Hansard -- Tuesday, October 21, 2003 a.m. -- Vol. 17, No. 3 (HTML)


CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page

Committee of the Whole House		7395
	Agriculture, Food and Fisheries Statutes Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 48)
	J. MacPhail
	Hon. J. van Dongen

Report and Third Reading of Bills		7400
	Agriculture, Food and Fisheries Statutes Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 48)

Second Reading of Bills		7401
	Tenancy Statutes Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 77)
	Hon. R. Coleman
	J. Bray
	J. Kwan
	L. Mayencourt
	Sustainable Resource Management Statutes Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 73)
	Hon. S. Hagen
	J. MacPhail

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 48; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

J. MacPhail: I'm going to approach this from a point of view of trying to get the minister to explain his second reading remarks, where he said that nothing has changed and that really he's just clarifying through this legislation. That seems to contradict what the bill itself says in explanatory notes.

Section 2 really epitomizes this. Perhaps section 2, which adds aquaculture to this legislation…. Perhaps the minister could stand up and say how this is a clarification and not an addition, as the explanatory notes have suggested.

Hon. J. van Dongen: In response to the member's question, aquaculture was always included under the act but only to the extent of existing licensed sites. What this amendment does is include the possibility of potential new aquaculture sites basically to make it parallel with the treatment of agriculture under the act where, under the act, it includes all lands designated by the province under the agricultural land reserve. There may be existing land in the ALR that is currently not being farmed and that potentially would be farmed. It still would be under the act.

This amendment includes aquaculture in the same manner, in a parallel manner, but it's important to note that aquaculture was fully under the original act to the extent of existing licence tenures.

J. MacPhail: Can the minister read into the record the section of the legislation where that was included, please?

Hon. J. van Dongen: There are two ways I can go on this. I'm going to read the particular section that we are amending, but I could also read the definition of "farming" under the act.

The section we're amending is under part 2, section 2(2): "The requirements referred to in subsection (1) are that the farm operation must (a) be conducted in accordance with normal farm practices, (b) be conducted on, in or over land (i) that is in an agricultural land reserve, (ii) on which, under the Local Government Act, farm use is allowed, or (iii) as permitted by a valid and subsisting licence, issued to that person under the Fisheries Act, for aquaculture…."

J. MacPhail: Yes, and that was in existence when the minister discussed with the UBCM, your advisory committee, the fact that there was a moratorium on the expansion of aquaculture. That's what contained the discussions with the Union of B.C. Municipalities, and that's why this definition is there — because there was a moratorium on and there wasn't going to be an expansion. This legislation was brought in by my government in early 2000. That was the nature of the discussion — that there was a moratorium, and the moratorium had been confirmed on the expansion of aquaculture.

Let me ask this, then: how did it occur? Where was the consultation with local governments where they said: "Oh, you're right. You're lifting the moratorium, so let's include this under the Right to Farm Act"? Where is that?

Hon. J. van Dongen: Well, first of all, in response to the member's first comment, it's interesting that despite the fact there was a moratorium on, the previous government made a conscious decision to include aquaculture in this bill. I think that really tells the story. Despite the fact there was a moratorium, the government intentionally put it in this bill, including all of the existing licensed sites, which was 121 sites. We really don't have any more sites. We don't have any more sites today for finfish. We may have a few additional sites for shellfish, but I think the member's comment is inconsistent with what the act actually put in place in 1995.

We did consult extensively with interested parties when we moved towards the lifting of the moratorium, and really, those are two separate issues. What we are doing here — and the member referenced my second reading comments — is totally consistent with the act as it was originally intended. The amendments we're doing, particularly with respect to aquaculture, are simply to carry out the intent of the act as it was put in place originally. We did consult extensively with a committee of the Union of B.C. Municipalities. The Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services and myself met with the UBCM about a year ago.

We put in place a formal committee that included two representatives named by UBCM. It included two committee members named by the government and included an independent chair. They did have extensive discussions. They worked with ministry staff, and they did give us a number of comments on this issue. Certainly, there were changes made in the time the

consultation took place from what we had thought about doing in terms of structuring these changes to the final outcome.

J. MacPhail: Well, unlike this government, where they deny reality, the previous government didn't deny reality about the existence of fish farms — didn't deny the reality at all. This government likes to bury its head in the sand and say: "Oh, if we say it doesn't exist, it doesn't exist." The consultations were in the context of a moratorium and to acknowledge that fish farming did exist and should exist in this province. It should just be done in an environmentally proper way and in a way that doesn't ruin other parts of the economy. That's why the original legislation was written this way.

This government has lifted the moratorium, and I love how the Minister of Agriculture now says: "Oh, but we haven't done anything since we lifted the moratorium." There's a banner headline. "We can't even deliver for our friends in expansion of aquaculture." The reason why they can't is because there's so much controversy created by themselves and so many unanswered questions they can't answer, they haven't been able to allow their friends to expand.

Who else did the minister consult with in terms of putting this amendment through? Who in the industry did he consult with and when?

Hon. J. van Dongen: Certainly, we did not do any consultations other than with the Union of B.C. Municipalities, because they represent local government. There were certainly people on the committee who were very interested in this issue and representative of the concerns about it.

These amendments are something I have personally worked on over the years. I knew there were some flaws in the act in terms of dealing with situations with local government. In Delta, for example, I had worked with the previous minister in Langley when the previous government applied the act to Langley. We recognized this was good legislation, but it needed a couple of amendments to carry out the intent of the act.

If the member is suggesting we consulted extensively with industry, that is not the case. These amendments were not driven by industry. They were issues I observed over the years that would improve the act and the original intent of the act. I should point out, Mr. Chair, that in opposition we supported this legislation because it was good legislation.

J. MacPhail: So is the minister saying categorically that he didn't discuss this amendment with the industry and that there's no record of the industry requesting this?

Hon. J. van Dongen: I am putting forward these amendments because they're good public policy. There may be some record of a request at some point within the ministry. I'm not specifically aware of whether or not there is. There may be some record of a request for this kind of amendment, but we have not…. I certainly don't recall specific formal consultation or even informal consultation with the aquaculture industry.

J. MacPhail: Let me just ask this. Is the minister saying there's no correspondence to him from the aquaculture industry, making a request for this change, to which he replied?

Hon. J. van Dongen: That's not what I said. What I said is that I am not specifically aware of any correspondence requesting this. I am acknowledging that there may be correspondence requesting this, both previous to myself being in the position or while I was in the position, but I don't recall a specific request for this type of amendment. There may have been some, but I can't recall.

J. MacPhail: I prefer not to have to wait for it through FOI. This is pretty serious. I'm asking the minister now to ask his staff to check and deliver to me correspondence between the aquaculture industry or individual industry companies and the minister where this change was discussed and/or requested. Will the minister do that?

Hon. J. van Dongen: Quite frankly, it is not a very practical request. The fact is that any member of the public is entitled to make submissions and requests and write letters to ministers at any time. If the member wants to make a formal request for that information, she can. She knows how to go about it. We are not in a position to do an exhaustive search here, within minutes, of whatever correspondence there might be within the ministry as requested.

J. MacPhail: Sorry, I didn't put any time limit on it. I'm not suggesting now.

The problem with this government, of course, is that when FOI requests come from the opposition, they seem to get sort of stalled and delayed. It's a pretty sad record that this government delivers for FOI requests to the opposition, actually, unlike the previous government when the opposition used to flood the then government with requests under FOI. I'm making the request to the minister to do it as quickly as he possibly can. Is the minister willing to do that?

Hon. J. van Dongen: If the member could be specific about what she's requesting, certainly, I will undertake to get her that information as expeditiously as possible, recognizing that we would be bound by the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and that we would process her request in the same manner — but as I said, as expeditiously as possible. I certainly have no problem with that.

J. MacPhail: I'll be clear then, Mr. Chair. I'm asking for any communication — any communication — between the aquaculture industry, either individual com-

panies or associations, and this minister requesting a change under the Farm Practices Protection Act to change the way aquaculture is dealt with under this act.

Hon. J. van Dongen: Yes, certainly, Mr. Chair. We will endeavour to get the member that information as expeditiously as possible, as I said, subject to the Freedom of Information Act.

J. MacPhail: What does this definition mean in terms of how it now works in relationship to local governments?

Hon. J. van Dongen: What this amendment does under section 2 of the bill is to further define the categories of land that would be eligible for inclusion under the Right to Farm Act if, in a subsequent section of this bill, first of all, a designation of Crown land was made by cabinet and if, under the existing legislation, cabinet made a decision to bring a local government under the act. If we're dealing with section 2 of the bill, it simply defines more specifically the categories of land that are eligible under the Right to Farm Act.

J. MacPhail: Can the minister explain the intent of this section, which provides for the government the authority to designate Crown land as a farming area?

Hon. J. van Dongen: This section is the section that authorizes the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to designate certain Crown lands as a farming area for the purposes of this Right to Farm Act. If cabinet makes that decision, then further sections could be applied, as I said, whereby that local government could be brought under the act, but the two decisions are not linked.

To summarize, this section authorizes cabinet to specify certain areas as farming areas under the act. I guess the parallel to that on the agriculture side is the decision by government in the early seventies to designate land as being within the agricultural land reserve. That is another one of the categories under this act and the definition of farming areas that comes under the act.

J. MacPhail: I am terribly confused. I'm sorry; I thought that was a pretty straightforward question, and I have no idea what the minister just said. Why is Crown land…? What happened? What consultation led to the introduction of this change?

Hon. J. van Dongen: This section simply facilitates the decision by cabinet to designate areas where potential aquaculture would come under the act. If there are areas — for example, shellfish beaches — that the government feels…. After going through a range of planning processes and evaluating the capability of that land as being suitable for aquaculture, this section empowers cabinet to bring it under the Right to Farm Act.

J. MacPhail: So this could be the foreshore tenures of aquaculture, shellfish, in terms of having a Crown tenure. It's confusing because it isn't land, then, that the minister is really talking about; it's water. Is that correct?

Hon. J. van Dongen: This amendment and this power do not deal with existing tenures, whether they're shellfish tenures or finfish tenures. It deals with areas of Crown land that would be suitable for aquaculture. In specific answer to the member's question, Crown land is defined as land that is within the jurisdiction of the provincial government, including land that is covered by water. If the provincial government has jurisdiction on a piece of land, it includes land that is covered by water. That is what is the subject or could be the subject of this authority that is granted under this section of the bill.

J. MacPhail: Thank you for that. So this is to deal with the aquaculture industry — this amendment specifically. Why? If indeed this is just a clarification, why is this amendment necessary?

Hon. J. van Dongen: This amendment clarifies the original intent of the legislation. The original legislation covered all of the existing sites. It did not cover any potential new sites, which left open the possibility that a local government could make decisions that would virtually eliminate the possibility of any new aquaculture sites on provincial lands that would be considered very suitable for aquaculture.

This amendment in total completes the original intent of the act. It makes aquaculture parallel with agriculture in terms of how it works out in practice, and it is necessary to make this change to provide an opportunity for access for the aquaculture industry. It does not allow government to simply impose regulations in that area, but it allows the provincial government to make a designation that says there is opportunity here to apply for an aquaculture licence. Then they would have to go through all of the normal planning processes, all of the normal application processes, but it brings potential new sites under the framework of this act.

J. MacPhail: Okay, so this isn't a clarification. This would be even a stretch for the Liberals to somehow suggest this is a clarification. This is now saying that Crown land, which is really water — foreshore water, a tenure — can now be designated under the Farm Practices Protection Act so that any future considerations by local governments can't apply. This is actually reserving access for the aquaculture industry against what may be the wishes of the local government — right?

Hon. J. van Dongen: This amendment would reserve the possibility of access. It does not guarantee

access. It does not take away a local government's planning and zoning authorities, and it does not eliminate other potential uses in that area, just as the agricultural land reserve does not eliminate a whole range of uses in that area. This amendment basically allows the retention of the possibility of access.

J. MacPhail: No matter how much the minister wants to dance on the head of the pin, we'll then get to section 6, which imposes prohibitions on local governments. The act, in its entirety now, does allow this government to guarantee access for the aquaculture industry at the expense of the local government. In fact, that's exactly what the minister said at his second reading comments, and I'll read into the record when I get to section 6, Mr. Chair. In fact, no matter how much the minister wants to deny who he's serving by this legislation, he is serving the interests of the aquaculture industry through expansion at the expense of local government.

Mr. Chair, I want to go on record. I know that there are many cabinet ministers that don't give a whit about this, but I will be voting on division against section 3 and by division on section 6.

J. MacPhail: The explanatory notes say that section 4 expands the definition of farming area to include land designated as farming area under the Farm Practices Protection (Right to Farm) Act. Is this the minister again just including access for aquaculture?

Hon. J. van Dongen: Section 4 does the same thing for the Local Government Act that section 2 did for the Farm Practices Protection Act. In this case, we're adding to section 872 of the Local Government Act. We are adding (b) in the definition of farming area. That is the amendment. It is designated as a farming area under the Farm Practices Protection Act.

Hon. J. van Dongen: Section 6 deals with all types of agriculture under the Right to Farm Act. There were really two purposes for this act. One was to strengthen the intent of the legislation under section 6 as it applied to all types of farming, agriculture and aquaculture, and the other sections deal with aquaculture.

J. MacPhail: Well, this bill is really about aquaculture entirely — the minister giving away stuff to his friends in the aquaculture industry. He's served them very well under here, and this is the key section as to how well he has served them, even at the expense of making a fool of another minister in his government. The minister responsible for the Community Charter has just been made to look ridiculous by this Minister of Agriculture.

What this section 6 does, Mr. Chair, is that it changes the Local Government Act and now prohibits local governments from exercising any other powers under the Local Government Act to enact bylaws that, if enacted under the Local Government Act, would require the minister's approval. So what this really means is that despite how well the government says it wants to give autonomy to local governments, when it comes to aquaculture and the Liberals delivering for their friends in aquaculture, local governments have zero autonomy.

Now, the minister will stand up and say, "Oh no, no, no. It's their choice. There's all sorts of flexibility in this," etc. But he's wrong. This section deliberately and specifically prohibits local governments from doing anything to impede aquaculture industry access to establishing, even within a local government jurisdiction.

Here's what the Minister of Agriculture said at second reading, when he said…. He wanted to make a couple of comments, first of all, with respect to the relationship of this bill to the Community Charter. I'm quoting from the Minister of Agriculture that the Community Charter does seek to maximize decision-making at the local level but always within the framework of a provincial interest. Really? Really.

Well, after the Minister of Agriculture stood up and said that, I thought: it does? Gee, I don't ever recall any government member talking about the Community Charter in that way. In fact, I remember the Premier going on at length about how we had to get out of the faces of local governments, give them autonomy and give them flexibility. Then I checked for the Minister of State Responsible for the Community Charter, and he never said that. In fact, he went out of his way to say exactly the opposite: that the provincial government was going to get out of the face of local government.

Yet here we have the Minister of Agriculture, because he needs to deliver for his friends in the aquaculture industry, saying: "Really, the Community Charter is subsumed to the provincial interest." Well, then what's changed? What's changed with the Community Charter? Absolutely nothing, if this Minister of Agriculture gets his way and if this legislation is passed.

The Minister of Agriculture then went on to say: "The Community Charter contemplates the respectful working relationship with local government where, as I said, we maximize decision-making at the local level but always within a provincial framework." Again, that will come as news to champions of the Community Charter.

Then the Minister of Agriculture, at the end of sort of doing his shtick about undermining the Community Charter, says — and I'm quoting again from Hansard:

"Any decisions by cabinet in designating areas for potential new aquaculture will be based on their biological suitability for aquaculture. Then the more detailed level of planning and zoning decisions and that sort of thing, which normally take place at the local level, will continue to take place at the local level. The ultimate test is simply that local government treats aquaculture and agriculture in a fair and reasonable manner as contemplated in the provincial guidelines."

I love this. I can hardly wait to debate the new Community Charter. What this minister is saying is that cabinet will make their decisions and then tell local governments: "Yes, you have to have a fish farm, but after we've told you that you have to have a fish farm, you proceed as you see necessary." How's that delivering on local autonomy for local governments?

Hon. J. van Dongen: This section simply seeks to clarify and confirm the original intent of the legislation. What it does is require local governments, when they are making bylaws that affect farming as defined under the act, including both agriculture and aquaculture…. If they have been brought under the act — and most local governments are not under the act; there are only four, and two of them were brought under by cabinet directive — and if they make a decision that affects farming that can be made under section 917 of the Local Government Act, then they are required to use that section of the Local Government Act.

That section actually does provide authority for local governments to regulate the conduct of farming within their jurisdiction in a manner that is not available under other legislation. It clarifies and is basically based on the experience in Delta, where we've had a government that has made a number of decisions that are detrimental to agriculture, that are not reasonable and that have been very damaging to the industry, which is operating in a manner consistent with the intent of the agricultural land reserve.

I know that the previous minister under the previous government was equally as frustrated by that situation as we are. The farmers in that community live in constant concern about harassment and efforts by the local government to find any avenue possible to do, in effect, an end run around the right-to-farm legislation. That's what this section is about. It's based on that experience. It certainly would apply to aquaculture as well as agriculture, but it is not motivated by any experience in the aquaculture side of farming, as defined under this act.

J. MacPhail: Well, sorry. The minister has correspondence from local jurisdictions, particularly in the major fish-farming area in central north Vancouver Island, that says this is an interference in local government activity and local government autonomy. I read it into the record at second reading, so he has that information that the imposition of aquaculture interests over local government interests is of deep concern to the regional district in central north Vancouver Island. Setting aside aquaculture, what consultation has the minister had with the city of Delta around this particular section? What was the feedback?

Hon. J. van Dongen: We have not had a specific discussion or consultation with Delta on this particular amendment. But we have certainly devoted a vast amount of ministry resources in working with Delta, in discussions on planning processes and in dealing with various decisions in Delta that were detrimental to agriculture. Certainly, I understand the member's comments that this may be viewed as an interference or an intervention by the provincial government in decisions of local government.

This section, I need to reiterate, only applies if a local government is being unreasonable in its decisions around farming, whether it's aquaculture or agriculture. That's when this section applies. Right now there are four municipalities in British Columbia that are under this act. Two of them asked to be brought under the act, and two of them were brought under by cabinet decision. This simply enhances the original intent of the legislation that if a local government is making decisions that affect agriculture and they're not approaching it in a reasonable manner, then they have to forward their bylaw decisions to the Minister of Agriculture for consideration.

J. MacPhail: Does this section deal with the minister's dispute with Delta or not? Is it added because of Delta, or is it added because of aquaculture, or is it added because of both?

Hon. J. van Dongen: This section was motivated by the experience in Delta. We have not had and the previous government has not had a similar experience on the aquaculture side, but this amendment would apply to all farming areas as defined under the act, which would include agriculture and aquaculture.

J. MacPhail: Let me just go on record, Mr. Chair, because I'm going to call division on this. I don't think this deals with Delta at all. This amendment is here specifically to override any local government disagreement around expansion of aquaculture in their jurisdictions. I'm not quite sure why the minister brought the Delta situation into the discussion around this — in this particular section or not.

I can understand why he has a very difficult relationship with Delta, based on him tarring them with the brush of section 6, which is about saying to local governments that we, as a provincial government, are going to tell you local governments what to do when it comes to expansion of the aquaculture industry. It is for that reason, Mr. Chair, that the opposition will be voting against this section.

Hon. J. van Dongen: I want to make it very, very clear that this amendment is not driven by anything to

do with aquaculture. This amendment is a direct result of the experience in Delta. I invite the member to speak to the farmers in Delta and ask them if they have a reasonable relationship with their local government, or I ask her to speak to the member for Delta South and ask her if agriculture has a reasonable relationship, and ask them if that local government is treating their industry in a fair and reasonable fashion. I have no doubt about what the answer will be.

I know there are people who think that this amendment directly relates to regional districts that may have some aquaculture in them. It has nothing to do with it. It will apply to them, but it's based on the experience in Delta. It's a direct response to that situation.

I reject the member's take on this, because it simply doesn't serve…. The argument that it's motivated from Delta doesn't serve her purpose, but that's what motivated this amendment — categorically.

J. MacPhail: The minister can hide his head in the sand — whatever he wants to do — about whether this applies to aquaculture or not. It is the motivation for the whole bill that the government wants to give precedence, priority, to the aquaculture industry over local government.

He's had correspondence on this. He's had correspondence around the Bute Inlet site around this from the Comox regional district. I have the letter right here. It's the Comox-Strathcona regional district, where they wrote on May 16 to the Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services and copied the Minister of Agriculture on this. It is exactly the regional district's concern around the right of Bill 48 to now interfere and override local government decision-making with respect to aquaculture, and that is why the opposition is voting against this.

Hon. J. van Dongen: I'm aware of the letter the member talks about. I did meet with the Comox-Strathcona regional district. I know the letter suggested that comments I had made in the Legislature were directed towards Comox-Strathcona. I clarified that yesterday. It had nothing to do with Comox-Strathcona.

Their submission is that they have treated aquaculture reasonably. I have no reason to doubt that. If regional districts and local governments, all things considered…. We recognize that there are many uses for land, and there are many issues that need to be worked out at the local level, but as long as they treat the industry in a reasonable manner, they won't even be brought under this act.

I say to all of those local governments that it's not our intention to bring them all under the act. I hope we never have to use it. I hope no government ever has to use this act, but it provides…. This amendment in particular, as I said, is motivated by the experience in Delta. It confirms the original intent of the act so that any decisions made by a local government like Delta have the possibility of being brought under this act by a decision of cabinet in order to maintain reasonable decisions that affect all types of farming.

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

Bill 48, Agriculture, Food and Fisheries Statutes Amendment Act, 2003, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

A rewrite of the Residential Tenancy Act was a new-era priority of our government. We committed to modernize it, to put it in plain language so people could better understand it, and to make it fair for both landlords and tenants. The Residential Tenancy Act was redrafted, and a separate Manufactured Home Park Tenancy Act was created. Bill 70, the Residential Tenancy Act, and Bill 71, the new Manufactured Home Park Tenancy Act, received royal assent November 26, 2002. The acts are not yet in force.

Early in 2003 we began a series of consultation meetings with landlord and tenant stakeholders on the regulations to implement the new act. Input received from these groups played a valuable role in shaping the proposed regulations. In addition to that, we consulted with our government caucus committee and members of our caucus with regard to the feedback on the legislation in their own communities as we move forward on regulation. I can say that the member for Vancouver-Burrard and the member for Victoria–Beacon Hill were two instrumental players in the whole consultation process with regard to the regulatory process in this act, in that they both have ridings that have a large percentage of renters, and they came back to me with the concerns being heard in their communities with regard to the act.

The input received by them and by these community groups played a valuable role in shaping the proposed regulations, and those groups recommended some minor changes to the acts to better ensure successful implementation of the legislation. Both landlords and tenants agreed that these new little changes we're going to make as we move forward to finish this act were something they could both live with and both could agree on. In doing so we will then move forward immediately after this legislation is passed to implement the regulations and actually put the act into force and put the balance back into landlord and tenant relationships in British Columbia.

Training of residential tenancy arbitrators highlighted the need to clarify some provisions and correct errors and omissions in the act. We went through a process to actually re-establish some training and some education for our personnel, and they came up with some things they thought would be minor improvements to the act as we move forward to the final regulations.

Bill 77, the Tenancy Statutes Amendment Act, 2003, retains policies in the act with three changes. These changes were intended to increase the certainty of the relationship of landlords and tenants. The first of the three changes is the regulation-making power, allowing landlords to carry forward rent increases permitted but not taken in the previous three years. Although the point of time of the actual putting into place of the regulation would be three years before this would ever impact on a tenant in British Columbia, in our consultations we heard from the landlord and the tenant stakeholder groups and a large number of individual tenants and landlords about this regulation-making power. Neither one of them felt it was necessary. The landlords felt they could certainly live without it, and the tenants groups were adamant they would like us to remove it.

Both landlords and tenants expressed concerns about the potential power that could be misused by some landlords with regard to retroactive rents, and we decided that additional rationale and those consultations meant we should take this out of the act.

Bill 70, the new Residential Tenancy Act, and Bill 71 are acts that both have that particular regulation power in them, and Bill 77 deletes the authority for a three-year carry-forward of rent increases and to change or protect renters from sudden high rent increases, as was a concern in both the debates and the public consultation with regard to the act.

The change does not affect landlords' ability to increase rents by an amount set by regulation and to apply for additional rent increases in exceptional circumstances. Exceptional circumstances could be defined in many ways, and I'm sure we'll discuss this in the committee stage of this bill. Obviously, higher taxes, higher utility costs — those type of things affect the ability of a landlord to run a building. In order for them to have an increase above what will be allowed in regulation, they would have to come forward with the rationale and the backup to get those done by the arbitrators.

The bill allows for arbitrators to extend the five-day limit for a tenant to pay overdue rent in two specific circumstances only: (1) when the landlord agrees to an extension of time which allows an arbitrator to record an agreement between the landlord and tenant to extend the time to pay overdue rent and (2) when the tenant has deducted the unpaid amount because of a genuine belief that the deduction was permitted either under the arbitrator's order or for emergency repairs. These were two points that were actually clarified to us by the consultation process with our own arbitrators as we looked at the regulatory process going into the act. They recommended to us that we make these changes, and it's something we've done.

The last change affects only the Residential Tenancy Act. Tenants are required to provide a forwarding address when they leave a tenancy. Bill 77 requires that this forwarding address be provided in writing. The requirement to provide written notification will reduce the number of disputes about whether a forwarding address has been provided by the tenant. This responds again to a number of tenants and landlords encouraging us to provide for better and more effective enforcement of the act regarding the return of the security deposits. It is supported by both the Tenants Rights Action Coalition and by landlords with regard to this change to the act, because they feel it clarifies that por-

tion whereby information can be made available so that the damage deposit can be returned expeditiously.

We're confident that Bill 77 improves the Residential Tenancy Act and the Manufactured Home Park Tenancy Act and will make the residential tenancy system more effective, fair and balanced for both landlords and tenants. We continue to work with our stakeholder groups. We will finalize the regulations and implement this new legislation to ensure that the residential tenancy system in British Columbia fairly serves the needs of both landlords and tenants.

This piece of legislation has gone through an evolution of consultation and working with both sides with regard to landlords and tenants. It is, frankly, proof that the system of consultation and the committee structure of government work when we can actually identify those concerns back in the community and bring those amendments to the House prior to actually putting the regulations in place, so that we can have a working model when we move forward.

We will continue to consult; we will continue to work with our stakeholder groups. I am proud to finally bring these amendments to the House in this session so that we can bring the act into force later this year.

J. Bray: I am very pleased to rise in support of Bill 77, the Tenancy Statutes Amendment Act, 2003. My riding is a riding, as the Solicitor General outlined, where 68 percent of all residents are renters, and so issues that affect rental residences are significant for my constituents.

Certainly, I believe that one of the issues during the original campaign that was important to my constituents was one of our new-era commitments, and I would just like to remind the House of what that commitment was. Our new-era commitment was: "…to modernize the Residential Tenancy Act to properly protect renters and landlords in plain language everyone can understand."

There was no question that the former landlord tenancy act was written for lawyers by lawyers and really was not a very usable piece of legislation for people who were trying to actually manage the relationship between landlords and tenants. In fact, that's who the landlord tenancy act is supposed to deal with. For my constituents, both people who manage apartments and landlords, as well as for tenants, that new-era commitment was critical in improving that relationship and actually providing for a better management of the whole issue around rental.

In fact, what Bill 70, which was passed last year — which was this new plain-language rewrite — helped to do was provide balance and fairness in what should be a compatible relationship between a landlord and a tenant — balance and fairness so that the tenancy is good and people are happy, so that they're comfortable in their residence and have a relationship with their landlord that makes sense. It also clearly outlines the responsibility and obligations of both landlords and tenants so that we can reduce the number of arbitrations.

That's what we did last spring. My constituents saw that we had met that new-era commitment, and that was certainly important. Because housing is so important to people, it's a critical function of their life. In fact, stable housing and permanent housing is what helps in the social determinants of health. It helps for lifestyle. It's certainly critical for families to be confident in their residences. It's important for people to have stable housing to establish their educational goals, their career goals, their work goals and their income goals.

It's also critical that they have some confidence in the system that guides rental properties, because of course families and individuals make plans based on all sorts of things. Things like rent are basic needs, but they're also significant costs in areas like Victoria, and they want to make sure that the system responds to their needs. By the same token, we also have a critical issue in British Columbia, and that is a lack of new rental properties being built.

There's a whole myriad of factors that have gone into that, including federal taxation changes and other issues. One of them, of course, was a historical sense that the landlord and tenancy act didn't serve the people who made the investments, the landlords that owned those properties or the apartment managers that tried to manage them, so there was yet another discouragement for the building of private sector rental accommodations.

The reality is that government can't build all the rental units that are needed. Bill 70 that was passed last year was, in part, meant to address the concerns that people who make those investments have, to try to increase the stock of rental properties and also to encourage people to make the investments in the existing stock to upgrade them and bring them up to standards. It went a long way towards doing that. The changes we made met our new-era commitment and also met some other community goals.

There was another area that was a very critical issue that Bill 77 also addresses in clarification, and that was the issue of pet rentals. A lot of my constituents, many of them seniors, have felt a growing frustration at the lack of access for bringing pets into rental accommodations when they're looking for new accommodation or in their existing accommodation. There was a sense that it was an all-or-nothing game.

In some apartments you could have all the pets you wanted, and in others you could have none. There didn't seem to be much flexibility on either side of the debate. Bill 70 that was passed last year brought in some new and, I think, very creative ingredients to that debate. One was the ability for things like damage deposits for people bringing in pets, to encourage landlords to be more accepting of that, to provide them some protection for potential costs associated with it and to encourage, again, a more mutually respectful and collaborative relationship between landlord and tenant.

Bill 77 does provide some additional clarification on that relationship and on the obligations and responsibilities of both parties. I just think that is a very positive move forward for my constituents, who recognize the health

benefits of having a pet — how it helps with isolation, especially among seniors, and for families with children. Pets are, of course, a very important part of families. To further clarify those sections is critical, because it will continue to encourage that collaborative relationship around tenants who are looking to have pets come in.

Certainly, some of the other feedback I received in my constituency when the last bill was passed was around the provision for retroactive rent increases of three years. There's no question that I heard from tenants' groups — from James Bay, just outside the Legislature, among others — who had concerns about that. Victoria is among the highest-priced real estate in Canada, and James Bay is high in Victoria. There was some concern that there could be really, really high rent increases for people who are generally on fixed incomes.

The Solicitor General alluded in his comments to the fact that we have a caucus committee structure. We have incredible access to our cabinet ministers to bring the feedback from our communities forward. The Solicitor General did an incredible job of listening to that feedback and engaging with the stakeholders in that, and on behalf of my community, I'm certainly very grateful for that.

In fact, I was very pleased last week when I raised that very question in the House and the Solicitor General provided me with a response. His response was: "Bill 70 has not been enacted as yet because our regulations are under draft. We've actually been working with stakeholders across the province in the last number of months. I can tell you, member, coming out of those consultations with both landlord and tenant groups, both of them felt that retroactivity wasn't necessary to the functioning of this act. We will be making the recommendation that retroactivity be removed."

When the bill was introduced yesterday and I saw that sections 21 and 52 dealt with that for both landlords and manufactured home rentals, I was very pleased. I know my community is very pleased with the response of the Solicitor General to those consultations. But it also shows, I think, that we are achieving the goal we were hoping for, because both landlords and tenants groups support this amendment in Bill 77. So it is showing that, in fact, we were achieving our goal of finding a more collaborative relationship between these two historically disparate groups, and that was one of our main intentions of bringing in a plain-language tenancy act.

I am very pleased to support this bill. I am very pleased the Solicitor General and my colleagues have worked so hard on this issue, because it shows that we are a government that responds to stakeholders. We respond to community input, and we respond to consultations in a positive and respectful manner. Bill 77 is just another one of the examples of how we're meeting our new-era commitment in that fashion, and so I'm very pleased to support Bill 77.

J. Kwan: This bill represents just one of the examples of this government's incompetency and high-handed, arrogant approach to this Legislature. Yesterday we had the Solicitor General stand up and introduce this bill in first reading. I've got the Hansard Blues here in front of me; it is not even the final version of Hansard yet. Then this morning they inform the opposition that the bill is up for second reading debate. I might add that yesterday the House sat until 9 o'clock, and the amount of time in which the opposition has to review this bill is limited.

This government made a big deal about how they were bringing in this special fall session of the Legislature, a session that the Premier can't even get enough interest or courage to attend, a session that in the very first week this government felt so apathetic about it that some ten of the front-benchers just took off. They hightailed to Alberta for a little right-wing confab with Ralph Klein, even though the Alberta Legislature was not in session. The government, the cabinet, the Premier could have gone to Alberta any other time. But, no, they chose to go for the first week of the House sitting.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. member, just to remind you that we're speaking to second reading. Would you confine your remarks to the bill, please.

J. Kwan: Here we are putting it in context of what we're doing today. With less than 24 hours of notice, we have second reading on a bill. Here we are in this new, special fall session, a creation that this government has made such a big deal about — how it was meant to deal with bills that were left over from the spring — a so-called cleanup session.

Well, the opposition certainly can agree that this government has made a mess of most things: a mess of the B.C. economy — we're dead last in the country, and unemployment is at a nine-year high at 9.1 percent; a mess of the care for children and families — even the government's own independent report from Doug Allen indicates that this government has messed up that ministry and its reorganization; a mess of social assistance; a mess of long-term care. The list goes on — even this bill, in which they have to amend one of their own brand-new bills, the Manufactured Home Act, and the Residential Tenancy Act.

At the time when the bill was brought in — the Residential Tenancy Act, Bill 70 — the opposition said that there were a lot of problems with this bill. There were a lot of concerns that people were raising across the province, tenants and landlords alike. We urged the minister then to hold up, to not pass the legislation, to allow for more work to be done on the piece of legislation. But no, that advice was not heeded. We plow ahead with this government's majority. So here we are, doing some cleanup for the government. We certainly agree that there is a lot of cleanup for this government to do.

We have a case of the legislation that this government brought in, in my view, to please its financial backers. Bill 70 was a bill that was extremely punitive

to the renters. Thanks to the opposition by a broad range of British Columbians — hard work by all the stakeholders — the government has realized that it simply could not push ahead with its desired policy and has to limit rent increases and not allow the carry forward they tried to bring in.

We stood in this Legislature last spring offering amendment after amendment, trying to assist this government in making legislation that was fair to both the landlords and the tenants. Issues and concerns were raised. The retroactivity on rent increases was a major concern that was raised by many of the renters. You know what? All of those concerns fell on deaf ears when we debated this bill. Not one backbench MLA from the government side got up to raise the concerns with this bill and that particular section of the bill — not one.

None of the amendments that were put forward by the opposition, which would make the bill more fair for the renters and for the landlords, were supported by this government. None of the amendments were supported by the government MLAs and this minister.

It is interesting to hear the member for Victoria–Beacon Hill speak about this bill. It is interesting to note, because I pulled up Hansard from the debate then and what the member had to say about Bill 70, which included the retroactive rent increase. Here's what the member had to say: "I'm speaking at second reading. I've read it quite thoroughly. I don't have to go through the bill section by section. I think it's a good piece of legislation. It certainly is long overdue."

This is part of Hansard on second reading from the member for Victoria–Beacon Hill.

Then the member goes on to say that he strongly supports Bill 70, the Residential Tenancy Act, and that "this bill is very important for my community of Victoria–Beacon Hill, which has a 0.5 percent vacancy rate, and over 63 percent of the residents are renters."

Then the member concludes by saying: "I am very pleased that the Solicitor General has heard the concerns of people around the province and has stressed all of those in an incredibly balanced way in Bill 70, and I'm very pleased to be able to stand in support of this bill."

This is the debate that the member for Victoria–Beacon Hill had put on record relating to Bill 70, the provision which allowed retroactive rent increases to be foisted upon the tenants. Hundreds of people raised concerns with the opposition then and with the MLA for Victoria–Beacon Hill and the MLA for Vancouver-Burrard, I'm sure. You know what, Mr. Speaker? Not one of the government backbench MLAs stood up in the House at that time to raise their concerns and say: "Just a minute now, Mr. Solicitor General. This is bad for my constituents. It hurts the people. It creates less housing for them. It's a problem, and we don't agree with it." Not one. They all stood in this House and said how wonderful this bill is.

Then we have the member for Vancouver-Burrard, who also said this is a great bill. The only provision, by the way, that the member for Vancouver-Burrard raised during second reading debate and during debate on committee stage of the bill was pertaining to — oh — the pet provision. Let me just quote for a moment some of the things the member for Vancouver-Burrard has said regarding Bill 70. Here's what he said: "Now, I must confess that I have a problem with Bill 70, and it is this…. One of the issues that I have is that I promised my constituency I would do my utmost to make it possible for them to have pets in their rentals…. But I have a problem with one word — sorry, two words — and that's prohibiting pets under section 18." That was the only issue the member for Vancouver-Burrard raised. Then the member goes on to say, "I want to speak in favour of the bill," etc.

The government MLAs did not raise the issue at all around the retroactivity of rent increases, in spite of the calls from the broader community which said: "Oh, hold up. This is bad news. It's not good for tenants; it's not good for us." It's a bit much to now have the member for Victoria–Beacon Hill get up and say: "Well, gee, I was reflecting the concerns of my constituents, and so therefore the government is now changing this piece of legislation."

Where was he when Bill 70 was first introduced? Where was he when he had that opportunity to stand up for his constituents? Did he just conveniently forget to do that? No, he didn't. He actually came into this House and advocated for this bill with those provisions that hurt his constituents, with retroactive rent increases that would hurt his constituents, and he voted for it.

I just want to correct for a moment. When I first read onto Hansard the second reading comments, it was in fact…. The first set of second reading Hansard I read was in fact from the member for Victoria-Hillside. Just to clarify, here is what the member for Victoria-Hillside said:

Those comments were from the member for Victoria-Hillside. I want to clarify that. The other comments I said were from the member for Victoria–Beacon Hill.

So here we are. The government has decided to do the right thing. In this case, the government has attempted to clean up one of the messes it has made, and it is a good thing. This bill is a flip-flop away from a stupid policy, and we're glad to see that. It was a stupid policy when the government first brought it in under Bill 70.

You can always tell when the government has done something extra stupid, because they get one of their own backbench MLAs to announce it. But this bill is about more than the admission of an error. There's more in this bill; at least we assume there's more in this bill.

Seeing, as I mentioned at the beginning of the debate, that we only got the bill yesterday afternoon, the bill's first reading is still in draft form, and the opposition has only started to investigate and review this bill. We've had communication, though, from people affected by the bill who themselves are madly reading the bill and trying to understand it. There may be an issue around securing an extension in terms of the payment of rent and how this might affect the government's draconian new two-year time limit to welfare.

Tenants are still concerned about the issue of the rate of rent increases — what that would be — because as far as we could tell, the bill does not tell you what the rate of increase would be. Once again, the government says, "Don't worry. Trust us; it will be in regulation," so it is not clear what is in this bill in its entirety besides what was announced in a stooge question in question period by the member for Victoria–Beacon Hill and what the minister himself has told us. That is no way to run a Legislature, Mr. Speaker. You just can't introduce something on the Monday and expect to have a proper debate the following day.

J. Kwan: Not true. The Solicitor General says it was done all the time, and it simply is not true. This government is using — and, I would add, abusing — its majority to ram through legislation. They are doing this with this bill and this debate with less than 24 hours of notice. Let's be clear.

You know what? When we debated Bill 70, the opposition — and not just the opposition in the Legislature, but the community also — had said: "We have a lot of concerns with this bill." There were many, many issues that people wanted to raise, and this Solicitor General showed a complete disregard for those concerns. None of the MLAs raised the issues.

So now I want to be very clear. We're glad at least about this one piece, in terms of the change that is now being proposed, and that is the retroactive rent increases. The opposition asked for those changes to be made. The community asked for those changes to be made. Tenants asked for those changes to be made. When the bill was debated in Bill 70, it fell on deaf ears. None of the government MLAs raised the issues at all. I believe it is the community's effort, who stood up and said: "This is a stupid policy that is punitive and is not good for anyone." Now the government is flip-flopping on this policy.

I want to conclude that this government has shown a complete lack of respect for this Legislature that is now legion. The opposition will be reading this bill closely and will take up the debate in third reading, clause by clause. We'll scrutinize this bill and raise the concerns on behalf of many of the constituents around British Columbia, if there are concerns there. Quite frankly, you can't count on the government MLAs, because they will just vote for the government. Even though they know in their hearts that whatever legislation's being tabled hurts their constituents, they will simply vote for the government anyway.

L. Mayencourt: It's a pleasure to stand here and support this new act, the Tenancy Statutes Amendment Act, 2003. I want to speak to it because it's a really important issue in my community. As has been noted by the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant and the Solicitor General earlier, a large number of the people in my community live in rental accommodation, so it's a very substantial issue for us in the West End.

I want to just go back a little bit, because the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant raised a lot of issues — said that I didn't speak to the bill. I'd like to just sort of go back, for the benefit of my constituency but also for the ability to talk to those people now and say to them why I did not speak to this bill as thoroughly as perhaps they would have liked me to.

It is this: when this bill first came forward, Bill 70, I was in constant communication with the Tenants Rights Action Coalition, with some other community groups — pets and rentals and what have you. They were sending to me, on a fairly regular basis, issues that were concerns for them. I brought those concerns, compiled them, looked at them and was prepared to ask questions in this Legislature on those things.

Yet at the same time, those groups were also in communication with the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant. Now, I'm a new politician and I don't know that I'm supposed to stand up, speak and repeat things that perhaps the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant doesn't worry about. But basically what happened for me was that we both had the same script. The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant and the

member for Vancouver-Burrard both had the same script, and in fairness, the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant raised those issues. If she hadn't, I would have myself.

I felt it was redundant for me to stand up immediately after the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant and repeat those questions. I felt it was far more important to use the time in this Legislature effectively. I believe the questions I had were being asked by that member, and so I felt that was good enough.

When I returned to my riding right after the passage of Bill 70, I met with many of the people in my community who raised concerns about some of the issues within the Residential Tenancy Act. One of the things they said to me was: "We don't think this is really plain language. We think there are some confusing statements in the bill." That's something I took back to the Solicitor General. It's something I raised in caucus. It's something that is reflected in Bill 77, in that there are clarification, corrections and changes made to the legislation, which do make it far clearer for tenants and for landlords.

That was really at the heart of what we had made a commitment to in the New Era document — to create a plain-language Residential Tenancy Act, something that anyone could understand. We advanced that goal with Bill 77.

The other issue was the issue of retroactivity. This was a very major sore point in my community. It's something I had not fully considered until I had an opportunity to speak with seniors in my community, people that were disabled. It was something that really touched my heart, and I really got the message from these folks. I, along with the member for Victoria–Beacon Hill, the member for Victoria-Hillside and others that have a large concentration of tenants within their constituencies, felt it was most appropriate to take those issues back to the Solicitor General — raise them with him.

We, with the support of community groups like Tenants Rights Action Coalition, with other individuals from West End Residents Association and others, effectively lobbied and effectively went to work with the Solicitor General to change that. That, I think, is really wonderful. I think that's a very important thing, because what we're saying here is that we saw some flaws in Bill 70 that needed to be corrected. We had some consultation to do in communities that we needed to do more in-depth, and we did that.

Those changes are now reflected today in Bill 77, which makes me feel really good because it tells me that as a government, we'll listen to the constituencies that come to us and say: "This doesn't work for us." We will take a second look. We'll spend the time and energy, invest that, so we can get it right for the people of British Columbia.

That's why we didn't have the regulations for Bill 70. That's why it wasn't fully implemented, because we were going through another consultation process. I think we are getting to the stage now where we have a bill that has met the test. It has met the test of consulting with community. It has met the test of making it clear for residential tenants and for landlords, and I think that's very important for this House.

Now, the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant said earlier that she felt we were rushing this through and that she hadn't had a chance to read the bill. Well, we all got the bill at the same time. I got this bill last night. I've read it. I've gone through it. I've matched it up with Bill 70, with each of the sections that we're amending. I had time to do it. I don't know why she didn't. I am, frankly, appalled that a member of this Legislature would stand up and speak against a bill in this Legislature she has not even read. I find it appalling. She said a few minutes ago that this House and this government had a complete lack of respect for this chamber. Well, I can think of no greater disrespect to this chamber than for a member to stand up in this House, speak to a bill that she has not even taken the time to read, and condemn it. I think that's atrocious, and I think it is a complete lack of respect for this chamber.

I have read this bill, and I have questions on individual sections in this bill. Even if the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant asks the questions that I want to ask, I will ask them again so my community knows that I'm thinking hard and long about this piece of legislation. I would never stand in this chamber and speak about a bill I hadn't even read.

I am pleased to support Bill 77. I applaud the work of many members of our caucus, but especially the Solicitor General, for taking the time to consult with community, residential tenants and landlords to make sure we get it right this time. I'm sure that we have. There will be other questions which are raised in committee stage, but for today I thank you very much for this opportunity to speak on this bill.

Hon. R. Coleman: You know, when somebody stands in this Legislature and says that we're abusing the House — from a former member of a previous government that actually had people debating until 2 o'clock in the morning on a Good Friday, because they couldn't get their legislative schedule together — it is absolutely appalling to me. Frankly, they have nowhere to talk on that part of this issue.

But that's not what this discussion today is about; today the discussion is about a bill. The bill amends a number of pieces of language to clean it up, makes a couple of minor changes or changes to legislation and one particular major change that comes as a result of the debates in the Legislature, which is where you start to get these issues identified and then go out and have a consultation process on regulation and come back with a change — a change that the member asked us to consult on last fall and today says we're incompetent because we went and consulted and actually came up with a change, in working with the industry partners

I guess the member can go back to Mount Pleasant and say: "Well, I actually really do believe in retroactive rent increases, because I don't agree with the bill." Well, she's wrong. We went out because of that discussion and did the right thing. You know, governments do the right thing if they take the time to do the job. This is the government. When I was in opposition, for five consecutive years as a critic dealing with housing issues and debating the residential tenancy issue, I spoke to the Attorney General at the time, in 1996, who then became the Premier of this province and who said this to me: "We're going to do a plain-language rewrite of the Residential Tenancy Act." Five years later when we became government, they still hadn't started to write the plain-language rewrite of the Residential Tenancy Act. And she has the temerity to stand up in this House, when we are actually changing the relationship between landlords and tenants for the better for all people in the province because we've done the work…?

The committee stage of this bill is not going to re-debate Bills 70 and 71. It is only going to debate the changes and the amendments to this bill, because the rest of this debate has taken place both in this Legislature and in the consultation on the regulatory side. We are going to get this done. We're going to bring it forward, and in the future we're going to have the proper relationship that people can understand and landlord and tenant relationships in this province the way they should be done.

You know, it always amazes me how somebody can criticize the work of a government that actually went out and listened to people, when that's the job they should be doing in the first place. For this member, I welcome her to go back to Mount Pleasant and say to her people in that community, who are largely renters: "Well, I actually didn't think it was such a good idea that they came and amended this bill before they brought it in so that we could get rid of retroactive rent increases, because the Solicitor General actually talked to you people in my community, and he talked to the people in the Vancouver-Burrard community, and he talked to the people in the Victoria-Hillside community. And do you know what he did? He found out that maybe we could make this work by having a conversation with landlords and with tenant groups and saying: 'Can you guys live without this?' When they both said yes, because they can actually agree on things — landlords and tenants in a proper working relationship — we got rid of it."

So what did we do? We did the right thing. The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant should understand this. We run this government ten times better than your government ever did and will continue to run it ten times better than any government you ever had.

Hon. R. Coleman: I move the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 77, Tenancy Statutes Amendment Act, 2003, 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. S. Hagen: The Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management proposes amendments to the Agricultural Land Commission Act, the Assessment Act, the Assessment Authority Act, the Land Act, the Land Title Act, the University Endowment Land Act and the Water Act. This bill is consistent with the government's new-era commitments and deregulation initiative. The bill also underscores government's goal for operating more efficiently, supporting the economy and responsibly managing the province's natural resources.

I will now briefly address each act that is being amended by this bill, beginning with the Agricultural Land Commission Act. A housekeeping amendment to the act will allow the chief executive officer of the commission to require an application to the Agricultural Land Commission when the commission receives notice of an intention to deposit or remove fill from agricultural land. The amendment clarifies the CEO's authority and responsibility to require proponents to submit an application for proposals to remove or deposit fill which may have a significant impact on the land and warrant local government review through the application process.

Housekeeping and deregulation amendments to the Assessment Act and the Assessment Authority Act will eliminate duplicative and outdated regulatory requirements. The Assessment Act is also amended to allow assessors to adjust the assessment role where the proper owner agrees to the change, eliminating the need for numerous non-contentious matters to go before the property assessment review panels.

B.C. Assessment Authority is responsible for providing each property owner in British Columbia with an annual valuation or assessment of their property. Should a property owner disagree with an assessment, they may file for a review with the property assessment review panel. Over one-third of all assessment complaints are resolved between property owners and the assessors prior to the review panel considering the issue, yet the current legislation requires that the matters still proceed to the review panel.

This is a time-consuming and unnecessary step. The proposed amendment will eliminate that requirement

and allow the assessor to adjust the role. However, if the parties do not reach an agreement, the complaint will be reviewed by a property assessment review panel. In order to reflect this amendment, a number of minor consequential amendments are also being made to the Community Charter, the Local Government Act, the Taxation (Rural Area) Act and the Vancouver Charter.

The Land Act is amended to provide the authority to refuse to accept applications for dispositions of Crown land where the application is incomplete or the land is reserved or withdrawn from disposition. Government's current inability to refuse to receive applications, even where it is readily apparent that approval cannot be given, creates a significant, unnecessary workload for regional staff.

The amendments to the Land Act will also remove unnecessary and outdated restrictions regarding the date on which a disposition of Crown land takes effect. A number of housekeeping amendments are being made to the Land Title Act to reflect changes in government organization. In addition, the schedule to the Land Title Act is being amended to increase specified land title fees as part of the governmentwide review of fees and licences.

This amendment also supports a move toward electronic systems. In order to support the establishment and the operation of an electronic system for registering land title activities, this bill includes small fee increases for land title transactions. For example, registering an indefeasible title will increase from $55 to $60 when filing in paper and from $55 to $58.50 when filing electronically. The fee for registration of a cancellation or discharge of a registered charge will increase from $20 to $25 when filed in paper and from $20 to $23.50 when filed electronically.

Further amendments to the Land Title Act will clarify the legal authority of provincial approving officers to require improvements to existing roads when approving a subdivision plan. This amendment will allow provincial approving officers to approve subdivision applications where appropriate, while ensuring that the Crown is not burdened with the cost of upgrading roads to support the subdivision.

In order to improve the efficiency with which University Endowment Lands are administered, the University Endowment Land Act is being streamlined to remove unnecessary duplication relating to the approval of the sale, lease, survey or subdivision of university endowment lands. Specifically, this bill removes the requirement for the minister to receive approval of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council prior to the sale, lease,

surveying or subdividing of lands in the University Endowment Lands. The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council retains the authority to make regulations respecting decisions over the sale, lease, survey or subdivision of these lands.

Finally, amendments to the Water Act will repeal obsolete provisions, streamline the number of water purposes and tariffs in the act, increase the efficiency of the application and licensing process, and provide greater flexibility and efficiency in decision-making of officials under the act. The amendments to the Water Act authorize the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to make regulations regarding activities in and about a stream in order to support the ministry's move towards more results-based regulation.

Other amendments to the Water Act will enable the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to make regulations respecting the relationship between water management plans and drinking water management plans, in order to provide greater clarity around Crown land and resources.

In addition, a 40-year term is established for new licences issued for a power purpose to allow for consideration of changing economic, environmental and social values over time. This amendment will require that new licences be automatically reviewed after 40 years to ensure an opportunity to re-evaluate and adjust licences based on circumstances at the time of review.

Bill 73 is part of this government's continuing response to reducing regulatory requirements and increasing the efficiencies of administrative procedures and decision-making under these statutes. I'm pleased to present the bill in the House today and to move second reading.

In addition to providing transcripts on the Internet, Hansard Services publishes transcripts in print and broadcasts Chamber debates on television.


	YEAS — 60

Falcon	Hogg	L. Reid
Halsey-Brandt	Whittred	Cheema
Hansen	Bruce	Santori
van Dongen	Barisoff	Nettleton
Roddick	Masi	Lee
Hagen	Murray	Plant
Collins	Clark	Bond
Stephens	Abbott	Neufeld
Coleman	Chong	Penner
Jarvis	Anderson	Harris
Brenzinger	Belsey	Bell
Chutter	Mayencourt	Trumper
Johnston	Hayer	Christensen
Krueger	McMahon	Bray
Les	Locke	Nijjar
Bhullar	Wong	Bloy
Suffredine	MacKay	Cobb
Visser	Lekstrom	Brice
Sultan	Hamilton	Hawes
Kerr	Manhas	Hunter

	NAYS — 2

MacPhail		Kwan

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY