2008 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 38th 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)

Thursday, November 27, 2008

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 36, Number 5

[ Page 13371 ]

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 27, 2008

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Statements

MOURNING FOR VICTIMS OF
MUMBAI TERRORIST ATTACKS

Hon. S. Bond: Today on behalf of the Premier and all British Columbians, I want to express our condolences to the people of India and their loved ones here in British Columbia following the series of terrible attacks that have taken place in Mumbai.

The people and communities of British Columbia and India are closely connected through family, social and economic ties. Nearly a quarter-million British Columbians are of Indian origin, and many of us have family and friends living in India.

I know every member of this House and all British Columbians are united in mourning the injury and loss of life and, certainly, in condemning these horrifying acts of violence and terrorism.

[1335]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the House rise and show their sympathy and respect with a minute of silence.

Mr. Speaker: Just before we do this, could the Leader of the Opposition do her statement too.

C. James: I want to add my voice to the government's to say that British Columbians are shocked and deeply saddened by the horrific violence that is rocking Mumbai. Our deepest sympathies go out to the victims and their families, and our hearts go out to everyone who has lost family members or loved ones. We're certainly thinking about those people, and we know many of them in British Columbia, who are anxiously awaiting news for people in communities that they know.

I particularly want to express my deepest condolences to the Bhurji family in Surrey, whose niece Jasmine was gunned down at the hotel where she worked as a manager.

This senseless, cowardly violence touches us all. It's an attack on the world's largest democracy, a democracy that has overcome incredible obstacles to unite people from diverse cultures and backgrounds to forge a path of peace and hope in the world. The people who have perpetrated this atrocity have one motivation: to attack hope and progress.

I know I speak for all of us when I say that we stand shoulder to shoulder with the people in Mumbai. We feel profound grief, but we also recognize their courage and determination to emerge from this tragedy more resolved than ever to keep building the road to peace, justice and democracy.

Mr. Speaker: Would all members stand for a moment of silence.

We'll continue on with introduction of guests.

Introductions by Members

M. Karagianis: Today in the gallery is a constituent of my good neighbour, the member for Saanich South. D'Arcy Lee lives in Saanich and works for the Burnside House, a community living establishment in Saanich, as a residential care attendant. He's a very good employee who enjoys working with disabled adults.

He's joined by his girlfriend, Pavlina Vagnerova, a committee researcher with the Clerk of Committees and former Hansard researcher and a former resident of Esquimalt. Today is her last day of work before she goes back to her home in the Czech Republic. I know the House will make them both feel welcome and wish Pavlina all the best on her return home.

Hon. M. Polak: At the beginning of this school year the Minister of Education and I were very pleased to announce the expansion of the Read to Succeed program to include the entire WHL. Today in the gallery we're joined by Dale Saip, who is with the Vancouver Giants and also a school trustee in Delta. Would the House please make him welcome.

M. Farnworth: Visiting the Legislature today are a group of 33 grade 11 students accompanied by six adults and their teacher, Mr. John Wiens, from the British Columbia Christian Academy in my constituency. Would the House please make them most welcome.

Tributes

KATHIE HATLEN

Hon. L. Reid: I would ask this House to join with me in honouring the passing of my dear friend and constituency assistant Kathie Hatlen. She was diagnosed with leukemia and breast cancer and fought valiantly. She turned 40 on October 18. My friends, love deeply; laugh often. She did, and she is dearly missed.

Introductions by Members

Hon. G. Abbott: In the gallery today are two young British Columbians who are today on their second-to-last day of employment, at least for the foreseeable future, with the government of British Columbia. They are about to embark on an exciting international
[ Page 13372 ]
journey. We hope that they return safely and give some consideration to working with us again.

One is James Watson, who for 15 months has been one of my executive assistants at the Ministry of Health and now Ministry of Health Services. James has done an exceptionally fine job as my executive assistant. I'm going to miss him terribly. But for reasons which I'm sure are very shallow and selfish he has decided to go with his young wife Alana Clement, who has been for at least a couple of years a media relations officer with the public affairs bureau. She and James are going to be enjoying a European holiday and, I'm sure, learning many things in Europe.

[1340]

I know they don't often describe the Legislature as a romantic place, but there's evidence in itself that it is possible for that to occur. I'd like the House to wish them all the best on their European adventure.

Not in the gallery today but a gentleman who we are accustomed to seeing, all of us, in the press gallery is Mr. Scott Sutherland. I hear only by channel of rumour that Scott may be leaving the radio room for adventures and work elsewhere. I wouldn't want to say where that might be, lest I embarrass Scott.

Scott's been a good friend for….

Interjection.

Hon. G. Abbott: Now, there's no need for that kind of heckling from the Minister of Education, I don't think.

Scott's been a very good friend to us. I'm proud to say that I may have played a small hand in Scott moving from a two-pack-a-day smoker to now international-class marathoner. He is a marvellous example of ActNow B.C.

I just wanted to say, in wishing Scott all the best in his apparent departure from the radio room, that I am personally starting a petition that demands that Scott be inducted as a member emeritus into the press gallery so that we can continue to do what is delightful, I'm sure, to every member of the House — the annual skit that Scott and I perform at the press gallery dinner. All the best to Scott.

N. Simons: It gives me great pleasure to introduce to the House today my friend and constituent and former MLA for Okanagan East, Judy Tyabji. Would the House please make her welcome.

I'd also like to introduce…. My partner's in the House — Scott Scobbie, along with his nephew Brendan Manning and his nephew's girlfriend, Rachael Paul. Would the House please make them welcome.

H. Bloy: It's an honour today. I've got my three constituency assistants from my office that I wanted to introduce. But I really have to thank Simon Fraser University, because they're either co-op students that started there or graduates of Simon Fraser.

We have Michael Lee, my constituency assistant, who just graduated this past June from Simon Fraser University. We have Chanelle Jen, who's worked for me for a year and a half now. She started as a co-op student and is now a part-time student in the office, and we have Christina Jung, who is doing a co-op semester with me this term. So would the House please make them welcome.

Tributes

TRAVIS HUTCHINGS

G. Coons: I'd like to acknowledge a very exciting event from the northwest. For the first time ever, a Rupertite brought home a medal from the Commonwealth Tae Kwon Do Championships. They were held in Winnipeg last weekend, with over 50 countries participating. Seventeen-year-old Travis Hutchings, a member of the Prince Rupert Tae Kwon Do Club, came home a champion with a bronze medal in the junior light-heavyweight. Fellow Rupertite Zachary Baker also attended the games but was in a difficult side of the draw.

In the bronze-medal final Travis found himself staring into the eyes of a giant — a 6 foot 4 competitor from Quebec, nearly a foot taller. That said, the match went the full three rounds and required another round, where the next landed point would win — which Travis strategically managed to get.

Travis described his reaction this way. "Right after the match I did a big backflip — I was so stoked — and the crowd went wild."

Congratulations to both Travis and Zachary for their accomplishments, and especially to their coach and my good friend Paul Bozman.

Introductions by Members

Hon. B. Bennett: It's my pleasure to introduce two young people who work with me in my office upstairs. They have the unenviable task of looking after me and doing my scheduling and trying to keep me out of trouble. Please help me make welcome today Kellie O'Brien and Alicia Owens.

[1345]

M. Farnworth: I would be remiss if I did not let the House know that we're joined today by a member of this House, a former Member of Parliament for Vancouver-Kingsway, the former MLA for Vancouver-Fraserview as well as a former Minister of Tourism and an individual who played no small part in helping to get the Vancouver 2010 Olympic bid underway — and that is Ian Waddell. Would the House please make him welcome.

Hon. L. Reid: I also have the joy of welcoming to this place 23 grade 5 students from Henry Anderson
[ Page 13373 ]
Elementary in my riding and their teachers with them today, Sue Price, Jenny Roya and Julie Wilson. I would ask the House to please make them welcome.

C. Trevena: I didn't want to tread on the toes of the Minister of State for Childcare. She organized this lunchtime the launch of a book from one of our former colleagues, Anne Edwards, who has written a book about women in politics and women in B.C. politics. She and a number of other former MLAs are up here launching the book. I hope the House will make them very welcome, and I hope that everyone will read and learn from Anne's book.

Hon. M. de Jong: One of the students from Henry Anderson, the school that we just heard about, Arjun Badh, is here. He's someone that I know, and he's also quite a hockey player. His peewee hockey team, the Seafair Minor Hockey club, is rated number one in the province, and they are on their way to participate in probably the pre-eminent peewee hockey tournament in the world, in Quebec City. I know all members of the House will want to wish Arjun and his team, the Seafair Minor Hockey club, best wishes as they go to the Quebec peewee hockey tournament. We could do that now.

Secondly, moments ago in the rotunda…. I'm grateful to those members that were able to attend a signing ceremony signifying an agreement, a reconciliation agreement with the Kwadacha First Nation, historic in every sense of the word. Chief Donny Van Somer, members of the Kwadacha First Nation…. As well, Dave Porter was present. I know all members of the House are acquainted with these individuals and would want them to feel welcome here as well.

J. Kwan: Last Thursday I was negligent when I introduced to the House my newborn son Renan Small in the Legislature and also in advising the House that Renan actually joins a very proud big sister named Cee-Yan Small, who is at home. We're delighted that Renan joins our small family unit in its expansion. I also promised Cee-Yan that I would on TV wave to her, smile and tell her how much I love her. Would the House please send her an extended welcome.

D. Hayer: I would like to introduce to the House my legislative assistant Cayley Brown. She has worked with us over one year. She has done a great job. She was an excellent LA, and she has taken a job to work in research. Would the House please make her very welcome.

Tributes

JOHN VERIGIN

K. Conroy: It saddens me to inform the House that John J. Verigin, the honorary chairman of the Union of Spiritual Communities of Christ, passed away at his home in Grand Forks on October 26, at the age of 86. Mr. Verigin has been an honorary chairman of the USCC since 1962 and has been widely recognized as the spiritual leader of thousands of Canadian and Russian Doukhobors since 1939.

For his work on behalf of the Doukhobor people, facilitating their integration into the Canadian culture mosaic, for improving better relations between Canada and Russia and furthering better understanding between all people, John was recognized with the Order of Canada in 1976, the Order of People's Friendship in 1989, the Order of British Columbia in 1996 and the status of Freeman of the City of Grand Forks in 1999.

[1350]

John lived his life with the philosophy of the Doukhobors: toil and peaceful living. His work on behalf of the global peace movement is recognized in B.C., across Canada and internationally.

A traditional Doukhobor funeral began in Grand Forks on October 31 and then in Castlegar on November 1, ending on Sunday, November 2, with an overwhelming outpouring of love and respect for this man. Hundreds of people gathered from across Canada to watch Mr. Verigin be carried to his final resting place by over 160 pallbearers, who shared the three-kilometre journey from the Brilliant Cultural Centre to the Verigin Memorial Park where he was interred. He is survived by his wife Laura, their three children and their families.

A warm-hearted man with a quick wit, he has left a legacy that will be remembered for many generations to come.

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

government integrity act, 2008

C. James presented a bill intituled Government Integrity Act, 2008.

C. James: I move that this bill be read a first time now.

Motion approved.

C. James: Government Integrity Act, 2008, introduces amendments to the Lobbyists Registration Act. This act is a revised version of the Accountability Act introduced by the official opposition in the spring. It reflects recommendations made by the Information and Privacy Commissioner in his letter to the Attorney General dated October 6, 2008. In his letter the registrar advises the Attorney General that amendments to the existing legislation providing robust mechanisms for compliance oversight are needed at the earliest opportunity. Most of the recommendations made by the
[ Page 13374 ]
registrar were included in the Accountability Act, which we introduced in May 2008.

The outstanding recommendations have been included within this Government Integrity Act and include an obligation that public officeholders verify registration, the power for the registrar to levy administrative penalties, and a provision making it an offence to obstruct the registrar. The legislative authority to set regulations regarding registration fees has been removed.

These amendments to the Lobbyists Registration Act will provide clear rules to ensure lobbying is done ethically and transparently, and it will strengthen rules governing the activity of government lobbyists. Members of this House will recall the many commitments to openness and transparency made by the current government, commitments that seem to have been abandoned along the way. This act establishes a stronger, more open and transparent regime for ethical conduct of lobbyists, public officeholders and former public officeholders in this province.

I move that this bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading in the next sitting after today.

Bill M226, Government Integrity Act, 2008, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

elimination of homelessness
crisis act, 2008

C. James presented a bill intituled Elimination of Homelessness Crisis Act, 2008.

C. James: I move that this bill be read a first time now.

Motion approved.

C. James: Elimination of Homelessness Crisis Act, 2008, proposes the establishment of a five-year plan for the elimination of the homelessness crisis.

Homelessness has been steadily worsening in British Columbia over the recent years and now exists as an unprecedented crisis. Many factors contribute to this problem, including rising cost of housing, increased poverty rates and a lack of affordable housing. The government's actions have done little to reverse this trend, much less alleviate the problem.

Earlier this year the official opposition undertook a comprehensive provincewide consultation with advocates, housing experts, faith communities and municipal officials. We spoke to over 130 B.C.-wide organizations in 22 communities — people who are homeless, community advocates, service providers, mayors, other civic leaders. These consultations resulted in a clear set of recommendations to immediately tackle the homelessness crisis.

This act establishes a framework to help achieve effective and timely action by putting those recommendations to work. Thoughtful planning and commitment, combined with an adequate allocation of resources, can help tackle this crisis. It's important that action be attached to a realistic and achievable time line. This act commits the government to a plan to eliminate the homelessness crisis, with well-defined annual targets and time lines.

Further, it requires the Auditor General to monitor progress by reviewing targets, time lines and results annually. This action will extend to both rural and urban areas.

Homelessness is affecting B.C. like never before. We're at a point when action must replace talk. This act establishes a framework for that.

I move that this bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading after the sitting of today.

Bill M227, Elimination of Homelessness Crisis Act, 2008, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

[1355]

long term renters protection act, 2008

S. Herbert presented a bill intituled Long Term Renters Protection Act, 2008.

S. Herbert: I move that the bill be read a first time now.

Motion approved.

S. Herbert: In my constituency of Vancouver-Burrard I've heard from many long-term residents who face possible rent increases of 30 percent, 50 percent and even upwards of 100 percent. These increases are over and above their annual allowable increase, which they've always paid — up to 100 percent. Many of these residents are seniors and people living on fixed incomes. None can afford these increases.

The justification for the increase? Another unit in their area is renting for more, even if it is a newer unit. Do they get any improvement in services? No. They end up paying considerably more for what they already had just because they happen to live in their home for a longer time.

This current legislation makes a mockery of renter protection and a balanced renter-tenant relationship. This sort of practice is happening all over the province in this tight rental market. This bill will go a long way to fixing the unbalanced residential tenancy legislation and keep these people in their homes.

No other province allows this kind of thing to happen to renters. We shouldn't here. We need to
[ Page 13375 ]
return balance to our Residential Tenancy Act for renters and landlords.

I move that my bill, the Long Term Renters Protection Act, 2008, be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting after today.

Bill M228, Long Term Renters Protection Act, 2008, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements
(Standing Order 25b)

HOLODOMOR

B. Ralston: On Sunday, November 23, Ukrainians throughout the world solemnly acknowledged the 75th anniversary of the Holodomor. Based on two Ukrainian words — holod, meaning hunger, starvation or famine; and moryty, to induce suffering, to kill — the Holodomor refers to an act of genocide, a campaign of deliberate starvation against the Ukrainian people committed by the Soviet state in 1932 and 1933.

The Soviet leadership feared the national awakening of the Ukrainians and their aspirations for cultural expression and an independent state, so the Holodomor was set in motion. Neither drought nor a bad harvest caused the Holodomor. The harvest that year in the Ukraine was sufficient to feed people.

Villagers received orders to deliver all grain to state authorities. Failure to do so became a pretext to blacklist villages and confiscate all foodstuffs. Ukrainian peasants living in blacklisted villages were condemned to starvation. In the winter and spring of 1932 and 1933, enforced starvation reached its peak. An estimated seven to ten million people died in the Holodomor. Of those, one-third were children.

I was invited by Katherine Miske, the president of the congregation of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of St. Mary in Surrey, to join a local commemoration recently. I was particularly moved by a short video where women of Ukrainian descent now living in Winnipeg recounted agonizing personal reminiscences of starvation and deprivation during that horrible winter in the Ukraine.

The historical truth of the Holodomor was suppressed for many years in the former Soviet Union. More recently many governments around the world have recognized this deliberate campaign of starvation of Ukrainians as genocide. I am certain that this Legislature joins with me to recognize this tragic episode of Ukrainian history.

TERRORIST ATTACKS IN MUMBAI

D. Hayer: Less than a year ago the Premier, the Attorney General and I visited India to further build ties with our cross-cultural partners in Asia. One of the exact same hotels where we stayed in India apparently yesterday was on television across the screens around the world.

This was the same hotel in Mumbai where we enjoyed many great discussions with our Indian friends and partners toward building progress in our relationship with each other — a close connection based on almost 250,000 British Columbians of Indian origin and many common friends, family members, social and economic ties that we have shared for generations. Yesterday this same hotel, the Taj Mahal Palace hotel, and Oberoi hotel were violently attacked.

It deeply saddened me to see Mumbai wrapped in terror. The tragedy hit home even further when I learned that one of the hotel staff, Miss Jasmine Bhurji, was among the first to lose her life. She was a niece of our Surrey residents Mr. and Mrs. Bhurji and also our community leader Mr. Bhurji.

[1400]

The Canadians were also being held hostage by the terrorists in Mumbai. In the past my own family has been the target of terrorists' acts, and my father lost his life to terrorists. So I can fully understand what the people of Mumbai, the victims and their families are going through right now.

All of us are appalled at the terrorists' acts in Mumbai who at this point have killed more than 125 people and injured hundreds of innocent people at the hotel, at the city's main train station and other locations, including popular restaurants — even hospitals. This action is intolerable, and we must unite in our condemnation of it.

There is no place in the world for terrorism, whether on an economic or cultural level. We strive for a world of cooperation, unity and peace. All of us around the world must stand up and must speak against extremist terrorists who target innocent people to gain their political aim. We must condemn violence and terrorism in all its forms.

We are all shocked and deeply affected by what has happened in India right now, and we unite in our condemnation of the acts done by the perpetrators — the terrorists. I urge all members of the House to join me in denouncing the attacks on our values and our peaceful coexistence. We must make sure that there is no place for terrorism, and we must make sure the voice of condemnation against the terrorists is heard around the world.

Stand Up For Mental Health
comedy performance program

S. Simpson: On November 23, I had the opportunity, along with the members for Vancouver-Kingsway and New Westminster, to attend a remarkable performance at the Arts Club Theatre in Vancouver. The graduates of the 2008 class of Stand Up for Mental Health performed their comedy before a sold-out crowd.
[ Page 13376 ]

It was an evening of great entertainment with lots of laughter and good humour, with performer after performer coming forward not only to make us laugh but to help us understand mental illness. It was an evening that celebrated a remarkable therapy for those who faced the challenges of mental illness — schizophrenia, clinical depression, bipolar disease and others.

Founded in 2004, Stand Up for Mental Health is a therapy that teaches stand-up comedy to people with mental illness. The participants learn to do comedy that is framed around the lighter side of mental illness — taking meds, seeing counsellors, getting diagnosed and surviving the system. Stand Up for Mental Health helps reduce the stigma of mental illness by spreading a message of hope. For people who are all too often told what they cannot do, this is a program that allows them to prove what they can do.

Stand Up for Mental Health was founded by David Granirer, a counsellor, stand-up comic and author of The Happy Neurotic: How Fear and Angst Can Lead to Happiness and Success. David, who has also met the challenges of mental illness personally, has received many accolades from mental health professionals and, most importantly, from program participants and their families — stories of the sea change in self-confidence or people who spent their lives watching TV and smoking cigarettes, who have now become re-engaged. It is so successful that David needed to establish an alumni group for those participants who didn't want to let go of this opportunity.

I urge members, if they have a chance, to view the CBC documentary Cracking Up, which tells the story of Stand Up for Mental Health. Should you see that Stand Up or Mental Health is performing in your community, I would really urge you to come out, support a great program and have a good laugh too.

MAUREEN GABRIEL

K. Whittred: I rise today to pay tribute to a woman of compassion and accomplishment on the North Shore. Maureen Gabriel was the executive director of the North Shore Crisis Services Society for nearly 12 years. Maureen proved herself to be a remarkable leader with a strong commitment to helping women and children who experience abuse. As a tireless advocate, Maureen ensured a high standard of service and safety to women and children at Sage Transition House as well as to the clients of the North Shore Crisis Services Society outreach programs and the Children Who Witness Abuse program.

It was Maureen's vision to open second-stage housing for women and children to facilitate their transition to independence. Maureen's leadership enabled this to happen, and HOPE's Place was opened, the only second-stage housing program for women and their children on the North Shore. I was most honoured to be part of the opening ceremonies. Maureen also conceived of and opened the Good Stuff connection clothing program and thrift store, which provides free clothing to families in need all over North Vancouver.

[1405]

Maureen's work impacted so very many women and children. Her commitment, dedication, and ability to directly improve the lives of the most vulnerable and marginalized in our society is a legacy that will be missed by all those whose lives she touched. Maureen passed away on November 12 after a short but tenacious battle with cancer.

ARCHDIOCESE OF VANCOUVER

M. Farnworth: This is the 150th anniversary of the Crown colony of British Columbia. It's a time for us to recognize and celebrate important historical events that have occurred since that terrific day back in 1858.

I'd like to take the opportunity now to recognize and mark one of the important events of that 150 years, and that concerns the spiritual life of British Columbia. The Catholic community in British Columbia has been part of our social fabric since before we became a Crown colony and has been an important part of this province's history.

This past weekend we saw the celebration of the 100th anniversary of the creation of the Archdiocese of Vancouver. It is an archdiocese that stretches from Vancouver to Hope to Gibsons to Powell River to Abbotsford to Surrey, and includes my own community of Port Coquitlam. It tends to the spiritual needs of some 450,000 Catholics — the largest diocese in the province — and was founded on September 19, 1908.

I'd just like to read to the House in the language of that age — somewhat different than today — when Pope Pius X, with I think a fair amount of linguistic flair, said: "We of our own initiative and with certain knowledge and mature deliberation in the plenitude of our apostolic authority raise by these presents the diocese of New Westminster to the metropolitan dignity, and we declare its see transferred from the city of New Westminster to the city of Vancouver whence it is to be hereafter called the Archdiocese of Vancouver."

It is the largest archdiocese in the province, and it plays a very important role in the spiritual life of Catholics in British Columbia. Over this past week we have seen where GM Place was turned into the largest church in Canada, where some 15,000 Catholics came to celebrate their faith, to celebrate the history of the archdiocese in Vancouver, and to look forward to the future and playing an important role in the future history of our province.
[ Page 13377 ]

NANAIMO FOREST PRODUCTS

R. Cantelon: Early this fall I was at a great celebration in Nanaimo at the Harmac mill as Nanaimo Forest Products prepared for shipment the first bales of pulp from their new mill. It was a great day, but it didn't begin so optimistically. Back in June when the union workers and the management had pooled their resources — $25,000 each — and committed their families to this project, it didn't look so bright — the future. In fact, it was quite clear at the courthouse — and I attended there — that they were well up the track as far as the ranking of the bids go.

But they were determined. You could see that in them. They weren't going to quit. They attracted the investment of Pioneer Log Homes and other investors. I was there when they went back a second time. They still didn't have it, but they attracted more investors — the Levi Sampson family, oil money, fresh blood. That's what this province needs — new money into the project from Saskatchewan. And this time, they took it. Then it was a struggle to make it work, but they made it work.

Much has been made about this new partnership, this new model of management and union, but that's only part of the story. The other part is that they're not looking over their shoulder at some company back east that sees them, perhaps, just as a bottom line on some industry ledger. No, it's about the partnership with them and the investors. It really harkens back to the early days of our forest industry when entrepreneurship was met with energy and new products were formed.

That, I think, is the key to what I see as the new future in the forest industry. They're looking ahead; they're not looking back. They're looking to create new products and new markets.

I ask all the members of this House to wish them every success and continued success as they forge new grounds and open up new vistas, new opportunities, for the forest industry in British Columbia.

[1410]

Oral Questions

LOBBYISTS REGISTRATION LEGISLATION

C. James: Last month one of the Premier's top political advisers, Patrick Kinsella, refused to cooperate with B.C.'s registrar of lobbyists in investigating allegations that he improperly lobbied the government. The Kinsella affair led the Privacy Commissioner to comment that he'll no longer be investigating complaints against lobbyists because a lobbyist under investigation can veto the investigation.

My question is to the Attorney General. Is this his idea of the rule of law — that the subject of an investigation has the power to stop the investigation?

Hon. W. Oppal: The Lobbyists Registration Act was enacted in 2002. At that time it was passed without any opposition from the members on the other side. At that time….

Interjections.

Hon. W. Oppal: There were no suggestions made at that time that the legislation was found wanting.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Attorney.

Hon. W. Oppal: The legislation at the time was modelled after the Ontario act and the federal act. At that time it was considered that British Columbia was leading the way in that type of legislation.

Keep in mind that prior to 2001, there was no act in this province at all. In fact, in the 1990s there was no lobbyists registration act at all. We've made it clear that the act has outlived its time. We are looking at ways to reform the act and bring it up to date.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a supplemental.

C. James: I don't know how many ways the Attorney General can twist and turn to avoid giving a straight answer, which is that the government has done absolutely nothing to fix the Registration Act.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

C. James: Mr. Kinsella is a major political player in the province and one of the Premier's closest advisers and friends. He's avoiding an investigation, plain and simple, and the Attorney General is sitting by and doing absolutely nothing.

My question again to the Attorney General: what message does it send the public when the Premier's closest friend can avoid an investigation?

Hon. W. Oppal: I'm grateful for the enthusiasm and the interest shown by the opposition member to the Lobbyists Registration Act. It's regrettable that that enthusiasm wasn't there in the 1990s.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

The Leader of the Opposition has a further supplemental.
[ Page 13378 ]

C. James: We've gone through two sessions with the registrar of lobbyists raising serious concerns about the current legislation — two entire sessions. The government keeps saying they're working on it. We heard again…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

C. James: …from the Attorney General: "We're getting around to it. We'll think about it. We're going to study it some more."

Well, my question, again, is to the Attorney General. Does the Attorney General not believe that the act needs fixing, or will the Premier refuse to let the Attorney General fix this act?

Hon. W. Oppal: The short answer is that I do believe the act needs to be fixed.

GAMING INDUSTRY CONTRIBUTIONS
TO LIBERAL PARTY

L. Krog: The B.C. Liberal Party has received almost a quarter of a million dollars in donations from the gaming industry. These funds have been delivered through numbered companies so that the source of the contribution is not readily apparent.

To the Attorney General: does the Attorney General not believe that the spirit of the Election Act is violated when contributions are disguised in this way?

[1415]

Hon. M. de Jong: First, let me applaud the hon. member and the opposition for uncovering information that has been in the public domain for almost five years now. Well done. Well done.

The member may have his own ideas about the ability that individuals have to contribute to political organizations. In fact, we know that in the case of this Leader of the Opposition, she believes that taxpayers should be largely responsible for funding political organizations and political activities in the province. We disagree with that.

If the member has — and I can't remember how many times, unfortunately, we've had to say this…. Instead of the innuendo, instead of these allegations that are made in here beneath the veil of immunity that is granted all hon. members…. If he has an allegation to make, make it outside.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

L. Krog: It's somewhat disappointing that the Attorney General doesn't feel he can speak to an issue of this importance. But given that his own political party was the recipient of these laundered funds, can the AG explain why no special prosecutor has been appointed to determine whether this activity violates the Election Act?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, I am almost speechless to hear a member from Nanaimo, home of the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society — one of the worst scandals in the political history of this province — stand up and make these reckless, irresponsible allegations. If he has an allegation to make, he should make it outside.

It hasn't been their practice. They love casting dirt, throwing mud in this chamber. Let him make it outside and be answerable for it.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

S. Simpson: The minister says that he's been aware of this for a number of years, so maybe that's given the Attorney General time to have this conversation.

My question is to the Attorney General. In the course of his inquiry into this matter, has he taken the time to discuss this with officials at the B.C. Liberal Party to determine if they had any role at all in developing or condoning this scheme to hide the identity of these Liberal donors?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. de Jong: What do the Prince George Casino Supply Co., the Great Canadian Casino Co., the Great Canadian Corp., Edgewater Casino, Grand Casino and Great Canadian Casino Co. all have in common? They've all made donations to the New Democratic Party. That's what they have in common.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, we're not continuing until there's silence.

The member has a supplemental.

S. Simpson: This minister talks about this. We're talking here about a couple of thousand, not the quarter-million dollars that your party got. We're talking here….

Interjections.
[ Page 13379 ]

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members. The member for Vancouver-Hastings has the floor.

S. Simpson: The issue here is that this party….We need to know the facts. Has it colluded with this industry to hide the source of these donations? Have they gone out of their way to find numbered companies or individuals to give gaming money to this party?

This is the party that writes the rules. This is the government that writes the rules that allow those companies to make a great amount of money, and you hide the fact that you're getting the donations. Have you done that or not? Will you allow an investigation of this?

[1420]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Hon. M. de Jong: So if I understand the member correctly, it's not the fact that the gaming industry loves the NDP. It's just that they don't love them enough. I noticed the hon. member….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. M. de Jong: I notice the hon. member getting a little bit of advice from his colleague behind him, which is interesting and probably appropriate, because I've got a story here from January 29, 2004….

J. Horgan: That's relevant how, exactly?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Minister, take your seat.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, he'll tell us how relevant it is. The headline is interesting. "NDPers Campaigned for Slots," it says.

"Three former senior NDP government bureaucrats developed a sophisticated campaign in 2003 to convince Vancouver city council to lift a moratorium on slot machines.

"During the 1990s the three former NDP bureaucrats…worked in the B.C. Ministry of Management Services, which oversaw the expansion of gambling across the province. The trio later formed a consulting company called IdeaWorks."

A spokesman for that company said the following:

"Our objective here was to bring those diverse groups together to see the benefit of allowing slot machines in Vancouver…city projects through increased revenue, a future for charitable organizations through a new facility and jobs for trade unionists. Once the fabric all came together, the cloth looked pretty impressive for a majority of council, and that's why we were successful."

Interesting, because that quote was from the member for Malahat–Juan de Fuca. So lots of it….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

H. Lali: The Premier clearly broke his promise not to expand gambling in the province.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Member.

H. Lali: But private gaming operators were the biggest beneficiaries of this broken promise. So to the minister responsible for gaming in this province, the Solicitor General: given that he is responsible for gaming policy in B.C., how long has he been actually aware that these laundered contributions were made to the Liberal Party?

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, what's revealing…. I want to be as kind as I can to the hon. member. We have made…. And I have done this, I confess, and I acknowledge this. I have made some disparaging remarks on the level of preparedness of some of the hon. members in question period.

Actually, that's not the minister who's responsible, hon. Member. So maybe we could start with a level of research that I realize is very difficult, but at least understand who has the responsibility.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. de Jong: Apparently, that member has undergone quite a dramatic conversion on the road to the racetrack, because he was a member of a government that oversaw this dramatic expansion of gaming. At the same time, he was the member of a government that for a lengthy period of time denied the fact that his political party had been responsible for bilking charities out of hundreds of thousands of dollars. We won't take any lectures from any member of the NDP about how to operate a gaming system in this province properly.

Interjections.

[1425]
[ Page 13380 ]

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Member has a supplemental.

H. Lali: Again to the Solicitor General: does the minister expect the public to actually believe…?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Member, just take your seat for a second.

It's difficult to hear when people are talking.

Please pose your question. Continue, Member.

H. Lali: Does the minister expect the public to actually believe that when the Liberal Party actually receives a quarter of a million dollars in laundered funds from the gambling industry, somehow its own government's policies are not impacted by these large questionable donations? So how can the public actually have any confidence in this government's handling of the issue?

If the Attorney General won't tell us why no special prosecutor has been appointed, will the Solicitor General, as the top law enforcement officer in the province, please tell his cabinet colleagues to appoint a special prosecutor?

Hon. M. de Jong: The member makes these allegations. He sits in a caucus with a colleague who made a living lobbying on behalf of the gaming industry — nothing wrong with that if he was following the rules.

But if he wants to be taken seriously, before he uses words like "laundered," maybe he should do some research. Maybe he should understand the process that is followed, and maybe he should be prepared to back up that language by shedding the veil of immunity that exists for members in this chamber and making the same comments out in the hallway.

LONG-TERM CARE BEDS
AT ZION PARK MANOR

G. Gentner: During Tuesday's question period this is what the Minister of Health said regarding who or what agency is responsible for closing 71 beds at Zion Park Manor. "The Lutheran Senior Citizens Housing Society…. They — not the FHA, not the government — have made the decision to close those units."

After hearing the minister's statement, His Grace Rev. Jefrey Koenig, senior pastor of Zion Lutheran Church and School, wrote the following: "As a ministry, we are very saddened by the news of Zion Park losing the beds. That wasn't even the manor's decision. It was the government's."

So my question for the minister is: who is telling the truth — Pastor Jefrey Koenig and the Lutheran Church or the Minister of Health?

Hon. G. Abbott: I wouldn't comment on a statement that is repeated in this chamber by this member. I've seen the NDP's ability to distort and manipulate in this chamber things that are said outside this chamber, so I certainly wouldn't comment on that.

I stand 100 percent behind what I said on Tuesday. This was not a decision by the government. This was not a decision by the Fraser Health Authority. This is a decision by the Lutheran Senior Citizens Housing Society. They own the facility; they made the decision.

But I can tell the member that we have since 2001 remediated over 6,000 substandard units that we inherited from the NDP. We have further added over 5,400 brand-new assisted-living and residential care units in this province.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

G. Gentner: This is a government of deny, deny, deny. This government wants to point fingers at everyone else for the evictions at Zion Park Manor. They say the seniors who live there are wrong. They say the family members there are wrong. They say the community is wrong. They even have the audacity to say the mayor of Surrey is wrong, and now the pastor at the Lutheran Church is somehow wrong.

When will the minister look in the mirror, accept the responsibility and admit he's the one that is wrong and reverse this decision?

[1430]

Hon. G. Abbott: It was good of the member to recycle the question from the opposition Health critic of Tuesday. That's interesting. I guess maybe the well is getting a bit depleted, and we may have to leave early from this place. The well seems to be pretty much empty. The people who are wrong here are the NDP, the opposition. They're the ones that are wrong.

What we are attempting to do, what Fraser Health is attempting to do and what the Zion Park Manor is attempting to do is to ensure that the frail elderly that are currently resident in the aging, decaying portion of Zion Park Manor have the opportunity to transition in a sensitive and thoughtful way to one of the hundreds of brand-new units that are going to be available within minutes of the decaying structure at Zion Park Manor.

FUNDING FOR
B.C. SCHIZOPHRENIA SOCIETY

J. Kwan: Several years ago this government cut the B.C. Schizophrenia Society's sustainability grant in the amount of $300,000. Despite the cut, the society worked hard to continue to provide services, support and education to mental health consumers and their families. That work was largely funded by donations.
[ Page 13381 ]

However, as the economy softens, the society is now unable to raise all the funds to fill the gap. They need $150,000 to keep this operation afloat. If funds are not forthcoming, the society may have to shut its doors in January.

Will the Minister of Health commit today to provide the necessary funds to the B.C. Schizophrenia Society so that they can continue to help families in need?

Hon. G. Abbott: We have had, as a government, an exceptional relationship with care providers and advocates across the province of British Columbia, and this organization would be no exception.

My understanding is that Vancouver Coastal Health went to a request for proposals with respect to the services that have been provided and that, in fact, the Schizophrenia Society was unsuccessful in their proposal. But I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the services being provided are now going to be provided in two places by the successful proponents and that the program is dramatically expanded both in budget and in the number of people who will be served.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

J. Kwan: Sorry, wrong. It's the wrong briefing note that the minister is reading from.

Fred Dawe and Michelle Colussi have been volunteer board members for the B.C. Schizophrenia Society for the past 20 years. The funds that were eliminated from the society were core funding moneys. Fred tried desperately to contact the minister to set up a meeting about this issue. An October meeting turned into a November request. The November meeting was deferred till January. Well, a January meeting comes a little too late, because the society may be forced to close its doors.

Will the minister commit today to meet with Fred and Michelle, who are in the gallery today, and to help them resolve this funding crisis that was created by this government?

Hon. G. Abbott: I would be very pleased to meet with these individuals, and we'd be glad to set that up as soon as it's convenient for the individuals who'd like to meet with me, but I'm not going to listen to any lectures from this member, nor from this opposition NDP, with respect to mental health and addictions programs.

We are, as a government, investing far more in mental health programs than was ever the case under the NDP. Every year we invest over $1 billion — I believe, in the current fiscal year, $1.2 billion — on mental health and addictions programs. As an example of that, we have, since 2001, added 2,836 additional mental health supported beds, for a total of 77,076 beds across the province — a 57 percent increase in the supported beds for mental health.

[1435]

AVAILABILITY OF LONG-TERM CARE BEDS
in interior health authority

K. Conroy: On Tuesday and again today the Minister of Health talked about the need for appropriate transition policies to be in place for seniors being transferred to new housing.

In my community seniors are being transferred to the regional psychiatric unit while they are waiting for long-term care beds to become available. Is that what the minister means by appropriate transitioning — not funding long-term care beds so that seniors are forced to live in the psychiatric ward of the regional hospital?

Hon. G. Abbott: I saw this member's comments in the media a few days ago, and I have to begin by saying how sad and unfortunate it is that this member, before she spouted off the way she did in the media, didn't take the time to speak to the Interior Health Authority about what was….

Well, she smiles. But I think this is sad and unfortunate — that a member would say the things that she did in the media without speaking to the families of the people who are receiving care. I think it's sad and unfortunate.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. G. Abbott: What she said is not true. What she said was irresponsible, reckless, dishonest and, I think, most unfortunate.

The residents to which she refers are not in a psychiatric ward. They are in a separate wing of the Daly Pavilion. Had she taken the opportunity to talk to the families, to talk to IH, she would not be in the position now where she should be apologizing to those same residents and families.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Before we continue, I advise the minister to be careful in the words that he's using.

Continue, Member.

K. Conroy: I want to make it perfectly clear that I have talked to the IHA, and it is a matter of funding. It's a matter of not being adequately funded to fund publicly funded beds. So not only do they have three seniors that are housed in the Daly Pavilion in Trail at the regional hospital; they have 11 families who have their seniors in acute care beds.
[ Page 13382 ]

Meanwhile, there are ten perfectly good long-term care beds lying empty — empty because this minister will not adequately fund long-term care beds in this province or in our area.

I do talk to the people in my community, and I know what's going on in my community, unlike the arrogant rhetoric that's coming from this minister. So I think it's time…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

K. Conroy: …this member started properly funding long-term care beds. There are beds there that could be funded instead of putting out the rhetoric that he does.

Hon. G. Abbott: The frail elderly and others who are waiting for residential care beds and who are currently in acute care beds…. As I noted the other day — on Tuesday — in 2001, when we took office, there was a one-year wait…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. G. Abbott: …for residential care. Today it is about 30 days — a dramatic reduction in the wait time.

ALC, alternative-level-of-care, patient-days between 1996 and 2001 increased by 128 percent — 128 percent. They have been reduced by 30 percent from 2001 to today despite that. Those residents are in a self-contained wing. They are not in the psychiatric ward. The member should apologize for that.

[1440]

GOVERNMENT SPENDING ON ADVERTISING

M. Farnworth: Well, it's been almost six weeks since the Premier made his announcement that he wants to stop wasteful government spending. But so far we've heard nothing. In fact, the only suggestions are going to come from the budgets of the independent offices of the Legislature.

One thing they've made very clear is that they're not going to cancel the ads that have been running on TV ad nauseam, 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The Minister of Finance says it's because they have contractual obligations. Well, my question to the Minister of Finance is this.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue.

M. Farnworth: Will he table in this House this afternoon those so important contracts that cannot be cancelled and stop the wasted advertising?

Hon. C. Hansen: This is interesting coming from a member who, at the time when he was a cabinet minister, as the Minister of Health…. I think Mike Smyth, in his column in July of 2000, labelled him as the cabinet tourist traveller of the world, with the highest international travel budget of any minister.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. C. Hansen: It's interesting when we hear the members of the opposition complain about advertising when they themselves are blatantly flogging the picture of their leader in newspapers around the province.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Minister, just take your seat for a second.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Hon. C. Hansen: Blatantly flogging pictures of….

Mr. Speaker: No props, please.

Hon. C. Hansen: My apologies, Mr. Speaker.

Blatantly flogging pictures of their leader in advertisements placed around this province at taxpayers' expense. What we have seen over the last six weeks in British Columbia is a….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. C. Hansen: What we have seen over the last six weeks is a marked distinction in the leadership offered by political parties that are represented in this chamber. On October 22 we saw the Premier come down with a ten-point plan that British Columbians in every corner of this province have said speaks to the needs of their families, and that's in stark contrast to the kind of leadership, or I should say the lack of leadership, that we have seen from the official opposition.

Instead, what we have seen is reckless spending commitments. We have seen proposals that are
[ Page 13383 ]
irresponsible in terms of the future budget of the province.

[End of question period.]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Point of Privilege
(Reservation of Right)

K. Conroy: I reserve my right to stand on a point of privilege.

J. Kwan: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Introductions by Members

J. Kwan: I ask the House to please welcome Fred Dawe and Michelle Colussi, who are volunteer board members of the B.C. Schizophrenia Society, and I'm sure that they'd be more than happy to take up the minister's offer in question period to meet with them today to resolve the funding crisis that this government has caused to the society.

Tabling Documents

Hon. W. Oppal: I have the honour to present the following reports: the British Columbia Ferry Commission annual report for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2008; the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal annual report, ending 2007-08; the report on multiculturalism for 2005-06 and '06-07; the Public Guardian and Trustee of British Columbia's annual report for 2007-2008; and the British Columbia Utilities Commission annual report, 2007-2008.

Petitions

N. Simons: I'm presenting a petition on behalf of residents of the lower Sunshine Coast, some 2,252 of them, who are asking for government to once again put pressure on B.C. Ferries to accommodate residents' needs, especially during peak travelling times.

[1445]

G. Coons: A petition to present — 286 signatures from constituents from Stewart who are concerned with the resignation of their doctors, putting their hospital in a crisis, and who are petitioning to have their hospital at full operational status.

D. Routley: I seek leave to make an announcement.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Tributes

MARY BOWEN-COltHURST

D. Routley: I'd like the House to help me celebrate the birthday of Mary E.M. Bowen-Colthurst. Her birthday was on October 26. Her birthdate was October 26, 1908, which makes her a sterling 100 years old. So let's celebrate Ms. Bowen-Colthurst.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: I call continued committee stage debate on Bill 45.

Prior to the committee commencing deliberations, the Minister of Health has a request of leave to make a comment.

[1450]

Statements

withdrawal of comments

Hon. G. Abbott: A few moments ago in question period, in response to a question from the member for West Kootenay–Boundary, I used an unparliamentary expression in one of my answers, and I did not wish to embarrass or offend the member. I withdraw that comment.

Committee of the Whole House

Economic Incentive and Stabilization
Statutes Amendment Act, 2008

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 45; Economic Incentive and Stabilization Statutes Amendment Act, 2008; S. Hawkins in the chair.

The committee met at 2:54 p.m.

Hon. C. Hansen: I guess before we proceed with the next section, I would like to correct something that I said earlier today, because I was mistaken in something I said, and I would like to correct it on the record.

I had indicated that an owner of a manufactured home that was on a rented pad, because they didn't pay property tax, would not be eligible for a property tax deferment. I have been since enlightened. It is true to say that an owner of a manufactured home on a manufactured home park, who rents the pad on which the home
[ Page 13384 ]
sits, is liable for property taxes and, as such, would be eligible for the new temporary tax deferment program, and this is consistent with the existing tax deferment program as well.

[1455]

Section 17 approved.

On section 18.

B. Ralston: This amendment adds additional circumstances in which, in section 277 of the Financial Institutions Act, orders might be made. Can the minister explain the legislative purpose in bringing this amendment?

Hon. C. Hansen: Currently under the legislation there is a requirement that if there is an issue where the superintendent or FICOM itself recognizes where intervention is required, the current legislation requires a two-step process. First of all, they have to put in supervision, and then, secondly, they can put in an administrator.

We believe that there is potential that there could be a circumstance, although there is certainly none that would require this that we know of today. But if there was a circumstance that required faster intervention with an administrator, without going through the stage of having a supervisor in place, this amendment would provide for that.

B. Ralston: So it's simply to make it easier for FICOM to step into a credit union's financial affairs if it's warranted and to do so more quickly. Would that be a fair summary then?

Hon. C. Hansen: Yes, that's correct.

B. Ralston: Just on the other proposed addition, section 277.2, I don't quite understand. Perhaps the minister can explain the purpose of this. I would have thought, in the delegation of powers, that that was open to the commission to appoint who it chose.

Hon. C. Hansen: This provision is simply to make it clear that if FICOM or the superintendent appoints an administrator, the commission may also appoint additional people to assist the administrator. This is a clause that's found in the Bank Act, and we felt it was appropriate that this be mirrored in our legislation.

Section 18 approved.

On section 19.

B. Ralston: Section 19 proposes to amend section 285 of the Financial Institutions Act in subsection (1) by substituting some language, authorizing delegation "to the stabilization authority any of the commission's powers under 277 (a) to (d) in relation to that credit union." Can the minister first explain what the stabilization authority is and the purpose of this proposed amendment?

Hon. C. Hansen: What I'll do is just read the definition of the stabilization authority. "The Stabilization Central Credit Union of British Columbia was incorporated in 1989 to introduce some elements of self-regulation within the provincial credit union system. It monitors credit unions and can take early action to correct any identified problems." Credit unions must maintain membership in Stabilization Central as a condition of holding a business authorization. Stabilization Central supervises credit unions under direction from FICOM or credit unions that voluntarily come under its supervision.

[1500]

B. Ralston: In the next subsection, it appears to repeal the present subsection (2) and appears to limit the powers of revocation — not of a delegation but of the language that follows in subsection 285(1)(d). I'm wondering. What's the purpose of that amendment?

Hon. C. Hansen: The sections under subsection (2) which are being eliminated pertain only to subsection (d) above. With the removal of subsection (d) from subsection (1), that particular portion of subsection (2) is no longer required.

B. Ralston: The explanatory note provided with the bill says: "…removes the requirement for the Commission to delegate powers with respect to a credit union that has asked to be put under supervision." In reading section 285, I don't see that language. So I'm wondering if my understanding of it is wrong or the note is perhaps a little bit misleading.

Hon. C. Hansen: Under the current wording, FICOM is required to delegate. It must delegate to the stabilization authority all of the commission's powers. So we feel that in the case, for example, of a larger credit union, the Stabilization Credit Union may not have the capacity to handle the administration of a very large entity. So the requirement, as it was currently worded, was that it must be delegated. By removing this subsection (d), it allows for FICOM itself to step in and administer, should that be a more appropriate way to provide that oversight.

Section 19 approved.

On section 20.

B. Ralston: The explanatory note says simply that this "repeals the regulation-making power made redundant
[ Page 13385 ]
by the proposed amendment to section 266 (2)…." This is basically just legislative tidying up. Is that correct?

Hon. C. Hansen: This is just consequential amendments. If we remove the threshold from $100,000 and lift it to unlimited, then the references to separate accounts become moot. Therefore, we're removing it from the act.

Section 20 approved.

On section 21.

B. Ralston: This proposes an amendment to section 49 of the Law and Equity Act. The explanatory note says that it "provides the same rights to designated beneficiaries of holders of tax-free savings accounts as exist for designated beneficiaries of holders of retirement savings plans registered under the Income Tax Act…."

I take it that this amendment is designed to accommodate the new federal — I think it's called TFSA — tax-free savings account of a maximum of $5,000 a year that comes into force on January 1, 2009, if I understand correctly.

Hon. W. Oppal: Yes. The simple answer is yes. This amendment, as well, adds to the definition of "registered plan" so that a beneficiary designate would not be in a position wherein the funds in a plan would go to intestacy or go to an estate rather than to the beneficiary designate.

B. Ralston: So that would be, just for the public who may be watching or interested, much like an RRSP, where one designates a beneficiary. Those accounts, as a part of the process of opening them up, would require you to designate a beneficiary. If you are so unfortunate as to die, that amount passes immediately through to the designated beneficiary and not through your estate and all the process of probating an estate. Is that accurate?

[1505]

Hon. W. Oppal: Yes. The answer is yes.

Section 21 approved.

On section 22.

B. Ralston: This is a separate amendment to a separate act, the Pension Benefits Standards Act, and it refers to what are called additional voluntary contributions. I'm wondering if the minister could define what is meant by additional voluntary contributions and why it is necessary to bring this amendment.

Hon. W. Oppal: Well, the purpose here is to protect the additional voluntary contributions so they can have the same protection and the same force and effect as other contributions that may be made to a plan.

B. Ralston: Just so that I understand why the amendment is necessary. At the present time additional voluntary contributions to…. These are private pensions, I take it, not RRSPs. Are they not protected from the process of, I think it is, execution, seizure or attachment? Is that correct?

Hon. W. Oppal: Perhaps I didn't make it clear. The additional voluntary contributions to pensions are not currently protected. They are treated similar to contributions to RRSPs for most purposes. They are simply administered by a pension plan administrator instead of an RRSP administrator.

B. Ralston: I guess that in practical terms, if there are additional voluntary contributions, how would someone who is a creditor who is seeking execution….? In the past would they have been commingled? Do they keep separate accounts? Is it partly just to simplify administration that this amendment is brought, or is there some broader purpose?

Hon. W. Oppal: They would, in the circumstances, keep separate accounts.

B. Ralston: Just to make sure I understand, then. If this amendment were to pass, that segregation of the additional voluntary and the other contributions would no longer be necessary because they would all be exempt from attachment or seizure. Is that right?

Hon. W. Oppal: The segregation of the funds would continue because there are other reasons for that, but they would not be subject to seizure. That's the important issue here.

[1510]

B. Ralston: Then I take it that in the cases of the exceptions…. I notice a reference in the proposed amendment to a maintenance order as defined in the Family Maintenance Enforcement Act. Would that portion which would otherwise be beyond execution or seizure be kept in a separate account and available should that be necessary in the case of a family maintenance enforcement action?

Hon. W. Oppal: The answer is yes. The family maintenance enforcement program would be in a position where they could seize them because of the policy reasons. That is, under the FMEP, children are the beneficiaries of those funds. The intent is to recognize that the interests of children take priority over the retirement benefits that may accrue to any person who is a holder of one of these plans.
[ Page 13386 ]

B. Ralston: Just so I understand the exemptions, then. In the existing section 63(3.1)…. It's referred to in (3.2)(c). That list of exemptions — excess contributions, notice of attachment, an order of garnishment and an attachment order — continues in the current section 63(3.1). Is that correct?

Hon. W. Oppal: The answer is yes.

Section 22 approved.

On section 23.

B. Ralston: We now move in the bill to what's called part 3, "Property Value Assessment." These are a proposed series of amendments brought to various acts concerning the assessment process here in British Columbia.

This obviously was initiated by an announcement by the Premier at that most non-partisan of all forums in the province, the B.C. Liberal convention up in Whistler. That's where the announcement was first made public.

I think many have been struck by the haste with which these amendments appear to have been put together. Mr. Cayo, who is a columnist with The Vancouver Sun who writes on financial matters, has been in discussion with the minister and reported on some of those discussions in the newspaper.

[1515]

What is striking about this series of proposed amendments following upon the Premier's announcement is just how scrambled and how at cross-purposes these various announcements and proposed amendments — zigzags of policy — all seem to be.

The minister is quoted, and perhaps he can begin by clarifying this, if he chooses to. He conceded — and this is referring to the minister — that the program had been announced before all the details were worked out, a decision he defended as an effort to get some good news out fast to help calm people's response to economic turmoil.

Will the minister confirm that the primary objective of these amendments is to get out some purported good news rather than to make good, responsible tax policy here in the Legislature of British Columbia?

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

Hon. K. Krueger: I'd like to begin by introducing the people who are with me in the chamber. To my right is Mr. Bob de Faye, the Deputy Minister of Small Business, Revenue and Regulatory Reform. To my left is Ms. Connie Fair, the president and chief executive officer of B.C. Assessment, and behind us is Mr. Rob Fraser, the executive director of the Small Business and Revenue property assessment services branch.

In answer to the critic's question, our economy in British Columbia is underpinned by the government's solid fiscal performance over the last seven-plus years delivering on our fiscal plan. It's reinforced by the measures that gave rise to the legislation before us, including this one. It's the government's desire and intent — and this legislation follows through on those — to protect British Columbians from the kind of distress that's being experienced by people around the world in the current global economic turmoil.

B.C. Assessment, as I think everyone in this chamber agrees, is a superbly well-run organization. Ms. Fair has a long history of working with them, and it's been my distinct pleasure to be thoroughly briefed by Ms. Fair and by the board of B.C. Assessment since my appointment to this position in June.

In our discussions over the months between June 23 and now, we talked about the fact that assessment property values had been rising tremendously quickly for quite some time in British Columbia. In October Ms. Fair and the chair of the authority booked a briefing meeting with me and said that their data revealed that sometime in May the real estate market in British Columbia peaked.

As the critic is aware, I'm sure, valuation dates for successive assessment years are July 1 of the previous year. So the 2008 roll was based on a valuation date of July 1, 2007. In the normal course of events, the 2009 roll would have been based on the valuation date of July 1, 2008.

In this briefing I was advised by these people, who are universally respected, that the decline in real estate sales prices was demonstrating to them that the B.C. Assessment roll, which in the normal course of events would have been produced — and assessment notices would have gone out — in January, was going to be somewhere between 10 and 11 percent too high for the actual values.

They showed me graphs, which I believe are now on their websites and available for public viewing, that demonstrated a downward trend and at that time demonstrated that the values had dropped to about the value of November 2007, rather than the higher values of July 1, 2008.

The words stand out clearly in my mind that the assessment authority was tremendously concerned about this. So we talked about how we should respond to that, and there were various suggestions. Of course, the decline isn't the same in all parts of the province.

Ultimately, the cabinet made a decision that we would rely on the most solid benchmark that we know we have, which is the 2008 assessment roll based on a valuation date of July 1, 2007. That roll has already been through the appeal process for those who wanted to appeal. I believe that 98.4 percent of titleholders did not appeal. Some properties — and they are in the very small minority — are still working through the process for various reasons.

[1520]
[ Page 13387 ]

The decision that was made is the one that we'll be talking about in the next sections of the legislation, and that is that we would publish a 2009 roll providing both the 2009 and 2008 numbers, which are entirely the creations of the normal process of B.C. assessments but using the lower of the two numbers.

One of my duties in this position is to review taxpayer appeals personally, because they appeal directly to me. The ones that I have reviewed to date…. I have not seen anyone appeal that their assessment is too high. I'm told that that happens on occasion, but I haven't seen any of those.

So the government believes that it would have been a matter of very substantial concern to British Columbians if well over a million assessments came out showing assessed values on people's homes and businesses that they would feel were too high, because they were. That is why we made the move that we did.

The critic presumes to quote a newspaper columnist who was not saying that he was quoting myself. He was giving a Reader's Digest condensed version of a conversation between us. But the point that I made was…. He asked me why government wouldn't have waited until all of the questions that could be asked about a decision like this had been answered. I responded that that would have taken months, and the process is such that the roll needed to go into production with the authority's computer. The assessments need to come out in January.

This is a decision that we felt then and feel now would undergird the public's confidence in the authority, in the process and would, coupled with the other extraordinary measures of this legislation, reassure British Columbians that our province will continue to operate with remarkable stability, with a growing economy and under the care of a government that cares very much about the personal circumstances of all British Columbians.

B. Ralston: Well, I accept what the minister says about the professionalism of the board of directors of B.C. Assessment. I have the digest of their governance practices here with me. I'm looking at 5(2). They have a working relationship with the responsible minister. They meet regularly with the minister to provide advice and recommendations. The minister has an open invitation to attend all board and committee meetings of B.C. Assessment.

But would the minister not agree that in this circumstance it's highly unusual to intervene directly in the operation of an independently constituted board run by very professional standards in order to put together an announcement for the Premier to make at the Liberal Party convention?

Certainly, political conventions have their place in the political process. Everyone understands that. Obviously, there's a certain understandable partisan rhetoric that takes place at a political convention, but surely….

Is the minister not prepared to agree that what really happened here was that the Premier wanted something to announce to the convention and that this process was rushed through, over the objections of the professional advice that he had from B.C. Assessment, in order to make a political splash up at the convention at Whistler? Isn't that really what happened here?

Hon. K. Krueger: No, that isn't true at all. There were no objections from the assessment authority. I would not have been aware — and the government would not have been aware — of the details of the problem if the assessment authority hadn't fulfilled its obligation to British Columbians to come forward and say: "This process, which we do so thoroughly…."

I'd already been well briefed on how they do assessments. I had toured their office in Kamloops. I had seen a personal example on my own house of how thorough the authority is and how detailed its market information is. These people responsible for this system, knowing it inside and out, came to me and said: "We are very concerned."

[1525]

What would a responsible NDP government — if there ever was such a thing, and I've never seen it — do with that information? British Columbia has had the misfortune of two NDP governments, and they've been a disaster both times.

I got a letter from one of the member's colleagues, and it was pages of: "Did you do a study on this? Did you do a study on that?"

You know, it's classic, because that's what we saw in the ten sad years of the '90s. It was analysis paralysis — a government that just wasn't capable of making a good decision or doing the right thing, a government that brought about the foundering of the economy and took us from best-performing economy in Canada to worst and kept us there for ten years.

Actually, the member's question is a cynical and crass question, and in fact, there were no protests from B.C. Assessment. In fact, we have operated with their professional advice throughout, and the system itself operates in lockstep. It has very clearly laid out how an assessment roll is produced, and the only way to change that is to do an amendment to the act, which is what we have before us.

B. Ralston: Well, I can see that I'm not going to get an answer to that particular question. Is the minister, then, saying that the advice that was announced — to freeze the assessments at the 2007 level — at the convention was the advice that was given by B.C. Assessment? Because it became very apparent rather quickly that that wasn't going to work, and then this system of the dual assessment dates was adopted a little bit later.

Is this, again, advice from the assessment authority, or is the minister going to accept responsibility for making
[ Page 13388 ]
the decision himself — not blaming the highly talented professional advice that he got? I can't believe that there wasn't a note of caution in advice that was given to the minister. Given his responses here, I'd be interested in hearing how it moved from advice to freeze on one date to advice to have a choice between two dates.

Hon. K. Krueger: The word "freeze" was introduced in the chamber just now by that member. It's not the word that the Premier used in his announcement. In any event, it's difficult to come up with exactly the right word for the delicate thing that needed to be done here.

Certainly, I had concerns, and the government did too. So did the authority. Because government's role is to make policy and set policy, and the civil service role and the various Crown corporations' and authorities' role is to implement policy.

This is a very unusual circumstance that the world is in economically. It's been referred to as an economic earthquake. I wonder what the member would think in a real earthquake. Should government not act on a question like this if people's houses had fallen down? Well, we have seen economic turmoil all around the world. There was an opportunity here to make sure that an error did not occur that was about to occur in the normal course of events.

[H. Bloy in the chair.]

We absolutely continued to confer, from the time that I was alerted to the problem in that briefing meeting through the time of the announcement, through the creation of the legislation. The consultations included consultations with the UBCM. I tried to reach the president of the UBCM just before the Premier was going to announce this measure. I missed him, left a voice mail and talked to him right after.

Actually, the UBCM doesn't have a big problem with these changes. They want to make sure it's a temporary thing, and it is — for the 2009 year alone, that assessment roll alone. It will be repealed January 10 of 2010, so it is a temporary measure. They want to make sure that they participate with us in communication. They want to make sure that people understand that assessments are one issue and that mill rates and taxation decisions are another, and the latter….

J. Les: They don't understand that over there.

Hon. K. Krueger: The member says that they don't understand that. I don't know that the members opposite do, because that's the truth of the matter. Local governments decide levels of taxation. They make a lot of such decisions, completely independent of the province.

[1530]

In fact, B.C. Assessment continues to operate independently and is applying its professional expertise to make sure that this is done right — have given us excellent advice in preparation of the legislation and are conducting the administration of the matter.

B. Ralston: Well, I would suggest that the global turmoil is mirrored by the turmoil in the minister's office in attempting to handle this botched piece of legislation and get it here before the House.

The minister says that he left a message for President Hobson. I have a letter here that's dated November 17, 2008, from Gary MacIsaac, who's the executive director of the Union of B.C. Municipalities. He says in the letter here: "The UBCM was not consulted in advance of this announcement, although President Hobson did receive a phone call from the hon. minister on November 1, just prior to the announcement being made."

Given that the assessment rolls are the basis on which municipalities set their mill rate and begin their budget process, and given the integral link between those two — the keen interest of UBCM over the years and understandable interest in those processes — I'm surprised that the UBCM wasn't consulted.

So will the minister confirm what's said in this letter by Mr. MacIsaac — that the UBCM was not consulted and that he left a voice mail for the president immediately before the Premier made his announcement at the B.C. Liberal convention in Whistler?

Hon. K. Krueger: I'm pleased that the critic confirms what I just said — that it was Mr. Hobson that I left a message for and that I spoke with after. But in fact, since that announcement there has been a lot of dialogue between B.C. Assessment and the UBCM.

On November 12, for example, there was a meeting between Gary MacIsaac, the executive director of the UBCM; Brenda Gibson, the general manager of UBCM; Dale Wall, the deputy minister, Ministry of Community Development; Rob Fraser, who's here with us in the chamber, the executive director of property assessment services, Ministry of Small Business and Revenue; and Blair Schumacher, the manager of property assessment services, Ministry of Small Business and Revenue.

There has been a lot of dialogue and correspondence between ministry staff and the authority since, and both the authority and the government believe that this legislation sets out the mechanism where we can deliver on what is a really strong piece, stabilizing British Columbians' confidence in their government, in the authority and in the correctness of the assessments that people receive on their homes.

If any have doubts in that the system will produce a roll which will have the lower of the numbers for the July 1, 2007 to July 1, 2008 valuation dates, if people feel their property value is actually below those, they will have all the normal rights of appeal through property assessment
[ Page 13389 ]
review panels, the Property Assessment Appeal Board — everything that's always been available to them.

B. Ralston: In those meetings, I understand — judging from what's said in this letter from Mr. MacIsaac — the UBCM expressed its deep concern about moving away from market-based assessment. I'm quoting from the letter from Mr. MacIsaac, the executive director of the UBCM: "Once the province moves away from market-based assessment to something else, it is challenging to return to the original system."

One of the strengths of B.C. Assessment and the reason it's held in such high esteem in other jurisdictions is that it is a market-based system with integrity and absence of political intervention and with well-known principles that deliver accurate assessment rolls each year to the 1.8 million properties — I think it is — in British Columbia.

So when an organization like the Union of B.C. Municipalities expresses that kind of concern — and there are other organizations, and I'll reference those as well — what is the minister's response? Why was this undertaken, given the deep concern that not only the UBCM has but other organizations which I'll refer to shortly?

[1535]

The very messy, confusing result does not appear to…. The process doesn't appear to justify that, and it's a difficult, I think…. And I'll get to the further objections of the UBCM shortly as to why they think this is a problem.

But will the minister agree that moving away from a market-based assessment, the very fundamental principle of B.C. Assessment, is a mistake?

Hon. K. Krueger: I wonder if the opposition doesn't think that having almost all of the assessments on the 2009 roll…. Knowingly going into a situation where almost all of them would be too high would be a much messier situation.

This situation arose not through error on anybody's part in British Columbia. It started, as the member knows, with a mistake in financing in the U.S.A., has swept the world and rocked it, but not rocked most individual British Columbians very much. They would have been rocked by having assessments which, on average, we believed would be at least 10 percent to 11 percent too high for residential, an average of 21.6 percent too high for businesses — people justifiably upset right across the board.

This is a macro adjustment on a market-valued basis. It is the assessment authority which is the expert on what values were July 1, 2007, on what they were July 1, 2008, and as close as anyone can be expert, on what they are right now.

But we have a system in place for people to appeal, as I already said. They can do that if they wish to, and our very best benchmark is the existing roll. When the member speaks scornfully of having both numbers on the same assessment…. They always do. Last year's assessment number is always shown on this year's roll when the assessment notices come out to people.

But in this case the authority, through the authority of this legislation, is going to use the lower of the numbers. It's difficult to see why this is so difficult for these members to understand. I can't believe that the authority the critic relies on is a newspaper columnist who clearly didn't know what was going to be produced. I wasn't going to tell him the details of legislation that hadn't come before the House yet.

I did phone him to offer some clarification of the direction we were going on a Friday. He told my assistant he was on holidays so he couldn't take the call, and the column was published on Saturday — about which I think he's quite embarrassed now, as he probably is about a subsequent one. Probably the greatest embarrassment of all to him is that he's being quoted by a socialist opposition that clearly doesn't know what it's talking about.

The recommendations that come at the end of the letter that the critic is referring to, written by Mr. Gary MacIsaac of the UBCM, are only three.

He recommends, first, that the assessment freeze is a temporary measure limited to this year only, with no opportunity to continue the freeze without future legislative amendments. I've already confirmed on the record — the member has it in front of him in the legislation — that that is the case. It'll be repealed by this same legislation January 1, 2010.

Second recommendation: consultation with UBCM on all remaining aspects of the assessment freeze, including details of the legislative amendments and adjustment mechanism and any other ancillary changes. You see this dealt with in the legislation. The people who are with me have been conferring with the UBCM and will continue to do that, and that's a regular and ongoing thing. This government has tremendous respect for the UBCM. The Premier is a former chair of the UBCM, as the member should know.

And then the third recommendation: provincial communication with property owners clarifying that the freeze on assessment is separate and distinct from property tax rates set by local governments and other taxing jurisdictions, as well as explaining the mechanics of the freeze.

Well, I just put that on the record, although it didn't really need to be because, generally, most people know it.

[1540]

One of the comical things about the ridiculous second reading contributions that the members opposite proffered is that they don't even agree with each other. Some say this is a nothing move — that it didn't amount to anything at all. To some, you'd think the free world had come to an end. None of them seem to acknowledge the
[ Page 13390 ]
fact that this jurisdiction is doing remarkably well when jurisdictions all around the world aren't.

It's not just because there were good times, as they repeatedly said. And they have been good times since there's been a B.C. Liberal government. It's because we did the things we said we'd do to create a solid economy.

Interjection.

The Chair: Member. Member.

Continue.

Hon. K. Krueger: We believe that if you cut people's taxes and leave the money in the pockets and accounts of the people and organizations who earned it, they create jobs. And it's true. They've created over 400,000 new jobs since we've been government.

We've achieved a triple-A credit rating. We've paid back the accumulated operating deficits of ten years of that miserable NDP government that we followed. All of those things have come true. We didn't do that by not listening and consulting with the UBCM. We didn't do that by being afraid to make tough decisions.

We delivered on our financial plan. It has delivered exactly the results that we said that it would. That's why it's been good times in British Columbia, and that's why our economy is still growing in the face of all of these things that have gone wrong worldwide.

B.C. Assessment has a great information distribution system, and they'll certainly continue to clarify to anyone who needs clarification how this process will unfold. People are always invited to contact B.C. Assessment individually if they have questions about their assessment, and then they will have the normal appeal processes if they are not happy with what they see.

B. Ralston: The assessment authority has been around for a number of years. Obviously, there have been market fluctuations before. One thinks of the '80s, particularly, and the collapse of the real estate market where values fell, I think, as much as 25, 30 or 40 percent in some cases. There were other fluctuations in the real estate market over the years, yet this is the first time this so-called solution has been offered. Obviously, there are lags in a process like the assessment authority, given the volume of properties to be assessed and the time necessary to prepare the roll.

Given that fluctuations in price are the staple of real estate markets, why is this solution being chosen when it was never chosen in the past, when there were far more severe fluctuations in the market? Or is it just that the political need of the government to have something announceable for the convention at Whistler was more extreme this time?

Hon. K. Krueger: No living British Columbian, unless they were a child at the time, has ever seen economic turmoil such as we have been going through. The Great Depression was the last time there was a precedent anything like this, and we are doing remarkably well in spite of that. A lot of jurisdictions aren't, and a lot of people are very concerned. Anything that a government can do to make sure that we deal with those concerns is something an opposition ought to be supporting in times like this.

If there's something to debate, debate intelligently, not with the kind of wild stuff that is in Hansard now. You folks should be ashamed of what you had to say.

There are 1.85 million properties whose titles are on the B.C. Assessment system. Of those, 82 percent will see no change in their assessment when this roll is produced, and 94.4 percent will either stay the same or decrease. So it was the right thing to do. British Columbians will agree with that.

I challenge every constituency MLA across the way to see if they can find a single constituent who doesn't think it would have been a bad idea to let the assessment roll be produced with numbers that were wrong.

B. Ralston: If I might return to my question. I know there are very capable professionals there with the minister who might be able to assist him, and he can put aside the political rhetoric and maybe answer the question.

The fluctuations that take place in the real estate market are well known, and certainly in the '80s — I'm thinking of 1981-82 — the drop in prices was more severe than we've witnessed thus far. "This solution" that's put forward — and I use this solution in quotation marks — seems to have never been used, despite more severe fluctuations in the past.

[1545]

So I'm wondering: why is this proposed solution coming forward at this time, when it never has been used in the past?

Hon. K. Krueger: There was tremendous angst in the 1980s. I remember 1981. Surely the member opposite does as well. There was a dramatic drop in people's property values. B.C. Assessment Authority had only been created in the '70s, not long before that. There were fewer than a million properties at the time. Now there are almost two million — a vastly larger number of cases — at a time when, yes, British Columbia is doing better than any place else I can think of, with the possible exception of Alberta. But it's still a worrisome time for people.

We're the government. We're the people in a position to do something about a problem that was very obvious to us and, I submit, would have been very obvious to any of the member's constituents that he's supposed to be representing. We had an opportunity to avoid people having those problems, so we took it.
[ Page 13391 ]

B. Ralston: It's regrettable that the minister won't draw on the advice of the experts that he has available to him there. I know Miss Fair — and her biography is set out on the website — is a very distinguished person, very knowledgable about this area. I think the minister might benefit from that advice, but it doesn't look like he's going to take that advice.

The other thing that the Union of B.C. Municipalities expressed concern about was that this policy or this announcement by the Premier at the Liberal Party convention in Whistler might well confuse people who would think that an assessment freeze equated a freeze in their property taxes.

They were concerned — and they expressed that concern in this letter from Mr. MacIsaac — that the municipalities would get the blame when that turned out not to be true, because of course the relationship between assessment and the mill rate is a complicated one in the case of any individual property, depending on the degree to which that individual property has followed the market trend.

Can the minister confirm that the concern that the Union of B.C. Municipalities raises is a legitimate one — that the announcement of the policy does raise those concerns? What is he going to do in dealing with this policy to make sure that people understand that that is not the case and that the fear that the Union of B.C. Municipalities expresses won't be realized?

Hon. K. Krueger: We believe that communication with constituents is the responsibility of every elected person and accurate communication — not the kind of miscommunication that is deliberately thrown out by the members opposite as has been coming out in their remarks.

Mr. Cayo can go off on a tangent with no information if he chooses, and he bears that responsibility professionally if he does. But members opposite are responsible to their constituents not to frighten them but to inform them.

Absolutely, if they have that doubt in their mind about how the system works, people need to have it explained — not deliberately clouded by their own MLAs. I think every member opposite has the duty to tell people what the difference is between an assessment and a mill rate.

I took the critic's advice and spoke moments ago with the CEO of B.C. Assessment, Miss Connie Fair, who is seated to my left. She has advised me, contrary to the member's assertion, that there has only ever once before in the history of B.C. Assessments been a decline in the average assessments, and that was in the fall of 1981. Did I say 2001 before? If so, I want to correct the record; 1981 is what I was talking about. Otherwise, we've had a stable or increasing roll value consistently.

The CEO also confirms to me that in 1982 it was a time of great instability and tremendous angst among owners, and they had more than five times the number of people very, very concerned about their assessment values than they normally have.

B. Ralston: Well, unfortunately the minister really doesn't answer the question, but I think I'm used to that.

What the UBCM said in its letter is — and this is from Mr. MacIsaac:

"The Premier has stated the assessment freeze will 'provide time for markets to stabilize and reflect proper market values so property owners know how much they will pay in property taxes, and local governments know how much they will collect to provide services.'"

That's the quotation from the Premier chosen by Mr. MacIsaac.

[1550]

He goes on to comment:

"Many property owners do not make the distinction between assessment and property taxes paid and may draw a conclusion that property taxes have been capped. This tendency is likely to be exacerbated because of the choices the province has made in its communication materials. By specifically making the connection between stabilizing assessments and certainty with respect to property taxes, the province is reinforcing the perception of property owners that an assessment freeze equals a property tax freeze.

"While the press release goes on to say that 'this will not affect municipalities' ability to set their own mill rates,' the language that has been chosen to explain the assessment freeze will undoubtedly create a need for local governments to defend any changes to property taxes, including changes at an individual property tax level."

That's not members on this side that the minister is so quick to disparage, and it's not any individual MLA here. This is from Mr. MacIsaac, the executive director of the Union of B.C. Municipalities, who is taking issue with the language chosen to explain and expressing a real concern.

So I think the minister, in fairness…. Put aside the partisan rhetoric for a moment and just answer this question: does he share that concern and understand that concern, and what is he going to do about it?

Hon. K. Krueger: Mr. Chair, we just covered that ground. I think every member of this House has a responsibility to help with the communications rather than fearmonger and frighten people.

I have told you, and it's true, that B.C. Assessment has a great system for getting information to their clients. Every year, when the assessment notices go out, an explanation goes with them. There's a table at the bottom. I can't hold it up for you because it's a rule of the House, which members opposite have been flouting all week, that you don't use props. But there's a coloured graph at the bottom that explains that the assessed value comes from B.C. Assessment. That is then applied to a tax rate that is determined by the taxing authority, and from that flows the information to the taxpayer of the taxes payable.

Very distinct steps. The assessment notice comes out to the property owners, not to the local governments. The local governments work from the roll. As you all know, if you own anything, you go in with your bill from the city and you decide how you're going to pay
[ Page 13392 ]
it — whether you make monthly payments, whether you pay it all at once or whether your bank takes care of it.

People know these things. I always hear the opposition talking about ordinary British Columbians. I don't think any British Columbians are ordinary. I think people are very smart. They're well informed, and they don't like being called ordinary British Columbians. I think that they are much brighter than the members opposite give them credit for, and the members really ought to go talk to them more instead of haranguing this House for a week with the kind of drivel that we heard in second reading. You should be embarrassed, and I hope all of your constituents read what you had to say in second reading.

If you want to get on with the clause-by-clause debate of this bill, we'll explain it to you. But as usual, you're just politicking.

B. Ralston: It is a little exasperating, Mr. Chair, to engage in debate with this minister.

I think the Union of B.C. Municipalities raises a legitimate point. They're concerned about the communications — not on the assessment notice itself, but on the public communications emanating from the Premier and from the province and how that's going to continue because they have what I regard as a very legitimate concern that the language that's been used is confusing — their concern, not mine; I'm simply quoting them — and that property owners may draw the conclusion that property taxes have been capped.

Will the minister acknowledge that that's a legitimate concern? And will he provide the House, in the process of explaining this legislation, with the manner in which he intends to explain it to the public so that that misconception is dealt with?

Hon. K. Krueger: We've already covered the fact, and I don't like to waste this House's time by repeating myself — that the end of the six-page letter had three distinct recommendations, and I've put on the record what we're doing with all three of them. So the question has been answered, member for Cariboo South.

The Chair: Member, please direct all your comments through the Chair.

[1555]

Hon. K. Krueger: Thank you, hon. Chair. I'm sorry.

But my answer to the members is to get on their horses and ride. Go do their job. Talk to their constituents. I can tell them that my constituents don't seem to be confused about this at all. I'm getting zero questions in my constituency office, zero messages to call and explain it. People understand it. The member for Cariboo South claims that my constituents ask him that. I really doubt it.

But we've had editorials saying that this is a sensible thing to do, and of course it is. People say: "Well, that's just common sense. Surely the government would never deliberately send out assessment notices that they knew were wrong." In the vast majority — way over a million assessment notices.

So people understand. The communication is being done by the members on this side of the House, by our constituency assistants who have no trouble understanding what we're doing here, by the UBCM, by the communities themselves. That letter from UBCM is taken seriously, and I've already explained what we're doing with the recommendations.

B. Ralston: The B.C. chapter of the Canadian Property Tax Association called an extraordinary meeting on hearing the Premier's announcement and expressed their concern that the province's move effectively eliminates market forces from assessment. This is a national organization that specializes, as the name suggests, in property tax.

Director David Howard of the realty tax consulting division of Altus Group said: "This is an unprecedented reaction to a situation that will resolve itself." The Altus Group. "The Premier should consider reversing this decision and allowing the system in place to address the realities of the marketplace. Only when this occurs does fairness and equity take place in the taxation model." This is an article in the real estate section of Business in Vancouver just last week — a well-known business publication.

Does the minister have any concern that reputable, knowledgable people in the area of property tax are expressing this kind of concern about the intervention into fair market value that this legislation contemplates?

Hon. K. Krueger: Certainly, we have had those inquiries on the government side, as well, from the various organizations. We've had briefing meetings. The opposition would be welcome to briefing meetings if they'd like to have them — never asked; don't seem interested, but these folks are. We've been dialoguing in person, by phone, by e-mail, by correspondence with the various organizations. Once they understood what we're actually doing, the angst evaporated.

I don't think you'd get the same response from that organization. Here's a message from my office. It names a woman who had expressed profound concerns early on, before anyone knew the details of the legislation, on behalf of a major organization. My assistant says she called regarding the previous e-mail conversations and meetings, just wanting to say thank you. "She wanted to let you know how happy she was that you took time to listen and give her some positive feedback to share with the others."

That's the sort of input we're getting. We are getting editorials saying: "Well, this makes sense." I got a call from Les Leyne. He wanted to have an interview. By the time I called him back, he said, "Actually, I've read it. It
[ Page 13393 ]
makes sense, and it's boring," and he didn't write anything on it for that reason.

Yeah, we've been dialoguing with people all along, and you folks should be too. Now that you know….

Interjection.

Hon. K. Krueger: The member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast is apparently not too respectful of Les Leyne's opinion, but his colleague has been quoting Don Cayo, who had the situation all wrong and wrote columns about it.

I don't know who the opposition relies on to formulate their opinion. It's certainly not their own intelligence after reading the legislation, because it was perfectly clear in second reading that this legislation hadn't been read. The members opposite were standing up and saying all sorts of things that had nothing to do with the legislation.

B. Ralston: Well, the minister has brushed off the Union of B.C. Municipalities; he's brushed off the Canadian Property Tax Association. He seems to have brushed off Mr. Cayo, a very distinguished, respected financial journalist with The Vancouver Sun.

Everyone seems to be out of step but the minister. But that's pretty typical of this arrogant and out-of-touch government, and this minister is an emblem. He's an emblem of that arrogance, and it's being demonstrated in spades here today.

[1600]

But I'll try to resist the temptation to respond in kind to the partisan rhetoric the minister is dishing out and see if we can't return to some questions about this process — notwithstanding the minister's inability or unwillingness to answer the most basic concerns about this process.

I know he has been very disparaged here by the minister, but one of the things that Mr. Cayo does point out…. Apparently, the minister, in the article…. Perhaps he has been misquoted again. It seems to be a common pattern with the minister. For small businesses, particularly in Vancouver, the way in which this policy will work is likely to increase their property taxes.

Mr. Cayo words it in the following way. "The total tax load for Vancouver businesses is fixed in the range of $500 million for 2009. If the big guys pay less, the little guys pay more — simple as that." That is due to the fact that the assessed value of the large commercial properties — fewer than a hundred high-end office towers — soared 30 percent or more. Given the way that works, small businesses will pay more.

Certainly, I'm sure that MLAs on both sides of the House would be concerned about that, and no doubt Vancouver MLAs on both sides of the House will be receiving inquiries about that.

I know the temptation will be to disparage Mr. Cayo and to deny that that was ever said, but it seems pretty clear here in this article. So will the minister confirm that Mr. Cayo is accurate and that by the operation of this legislation, small business in Vancouver will be paying more?

Hon. K. Krueger: Every business owner will see the two numbers on their assessment notice and will see that the lower number is used. Mr. Cayo, again, didn't have the benefit of an analysis of the actual legislation and was writing about speculative things. We had a conversation where he told me that he thought that businesses would pay more than they would have otherwise.

These are the numbers from B.C. Assessment. The average increase for an ICI property — that is, industrial, commercial, institutional — and that, of course, includes businesses and small businesses such as the critic is talking about, excluding office buildings, because that's Mr. Cayo's concern…. He thinks because there are some office towers in Vancouver that have sold at substantial amounts lately that that's going to hurt small business.

The number, excluding office buildings, for all the other businesses would have risen 21.6 percent without this change. The number for office buildings, average, would have risen 10.3 percent. So, far from dragging those other businesses' assessments up, it's a considerably lower number. And the very large towers, of which there aren't that many, have been increasing, B.C. Assessment believes, in value somewhere between 11 percent and 30 percent, but there haven't been very many that have sold.

Of the ones that have, many of them have dozens and dozens of small businesses renting from them in those towers, with triple-net leases, who certainly are going to be paying their freight with whatever taxation is applied to those buildings. That expense has flowed right through to the tenants, many of whom are small businesses.

So Mr. Cayo was speculating. He had his reasons to use that theory, but yes, he was mistaken. Those numbers are from B.C. Assessment. They can be independently confirmed with B.C. Assessment. If the critic wants a briefing, I'm sure he can still get it, but it would have been handy if he had done it before now.

B. Ralston: I'll leave aside the insulting references that the minister seems incapable of stopping.

What Mr. Cayo said, though, in this article was that the minister appeared to agree with him that small business was going to have a problem in this scheme, and they were going to pay more. He says: "Neither the minister nor I had a ready solution to suggest for the small business problem."

Then he quotes. "Let me know if you find one," he said — referring to the minister — as the interview ended.

[1605]
[ Page 13394 ]

Again, I'm sure that this reputable journalist for the leading journal of record in the province is likely wrong, according to the minister — doesn't accurately record the minister's statements. But it appears from the way in which this article is written that the minister was agreeing with Mr. Cayo's analysis that small business would pay more and that there was no solution for that, and the minister was inviting Mr. Cayo to give him one if he thought of one.

So will the minister…? I suppose he'll deny that that's a correct interpretation of what he said, but just for the record, I'll put that question to him.

Hon. K. Krueger: I really think it would behoove the opposition and the constituents of the members opposite if we talked about the legislation rather than the member's interpretation of a journalist's interpretation of a conversation that we had — which was tape-recorded, by the way, and I'd happily turn the transcript over if the members would like to see it.

But here are a couple of letters, speaking of associations. This is one from the B.C. Real Estate Association dated November 4. It says that this step for one year is a step toward providing property owners with certainty. They thought it was a good move.

Here's another letter, and this one is from….

Interjection.

Hon. K. Krueger: Actually, yeah, I'm just noting how many people it's from. It's from the Council of Tourism Associations, the B.C. Hotel Association, the B.C. Lodging and Campgrounds Association, the B.C. Fishing Resorts and Outfitters Association and the Backcountry Lodges of B.C. Association.

They say: "We would also like to take this opportunity to indicate the tourism industry's support and gratitude for the recent announcement by the Premier to cap property values at 2007 levels."

That's probably a better word than any of the ones we've used today — "cap." It makes those numbers — the July 1, 2007, valuation date reflected in the 2008 roll — a ceiling. It never made them a floor. People assumed that this word "frozen" that people were using meant that it was going to be exactly that number, but people can actually appeal that number again even though they had the opportunity in the last go-round of appeals.

I recommend to the critic, respectfully, that we get on with the legislation rather than talking about he said, she said.

B. Ralston: Well, I can see that Mr. Cayo is taking such a beating here that the minister wants to stop. So that's probably good news for Mr. Cayo, but I'm not sure about the future relationship between Mr. Cayo and the minister. After the beating that he's taken here and the assault on his professionalism, I'm sure he'll be very careful in dealing with the minister in the future.

In section 23 that's proposed here, it says that the definitions in the Assessment Act apply to this part. I take it that means what it says and that there are no changes in that. So with that, perhaps we could deal with the vote on section 23.

M. Sather: I wanted to ask the minister…. There was something he said that I didn't understand. He was talking about the towers being assessed, or that if changes hadn't been made, their rates would go up 10.3 percent and other businesses 23 percent — smaller businesses. I still wasn't clear, though, on what effect that has overall on the assessment roll.

Is it the percentage that counts, or is it the actual dollar figure? So if you have a 10.3 percent increase but on a larger base, isn't that the issue, as opposed to the percentage on a smaller base — if I've made myself at all clear to the minister?

[1610]

Hon. K. Krueger: I think it will be more clear to the member when he reads the Hansard record, because the numbers are there. They're B.C. Assessment's numbers. They can be confirmed with B.C. Assessment.

The numbers are that…. Independent of office buildings, the ICI sector — and that is businesses, including small businesses — on average would have seen a 21.6 percent increase in their evaluations. Now, that varies broadly, although those numbers are available as well, and the bulk are in the middle of the graph. So the 21.6 would have been experienced by quite a few.

B.C. Assessment broke out the office buildings assessment number in order to deal with the concern that they had seen discussed in the media and knew it was of concern to me. If it was factual, I would have felt we needed to find a way to fix it, and people had reason to think that, but they were mistaken. So the average increase for office buildings was 10.1 percent rather than the 30 percent that some people thought it was going to be.

There were a few of the high-end office buildings which had sold recently, giving us reason to believe that their valuations would have been increased from the 2008 roll by between 11 and 30 percent, but they're part of that 10.1 percent figure. So it just wasn't accurate — the theory that office buildings were going to have a huge benefit out of this at the expense of other types of business.

Section 23 approved.

On section 24.

Hon. K. Krueger: I move the amendment to section 24 that's standing in my name in the orders of the day.
[ Page 13395 ]

[SECTION 24 (1), in the definition of "2007 value" by deleting "section 3" and substituting "section 25".]

Amendment approved.

On section 24 as amended.

J. Brar: I have always been under the impression that the debate at committee stage becomes more focused and more meaningful and probably more intelligent. About this particular part of the section, Mr. Chair, there have been a number of questions, particularly about the communication of this public policy to the public — and not only the public but many people in the media, as well as UBCM, as the member for Surrey-Whalley has already said.

In fact, when I first heard about this, I was driving to my office, and the minister was trying to explain that to the popular radio host who has been part of this government before as an MLA and in the cabinet as well, Christy Clark. She kept asking questions to the minister. The minister tried to explain to her, saying that this is common sense, but at the end of the whole discussion — and I'm putting that on the record — she said: "It doesn't make sense to me." So I hope the minister will have a copy of that recording as well.

I would like to ask very simple questions, and probably we will get the simple answers for that. The first question I want to ask is related to section 24. Public policy always has a purpose, and the purpose is the public good. So what is the purpose of this particular section? If the minister can define it for an average person — I believe they are out there — who can understand the purpose of this particular section of the bill.

Hon. K. Krueger: Section 24 defines the term "2007 value" as the value determined under section 25 of this part. The "2008 value" is defined as the value of a property that would normally be determined under section 19 of the Assessment Act for the 2009 taxation year. Section 19 of the Assessment Act provides the methodology for valuation of properties at market value. Section 24(2) provides that the actual value that will be used for the purposes of the 2009 taxation year is the lesser of the 2007 and 2008 values.

[1615]

J. Brar: I think the word "sections" we understand — the people sitting in this office. I'm talking about the average Joe out there who is listening to us. I understand that the property value assessment will be frozen at the level of 2007. So what is the public good in that? How will the average Joe out there benefit from that?

Hon. K. Krueger: The benefit of that is that it reinforces the stability that British Columbians are enjoying because of the success of our economy and the success of the government and its institutions. People will have an assessment number that they can have confidence in, and they'll have an assessment number that they know wasn't inflated and then suddenly deflated by the events of the recent past. They'll have a number that is the lower of what would have been on the 2009 roll or what was on the 2008 roll. People around the province are saying that is sensible and makes sense to them.

J. Brar: I absolutely don't understand any part of that — absolutely, standing in front of the minister. I'm asking once again about this policy. Out there, for the average Joe who owns a house and if that house was there effective July 1, 2007…. What will be the benefit to that person of this particular section, of this particular component of the legislation?

Hon. K. Krueger: The constituents that the member is asking about will have the benefit of knowing that the assessment value they accepted on such a home as a result of last year's assessment process…. That value either remains their current value or it's something smaller, with some variation on the basis of things that happen to homes like further construction or destruction — fires, those sorts of things. That's a very small percentage. That's the benefit to people.

They had a chance in the process of 2008 to appeal if they thought the number was wrong, and they'll have the assurance that the number that 98.4 percent of them believed was right last time in many cases is going to be exactly the same number that they have this year.

J. Brar: I'm coming back to that average Joe who owns a house in my riding on July 1, 2007. My question is that the minister has been mentioning the figures about the property values going down about 11 percent…. People assume out there that the minister is probably talking about less taxes. Is there any correlation with this particular component of this bill, according to which the property value will be frozen at the level of 2007? Is there any correlation between that value and the taxes, property taxes going down?

Hon. K. Krueger: We've already dealt with that question. The correlation is that an assessment roll is prepared. It shows assessed values. From that, the local taxation authority applies their mill rate, their formula, to the assessment and determines the amount of taxes. But they can vary the mill rate, and they do. So the benefit is that the value, using this approach, is closer to the actual present value. We hope it's dead on, but it's the closest that anyone can determine.

Therefore, they are only being taxed on the present value of their existing property. If you buy a used car, you wouldn't want to pay tax on what it cost when it was new. You want to pay tax on its present value.
[ Page 13396 ]

J. Brar: I think we now understand the communication of this. Very simple. Average Joe out there who owns a house…. Will this particular change in this piece of legislation…? Will that person pay less taxes or not?

Hon. K. Krueger: The local taxation authority, municipality in many cases, will determine how much tax is paid. What this process does is ensure that that tax is applied to the real value of the property.

[1620]

J. Brar: I would like to correct the minister that not in many cases, but in all cases the local government will define the mill rates. So will the minister confirm, then, that as for lowering the property taxes concerned, this piece of legislation has nothing to do with that and that with this, the taxes will go down?

Hon. K. Krueger: Local governments have the power to set their mill rates and the responsibility to explain to their constituents why they set them. Our press release, our public information throughout, has said that this will not affect municipalities' ability to set their own mill rates. But surely the member is not saying that the assessment roll and the assessments themselves don't have an important part to play. Of course it's important that the assessment roll is accurate.

J. Brar: I would like to repeat once again to the minister. Will this in any fashion provide any financial support or relief to the people who own a house — the homeowners? I would like to know from the minister that this…. Can the minister either confirm that this has no relationship with that or say that, yes, this will actually put some dollars back in the pockets of the people, because this will impact in lowering the property taxes for people?

Hon. K. Krueger: This measure will ensure that British Columbians have faith in their assessed values and in the assessment roll. I've explained it so many times. I think this is a repetitious question, and I won't be getting up to answer it again.

J. Brar: Well, I will try a last time if the minister will actually give people the real answer. That's the challenge, Minister, of this particular section of the bill. That's the challenge. It's not people out there. I'm talking about the expert people. UBCM is confused. Christy Clark is confused. Vancouver reporters are confused. The opposition is confused, and probably many of the people sitting on that side are also confused.

The minister himself who is proposing these changes is confused, because the impression which has been given to the people of British Columbia under this particular section is that people will pay less taxes. That is not the case, Minister. That is not the case, but you don't want to say it because you have conveyed that message that way when you were talking to the media and when you were talking to radio programs and newspapers.

So people want to understand clearly from you. I want to understand clearly from you. The Vancouver Sun wants to understand clearly from you. Christy Clark, who has been a member of the cabinet of this government, wants to understand from you. Will this particular section of the bill reduce homeowner taxes or not? Yes or no? Don't leave it to the municipality. They know that. You tell us, because you are proposing these changes.

Hon. K. Krueger: I will answer the question once more, because if that's what the member needs…. Our determination of assessed value does not mean that the homeowner will pay less taxes. That is a decision that is made by the taxing authority, the local government.

The Chair: Can I remind the member to direct all questions through the Chair.

J. Brar: Now, the average person will understand that I had to ask that question almost 20 times to get that answer. Thanks, Mr. Chair, by the way, to allow me to do that.

Now, it is clearly confirmed that this particular section of the bill does nothing to reduce the taxes for homeowners. That's very, very clear. It's good that the minister finally has clarified that particular component, which is very, very important. I would urge the minister to make it very clear to the public, to UBCM, to all the reporters and to the members of this House. That will be helpful.

[1625]

The next question I want to ask is if the minister can again tell the average person sitting out there…. We believe there are ordinary people and average people out there. Can the minister explain to them the implementation process of this, step by step, for the average person, the average Joe sitting out there who owns a house — as to how this process will be implemented? By the time this person gets the last document, what rights will that person have? I would appreciate if the minister can explain that.

Hon. K. Krueger: I have actually explained that already, but what happens now is B.C. Assessment produces a roll using the lower of the two numbers, either the July 1, 2007 valuation date number or July 1, 2008. The computer will generate the assessment notices to the owners. Those arrive in January.

People who have questions are invited and will be invited in correspondence from B.C. Assessment, as they always are, to call their local assessment office and deal with any questions. People who wish to appeal will
[ Page 13397 ]
be able to appeal to property assessment review panels. That process doesn't cost anything. If they don't agree with the result of that, they'll be able to appeal to the Property Assessment Appeal Board.

M. Sather: Well, it certainly is interesting to listen to this minister — any time. He's always entertaining.

But the question, clearly, that the member from Surrey has been trying to elucidate from the minister is: will this have a benefit to the people of British Columbia who own homes or not? Obviously, the answer is: it depends. It depends on what the local government decides to do. They're left, then, with the decision of either allowing their finances to drop or to raise the taxes. They get 60 percent of their income, their government finance, from local government — from taxation. What are they going to do? That's the question.

If they're going to swallow it, then I guess the minister feels good about it. He says, "Well, you know what? We saved the taxpayers of British Columbia some money." But local government…. I know my local government is saying: "No, I don't think so. It's not going to be a problem for us. We'll just have to raise the mill rate." That isn't going to help the taxpayers of British Columbia any.

The question then is: of what use is this part of the legislation? Was it an exercise to appear to have some effect in terms of addressing the huge financial issues that are before us today? It isn't clear at all that this government understands the severity of those issues. The minister said not long ago: "Well, yeah, there's a meltdown happening in the United States, but it's really not affecting British Columbians very much." I think he said: "It hasn't rocked anybody in British Columbia very much." I think that was the phrase he used.

He's from Kamloops. Hasn't he looked around at the forest industry? Now, if that's not being rocked, I don't know what is. They've been decimated by the collapse of the housing industry in the United States, and it didn't just start this fall either. It's been going on for some time now. They're in disarray. But we don't hear this government and this minister standing up to say: "You know, we're going to step forward and really do something to help that ailing industry."

One has to really wonder at the sincerity of the government around this part of the legislation at least. The UBCM…. Although the minister says that that's all straightened out and they were just confused to begin with, I don't think so. They're saying: "All right." The government, through their communications around this part of the bill, is saying that, yes, it's still up to local government as to what happens in the end. But according to the UBCM, the impression that the government has left is that taxes will go down.

They don't feel too happy about that, and they don't feel good about the lack of consultation. But I think they're used to it, unfortunately, from this government. We've seen it in a number of areas, whether it was around the run-of-the-river projects or whether it was streamside setback regulations or on and on. They are used to not being treated fairly by this government and not being consulted.

[1630]

So they also asked — the UBCM did — if they will be asked, if they will be consulted, if there are unintended consequences of this bill, because it seems that…. And in fairness to the government, no one can know for sure what's going to happen down the road here. Things are in such flux. But they want to know that they're going to be consulted ahead of time, not at the very last minute, as the minister admits that they did before moving forward with this legislation.

So I want to ask the minister, though, because I'm not clear on subsection 24(3). It says: "This section does not apply in respect of properties to which one or more of sections 20 to 24 of the Assessment Act apply, except land that is valued under section 19 of that Act."

Section 19 of the Assessment Act makes several references to supportive housing, but section 3 of this bill says that section 19 is exempt. So I just want to clarify, because I have a concern. We're trying to get supportive housing in our community. Is supportive housing, then, included in this legislation or not?

Hon. K. Krueger: Yes, supportive housing is one of the types of classification that are embraced by section 24(3). These are referred to as regulated assessments rather than market-value assessments. So the provisions that have already been legislated for supportive housing remain the same. Those properties that are listed each year have a nominal value of $1 for improvements, $1 for land.

C. Puchmayr: This system…. I mean, the entire bill is Economic Incentive and Stabilization Statutes Amendment. I fail to see how this part of the legislation is going to stimulate or stabilize the economy.

We have right now — and we talk about value of housing and what the value of housing is — a system that is an institution in British Columbia. It's a system that has a non-partial approach, with an appeals mechanism in place for coming to a decision on what an assessed value of a property is. It's a value that's respected by homebuyers, people that are purchasing homes.

It's a value that's reflective of what's truly going on in the community or in the neighbourhood with respect to values of lands. It's one that everyone feels comfortable with in understanding what their value of their home is, including banks that lend money to people who are purchasing homes, and it gives a valuation to those who are selling homes.

So here we are called into session for a short week of the Legislature — really less than four days of actual
[ Page 13398 ]
debate in the Legislature — and we see legislation like this that is really confusing the general public, with respect to, "What are the lands worth? What are the houses worth? Why is this thing necessary? Where does it stabilize the economy? Where does it have a positive effect on stabilizing the economy for a homeowner?" — when everyone knows, or people are at least starting to learn now, that this is irrelevant of any legislation or any ability of a municipality to apply a mill rate to a piece of property.

When I look at trying to understand why the government, other than…. I did hear some comments about…. There was a need for a good news story, and they had to move quickly to get something out there.

[1635]

People in my community are puzzled as to where this is going to put more money in their pocket. Where's it going to put more money in your pocket if you're selling a home, and you've elected a value of the home, and you're saying: "I'm going to take 2008-2009"? The true value of that property is the value of that property regardless of what shell game you're playing. The true value is the value.

The bank is going to have to make an evaluation of that property. With respect to taxes, the municipality is going to have to establish a mill rate in order to set the tax rate for those properties. So I fail to understand….

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

Maybe the minister can answer this. How does this piece of legislation stimulate, stabilize the economy?

Hon. K. Krueger: It seems as though each member opposite that joins the debate wants to start over again at the beginning — which is up to them, I guess. The fact is that the provisions of this bill all serve to stabilize the economy, to keep our economy competitive. When we guarantee, as the government of British Columbia, people's deposits in credit unions, that doesn't add to the deposit, but it guarantees it.

If the member doesn't think that it would be a destabilizing thing to have well over a million British Columbian titleholders upset that the government didn't seem to have realized and the assessment authority hadn't been able to react to the fact that their assessments were a good deal higher than their actual property values…. That would be a destabilizing thing. So this is an initiative by government, clearly, that is successfully assuring the continuing stability of the British Columbian economy.

C. Puchmayr: Regardless of the actual values of the property, the municipality still established a mill rate. The municipalities will go in whether the properties are assessed at an '09 level, an '08 level, an '07 level. They will establish what are the moneys that are required to provide the services that the people of the community so desire, the services that are needed to keep our public service going — to keep our pools open, to keep our parks going. Those are dictated by the mill rates that are established by municipalities irrelevant of what the assessed value of the property is.

Now, wouldn't you want to think that the true value of your property was the true value of your property? I fail to see again…. This isn't going to put more money into the pockets of people in British Columbia. Even if they were to pick a higher assessment and then sell their home and try to say, "Hey, my home's worth more," the actual value of the home is the value that is appraised, that will reflect that value.

So I fail to understand from the minister…. Maybe that's why he's hearing the question over and over again. He has not answered the question. How does this stabilize the economy and put more money in the pockets of British Columbians when, in fact, the mill rate will decide how much money people in British Columbia pay for their taxes?

Hon. K. Krueger: The fact is that the member's colleague three seats to his right already covered this question of…. Yes, the local taxation authorities, the municipalities, choose the mill rate. That's the same thing that I've been saying. The outcome of this legislation will be that property owners will understand that there's a fair sharing of taxes between assessments, because the assessments are reflecting market values.

C. Puchmayr: Then why not let the institution of the assessment authority dictate the market values and do so in the same manner they do throughout the province, with the provision that people have the ability to come and dispute whether or not they feel their assessment is right or wrong? They still have that ability. So why is there a need for this legislation, and how does this put more money in my pocket, my neighbour's pocket and their children's pockets?

Hon. K. Krueger: That question has already been thoroughly covered, including the history of the briefings that B.C. Assessment provided to me, as the minister responsible, and how this decision was made in government.

[1640]

Interjections.

The Chair: Just a minute.

C. Puchmayr: There's no answer here. To take something we have already that is working and to make it appear that we're giving a benefit to people that we really aren't is not a solution to this economy.
[ Page 13399 ]

One of the reasons we're in this situation globally is because people have been setting evaluations that haven't been accurate. So here we have now…. We're playing the same game with our real estate properties in British Columbia. Obviously, there's got to be a simple reason, Minister, why you would engage in this type of legislation to accomplish nothing.

Hon. K. Krueger: The reason is the determination on an ongoing basis to have an accurate assessment roll.

B. Ralston: Subsection (3) of section 24 refers to sections 20 to 24 of the Assessment Act and says they apply "…except land that is valued under section 19 of that Act." Sections 20 to 24 deal with a number of areas — major industry valuation, dams, power plants, ski hills, recreational improvements, port land. There are a number of others — supportive housing. But there appears to be an exclusion — land that is valued under section 19 of the act.

What is that subset of sections 20 to 24, those properties? What is the subset that is the exception that's referred to in the last clause?

Hon. K. Krueger: The land for those properties is assessed at market values. The improvements are assessed by a regulated formula.

B. Ralston: So the land in each of these categories, then…. Just so I make sure I understand, in sections 20 to 24, each of these various areas — industry valuation, dams, ski hills…. I think there are a number of others — railway property…. It doesn't apply to the improvements on that property, but it does apply to the land. Is that what I'm understanding, then?

Hon. K. Krueger: Section 24(3) provides that section 24 of this part will not apply to properties valued using sections 20 to 24 of the Assessment Act. Properties to which sections 20 to 24 of the Assessment Act apply are properties where the value is regulated through the application of special rules, formulae, update factors and annually adjusted rates.

This means that section 24 will apply to market-valued properties only, including the land on a property where the improvements are valued by regulation. Those are the major industrial properties known by the acronym MIPs in the assessment authority. But the land on those properties is valued under section 19 of the Assessment Act.

The member is correct. The examples of market-valued properties include residences, businesses and recreational property. Some examples of the types of properties that are valued using regulated values are major industrial improvements on land, as opposed to land itself — ski hills, port lands, managed forest lands, telecommunication lines and railway track.

[1645-1650]

Section 24 as amended approved on the following division:

On section 25.

Hon. K. Krueger: I move the amendment to section 25 standing in my name in the orders of the day.

[SECTION 25 (1), by deleting "section 2" and substituting "section 24".]

Amendment approved.

On section 25 as amended.

[1655]

J. Brar: Now, we are clear that this particular section of the bill is not based on common sense, is not based on any research, is not based on any consultation. It's very surprising that the only thing this particular section of the bill is based on is assumption — the assumption that if you freeze the property value assessment based on 2007, the taxes will go down. That's what, as I understand, this section is all about, and that's a huge mistake. That is the worst way we can think about setting up a provincial public policy.
[ Page 13400 ]

So my question, particularly on section 25…. My first question is that this deals with the determination of 2007 value. As I understand, under this particular act there will be some set of properties which will fall — and where the property assessment will be frozen. My question is: if Joe out there has a house and possession of the house was taken after July 1, on July 2, will that person benefit from this policy?

Hon. K. Krueger: Section 25(1) provides that the rules in this section apply for the purposes of the definition of "2007 value." Subject to this section, the 2007 value will be as determined under the Assessment Act. Section 25(2) provides that section 18 of the Assessment Act does not apply. The current section 18 of the Assessment Act establishes dates for market valuation and determining physical condition and permitted use for annual assessment roll purposes.

Section 25(3) provides that the valuation date for determining the actual value of the property is July 1, 2007. Section 25(4) provides that the market value of a property may be adjusted if the physical condition and permitted uses of the property have changed as of October 31, 2008.

This will mean that although the valuation date is July 1, 2007, the date for determining physical condition and permitted use will be October 31, 2008, instead of October 31 following the valuation date. For example, using a July 1, 2007, valuation date and an October 31, 2008, date for determining physical condition and use of a property means that if new improvements have been made to a property since July 1, 2007, the assessed value will be based on the July 1, 2007, market value but adjusted accordingly to account for any new improvements to the property.

J. Brar: Now we know that the mill rates are set by the municipalities, and there is an assumption that if you freeze the property rates, the taxes will be lower than expected. What I understand is that the municipalities set their rates based on how much revenue they want to collect, rather than what the assessment is.

Based on that, if, based on this particular piece of legislation, the property value of certain categories is actually brought down because we are going to freeze that based on the value in 2007, and if the assumption is true that the municipalities decide to bring down the tax in those categories, they still have to collect the revenue they need, so they may put pressure on other categories. In other words, other people may be forced to pay a higher amount of taxes.

I would like to ask for the minister's response on that one.

[1700]

Hon. K. Krueger: It is up to local government what mill rate they choose, so what tax rate is applied. Local governments, by and large, as assessments and real property values were rising, were adjusting their mill rates down. As assessments and real property values drop, in order to maintain their same level of revenues, they may adjust upward. That's their decision. But the July 1, 2007, valuation date for most properties is a lot closer to reality than the July 1, 2008, valuation would have been.

M. Sather: On section 25(5). It says, "…does not apply to property referred to in section 10 (3) (b), (c) or (c.1) of the Assessment Act," which is manufactured homes. As the minister outlined, subsection (4) talks about the actual value of property if, on the valuation date, properties were in the physical condition that they are in on October 31, 2008, etc.

My question is then: what does this mean for owners of manufactured homes with regard to how they are affected by this act?

Hon. K. Krueger: The only difference between a manufactured home and other homes is that the date of December 31, 2008, applies to their assessment according to condition, where October 31, 2008, applies for the rest of residential real property. In either event, it's still the July 1, 2007, valuation date that will apply.

I'll just make it clear that sections 25(5) and 25(6) provide for that — for the December 31, 2008, date — for determining physical condition for properties where improvements are substantially damaged, destroyed or moved, in the case of a manufactured home, after October 31, 2008, and before January 1, 2009.

An example would be that when using a July 1, 2007, valuation date for the 2009 taxation year, an improvement, including a manufactured home on a property, sustains substantial fire damage after October 31, 2008 — the date for determining physical condition — and cannot reasonably be repaired or replaced by January 1, 2009, adjustments can be made to the July 1, 2007, market value to account for that damage. This will also apply for manufactured homes that have been purchased or moved within these dates.

M. Sather: So why is it that manufactured homes have the December 31 date and other residential properties have the October date?

Hon. K. Krueger: That is not a departure from the norm. It's because manufactured homes are mobile. They can be moved, so the assessment needs to reflect where they're actually located at the end of the year.

J. Brar: Since this particular piece is based on the assumption that this would somehow help people, I would like to ask the minister whether this particular piece of this legislation will somehow impact the ability of local government to raise the revenue they want to.

[1705]
[ Page 13401 ]

Hon. K. Krueger: The answer is no.

B. Ralston: Referring to section 25(6), there's a section of the Assessment Act that's referred to — I think that was the one the minister was just referring to — with a number of exceptions where the assessor must give notice to the review panel of change in circumstances. I take it this refers to the physical condition that it was on December 31. So although the date of either 2007 or 2008 is selected, any changes in physical condition that take place will be valued as of December 31, 2008. Is that the intention?

Hon. K. Krueger: The permitted date and the physical condition date are as of October 31, 2008.

B. Ralston: The reference in subsection (6)…. Maybe I just don't understand it clearly, and that's entirely possible. It refers, in that subsection (6), to the physical condition that it was in on December 31, 2008. Then in subsection (7) there's a reference to October 31, 2008. I was referring to the previous subsection, not section 7, so I don't know if that helps in clarifying the question.

Hon. K. Krueger: That subsection refers to a property that has been substantially destroyed by December 31, 2008.

B. Ralston: According to my copy of the Assessment Act, it's sections 10(3)(b), (c) and (c.1). So those all refer to manufactured homes, and that's the only intention of this particular subsection, then. Is that the purpose?

Hon. K. Krueger: Subsections (b) and (c) refer specifically to manufactured homes. Subsection (c.1) is for improvements other than a manufactured home that are assessable under the act and are substantially damaged or destroyed after October 31 and before the following January 1 and cannot reasonably be repaired or replaced before the following January 1.

Section 25 as amended approved on division.

On section 26.

B. Ralston: This section refers to depreciation, and the dams, powers plants and substations regulation comes into play. I have a copy of it here with me, but perhaps the minister could explain the legislative purpose of this particular amendment, since the focus, as I understand it, of the legislation was primarily residential property.

[1710]

Hon. K. Krueger: The legislation is intended to apply to all properties. The commitment is that the July 1, 2007, valuation date is a cap and that in the 2009 roll, no properties will be assessed higher than that. So this applies across the board.

B. Ralston: Well, I'm looking at the regulation, and it refers to the difference between chronological age and effective age, and then in section 2(1)(a)(ii), age is "the chronological age or, if parts of an improvement have different chronological ages, the effective age of the improvement…."

This amendment, again looking at that fairly arcane calculation of the difference between chronological age and effective age…. I'm wondering if the minister can explain the legislative purpose of this particular subamendment (ii).

Hon. K. Krueger: There's a more time-consuming answer, and if the member wants it, I'll certainly provide it. But this section does not apply the normal year's depreciation and also does not apply the normal update factors because regulated properties, as distinct from market value properties, have these formulated and normally applied as regulated properties.

B. Ralston: What is the anticipated view of the effect on the assessed value of dams, power plants and substations that would be affected by this regulation if this change were to be enacted? What are we achieving here?

Hon. K. Krueger: The effect is that the assessment will remain at the same level as the 2008 assessment roll.

B. Ralston: The other regulation that's referred to in subsection (3) is the depreciation of industrial improvements regulation, and there's a reference to age in that which says: "'age' is the number of years determined by subtracting one year from the chronological age or, where parts of industrial improvement have different chronological ages, the effective age of the industrial improvement."

Similarly, this regulation has a definition of chronological age, effective age and a manner in which that's calculated. Can the minister explain the legislative purpose of this proposed subsection?

Hon. K. Krueger: It's the same effect as my previous answer. Section 26(3) overrides section 21(b) of the depreciation of industrial improvements regulation, B.C. regulation 379/88, in respect of the 2009 taxation year only. This section adjusts the formula for determining depreciation for these improvements by subtracting one year from the chronological age of the improvement. This will ensure that in determining the value of industrial improvements, depreciation will not be considered and will remain at 2008 levels to be consistent with the amended 2009 assessment roll.
[ Page 13402 ]

Section 26 approved on division.

On section 27.

N. Macdonald: Just a quick question. Within the Assessment Act, my understanding is that the ski hills take the gross lift revenue, presumably, from 2007, and that's what was used in the 2008 assessment for ski hills. My presumption is that that would apply to all of the ski hills that are in my area. Just a quick question on how that would work for the Revelstoke Mountain Resort. Would they take 2008? That would be my first question. If you could just give an explanation for how that would work.

[1715]

Hon. K. Krueger: The end result will be that the assessment is exactly the same for 2009 as for 2008 for all 17 ski hills, including the ones in the member's riding. So section 27 overrides section 20.2(2) of the Assessment Act and provides that the actual value for designated ski hill property for the 2009 taxation year is the actual value as determined for the 2008 tax year.

Designated ski hill properties are valued by regulation, using a formula based on gross lift revenue. For the 2009 taxation year the formula will not be applied. Property owners of designated ski hill properties will be paying taxes based on the regulated value of their properties as determined for the 2008 tax year — same.

N. Macdonald: Just the question, then, with Revelstoke Mountain Resort. Of course, it just became established last year, so the numbers that would be available would be numbers for this past year. That would be different — unless I misunderstood — than the other resorts.

Are you going to use the 2008 numbers and establish a property tax from that, based on that year's gross lift revenues — because of course in 2007 there would have been none? Just an explanation of how that's going to work.

Hon. K. Krueger: Because it's a relatively new operation, we don't have the information at hand. Is the member suggesting there was no gross lift revenue for Mount Revelstoke in the past year?

N. Macdonald: In 2008 it would have been the first year of operation — last winter. Previous to that, it had not operated in any way. It's just to understand how that is going to work so that if I'm asked the question, I'll be able to explain it fully.

Hon. K. Krueger: In those circumstances B.C. Assessment has just committed to me that they'll contact the operation and work through it with them directly.

N. Macdonald: Just one more question, just to understand. Since the evaluation for ski hills is not really tied in any meaningful way to real property values — it has more to do with the gross lift revenues — why was it decided to freeze that amount? Why not simply continue and look at data from the past season to make that evaluation?

It just seems if that's what you're going to be doing every year, it has nothing to do with property values. It seems reasonable that you would simply continue with that. Just an explanation for the rationale of even including the ski properties in this.

Hon. K. Krueger: The commitment that was made was that assessments would be capped at the 2008 assessment roll level, and I'm told that the ski industry considers this good news. So it was an across-the-board commitment, and we're living up to that commitment.

Section 27 approved on division.

On section 28.

B. Ralston: I believe what's referred to in the designated port land is the port land valuation regulation. There's an exception, which is referred to in subsection (2), of items 14, 29 and 30, and that appears to be, from the schedule that I have, Pacific Coast Terminals. I don't believe I have the other two. There's a missing page there, apparently. But there are other waterfront terminals that appear to be excluded.

[1720]

Could the minister first confirm what items 14, 29 and 30 are? Then secondly, why is that exception made in this subsection?

Hon. K. Krueger: We'll be discussing this question in further detail when we get to section 36 and the property value assessment table for port land valuations, but two of these properties are new, and the other is a large expansion. They have to have the formula applied to them because they are regulated properties. We will cover that further in the discussion of section 36.

B. Ralston: I see, skipping ahead to section 36, the mention of two properties — one in the district of North Vancouver and one in West Vancouver. I understand that. That would be similar to the discussion we had about the physical condition being reflected in the assessed value, if it changed up to…. I think the cut-off date in the other section was December 31, 2008. Is that the date that the new valuation is based on, in the case of these new or improved properties?

Hon. K. Krueger: Just wanting to clarify that these are regulated properties rather than market value properties, and the date that applies for those considerations will be October 31, 2008.
[ Page 13403 ]

B. Ralston: No, I understand that these are regulated, and I believe this is the source of some friction, occasional friction, between the affected municipalities who have these facilities on the manner in which the value is set, but I think that's a different question. On that particular subsection, 28, I don't have any further questions.

Section 28 approved on division.

On section 29.

B. Ralston: The regulation that's referred to here is the railway right of way valuation criteria regulation, which I'm pleased to have a copy of. Can the minister explain what's taking place in this particular subsection, and its legislative purpose?

Hon. K. Krueger: This section applies to what are known as linear properties, which also include telecommunication or power lines and metallic or fibre optic cables, and the outcome is to keep the assessments for these at the 2008 assessment roll level.

J. Brar: Just one simple, probably, clarification on this subsection 29(1). This date at the end of the paragraph, which is July 1, 2006 — is that correct?

[1725]

Hon. K. Krueger: Yes, that's correct. That's the date, and the reason that that happens for these linear properties — and it's been this way since the '90s — is that it takes time to get the necessary information from the companies who own them. So there's a longer lag than for the other valuation dates we've been speaking of.

B. Ralston: Always nice to hear the '90s referred to in a positive light from the minister.

I'm looking at section 21 of the Assessment Act. Other than power rights-of-way and railway rights-of-way, what else is caught by this? It says pipelines. There's no change to that then, I take it?

Hon. K. Krueger: The member is correct with that question. It also applies to telecommunication lines, metallic cables, fibre optic cables — things that are long and thin.

Sections 29 and 30 approved on division.

On section 31.

J. Brar: This particular section talks about the future regulations which could be brought in. My understanding is that this particular section allows the future regulations to be added and talks about…. There could be certain matters which could be taken into consideration in the future. So I would like to ask if the minister can give us some information as to what those matters could be.

Hon. K. Krueger: Section 31(1) provides — the member is right — regulation-making authority to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to ensure that regulations can be made for a number of things. One is to deal with any matters that are not provided for or not sufficiently provided for in this part, respecting the 2009 taxation year and other matters that are appropriate for the purpose of more effectively implementing this part, including making exceptions or modifications of a provision in an enactment; and one to address transitional difficulties; and one to resolve any errors or inconsistencies.

J. Brar: To be more specific on this one, could this also include properties that have actually been excluded under subsection (3) of section 24?

Hon. K. Krueger: Concerns with those properties are what we're dealing with in the next section, in section 32.

Section 31 approved on division.

On section 32.

B. Ralston: This section contemplates an appeal to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council from affected property owners in those categories of properties that are referred to in sections 20 to 24 of the Assessment Act. That includes major industries, dams, power plants, substations, ski properties — I'm flipping through here — port land, supportive housing and a number of other railways.

[1730]

I'm wondering why there's a special avenue of appeal to the cabinet in this case. This has been the subject of debate in other areas. I am familiar, and I'm sure the minister is, with an appeal of removal of lands from the agricultural land reserve For example, there used to be an appeal to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. I think that was thought better of, and then that avenue of appeal was abolished.

I note that there are some qualifications on the ability to appeal, that the minister concerned has to consult the assessment authority, although…. I'm not sure. It doesn't appear to be capitalized, in the sense of referring to B.C. Assessment. I assume that's what's referred to. So I'm wondering why the avenue of an appeal to, in effect, the cabinet is required in this legislation.

[K. Whittred in the chair.]

Hon. K. Krueger: This section only applies to the regulated properties, not to market-valued properties.
[ Page 13404 ]
The power that's conferred by the section ends on March 31, so section 32(1)(a) and (b) provides the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council with the authority to make orders up until March 31, 2009, to determine the actual value of a property for the 2009 taxation year.

The section is intended to provide the ability to address individual situations as they arise and where it would cause unfairness and it would be in the public interest to make an exception to the amended 2009 assessment roll.

B. Ralston: Just so I understand, then. If this provision were not brought into effect, is there no other avenue of appeal? Just as a residential property owner would be able to appeal to the court of revision, I believe it is, to appeal the assessed value, is there no other mechanism for appeal at the present time?

Hon. K. Krueger: It has always been the case for regulated properties that there is no similar avenue of appeal to that which exists for market-valued properties. The only appeal can be if the owner feels that the regulation has not been applied appropriately.

B. Ralston: I have a copy of the Assessment Act here, so I'm just wondering if the minister or the professional staff there could point out that appeal mechanism. I think what the minister is saying, though, is that this is a departure, where the cabinet will now be inserted into the process as a final avenue of appeal in the case of those industrial and other properties that are in sections 20 to 24 of the Assessment Act.

Hon. K. Krueger: The answer is yes. This is an unusual step, and it is to deal with any unintended consequences that might arise as a result of using the 2008 assessment roll as a cap.

M. Farnworth: I want to ask a question of the minister and just make sure that my understanding of this is right, and I'll use my own community of Port Coquitlam as an example.

[1735]

If the council is setting its budget and then setting its various mill rates for the class and decides that they have revenue requirements of X millions of dollars and then in apportioning that amongst the different property classes of residential, business, commercial and utility class, which railways fall into — and in the case of Port Coquitlam, CP Rail is the major, if not the only one in the utility class….

If CP Rail doesn't like the decision of the city of Port Coquitlam with regards to what the city of Port Coquitlam and its duly elected council deem to be a fair mill rate and a fair tax rate for the railway to be paying, then the railway has the ability to appeal to cabinet, Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, and they have the option of overturning the decision of the duly elected council of Port Coquitlam. Is that correct?

Hon. K. Krueger: This will not create such an issue. The local governments tax on the revised roll. They won't receive the revised roll until April, and this power expires at the end of March.

M. Farnworth: Let's make sure we're really clear on this. What you're saying is that by using this appeal mechanism, the railway can appeal the assessment but that that will be done before the council applies its mill rate to the value of that class so the council will still have the ability to make sure or to be able to raise the amount of revenue it expects from the utility class, from the class that the railway is in. That appeal will not impact on the city's ability to raise revenue in that particular class?

Hon. K. Krueger: The answer is yes. This will not impact on their ability to set their mill rate.

B. Ralston: Just on the same section, then. As I understand what the minister is saying, an appeal — this unusual procedure that's being proposed in this amendment — would be to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council would have to make an order before March 31, 2009, adjusting, if they chose to, the value. That's set out in sub (a) and sub (b) as to what they'd have to consider. Then that revised value would be placed on the roll, and then the council would be able to make its determination as to what mill rate it sets.

Really, the step that the railway would take in this case would be that if they thought the value that was being assigned to them by the process was wrong, they would be able to attempt to persuade the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council prior to March 31, 2009, to change that. Is that correct?

Hon. K. Krueger: The answer is yes.

B. Ralston: I mean, the minister has agreed that this is an unusual step. It doesn't exist in the Assessment Act anywhere else. I'm wondering why it was thought to be necessary, given that the process seems to work pretty well. The assessment authority is well regarded. There's a whole body of law and practice related to regulated properties in sections 20 to 24. Why was it felt necessary to impose this step at this time?

[1740]

Hon. K. Krueger: This is purely out of caution for potential unintended consequences. We don't know of any likelihood that this will happen. There will be full consultation with B.C. Assessment, and we would only
[ Page 13405 ]
act on their recommendation. They are already in consultation with the property owners, and there is no known angst about this with anyone. It's in the interest of ensuring that we have a provision if there are fairness and equity issues arising out of the capping of the 2008 roll.

B. Ralston: Just for greater clarity, section 32(3) refers to the minister consulting with the assessment authority, and that's in small type. Is B.C. Assessment what is intended there? It would seem obvious, but for some reason, it doesn't seem to be spelled out there. Can the minister just clarify that? Is that a drafting mistake, or is that a deliberate choice?

Hon. K. Krueger: The provision is meant to make it very clear that the minister, before he makes a recommendation to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, has to have the recommendation of B.C. Assessment.

Sections 32 to 35 inclusive approved on division.

On section 36.

B. Ralston: I believe that the minister had said that when we got to this section, he had an explanation for the changes to the port land valuation regulation. I wanted to give him an opportunity to give that explanation.

Hon. K. Krueger: Section 36 amends the port land valuation regulation, B.C. regulation 220/2007, in two ways. The first is adjusting the actual value and redesignating one port land for the 2009 taxation year due to an expansion in property and, secondly, designating two new port lands for the 2009 tax year. So while these three port lands have been designated for the 2009 taxation year, the regulated actual values have been calculated at 2008 levels for consistency with the amended 2009 assessment roll.

Then the schedule sets out — and the member had referred earlier to these — items 14, 29 and 30. Item 14 is in the city of Port Moody. It's the Pacific Coast Terminals. Item 29 is in the district of North Vancouver. It's Vancouver Wharves. Item 30 is in the district of West Vancouver, and it's Vancouver Wharves.

Sections 36 to 39 inclusive approved on division.

Title approved.

Hon. K. Krueger: Madam Chair, I move that the committee rise and report Bill 45 complete with amendments.

Motion approved on division.

The committee rose at 5:45 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Reporting of Bills

Economic Incentive and Stabilization
Statutes Amendment Act, 2008

Bill 45, Economic Incentive and Stabilization Statutes Amendment Act, 2008, reported complete with amendments.

Mr. Speaker: When shall the bill be reported as read?

Hon. K. Krueger: With leave, now.

Leave granted.

Third Reading of Bills

Economic Incentive and Stabilization
Statutes Amendment Act, 2008

Bill 45, Economic Incentive and Stabilization Statutes Amendment Act, 2008, read a third time and passed.

Hon. M. de Jong: I call committee stage debate on Bill 46.

Committee of the Whole House

Vancouver Foundation
Amendment Act, 2008

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 46; K. Whittred in the chair.

The committee met at 5:46 p.m.

On section 1.

S. Simpson: This is a fairly brief bill, just a couple of pages. I have a very limited number of questions that relate to this, and other members on this side may have a couple of questions, but I'm sure we'll expedite through this pretty quickly.

The first question I have is: could the minister tell us…? This relates to the Vancouver Foundation and provides some latitude for the Vancouver Foundation to be able to protect itself against lost investment income and be able to offset that by taking some out of what is called the base amount here in order to ensure they can still support community initiatives.

In the work to put this bill together, could the minister tell us: were there any other the community foundations,
[ Page 13406 ]
like Victoria or other community foundations, that had comparable issues or challenges? What were the decisions about why they are not covered by this, or were there other approaches taken?

Hon. W. Oppal: No, this is the only foundation. There are 44 foundations that come under the authority of the Vancouver Foundation, but the Victoria Foundation, for instance, has the authority to encroach upon its capital. So it wasn't necessary for them to go through the same steps that the Vancouver Foundation is now going through.

S. Simpson: Maybe the question is this. Were other foundations contacted that might — obviously, not of the size and scope of the Vancouver Foundation, but other community foundations…? Were they contacted, or are they covered under a particular piece of legislation that would have allowed those other foundations to dip in to cover themselves? Were they contacted? Or is there any reason to believe that this could become a problem at some time for another foundation?

Hon. W. Oppal: No other foundation was contacted. The Vancouver Foundation was the only one that contacted us to seek this amendment, so they can continue their charitable endeavours.

S. Simpson: Certainly I am supportive of this legislation. The questions that have been raised by folks who I think also support it…. The question, if it has been raised, is that certainly some of the endowments and the donations that have been made to the Vancouver Foundation have been made in ways where there were expectations about principal not being touched — those kinds of things….

While I think that most people would be fairly comfortable….

[1750]

Could the minister tell us: how does the Vancouver Foundation have to report out its dipping into the base amount — to upwards of 7 percent is, I believe, what's allowable over the next three years under the legislation? How does the Vancouver Foundation need to report that out to its members?

Hon. W. Oppal: There's no reporting out as such, other than its annual report that they're required to file.

S. Simpson: So then the expectation is that they will…. Obviously it will be an extraordinary situation that they're in — that they've had to make this request. Next year when we see the annual report from the foundation, they presumably will identify to what degree they needed to dip into that 7 percent in order to sustain their charitable contributions to organizations in the community. How was that 7 percent number arrived at?

Hon. W. Oppal: Revenue Canada stipulates that charitable foundations must disburse at least 3.5 percent of their assets on an annual basis, and the 7 percent is arrived at to cover two years of the 3.5 percent.

S. Simpson: Now, I believe that when the minister introduced the bill…. I thought he had talked about the bill, and I'm just looking for where it would talk about this — that this bill allowed for the 7 percent to be distributed…. Is it over three years? Is the term of the bill…?

Hon. W. Oppal: The member is quite right that when I did introduce…. On second reading, I did say that the money will be used over a three-year period to allow the foundation to continue its work with charities. However, the foundation is optimistic that the third year may not be required.

S. Simpson: Hopefully, the foundation is correct, and there won't be any requirement for them to dip in on the third year. Was it the expectation, though….? I think, as the minister said, that 3½ percent a year is what the thinking was here. Does this suggest that should things not turn around as soon as we might like, potentially the Vancouver Foundation could be back talking to us about another 3½ percent?

Hon. W. Oppal: It's not likely that that would happen, because there is a concern by the foundation for preserving its capital base.

S. Simpson: I appreciate that, and I know from my conversations with people at the Vancouver Foundation that they certainly don't want to dig any deeper than is absolutely necessary into their capital.

But the minister previously spoke about the thinking on how 7 percent was arrived at, which was 3½ percent a year for the two years. So because that was the thinking, if we kick into that third year, presuming that the foundation was obliged — because times don't start to turn around, and investment income continues to be as difficult as it looks to be now, and they're getting close up to that 7 percent — which, as the minister said, the 3½ percent a year is what the thinking was….

Still, would the minister then be saying that he would be open, based on that formula, to be talking about another 3½ percent?

Hon. W. Oppal: The foundation has come to us to ask us for this amendment, and so this legislation presumably would be enacted in order to comply with their request so that they can continue their charitable work.

[1755]
[ Page 13407 ]

M. Farnworth: I just want to pick up on this line of questioning a moment and ask the Attorney again that….

If the issue, the ability to dip into 7 percent…. If the amount that's being expended or, on the main part of the principal, things decline or were to deteriorate further so that the 7 percent itself is in fact not enough, then the challenge for the Vancouver Foundation would be that it would either have a shortfall and not be able to dip into its further reserves without coming back here. Or it would mean that the charities that depend upon that funding would not get the funds that they might otherwise have anticipated. Is that correct?

Hon. W. Oppal: The intent is for the foundation to encroach on the 7 percent. That's the general intent at this time. As to what may happen in the future, it would be pure speculation….

M. Farnworth: I understand it is speculation, but it is also…. The reason they're here right now is because of events that have transpired. And while you can't predict where events are going, people are concerned about the dropping off of the ability to access charitable revenues. And that's why the question I was asking is…. If this 7 percent is not enough to meet the Revenue Canada obligations, then the burden itself would in fact fall on the people who would expect to be receiving the charitable donations, because the money would not be there. Is that correct?

Hon. W. Oppal: Simple answer to that question is yes.

M. Farnworth: Just to come back to…. At the beginning, when my colleague from Vancouver-Hastings asked about other charitable foundations — and I heard what the Attorney had to say…. If, for example, in the spring session in February, other foundations wanted a similar treatment, would the government be willing to afford them that same treatment if they so asked?

I mean, I understand the Victoria Foundation is in a separate category of its own, but there are a number of other foundations. Would the government be willing to treat them in the same way as they treated the Vancouver Foundation?

Hon. W. Oppal: Each foundation has its own legislative framework, so it's really difficult for me to speculate as to what may take place in the future.

M. Farnworth: But if they came and asked, would the government be as responsive to them as it's being to the Vancouver Foundation?

Hon. W. Oppal: Well, we would always act in the public interest.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

S. Simpson: In section 2, section 7(a) is amended. It talks about amended "to pay the expenses of administering the foundation and the properties received or held by the foundation, and to charge these expenses against the income or the property of each foundation endowment."

My question here is just: what does that change actually mean? What does that do to the current legislation in terms of changes? It looks like it takes a lot of administrative overhead costs, applies them to the foundation. What does it mean in material terms to the foundation?

[1800]

Hon. W. Oppal: This power already existed. However, because the definition of returns was changed, it was necessary there to add these two new subsections which would allow for a particular foundation endowment to choose either to disburse income coming to the foundation or to accumulate and reinvest that income into the Vancouver Foundation trust fund.

S. Simpson: I appreciate the answer. Essentially, section (b) here, where it adds the following subsection…. Is this essentially dealing with the same matter of a change in where the revenue may come from so it changes the way that these expenses in (a) and (b) get applied?

Hon. W. Oppal: The section already exists, but what this does is it allows an endowment to agree to have those funds go back into capital. That's the difference.

S. Simpson: One last question on section 2. Under 2(b)(5), it says: "The powers conferred on the board under subsection (4) of this section do not apply to a foundation endowment if the terms of the endowment require that income must be disbursed to a particular organization, unless the organization consents to the exercise of those powers."

Does the minister have a sense of what percentage of the value of Vancouver Foundation would be excluded from these terms and put into this area of designated endowments?

Hon. W. Oppal: No. The answer is no.

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

S. Simpson: Just a quick question on section 3(b)(6). It says: "The board may add a portion of the reserve amount to the distributable amount of a trust fund in
[ Page 13408 ]
an amount that the board from time to time determines, until the reserve amount has been exhausted."

Now, just so I understand, that reserve amount is the 7 percent that we've been talking about — essentially, the transfer of the 7 percent. So does this mean that the board of the Vancouver Foundation, if they chose, could distribute that whole 7 percent in the first year, if that's what it required — hopefully, it doesn't, and I don't expect that that would occur — but that the discretion is at the board level for them to choose to disseminate, distribute that 7 percent in whatever way they see fit and in whatever time line they see fit within the context of these three years?

Hon. W. Oppal: There's no time limit as to when the 7 percent is to be distributed. The current intent or the plans of the foundation are to distribute that reserve over the next three years.

S. Simpson: I guess that we'll just have to see whether that 7 percent proves to be adequate, and hopefully, it will. So with this, and I know that the minister spoke…. I understand that the annual report will presumably be the place, and the AGM, where this is accounted for to the public and to the membership there.

Just to confirm again, there is no requirement from the ministry or the government that there be any discussions between the foundation and the government further than getting this passed in terms of any of these decisions about distribution of funds? It's totally in their hands and their memberships?

Hon. W. Oppal: Correct.

Sections 3 to 5 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. W. Oppal: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:05 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Vancouver Foundation
Amendment Act, 2008

Bill 46, Vancouver Foundation Amendment Act, 2008, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, the Lieutenant-Governor is in the precinct and will be coming in shortly.

Royal Assent to Bills

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor entered the chamber and took his seat on the throne.

[1810]

Clerk of the House:

Economic Incentive and Stabilization Statutes Amendment Act, 2008

Vancouver Foundation Amendment Act, 2008

In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth assent to these acts.

Hon. S. Point (Lieutenant-Governor): Okay, I'm out of here. [Laughter.]

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor retired from the chamber.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, this being probably the last time we'll be together before Christmas, I want to wish all of you a very merry Christmas. I know that getting back into your constituencies, there's a lot of work to be done before Christmas.

Certainly I know that a number of you have indicated that grandchildren have arrived in this past year. For me, it's just over a year, so I know that my granddaughter Kayla, along with the other granddaughters and grandsons, will certainly be looking forward to what Christmas will bring.

All of you, I wish you the very, very best up to Christmas and then in the coming year, and we'll all be together again in early February. With that, I want to wish you a merry Christmas.

Hon. M. de Jong: I move that this House at its rising do stand adjourned until it appears to the satisfaction of the Speaker, after consultation with the government, that the public interest requires that the House shall meet or until the Speaker may be advised by the government that it is desired to prorogue the fourth session of the 38th parliament of the province of British Columbia. The Speaker may give notice that he is so satisfied or has been so advised, and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated in such notice and, as the case may be, may transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned to that date and time. And in the event of the Speaker being unable to act owing to illness or other cause, the Deputy Speaker shall act in his stead for the purpose of this order.
[ Page 13409 ]

Mr. Speaker, with best wishes to all members for safe travels, a safe holiday season, Merry Christmas, Joyeux Noël, Feliz Navidad, happy holidays.

Hon. M. de Jong moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, this House is now adjourned.

The House adjourned at 6:14 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet.
Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.
Question Period podcasts are available on the Internet.

TV channel guide • Broadcast schedule

Copyright © 2008: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

ISSN 1499-2175