imagine why you would want to try and pursue that information.

[ Page 14423 ]

J. Weisgerber: With all due respect, (1) says that you can't "remove or obliterate the manufacturer's engine number or the vehicle identification number. . . ." Those are two separate numbers. The act itself distinguishes between them. Then it goes on in (2) to say that you can't break up, dismantle, exchange, buy or sell these items without the consent of ICBC -- which is Big Brother gone mad.

[1700]

J. Weisgerber: Just to be absolutely certain, what this section does, then, is make it an offence for someone to remove or obliterate a manufacturer's engine number -- which seems entirely reasonable, as long as everyone is very clear that "exchange" under (2) doesn't refer to the manufacturer's engine number. If this debate has clarified that, then I'm satisfied.

Hon. H. Lali: The hon. member is correct in his interpretation. This section here actually does not create an offence -- that was the earlier part of the hon. member's question.

R. Neufeld: Further to (2), what it says is: "If, with respect to a motor vehicle, any of the circumstances referred to in section 16 (1) (a) to (c) exist and a new vehicle identification number has not been assigned to and applied on the motor vehicle under section 16, a person must not without the written consent of the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia buy, sell, exchange, dismantle or break up that motor vehicle." Can the minister just explain a little bit more in depth to me what that section actually means? I read it that you're not supposed to buy, sell, exchange, dismantle or break up a motor vehicle without the consent of the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia.

Hon. H. Lali: It's actually fairly clear in that subsection. Without the written consent of ICBC an individual cannot buy, sell, exchange, dismantle or break up that motor vehicle. That's to protect the consumer from being conned into buying parts that may be acquired through some fraudulent means.

R. Neufeld: I think I understand, and I believe I know where the minister is going. I'm not trying to be difficult. Without the written consent of the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia to buy a vehicle. . . . You have to have the written consent of the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia to buy a vehicle?

[1705]

D. Symons: Just following along that same vein of thought about the engine number, I can see the reason for this. As the minister said, you don't want to be receiving stolen goods when you're buying, and you don't want to encourage the sale of these or encourage people to steal vehicles, dismantle them and then sell the parts. But if nobody has a record -- and I gather neither ICBC nor the motor vehicle branch has a record of engine numbers; they do have the VIN numbers -- then how is that going to help in recovery of stolen property or identifying that it indeed is not the property of the person selling or purchasing it? So if you don't have a record of the engine numbers, all this requirement over engine numbers seems to be irrelevant as far as capturing or holding back on the theft of automobiles and the dismantling and selling of the engines.

Hon. H. Lali: In subsection (1) the only thing that's changed is that "serial number" has been dropped and been replaced by "vehicle identification number." Otherwise, that subsection is exactly the same as it was before.

Sections 22 to 24 inclusive approved.

On section 25.

D. Symons: It's section 118.93 of the Motor Vehicle Act, and it's subsection (2) that I have some concerns about, where it says: "An action for damages may not be brought against the superintendent" -- that being the superintendent of motor vehicles, I assume -- "because of anything done or omitted to be done in good faith in the performance or purported performance of any duty under subsection (1)" -- which refers to suspension or cancellation of certificates -- "or in the exercise or purported exercise of any power under subsection (1)."

Basically this seems to be absolving the superintendent of motor vehicles of any responsibility whatsoever for mistakes, incompetence or any other sort of action they take. I would think that if somebody has their licence cancelled or suspended because somebody got the wrong digit in there somewhere and contacted the wrong person and they lose money because their business is affected by their vehicle having a suspension. . . . Isn't somebody responsible for that? You're basically saying here: "No. We absolve them of any responsibility for any action they take." It seems wrong.

Hon. H. Lali: The superintendent is not making a decision on his own. He'd be doing it at the recommendation of ICBC. ICBC will take responsibility for the decision, and it's only done in high-risk situations and not every day.

D. Symons: Maybe the minister might correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that the superintendent is the actual person that does the cancellation or suspension of a certificate. Whether or not he received the information from ICBC that he's going on, in order to do that, the person who is doing it is the superintendent, or it is the superintendent of motor vehicles office, therefore that would be the person who theoretically should be responsible. I'm not quite sure how your suggestion that that may flow back to ICBC. . . . They'll morally be responsible, but legally they wouldn't be, because they didn't actually commit the act of cancelling or suspending that licence. It was the superintendent that did it, and this absolves him of all that responsibility. If ICBC gives him bad information and he acts on it, it's still his fault, and you're basically saying that he doesn't have to take responsibility for that, that ICBC gave him bad information, and that gee, it's too bad that guy lost a month of his business because his licence was suspended. I don't think that's good enough.

[ Page 14424 ]

[1710]

D. Symons: For the record, is the minister saying that if somebody's licence is suspended or cancelled on this recommendation from ICBC to the superintendent and it turns out that somewhere along the line a mistake was made -- although it was done in good faith -- and somebody has suffered some consequences for it one way or the other, he or she will now be able to go back to ICBC and receive compensation for the damages that they've received because of the mistakes or the incompetence of ICBC in referring this matter to the motor vehicles superintendent? Are you saying that they will have recourse to ICBC?

This says that the superintendent is the person who's responsible. You're passing it back to ICBC. Will ICBC accept responsibility, legally, for any wrong information or anything that they've done that turns out to be wrong that the superintendent's acted upon?

Hon. H. Lali: The superintendent is a public servant, and he's guided by the rules of the public service. Each case has to be determined on its own merits; you can't just make a sweeping kind of a judgment about them all.

D. Symons: The minister is dancing around answering the question I'm asking. This seems to absolve them, because it says that no action for damages can be brought against them. I'm saying that in the event of irresponsibility, mistakes, incompetence or whatever you want to name it -- something is done wrongly, even though done in good faith. . . . There's been a mistake made and somebody suffers consequences for it. You're saying, "Well, that person just has to suffer the consequences," and I'm saying that's not good enough. You have not explained that -- as to who that person could go back to for damages, for livelihood lost or something else while their licence may have been suspended incorrectly.

Hon. H. Lali: The superintendent makes his decisions based on recommendations from ICBC. He's acting in good faith and needs to be able to act unfettered. That's why this section is in there: to provide protection for the superintendent so he can carry out his duties unfettered.

[1715]

So I'll just repeat once more. I certainly have no problem with suspending licences of people who have committed offences that require that their licence should be suspended or that their licence should be cancelled. That's quite possible. But occasionally there's going to be a mistake made. Occasionally we actually hang people that haven't committed the crime; we make mistakes.

And you're basically saying that if a mistake is made here, the person who suffers the consequences of that mistake has no recourse at all, other than to accept the fact that he may have been put out of business because his licence has been taken away for a period of time until he manages to get a hearing on it, at which time he might end up proving his case that there's been a mistake. You might have had two John Smiths, for all I know, and you picked the wrong one. Or you've got a mistake in copying down a vehicle licence number, and you're attacking the wrong person. There could be a variety of ways in which a mistake could be made, and you're basically saying that the person who might be the unfortunate recipient of one of these mistakes is not going to have any recourse at all.

You say: "Well, the superintendent must move unfettered." Well, indeed, this seems to be too much unfetteredness. I'll simply say that I can't support this particular section unless you're willing to amend it in such a way that there will be somebody that you can go to -- to have recourse, to take legal action against -- if you are put in a position where something wrong has been done regarding the suspension or cancellation of your certificate.

Hon. H. Lali: Although I've answered the question already, I'll do it one more time for the hon. member. The superintendent of motor vehicles doesn't act without the recommendation and application by ICBC, although the superintendent would not be held liable. But average citizens would have the regular recourse against the government that they normally would. So it won't prevent any action by a citizen against ICBC; it just protects the superintendent.

Section 25 approved on division.

Sections 26 to 28 inclusive approved.

On section 29.

D. Symons: I just have some concerns in subsection (1). That basically says that ICBC can require any information it wants, and you must respond to it. I'm quite concerned that this is a rather open-ended sort of situation. I would hope that, at all times, ICBC is asking for information that's related to relevant things that ICBC should be involved in -- that's relevant to insurance and safety issues. Nowhere in here do I see that.

[1720]

So I would like to propose an amendment that would add words right after "requires," so that it would read: ". . .all information it requires relevant to insurance or safety issues, including specific answers to all questions it submits."

On the amendment.

D. Symons: I just want the minister to have a chance to take a look at the amendment there, so I can speak to it for just a second or two. I think it's rather self-evident that I'm just concerned about the open-endedness of the questions that

[ Page 14425 ]

Hon. H. Lali: The intent of the regulation is to cover what the hon. member says. The amendment that he has proposed is not necessary, in our opinion, to be able to do that. I'm wondering if it's . . . . I was not aware earlier that this amendment was going to be proposed. Is it okay to have it walked in like this, or . . . ?

The Chair: The amendment is in order.

D. Symons: I wonder, if I might, because he says it's not necessary. . . . The wording here, for people who may be listening, says: "An operator must, in the manner prescribed, provide to the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia all information it requires, including specific answers to all questions it submits." It's rather open-ended. I want to take that "requires" and narrow it down to, as I've added here, "relevant to insurance or safety issues," and then it will continue, "including specific answers to all questions it submits." The way it's worded, ICBC could put any question at all to people that is not all that relevant to insurance. We hope they would; it only makes sense that they would. But let's just make sure that the act says they have to stick to that.

[1725]

Amendment approved.

Section 29 as amended approved.

Section 30 approved.

On section 31.

D. Symons: First, I have a question on the definitions of business vehicle. I gather that much of this act follows from the deregulation that the federal government is doing, and it's happening across Canada. You're simply looking after the problem of freight-carrying vehicles, which are now covered in the National Safety Code and are not part of the Motor Carrier Commission anymore. I wonder why, then, you're introducing this new category of a business vehicle. It seems to be that in one sense we have deregulation, and now you're bringing in some regulation to re-regulate what had just been deregulated under this new definition of business vehicle. I'm wondering if you might give me a little bit of the background and the thought behind why this is being brought in, in this manner, when deregulation was unregulating, and now we're just sort of bringing them back in through the back door.

Hon. H. Lali: That's actually not the case. The purpose of the deregulation was for economic deregulation at the request of industry. Safety was never meant to be a part of the deregulation. All stakeholders are in support of the safety side of this whole issue. Economic deregulation was done to remove the economic barriers that had existed.

D. Symons: My question leads into subsection (a) of "business vehicle," which describes a business vehicle as basically one that's used for compensation on the part of the owner. So they're carrying somebody else's goods. I can agree with that. It's when we get into subsection (b), which says: ". . .that is operated at any time on a highway. . . ." Section (b)(i) states: ". . .transportation of freight that is genuinely the property of the owner of the motor vehicle." As that stands -- and the way it's written here -- I have the concern that it will now be bringing into the motor vehicle branch. . . . The regulations involved through the National Safety Code will be bringing vehicles into that bureaucracy and regulation, shall we say, that they weren't previously included in. In particular, farm vehicles -- as I read this -- could be brought into that.

I know that we had a discussion prior to the bill being brought forward here, but I'm still not quite convinced that the way the act is worded. . . . We're assured that somewhere in the regulations this will be dealt with. But it's the act that we're dealing with in this House today and not regulations that may be brought in later on. I have concerns, by the way this is worded, that farm vehicles and a lot of other vehicles that weren't normally covered under the bureaucracy and regulations that might come with the National Safety Code. . . . The keeping of a logbook, cargo insurance and all the regulations that go with that could affect people that really aren't in the business of trucking. It says here ". . .freight that is genuinely the property of the owner of the motor vehicle." A farmer could be using it incidentally to his business. He's taking cattle to market, or he's picking up supplies for the farm. He could be caught under this definition as it's currently worded.

[1730]

[SECTION 237, in defining "business vehicle" to add the words in boldface:

(c) that is operated at any time on a highway by, for or on behalf of any person who charges or collects compensation for the transportation of freight in or on the motor vehicle,

but does not include:

(a) farm vehicles which display an A or G licence plate;

(b) commercial vehicles up to a licenced weight of 18,000 K.G. and

(c) a motor vehicle operated for hire while used extensively in carrying pupils or teachers to or from school;]

On the amendment.

Hon. H. Lali: As we discussed earlier with the hon. member before the bill came into the House for discussion, nothing in this act changes the regulatory environment for farmers. I think that was made quite clear to the hon. member.

R. Neufeld: I know we had those discussions briefly in the minister's office. I disagree with the assertion that the minister just made. Farmers have not had to have a National Safety Code number previous to just recently, I believe. That's because of an Insurance Corporation of British Columbia requirement. It does place them in a position where they would, at some point in time, be required to use logbooks. I

[ Page 14426 ]

We already have a safety program in British Columbia for commercial vehicles, but if you go to the National Safety Code applications, in division 37 they do say. . . . The minister is partly correct. I'm going to read into the record section 37.11. Under "Hours of Service" it says: "This part does not apply to a driver who is driving (a) a two- or three-axle commercial motor vehicle that is being used for the transportation of primary products of a farm, forest, sea or lake where the driver or his employer is the producer of the products." Now, one would automatically think that that absolves farmers from having the hours of service and logbooks, but that's only for two- or three-axle combination vehicles. Farmers today use eight-axle vehicles. They use seven-axle vehicles; they'll use five-axle vehicles. So they use much bigger vehicles than what is intended in the National Safety Code applications.

[1735]

We think that this is a pretty straightforward amendment which should be able to be accepted by the ministry. I know that in discussions earlier with the minister, the minister stated that they would put in regulations -- exemptions -- as they pertain to the National Safety Code. That's not good enough. We're asking for all farm vehicles -- anything that has an "A" or a "G" plate, as described by the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia -- to be exempted from the National Safety Code regulations, and those vehicles that are licensed up to 18,000 kilograms. I think it only makes good sense in this province. It only makes good sense for this government to live up to their reduction of red tape, and if the minister would be so inclined to accept this very good amendment from the critic, we could get on with passing this bill in a big hurry.

Hon. H. Lali: Again I want to assure the members opposite that nothing in this act changes the regulatory environment for farmers. I also want to point out that farmers not carrying for compensation are exempt from this. I also want to reassure the member opposite that we are not creating additional red tape.

R. Neufeld: Well, you are to a certain degree. I guess we can have a long discussion about that, but I would rather not. I disagree. Has the minister read the National Safety Code applications, division 37, that states what "agricultural" is described as and what's exempt? It's obviously not all farm vehicles. Maybe the minister just doesn't understand what farmers use for vehicles nowadays. It is more than just a little old truck that runs around the back yard and hauls a few sheep across to the neighbour's place. This could be an eight-axle vehicle or, as I said, a seven- or six-axle vehicle. In fact, the member for Peace River South has a farmer in his constituency who has six super B-trains. He operates as a farmer. What we want to do is be compliant and actually look a little bit at what we're dealing with around us.

Actually, I checked with the Alberta motor transportation board. This is what they do: they exempt all farm vehicles -- not just what's described in the National Safety Code but all farm vehicles and vehicles up to 18,000 kilograms. Now, the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia has the authority to do that. In fact, it states it right in section 37.17(2) of the National Safety Code applications. I'm going to read it: "A commercial motor vehicle, where the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia has exempted, unconditionally or on conditions the corporation considers desirable, the driver of that vehicle or class of vehicle from compliance with this part on the grounds that compliance is impractical. . . ." The federal government, contrary to what was put to us before -- that maybe the federal government wouldn't want to go along with this kind of exemption. . . . Obviously the federal government has already given it to you. It's right in the act, which says that the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia can exempt if it sees fit and it is desirable.

[1740]

Hon. H. Lali: We're bringing in this act to make the changes necessary to meet the requirements for compatibility with the federal direction. Again, I want to reassure the hon. member that we're only capturing motor vehicles which are on our highways if they affect safety. If the farmers are not carrying for compensation, they're exempt.

J. Weisgerber: Section 237(b) specifically goes on to describe those vehicles which are not carrying goods for compensation and includes them in the definition of a business vehicle. So for the minister to say that compensation is the issue seems, at least on the surface. . . . With great respect to the minister, I suggest that farmers carrying their own goods would in fact be captured by this legislation, unless there are subsequent regulations brought in.

Like the member for Peace River North, I'm concerned about these large grain operations. Grain farming has become big business. There is indeed a farmer in my constituency who has eight or nine combines, which are in the $200,000 range, and five or six B-trains to service them. When the weather is good, they work many hours -- usually 18 or 19 hours a day -- on the combines and in the trucks getting that grain either

[ Page 14427 ]

My family has been in the commercial trucking business for at least two generations, so I know a little bit about that area as well. There are legitimate limits to a commercial operator's hours of work. A farm is a much different situation. I believe that unless the minister is prepared to give us an assurance that, under section 238, the exemption will be extended to farm vehicles as described in the amendment. . . .

I want to talk a little bit about the commercial vehicles under 18,000 kilograms, but let's talk about the farm situation first. Let's try and get an understanding that the minister will either accept the amendment or give us a commitment to a change in regulation -- not one that conforms with the National Safety Code but one that is compatible with this amendment and falls under the flexibility described in the national code. Can the minister understand the importance of that? The issue of compensation or owned goods simply isn't an escape for people who would be caught under this legislation -- unless I've entirely misread the legislation; that's possible as well.

Hon. H. Lali: I just want to point out to the hon. member that I don't think he misread the section. The farmer's life does not change tomorrow as a result of this bill being passed; however, there will be exemptions made by regulation for carriers who haul their own goods, such as farmers do.

J. Weisgerber: I think we're making some progress. What I think we're all seeking is an assurance from the minister that he's willing to go, for farm vehicles, beyond the definition of three axles -- which is basically a tandem truck -- to a tractor-trailer or a combination vehicle. That's where farming is at today. I don't have many farmers left, incredibly, who haul grain on a simple tandem truck. Most of them will haul it on some trailer configuration. We just want to make sure that they're not caught up in something in the middle of harvest, trying to maintain a logbook in their truck.

[1745]

J. Weisgerber: Okay, I don't want to carry this on. But if they're licensed as a farm vehicle, they can't get compensation. I mean, that's the whole purpose. You can't license your truck as a farm vehicle and then go haul for all your neighbours and go into the trucking business by the back door. So your licence determines that you're not going to get compensation -- that you're hauling your own goods. The question, I think, that I hear. . . . I heard the minister the first time say quite clearly that he would provide the exemption for farm vehicles within what's described in the National Safety Code. If the minister will just clarify that this exemption would be extended to farm vehicles as described in the amendment, then I think we're happy.

Hon. H. Lali: The exemptions are from the motor carrier provisions. Otherwise you're subject to the National Safety Code. If the vehicle is over 5,000 kilograms, then they're subject to the National Safety Code as well.

J. Weisgerber: Sometimes you think that you're on a merry-go-round. We've been round and round this. The goal, the objective here, is to relieve a farmer from the need to keep a logbook as defined by the National Safety Code. Let's quit talking about the farmer with seven combines and five trucks and talk instead about a more typical farmer in the Peace. He has a tractor-trailer unit that he brings in, in the morning and parks in the field. He combines during the day and unloads the combine every time he has a couple of hundred bushels in the hopper. Then at lunchtime he takes a run into town and unloads the truck and brings it back. He works for the afternoon, fills it again and perhaps drives it in, in the morning. For the purposes of the National Safety Code, he would have to keep a log of his actions during that day -- not only the actions of the truck, but the actions of the operator: filled the combine with gas, drove the combine for four hours, da-de-da-de-da. . . . It's unreasonable. The National Safety Code has obviously seen that and has provided a window for you to bring in an exemption of the type described here.

[1750]

In terms of the issue that the hon. member raises for keeping logs, they will not be required to do anything different in the future that they don't already do right now, as a result of this amendment that is being brought in.

J. Wilson: It really frustrates me when I have to stand up here and get angry. The minister has gone around and around, and he's gone nowhere. We realize that safety is not the issue here. We also realize that the people we are talking about are captured in this bill. The minister has assured us that exemptions will be made. Well, that's great. We have prepared an amendment that will take care of the problem, will remove the worry and the stress that's being created for all of those people, and all that the minister has to do is approve it with a nod of his head. So what in the world is the holdup, that he can't do that? One simple thing -- the job is done in five seconds, and we're out of here. Everybody's happy. But no, we're going to get more and more promises that it will be attended to. Let's do it now -- over and done with.

B. Barisoff: I guess I've got to wonder what's happening -- why the minister has got something against farmers. Why doesn't he talk to the Minister of Agriculture and ask him whether or not this is a good idea? All we're trying to do, minister, is get an exemption for the farmers. . . .

The Chair: Through the Chair, member.

B. Barisoff: Sorry, through the Chair. We're not looking for any rocket science here or anything else. We all know that we'll never get rocket science from this minister. I can't understand why the minister can't see that this is a simply a matter of dealing with some regulation and red tape for the farmers of British Columbia. Now, we're not asking for a lot. We'll

[ Page 14428 ]

[1755]

Hon. H. Lali: I'm just noting the time here; it's five to six. We can come back after supper to carry on with this.

I would like to move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

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

Committee of the Whole (Section A), having reported Bill 98 complete with amendments and Bill 94 complete without amendment, was granted leave to sit again.

The Speaker: When shall Bill 98 be considered as reported?

Hon. J. Kwan: Now, by leave.

Leave granted.

COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION ACT

FEE STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1999

Hon. J. Kwan: I move that the House at its rising stand recessed until 6:35 p.m. and thereafter sit until adjournment.

Motion approved.

The House recessed from 6 p.m. to 6:38 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Private Members' Statements

FISH FOOD

G. Janssen: It must be getting close to the end, hon. Speaker.

When B.C.'s west coast was first settled, the waters were thick with salmon and other species of fish. Native communities had sustained themselves along B.C.'s coast and in fact into the interior for thousands of years off this abundant resource. They harvested it, they traded it freely, and they sustained themselves on it. Halibut, black cod, lingcod, red snapper, sturgeon, herring and others were abundant -- so abundant that one could not imagine that you could harvest this resource year after year and ever see the end of its cycle.

But through overfishing, environmental damage and pollution, we have seen that resource reduced in some cases to the point of virtual extinction. Controls, restricted fishing, size limits and catch limits have had to be imposed. We have had to have management of a resource that was once so abundant. Entire coastal communities were built and existed from this rich fish resource. Families passed fishboats on from fathers to sons and, yes, in some cases, from fathers to daughters. Cannery towns grew up along B.C. coasts. Literally dozens of these canneries employed thousands of people up and down British Columbia's coast. Foreign fleets on the high seas, using better and more efficient gear -- driftnets miles long -- scooped up millions of tons of salmon and every other type of fish along this coast. We placed ourselves in jeopardy of losing what was once a heritage, what was once considered to be the lifeblood and the symbol, literally, of British Columbia: the B.C. salmon.

[1840]

What is hake? Hake is an abundant, small, dark grey fish that usually weighs between a kilogram and a kilogram and a half. It's also known as Pacific whiting. It's a mid-water fish that migrates from northern Mexico to the northern tip of Vancouver Island. When it reaches our waters, we harvest it -- at least we do now. For years foreign fleets harvested it, because of course we had richer and more valuable fish to harvest. Hake makes up the largest single biomass off North America's west coast -- 1.7 million metric tons.

The fish has a soft white flavour and must be processed quickly before it breaks down, usually in a day or a day and a half. It's used primarily. . . . Many people have never heard of hake or Pacific whiting, but they've heard of imitation crab, and they've heard of crab meat and fish sticks. This imitation crab was primarily sold in Asian markets, but now we're seeing more and more of it on our shelves in North America, and it has become quite valuable -- not to the fishers, because you only receive about 6 cents to 9-1/2 cents a pound for this fish. But once it is processed, the value-added component of that makes it quite attractive for sales.

It has provided a number of different jobs -- in the community of Ucluelet today, 517 direct jobs and 1,052 if you count the spinoff jobs. Those new jobs have created a total of $7.3 million in annual payroll -- a considerable amount in a dwindling industry -- $1.4 million in annual benefit payments, and purchases of over $500,000 in local services. This focus on this new industry has been a boon to communities

[ Page 14429 ]

Before, this fish was totally processed by foreign fleets -- and is still to some degree now. But more and more is coming onshore, and maybe we can even convince the federal Fisheries minister, David Anderson, to allow the rest of the fish -- about 20,000 metric tons -- to be brought onshore to complete a more rounded-out industry and create even more jobs. As a result of government lobbying both federally and provincially, $7.5 million in infrastructure was put into Ucluelet, which provided the necessary water supply and sewage disposal systems to allow this fishery to come on shore. Foreign fleets simply catch the fish and then dispose of the waste over the side. That, of course, is not acceptable anymore in the harbours or off our coast, and therefore we have now built this capacity.

Because of that, more and more new industries are moving into these communities. We are seeing a recovery rate that was once at 12 percent of this fish. . . . Yes, only 12 percent of this fish was used in order to make this product. That has now been increased, through value-added activities, to over 30 percent of the product. Through federal and provincial help, we have been able to assist the fisheries and the plants in order to get a greater extraction rate through the implementation of better training and new systems for drawing more and more of the valuable product out of those fish. Decanters have been installed. In fact, I believe that this week one more decanter is being installed in one of the plants, USB Products, that will increase that effort even more to use more and more of the fish that was wasted.

A new reduction plant. Before, the waste that we talked about earlier was trucked to Vancouver, to the reduction facilities. Because of that, now a new plant has been built in Nanaimo.

[1845]

J. van Dongen: I thank the member, first of all, for raising the issue of hake in private members' statements. We're certainly seeing a coming of age in the hake industry in British Columbia.

I want to make some comments, really, on the latest development in the hake industry. There's a new plant proposed for Ucluelet. I want to start with the observation that it's important to recognize that this new plant is the result of private sector investment by a Pittsburgh-based company named Robert Wholey and Co. (Canada) Ltd. This company has been in the seafood business since 1912. It is not just interested in processing; it also clearly understands the marketing and retailing of seafood products. The key ingredient that this company brings to the situation is its market knowledge, with experienced and established market channels in the form of its North American market base. The new plant will specialize in individual and block-frozen fillets for both the retail and institutional market.

The advantage that this plant brings to Vancouver Island fishermen is the potential to provide more competitive prices. The price competitiveness of the domestic plants, in comparison to the prices offered by the foreign ships that the member mentioned, has been a major concern for Canadian fishermen. Yesterday was certainly a day to celebrate the new investment in a third hake processing plant in Ucluelet. It would have been an appropriate gesture, in my view, if the provincial government had recognized this private sector investment by acknowledging the company by name in its press release. Certainly the government has invested in infrastructure, but as I said, the private sector investment is a key component to this plant going ahead.

My second comment is to register a concern for the other plants and workers involved in the production of surimi, a product made from the hake fish. There are two plants in Ucluelet and one in Port Alberni. The advent of a new whole-fish plant is certainly good news, but it needs to be recognized that there may also be a downside. A new player puts additional pressure on the supply of raw product -- the fish itself -- and could potentially increase costs and reduce the supply to the other plants. I have enough experience in the food-processing sector to know how competitive and unforgiving that market can be, and I think it is only responsible to caution everyone, including the community itself, that long-term viability of one or more of these plants always involves some uncertainty. It is the age-old resource-town concern that should not be glossed over. The fishing, food-processing and food-marketing industry is a dynamic and constantly changing industry. In the welcoming of this new plant, I hope that all of us involved do not forget the potential chain reaction of a new player in the industry.

In closing, I join with the member for Alberni in celebrating the investment by the private sector in this new whole-fish plant. It is good news for Ucluelet, the workers and the fishermen involved, and I thank him for raising this topic and for the briefing materials that he gave me just before the topic came up today.

[1850]

The other point that's important to note is that there is another biomass of hake, not quite as large, in the Strait of Georgia that has not been fished to this point. Wholey's, which is the new seafood plant in Ucluelet that the member alluded to, with it's new $3.5 million facility, plans to explore the fishing of Georgia strait hake so that they can operate on a full-time, yearly basis. Up to this point in time, the plants have basically operated from about June through to September or October. That's when the biomass of hake happens to be in our area and is fishable. Because of the extended period of life that may be available through the Georgia strait hake, we may in fact be able, with the smaller fish, to extend the life of Wholey Foods into a more productive season.

These people produce a truly value-added product -- box-ready, in-the-store foods. They will be shipping mainly to the United States through such stores as Safeway, Albertsons, K Mart and so forth, which they have orders and markets for. The plant which the hon. member alluded to was started in 1912 and belongs to a family. They have a great resource, and they have a great amount of inventory and supply lines that they want to satisfy. It's a great new industry for British Columbia, and the government was more than happy to help with a small grant of about $80,000 to create 140 new jobs.

[ Page 14430 ]

SAVING THE NEIGHBOURHOOD THEATRE

My wife and I moved to Dunbar in Vancouver 19 years ago. It's very much a community, and it's a community within a big city -- the city of Vancouver. It's a community that basically has a great community centre. It's got great small independent retailers, where you can buy everything from your Hallmark cards to your groceries to your pharmaceutical needs, and great little restaurants. Part of the anchor of this community on Dunbar is a great little theatre. It's single-screen. We can all walk to it. It's part of that community, and it's part of what makes Dunbar a great community. It's within walking distance. Parents can drop their kids off for a Saturday or a Sunday matinee and go out and do some shopping, or they can go out and grab dinner in the evening at one of the restaurants and then walk to a movie afterwards.

We always thought that theatre would be there, because it was so much an integral part of the community. Nobody really noticed who owned it. In fact, it was owned by one of the big chains that we know across Canada. As we have seen in the last couple of years, the marketing plans for these big chains have changed. What we see now are some of the big multiscreen facilities coming in. I've been in some of them, and they're great. I don't knock them at all. They certainly have their place. But at the same time, are we losing something in that small neighbourhood theatre that has been there?

[1855]

Nobody really thought that our Dunbar Theatre would be threatened. But sure enough, in late 1997 up on the marquee, instead of featuring what was going to be the next film coming to the theatre, it said: "Closing Soon." That was a sad day, I think, for everybody in Dunbar, because we were losing part of our community.

Along came a young entrepreneur, a young man by the name of Ken Charko, who basically had worked in the theatre industry. He had a dream of owning his own theatre. Ken says: "I've always loved movies, and I've always wanted to run a movie theatre. I saved my money, found a theatre that was sitting vacant, negotiated a lease. . . ." That was the Dunbar Theatre. So after being closed for a couple of months, the development signs went up on the front of the building that said it was going to be demolished and there was going to be a new condominium project proposed. Along came Ken, and he decided that he could live his dream. Nobody told him that it couldn't be done.

Instead of listening to the naysayers, he went through all of the hassles that young entrepreneurs go through today. He went through the problems of getting financing. He went through the problems of dealing with regulations, whether they were civic regulations or provincial regulations. Those are all of the things that young entrepreneurs have to face today. But he knew that if he could keep his costs down, it could be done. He knew he could do most of the jobs in that theatre himself. He could basically do the marketing. If he had to, he could take the tickets at the door. If he had to, he could run the projection machines, because he knew how to do that. This was going to be his enterprise. He had the help of some friends. He hired the staff to do it with him.

And then the dream started to unravel. Where that dream started to unravel was over a labour relations dispute that really had nothing to do with his dream of starting a movie theatre. What he found out was that his projectionist had to be unionized. But he didn't have a projectionist. I was almost tempted to put a title on this presentation tonight of "Theatre of the Absurd," because you had this situation where the projectionist which he did not have had to be unionized. This went before the Labour Relations Board, and we wound up with this bizarre, I believe, circumstance of him being threatened with tens of thousands of dollars of penalties because the projectionist which he did not have was not a member of the union.

Ken's dream turned into a bit of a nightmare. It does have -- at least to some extent, today -- a bit of a happy ending. We are starting to see that Ken's dream can be realized. But I think that when we look at what young entrepreneurs are faced with today and what people who are trying to preserve something like that neighbourhood single-screen movie theatre. . . . What those individuals are facing today is not something that's being dictated by some big foreign international conglomerate that's coming in to change the way we have to watch movies in our neighbourhoods but, rather, is something that we are doing to ourselves.

I know that a colleague from across the way has some remarks to make. I'll come back and wrap this up in a moment.

E. Gillespie: The member for Vancouver-Quilchena has indeed brought forward some wonderful memories that I think many of us share. I was reminded, in his opening remarks, of a trip I made to the theatre with my sister and my girlfriend, with a dollar among us to share. With that dollar we got in to see Snow White and we had all of the snacks that we would have wanted. It was quite a thrill.

[1900]

[ Page 14431 ]

The decline of the neighbourhood theatre is a phenomenon that has struck every city in Canada. I'm very interested to note the member's remarks about the closure of the theatre in Dunbar and then the subsequent reopening, and I will look forward to his conclusions. I agree that a theatre can be the centre of a very vital commercial, recreational and residential area in any community.

Theatre owners say it boils down to economics. From a business standpoint, movie theatres are hard to categorize. They have huge space requirements, and they need parking these days to operate successfully. If a landlord is trying to maximize revenue, a theatre is an extremely poor investment in an area where rent is high. But according to experts, it has become harder for the single-screen houses to get movies. The films were all getting swallowed up by the multiplexes, which had the economic might to get exclusive engagements for the most popular movies. Multiplexes have been draining all of the lucrative product.

Small neighbourhood theatres have character, and that is slowly ebbing away with the loss of neighbourhood theatres. But neighbourhood theatres can have better service, cheaper prices, more intelligent product and more loyal customers. Some survive by becoming specialty theatres. But is it enough to keep them alive? Sentiment doesn't operate movie theatres; it takes attendance. Theatres have high prices and crowds, and right now there are bitter labour issues. But on a broader point, our neighbourhoods are themselves threatened by many influences. Neighbourhood coffee shops are bought up overnight by larger chains. Mom-and-pop neighbourhood stores become 24-hour convenience stores.

If we want to save our neighbourhoods, we should make an effort to frequent our local neighbourhood theatres, markets, events and parades. If we want to save our local neighbourhood theatres, we should become loyal customers, and we should demand quality from our theatres and offer praise when we get it. Word of mouth could save that neighbourhood theatre.

C. Hansen: I thank the member for Comox Valley for her comments.

In this last remaining minute or two I just want to start out by quoting Ken Charko, who basically got the Dunbar Theatre back up and running. He says: "I worked two jobs and 20-hour days to make this happen. I never made any money, but I didn't really care. It was fun. . . . It's sad, really -- sad to think you can't realize your dream no matter how hard you try." I think Ken said that at a time that was really quite frustrating for him. This whole action wound up as a court action going before the Supreme Court. He wound up with a settlement that's going to allow him to stay in business. I think there are a lot of residents in Dunbar who are really pulling for him and recognize what he did. He came in with a dream, which I think is what a lot of entrepreneurs do today when they want to start out in their own venture -- their own business. In his case, it was saving that neighbourhood theatre in Dunbar. He was able to realize that dream but not without a lot of heartache.

I think the lesson for all of us is that we have to make sure that we as legislators do what we can to not put roadblocks in front of people like Ken Charko and young entrepreneurs around this province, that we actually try to free things up so that they can realize their dreams. Dreams such as saving a neighbourhood theatre, whether it's in Dunbar or any other part of this province, are dreams that young entrepreneurs in this province can realize.

[1905]

NO TO GMO!

What are GMOs? There are a lot of definitions, but GMOs or transgenic organisms are really accomplished by splicing the DNA from one species into the living organism of another species. Biotechnology, or genetic engineering, allows for the modification of genetic material in living cells to produce a whole new range of organisms. We use them in agriculture, we use them in the environment, we use them in industry, and we use them in medicine.

To be fair, the issue is not as clear-cut as the title of my private member's statement would suggest, because biotechnology is a very old science. Nor is biotechnology only a human invention, so to speak; nature does it all the time. Nature creates transgenic organisms like wheat, for example, which was created 10,000 or 14,000 years ago, after the last ice age, when nature herself spliced two species together. As a result, most of us eat bread every day. The difficulty I have with this issue is that as our knowledge about how to manipulate genes increases, so do the risks. I suggest that the scope and pace of our actions have already outstripped our knowledge and understanding of nature's secret formulas that have evolved over billions of years.

A noted conservationist of the last century made the comment that the first rule of intelligent tinkering is to save all the pieces. I would submit that we've not only not saved all the species and all of the pieces -- they are becoming extinct in ever-increasing numbers -- but we don't even yet know anything about them.

Just last week I read an absolutely fascinating article where researchers at Tennessee's Oak Ridge National Laboratory have recently found that the proteins from spinach -- an ordinary vegetable that most children love to hate -- can now be used for microscopic electronic components that can build everything from infinitesimally small computer components

[ Page 14432 ]

It's a pretty scary thing, because we don't even know when genetically modified organisms are in our food. We don't have labelling; but with or without labelling, it's very difficult to trace it through the entire food chain. Health Canada evaluates the safety of genetically modified organisms only when the manufacturers themselves request it. Think about that. The manufacturers -- companies like Monsanto -- that manipulate these genes are the ones that have to request Health Canada to do the studies as to whether or not these are safe for people to eat.

[1910]

I just want to give you a couple of other examples that already exist in our food today, which we don't even know about. Monsanto also produces Roundup-ready GMOs, which are designed to produce proteins that resist the herbicide Roundup -- which it also produces, by the way. It means that farmers can spray their fields and kill everything but soybeans, for example. There are several other companies. . . . Smart Canola, for example, is developed by Cyanimide, and it can only be used with that company's herbicides. I see that I'm not even halfway through my list, and I have to quit. But I will wait for the response.

B. Barisoff: Genetically engineered food. I believe that a good place to start speaking about genetically modified food is at the basics.

First of all, what is genetically modified food? Genetically modified food, or GM food, is produced from plants or animals which have their genes altered in the laboratory. By modifying the genes, scientists can alter the characteristics of an organism. The invention of GM foods was marked by the creation of the first transgenic plan, an antibiotic-resistant tobacco plant in 1983. Eleven years later the first commercialization of GM plants occurred in the United States -- a delayed ripening of tomatoes. In 1996 the first GM product, tomato paste, was introduced to the European supermarket shelves; 1996 also marked the year that the European Union approved the importation and use of Monsanto's Roundupready soybeans and foods for people and feed for animals. These beans have been modified to survive being sprayed with Roundup herbicide.

The next question to ask is: why is genetically modified being developed? Supporters state that genetic modification can allow us to improve the flavour, the texture, the nutritional value and shelf-life of food. Currently as much as 40 percent of the world's agricultural production is lost due to weeds, growth pests and disease. Genetic modification, however, has a potential to produce resistance to all these factors.

The result would be that technology could allow us to boost yields in a way that is not possible through conventional breeding and cultivation. It may be possible to grow more crops on poorer-quality soil. However, opponents of genetic modification claim that the techniques pose serious threats. There is concern that the introduction of genetically modified plants will disrupt the world's ecological balance and could have long-term effects on the population and health. Additional concerns centre around the impact on farming, particularly with regard to developing countries and the takeover by the high-tech sector.

To elaborate, the first problem has to do with the potential impact of genetically engineered crops on biodiversity in the countryside. There is a potential for herbicide-resistant genes to transfer to the wild relatives of the crop, a process coined as genetic pollution. Under the topic of health, one of the areas of concern is the production of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, or superbugs. Recent research conducted by Dutch scientists illustrated the potential for genes to jump from genetically modified food and bacteria into the digestive system of an animal. If the transferred genes were antibiotic-resistant -- genes used as markers in some genetically modified crops fed to livestock -- then serious health risks might result.

Additional areas of health concern are food allergy, autoimmune disease and the formation of viruses with an expanded host of ranges. Unfortunately, much of the research on the health impacts of genetically engineered foods in humans and animals is either unavailable or inconclusive.

[1915]

What is happening now is that a number of genetically modified foods are currently in the marketplace. A third of Canada's soybean crop this year will be genetically modified. According to a recent article in the Times Colonist, about half of all packaged food now contains some genetically altered material. Current genetically engineered foods on the market range from canola oil to corn, from insect-resistant potatoes to transgenic tomatoes.

In 1997 the European Union approved rules requiring companies to identify gene modification for certain products on a label or accompanying document.

[ Page 14433 ]

J. Sawicki: The hon. member has made some very good points there. I'm not suggesting tonight that we as humans have not benefited greatly from biotechnology through the centuries. Of course, since the earliest days of agriculture, we have done certain manipulations to increase the yield, as the hon. member has said, to increase shelf life and to become more resistant to pests, etc.

What really made me decide to use this as my private member's statement -- the final straw in this -- was a Globe and Mail article of June 24. The University of Guelph was given $270,000 to bioengineer pigs with a better digestive system so that farmers could cut out the digestive supplements -- hence cutting the price of a pig by 1.5 percent. So we are interfering with the whole web of life to cut the cost of a pig by 1.5 percent. They did this by giving mouse and bacteria genes to the pig to break down the phosphorus. To add insult to injury, in order to market this pig to us -- because they discovered that because the pig contained less phosphorus, the manure could safely run into rivers and streams -- they're calling it an enviro-pig.

I think that all of us can appreciate that science can do wonders, but there is a time along the continuum when we just have to say no. Canadian farmers do not want GMOs; consumers do not want GMOs. I even suggest that if nature and all of the species other than humans could talk, they would also say that they don't want GMOs.

With that, I want to leave you with one last quote that perhaps can put all of this into perspective. That is to reflect on something that was said in Roman times by the author Juvenal in 100 A.D.: "Seldom does nature say one thing and wisdom another." I hope and pray that we as human beings will understand that we have come to that point with GMOs, and we do not want them in our food.

[1920]

EXTENDING THE LONG ARM OF THE LAW

The bill was reintroduced, however, in the fall of 1997 and received considerable debate and scrutiny through parliamentary committees. Finally, in the fall of 1998, the bill received the approval of the House of Commons and then went to the Senate. At that time I wrote to all members of the Senate and asked them to consider supporting the bill as drafted, because I felt that it represented a reasonable approach to law enforcement.

The Canadian Senate finally approved the DNA Identification Act in the spring of this year. However, I have since learned that the federal government is hesitating about actually implementing the DNA Identification Act due to unanticipated costs. Whereas the national DNA registry was anticipated to cost $3 million per year, it now appears that it may cost up to $6-$8 million per year to administer. I believe that would be a wise investment of public funds, given the potential payoff in terms of catching criminals and perhaps deterring would-be violent offenders from harming further individuals in Canada.

Last September I travelled at my own expense to England. With the assistance of Don Webster, an inspector with Scotland Yard, I was given a briefing on England's national DNA registry. They established a DNA database in 1995 and since that time have solved 26,028 cases in which individuals were linked to crime scenes using DNA evidence. For example, in the three months before my visit in September of last year the police services in England had used the DNA database to help solve eight homicides, 71 sexual assaults, 16 incidents of grievous bodily harm, 53 serious robberies, 25 aggravated burglaries and 26 arsons. The DNA data bank, as proposed in Canada -- and like the one that's in operation in England -- records the genetic fingerprint of convicted criminals from their hair, blood or saliva samples.

I'd like to share with you some specific examples, which I was provided with by the police in England, of how this new technique can help the police solve a crime. This example was provided by the West Yorkshire police. A 15-year-old girl was attacked and sexually assaulted in her home on December 28, 1995. DNA evidence was subsequently recovered from the victim. A lengthy police inquiry then took place, but without initial success. In March 1996 a comparison with an individual's sample, which was already on the database, revealed a match between the sexual assault scene and the DNA sample provided on the database. Further DNA tests were completed and provided extremely strong evidence that an individual by the name of Braithwaite was the attacker. Subsequently, Mr. Braithwaite was identified in a police lineup by the victim and was prosecuted.

[1925]

I'll just provide one more example. In July 1995 a burglary occurred at the home of an elderly couple in Plymouth; £2,500 in cash and jewellery were stolen. The offender was disturbed by the occupiers who managed to grab hold of a handful of his hair, despite the elderly male being dragged down the stairs by the offender. The offender made good his escape, but the hair was forwarded for inclusion on the

[ Page 14434 ]

I'll have some concluding remarks after hearing my colleague the member for New Westminster.

G. Bowbrick: I'm going to keep my remarks fairly brief. As the member opposite has noted, it was over two years ago that he raised this issue in this House. I think he referred to it in his remarks as a debate. I don't recall it being much of a debate, because we agreed with each other. Certainly reaching agreement in this House signals an extraordinary level of consensus. If that can be achieved in this House in this province, I think that is an indication of the level of public support for this measure. It's certainly disappointing, from my perspective, that it has been over two years now and the data bank isn't in place yet. If the issue is simply one of finances, it's difficult to see what should receive more attention in terms of public concern than this item. It would seem that we've now had several years where there may be unsolved crimes in this country because this data bank hasn't been funded at this point.

Even though the DNA lab work that's done in this province is the responsibility of the federal government, we have tried to assist with that with the purchase of a gene sequencer for DNA analysis at RCMP "E" division, I believe it is. Next year we're committing $300,000 to hire three new DNA analysts. So we're certainly committed to this important work that's needed to solve crimes. I agree wholeheartedly with my colleague that it's time for the federal government to step up now. It should not have been two years since we last discussed this. This still isn't in place. They should step up now and fund this, so we can solve crimes as soon as possible.

B. Penner: I think that once this database gets up and running -- and I'm still confident that it will happen -- it will improve the morale of police forces across the country. It will give them a tool to help the public and help solve crime, as my colleague mentions. We all have to make choices as legislators, and the federal government is in no different a position. The federal government is currently spending in excess of $120 million over a five-year period to implement a national gun registry for hunting rifles. Now, we can argue about the merits of that. I'm not going to question that here. But on the one hand, the government is indicating a willingness to spend in excess of $120 million on something with very little proven crime-solving ability while on the other hand hesitating to spend an amount of $6 million per year for something that has been proven in other parts of the world -- England, the United States and Australia -- to have great success.

I'm hopeful that all members of this chamber and members of the public in British Columbia will put some pressure on their federal Members of Parliament to encourage the federal government to get on with the job and give police the tools they need so that we can work toward making our communities and streets safer for everyone.

The Speaker: I thank all members for their private members' statements this evening.

[1930]

REPORT ON COMMITTEE A ESTIMATES:
MINISTRY FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES

"The PRCYFSS board of directors has serious objection to the discrimination the government has shown against children and youth by cutting their mental health services at the very time that adult mental health services are being supplemented. Children and youth should not be required to pay a penalty for having their services reclassified into a separate ministry. Mental health does not depend on age."

"We are very concerned that the ministry's reduction of service dollars will rob support programs serving children and families who are already troubled and hurting. Particularly in this community, the adverse economic climate is increasing the stresses and needs that our programs are meant to alleviate.

"Please convey to the minister our request for reconsideration of these cuts.

"David Paul,

Board Chair"

"When you made the decision to apply a means test to the supported child care subsidy, you broke a promise to all British Columbia families who have children with special needs.

"The policies and programs that have been in place in our province for many years have provided valuable support to families -- families who are already spending extra time and extra money to meet their children's most basic needs. We are deeply concerned that weakening the support structure by limiting access will have a severe long-term impact on these families and their children.

"The supported child care subsidy of $107 helps provide socialization skills for these children through attending preschool a few hours a week. These few hours reduce the setbacks suffered by children with developmental delays who must start kindergarten at five without the advantage of two years of preschool preparations.

"Given the long-term developmental costs of lost opportunities, the $107 is an excellent investment and one that has served our families well. We strongly urge that you reconsider the decision to apply means testing to this very crucial subsidy.

"Lynne Dyson, Chair,

Richmond Supported Child Care Advisory Committee"

". . .when the 'transition' period for supported child care ended on March 31, 1999, and we made the discovery that the supported child care dollars released through our many hours of concerted effort did not flow to the supported child care program as promised and planned, the entire community was dismayed and disillusioned. We had acted in good faith, working diligently with your ministry representatives over the years. Your ministry had convinced us of your commitment to this vision of community access.

"However, this vision cannot be implemented in any community without adequate resources. The decision to redirect the funding meant for Richmond Supported Child Care is incredi-

[ Page 14435 ]

bly unfair. The program is seriously underfunded, a situation that is nothing short of tragic, given its great potential.

"While we keep hearing that supported child care did not promise to totally eliminate wait-lists, we would never have expected that your intention was to preserve them. There is no need to initiate wait-lists in Richmond. If we had the approximately $200,000 in funding meant to flow to this program, it could now provide excellent service to all referred children."

[1935]

Indeed, there are numerous issues that we came to discuss as part of that estimates debate, not the least of which was the 1.5 percent clawback across the board, which is going to take dollars out of every single contracted service provider in this province. Frankly, this government is attempting to balance the budget on the backs of children. It's absolutely inappropriate that that decision would be taken and even more inappropriate that that decision is being justified by this government as being prudent. It is fundamentally flawed. It leaves foresight parked on the side of the road. The research of today talks only about investing in children zero to five years of age, and refusing to do that, being unable to do that, is all about the early brain drain. It is not about supporting young children in this province.

The taxpayer will pay. The decision must be taken to pay when those intervention strategies will be the most effective rather than waiting till those young people are in crisis and then choosing to intervene, frankly, when those strategies will be the least effective. That is the message I leave from this estimates debate. The work must continue to honour childhood for all children in British Columbia.

Hon. L. Boone: I'm a little out of breath; I ran from the basement to get here on time. I wouldn't want to miss this wrap-up of my estimates.

I think it's important that we recognize that government has made a substantial commitment to this ministry and to all social ministries in the budget that we just passed. Government this time around made a deliberate choice not to follow the lead to cut spending, as was advocated by the Business Council and supported by the members opposite. The members opposite have very clearly stated that they would support Gordon Campbell in the cut of 5 percent from everybody. That is clearly. . . .

The Speaker: The minister knows about using proper names, constituencies or titles.

Hon. L. Boone: Oh, sorry. The Leader of the Opposition has clearly stated that he supports the Business Council's agenda of cutting 5 percent across the board from all ministries. That would have devastated this ministry. This government made a deliberate choice to increase the deficit so that they could provide support to education, support to health care and support to this ministry, the Ministry for Children and Families.

We have a $15 million increase in this budget. We had an overspending of $30 million. That was included in this year's budget. We have shown that this government has a commitment to this ministry. However, that doesn't mean it's clear sailing. We have some pressures out there. We know we have some pressures, and we know we have some difficult decisions to make. That is why we have made cuts within our ministry -- $6 million internally out of our administration. We've made massive cuts everywhere.

We've gone to those who are partners outside in the private sector, who are providing services through agencies, to ask them to find some efficiencies so that we can try to meet our needs and provide more services for everybody out there. It's not an easy time. I understand that; everybody understands that. But I think we also know that the commitment is there and that we do have to make sure that we spend wisely. We found efficiencies within the ministry. We are asking our agencies out there, which provide and contract through us, to also find efficiencies so that they can help us provide more services to everybody around.

[1940]

This is a budget that we can be proud of. It's one that says that children and families are important, health care is important, and education is important. We on this side know where our priorities are, and we certainly don't know where the opposition's are.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I call wrap-up on the estimates of the Ministry of Environment.

REPORT ON COMMITTEE A ESTIMATES:
MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT, LANDS AND PARKS

British Columbians are more concerned with environmental issues than any other province in this country. The ministry is in transition; it is being restructured. And I don't think that has been shown to be in the best interests of the environment of British Columbia. Over the last 20 years this ministry has grown, it has developed, and it has played a vital role in the protection of the environment. But I can honestly say that in the last four or five years, the priority for this ministry has diminished, and I believe it has diminished greatly in the mandate of the present government. I want to highlight a number of the areas that the opposition finds problems with in the ministry.

I guess I would say that the first is the restructuring process which has taken fisheries programs and removed them from the ministry, hurting, I think, the overall fisheries and wildlife approach of the ministry in past years. The removal of Crown lands to the B.C. Assets and Lands Corporation for -- for the most part -- sale. . . . I think that a lot of

[ Page 14436 ]

We have recently seen an increase in bear-human conflicts. I don't think the ministry has had the ability to deal with these conflicts in any way other than to put animals down, rather than to attempt to move them so that they're not in conflict with humans. I think that has a lot to do with the reductions in staff in the regional offices and the inability of conservation officers to actually manage in a more appropriate way, and I would like to see the ministry doing that.

The Pacific marine heritage legacy program, which was developed with the federal government and the provincial government, has seen the federal government continue its promises, but the provincial government failed to meet its commitments. Over the last year I've had concerns with the ministry's involvement in the Six Mile Ranch assessment process, with the SkyTrain environmental assessment process and with the Burns Bog assessment process. I think those highlight my concern -- and I think it's shared by others -- of the diminished role seen for this ministry by the government.

[1945]

I think there are two things: British Columbians know and feel that a healthy environment and a strong economy are complementary goals, and the government has to strive for that. I am joining a chorus of other people who hope for better days ahead for the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks and a higher priority given to this ministry by the government, and a higher priority for the use of volunteers in the parks system for maintenance and for a whole range of programs that we're not seeing at this point. So I'm pleased to offer those comments. In the role of a critic, it's your job to criticize and to point out where government can do better, and I am proud and pleased to be able to do that here tonight.

Hon. C. McGregor: It is, of course, my pleasure to speak to a summary of the estimates of my ministry. It is disappointing to hear the member opposite's comments, because in fact I thought that our estimates had proceeded in a rather productive way and were quite cooperative. It's always unfortunate when someone chooses to grandstand as opposed to make a summary of what progress was achieved. Nonetheless, I will try and address some of the member's comments, because they were well canvassed during the estimate process as well.

I think it is fair to say that British Columbians value their natural environment as one of their highest priorities and values as citizens. The work of this ministry is designed to make sure that we deliver on that commitment for British Columbians. We do that through a variety of programs across the ministry. It is true that we have reorganized staff within that envelope. The reasons we've done that have been a need to address priorities across government, to find some efficiencies within this ministry -- as we have had to in others across government -- and to protect key areas of investment related to health care and education.

The members opposite will know that these are some things that are highest priorities for British Columbians as well. That does not mean, though, that they believe we should sacrifice protection of the natural environment of British Columbia to achieve those goals. So this ministry remains a high priority of government in terms of not only the funding but the level of programming that's provided to support those goals.

The member makes specific reference to some of the reorganization within the ministry. I think it's fair to say that the creation of the B.C. Assets and Land Corporation continues not only to deliver on the goal of protecting our natural environment, preserving those areas and considering environmental issues and wildlife issues prior to the sale or lease of Crown land, but also deliver on the economic opportunities that British Columbians believe are an important part of our lifestyle here in British Columbia as well.

In other words, hon. member, it isn't just about having lands as a provincial asset, but making sure that they're available as well for British Columbians to use, while still protecting the natural values that they contain. The B.C. Assets and Land Corporation has that mandate. They are delivering on that mandate and providing economic opportunity. In fact, it was not many months ago when members opposite were most upset with the fact that we were not proceeding quickly enough. But, of course, today they take a different view. That is typical of the kind of flip-flop that we continually hear from the members opposite.

[1950]

Once those parks are created, there's a need in some cases to provide opportunities for campgrounds. The member makes reference to the need for additional campgrounds, and he'll be aware that we have invested significantly -- $25 million through FRBC in new campsites and recreational opportunities and $15 million over two years in campground expansion through this ministry. Clearly we are delivering on a high priority of British Columbians: to have access to those parks.

We're also delivering on waste management issues. I take great exception to the member's comments about recycling, because this ministry has taken international leadership on the

[ Page 14437 ]

But again, I can only attribute it to the fact that they would rather make a little show, as we're here in the big House, instead of dealing with what really happened during the estimates process in the little House. The member opposite has made a variety of comments that speak to the nature of their criticisms, exactly as we've seen before. What they say in one setting is completely different than what they say in another.

We have members on that side of the House who talk about the need to mine in B.C. parks, yet the member opposite now stands up and talks about our government not protecting our parks system. The kinds of rhetoric and contradiction that have become apparent from the member opposite's comments I find extremely disappointing. I certainly hope that we'll have a better relationship in the upcoming estimates.

Thank you very much for this opportunity to close.

I. Chong: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

I. Chong: Even though I'm a resident of the capital region here, it's not often that I have visitors who come, especially at this time of the evening. But I would like to introduce some very special friends and supporters of mine from Oak Bay-Gordon Head. They are watching the proceedings. I think they've enjoyed very much the wrap-up that they've just seen. They think that everything is very amiable here in the chambers. The very special friends I'd like to introduce are Rita and James Estock, Ray Coutts, Art Quan, Lyle Acton, Terry Rachwalski, Ralph Sketchley and Herman Cheung. I hope the House will make them very welcome.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I move that the reports of resolutions from Committees of Supply on May 6, 10, 11, 17, 18, 19, 25, 27 and 31, June 1, 2, 7, 10, 16, 21 and 24, and July 7 and 8 be now received, taken as read and agreed to.

Motion approved.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I move that there be granted from and out of the consolidated revenue fund the sum of $20,811,511,000. This sum includes that authorized to be paid under section 1 of the Supply Act (No. 1), 1999, and section 1 of the Supply Act (No. 2), 1999, and is granted by Her Majesty towards defraying the charges and expenses of the public service of the province for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2000.

[1955]

Hon. J. MacPhail: I also move that there be granted from and out of the consolidated revenue fund the sum of $1,563,006,000. This sum includes that authorized to be paid under section 2 of the Supply Act (No. 1), 1999, and is granted by Her Majesty towards defraying the capital loans, investments and other financing requirements for the province for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2000.

Motion approved.

Introduction of Bills

SUPPLY ACT, 1999-2000

Hon. J. MacPhail: I move the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

This supply bill is introduced to provide supply for the operation of government programs for the 1999-2000 fiscal year. The amount requested is that resolved by Committee of Supply after consideration of the estimates. The House has already received, taken as read and agreed to the report of resolutions from Committee of Supply and, in addition, has resolved that there be granted from and out of the consolidated revenue fund the necessary funds toward defraying the charges and expenses of the public service of the province for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2000. It is the intention of the government to proceed with all stages of the supply bill this day.

Bill 101 introduced, read a first time and ordered to proceed to second reading forthwith.

The Speaker: We'll take a few minutes while the bill is being distributed to the members. I ask you to remain in your seats while that takes place. In keeping with the practice of this House, the final supply bill has been permitted to advance through all stages in one sitting.

[2000]

SUPPLY ACT, 1999-2000
(second reading)

This supply bill is the final supply bill for the 1999-2000 fiscal year, the first having been passed on April 1, 1999, and the second on June 29, 1999, when the Legislative Assembly previously authorized appropriations for this fiscal year. This bill requests supply of $20,811,511,000 for voted expenditures as outlined in section 1 and schedule 1 of the bill. This bill also requests supply of $1,563,006,000 for voted capital and loans, investment and other financing transactions as outlined in section 2 and schedule 2 of the bill. Finally, I point out the requirement for passage of the supply bill in order to provide for the expenditures of the government for the 1999-2000 fiscal year.

I move that the bill be now referred to a Committee of the Whole for consideration by the House forthwith.

Motion approved.

Bill 101, Supply Act, 1999-2000, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

[ Page 14438 ]

SUPPLY ACT, 1999-2000

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

Schedules 1 and 2 approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Bill 101, Supply Act, 1999-2000, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I call Committee of the Whole to debate Bill 78.

MOTOR VEHICLE STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1999
(continued)

[2005]

R. Neufeld: Briefly, I would like the minister to put on the record why he believes that the amendment, which has been put forward in good faith by the official opposition and actually makes very good sense in reducing red tape and helping business in British Columbia. . . . Would he put on the record why he will not accept our amendment?

Hon. H. Lali: In response to the statement by the member, we don't agree with the proposed amendment. It would destabilize the existing safety environment. However, we do agree that assurance is needed that the agricultural community is not adversely affected. What I can do is give you my assurance that we will not allow this section to be proclaimed until the regulations are drafted in consultation with the Agriculture Council. We're convinced that this amendment does not expand the application of the National Safety Code to include vehicles that are not now required to comply with the NSC.

Interjections.

Hon. H. Lali: I think the hon. members might want to just listen up on this. If it becomes apparent, through consultation, that additional vehicles are captured, then they will be excluded by regulation.

R. Neufeld: The number of vehicles that the minister spoke about was 47,000 vehicles. He told me in earlier discussions, actually that if you accepted our amendment, they would not come under the National Safety Code. I assume that's what the minister is talking about -- that would affect safety in British Columbia. Could you commit to those numbers, please?

Hon. H. Lali: Yes, the hon. member is correct. It would be 47,000 vehicles.

R. Neufeld: I appreciate that the minister is going to talk to the agricultural community about the farm vehicle part of our amendment. The second part of it, which was commercial vehicles licensed to 18,000 kilograms. . . . I assume that those are the vehicles he's talking about when he talks about 47,000. As I understand it, the minister wants to put all vehicles that are 5,000 kilograms and over under the National Safety Code. Is that correct?

Hon. H. Lali: Again, we are convinced that the world is not going to change as a result of this particular bill. I give my assurance to the hon. member that if we find through consultation that they are vehicles that would be affected, then obviously we will subsequently exclude them by regulation.

R. Neufeld: I don't want to belabour it, but I want to get something straight on the record from the minister, and he's all over the place. Are you telling me now -- and please confirm it -- that (a) you are going to consult, before this part of the act is proclaimed, with the agricultural community on the total exemption of licensed agricultural vehicles, and (b) you will consult with the community of people who own licensed vehicles under 18,000 kilograms to find out whether they should be exempt? Would the minister today commit in this House to doing that? Just write the answer for me.

[2010]

R. Neufeld: It's an interesting comment. You're not sure who's being captured. Would that be correct? Do I understand the minister that he doesn't know who is being captured? Earlier the minister said that every vehicle over 5,000 kilograms would be captured under the National Safety Code. Is that correct or incorrect?

Hon. H. Lali: We know who is being captured and who is not. What we're saying to the hon. member is that we will not proclaim that particular section. We'll go out and consult with the Agriculture Council to find out if there are any people who may be adversely affected.

R. Neufeld: The member for Peace River South talked earlier about a merry-go-round, and I feel that I am on the same merry-go-round. I want a commitment from the minister on section (b) of our amendment. I'll read it: ". . .commercial vehicles up to a licenced weight of 18,000 K.G." will be exempt from the National Safety Code.

I want the minister to stand up and tell us that he will actually. . . . He doesn't have to consult with every owner.

[ Page 14439 ]

Hon. H. Lali: Again, I want to clarify for the hon. member that what the hon. member had stated is not what I had committed to. We have not committed to undoing the current environment. As a matter of fact, what I said to the hon. member is that right now, the class of people that he is talking about are exempted and continue to be that way afterward. If we find out through our consultation that perhaps maybe there is the odd person that is affected, then obviously we will exclude them through regulation.

R. Neufeld: Under the present act that we're putting through right now, will all commercial vehicles over 5,000 kilograms be covered by the National Safety Code? Yes or no?

Hon. H. Lali: Currently vehicles over 5,000 kilograms are being captured by the existing National Safety Code, and that status will not change after this bill is passed.

[2015]

It's no wonder there is some bloody frustration on this side of the House about this minister, who doesn't understand an act that he brings to the House that could affect businesses in British Columbia in a negative way. It just amazes me that this minister would come to this House and not understand in any way, shape or form what kind of legislation he's bringing forward and what effect it will have on the people of British Columbia -- those being the farmers and the small truck operators. And he sits and laughs about it, because he thinks it's funny. Well, I'll tell you, if you're one of those people out there, it's not funny. So I would suggest that you listen up, that you go back to your office. . .

The Chair: Member. . . .

R. Neufeld: . . .read your legislation, and understand it when you bring in the regulations that you committed to bring in. Please understand it before you do that.

B. Barisoff: I'd like to ask the minister whether farm vehicles are presently governed under the inspection process from the provincial government.

Hon. H. Lali: If those farm vehicles are operating on their farms, they are not. But if they are driving on the highways, then they are subject to inspection.

B. Barisoff: So the minister is telling me that the vehicles operating on the highway are provincially inspected. We've got to assume that if they're provincially inspected, they are safe to be on the highways in British Columbia. But the minister says that what he wants to do is to go and consult the farming community to make sure they're not adversely affected. Well, I happen to know that they are adversely affected, because they have to go through the National Safety Code. If the vehicles are safe, can the minister explain to me why he will not accept an amendment? It's a friendly amendment that simply says that farm vehicles are exempt from the National Safety Code. It has no bearing on the fact of whether they're safe to be on the road or not, because the minister just said that they are inspected. So can the minister explain to the farmers of British Columbia, and maybe in particular to those in parts of his new riding, in Cawston and Keremeos. Maybe he should explain to those farmers why they're going to have to go through the National Safety Code. Could the minister explain that to those people and all the farmers of British Columbia?

Hon. H. Lali: Hon. Chair, I have already answered the question.

The Chair: Members, I think we have covered this subject. I'm going to put the question on the amendment.

Amendment negatived on division.

Section 31 approved on division.

Sections 32 and 33 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

[2020]

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. J. MacPhail: By leave, now.

Leave not granted.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Then at the next sitting after today, hon. Speaker.

Bill 78, Motor Vehicle Statutes Amendment Act, 1999, reported complete with amendment to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I call Committee of the Whole to debate Bill 52.

[ Page 14440 ]

TAXATION STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1999

On section 1.

G. Farrell-Collins: Section 1 is a change to the Assessment Act, particularly applying to dams, power plants, substations, etc. Can the minister tell us what the change is with this section? What will it do?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The legislation assesses dams, power plants and substations based on a cost basis as opposed to a market basis. That's similar to other industrial properties. This legislation confirms the practice that's been applied.

G. Farrell-Collins: For the record, can the minister tell us how long that practice has been applied?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Since the early nineties.

G. Farrell-Collins: Can the minister, for the record, assure me that the intent of this legislation, the effect of this legislation, will not be to change the present assessed values of those entities, specifically with regard to the unique circumstances of smaller utilities?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes.

G. Farrell-Collins: I assume, then, that the evaluation methods and the regulations that will be coming forward will reflect what the current status has already been. There will be no change to those regulations and that evaluation process as they currently exist.

[2025]

G. Farrell-Collins: That's always an option. The government can always revise its regulations. I guess my question is: is there an intent at this point. . . ? Or can the minister assure me that there's no intention to dramatically increase the amounts of money that these companies will be required to pay in assessments from what's been the practice over the last period of time, up to and including today?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, I can confirm that.

G. Farrell-Collins: I have no further questions on section 2 or on the remainder of the bill. I've had extensive briefings on the rest of the bill. I know that the minister has an amendment or something that she wants to go with -- several amendments. Other than that, I have no further questions on the bill, as it's currently stated.

Sections 1 to 17 inclusive approved.

On section 18.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 18(b), by deleting the proposed section 1 (3) (g) of the International Financial Business (Tax Refund) Act and substituting the following:

(g) for the purposes of paragraphs (a) and (c) of the definition of "dealing in securities", if a financial institution is acting as principal or agent in making or offering to make an agreement referred to in those paragraphs with a nonresident broker acting as agent for another person, the nonresident broker is deemed to be the nonresident.]

Section 18 as amended approved.

Sections 19 to 62 inclusive approved.

On section 63.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I move the amendment to section 63 standing on the order paper in my name:

[SECTION 63, by deleting the proposed paragraph (i) and substituting the following:

(i) boomsticks for use as, and used as, part of a frame for transporting logs over water.]

Section 63 as amended approved.

Sections 64 to 72 inclusive approved.

On section 73.

E. Conroy: I move that section 73 be deleted.

[2030]

Section 73 negatived.

Sections 74 to 76 inclusive approved.

On section 77.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I move the first amendment to section 77 standing on the order paper in my name.

[SECTION 77, by deleting the proposed subsection (3) and substituting the following:

(3) Sections 9, 14 and 15 come into force on July 1, 1999 and are retroactive to the extent necessary to give them effect on and after that date.]

Hon. J. MacPhail: I move the second amendment to section 77 standing on the order paper in my name.

[SECTION 77, by deleting the proposed subsection (7) and substituting the following:

(7) Section 41 comes into force on June 1, 1999 and is retroactive to the extent necessary to give it effect on and after that date.]

[ Page 14441 ]

Section 77 as amended approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Bill 52, Taxation Statutes Amendment Act, 1999, reported complete with amendments.

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

Hon. J. MacPhail: By leave, now.

Leave granted.

Bill 52, Taxation Statutes Amendment Act, 1999, read a third time and passed.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I call Committee of the Whole to debate Bill 97.

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT (No. 3), 1999

On section 1.

G. Plant: Section 1 is going to make some changes in the way legal work is done for public bodies designated by the Attorney General.

I do not oppose the proposal. I do want to know what the Attorney General is intending to do -- or maybe he's already done it -- to establish the requirements in standards that are the basis upon which his ministry will continue to have some oversight responsibility for legal work done by other public bodies.

[2035]

G. Plant: I take it that the move to the new regime won't happen until the protocols that the minister talks about are in place.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Correct.

Sections 1 to 5 inclusive approved.

On section 6.

G. Plant: Could the Attorney General indicate the public policy rationale behind these changes to the Coroners Act?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: In simple terms, without going into the details, it is to take away the mandatory requirement for deaths -- for instance, in corrections facilities -- to be inquired into by the coroner, whether those deaths were by natural causes or not. That imposition of a requirement would be replaced by the discretion which would be independently exercised by the coroner, and I think that's an appropriate thing to do. All of the deaths in corrections facilities, for instance, would be reported to the coroner. The coroner would then determine whether or not to hold an inquiry. This is not a restriction of his powers; in fact, it's giving him broad discretion to either do an inquiry or not. I think there are some other changes, and they are also in the same vein.

G. Plant: Dealing first with the impact that these changes have on prisons, broadly defined, could the Attorney General indicate how many inquests have taken place as a result of the operation of the automatic requirement to hold inquests in case of death in correctional centres or penitentiaries or other prisons? The question is about the number: how many deaths and therefore how many inquests?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: There were a total of 30 inquests last year, and 11 were relating to corrections facilities. Out of those 11, seven were deemed to have died as a result of natural causes. So in our estimation, seven inquests were unnecessary, and the coroner may have avoided the expense of having to hold them.

G. Plant: One of the other changes is going to remove the requirement to report to the coroner regarding every resident or in-patient death occurring in a community care facility, while retaining the requirement that notice be given for what you might call the list of suspicious circumstances in section 9(1). I'm not sure that the answer of the Attorney General to the first question spoke to the rationale behind this additional element of these amendments.

[2040]

G. Plant: I have done a little bit of telephoning around about this provision. When I talk to people who are interested in prisoners' rights, who are concerned about the situation of residents in community care facilities and who have those concerns in a very responsible way, they're unhappy with these provisions. Can the minister indicate the extent of con

[ Page 14442 ]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand that in addition to what the hon. member has indicated in terms of the entities that may have been consulted, the community care facility managers and the like have been consulted, as well, with respect to this.

G. Plant: That makes a list of all those, you might say, who have a vested interest in reducing the administrative burdens on the system, but it doesn't include anyone that would have a vested interest in speaking up on behalf of the situation of inmates in prisons or residents in community care facilities. This makes me think, with the greatest of respect, that this is a provision intended for bureaucratic administrative convenience. When I say this is a provision, I mean the provisions that we're talking about.

I think there's a tremendous societal value in continuing to require the corrections branch to be subject to inquests in respect of every death that occurs in a prison. I don't for a moment quarrel with the figure given, which indicates that there may have been seven inquests done in. . . . I was going to say seven that may have been done unnecessarily, if the result was to determine that the inmate in question died for reasons that would not ordinarily engage the interest of the coroner.

I'm prepared to accept that figure, and I'm prepared to acknowledge the reasonableness, if not the sufficiency, of the argument around administrative costs in ensuring that the coroner service functions in a cost-effective way. But on the other hand, it does seem to me that we will lose something when we take a situation that currently exists in the way it currently exists and move to a new system that will place more discretion in the hands of those who operate corrections centres and those who operate community care facilities. It will place more discretion in their hands around the circumstances and consequences of a death that takes place in their care.

I am certain that the vast majority of the individuals we're talking about -- the officials in the corrections branch, the people who operate community care facilities -- will exercise that discretion properly, wisely, in good faith and with the best of intentions. But all it will take is one mistake. That may happen tomorrow. It may not happen for two years; it may not happen for ten years. When that one mistake occurs, when the one death -- the inexplicable death -- occurs in a prison or a community care facility and we don't find out until later that, really, that was a case where there should have been an inquest because there was something suspicious, then we'll have lost something. What we'll have lost is public confidence in those institutions.

[2045]

I bet that the public policy rationale behind introducing those requirements in the first place, whenever it was that they were introduced, is pretty much as strong today as it was then. While I have respect for the idea of administrative convenience and have respect for the idea that we should lower the costs of government, I also have real apprehension that if we implement these changes, we're going to leave the institutions in question wide open to the possible risk that something's going to happen down the road where their integrity will come under question. Goodness knows, there are lots of institutions in society that don't have enough integrity. I really don't think that this is the time or the place to make the changes to the Coroners Act that are being proposed.

Let me make a couple of footnotes. Really, although I'm speaking about section 6, the minister may be interested to know that I'm delighted that the chief coroner will have the power to reopen an inquiry. It seems to me that the existing provisions of the act are not sufficiently flexible to accommodate the situations that arise from time to time when new evidence is discovered. I have no difficulty with the changes made in what is section 8 of the bill in front of us, which has to do with the power of entry and inspection. My concerns relate to the public policy questions we've been talking about, and I really think this is an opportunity for the Attorney General to take a step back and say: "Let's hold off on this."

Hon. U. Dosanjh: With the utmost respect, I disagree with the hon. member. I think there is still an obligation for community care facilities and the corrections branch to report any deaths, if you have reason to believe that a person has died as a result of all the circumstances that are listed in section 9(1)(a) to (g). I think it's important for us to recognize that. I don't want to go into a long debate. It's important for us to recognize that the coroner has discretion. All of the deaths would be reported to the coroner. The coroner has the discretion to determine whether or not to hold an inquest. Nobody's binding his -- or her, if it happens to be a her at some point -- capacity or powers of discretion to hold that inquiry.

With respect to the community care facility. . . .

Let me just go back to Corrections once more. Corrections holds the internal review on any death that happens, in addition to the coroner having discretion. Corrections also holds a review, through the independent inspection and standards office, of every death that happens in a correctional facility. So you already have two steps being taken within a correctional facility. As you know, the independent inspection office is at arm's length from the Attorney General, and it is independent of Corrections. You have two processes. One of them is absolutely independent, and a third is a discretion in the coroner's hand to determine whether or not to hold an inquest.

With respect to a community care facility, you still have an obligation. Whether you're a manager or a nurse, or whoever happens to be there, you have an obligation imposed upon you by law to report a death to the coroner if you believe it's as a result of violence, misadventure, negligence, misconduct, malpractice, suicide, unfair means, during pregnancy or following pregnancy. And it goes on to list all of those circumstances, so I -- with respect -- beg to differ. I understand the hon. member's argument, but there is a general difference of opinion.

[ Page 14443 ]

[2050]

Sections 6 and 7 approved on division.

Sections 8 and 9 approved.

On section 10.

G. Farrell-Collins: I don't have a great number of questions to ask on this section. If I may, I just want to comment on it a little bit. My understanding of this section is that it provides for a scenario whereby financial institutions headquartered in British Columbia will, despite the level of their assets, pay the 1 percent corporate capital tax as opposed to the 3 percent corporate capital tax which is charged to larger financial institutions that are not headquartered in British Columbia. That's a change from what existed in the past, where the criterion of whether an institution paid the 1 percent or the 3 percent rate was based strictly on size. On two separate occasions in the past, this government has raised the thresholds for the jump into the 3 percent range -- once in 1995 and once in 1997, I believe it was, or '98; I can't recall which.

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: Last year. The minister says 1998.

This is now the third time that the government has made provision to allow for at least the Hongkong Bank of Canada, which is based in British Columbia -- the former Bank of British Columbia. . . . And we're told, not by the government but by other sources, that there is at least one other financial institution that has fallen within these parameters at some other time, although the minister has said that it would be violating confidences to disclose the names or the numbers.

[2055]

I think that what we have here is a difference of policy.

An Hon. Member: And of honesty.

G. Farrell-Collins: Well, I can't say that.

The official opposition has a policy of broad-based tax reduction for individuals and small to medium-sized businesses to create a better competitive environment across the board for those individuals, financial institutions and businesses, so that people then have a chance to compete in a more competitive taxation environment and succeed -- so that they're not pitted one against the other there's no particular advantage being given to one small business as opposed to another small business.

If the government believes that reducing the tax rate for a business will help create jobs and sustain business in British Columbia, if it works for one business, why doesn't it work for others? The logic is there. I don't understand why the government doesn't accept that -- doesn't publicly accede to that -- and instead takes a position which I think is at complete odds with what they're doing in this section of the bill.

Second of all, I find it difficult to sit here in the Legislature, and even out around the province, and hear members of the government stand up and talk about the tax breaks for banks and big corporations when in fact it's the New Democratic government of British Columbia that on three separate occasions has given significant tax breaks to a company that's based -- at least one company, anyway -- in British Columbia. We don't challenge that; we think it's a smart thing to do. But we think it should be done in a more broad-based way. So I find it difficult to accept the criticism, the rhetoric that comes from the New Democrats talking about the B.C. Liberal Party giving multimillion-dollar tax breaks to big banks and corporations, when in fact it's their government that has done that on three separate occasions.

An Hon. Member: What's the value of this break?

G. Farrell-Collins: My understanding is that this break is about $14 million. It's $14 million that doesn't have to be paid and that would have had to be paid had the act not been changed. The government has made a choice; I understand that. I think that it's a good thing to do to keep businesses competitive and growing in British Columbia. But I just think that if the government's going to do this, then they should perhaps tone down their rhetoric on the tax breaks for banks and big businesses.

That's really all I have to say on this section. I want to put it on the record. I want to make it clear what's being done here, and I want the members opposite to understand that when it comes to tax breaks for banks, it's the NDP that has done it and not members from the opposition.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Let me just briefly explain this section. This is not a tax cut. I appreciate the member rightfully inter-

[ Page 14444 ]

In this particular circumstance, we're targeting the tax regime so as not to affect the consolidated revenue fund; this does not in any way impose or offer a tax cut. The consolidated revenue fund will not be affected by this. Yet what it does do is say that if you're a B.C.-based and headquartered financial institution creating jobs, when you actually base your headquarters. . . . There are hundreds if not thousands of jobs that come with large financial institutions, and for that kind of investment coming to British Columbia, you will pay a tax rate that's at 1 percent.

Section 10 approved.

[2100]

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. J. MacPhail moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 9:01 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

The committee met at 2:49 p.m.

COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION ACT

[1450]

The Chair: Would the member like to make a motion to go back to this section, as it's already been passed?

J. Reid: I would like to move that we go back to section 1 so that the question can be asked.

Motion approved.

On section 1.

J. Reid: In section 1, in the definitions, the definition of "first nation". . . . I would like to ask for, in the particular definition that has been adopted here, the source of this definition and the choice of definition. There are different definitions used for first nations in different acts, so in choosing a definition there are certain reasons and a context for choosing definitions. If we could have an explanation, please.

Hon. J. Pullinger: Yes, I'd be delighted to do that. But if I may indulge the House to introduce my staff first, I'd like to do that. To my right is Leon de Wet, acting director of the financial and corporate sector policy branch of the Ministry of Finance and Corporate Relations. Behind me is Mark Creighton from my ministry; he is the director of the interagency relations branch. Beside him is Kees Langereis, acting manager of interagency relations in my ministry. Kara Woodward is a policy adviser in the Ministry of Finance.

The answer to the question is that the language we've used is taken from the B.C. Treaty Commission, which, as the member knows, is a federal-provincial agreement -- or an act that enables the federal and provincial governments to work together to settle first nations claims. The definition is one of the more modern definitions available. It reflects the transitional process, if you like, that first nations are going through. Their own definition has been evolving. This is the most modern definition, and it's used in about five acts in British Columbia, I believe.

J. Reid: When these definitions are prepared -- as different acts use different definitions -- what are the criteria for deciding which definition is going to be used in which act?

Hon. J. Pullinger: We simply use the most current definition.

J. Reid: If I could refer to another bill that has come just recently. . . . The definition of first nation in Bill 80 -- if I might read it into the record -- is: " 'First nation' means (a) in relation to a reserve, as defined in the Indian Act (Canada), the council of the band that is entitled to the use of that reserve under that Act, and (b) in relation to an area under its jurisdiction, any prescribed aboriginal governing body." This is also recent, and there is a considerable difference between the two definitions. I'm trying to understand why one would be chosen in one act and a different one chosen in another act -- if there could be clarification.

Hon. J. Pullinger: The member would need to ask the question about why that particular definition was used in that particular piece of legislation. There may well be a reason for that, and of course I can't answer that, as I'm not the minister responsible. In respect of our legislation, we simply needed to define first nation for the purpose of inclusion in the legislation. As the member knows, this is not a piece of legislation that's about first nations; it's simply one where we're including first nations specifically. Government just asked the drafters to use the most current definition, and that's what they did.

[1455]

On section 9.

[ Page 14445 ]

On the issue of surpluses, I know that one of the great difficulties for cooperatives -- particularly economic cooperatives -- has historically been to be able to set aside a surplus in the form of permanent capital. It's been my understanding that under the act, co-ops originally -- or under the previous legislation -- had to designate all of a surplus to members. A portion of that could be paid out in cash, and a portion of it could be put into certain kinds of reserves. But generally they had to be paid out at some point and therefore didn't form permanent equity on the balance sheet. Does this section on surpluses, where it talks about all or part of a surplus arising from operations. . . ? Is there any change in that regard? In other words, are the rules changed now -- or is the legislation changed -- such that a cooperative can take a portion of their surplus and set it aside as permanent capital, where it never has to be paid out to the membership? Is that possible under this act?

Hon. J. Pullinger: What this section of the act does is simply go from a prescriptive legislation -- the existing legislation says what you must do -- to enabling legislation, which allows. . . . With this legislation, co-ops will be able to determine -- the members will be able to determine -- their own minimum reserves. And that is, simply, what this particular piece does.

J. van Dongen: Following up on that, if this section allows the membership -- or, I presume, the board of directors -- to decide their own permanent reserves, and then that would meet the need in terms of these cooperatives being able to set aside some permanent equity out of a surplus. . . . Will this section enable cooperatives to do that? I want to get that very clear.

Hon. J. Pullinger: That would be determined by the co-op's own rules.

J. van Dongen: I'm assuming, then, that this section does empower the co-op in its own rules to make that determination. This section would empower them to do that.

Hon. J. Pullinger: That's my understanding, yes.

Section 9 approved.

On section 10.

[1500]

J. Reid: In section 10, a change has been proposed so that instead of five individuals or entities forming a co-op, we now bring that number down to three. Has there been a precedent set for this insofar as people not being able to fulfil their desire to form co-ops because of the number? Is there actually a record of that difficulty, or is it just a perceived difficulty?

Hon. J. Pullinger: This was one of the issues that was identified, actually, in a document produced by the CCA-BC with broad consultation -- in 1996, I believe -- called "Solutions 2000." One of the things they said was that in the new generation of cooperatives, where entrepreneurs or microbusinesses or organizations are getting together to do certain things, the old rules don't work anymore. It was their request that we lower it to three.

J. Reid: So is it a perceived need, rather than a need that has been demonstrated?

Hon. J. Pullinger: I don't mean to be facetious, but it is very difficult to keep track of cooperatives that didn't form. It's not something that you can keep track of, quite frankly, so you have to depend on anecdotal evidence and the sector's wisdom in trying to organize itself into cooperatives. They say that it's a significant problem. As I say, it was one of a number of issues that they pointed to as specific issues in "Solutions 2000," and they said that we really need to change this in order to move ahead in the modern economy.

Sections 10 to 21 inclusive approved.

On section 22.

J. van Dongen: I want to ask a question about the relationship between the provincial legislation and the federal legislation. I know that when Agrifoods International Cooperative -- at that time, Fraser Valley Milk Producers Cooperative -- merged in 1991 with the Alberta cooperative, they had to get a change in the provincial legislation and incorporate under the federal legislation. Are they affected at all by this legislation now? Is there an overlap between the two sets of legislation, or is it two completely separate entities?

Hon. J. Pullinger: This section applies only to provincially incorporated cooperatives. If Dairyworld Foods is federally incorporated, it wouldn't apply.

J. van Dongen: On the issue specifically in this section, where a cooperative was incorporated under the federal act, is there a system intended in this section in terms of them reserving a name? Is there a mechanism here to ensure that there isn't a federally incorporated cooperative with the same name as a provincially incorporated cooperative? What's the mechanism to prevent that from happening?

[1505]

Sections 22 to 29 inclusive approved.

[ Page 14446 ]

Hon. J. Pullinger: I'd like to move the amendment to section 30 standing in my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 30, in the proposed section 30 by deleting "the admission of a person as member" and substituting "the admission of a person or eligible organization as member."]

Section 30 as amended approved.

Section 31 approved.

On section 32.

J. Reid: In 32, where we're looking at entities that can become members of co-ops represented by an individual authorized on its behalf, I would like, first of all, to explore the potential role of government in membership in co-ops. If the minister could explain: what would be the intended role of government in becoming a member of a co-op?

Hon. J. Pullinger: I'd be happy to do that. A couple of years ago. . . . Actually, several years ago, as a result of the land use planning -- the CORE process -- on Vancouver Island, the communities around Lake Cowichan decided that one of the things they would like to do is have a community forest. Given that it's almost entirely private forest land around that area, their best option then was to have a community forest entity and then acquire cutting licences, which they did. They wanted to have a community forest that was in fact a business vehicle but that was also rooted in the community. So after a great deal of debate, they ultimately ended up forming the cooperative out of the IWA, the chamber of commerce, the Cowichan and Chemainus Valleys Ecomuseum, the town of Lake Cowichan and the regional district.

The Chair: The division bells have rung. We will recess until the division is complete.

The committee recessed from 3:07 p.m. to 3:18 p.m.

[E. Walsh in the chair.]

J. Reid: We just began a discussion on the involvement of government in co-ops, and I understand that there was a situation with a community forest. I'm afraid we got broken off in the midst of that discussion. Would the minister continue the explanation of how and what levels of government interact with co-ops?

Hon. J. Pullinger: In the example I was interrupted in describing, it was the decision of the community that they wanted to have the local municipal government as well as the regional government and other incorporated bodies. In fact, they invited the local first nation to participate, but they declined at this time -- maybe at some other time; it's a very tiny first nation. So it's a cooperative of incorporated bodies within a defined geographic area. On their determination, that was the very best way to keep the cooperative very rooted in the community and doing the job that they wanted it to do. That was their decision to do it.

There wouldn't be an effective way in that circumstance, where you want to hold and manage a timber licence and manage other things that they wanted to do in the community. It wouldn't be effective to have a co-op made up of every person in the community. If you had it made up of some people in the community, that didn't work either. So they elected to have these different bodies; it just worked for them that way. I would expect that we will see more of that kind of cooperative for different purposes in communities. But it worked for them.

[1520]

Hon. J. Pullinger: I think the answer rationally would be that there is nothing to prohibit a government or any part of government from being part of a cooperative. But I can't imagine a circumstance in which you would want that to happen. Cooperatives by definition are very much about individual communities and community-based activity. So it is highly unlikely that a provincial government would want to be involved.

J. Reid: With the wording here stating "the government" instead of "a government," certainly there would be a concern in what is meant by the government -- whether it be the provincial government. . . . I do have a concern that with the possibility of the provincial government, this isn't limited to local government -- that the door then would be open, in effect, for the provincial government to be partaking in co-ops. That might not be the intent, but the possibility arises. So if the minister would reiterate what the intent of the provincial government is with regard to this section. . . .

Hon. J. Pullinger: The intent of this section is to clarify that a government, a first nation or a corporation can enter into a co-op; it has not been prohibited. The co-op in existence in Lake Cowichan is made up of just these kinds of entities. So it hasn't been prohibited. This is simply clarification. The word "the" is simply grammatical, because we're talking about an individual authorized on behalf of the government that she or he represents. I think that piece is just grammatical.

J. Reid: With allowing governments to participate in co-ops, and certainly in the clarification here. . . . If they were allowed before, under the old act, under the definition of "person," it certainly clarifies it here. The implications of even local governments being involved in co-ops certainly haven't been well explored. So the question would be: is there going to be any kind of restrictions or advice or anything put forward as far as government participation in co-ops? Again, keeping in mind the objective and principles that co-ops are for the community -- and certainly there are other opportunities there.

Hon. J. Pullinger: I just want to underscore that there is no change in reality brought about by this act -- that whatever you can do today, you'll be able to do tomorrow by this act. It's simply clarification. Municipal governments, regional governments, first nation governments -- they'll most likely be involved in a cooperative -- are constrained by things other than this act. For instance, a municipal government is constrained by certain provisions of the Municipal Act. Certainly, you know, corporations would have their own terms of reference that they operate under as well.

[ Page 14447 ]

[1525]

Hon. J. Pullinger: No, I don't see any conflict whatsoever with the principles laid out there, and there need not be. But again, a cooperative does set its own bylaws, so all of those participating would need to make sure that they were operating by a set of bylaws that served the interests of the members of the co-op -- which is what members' co-ops tend to do.

J. Reid: Would there be any concern with local governments? Looking at this, understanding where this has perhaps originated from in a very practical sense. . . . Looking at the possible implications of this piece of legislation the way it's written, would there be any problems with government being involved in co-ops and being unable to operate at arm's length? Would there be any implications there as far as concerns with those interests and, again, the principles of cooperatives?

Hon. J. Pullinger: No, it doesn't violate the principles of cooperatives at all. The member raises a good concern in terms of a municipal or other government involving itself in co-ops, but there are constraints on those governments from other pieces of legislation or other directions. For instance, the constitution of a first nations government or the Municipal Act, from which the powers for municipal government flow, etc., says that those governments can and cannot do certain things, and obviously that legislation would have to be abided by.

But in terms of the example that I gave, there's no problem whatsoever. It's there for the benefit of its members: the workers; the small businesses in the community, particularly the value-added industries; the other related industries, such as ecotourism; and the people who live in the two electoral districts and the town of Lake Cowichan. All of those bodies are represented on the co-op. So there's no contradiction whatsoever. They simply work together to serve the needs of the people living in that geographic area and represented by those incorporated bodies.

J. Reid: I certainly understand the practicality in the example being used. The concern is, once again: if it's used in an expanded manner, what are the implications? And that, I believe, is important to canvass.

It's my understanding. . . . I'd ask the minister whether this act has gone through a regulatory impact statement, whether it's gone through the business lens.

Hon. J. Pullinger: One of the primary purposes of the impact statement is to make sure that any legislation or rules that are developed by government are done in consultation with those affected. Most of this in fact came from those affected. So it has, de facto, had something more than an impact statement and a look at it.

[1530]

We've worked very closely with this sector and have certainly gone out to the public in the extended sector, as well, in the development of this. So it's had something way beyond just an impact statement.

J. Reid: I do appreciate the amount of consultation with co-ops that has gone on. My concern is with the broader business community and specifically with this clarification of government's role in co-ops, and certainly the opportunities that might exist in the future with the regulatory impact statement. One of the phrases from a government document is: "To make sure the implications of regulation are considered during the decision-making process." My concern with this particular part is whether the business community was consulted as to the role of government within co-ops, even referencing the example that has been referenced for the business community to see whether they had any concerns about government being involved in co-ops.

Hon. J. Pullinger: The broad public was consulted. The stakeholder groups were intimately involved in the development of the legislation. The business community certainly had every opportunity to respond.

But there is essentially no change here. Government can also be involved in business through Crown corporations and a variety of other ways. There is nothing of note here. There is nothing that has changed from the rights that they had before. There really is no news; there's nothing different in this section.

J. Reid: I would suppose that one of the changes that could potentially affect the application, compared to the old act, is with the requirement for cooperatives to have three members. Under this section, conceivably the three members could be the government, a first nation and an individual or corporation. That would be a different structure of co-op. As we've heard, the genesis has come through a resource-based planning issue. There is concern, with the reduction to three and with these three entities, whether there could be implications further than what has already existed and whether that has been thoroughly canvassed with the business community.

Hon. J. Pullinger: The reduction from five to three is a choice of the cooperative community. I want to be clear that cooperatives are a wonderful vehicle for bridging the gap, if you like, between the private sector and the public sector. Cooperatives can work in either sector or somehow between them, by definition. They have every right to exist. They simply are a different way of organizing an activity, be it social, be it economic.

This legislation simply says, "These are the rules under which you can incorporate," the same as we have the Com-

[ Page 14448 ]

This in fact has had more consultation in the sense that it has been well canvassed through two out of three sectors: the third sector and the cooperative sector itself. Certainly the business community had every opportunity to respond. But it in fact doesn't affect a business incorporated under another piece of legislation; it only affects businesses incorporated as cooperatives.

[1535]

Hon. J. Pullinger: It's the same rules; it's just that different jurisdictions have decided to treat them in different ways. We've decided to make it explicit, and the federal act and other acts have decided to make it implicit. But there's nothing, to my knowledge, that prohibits a level of government or a first nation from being part of a cooperative in those jurisdictions either.

G. Plant: I want to ask a question or two about section 32. Section 32 says that a first nation -- among other groups, but my questions will be about first nations -- "may be admitted to membership in an association and represented by an individual authorized on its behalf." I take it that that means that it's possible for a first nation to be a subscribing applicant in the formation of a cooperative as well as a member of a cooperative on a continuing basis. Have I got that right?

Hon. J. Pullinger: Yes, that's right.

G. Plant: Of course, in the process of applying to become a cooperative, there are things that need to be submitted to the registrar. In that context, I'm intrigued by the way "first nation" is defined in the bill. It's defined to mean "an aboriginal governing body, however organized and established by aboriginal people within their traditional territory in British Columbia or another province." So if a subscribing applicant says that it's a first nation, does that mean that the registrar receiving an application. . . ? I'll deal with the situation of continuing cooperatives in a minute and start with the situation of the beginning of a new cooperative. Does that mean that the registrar will have to determine whether or not an organization that comes forward and says, "We are a first nation," is in fact a first nation within the meaning of this definition?

Hon. J. Pullinger: Certainly there may be some need for the registrar to exercise some discretion in determining that.

G. Plant: One of the interesting aspects of this definition is the inclusion within it of the requirement that the aboriginal governing body be organized or established within its traditional territory in British Columbia or another province. That, to me, invites the question whether the registrar may be required, from time to time, to determine whether or not something that comes forward and calls itself a first nation is in fact organized or established within its traditional territory. If it isn't, then it's not a first nation, as I read the definition.

I wonder if the minister can confirm that I'm reading this correctly or, if not, correct me and explain just how it is that the registrar is going to make the decision about whether or not an aboriginal governing body is in fact organized or established within its traditional territory. I don't want to be cute about this. I can tell you that that's not necessarily the easiest question to answer. In fact, to go on to the treaty process for a moment, the treaty process in British Columbia doesn't actually require the province to make that determination. The treaty process proceeds without determining much about traditional territories. I'm concerned that this definition conceivably won't be workable for a registrar.

[1540]

G. Plant: Yes, I'm grateful to have the benefit of the registrar's views. They don't completely deal with my concern. Let me make sure that I get a sense of the issue as it's going to arise in the other context that I talked about, which is the ongoing, continuing cooperative association. There we have a situation where, presumably, organizations can apply for membership in an existing cooperative. So the other thing section 32 does -- in fact it may be, really, the thing that it's intended to do -- is to say that in respect of an existing association, a first nation can come along and apply for admission into an existing cooperative. Is that a correct reading of this?

Hon. J. Pullinger: Let me just back up a little bit. A cooperative is a group of individuals or organizations that come together voluntarily to either provide a service or do business or something. They are, by definition, generally open and democratic. For instance, I don't know if the member was here when I was speaking about the Cowichan Lake Community Forestry Co-op, which is the municipal government, two parts of the regional government, the IWA, the chamber of commerce and the ecomuseum. That group, as they were forming, reached out to the first nations in the area, who chose not to become involved. But they could have, because the rules said that if you are an incorporated body whose members or residents or citizens or whatever reside in this geographic area and you are interested and will abide by the principles laid out by the bylaws of that cooperative, then you're welcome to join. So in other words, if one of those first nations in the area decided tomorrow to join, they could go knock on the door and say, "Hi, I'm here and I'd like to join this co-op," and they would be admitted.

G. Plant: I think that means the answer to my question was yes. Then we'd be in the same situation as we were in a minute ago when we were talking about the registrar. That is, the governing body of the association -- whoever makes the membership admission decision -- might conceivably have to determine whether or not a body that came forward and said,

[ Page 14449 ]

So I have the same general questions. First of all, that's right, because otherwise they wouldn't be a first nation. Secondly, I'm curious to know the basis upon which cooperatives may be expected to make decisions about the traditional territory of first nations.

Hon. J. Pullinger: The first test is the co-op itself. If there's a group of people coming together or a group of organizations coming together to provide themselves a service or something. . . . If everybody agrees that they want to do it, there's no big problem. If in fact there was a situation, say. . . . Perhaps the member is speculating on a circumstance where an individual comes forward and says: "Hi, I'm from this first nation; I represent them and I want to belong to your co-op." Then somebody else comes along and says: "No, I'm from that first nation and I want to belong to your co-op."

[1545]

G. Plant: I don't doubt that the processes that the minister is describing are going to be in practice the way in which these issues will often be dealt with. But when I read the definition, I immediately began thinking about urban aboriginal groups. I know that the minister has talked here about cooperatives as resource-based ventures. But the fact is that within British Columbia there are aboriginal groups that are organized and established by aboriginal people and that have governing bodies that probably think of themselves in some ways as first nation. But they're not organized within their traditional territory in British Columbia or any other province, and I wonder if there is a possibility here that this definition might turn out to be wrongly exclusive because it has been created in a way that connects the idea of the aboriginal community to a particular traditional territory. Unless you have that connection, you can't be a first nation.

Hon. J. Pullinger: It's pretty flexible in the sense that if there's an urban group. . . . This doesn't say that a group of aboriginal people who do not fit the definition in the legislation can't belong to a co-op. It simply says that this is the definition of "first nation" for joining a co-op as a first nation. But if a group of aboriginal people living in an urban setting, for instance, wanted to join or create a co-op, they could either do it by just creating a co-op amongst their members, or they could form a society, or they could do a whole lot of things, as long as they met the conditions set out by the co-op.

For instance, one example I could give is that there may in fact be, say, an artisans' cooperative that was set up and that aboriginal people wanted to join. They could join as individuals if that's the kind of co-op it was. If it was a cooperative of associations, then they've got tourism associations and all sorts of other associations they could probably join under. So I really don't think that that's going to be an issue, unless there's some reason for somebody to challenge the co-op or for the members themselves to challenge the validity of somebody wanting to participate in the co-op. Just by definition, cooperatives are unlikely to get into that situation. They do from time to time, but then there's all the normal processes and so on.

[1550]

I'm much more interested in the extent to which this act will work at all when people in a cooperative have the kind of fights that the minister hypothesized about -- and they do occur, although obviously not very often. However, I've made the point. I guess I wanted to say that an aspect of the minister's answer is clearly correct in this respect: a group of aboriginal people could get together as individuals and form a cooperative under this act. That's not the subject of my interest here. The subject of my interest here is section 32(b). What happens when something that calls itself a first nation steps forward ands says: "We, as a first nation organized group, wish to be a member of a cooperative"? I've made my points, and the minister has given some sense of her views on that.

I want to make one other point, though, about the issue. Days ago -- maybe hours ago -- we had before us in the Legislature Bill 80, the Liquor Statutes Amendment Act, 1999. That also contains a definition of a first nation. I'll read it, although I'm not going to ask detailed questions about it. A first nation, in Bill 80, is defined to mean "(a) in relation to a reserve, as defined in the Indian Act (Canada), the council of the band that is entitled to the use of that reserve under that Act, and (b) in relation to an area under its jurisdiction, any prescribed aboriginal governing body." What I'll say about that definition is that it has more certainty about it, I think, than the definition in the Cooperative Association Act.

I don't want to be arbitrary or black and white about a problem that affects the drafting of legislation. Clearly someone wanting to define "first nation" for the purposes of the Liquor Statutes Amendment Act may come up with a different definition than someone trying to define "first nation" for the purpose of the Cooperative Association Act. It does seem to me, though, that there is a need to at least have the right hand and the left hand talking together. If, at the end of

[ Page 14450 ]

I wonder if the minister can explain, on behalf of the government, why the government seems to be taking quite different approaches to the idea of a first nation in bills that are before us virtually within hours of each other.

Hon. J. Pullinger: We actually canvassed most of these issues before the member came in -- the definitions and the exact same issue that the member raises right now. I will provide the same answer as I did then. In the drafting of this bill, all we've done is say that first nations can form a co-op -- period. There is no change from the current abilities of first nations to do so. We've simply articulated it. By doing so, of course, we had to provide a definition for the purpose of the act, which we did. The instructions to the drafters of the legislation were to use the most current definition of first nation -- sort of a generic definition -- because there was no specific application here. So we simply used the language of the B.C. Treaty Commission, which is also used in other legislation.

As for the specific piece of legislation the member refers to, where there is a definition of first nation for the purposes of that act -- which is an entirely different circumstance -- I would simply provide the same suggestion: that the member ask that question of the minister responsible for that bill and determine why that definition was used in that instance.

[1555]

I did want to come back to one specific thing. The minister, in her answer, said that what she and the government wanted to do in this act was to allow first nations to form cooperatives. I understand that. The specific issue that section 32 deals with is: what happens when first nations want to join an existing cooperative? That is the context in which the issue of what is or is not a first nation will arise. The minister may have more comment on that. I think I already have her perspective on the issue. It does seem to me that this definition of first nation is more problematic than it needs to be -- not from the perspective of groups of aboriginal individuals who want to get together and become a cooperative, but rather from the perspective of a cooperative association in the Fraser Valley faced with an application by some group calling itself a first nation that says: "We the XYZ first nation want to join this group." I suspect that, in practice, it's not going to arise as a problem, but it's one of those issues that I thought deserved a few minutes of scrutiny in committee stage debate.

Hon. J. Pullinger: My answer is that (1) the member knows full well that I can't answer questions about some other piece of legislation, (2) the rights of a first nation do not change under this act, (3) no co-op has to accept any member, and (4) there's no difference between initial formation of a co-op at an incorporated or government level, or whatever you want to call it -- that tier -- and adding a member.

There really is no difference in terms of coming together initially or individuals coming on later. The same rules apply. The only thing is that a person or an incorporated body that chooses to apply for membership in co-op later obviously misses the process of developing the initial rules and therefore comes in under the existing rules, subject to those rules and subject to the will of the co-op to accept that member.

That is probably the most serious level of determination about whether or not they want that particular body to be part of the co-op, and the co-op itself will determine that. The member may want to give a circumstance where he thinks it would be hugely problematic, but I honestly can't think of why a first nation would be any more problematic than a corporation or a society or any other incorporated body that might come in late to a co-op. I don't know why a first nation would be so much more difficult than another.

G. Plant: As usual, the minister helped me with the last part of her answer, because she was comparing first nations to what she described as other incorporated bodies, like corporations and societies. That's precisely the point. A first nation is not an incorporated body; a first nation is this thing described in the act. The point is that the thing described in the act -- the definition -- has less precision and less certainty about it than, for example, the idea of a society or the idea of a corporation. That's the essence of the issue. Time will tell whether it becomes a problem or not.

[1600]

Of course the member has a right and an obligation to raise the issue -- I'm not criticizing him for doing so -- but I'm just saying that, in the context of this legislation, the problem is probably close to nonexistent, because of the nature of co-ops. Sophie Pierre, up in the Chair's area, is doing some development there, and the aboriginal women have decided to form a co-operative. That's great; they can do it. If in fact Sophie Pierre's first nation decided to get together with

[ Page 14451 ]

So I don't think that this act adds anything more complicated to the real-life situation that exists out there. All we do is simply say. . . . We've taken the most current definition of first nation and simply articulated that they, like other governments or incorporated bodies, have the right to join a co-op. We've just made it explicit instead of implicit and have used the most current definition.

K. Whittred: I would like to return to some discussion around the words "the government." As the minister knows, I raised this in briefings and expressed a concern that there is no definition of government. The minister has provided an explanation of that -- about it being grammatical. I would like to put the reason that government is not defined on the record.

Hon. J. Pullinger: I should clarify that technically. . . . I erred earlier, and I apologize for that. It was unintentional. The common usage, of course, is that "government" would mean municipal, regional or provincial. If you want to be technical, then you must say that "the government" would be the provincial government. A first nation or corporation would then cover the municipal and regional governments. But to be perfectly honest, we didn't spend a huge amount of time looking at the details of this. These are existing rights right now, and there's nothing to prevent any level of government or incorporated bodies from becoming involved in a cooperative. We simply put it here to be explicit, because it is in fact happening.

The member is quite correct. In fact, I erred. The municipal governments would fall under a corporation. "The government," one could say, refers expressly to this provincial government.

[1605]

Hon. J. Pullinger: No, they're not.

J. Reid: If they're not possible, where does it say that they're not possible?

Hon. J. Pullinger: It's in the Interpretation Act.

J. Reid: With this, then, the minister has stated that there is no intent on the part of the provincial government to get involved in co-ops. Is that correct?

Hon. J. Pullinger: I can't imagine how the provincial government would -- no. This is simply putting into words what already exists in terms of rights that any level of government, in its broad term -- corporation, organization or society. . . . Anybody can become involved in a co-op.

J. Reid: The final point, then, is that if there is the possibility of the provincial government becoming involved in co-ops, there would be a huge list of items we would have to canvass to explore that possibility and the implications of that possibility. If there is no intent, then we can pass on from this section. But if there is an intent, then we would be bound to explore all those ramifications of that possibility. So if the minister would like to clarify her statement, depending on her answer, we could go on.

Hon. J. Pullinger: I'm intrigued, actually, because it's far more likely in the global economy. It happens in every jurisdiction that governments do in fact become shareholders in companies. It's very common, but I understand it's not a big issue in companies. I'm not understanding why it's a big issue here. Is there something on the table? If the member is asking if there's something out there on the table that we want this legislation to proceed with, absolutely not. There would be nothing preventing the provincial government. . . . I mean, if the job protection commissioner said, "Mountain Equipment Co-op is about to fall apart, and there's a whole bunch of jobs lost," there's nothing preventing the provincial government from becoming a shareholder there through the job protection commissioner the same way it does in other things. It is absolutely no different.

The only difference is that the likelihood, partly because of the nature of co-ops. . . . They tend to be small; they tend to be community-based. And because of the nature of co-ops, they also have a life span double that of most companies, so they tend not to fail. They tend to be much more solid than a regular corporation, historically, so the likelihood of that happening is highly unlikely. Maybe Island Farms Dairies might have a problem one day down the road some time, and government may want to act to prevent the problem. Hypothetically, it's possible that Dairyworld or Island Farms Dairies or some of the very large cooperatives could get into trouble. Certainly I think it's highly unlikely that that would happen, just partly because of the nature of co-ops. Certainly there's nothing on the table that I'm aware of, anyway.

[1610]

Hon. J. Pullinger: Well, certainly I don't. I'm not aware of anything of that nature, and there's certainly nothing here. This act just simply says. . . . It does exactly the same as the Company Act. I mean, the government can do the same thing with companies and co-ops -- no difference.

Sections 32 to 34 inclusive approved.

On section 35.

Hon. J. Pullinger: I move the amendments standing in my name on the order paper for section 35.

[SECTION 35 (4), in the proposed subsection (4), by deleting "Subject to any rules of a housing cooperative for termination of membership and to subsections (5) to (7)," and substituting "Subject to any rules of a housing cooperative for termination of membership, and to subsections (5) and (6),".

SECTION 35(6) AND (7), by deleting the proposed subsections (6) and (7) and substituting the following subsection:

(6) Sections 156 and 208 do not apply to termination under this section of a membership in a housing corporation.]

[ Page 14452 ]

Section 35 as amended approved.

Section 36 approved.

On section 37.

Hon. J. Pullinger: I'd like to move the amendments to section 37 standing in my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 37 (2) (b) (i), by deleting the proposed subparagraph (i), and substituting the following subparagraph:

(i) if the membership is terminated for any of the reasons referred to in section 5 (3), by a resolution requiring a simple majority or, if provided by the housing cooperative's rules, a greater majority, or.

SECTION 37 (3) and (4), by deleting the proposed subsections (3) and (4) and substituting the following subsections:

(3) A person whose membership in a housing cooperative, for the reason referred to in section 35 (4), is terminated by a resolution of the directors confirmed by special resolution may appeal the termination of the person's membership to the court before expiry of the 30 day period beginning on the day after the person is served with notice of the passage of the special resolution.

(4) An appeal to the court under subsection (3) must be commenced in accordance with Rule 49 of the Rules of Court by notice of appeal

(a) filed in a registry of the court before expiry of the 30 day period referred to in subsection (3), and

(b) served on the housing cooperative before expiry of the 14 day period beginning on the day after the notice of appeal is filed in the registry of the court.

(5) An appeal to the court under subsection (3) must be a new hearing, and the court may hear all of the evidence the court considers relevant, including but not limited to the evidence of the housing cooperative and the person, and the court

(a) must either

(i) restore the membership in the housing cooperative of the person whose membership was terminated by the special resolution, with the restoration to be effective on and after a date specified by the court, or

(ii) confirm the special resolution by which the members of the housing cooperative confirmed the termination of the person's membership, and

(b) may make any other order that the court considers appropriate.

(6) An appeal from a decision of the court under subsection (5) lies to the Court of Appeal with leave of a justice of the Court of Appeal.]

Section 37 as amended approved.

Sections 38 to 109 inclusive approved.

On section 110.

Hon. J. Pullinger: I'd like to move an amendment to section 110 standing in my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 110 (1) (c) (ii), in the proposed subparagraph (ii) by deleting ", and" at the end of the subparagraph and substituting ", or".]

[1615]

On section 110 as amended.

[B. Goodacre in the chair.]

K. Whittred: I would like to present an amendment to sections 110 and 111, as circulated. I believe the minister has a copy.

[SECTION 110(1)(c) be eliminated and subsection 111(1) be amended by deleting the words in strikeout

A person other than a federation must not be the auditor of an association if the person is not independent of the association, its affiliates and its directors and officers.]

K. Whittred: The minister is aware of my concerns about this particular section. I have canvassed the community at some length. While I think that I really understand the unique culture, if you like, of cooperatives, I feel that this particular aspect of wanting the federation to do their auditing is not consistent with the goals of the act.

The minister spoke in her remarks from time to time about the new generation of cooperatives. That is part of the goal of this act, which is to bring co-ops into line with the modern era and the modern economy and to allow co-ops to be a viable alternative to communities as we enter the twenty-first century.

I think that to be consistent with those goals and, particularly, to meet the goals as outlined at the beginning of the explanation for this act. . . . If I may quote: "This Bill incorporates as part of the new Cooperative Associations Act, provisions modelled on the new Company Act. . . ."

The Chair: I call a short recess. We have a division in the House.

The committee recessed from 4:17 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.

[B. Goodacre in the chair.]

K. Whittred: Before I was interrupted, I think I was trying to speak to the amendment, which suggests removing the ability of a cooperative to have the federation audit its accounts. I was trying to make the point that part of the purpose of this legislation is to bring cooperatives into modern economic times and the economy of the twenty-first century. One of the hallmarks, I think, of the economy of the twenty-first century is that economies are becoming increasingly complex; we know that. We talk about things like the global economy and the mixed economy and all sorts of things that would indicate that we're moving further and further afield. Therefore the need for very good accounting practices is necessary.

I believe that when I was interrupted I was trying to make the point from the actual explanation of the bill itself. It says this bill "incorporates as part of the new Cooperative Associations Act provisions modelled on the new Company Act. . . ." Now, I might point out that in the Company Act, the need for an independent auditor is itemized. One of the

[ Page 14453 ]

Another aspect of this bill is that it "incorporates as part of the new Act certain frequently used provisions of the Company Act" -- which again accentuates the point that an independent audit, I think, would be preferable.

I mentioned early in my remarks in speaking to this amendment that I believe I do understand the unique culture that surrounds cooperatives. I do understand the reason that this clause is in there -- which is somewhat different, I think, from other jurisdictions that have to do with business. One of the bells that went off for me when we went over this act was that while I feel the minister has done a good job, and I take it at face value that there has been long consultation regarding this bill, the consultation has largely been with the cooperative sector, as it should be.

However, I think that maybe this is an example of one area where that consultation perhaps has served to be a little bit self-serving, in that the recommendation for in-house accounting or auditing in fact comes from the cooperative associations themselves. This is a little bit akin, I think, to an in-house lawyer. I mean, an in-house lawyer is there to give good legal advice. But if you're going to go to court for something, you're probably going to hire someone independent, so that that person views the situation through a different lens.

I think that is the point I want to make here about the need for independence: whose lens do we view this through? I believe that the idea of having a federation audit its own people, its own societies, is a little bit akin to having the Ministry of Finance audit its own accounts. For that very reason, we have gone to an auditor general; we have an independent auditor doing the auditing. Those reasons, in a nutshell, sum up my reasons for believing that this amendment would be a reasonable addition to the act.

[1635]

Hon. J. Pullinger: I appreciate where the member is coming from and her comments and her amendment, but I want to counter with these arguments. First of all, a co-op, like a company, has the option of waiving an audit altogether. They can do that. Any company that doesn't have outside public investment in it, if you like, can waive its audit. Secondly, a co-op, like a company, can choose its auditor. Thirdly, we need to recognize that a co-op is fundamentally different from a company in that a company's bottom line had better be about making money. A co-op's bottom line is about people and community, at least on a par with making money. A cooperative is rooted in members and people, and a company is rooted in dollars. So there's a fundamental difference between co-ops and companies.

Where there is an outside interest -- i.e., investor shares that are created newly under the act or a bank loan or some outside money or things such as that -- there are constraints that would require an outside audit. If there was outside money, outside investors, they would want an outside audit. If it was publicly traded, they would have to have an independent audit, as the member is suggesting. In other words, if there is a third-party interest, then the rules change.

What we have, essentially, is a professional chartered accountant who is hired by Federated Cooperatives Ltd. -- that's what we're talking about. They do the audits now. They do them here and in Alberta and Saskatchewan for their member outlets. We're talking about Federated Cooperatives and their outlets. That is the status quo that's enshrined in this act. There is no change. The member is proposing a very significant change that would not be welcomed, quite frankly, by Federated Cooperatives and its members.

If in fact they decided at some point to use some of the new provisions in the act whereby they went to outside capital or public trading or something like that, then those investing the money -- or the Securities Act, depending on what they did -- would require that they have that kind of an independent audit. We have a situation now where Federated Cooperatives is very big, very complex. It is in their interest to make sure that the audits are done properly and that they're done thoroughly, because it certainly doesn't serve the interests of the larger organization that crosses western Canada to have one organization give it a black eye.

If the members in the Nanaimo co-op, for instance, where I'm a member, decided, "We don't want Federated Cooperatives to do it," they can make that decision. There's nothing preventing them from doing it. But they also have the option of using a less expensive option -- that is what they do right now -- which is to use their own auditors in this very big organization of smaller co-ops.

K. Whittred: In response to the minister's remarks, there are just a couple of things that I am puzzled by. I understand that any co-op, like a company, can waive an audit. The minister talked about choosing an auditor; that is true. I do appreciate that co-ops have this added dimension of community service. I've already acknowledged that; I really do think that I understand that.

[1640]

I am simply suggesting that when a cooperative, like a company, chooses to have an audit, the ground rules should be the same. In many instances in the discussion today, the minister has drawn a parallel between the company and the

[ Page 14454 ]

I. Chong: I'd also like to participate in the debate concerning the amendment, perhaps prior to the minister's response, in an effort to shed more light on this issue. No doubt the minister has received letters from, specifically, the two accounting bodies here in British Columbia who are concerned with these sections. I believe that their concerns are valid and that they have raised this issue in an effort to help the minister understand just what we are talking about. My colleague the critic, as well as the minister, have alluded to the fact that companies are permitted to waive audits, as are co-ops. In fact, anyone can waive audits and therefore have a standard set of financial statements drawn up. That standard set of financial statements would provide for the organization a particular level of assurance to the readers of those statements -- a level of assurance that there may be some reasonableness in the accuracy of those financial statements.

But whenever you issue a report called an auditor's report, there is yet another standard that is connected with that. There is a connotation that the auditor's report has that higher level of credibility, that higher level of assurance. Therefore the audit report renders an opinion -- an opinion that sometimes is qualified and sometimes is not; sometimes it even provides a negative assurance. Nonetheless, the auditor's opinion is important. The reason why people continue with an auditor's report and audited financial statements versus a normal review engagement report is because they want to indicate to the users or the readers of those financial statements that there is the highest level possible of credibility -- that someone has come in, taken a look at the records and can provide that assurance to the readers.

An auditor, by all perception, is generally independent. I think that is what the critic is trying to attempt with her amendment: to state the reasons why, if someone is going to continue to have an audit done and has not exercised their option of waiving an audit, that audit should in fact be by those qualified to provide the audit.

I heard the minister mention that a co-op has a different kind of bottom line and that in fact the bottom line is for its members and for its people. Granted, that's true. However, its members must also feel that the audit that was not waived -- the audit that was actually proceeded with -- therefore has that same level of assurance and that same level of credibility. I would suggest, as the critic has stated, that if in fact the members would like to use the Federated Cooperatives organization, then they can do so; but they should do so without requesting that it be by way of an auditor's report, by way of audited financial statements.

[1645]

Auditors have particular standards. I can tell the minister that I know from experience that those standards are very high. I can also say that that is one of the reasons why some auditors sometimes choose not to perform work for non-profit organizations, because as an auditor, you are not permitted to reduce your standards in any way. I know that those standards are very high, and I would hope that the minister understands that the reasons that have been presented by the critic by way of this amendment are not to provide any kind of protectionism for the accounting bodies. They are merely to ensure that the public interest is well served -- the public interest of the members as well as those who may become readers of those statements -- and really have the best interests of the public at heart here.

I would suggest that, if possible, the minister truly consider acceptance of this amendment. If in fact she is able to go out to the community and back to the co-op association and express to them these concerns and also consult with the accounting bodies to find a more workable solution, perhaps next year, if necessary, we could bring in, through a miscellaneous statutes amendment act, a change to bring this back if that is necessary. But at least we could afford an opportunity to the two largest accounting bodies in British Columbia -- who certainly have a very, very strong professional standard here for accounting and auditing in this province -- to at least speak to the minister and her staff about the implications of what is happening here.

I think that if the minister would agree to the amendment, that would give us that opportunity. I don't think that a year's delay would cause that much difficulty for the co-ops. If things work out well, perhaps we can come to a negotiated agreement that would work well for everyone.

Those are the comments that I have, and I hope that the minister can possibly see her way to the acceptance of this amendment.

Hon. J. Pullinger: I'd like to respond to some of the points that the member made. I appreciate the member's particular point of view, having some experience in this area, and her intent. The member spoke of the professional standards of the auditor, and I totally agree with her. I therefore point out that these are chartered accountants that we're talking about, who are doing the audit. They just happen to be employed by the parent body, in whose interest it is to make sure that the audits are done carefully, thoroughly and accurately.

Secondly, I want to underscore the fact that what we're doing with this legislation is simply carrying on with the status quo. What this act provides for is precisely what's happening today. There is no change.

Thirdly, in terms of protecting the public interest, there is no public interest. Under the existing act, a cooperative cannot have a public interest. That's one of the changes made in this act. So the cooperatives don't have a public interest. Should they, under the new legislation when it's proclaimed -- whenever -- decide to take advantage of the opportunity to have a public interest -- i.e., outside investors -- then there will be requirements, no doubt, from those investors to ensure. . . . I mean, they will want the comfort level. It becomes a business decision at that point.

[ Page 14455 ]

What we're talking about is looking after the interests of the members. I would offer that the best people to look after the interests of the members are the members. There is no other third-party interest. When there is, then it's a business decision; they would fall under some other legislation, such as the Securities Act, if they became an entity that had a third-party or a public interest.

[1650]

I. Chong: I'll try one more time, and respond to some of the comments that the minister has made as well.

When the minister states that the chartered accountants doing the audit are employees of Federated Cooperatives or associated with Federated Cooperatives, that's fine, but that would treat them as chartered accountants. Although they've gone through the rigours of obtaining their degree, I would imagine they are considered as staff, as opposed to professional accountants who have liability and who have also taken a certain risk and gone beyond that. And therein lies the difference.

There are staff accountants everywhere. There are staff accountants who work for the Ministry of Finance, accountants who work for Crown corporations, accountants who work for banks -- all those kinds of things. There are chartered accountants who are certified general accountants or certified management accountants, and there are some that just call themselves public accountants -- which really don't exist. Nonetheless, they're all accountants, and they've gone through the requirements to obtain their degree. The difference is that there are professional accountants versus all those other accountants who are on staff, because the professional accountants have an obligation and a degree of credibility and integrity that they bring to the table when they perform an audit.

Generally speaking, there are standards within these organizations that preclude someone from signing an audit report unless they have undergone the necessary professional development and review process to enable them to sign off as an auditor. That's my concern as well. When the minister states that there is no public interest. . . . I won't take her to task on that, except that that's what it is. When she states that the best people to look after the interests of the members are the members, again, I would agree. However, the difficulty is that sometimes the members themselves -- for whatever reason -- aren't aware of some of the changes being made.

It's always the core group who run an organization -- as opposed to the entire membership -- that realizes a change is being made to their plan, to their organization, to their institution or what have you. When the members see an audited financial statement, they're not aware that this is not a financial statement audited by a professional accountant with liability requirements, with standards, with a review process that they have to continue to follow in order to guarantee that their licence will remain intact. They see an auditor, and they think all those things have been done.

That's why I think that it would be misleading to the members that their interests have in fact been protected. Certainly someone could sign off as, you know, "John Smith, CA"; but they don't realize that John Smith, CA, has not gone through the requirements of the professional accounting body that he belongs to in order to allow him to sign off. In fact, he probably shouldn't be; nonetheless, if it's allowed through legislation, he would perhaps feel that he's exempt from that. But the professional body would not have allowed him to do that.

[1655]

This particular legislation seems to have forgotten this group -- the accounting bodies -- and I feel that it would certainly serve the members of the co-ops well if the minister would consider this amendment put forward by the critic, as I say, and then allow for that consultation process to take place. I do not feel that it would in any way hinder the ability of the co-op and those who are wanting to utilize sections of this legislation to proceed. There may possibly be a greater cost, as a result of allowing for this consultation to take place, than they would have anticipated, but that would just be for one year. So again, I implore the minister to reconsider and accept the amendment by the critic.

Hon. J. Pullinger: Just a brief response. The reason for an independent third-party outside audit is to protect the public interest. In the co-ops in question, there isn't a public interest. The members of the co-op have decided that they want -- those that do. . . . They don't all, but most of them choose to have Federated Cooperatives do the audit. They do know about it, because the nature of a co-op is that you have an annual general meeting. They're very democratic; that's one of the fundamental differences. They're very community-based and democratic. So you have an annual general meeting at Beban Park, or wherever, in Nanaimo, and you vote on the auditor. If you don't want Federated Cooperatives, you vote no.

So the members are very aware of who the auditors are. It's in the newsletter. You know, it says, "Audited by Fede-

[ Page 14456 ]

You know, if they get a bank loan or something, then the bank will look at their financial statements, and the bank will decide, based on "Federated" stamped at the bottom of the sheets -- and it's not Joe Blow; it's Federated Cooperatives -- whether or not that's good enough for them. Obviously Federated Cooperatives has been around for a while and has its own credibility, but if the bank doesn't like it, the bank can require a different kind of audit. Similarly, if they choose to use the provisions of the new legislation and have outside investment shares -- non-member investors -- those non-members can choose to invest or not invest, but they know that Federated Cooperatives has signed off at the bottom of the page.

So there is nothing happening today that is problematic or that the members aren't fully in charge of. They're aware of what's happening, they make their own decisions, and I, quite frankly, would defer to their good judgment to make their decisions. The system has worked very well for a long time, so I see no reason to change the status quo.

I. Chong: Again, I would like to respond to some of the comments made by the minister.

Yes, I've been to many annual general meetings. I've even been to my own association's annual general meeting -- not lately, however. One of the things that passes through very quickly -- I wouldn't say it's bypassed -- at an annual general meeting. . . . Someone stands up and says: "I move appointment of the auditors." Someone says: "Okay, fine." It's all done very quickly. Not to belittle the integrity of the membership, but unfortunately, at an annual general meeting there are so many other pieces of business, and sometimes pieces of business which have much more to-do than the appointment of an auditor, that it is not given the, I guess, importance and understanding of what it's about. I would hope that people would pay attention, but that's not always the case. People just think it's a technicality, a formality. "We have to appoint an auditor, so we will appoint an auditor."

[1700]

Hon. J. Pullinger: Or not.

I. Chong: Well, the banks would accept anything as an auditor's report provided that we've got legislation that allows someone to be regarded as an auditor. If the legislation did not allow them to be an auditor, then the banks would automatically say: "These are not audited financial statements as approved, and therefore we have to disallow them."

So what we're doing here in this legislation is changing the fundamental principles of what an auditor is and therefore allowing banks the excuse that they can accept an audit report when in fact they should not be accepting an audit report from someone other than a professional firm. That is part of the problem. I'm sensing that the minister thinks that this is fine. I want to caution her that we are moving towards a very dangerous situation, if we start having legislation that allows for groups to be considered as auditors in the same sense as auditors in the professional bodies. It is not the same.

I implore the minister to seriously read the correspondence she has received from the accounting bodies. Even when she says it is not about the public interest, it is certainly about the members' interest. If even the members, when appointing auditors, think that they are allowed to appoint Federated Cooperatives as their auditors, because the legislation has allowed for it, they will do so. But if the legislation does not allow for it, then they would not be able to do that. I would suggest then, if that is the case, that the co-ops therefore waive the audit. As soon as you say, "Waive the audit," then you'll get the members asking: "Well, why are we waiving the audit?" It's only when you do something out of the ordinary that they would expect that there is something happening. If Federated Cooperatives was not allowed to do the audit, you would have to waive the audit in order for them to prepare the financial statements -- to realize the cost savings. I would presume that that's somewhat behind the move in this piece of legislation.

Again, I do speak in support of the amendment. I believe the amendment is a good one. I think it allows the time that's necessary for the minister to consult with those that, I think, require the consultation process to take place, before we proceed any further on these sections.

Amendment negatived on division.

Sections 111 to 127 inclusive approved.

On section 128.

Hon. J. Pullinger: I'd like to move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper for section 128.

[SECTION 128(4)(b), by deleting the proposed paragraph (b) and substituting the following paragraph:

(b) must make the registers available at that place for inspection during the association's normal business hours by any person.]

Section 128 as amended approved.

Sections 129 to 133 inclusive approved.

On section 134.

I. Chong: Just a very quick question to the minister. On section 134, "Prohibition against improper use of list" -- which I think is a good idea, because certainly we want to protect the membership lists, etc. -- can the minister advise. . . ? In the section here, there is a prohibition, but I don't see -- and maybe it's in another section -- the penalty or offence that would take place as a result of this. It's one thing to put in legislation that there is a prohibition for some

[ Page 14457 ]

[E. Walsh in the chair.]

Hon. J. Pullinger: Yes, the member is correct. The penalties are laid out further on in the bill. We'll get to them in section 199(c), I believe.

I. Chong: I was looking at some of the penalties, but I didn't see. . . . Section 199(c) certainly does go into that. I thank the minister.

[1705]

On section 135.

Hon. J. Pullinger: I move the amendment to section 135 standing in my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 135 (1) (b), in the proposed paragraph (b) by deleting "mae up to a date" and substituting "made up to a date".]

Section 135 as amended approved.

Sections 136 to 200 inclusive approved.

On section 201.

Hon. J. Pullinger: I move the amendment to section 201 standing in my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 201(3), in the proposed subsection (3) by deleting "An person" and substituting "A person".]

Amendment approved.

Section 201 as amended approved.

Sections 202 to 226 inclusive approved.

On section 227.

Hon. J. Pullinger: I would like to move an amendment to section 227, which says as follows:

[SECTION 227, by deleting the proposed paragraph (h) and substituting the following:

(h) membership shares, as defined in the Cooperative Association Act, issued by an association to which that Act applies to a member of the association, if the total acquisition cost of the membership shares issued to that member in any one year, not counting the cost to that member of membership shares paid for by the application of patronage returns as defined in that Act, is not greater than a prescribed amount.]

Section 227 as amended approved.

Sections 228 and 229 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. J. Pullinger: I move that the committee at its rising report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The committee recessed from 5:09 p.m. to 5:18 p.m.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I call Bill 94.

FEE STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1999

Sections 1 to 21 inclusive approved.

On section 22.

G. Farrell-Collins: I just have a question. It applies throughout the bill. This type of wording appears repeatedly. If I could come back to what we discussed in second reading, this bill exists because this government and other governments have over the last couple of decades adjusted fees by regulation as opposed to legislation. There was a court decision in Ontario that required this type of legislation to be brought into force.

Section 22 is an amendment to the Land Title Act; it's an example of, as I said, what recurs a number of times throughout the bill. It says under subsection (2): "Subsection (1) does not limit the ability of the Lieutenant Governor in Council to prescribe or establish fees under sections 314 and 315 for matters other than the matters mentioned in the Fee Schedule." That's a complicated way of saying that despite the fact that the government is bringing in a bill to prescribe fees by legislation, they're still giving themselves an escape clause that allows them to set certain fees by regulation.

[1720]

Hon. J. MacPhail: There are some fees in here that have never changed, so they're not included in here. We wanted to make sure that the entire piece of legislation does not impose fee increases. If indeed there were some fees that by some error or oversight increased fees for people, this would allow us to reduce the fee by regulation.

G. Farrell-Collins: So the minister is telling me that on each occasion where that type of a provision exists in this bill, the only reason for it is as a fail-safe to ensure that no fee is being increased by error, and if that error did occur, this

[ Page 14458 ]

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, that's right.

G. Farrell-Collins: The reason I was asking that question is because I was curious if there were fees that. . . . My understanding of the Ontario decision is that there were fees where the fee didn't reasonably reflect the cost of the service that was being provided. In fact, my understanding of the decision was more or less that the courts said that they weren't a fee, they were in fact a tax, and therefore need to be passed by legislation as opposed to by regulation.

I was wondering whether or not these types of sections -- because they do refer back to certain specific sections that are earlier on in the various acts that we're dealing with here -- in fact refer to fees that really are only fees and only ever would be fees, and therefore the government is retaining the right to change those fees as long as they reflect the cost of service.

Hon. J. MacPhail: In fact, the fees that aren't mentioned here are the ones that are cost-recovery. So if indeed it turns out that there should be those that are further put into that category, that's what they will do. In other words, there could be an opportunity for a government to say: "We're actually going to reduce this fee and make it only cost-recovery." Then that could be done by order-in-council.

G. Farrell-Collins: Fine.

Sections 22 to 80 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I move that the committee at its rising report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:24 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1999: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada