2002 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 37th 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)

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 26, 2002

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 10, Number 16

CONTENTS

Routine

Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order 25 B )

Community cooperation

P. Wong

Public input into health care system changes

V. Roddick

Competitive rowing and Olympic bid

S. Brice

Oral Questions

Pharmacare program

J. MacPhail

Hon. C. Hansen

Partner groups funding

B. Belsey

Hon. C. Clark

Dispensing of methadone by pharmacies

E. Brenzinger

Hon. G. Cheema

Pharmacare program

J. MacPhail

Hon. C. Hansen

Petitions

B. Kerr

R. Sultan

J. MacPhail

J. Bray

G. Trumper

W. McMahon

Tabling Documents

B.C. Rail, annual report, 2001

British Columbia Racing Commission, annual report, 2001-02

Committee of the Whole House

Manufactured Home Park Tenancy Act (Bill 71) (continued)

Hon. R. Coleman

J. Kwan

M. Hunter

Reporting of Bills

Manufactured Home Park Tenancy Act (Bill 71)

Third Reading of Bills

Manufactured Home Park Tenancy Act (Bill 71)

Committee of the Whole House

Forests Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2002 (Bill 75)

J. MacPhail

Hon. M. de Jong

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Forests Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2002 (Bill 75)

Royal Assent to Bills

Residential Tenancy Act (Bill 70)

Manufactured Home Park Tenancy Act (Bill 71)

Community Care and Assisted Living Act (Bill 73)

Forests Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2002 (Bill 75)

The Hunting and Fishing Heritage Act (Bill M204)

[ Page 4673 ]

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 26, 2002

The House

met at 2:04 p.m.

Introductions by Members

Hon. G.

Halsey-Brandt: Today in the members' gallery we have a very special guest

from the United Kingdom. James Rawlinson is a newly appointed consul general of

the United Kingdom at Vancouver. Before coming to British Columbia, he was a

British consul general in Bordeaux, France. He's also served in Hamburg,

Copenhagen, New Delhi and New York at the United Nations.

We look

forward to working with Consul General Rawlinson in expanding trade

relationships around public-private partnerships, offshore oil and gas

exploration, biotechnology and other targeted sectors. Please join me in giving

him a very warm welcome to British Columbia and this Legislature.

[1405]

MacPhail: In the gallery today is Nitya Harris. She's an activist with the

Sierra Club whom many will know as a member of the faculty at Royal Roads. She's

former chair of the Crown corporations environment committee, and she has spent

much of her life in efforts to support and protect a healthy and sustainable

environment here on Vancouver Island. Would the House please make her welcome.

Hawes: In the gallery today we have three senior executives from Genstar

corp., a corporation whose environmental record as developers is second to none:

Dave Keenan, Chuck Marr and Geoff Croll. Would the House please make them

welcome.

Trumper: It's my pleasure today to welcome the constituency assistants who

are with us on their second day in the capital. I also particularly want to

mention Maryann Washington, Noreen Pelk and Marg Souther, who try to keep me out

of trouble. They are my CAs. Please, will the House welcome them all.

J. Bray:

This afternoon joining us in the gallery are four local Victorians who do an

excellent job of advocating on behalf of people with disabilities. It's my

pleasure to welcome Terry Colburn, Maurine Fauwcett, Diane Frasure and Steven

Palmer, and I ask the House to please make them very welcome.

Nuraney: We have in the gallery today Trudy Gordon, who is a hard-working

person who helps with my work. I would like the House to make her welcome.

Visser: It's a pleasure for me to introduce somebody who also cares deeply

about the environment. We've pulled the Stanfields and the cork boots off Blake

Marshall. He's a contract logger from Gold River, and he's here visiting us

today. Would the House make him welcome.

Weisbeck: In the gallery, from the Okanagan University College Student

Association and a great advocate for full university status in the Okanagan, is

Mr. Jason Ranchu.

MacPhail: For my second introduction, I'd like to welcome Steve Hilbert,

whose daughter, Sarah Hilbert-West, is our caucus researcher. He's down from

Quesnel to visit with a whole bunch of other seniors. His latest task, though,

has been to elect and support the new mayor of Quesnel, Nate Bello. Would the

House please make him welcome.

P. Bell:

I'd like to introduce to the House today a nasty little pest that makes its

home in my riding. I'm speaking of the mountain pine beetle.

Mr.

Speaker: Oh.

P. Bell:

I don't think he voted for me, Mr. Speaker. [Laughter.]

Just last

week the Minister of Forests announced that the pest had spread to an area

three-quarters the size of Sweden, containing approximately 108 million cubic

metres.

In my

attempt to help eradicate this little bug, I've prepared a small value-added

wood product for each of the members in the House. Members will find on their

desks a mountain pine beetle nametag for them to wear with pride. Now, please

keep in mind that it's not damaged fibre. This is actually referred to as either

denim pine or — my favourite name — Levi lumber.

I actually

would ask that the House please make this little beetle very unwelcome in the

province of British Columbia.

Mr.

Speaker: Thank you. Are there any still inside of it? [Laughter.]

[1410]

Statements

(Standing Order 25

b) COMMUNITY COOPERATION

P. Wong:

The spirit of community cooperation is alive in my riding. In the past eight

months I have been involved in a community-wide effort to build a shelter at

Memorial Park. Working on this project has been a quiet reminder of the strength

that the community can have and the impact that can be felt when we work

together towards a common goal.

It's a

simple idea. A group of seniors who exercise regularly at the park approached me

some time ago. They needed a shelter that would protect them from the wet

Vancouver weather while exercising. Now the project has already brought

different groups very

[ Page 4674 ]

closely together, although it hasn't even been built yet. There is widespread

support from the community, including the Polish Friendship Society, the

Filipino Multicultural Helping House Society, Khalsa School, the Malaysia

Singapore Brunei Cultural Association and Victoria Drive and Fraser Street

business associations. We have also approached students in my riding to solicit

their involvement by contributing some artwork for the shelter. Teachers will

get involved, and a local artist has volunteered to oversee the creative

direction of the proposed project.

The shelter

could be useful for everyone — for picnics, a forum, outdoor exhibits,

performances, celebrations or community meetings. It would become a new hub in

the neighbourhood and improve the safety of the surrounding community.

The

benefits of a modest project like this have the ability to improve the

community's health and well-being and foster relationships among groups. We

still have funds to raise and organizing to do, but I'm confident that people in

the community will keep up their good work. I'm pleased to be a part of this

initiative and would like to sincerely thank everyone who has shown their

dedication to the community.

PUBLIC INPUT INTO HEALTH CARE

SYSTEM CHANGES

Roddick: Despite the many levels of government, we all know there is one

basic taxpayer — us. When a publicly funded system such as medicare is under

immense pressure, its success vital, and its consequences direct and personal,

people want a voice.

The Select

Standing Committee on Health report, Patients First , which had the

largest number of submissions ever of any standing committee, noted time and

time again that British Columbians want input on how health care will change in

the province. It recommended that health authorities have flexibilities and

incentives to tailor the health needs of their particular region.

Delta

Hospital is a perfect example of community involvement. People submitted

excellent, positive ideas and solutions. There have been hiccups and in some

cases positively ham-fisted communication problems. But the Fraser health

authority has listened and worked to ensure that the emergency room at Delta

Hospital will be doctor-staffed 24-7. Plus, Delta Hospital and Richmond General

Hospital are working out an innovative partnership arrangement between

authorities, an idea that was totally doctor-driven.

The Fraser

health authority, its mayors, MLAs, plus Ministers Hansen and Hawkins met on

November 8 to discuss health plans and community input. It was a positive,

enthusiastic meeting that recognized the need for all groups to improve

communication and stay connected.

The changes

in health care are cumbersome and complex, so it is absolutely crucial that we

build on the ongoing free exchange of ideas, plans, solutions and outcome. As we

prepare for the Romanow report and the work of the select standing committee,

public input at the local level will be ever more important.

COMPETITIVE ROWING AND

OLYMPIC BID

Brice: The 2010 bid gives us the opportunity to expose our communities to

the Olympic spirit. That spirit is the magic that surrounds the games in a way

that no other single event in the world comes close to capturing.

[1415]

As you

drive from the ferry into Victoria, you pass Elk Lake in my riding of Saanich

South. When you drive by the lake and see the rowers, you should know that they

are today's champions in training, and they are part of a past Olympic legacy.

In the mid-eighties four young men from Victoria competed in rowing at the Los

Angeles Olympics. To the amazement of us all, they came home with gold. They had

the gold medals, but the whole city was covered in gold dust. Our community

realized that if we invested in a high-performance facility at Elk Lake, we had

the potential to produce many more podium rowers. Those of us on local councils

committed funds, UVic developed a rowing squad second to none, and a dynasty of

world-class rowers like Silken Laumann have thrilled us over the years.

That is the

power of the Olympic spirit. It lives on in the community for years after the

actual games take place. The legacy of the Olympic spirit is in those young

rowers as you pass Elk Lake. They are from local high schools which have

developed rowing programs that produce rowers for our Canadian teams. Teenagers

who row don't hang around on the streets, they don't do drugs, and they don't

drag-race on the highway. They are focused on their sport, and they're committed

to their team. This is the very spirit of the 2010 games which we have the

opportunity to give as a gift to all our young people in all of our communities

throughout the province. Our task is to win that bid.

Oral Questions

PHARMACARE PROGRAM

MacPhail: Yesterday the Minister of Health Services said he will make up the

budget shortfall resulting from the delay in income testing by finding savings

elsewhere. He said that again today. Maybe the minister can tell us how he's

going to find that extra cash. Is he going to (

a) cut acute care services, (

b) close a few more long-term care homes and throw more seniors out on their ear or

(

c) raise MSP premiums? Or (

d) is he going to make up the shortfall by kicking

even more seniors off Pharmacare than he originally planned?

Hon. C.

Hansen: The short answer is: none of the above. Quite frankly, when this

member goes around this province telling seniors they're going to get kicked off

the Pharmacare program, it is the greatest injustice any politician in this

province can do. That kind of fearmongering is absolutely irresponsible.

[ Page 4675 ]

We have,

through careful management of the budget with the Ministry of Health Services,

found the administrative savings. We have tried to focus on the kind of changes

that are not going to detrimentally affect patient care but make sure we can

deliver a system as cost-effectively as possible. Through that careful

stewardship of a budget — which is the first time we've ever seen careful

stewardship of a budget in this province in over a decade — we are able to

find the savings that are needed to allow us to take a bit more time to

carefully think through the changes to the Pharmacare system and to make sure no

senior is going to get kicked off the Pharmacare program, as that member

continues to say, and that we have a system in place that is fair for all

British Columbians.

Mr.

Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a supplementary question.

MacPhail: I'm flattered that the Minister of Health Services is giving me so

much credit, but the fact of the matter is that there were thousands of seniors

out there on the lawn who have exactly the same questions as I do. They met with

the Minister of Health Services, and it turns out they were even angrier after

the meeting with him. The fact of the matter is that these administrative

savings appeared overnight, just as thousands were arriving to protest. I

actually think he's made such a mess of the file that he was just trying to buy

time. For weeks we've been asking this minister to come clean…

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

[1420]

MacPhail: …and tell seniors how he plans to implement income testing and

who would be kicked off Pharmacare. Not once did the minister ever indicate that

his plans were in trouble. Not once did he ever tell worried seniors they might

get a few weeks' reprieve. Then without warning — oops — it's going to take

a little longer to figure out who gets to stay on and who gets kicked off. Will

the minister at least answer this one question? Will he tell seniors on fixed

incomes how low their incomes will have to be to keep their Pharmacare coverage?

Hon. C.

Hansen: I believe that it is extremely irresponsible for this member to be

deliberately misleading seniors in British Columbia. We have said quite clearly,

through these last number of months, that not one British Columbian will be

kicked off Pharmacare, and that will be the case.

One of the

things that I discussed with the seniors delegation this morning, which was a

very constructive meeting, and we actually had a good exchange of

information…. One of the things that came up was the need for the federal

government to bear its responsibility when it comes to health care — that

today, where they are funding 14 percent of the health care costs in British

Columbia, is simply not good enough and that we have had a consistent campaign

on the federal government to make sure that they restore their fair share of

funding in British Columbia. We are looking forward to those initiatives from

the federal government. In the meantime, it is time for this member to stop

fearmongering with seniors and saying things like — as she said on the front

steps today — that seniors paid $95 million more for Pharmacare last year,

which she knows is wrong. She should be truthful with the seniors in British

Columbia.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. The Leader of the Opposition has a further

supplementary.

MacPhail: Well, maybe it's because I'm relying on the government's own

information that I'm spreading all this fearmongering. It's the government's own

information that was tabled in this House in February that said 420,000 seniors

would be paying more for Pharmacare, and a mere 20,000 would be paying less.

It's their own documents that show 4 percent of an average senior's income means

that they will no longer have Pharmacare coverage — his own documents. One

minute it's going to be income testing based on individual income and

implemented January 1. Yesterday it was going to be based on family income and

maybe implemented whenever.

Well,

seniors — thousands of them — have to plan their budgets on a fixed income.

They need to know. Stand up and tell them. Will they have less money or more

money to spend? Can the Minister of Health Services just answer this? When he

finally, actually, figures out what he's doing and how he can get the system in

place to implement his income-testing scheme, can he tell seniors this? Can he

tell seniors who made Pharmacare claims in January if they will have to repay

Pharmacare once the new plan is in place?

Hon. C.

Hansen: What I made quite clear yesterday is that the Pharmacare system will

not change as of January 1. The same system that's been in place for over a year

will be there. Just to give the member a little bit of a history lesson, it was

actually during the NDP government — in the first couple of years — that

they increased the deductible for seniors from $125 a year by 60 percent in one

year. We saw, during that whole period of time, the Pharmacare burden that was

being borne by seniors being increased throughout the decade that the NDP were

in power. We are making sure that we bring in a fair system…

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order.

Hon. C.

Hansen: …that is based on ability to pay, and we want to make sure that we

will protect the most vulnerable seniors in this province to ensure that

[ Page 4676 ]

they can get access to the medications they need based on their income.

[1425]

PARTNER GROUPS FUNDING

Belsey: I would like to ask a public written question submitted by the

president of the Prince Rupert District Teachers Union. To the Minister of

Education, regarding the minister's responsibility for school planning councils:

why would all of the parent groups — including BCCPAC, BCPVPA, BCSSA and BCSTA

— get the $150,000 startup grant, but the BCTF received no grant whatsoever?

Hon. G.

Collins: Because it went to the CCPA.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Belsey: How can partner groups work together when the funding, from the

beginning, creates divisiveness?

An Hon.

Member: Minister responsible for acronyms.

Hon. C.

Clark: I do know that if I buy a VCR, there's GST on top of my PST, and the

CPPA will have to….

Interjection.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. C.

Clark: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm delighted to be able to answer this

question, because school planning councils really do present a unique

opportunity for parents to get involved in the school system, to have a real say

over what happens in their children's schools. We need to recognize, though,

that when we put together school planning councils, which have a majority of

parents and include a teacher and a principal, different groups will bring

different levels of resources to that table to make sure that their members are

adequately trained in what they need to do to advocate on behalf of the people

that are electing them.

We know

that the BCTF has lots of resources. They have $4 million put aside in just an

advertising fund to come out and be the official opposition to the government.

That's fine. They're one of the wealthiest unions around.

Parents

don't have those kinds of advantages. They volunteer in their schools. They do

that for free. They don't get paid for it; they do it because they genuinely

care. We have a responsibility as a government to make sure that those parents

are supported and that their opportunities to be involved in every school are

maximized to the extent that we can.

Mr.

Speaker: The member for North Coast has a supplementary question.

Belsey: I would like to ask my own follow-up question. The minister has

stated many times that she believes parents could and should play an important

role in their children's education, and I agree. The creation of school planning

councils is providing parents with the opportunity to have a greater say in what

their children are taught. Can the Minister of Education tell us what the

government is doing to continue to support parents and school planning councils?

Hon. C.

Clark: The plans that each school planning council comes up with will be the

basis for the accountability contracts in every single district. The plans that

they put together for their school will be reflected in the goals that we hold

districts to. It will be a very meaningful process for them.

We've made

sure this year that we continue to support parents in their efforts to do that.

I'm delighted to be able to announce today that the parents association, B.C.

Confederation of Parent Advisory Councils, will be granted a further $150,000 as

part of their funding for this coming year to make sure that they can continue

to support parents in every part of this province in making sure that we keep

our focus squarely on student achievement.

DISPENSING OF METHADONE

BY PHARMACIES

Brenzinger: My question today is to the Minister of State for Mental Health.

In my constituency of Surrey-Whalley there are a number of pharmacies that

dispense methadone. However, there are many problems associated with the role of

these pharmacies and people with addictions that use methadone. Can the Minister

of State for Mental Health clarify for my constituents the role of methadone?

Hon. G.

Cheema: Methadone maintenance is one program in the complex system of

addiction services. It is specifically designed to address heroin addiction.

Methadone is presently prescribed by a physician as a replacement for heroin.

This is to help patients avoid the dangers associated with injection drug use.

Methadone

provides stability to improve treatment efforts. Studies have shown that

methadone can decrease HIV and hepatitis C infections. It also reduces

drug-related crime and saves lives by preventing overdoses.

[1430]

Mr.

Speaker: The member for Surrey-Whalley has a supplementary.

Brenzinger: Individuals in my community have expressed concerns about some

of the regulations that

[ Page 4677 ]

govern pharmacies dispensing methadone. Can the Minister of State for Mental

Health tell my constituents what guidelines are in place to regulate pharmacies

that dispense methadone?

Hon. G.

Cheema: The B.C. College of Physicians and Surgeons is responsible for

supervising the B.C. methadone program. The College of Pharmacists of B.C. is

responsible for licensing pharmacies that dispense methadone. The federal

government regulates methadone. The College of Pharmacists of B.C., under

federal law, is able to license pharmacies to dispense methadone. Their role is

to ensure special training and allow a greater degree of supervision. If the

member has some concerns about the operations of the pharmacies that dispense

methadone, I would request she address her concerns to the College of

Pharmacists.

PHARMACARE PROGRAM

MacPhail: It takes the Liberals eight months to process a simple MSP

application, and the government wants seniors to believe they can implement and

manage a complex income-testing scheme without creating massive chaos in the

Pharmacare system. Can the Minister of Health Services provide seniors with an

assurance? Now is the opportunity for assurance. Can he promise them that after

he sorts out the mess he has created, they won't have to wait months to be

repaid by Pharmacare in the same way they're now waiting months for payment by

MSP?

Hon. C.

Hansen: Quite frankly, the issue around how MSP applications get processed

in this province is something I'd raised in this House many times when I was the

official opposition critic. It's unfortunate that the previous government didn't

act on trying to streamline that process. We are paying a price for that

inefficiency today in terms of how the system is set up, and we're in the

process of trying to change it.

When it

comes to the Pharmacare system, the income-based Pharmacare system will be

driven in much the way that our premium assistance program is today. It ensures

that we can use information that is provided off income tax returns, which has

been approved by the privacy commissioner for that process. It will be a

streamlined system. We're setting it up in a way that will actually be quite

efficient and effective in making sure that people get enrolled as quickly as

possible.

The other

good news is that anyone that's currently on premium assistance, which is almost

50 percent of all seniors in the province, gets automatically enrolled in the

new system. I am quite confident that administratively, it will be set up in a

way that will be quite easy for seniors to make sure they get their full

benefits and that none will be compromised in their benefits.

[End

of question period.]

Petitions

B. Kerr:

I'd like to table a petition. This petition is from the Deaf Rights Task Force

with 244 signatures regarding programs such as READ 2000. That's resources and

education for the adult deaf.

Sultan: I herewith present a petition from 86 residents of the lower

mainland, most of them my constituents, expressing grave concern about the

Olympic Games.

MacPhail: My apologies to the previous member.

I table a

petition signed by over 650 British Columbians. They respectfully request that

the government reject any proposals for the culling or contraception of wolves

and cougars on Vancouver Island, instead immediately implementing a change in

forest policy to restore viable deer, wolf and cougar populations on Vancouver

Island by protecting remaining old-growth habitats.

J. Bray:

I wish to present a petition signed by 426 Victorians expressing opposition to

the reassessment for people with disability benefits level 2.

Trumper: I would like to table a petition presented on behalf of 16

residents of the Qualicum Beach area objecting to any culling or contraception

of wolves and cougars on Vancouver Island.

[1435]

McMahon: I rise today to table a petition on behalf of the member for East

Kootenay from 4,000 constituents asking that the dangerous curve and hill on

Highway 3 between Fernie and Cranbrook, known as Steamboat Hill, be permanently

improved.

Tabling Documents

Hon. J.

Reid: I have the honour to present the annual report from B.C. Rail for the

year 2001.

Hon. R.

Coleman: I have the honour to present the 2001-02 annual report from the

British Columbia Racing Commission.

Hamilton: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave

granted.

Introductions by Members

Hamilton: Visiting us today in the House, representing the Automotive

Retailers Association, are Bob Clarke, David Scarrotts and Keith Bell. Would the

House please join me in making them welcome.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G.

Collins: I call continued committee stage debate on Bill 71.

[ Page 4678 ]

Committee of the Whole House

MANUFACTURED HOME PARK TENANCY ACT

(continued)

The House

in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 71; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

The

committee met at 2:38 p.m.

The

Chair: We have stood down

section 27. We will deal with that

section first

of all.

section

27 (continued) .

Hon. R.

Coleman: As discussed with the Leader of the Opposition earlier, we have

brought forward the amendment to Bill 71 to

section 27, which adds,

"Electrical systems to be dealt with, or enter the property in the case of

emergency" as identified in the previous Residential Tenancy Act.

SECTION 27 (1), by deleting the proposed

paragraph (

c) and substituting the following:

(

c) made for the purpose of repairing

(

i) major leaks in pipes,

(ii) damaged or blocked water or sewer pipes,

(iii) the electrical systems, or

(iv) in prescribed circumstances, the manufactured home site or

the manufactured home park.]

We would like to bring that

section forward and move that amendment now.

Amendment

approved.

Section 27

as amended approved.

section

The

Chair: There's a government amendment on

section 32.

Hon. R.

Coleman: I move the amendment on

section 32 that stands in my name with the

Clerk, which basically outlines how a park committee can be established.

[SECTION 32,

(

a) in the proposed subsection (1) by deleting "a park

committee may establish," and substituting "a park committee, or if

there is no park committee, the landlord may establish", and

(

b) in the proposed subsection (3) by deleting "park

committee." and substituting "park committee or landlord, as

applicable."]

Amendment

approved.

Section 32

as amended approved.

Section 33

approved.

section 34.

[1440]

J. Kwan:

Section 34 deals with rent increases under Bill 71, the Manufactured Home Park

Tenancy Act. Could the minister please advise what other type of investment

allows for the investor to review the profit for the past three years and then

adjust their income stream?

Hon. R.

Coleman: This is a business that's actually regulated by its relationship

between a landlord and tenant and certainly is outside the normal practices of

what would be seen as or what might be a normal retail operation or relationship

relative to increases or decreases in costs.

The

anticipation here and the reason there are two acts are that this rent increase

would probably not be, in regulation, perhaps as high as the Residential Tenancy

Act, because we're dealing with a different form of tenancy. This is to

eliminate what's been going on in this sector for some time — that is, where a

landlord has attempted to get an increase, we get massive gang arbitrations that

are being filed and discussions over small amounts of increase on pad rental.

This establishes a formula so that it can't go over a certain level by

regulation, as we've discussed in the previous discussions in and around other

tenancies. It also sets sort of a standard of practice. We've had the discussion

in and around that, philosophically, on the previous act, but that's what this

does here.

J. Kwan:

According to the minister's press release, if the rate is similar to the RTA

increase, it projects a rate really for those living in manufactured home park

situations that they would face something like a 20 to 30 percent rent increase

a year. The minister now says that the rate would be perhaps lower. What does he

project the rate would be?

Hon. R.

Coleman: That's why we're going to do it in regulation in consultation with

the tenants and also with the owners of parks to come up with what we think is a

fair formula in regulation.

J. Kwan:

Will the rent increase have to be justified? In other words, would it actually

have to be an increase in costs? Or would it just be a rent increase sort of

like the concept that the RTA has adopted — that is, automatic rent increases

every year? Could one also accumulate that to the third year if the landlord

wants to do so?

Hon. R.

Coleman: It's the same concept as the Residential Tenancy Act.

J. Kwan:

In other words, under this act, Bill 71, the Manufactured Home Park Tenancy Act,

the rent increase…. Whatever the rate is going to be, it might be slightly

different from that of the RTA. Nonetheless, it's going to be a guaranteed rent

increase irrespective every year. If the landlord decides not to exercise that

rent increase for a particular year, the landlord has the right to actually

accumulate that over a three-year period of time.

[ Page 4679 ]

Just for

the sake of illustration, I have an example on this three-year catch-up rent

increase plus the one-year increase, the annual increase that the minister is

putting forward. A 100-home park at $500 a month and, of course, times 12 months

per year equals $600,000 per year in terms of a rent increase. If you put into

the margin a 5 percent increase, the profit is approximately $30,000. This is

just by way of illustrating some of the figures which we're looking at and what

the ramifications might be.

[1445]

The

minister says the rate might actually be lower; nonetheless, the ramifications

would be huge, in my view. Of course in some scenarios, in the manufactured home

park situation, part of the home for some people is actually owned by the

person. Nonetheless, the person would still have to pay a rent increase because

of the site on which the manufactured home is located. They might be faced with

an increase even though they partially own their home.

The

concept, in my view, is simply wrong. It's ill conceived, just like it was under

the Residential Tenancy Act, to provide a guarantee of rent increase no matter

what, irrespective of if those costs have been incurred by the landlord. Of

course, people will pay and will suffer as a result of this ill-conceived plan

from the government. The opposition will not be supporting

section 34 under this

bill, Bill 71, the Manufactured Home Park Tenancy Act.

Hon. G.

Abbott: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave

granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. G.

Abbott: I'd like to welcome two good friends of mine from the Shuswap. Holly

Cowan and Roxena Goodine are here visiting. We had hoped that our mutual friend,

Slim McIntyre, also from the Shuswap, was going to make it, but unfortunately he

couldn't. I'd like the House to make them welcome.

Debate Continued

Section 34

approved on division.

section

J. Kwan:

Section 35 deals with the timing and notice of rent increases. This

section of

the act provides for three months' notice of a rent increase. It does not, in my

view, allow enough time for the person to sell the home since the rents are to

be allowed to go up substantively, when those on fixed incomes, such as old-age

pensioners or people on disability pensions, do not have a corresponding

increase in income. Does the minister think a period of three months is

sufficient for someone to actually try and sell their home?

Hon. R.

Coleman: I think three months' notice is adequate. Whether it's a good

market or a bad market to sell a home in at any particular time, I couldn't

possibly judge.

J. Kwan:

Well, those who actually live in that environment, in a manufactured home park,

disagree. Many of them have phoned our office and conveyed their comments

accordingly. Three months' time for an individual to have to sell their home if

the rent increase is such that a person cannot sustain it or afford to pay

causes, in my view, extreme hardship and can cause extreme hardship for

individuals, particularly those who are on fixed incomes — whether they are a

senior or a person on disability or whatever the situation might be.

In most

instances, as an example, when a landlord wants to take back a rental space,

even for family usage purposes, it allows at least six months by way of a period

of time in which a person could make those arrangements. Why wouldn't the

minister consider that?

Hon. R.

Coleman: This is a notice of three months to advise residents of a rent

increase. It will be set in regulation. The member seems to wax on about how

there's going to be some punitive number here. That's why we're having a control

on it. We had this discussion under the Residential Tenancy Act. The whole

concept of having some kind of a control on the increase in rent probably goes

against what people that own parks or tenancies in British Columbia would like

to see and moves towards where tenant groups have told us they would like to be,

in that they would like to know that there would be a limit — otherwise go to

arbitration. This isn't about somebody having to move because of a rent

increase; this is about giving proper notice. Three months is sufficient notice.

[1450]

J. Kwan:

With all due respect to the Solicitor General, I disagree. To that end, I have

an amendment to make. That is to amend

section 35 to change the notice from

three months to six months. Here's a copy for the Clerk and then a copy for the

minister. The amendment is quite simple. It's to amend

section 35(2), where it

reads, "A landlord must give a tenant notice of a rent increase at least 3

months before the effective date of the increase" — for that to be

changed to six months. I move the amendment.

[Section 35 is amended by deleting the text highlighted by

strikethrough and adding the text highlighted by underline:

Timing and notice of rent increases

(2) A landlord must give a tenant notice of a rent increase at least 3

6 months before the effective date of the increase.]

Amendment

negatived on division.

Section 35

approved on division.

Sections 36

to 39 inclusive approved.

[ Page 4680 ]

section

J. Kwan:

Section 40 deals with the landlord ending the tenancy for cause. The rationale

to which I wish to speak on this

section of the act is similar to the ones that

I have already highlighted under the Residential Tenancy Act, which was debated

yesterday.

This

section is subject, in my view, to misinterpretation and potential abuse by the

landlords. A reasonable requirement to prevent abuse would be that the landlord

takes the homeowner to arbitration to establish whether or not the alleged

breach is substantial enough to cause the homeowner to lose his home or

investment. Being called before an impartial third party could be enough, in

most cases, to remedy the cause and prevent an inequitable solution.

A reason

for late rent payments could easily be due to a change in a person's employment

pay period, and we have dealt with that issue as well when we debated the

Residential Tenancy Act. Therefore, an arbitrator could take into consideration

and perhaps adjust the rent due date with appropriate adjustments.

The

section

actually does not allow for these kinds of reasonable measures for the

arbitrator to decide to take in and exercise the right to flexibility to ensure

that people are not displaced unnecessarily perhaps as a result of late payment

with their income, whatever their source of income might be.

Once again,

hon. Chair, the opposition will not be supporting

section 40. With all the

questions I've asked the Solicitor General on the RTA, I anticipate we would get

the same answers, so I'm not going to repeat that process again but simply

register that we do not support

section

Section

40 approved on division.

The

Chair: Member, I wasn't understanding: are you having more questions on the

rest of the bill?

J. Kwan:

On 44.

Sections 41

to 43 inclusive approved.

section

J. Kwan:

Section 44 deals with compensation for redevelopment. The question that has been

put forward for the opposition to ask the minister is: does the minister think

that the 12-month period, the 12 months rent, is adequate compensation for loss

of equity being suffered by the homeowner?

The point,

of course, is that 12 months' rent plus all the costs of moving would be more

equitable if there was a place to put the home. New parks do not want older

homes. How does the minister address this question as well?

Hon. R.

Coleman: On the one hand, the member is correct about moving of some homes.

The answer to that is: I hope, at one point in time, the municipalities of this

province actually grow to recognize that manufactured home parks are another

option of affordable housing that they should be considering in their

jurisdictions.

I think the

biggest frustration with that is probably on the lower mainland, particularly in

the Fraser Valley of British Columbia, because there are some definite

opportunities for lands that are owned by municipalities to actually have this

form of housing on it. Rather than not allow it, they should probably have a

look at how they're doing some of their community planning. That's a whole

other, I guess, soapbox for me to get onto another day.

In the past

there was an amount of up to $10,000 for moving expenses. One of the

difficulties of that was that it went to arbitration. There was some discussion

all the time about what was determined to be a moving expense. This clarifies

that it's 12 months' payable under the tenancy agreement, so that the homeowner

knows the amount that they have available to them to relocate, if they so wish.

In addition to that, if the landlord isn't taking the stated purpose, there's an

additional amount of rent that is payable under the tenancy agreement to the

homeowner.

[1455]

In the past

this would end up in an awful lot of arbitration and discussions with regards to

this, and this actually simplifies the entire formula for what is payable on

notice to have a tenancy vacate for a change of use.

J. Kwan:

It appears that the landlord could get a substantial return on his investment

while, quite frankly, the homeowners on the site will lose their homes. Does the

minister not agree that compensation should be the same as for any other

expropriated property? That would be fair market value.

Hon. R.

Coleman: No, the property is not being expropriated. They're being given a

notice with regards to something that is movable. One of the things that tenants

groups told us in the consultation of this act is that they wanted a formula

that would give them the money up front so that they would actually have it for

moving expenses rather than having to do the move and come back and try to

arbitrate expenses or what was or was not an expense relative to the moving of a

unit. That proved cumbersome; it proved ineffective. This actually sets out a

fairly clear set, the money up front and rules on moving expenses for somebody

that's going to vacate a tenancy.

J. Kwan:

The problem here is — and I go back to the point…. If you get moving

expenses and 12 months of rent to be paid for being evicted from your home, is

fair compensation…? That is, if a person has a site to move their home to.

The problem

here that's been identified by people in the industry and those homeowners

associated with manufactured home parks is that often new parks do not want

older homes, and so therefore it creates a

[ Page 4681 ]

problem for people looking for a new site. The Solicitor General can argue

that no, this is not expropriation because they don't own the land, but the fact

is that the land on which their home sits is being…. They're being

expropriated from it, actually. They are being evicted from it. They have to

move their home away from the site on which their home is parked, and that

creates a problem. In my view, there should be fair compensation value for that.

Sections 44

to 48 inclusive approved.

section 49.

J. Kwan:

Section 49 deals with the landlord's application for an order ending tenancy

early. Could the landlord obtain an arbitrator's order without the homeowner

being aware of the consequences?

Hon. R.

Coleman: No. They are required to serve it on the individual, and they are

also required to prove service before the arbitrator will deal with it.

Sections 49

to 54 inclusive approved.

section 55.

J. Kwan:

Section 55 deals with the arbitrator's authority. Under subsection (4) it reads,

"An arbitrator may dismiss all or a part of an application if (

a) there are

no reasonable grounds for the application or the part," and in subsection

(b): "the application or part does not disclose a dispute that may be

arbitrated under this Act." Then in subsection (c): "the application

or

part is frivolous or an abuse of the arbitration process." Could the

minister please advise if, under this

section of the act, it is required that

the rationale to dismiss a particular application be in written form?

[1500]

Hon. R.

Coleman: Yes. All arbitrator decisions must be in writing and give reasons

for them.

Sections

55 and 56 approved.

section 57.

J. Kwan:

Section 57 deals with "General powers and duties of arbitrators."

Could the minister please advise? Under

section 57(1) the language says the

"…arbitrator must consider any applicable policy guidelines established

by the director for the purposes of assisting arbitrators in applying this Act

and encouraging consistency of decision making."

There seems

to be concern about the word "any" being used, as opposed to "all

relevant" policies and guidelines. Could the minister please advise if

there's any difference, or is it just the drafter's language? Essentially, one

would assume the word "any" includes all relevant policies and

guidelines. Could the minister please clarify?

Hon. R.

Coleman: "Any" includes any or all relevant policies or

guidelines. The member is correct; it is drafting. Basically, there will be

policy and guidelines for arbitrators to follow. They will follow the ones that

are applicable to any individual arbitration or will take them into

consideration in making their decision.

Section

57 approved.

section

J. Kwan:

Section 58 deals with the arbitrator orders: breach of act, regulations or

tenancy agreement. It is not clear what happens when the landlord owes money to

the homeowner. How will this work?

Hon. R.

Coleman: They can apply to the arbitration for a monetary order. If it goes

unpaid, they can then take it to small claims court for enforcement.

J. Kwan:

Would there be an opportunity to put forward…? I assume, then, it would be up

to the arbitrator to decide whether or not a repayment

schedule would be put in

place — perhaps a

schedule that would not bankrupt the park owner or such

kinds of scenarios. Is it up to the arbitrator, then, to decide what the

repayment

schedule ought to look like, taking into consideration the financial

situation of the individual in question?

Hon. R.

Coleman: There's a number of questions couched in the same statements. If

the two parties come to an agreement on how they would like to pay it, if

they're going to pay it, that's one thing. If the tenant is still in the

tenancy, the arbitrator can make the order which would allow the tenant to

deduct the amount of the order from future rent.

Sections 58

to 65 inclusive approved.

section 66.

Hunter: This

section talks about arbitrators dealing with more than one

dispute of a related nature. I'm talking about

section 66(1). It seems to me

that when we're talking about homeowners who are renting a piece of ground and

services from a landlord under a tenancy agreement, the issue of related

disputes might impinge on the rights of one tenant or another.

Can the

Solicitor General explain why we feel it necessary to have this provision in

here? Is it a matter of potential efficiencies, or is he concerned that if there

is only a minor variance in disputes, we might be actually putting two quite

separate issues together?

[1505]

Hon. R.

Coleman: Just a clarification, Mr. Chair. I thought we'd moved to

section

71, but I'm prepared to answer the question on 66. Did we stop at 66?

The

Chair: Yes, we passed through 65.

[ Page 4682 ]

Hon. R.

Coleman: We did? Okay.

"If 2

or more applications for arbitration are accepted in respect of related disputes

with the same landlord…." Basically, a lot of this has existed in the

past. Now, because we will have certain things that are non-arbitratable, like

the formula for rent increase, we'll eliminate a lot of those that we've dealt

with, particularly in manufactured homes. But there are times when there are

disputes with regards to more global things in parks where, rather than having

an arbitrator deal with 15 or 20 or 30 arbitrations separately with regards to,

let's say, a repair that needs to be done to part of the road or whatever, they

could all be basically put together and dealt with by one arbitrator on one

decision, rather than having the other. That is actually, for the member's

information, an efficiency we're trying to achieve.

Sections

66 to 69 inclusive approved.

section

Hunter: I know that there is concern amongst both landlords and tenants over

the timing of arbitrations, and I know this

section talks about the need for a

decision to be given promptly, but it doesn't say anything about whether there's

an overall time limit during arbitration. I don't see anything in the bill which

suggests that an arbitration has to begin in a certain amount of time. I know

that some of these things are complex, and time has to be given, but there are

recorded arbitrations that have taken an enormous amount of time. That kind of

time delay does not suit either landlord or tenant, and I wondered if the

Solicitor General had given consideration to some overall time limit for

arbitration of the individual or joint cases we just discussed.

Hon. R.

Coleman: This

section is really geared to…. Let's say, for example, we had

an arbitrator that fell sick on day 29, and the decision hadn't been made. They

wouldn't lose the authority to do the arbitration. In our policy development, as

we move forward to bring the act into place, we will actually deal with some

directors' authority so that we can stop the ongoing situation with arbitrations

if we set the policy and guidelines for arbitrators.

Sections

70 to 72 inclusive approved.

section 73.

J. Kwan:

Section 73 deals with the time limit to apply for a review. We've just passed

section 71, which gives 15 days for corrections or clarifications of decisions.

Now, under 73 there are different time periods that apply for different

situations. As an example,

section 73(

a) stipulates a two-day time period

"after a copy of the decision or order is received by the party, if the

decision or order relates to…." Then a series of things need to take

their course. Within subsection (

b) a five-day time period is being used.

The

concerns that have been raised by the opposition, of course, are that these time

periods — either the two or five days — are not sufficient. The suggestion

is that it needs to be longer, perhaps using the 15-day time period. Could the

minister comment on that, please?

[1510]

Hon. R.

Coleman: Overall, you need to be applying for a review quickly so that

there's a finality to a decision rather than having it drag out. Two days for

the ones that connect into

section 73(a), we think, is appropriate. The other

ones, at five days and 15 days, are the same as they were.

J. Kwan:

Yes, I understand the need for finality. There's a difference, though, with a

short period of time for people to act versus giving an adequate period of time

for people to act. Fifteen days does not mean there is no finality. It simply

means that the people who may be faced with some difficulties in initiating

action would just have some time to do that.

I'll use

one example. Especially for older people and people with a disability, getting

the legal and adequate information to follow up can sometimes be onerous if the

time period is short — two or five days. It is noted that it is almost

impossible to get through to residential tenancy branch telephone lines, because

they are busy all the time. Of course, we know that some of the residential

tenancy branch offices have been closed, therefore limiting access even more.

information from branch information officers differs from one to another, and

access is therefore curtailed. The request for a 15-day time period to apply

does not in any way jeopardize the finality of the decision but rather simply

gives an opportunity, in particular, to those who need a little more time to

gather their information and therefore to take action. Comments from the

minister?

Hon. R.

Coleman: In cases of exceptional circumstances or difficulty, the arbitrator

does have the option to extend the time.

J. Kwan:

What provision of the act does that fall under?

Hon. R.

Coleman: Under the general extension of time, we will get this

section that

would have dealt with that. I think it is actually

section 59, sub (1) and (2),

where the arbitrator may extend or modify time limits if exceptional

circumstances exist.

Sections 73

to 86 inclusive approved.

section

J. Kwan:

Section 87 deals with the offences and penalties of the act. Could the minister

please advise

[ Page 4683 ]

who designates the investigation officer and who carries out the orders of

the residential tenancy branch?

The

Chair: Member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, could you repeat that for the

minister?

J. Kwan:

Yes.

Section 87 deals with the offences and penalties

section of the act. Two

questions for the minister: who designates the investigation officer, and who

carries out the orders of the tenancy branch?

[1515]

Hon. R.

Coleman: The consumer investigation branch of consumer services designates

the investigator and conducts the investigation. Hopefully, if the investigation

is successful, then we can get Crown to deal with laying a charge. I had a

discussion with the Leader of the Opposition earlier with regards to seeking

offences under the act. The other ones which would deal with offences and

penalties can be dealt with more expeditiously through the arbitrators.

J. Kwan:

Just to follow up on that, which court is referred to? Could this be done by an

arbitrator, or is it by a special dispensation of the director?

Hon. R.

Coleman: For offences under this act that are investigated, if evidence is

there, the Crown would then, under the Offence Act, proceed to seek penalties up

to $5,000 in the sections that have been identified, for a conviction of up to

$5,000. The challenge here, as I discussed with the Leader of the Opposition

earlier, is that we really need to…. If we do have somebody that is offending,

we need to be able to proceed to court to actually send the message to any other

landlords that think they can operate outside this act. An investigation which

is underway or completed and is ready for court…. We would proceed.

We would

be, frankly, encouraging Crown to proceed in cases where the evidence was

applicable so that we could make sure the offence and penalties and regulations

portion of this act are considered to have the teeth in them that they need to

have. It's certainly been a concern in residential tenancy for many years.

The Leader

of the Opposition asked me earlier: how many prosecutions? We're not sure there

ever really was one in the past many years. That's why we would be paying a

great deal of attention to it. We would be giving a direction to our director to

ensure that if there were offences that should be prosecuted, we would be

pushing as hard as possible to have those prosecuted.

Just before

we move on with the debate of

section 87, I would like to move the amendment

that sits with the Clerk with regards to this

section under

section 87(1)(b).

[SECTION 87 (1) , by deleting the proposed paragraph

(

b) and substituting the following:

(b)

section 17 (2) [no security deposit];]

There's no

reference in this act, as we amended it earlier, relative to a damage deposit,

and there's no security deposit allowed to be taken now under this act. It would

be an offence to take one under the act.

Amendment

approved.

Section 87

as amended approved.

Section 88

approved.

section

Hon. R.

Coleman: The last amendment is to

section 89, respecting the procedure the

landlord must follow to establish, change or appeal park rules. It's just a

clarification of the section.

[SECTION 89 , in the proposed subsection (2) by adding

the following paragraph:

(1.1) respecting the procedures a landlord must follow to establish, change or

repeal a park rule;.]

Amendment

approved.

Section 89

as amended approved.

Sections 90

to 97 inclusive approved.

Title

approved.

Hon. R.

Coleman: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with

amendments.

Motion

approved.

The

committee rose at 3:19 p.m.

The House

resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

[1520]

Reporting of Bills

Bill 71,

Manufactured Home Park Tenancy Act, reported complete with amendments.

Third Reading of Bills

Mr.

Speaker: When shall the bill be considered as read?

Hon. R.

Coleman: By leave now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave

granted.

Bill

71, Manufactured Home Park Tenancy Act, read a third time and passed.

Hon. M.

de Jong: I call committee stage of Bill 75.

[ Page 4684 ]

Committee of the Whole House

FORESTS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 2002

The House

in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 75; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

The

committee met at 3:21 p.m.

Sections 1

to 3 inclusive approved.

On

section

MacPhail:

Section 4(

a) repeals under the…. Of course, these are amendments

to the Forest Practices Code. Just for the record, Mr. Chair, the Forest

Practices Code will guide one of two processes available for planning and

approval in the province until March 31, 2004. All of this discussion is about

changes that are now being introduced to the Forest Practices Code.

The

definition of "backlog" is repealed. Now the backlog refers to the

lands harvested before 1987 that are not sufficiently replanted. By repealing

this, does that mean that the backlog is gone?

Hon. M.

de Jong: First of all, if I can introduce to members Ian Miller on my left

and Richard Grieve on my right from the Forest Service.

The member

correctly identifies what the definition of "backlog area" is. It

relates to a period prior to 1987 when the legal obligation to replant arose

essentially in its present form. I am advised that the vast majority of the

backlog areas have been tended to. It would be inaccurate to say that all of

them have been, but that, on balance, the remaining areas are ones for which it

would not generally be economically beneficial. On balance, the cost

effectiveness of replanting those areas isn't there.

MacPhail: Now who will be responsible for the elimination of what is

remaining of the backlog?

Hon. M.

de Jong: The member will know that we recently established the forest

investment account as a source of funding by which backlog areas can be dealt

with. The member has correctly focused in on an area that the legal parameters

around which that is done are changing. The agency through which funding would

flow to tend to any remaining backlog areas would be the forest investment

account.

Sections 4

to 7 inclusive approved.

On

section

[1525]

MacPhail:

Section 8 — let me just be clear about this — amends

section

10 of the Forest Practices Code by adding the word "approximate"

before "size, shape and location."

"Section

10 is amended (

a) in subsection (1) (b) (i) (

A) by adding 'approximate' before

'size, shape and location, ' (

b) by repealing subsection (1) (c) (ii) and

substituting the following: (ii) measures to protect prescribed forest

resources;, and (

c) by adding the following:

(4) A forest development plan

that (

a) at any time before the coming into force of this subsection, was

approved under

section 41 or given effect under

section 40, and (

b) was in

effect immediately before the coming into force of this subsection is

conclusively deemed to have complied with subsection (1) (c) (ii) as that

provision existed at the time the forest development plan was approved or was

given effect."

Adding "approximate" loosens up the definition. Just how loose is

the description going to be?

Hon. M.

de Jong: I am advised that under the existing regime…. Again, the member

is correct. This provides licensees with a greater degree of flexibility than

they presently enjoy. A shift of a boundary within a cutblock of even five to

ten metres presently, by law, requires the filing and approval of an amendment

— a formal amending process. Under this regime, if passed, that approval would

not be required for a shift of five to ten metres. Those are the parameters

around which this is contemplated to apply as opposed to hundreds of metres or

kilometres.

MacPhail: The reason I ask this question is that some have said that this

amendment is related to the cuts the government has made in its mapping

capability. This amendment accommodates the fact that those cuts have occurred.

It seems to me that it's crucial that companies and the ministry know exactly

the size of cutblocks and the location of roads. If you're butting up against a

sensitive area, ten metres may be important, but certainly 50 or 100 metres

would be very, very important to know about — that shift. How will the public

and the government know exactly what the companies are allowed to do and, I

guess more importantly in this section, where they're doing it?

Hon. M.

de Jong: The distinction, I think, that I need to make is the difference

between what is under this legislative regime called the forest development

plan, which is somewhat more general than the more specific site plan, and I

harken back to our earlier discussion. The specificity on the mapping side will

continue to exist at the site-plan level. I am advised that some of the tools

that are used are aerial photography and GPS mapping. That capability not only

exists but will continue to be utilized at the site-plan or silviculture

prescription stage.

[1530]

Sections 8

to 12 inclusive approved.

section 13.

[ Page 4685 ]

MacPhail:

Section 13 adds to the Forest Practices Code the requirement that

the district manager or the company prepare a site plan. It says: "A holder

of a timber sale licence who submits a site plan under subsection (3) (

b) is not

required to prepare and submit a silviculture prescription for the area to be

harvested under the licence, despite a requirement under the licence to do

so."

I raised a

lot of these issues with Bill 74. It seems that there's a lack of clarity as to

just what will be required for the site plan. Can the minister give us some

indication as to the detail that he anticipates will be required in the

regulatory requirements for site plans?

Hon. J.

van Dongen: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave

granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. J.

van Dongen: I am pleased to introduce to the Legislature today 14 students

and two teachers from Abbotsford Senior Secondary School. The teachers' names

are Mindy Rama and Ann Reeves. Accompanying them are 30 exchange students from

Beijing, China, who are sponsored by the Canada-China Society of Science and

Technology. Accompanying them is Mr. Guojie Gong from Beijing, China. I ask the

House to please make them all welcome.

Debate Continued

Hon. M.

de Jong: The member correctly identifies the distinction between the

silviculture prescription and what is provided for here, which is, as it were, a

bringing forward of the site plan model that is a key feature of the Forest and

Range Practices Act.

Under the

regulatory requirements, the kinds of things that will be provided for in the

site plan, we just have talked about mapping, the stipulation of riparian zones,

subdivisions for standards and units, total area and reforestation requirements.

Minimally, everything that was required in a silviculture prescription as it

relates to reforestation would need to be in the site plan. The provision for

roads we discussed at length. Protection for things like community watersheds

would also be referred to and required pursuant to the regulations.

[1535]

MacPhail: Is there less that's going to be required, or more, with regard to

silviculture prescriptions? Less under the previous code prior to its amendment,

or more or the same…?

Hon. M.

de Jong: The requirements that the licensee must comply with in terms of

achieving free-to-grow status are the same under either regime.

MacPhail: This

section creates a new section, 21.1, and subsection

(4) appears to make site plans more important than any requirements in a timber sale

licence to replant. So in terms of priorities, doesn't that open up an

opportunity for companies to get around their obligations to replant or limit

the requirements to restock the forest? We need some reassurance that this

change is not an undermining of the obligation to replant.

Hon. M.

de Jong: I think people do want the assurance that the member is speaking

to. The requirement set out in the silviculture prescriptions emerges today as a

contractual obligation — albeit one that was created, initially, statutorily.

It now presents itself as a contractual obligation set out generally in the

terms of a timber sale licence. We are providing, by virtue of this legislation,

for the replacement of the contractual obligation to prepare a silviculture plan

and replacing it with the statutory obligation to prepare the site plan.

At the end

of the day, I think what people want to know is that the obligation to reforest

the land and bring it to free-to-grow status over an eight-to-15-year period

remains and vests with the licensee.

MacPhail: So it does appear that the government's taking away what I think

is the most fundamental public interest in this legislation, which is to make

the resource sustainable. It seems to be that — it looks like, anyway — it's

turning over the important requirements of sustainability, replanting, to the

companies. One of the things that used to provoke market campaigns against

British Columbia was the companies who did cut-and-run, and those were the

pictures that were flashed around the world.

So what do

we have here — especially in times of economic downturn, which is what the

industry is facing right now — that will not allow the company to save money

through not investing in silviculture?

[1540]

Hon. M.

de Jong: Nothing is occurring here, hon. Chair, to diminish the obligation,

but I think the member is referring to the question of risk. She will know that

we regularly, as part of any number of licence offerings, require deposits or

take other forms of security as a way of ensuring that the licensees perform

their obligations, which linger after their activities on the land base have

ceased, from a harvest point of view. Nothing here alters that regime, and the

taking of that security, which is a security we take on behalf of the people of

the province to ensure that this work is done, will continue.

Sections

13 and 14 approved.

section

MacPhail:

Section 15 continues existing silviculture requirements but

eliminates the requirement to replant in areas where trees were damaged or

destroyed by natural causes. This appears to free companies from silviculture

requirements with parts of their

[ Page 4686 ]

harvest area, anyway. Again, I reiterate, the licence to harvest on Crown

land does carry with it a public duty. What's the justification for companies

being freed from the responsibility to care for the entire area in their licence?

Hon. M.

de Jong: I think it's important to recognize that what we are dealing with

in this

section is not the general responsibility that licensees have. It is how

we respond where there is a catastrophic event, a natural event that is not

attributable to the actions of the licensee. In those circumstances it is true

that the licensee, pursuant to this amendment, escapes or is relieved of any

obligation with respect to that specific area upon which that catastrophic

natural event took place. Once again, the mechanism by which the Crown can

address that area of land is the forest investment account. Hopefully, that

helps the member.

MacPhail: One of the reasons why, I'm told, there are limits on cutblock

size and proximity of cutblocks is to protect freestanding areas from the

effects of wind or runoff. Now we have a situation where I'm wondering who's

going to determine whether or not the harvesting practices themselves

contributed to the destruction of the standing trees.

[1545]

Hon. M.

de Jong: I think it's a fair question. I have checked with officials. I

wouldn't categorize that scenario the member has described as a natural

catastrophic event, because as the member said, it is attributable to

harvest-related activity. Therefore, in my view, responsibility is assignable.

MacPhail: Will that be part of the compliance and enforcement team — to

determine that?

Hon. M.

de Jong: In situations where a licensee was not abiding by its obligation,

there would need to be enforcement related to that.

Sections 15

and 16 approved.

section

MacPhail:

Section 17 repeals the requirement for existing stand management

prescriptions to be continued until the district manager determines that the

forest practices in the area have been completed. On that,

section 24.1 of the

code was only added last May. Now it's being deleted. Why?

Hon. M.

de Jong: One of the important distinctions to make with respect to the stand

managements is that they almost always relate to post–free growing stands, so

they are self-regulatory of government as opposed to licensees. The thing that

has changed since the introduction and passage of this

section is the

confirmation, under the terms of the forest investment account, that these

activities fall exclusively under the management responsibilities of the forest

investment account, FIA. Therefore, the provision is no longer required.

MacPhail: Two questions flow from that. Are there still stand management

prescriptions that need to be completed to the satisfaction of district

managers? Secondly, do the resources to carry this out rest within resources

being provided by the forest investment account?

Hon. M.

de Jong: The answer to the second question is yes. In response to the first

question from the member, the forest investment account has assumed

responsibility by virtue of its operation. If there are stand management

prescriptions that are in the midst of being completed, that information will

certainly be made available, but the legal effect of this is to quash any legal

effect existing stand management prescriptions have — or those that were in

the process of being completed.

Sections 17

to 19 inclusive approved.

section

[1550]

MacPhail:

Section 20 allows the district manager to exempt a person from the

requirements of continuing existing silviculture requirements. Again, there's a

lot of stuff here on silviculture, and it all seems that it's the government

moving away from requiring that the forests be restocked. Am I wrong?

Hon. M.

de Jong: Well, I disagree with the member's proposition that we are in any

way relieving licensees of the obligation that they have to ensure that all of

the appropriate and necessary reforestation activity takes place to take a

cutblock in an area back to free to grow.

Section 30 identifies circumstances in

which a person is exempted from the requirement to prepare a silviculture

prescription under

section

Section 22 is being repealed; therefore, this

section is no longer necessary.

Sections 20

to 23 inclusive approved.

section 24.

MacPhail:

Section 24 amends the ability to voluntarily amend operations

plans or site plans. Now, we will be discussing this a bit under

section 31 of

this bill as well, but let me just start. When this section, read with the new

section 42.1…. Clause 31 of this bill adds a new

section 42.1 to the Forest

Practices Code. With this section, read with the new 42.1 that's found in

section 31 of the bill, companies are now permitted to determine when they will

amend their operational plans or site plans without submitting those changes to

the ministry. All they have to do is determine themselves that any changes

conform to the regulations and standards set by the minister, so the ability of

the ministry to determine if,

[ Page 4687 ]

in fact, the change was done appropriately only comes after the change has

been implemented.

We all

know, and everybody agrees, that we need good forest practices, but we also want

good results both for the environment and for the workers and the communities

that depend on the forests. In that context and given the fact that this

amendment substantially changes the old prescriptive, rules-based Forest

Practices Code to a hybrid of an outcome-based Forest Practices Code now, can

the minister give examples that he can think of or explain just what minor

changes companies will be allowed to make without now having to submit those

changes to the ministry?

[H.

Long in the chair.]

[1555]

Hon. M.

de Jong: There will be regulatory guidance, as we talked about in Bill 74,

around the circumstances in which this

section may be relied upon by a licensee

— what constitutes the minor amendment that we're referring to. There's a

number of scenarios. A licensee may decide not to harvest a cutblock — period.

They wouldn't require specific approval from the ministry in that case. In

carrying out their more specified mapping through satellite photography or GPS

assistance, they may settle on a more specific line that had greater

particularity, assuming it did not represent a gross divergence from the initial

development plan. That would represent a minor amendment.

What this

is not designed to do — and I will put this on the record, because I want it

on the record…. This is not designed to facilitate someone on the land base

saying: "Boy, if I just go another ten metres farther, there's some

good-looking timber over there that is outside of my cutblock area, and I'm

going to utilize this provision to gain access to it." That is not what

this is designed to facilitate at all.

Sections 24

to 30 inclusive approved.

section

MacPhail: We've already discussed

section 31 in the context of

section 24.

It allows for the amendment to the operational plans and site plans without

prior approval by the ministry, so it's the same sort of feeling that it's kind

of like a "just trust us" section. It does allow for companies to

change their site and operational plans without prior approval of the ministry.

This adds a

new twist. It also states that it's not necessary to send these changes out for

review or comment. It becomes even more crucial that we limit the application of

this

section because it allows self-governing and self-regulation, first of all,

but not even self-regulation to be modified by public review or comment. Can the

minister provide some examples of the types of changes that would be permitted

under this section?

Hon. M.

de Jong: We can think of some examples additional to the ones I mentioned

earlier, although they are similar circumstances. The point I would want to

emphasize is this. Under the existing regime, minor amendments were not

reviewable or made available for comment. I would emphasize, as well, that under

the provisions of this

section and others, a licensee can't simply decide on the

spur of the moment to vary their activities from what is set out in their site

plan, in their development plan. They must prepare a formal amendment, and it

must be available for anyone who is interested, to ensure that the activity

taking place on the land base is consistent with the plan or the amended plan.

That cross-check is still there, and what I want people to know is if we are

confronted by a situation where a licensee is harvesting in a way that is

inconsistent with the plan on file, it will not be a defence to say: "Well,

we amended that in the coffee shop yesterday." There is a formal mechanism

by which that must be amended.

MacPhail: I'm not, as I often get accused of in this chamber, fearmongering.

I'm trying to limit the application of this or understand it. Let me quote.

This was at

second reading debate on the Forest and Range Practices Act. The member for

North Island said this.

"When

they're building a road and there's something unforeseen that comes along, he

can get on the radio and say: 'Jeez, engineering department? I've got a

problem, Houston'— or Mr. Houston or whatever his name is. 'If I do this,

this is going to be okay.' The engineer can now go out there and say, 'You're

right, Joe. You can do that. I'm going to put my stamp on it because I think

you're right, and my professional training says I think you're right,' and off

we go. You know what? That's a great thing."

[1600]

Then he

goes on to say:

"We've

just empowered the people of this province, the workers in the industry and

the professional support they have around them to actually get the job done

and to do it in a way that makes sense. Do we, should we, can we, ought we to

care that that culvert's going to be 20 metres farther down the road? God, we

don't need paperwork about that, but that's what they had to do: a mountain of

paperwork."

I'll finish

reading. He says:

"Wanted

to build a road. A company built a road two feet too wide — mountain of

paperwork. Have an investigation. Have an undertaking. Got to bring everybody

into the office, have a long discussion about it — three or four days'

worth. Couple of ministry staff, couple of forest staff, couple of operators

— big discussion.

"We

don't have to do it now."

Is this the kind of thing that's going to be permitted?

Hon. M.

de Jong: I think the question and the reference back to the earlier comments

are helpful in attempting to provide some structure on what this difference

actually means. In the case of — let's take a part of what the member referred

to — the placement of a culvert, the objective there in terms of the result we

are looking for is the proper irrigation, the proper drain-

[ Page 4688 ]

age, the proper maintenance of watercourses and all that that implies for

soil stability and road stability.

Within this

movement to the results-based regime, we are indeed providing additional

flexibility. I distinguish that from something around which I see far less

flexibility, and that is the perimeter of a cutblock, which is really the right

you obtain from the Crown in terms of the specific harvesting area you are

entitled to conduct activity on. That, to my mind, represents something of a

more absolute entitlement around which we want to maintain pretty strict

control.

Within the

confines of that area, does this regime provide, as the Forest and Range

Practices Act ultimately does, additional flexibility of the sort the member

referred to in terms of where one places a culvert? I think it does. I think it

does, and the challenge for the licensees and for the Crown, via the compliance

and enforcement section, is to ensure that those results are being achieved.

Sections 31

to 36 inclusive approved.

section

MacPhail:

Section 37 is introducing the concept of due diligence as a

defence into the Forest Practices Code. Now, the minister and I had a very

thorough discussion around this, and we disagree. There's a couple of nuances

here, again, that need to be explored, and I'll say, Mr. Chair, that I'll be

voting against this section.

[1605]

Due

diligence is a legal — both civil and criminal — concept, but it's being

incorporated at this point in legislation which deals with a judgment call by a

district manager. Why?

Hon. M.

de Jong: I'll try this. If I've missed the point of the question, then I'll

undoubtedly try again.

The

member's right. We had the discussion and the debate around the application of

the due diligence defence on the administrative side of the equation, and I

think we maintained a healthy difference of opinion about the arguments in

support of that. In fairness, I think the member said that her greatest concern

lay in the timing of the shift and that perhaps two or three years from now she

would have a greater degree of comfort — or not — but she doesn't have that

comfort now.

I should

say, as well, that at one point during that discussion we had a debate around

some jurisprudence. Some of the staff in my ministry were concerned that they

left an impression that they misconveyed an

interpretation of that to the member

during briefings. That was not in any way their intention. In fact, some of that

jurisprudence had some specific things to say about "deemed" — the

deemed availability of due diligence defences. I don't think there was any

intention on anyone's part — the member's or anyone else's — to misinterpret

for the House that jurisprudence, but I make that point.

I think the

difference here that the member has addressed is that in this case, it's

discretionary authority exercised by the district manager. That speaks to one of

the basic differences from a statutory point of view of the existing Forest

Practices Code and the new results-based code. In this original Forest Practices

Code, the statutory decision-makers are enumerated in the act,

whereas under the

new act all of that power is vested in the minister and then delegated outwards

to the various officials.

We haven't

changed the Forest Practices Code to bring it in line with the new Forest and

Range Practices Act. It remains a model in which the statutory decision-makers

are set out in the act. In this case, as in virtually all cases in this act,

that statutory decision-maker is the district manager.

[1610]

MacPhail: Let me ask this, then: for practical purposes, how is a company to

establish that due diligence was exercised? Who then decides if due diligence

was exercised? It can't be the district manager. Will we have a situation where

one person says it was due diligence, and then if that's acknowledged, that

becomes the other person's failure?

Hon. M.

de Jong: Here is how this would play out in this regime. The triggering

event for this would be a finding by the statutory decision-maker, the district

manager, that there has been an administrative violation and a finding against

the licensee. The licensee then has the opportunity — and I think the

technical term is an opportunity to be heard — to come before the district

manager, the same statutory decision-maker, for what is in effect a review, the

onus falling to the licensee to make the case that due diligence was exercised.

In grossly

simplifying what that test is, I will suggest to the House that it is a test

that relates to that licensee's ability to demonstrate they conducted themselves

reasonably in accordance with reasonable standards, reasonably utilizing the

professional information that was available and relying on the agrologists, the

biologists and the foresters. At that stage the statutory decision-maker, the

district manager, will render a decision on that review as to whether or not

that defence of due diligence has been made out. If the district manager finds

that it has, I suppose that is likely the end of the matter. If he or she finds

that it hasn't, then the licensee has a right of appeal by the Judicial Review

Procedure Act to the courts or to the Forest Appeals Commission for a review of

that decision.

MacPhail: I think this is going to be one area where it's going to be very

difficult to blend that concept into the Forest Practices Code — almost

impossible, if you ask me.

Another

thing about

section 48.1 is that the district manager cannot direct a company to

take action if the

[ Page 4689 ]

damage was the result of "an officially induced error." So what is

an officially induced error?

Hon. M.

de Jong: I think this is an example that might be helpful, hon. Chair. Let

us suppose you are a licensee in a situation where the pine beetle is at issue.

You are told to harvest in a very specific area by Forest Service officials, and

it turns out that you were directed into a park or a protected area

inadvertently. The evidence that you had been directed there specifically by

officials would provide you with a defence.

MacPhail: In the same section, subsection (2) allows for the minister and

cabinet to allow a company that did damage to the environment and had to repair

that damage to recover all or some of their costs for doing so. Now, I'm

curious. If the intent of this results-based code is to make companies

responsible for logging in a manner that does not cause damage to the

environment, why should the taxpayer pay for it when they're wrong on that, when

there's a wrongdoing?

[1615]

Hon. M.

de Jong: Are we referring now to 48.1(2)?

MacPhail: Yes.

Hon. M.

de Jong: Thanks.

It's a good

question. The circumstance that this contemplates is one in which a licensee has

been found to be in violation. That violation has caused degradation or damage.

The licensee is obligated to conduct remedial activity and incurs costs in that

respect, but because of the unique circumstances, the repair work or the

remedial activity they must undertake extends beyond the work for which they are

specifically responsible so that a small portion of that work is incidental to

the damage their violation has caused. This provides a mechanism by which a

portion of that cost they have incurred could be remunerated to them. That's the

reason it exists.

MacPhail: It's going to be incumbent upon the regulations to prescribe those

circumstances very carefully, because the ability to prescribe beyond that is

certainly given in the legislation. I want to make it clear that under this

piece of legislation, the opposition does not accept due diligence as a defence.

The way we're going to demonstrate that is to vote against the provision of due

diligence as a defence in every single

section except for, if I may — just to

put you on notice —

section 54, where I'll be calling division.

Section

37 approved on division.

Section

38 approved.

section

MacPhail:

Section 39 adds the words "except in prescribed

circumstances" to the current code in relation to the requirement to stop

or modify a forest practice when they find a previously unidentified resource

feature: "Section 51(2) is amended by striking out 'If a person carrying

out a forest practice,' and substituting 'Except in prescribed circumstances, if

a person carrying out a forest practice.'"

[1620]

The

resource features include a cultural heritage resource and a recreational

feature. These are pretty sensitive areas. Can the minister explain what the

prescribed circumstances are?

Hon. M.

de Jong: Let's take an example of a culturally modified tree or stand of

trees. This

section contemplates a situation where that is a resource that has

been identified in a site plan, but under the amended provisions of this code,

that operational plan has not been approved. Sorry, I've already got this

backwards. No. Sorry. I think I got it correct. It has been identified in an

operational plan, but that has not been approved as the development plan or

later as the forest stewardship plan.

[1625]

This

allows, in those circumstances with the appropriate safeguards in place, for the

activity to continue. It doesn't require a cease and desist on the part of the

licensee and the obtaining of a specific approval. That would not be the case,

however, if the particular resource — and we're talking in this example about

a culturally modified stand of trees or a tree — has not been identified in

either the operational plan or the planning document. I apologize.

MacPhail: All right. Let me do one follow-up question. I thought the

minister said at the end that we're not talking about a culturally modified tree

that hasn't been identified in either the operational plan or the site plan.

Well, let

me ask this then, because this is a very sensitive area in the case of cultural

heritage. There have been incidents of destruction, in the past, of aboriginal

heritage just because others didn't know what a culturally modified resource

was. What assurances can the minister give to the House that there's an

exhaustive inventory of first nations cultural sites? You would need that

inventory, then, in order for the operational plan or site plan to be approved.

Hon. M.

de Jong: Again, I think that's a fair question. The moment or the time when

that identification and inventory need to take place is well in advance of the

finalization of any site plans or operational plans. It relates to the forest

development plan under this regime or, later, the forest stewardship plan. It is

why the test around appropriate opportunities to comment and consult with first

nations in the area becomes so important — because at the end of the day,

presumably, they are in the best position of all to help establish or confirm

that inventory. I think what this speaks to in

part is the possibility where,

following that inventory, there is a situation where something emerges that no

one

[ Page 4690 ]

was aware of or set out in that general planning document.

Sections 39

to 41 inclusive approved.

section

MacPhail: I need to talk about sections 42 and 43 together, because those

two sections remove from the code and place in regulation the requirements for

road and construction approval. Here's the forest road regulation for road

construction and approval. Oh, sorry — it's only half that.

[1630]

I'm sure

this is what the minister will say is cutting red tape, but let me just say that

we have 26 pages of description around forest road regulation. Not all of it is

to do with road construction and approval, but a substantial amount of it is.

What's now gone is the requirement under the current code to approve road

layout, design — approval process — and the need for construction surveys.

What replaces this — those 26 pages? What assurances does the minister have

that the requirements that are currently prescribed in these 26 pages will at

least be upheld in the new regime?

Hon. M.

de Jong: I think the distinction I want to make is that the regulations the

member refers to continue to apply. The requirement to comply with those

regulations continues. I acknowledge that the difference here is that there is a

different regime for obtaining approvals. Approvals will be required in

high-risk, I will call them, and higher risk circumstances. The regulation the

member and others will be interested in is the one that defines what constitutes

higher risk. Those road layout plans will continue to have to be approved, but

all road layouts will have to comply with the regulations.

MacPhail: What we're doing here is moving the roadbuilding requirements from

legislation to regulation, but the regulation stays the same.

Hon. M.

de Jong: The member's statement is essentially correct, though I want to

alert her and others to the fact that where we can find ways to simplify the

regulatory package she held up, we will be doing that.

Sections 42

to 53 inclusive approved.

section

MacPhail: This is the

section that imports the legal construct of due

diligence into the Forest Practices Code now. I will be voting by division

against this section.

I would

refer everyone who's interested in this to the discussion the minister and I had

around this under the Forest and Range Practices Act. We don't need to repeat

it. A very short

summary is that I believe the defence of due diligence is now

being allowed in a realm of administrative law,

whereas the legal concept is

usually reserved as a right under the more formal and more litigious court

system. Where there's a prosecution involved, due diligence would be allowed as

an argument for a defence, but now we're having due diligence permitted under

administrative law — basically a ticketing system, penalty system. All of my

concerns and my anxiety about timing, the hurried nature of allowing this as a

defence, stand for this amendment to the Forest Practices Code as well.

Hon. M.

de Jong: I appreciate that the member wants the record to reflect that her

concerns with respect to this bill are similar to her concerns as articulated on

Bill 74. Similarly, I would incorporate, for the purposes of this debate, the

submissions I made and reiterate that I am very much of the view that when we

are dealing with sanctions the state may impose that are of an incredibly

significant nature, the doctrines of fairness I am most comfortable with would

convince me that this is the appropriate regime for us to adopt and apply.

[1635]

It is,

further, not at all inconsistent with instructions or directions that the courts

have provided with respect to the presumption that exists, actually, for the

availability of the defence, except in circumstances where this Legislature has

specifically set out that the defence would not be available.

Section

54 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 67

Falcon

Coell

Halsey-Brandt

Whittred

Cheema

Hansen

J. Reid

Bruce

Santori

van Dongen

Barisoff

Roddick

Wilson

Masi

Lee

Thorpe

Hagen

Murray

Plant

Collins

Clark

Bond

de Jong

Nebbeling

Stephens

Abbott

Coleman

Chong

Penner

Jarvis

Anderson

Orr

Harris

Nuraney

Brenzinger

Belsey

Bell

Chutter

Mayencourt

Trumper

Johnston

R. Stewart

Hayer

Christensen

Krueger

McMahon

Bray

Les

Locke

Nijjar

Bhullar

Wong

Bloy

Suffredine

MacKay

Cobb

K. Stewart

Visser

Lekstrom

Brice

Sultan

Hamilton

Sahota

Hawes

Kerr

Manhas

Hunter

[ Page 4691 ]

NAYS — 2

MacPhail

Kwan

Sections

55 to 71 inclusive approved.

[1640]

Title

approved.

Hon. M.

de Jong: Mr. Chair, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete

without amendment.

Motion

approved.

The

committee rose at 4:43 p.m.

The House

resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

Bill

75, Forests Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2002, reported complete without

amendment, read a third time and passed.

[1645]

Mr.

Speaker: The Lieutenant-Governor, I believe, is in the precinct. I would ask

all members to please remain in their seats, and she should arrive momentarily.

Hon.

members, it has been brought to my attention that the Lieutenant-Governor is not

in the precinct yet. She will be here in about 15 minutes. We'll take a recess,

and I will ring the division bells when it's appropriate.

The House

recessed from 4:49 p.m. to 5:09 p.m.

[Mr.

Speaker in the chair.]

Royal Assent to Bills

Her Honour

the Lieutenant-Governor entered the chamber and took her place in the chair.

Clerk of

the House:

Residential

Tenancy Act

Manufactured

Home Park Tenancy Act

Community

Care and Assisted Living Act

Forests

Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2002

The Hunting

and Fishing Heritage Act

In Her

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

Hon. I.

Campagnolo (Lieutenant-Governor): I realize you're all going home for the

Christmas vacation, so I wish you all a very happy holiday and will look forward

to seeing you in the new year.

Some

Hon. Members: Merry Christmas.

[1710]

Her Honour

the Lieutenant-Governor retired from the chamber.

[Mr.

Speaker in the chair.]

Hon. G.

Collins: I move that the House at its rising do stand adjourned until it

appears to the satisfaction of the Speaker, after consultation with the

government, that the public interest requires that the House shall meet or until

the Speaker may be advised by the government that it is desired to prorogue the

third session of the thirty-seventh 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 time and date. In the unfortunate 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.

Hon. G.

Collins moved adjournment of the House.

Motion

approved.

The House

adjourned at 5:12 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

In addition to providing transcripts on the Internet, Hansard

Services publishes transcripts in print and broadcasts Chamber debates on

television.

channel guide • Broadcast

schedule

Copyright ©

2002: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

ISSN: 1499-2175