British Columbia Hansard — Tuesday, May 11, 2004

h0511pm-09

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

5th Session, 37th Parliament OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (HANSARD) Tuesday, May 11, 2004 Afternoon Sitting Volume 25, Number 9 THE HONOURABLE CLAUDE RICHMOND, SPEAKER ISSN 0709-1281

PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Entered Confederation July 20, 1871) LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR Honourable Iona Campagnolo 5TH SESSION, 37TH PARLIAMENT SPEAKER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Honourable Claude Richmond EXECUTIVE COUNCIL Premier and President of the Executive Council ............................................................................................................Hon. Gordon Campbell Minister of State for Intergovernmental Relations ...............................................................................................................Hon.

Sindi Hawkins Deputy Premier and Minister of Children and Family Development ................................................................................ Hon. Christy Clark Minister of State for Early Childhood Development...................................................................................................................Hon. Linda Reid Minister of Advanced Education................................................................................................................................................ Hon.

Shirley Bond Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries..................................................................................................................... Hon. John van Dongen Attorney General and Minister Responsible for Treaty Negotiations..................................................................................... Hon. Geoff Plant Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services ................................................................................................ Hon.

Murray Coell Minister of State for Women's and Seniors' Services................................................................................................................... Hon. Ida Chong Minister of Education ............................................................................................................................................................Hon. Tom Christensen Minister of Energy and Mines...............................................................................................................................................Hon.

Richard Neufeld Minister of State for Mining...................................................................................................................................................................Hon. Pat Bell Minister of Finance.........................................................................................................................................................................Hon. Gary Collins Minister of Forests................................................................................................................................................................... Hon.

Michael de Jong Minister of State for Forestry Operations.................................................................................................................................. Hon. Roger Harris Minister of Health Services.........................................................................................................................................................Hon. Colin Hansen Minister of State for Mental Health and Addiction Services ....................................................................................................Hon.

Susan Brice Minister of Human Resources........................................................................................................................................................Hon. Stan Hagen Minister of Management Services ............................................................................................................................................. Hon. Joyce Murray Minister of Provincial Revenue.................................................................................................................................................... Hon.

Rick Thorpe Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General...................................................................................................................... Hon. Rich Coleman Minister of Skills Development and Labour......................................................................................................................Hon. Graham P. Bruce Minister of Small Business and Economic Development ...............................................................................................................Hon.

John Les Minister of Sustainable Resource Management ....................................................................................................................Hon. George Abbott Minister of State for Resort Development............................................................................................................................... Hon. Sandy Santori Minister of Transportation...........................................................................................................................................................Hon.

Kevin Falcon Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection ............................................................................................................................... Hon.

Bill Barisoff LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Deputy Speaker ....................................................................................................................................................................................John Weisbeck Leader of the Opposition .......................................................................................................................................................................Joy MacPhail Deputy Chair, Committee of the Whole..............................................................................................................................................

Harold Long Clerk of the Legislative Assembly ........................................................................................................................................... E. George MacMinn Clerk Assistant.........................................................................................................................................................................................Robert Vaive Clerk Assistant and Law Clerk ...............................................................................................................................................................Ian D.

Izard Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees ....................................................................................................................................... Craig H. James Clerk Assistant and Committee Clerk ..........................................................................................................................................Kate Ryan-Lloyd Sergeant-at-Arms............................................................................................................................................................................. A.A.

Humphreys Director, Hansard Services ..................................................................................................................................................Anthony Dambrauskas Legislative Librarian ..................................................................................................................................................................................Jane Taylor Legislative Comptroller...............................................................................................................................................................................Peter Bray Published by British Columbia Hans ard Services, and printed under the authority of the Speaker by the Queen's Printer, Victoria.

Rates: single issue, $2.85; per calendar year, mailed daily, $298. GST extra. Agent: Crown Publications Inc., 521 Fort St., Victoria, B.C. V8W 1E7. Telephone: (250) 386-4636. Fax: 386-0221. www.leg.bc.ca Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet. Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.

Party Standings: Liberal 74; New Democratic 2; Independent Liberal 3 ALPHABETICAL LIST OF MEMBERS Abbott, Hon. George (L) ..........................................................................Shuswap Anderson, Val J. (L)............................................................... Vancouver-Langara Barisoff, Hon. Bill (L)...............................................Penticton–Okanagan Valley Bell, Hon.

Pat (L) ..................................................................Prince George North Belsey, Bill (L)....................................................................................North Coast Bennett, Bill (L) ..............................................................................East Kootenay Bhullar, Tony (Ind. L) ................................................................... Surrey-Newton Bloy, Harry (L).....................................................................................Burquitlam Bond, Hon. Shirley (L)..........................................

Prince George–Mount Robson Bray, Jeff (L) ........................................................................Victoria–Beacon Hill Brenzinger, Elayne (Ind. L)...........................................................Surrey-Whalley Brice, Hon. Susan (L)...................................................................... Saanich South Bruce, Hon. Graham P. (L) ................................................. Cowichan-Ladysmith Campbell, Hon. Gordon (L) ..............................................

Vancouver–Point Grey Cheema, Gulzar S. (L).....................................................Surrey–Panorama Ridge Chong, Hon. Ida (L) ......................................................... Oak Bay–Gordon Head Christensen, Hon. Tom (L) ...................................................... Okanagan-Vernon Chutter, Dave (L) ..............................................................................Yale-Lillooet Clark, Hon.

Christy (L) ....................................................Port Moody–Westwood Cobb, Walt (L) ................................................................................Cariboo South Coell, Hon. Murray (L) ..........................................Saanich North and the Islands Coleman, Hon. Rich (L)................................................Fort Langley–Aldergrove Collins, Hon. Gary (L) ..........................................................Vancouver-Fairview de Jong, Hon. Michael (L) ........................................Abbotsford–Mount Lehman Falcon, Hon.

Kevin (L) ............................................................ Surrey-Cloverdale Hagen, Hon. Stan (L) ......................................................................Comox Valley Halsey-Brandt, Greg (L) ............................................................Richmond Centre Hamilton, Arnie (L)..............................................................Esquimalt-Metchosin Hansen, Hon. Colin (L) .......................................................Vancouver-Quilchena Harris, Hon.

Roger (L) ................................................................................Skeena Hawes, Randy (L)............................................................... Maple Ridge–Mission Hawkins, Hon. Sindi (L) ........................................................... Kelowna-Mission Hayer, Dave S. (L) ..................................................................... Surrey-Tynehead Hogg, Gordon (L)................................................................... Surrey–White Rock Hunter, Mike (L) .....................................................................................

Nanaimo Jarvis, Daniel (L)........................................................North Vancouver–Seymour Johnston, Ken (L).............................................................. Vancouver-Fraserview Kerr, Brian J. (L) ................................................................ Malahat–Juan de Fuca Krueger, Kevin (L)................................................... Kamloops–North Thompson Kwan, Jenny Wai Ching (NDP)................................

Vancouver–Mount Pleasant Lee, Richard T. (L).........................................................................Burnaby North Lekstrom, Blair (L)................................................................... Peace River South Les, Hon. John (L).................................................................... Chilliwack-Sumas Locke, Brenda (L) ............................................................. Surrey–Green Timbers Long, Harold (L) .................................................... Powell River–Sunshine Coast MacKay, Dennis (L).........................................................

Bulkley Valley–Stikine McMahon, Wendy (L).............................................. Columbia River–Revelstoke MacPhail, Joy (NDP) ............................................................ Vancouver-Hastings Manhas, Karn (L) ..............................................Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain Masi, Reni (L) ..................................................................................... Delta North Mayencourt, Lorne (L)............................................................Vancouver-Burrard Murray, Hon. Joyce (L).............................................................

New Westminster Nebbeling, Ted (L)..................................................... West Vancouver–Garibaldi Nettleton, Paul (Ind. L) ...................................................Prince George–Omineca Neufeld, Hon. Richard (L) .......................................................

Peace River North Nijjar, Rob (L).....................................................................Vancouver-Kingsway Nuraney, John (L)..................................................................Burnaby-Willingdon Orr, Sheila (L) .............................................................................Victoria-Hillside Penner, Barry (L)......................................................................... Chilliwack-Kent Plant, Hon. Geoff (L) ...........................................................

Richmond-Steveston Reid, Judith (L)....................................................................... Nanaimo-Parksville Reid, Hon. Linda (L) ..................................................................... Richmond East Richmond, Hon. Claude (L)...................................................................Kamloops Roddick, Valerie (L)............................................................................ Delta South Sahota, Patty (L).......................................................................Burnaby-Edmonds Santori, Hon. Sandy (L) ..............................................

West Kootenay–Boundary Stephens, Lynn (L).................................................................................... Langley Stewart, Ken (L)........................................................ Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows Stewart, Richard (L)........................................................Coquitlam-Maillardville Suffredine, Blair F. (L)..................................................................Nelson-Creston Sultan, Ralph (L) .........................................................West Vancouver–Capilano Thorpe, Hon.

Rick (L)............................................................Okanagan-Westside Trumper, Gillian (L)..................................................................Alberni-Qualicum van Dongen, Hon. John (L)..................................................Abbotsford-Clayburn Visser, Rod (L)...................................................................................North Island Weisbeck, John (L).......................................................... Kelowna–Lake Country Whittred, Katherine (L).............................................

North Vancouver–Lonsdale Wilson, John (L)..............................................................................Cariboo North Wong, Patrick (L)..............................................................Vancouver-Kensington LIST OF MEMBERS BY RIDING Abbotsford-Clayburn ........................................................ Hon. John van Dongen Abbotsford–Mount Lehman................................................Hon. Michael de Jong Alberni-Qualicum ........................................................................

Gillian Trumper Bulkley Valley–Stikine ................................................................ Dennis MacKay Burnaby North................................................................................ Richard T. Lee Burnaby-Edmonds.............................................................................. Patty Sahota Burnaby-Willingdon ........................................................................John Nuraney Burquitlam............................................................................................

Harry Bloy Cariboo North..................................................................................... John Wilson Cariboo South........................................................................................Walt Cobb Chilliwack-Kent ................................................................................ Barry Penner Chilliwack-Sumas ........................................................................... Hon.

John Les Columbia River–Revelstoke .....................................................Wendy McMahon Comox Valley .............................................................................Hon. Stan Hagen Coquitlam-Maillardville............................................................... Richard Stewart Cowichan-Ladysmith .........................................................Hon. Graham P.

Bruce Delta North.............................................................................................Reni Masi Delta South...................................................................................Valerie Roddick East Kootenay .....................................................................................Bill Bennett Esquimalt-Metchosin .................................................................... Arnie Hamilton Fort Langley–Aldergrove....................................................... Hon.

Rich Coleman Kamloops ......................................................................... Hon. Claude Richmond Kamloops–North Thompson.......................................................... Kevin Krueger Kelowna–Lake Country .................................................................John Weisbeck Kelowna-Mission ...................................................................Hon. Sindi Hawkins Langley........................................................................................... Lynn Stephens Malahat–Juan de Fuca.......................................................................

Brian J. Kerr Maple Ridge–Mission ......................................................................Randy Hawes Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows............................................................... Ken Stewart Nanaimo .............................................................................................Mike Hunter Nanaimo-Parksville..............................................................................Judith Reid Nelson-Creston......................................................................... Blair F.

Suffredine New Westminster .................................................................... Hon. Joyce Murray North Coast .......................................................................................... Bill Belsey North Island.......................................................................................... Rod Visser North Vancouver–Lonsdale .................................................... Katherine Whittred North Vancouver–Seymour ..............................................................

Daniel Jarvis Oak Bay–Gordon Head.................................................................Hon. Ida Chong Okanagan-Vernon ..............................................................Hon. Tom Christensen Okanagan-Westside................................................................... Hon. Rick Thorpe Peace River North ...............................................................Hon. Richard Neufeld Peace River South ..........................................................................Blair Lekstrom Penticton–Okanagan Valley...................................................... Hon.

Bill Barisoff Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain......................................................Karn Manhas Port Moody–Westwood ...........................................................Hon. Christy Clark Powell River–Sunshine Coast............................................................Harold Long Prince George North .........................................................................Hon. Pat Bell Prince George–Mount Robson................................................. Hon. Shirley Bond Prince George–Omineca .................................................................

Paul Nettleton Richmond Centre ...................................................................Greg Halsey-Brandt Richmond East ............................................................................ Hon. Linda Reid Richmond-Steveston ...................................................................Hon. Geoff Plant Saanich North and the Islands..................................................Hon. Murray Coell Saanich South............................................................................. Hon. Susan Brice Shuswap ................................................................................

Hon. George Abbott Skeena .......................................................................................Hon. Roger Harris Surrey-Cloverdale ....................................................................Hon. Kevin Falcon Surrey–Green Timbers.....................................................................Brenda Locke Surrey-Newton ..................................................................................Tony Bhullar Surrey–Panorama Ridge............................................................ Gulzar S.

Cheema Surrey-Tynehead .............................................................................Dave S. Hayer Surrey-Whalley ........................................................................ Elayne Brenzinger Surrey–White Rock.......................................................................... Gordon Hogg Vancouver-Burrard .................................................................. Lorne Mayencourt Vancouver-Fairview..................................................................Hon. Gary Collins Vancouver-Fraserview .....................................................................

Ken Johnston Vancouver-Hastings......................................................................... Joy MacPhail Vancouver-Kensington .................................................................... Patrick Wong Vancouver-Kingsway............................................................................ Rob Nijjar Vancouver-Langara...................................................................... Val J. Anderson Vancouver–Mount Pleasant .............................................Jenny Wai Ching Kwan Vancouver–Point Grey..................................................... Hon.

Gordon Campbell Vancouver-Quilchena ............................................................. Hon. Colin Hansen Victoria–Beacon Hill ...............................................................................Jeff Bray Victoria-Hillside.....................................................................................Sheila Orr West Kootenay–Boundary ......................................................Hon. Sandy Santori West Vancouver–Capilano ............................................................... Ralph Sultan West Vancouver–Garibaldi............................................................

Ted Nebbeling Yale-Lillooet .....................................................................................Dave Chutter

CONTENTS Tuesday, May 11, 2004 Afternoon Sitting Routine Proceedings Page Tributes ....................................................................................................................... ........................................................... 11015 Paul Tennant Hon. C. Richmond Hon. G. Abbott J. MacPhail J.

Kwan Introductions by Members ....................................................................................................... ............................................ 11015 Tributes ....................................................................................................................... ............................................................ 11015 Paul Tennant Hon. G.

Campbell Introductions by Members ....................................................................................................... ............................................ 11015 Statements (Standing Order 25 B) .............................................................................................................................. ........... 11015 Women of Distinction Awards B. Kerr Kiwanis cycling tour for juvenile diabetes research G. Trumper Canadian women's wrestling team D.

MacKay Oral Questions................................................................................................................. ....................................................... 11016 Canada Health Act and surgery on Liberal MLA J. MacPhail Hon. C. Hansen Facility fees for private surgeries J. Kwan Hon. C. Hansen Skills training requirements in B.C. E. Brenzinger Hon. S. Bond Status of RAV line G. Halsey-Brandt Hon. K. Falcon Facility fees for private surgeries J. Kwan Hon. C. Hansen Regional planning issues and responsibilities of agricultural land commission R. Hawes Hon. G.

Abbott Tabling Documents.............................................................................................................. .................................................. 11020 Legislative Assembly Management Committee, annual report, 2002-2003 Second Reading of Bills........................................................................................................ ................................................. 11020 Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services Statutes Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 36) Hon. M. Coell

Committee of the Whole House................................................................................................... ........................................ 11021 Real Estate Development Marketing Act (Bill 42) R. Stewart Hon. G. Collins G. Halsey-Brandt B. Kerr D. Hayer R. Sultan D.

Jarvis Report and Third Reading of Bills .............................................................................................. ......................................... 11034 Real Estate Development Marketing Act (Bill 42) Committee of the Whole House................................................................................................... ........................................ 11034 Highway (Industrial) Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 46) D. MacKay Hon. K. Falcon G. Trumper V.

Roddick Report and Third Reading of Bills .............................................................................................. ......................................... 11038 Highway (Industrial) Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 46) Committee of the Whole House................................................................................................... ........................................ 11038 Transportation Act (Bill 47) M. Hunter Hon. K. Falcon D. MacKay R. Masi V.

Roddick Report and Third Reading of Bills .............................................................................................. ......................................... 11041 Transportation Act (Bill 47)

11015 TUESDAY, MAY 11, 2004 The House met at 2:04 p.m. Tributes PAUL TENNANT Mr. Speaker: Good afternoon, hon. members. It is my pleasure to introduce today Dr. Paul Tennant, who is with us in the members' gallery. Dr. Tennant, a re- cently retired political science professor from the Uni- versity of British Columbia, was the academic director of the British Columbia legislative intern program for 13 years. As academic direct or, he provided leadership to the annual six-month program and the many legisla- tive interns who benefited from his years of political knowledge. He is joined today by Dr.

Patrick Smith, the new academic director, and Dr. Norman Ruff. I would ask you to please make them feel welcome. [1405] Hon. G. Abbott: I'd like to join with you in intro- ducing, actually, three of my former professors at UBC and UVic: Norm Ruff, Paddy Smith and Paul Tennant. Everything I know about local governments I learned at the knee of Paul Tennant. I can only imagine what I m i g h t h a v e b e e n a b l e t o d o i f I h a d t a k e n p r o v i n c i a l politics from him, but I didn't, regrettably.

It is a good time to salute, I think first of all, the ef- forts that Paul Tennant has made, especially with respect to the legislative internship program. That was some- thing I benefited from close to 30 years ago in the inau- gural internship program. Paul has done a great job. On behalf of all of us who have enjoyed that program and been a part of that program, thank you very much. J. MacPhail: I join with you to acknowledge the…. Well, I was going to call them the three wise men until I found out that they taught the member for Shuswap, so I'll have to think of something else. But really, it is….

Interjections. J. MacPhail: I'm trying to insult the minister, not them. I'm just kidding. I am. I'm kidding. But I do want to join with everybody to say that Dr. Tennant has served the internship program so well through all of those years and has, through that pro- gram, served us as MLAs. I can only speak with the experience of the last three years and say that we would have not survived without the program. Thank you all, and good luck to Dr. Smith in the future. J.

Kwan: Just to counterbalance the member for Shuswap, I must say that one of the three wise men t a u g h t m e w h e n I w a s i n u n i v e r s i t y — to make sure and to verify, in fact, that they are non-partisan in that sense. I, too, would like to welcome them all and thank them for the good work they do in our community and especially with the internship program. Introductions by Members J. Kwan: I have the pleasure to introduce 25 grade 7 students. Who knows? They might be aspiring politi- cians. These are 25 grade 7 st udents from St.

Joseph's school, and they're accompanied by five adults, includ- ing Mr. Don MacDougall, their teacher, and Mr. Mike Boreham, who is their principal. Last but not least, I would like to acknowledge — and I see in the gallery — Aileen Randall visiting us today. She is the widow of the late Fred Randall. Aileen has been certainly a good fr iend to the opposition cau- cus, to myself and to my colleague from Vancouver- Hastings. I would like the House to please welcome all these special guests. Tributes PAUL TENNANT Hon. G.

Campbell: I just couldn't sit here and not stand and say thank you to Paul Tennant for what he has done for the province in many, many ways. I first met Dr. Tennant when he was running for office. Let me just explain to people that the fact that you study politics doesn't mean you have a clue about how to get elected. Hon. G. Collins: And vice versa. Hon. G. Campbell: And vice versa, I must say. Yeah, right. I do want to say this, though. Paul Tennant is someone who has given the spirit of public life to people throughout this province.

You talk with young people who he's touched in his career as a professor, and he was willing to share not just his commitment to public life but his passion for public life. Regardless of the party that people may have gone to from that foundation he gave, I think he has made a significant contribution to all of us in British Columbia. I want to say thank you for that contribution. Thank you for that commitment, and let's hope we have many more Paul Tennants in the future of our province. Introductions by Members B.

Kerr: I'm going to be speaking on the Women of Distinction Awards in just a few minutes, so I'd like to introduce two special guests in the gallery today. They're Veronica Osborn, the 2004 Women of Distinc- tion Council chair, and Brenda Parkinson, 2004 pro- gram chair. I'd ask that all members of the House please recognize and welcome these women today. Statements (Standing Order 25

B) WOMEN OF DISTINCTION AWARDS B. Kerr: The few minutes went by very quickly, Mr. Speaker.

11016 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, MAY 11, 2004 [1410] It gives me great pleasure to stand on the floor of this House to recognize the tenth annual Victoria Women of Distinction Awards. Sponsored by and a fundraiser for the YM-YWCA of Greater Victoria, the event not only honours the inspirational women of Vancouver Island but also supports women, children and families and their involvement in the programs and services of the Y. Since the first awards night was held in 1995, the Victoria Women of Distinction has honoured 667 women as nominees and 91 as award recipients.

More than 6,700 people have attended the event over the years, and over $370,000 has been raised for the YM- YWCA of Greater Victoria. This year 73 women from all walks of life on Van- couver Island have been nominated in ten categories. Individuals and organizations have nominated these women for their achievements, vision and inspiration to others.

The 2004 categories are lifetime achievement; arts, cultural and heritage; communications; commu- nity legacy; education, tr aining and development; health, sports and fitness; neighbourhood enhance- ment; science, information technology and research; workplace innovation; and young women of distinc- tion. Tomorrow a gala awards night will be held at the Victoria Conference Centre, at which time the organiz- ers will shine the light on these exceptional women, ten of whom will become recipients of a prestigious Women of Distinction award. KIWANIS CYCLING TOUR FOR JUVENILE DIABETES RESEARCH G.

Trumper: Coming up at the end of this month is the Kiwanis cycling tour to raise money for juvenile diabetes research. The event w ill kick off in Victoria on May 30 and will finish in Port Alberni on June 4. The group of ten to 12 riders, led by Robin Nadick, will leave the Oak Bay Kiwanis Club in Victoria after a pan- cake breakfast on May 30. They will ride up to Duncan, Nanaimo, Parksville-Qualicum, Courtenay-Comox, Powell River and Campbell River before they finish in Port Alberni. The group's mandate is to raise awareness of type 2 diabetes in children.

To do this, they have made several presentations in elemen tary schools encouraging healthy lifestyles and prevention. It is the mandate of Kiwanis to serve the children of the world. This type of diabetes is showing up in children as young as eight years old. Kiwanis is doing what it can do to encourage parents and children to make healthy lifestyle choices. This type of diabetes is preventable, and proper nutrition and re gular exercise are two of the easiest ways to prevent the onset of the disease.

The cyclists are not only raising awareness, but they are raising money, as well, for research and for sending kids with diabetes to summer camp. Some of the major corporate sponsors include the Royal Bank, Dennis Jonsson Motor Products, Safeway and Weyer- haeuser in Port Alberni. I would encourage everyone in the House to attend the pancake breakfast at Oak Bay Kiwanis Club at 8 a.m. on May 30 and show your sup- port for this very important cause. CANADIAN WOMEN'S WRESTLING TEAM D.

MacKay: I would remind the House that the 2010 Olympic Games aren't going to happen for an- other six years, so I'd like to talk more about the 2004 Olympic Games, because I have an interesting story for you. For the first time ever, the 2004 Athens Olympic Games will include women's freestyle wrestling. Can- ada qualified women in each of the four weight catego- ries. Lindsay Belisle was the six-time senior national champion. She was the gold medallist in 2003 at the World Cup. She was Canada's first-ever female cham- pion in this competition.

The Canadian Amateur Wres- tling Association named her the female wrestler of the year for 2003. Lindsay grew up in the Kispiox Valley, a rural community north of Hazelton. She attended school in Kispiox and graduated from the Hazelton Secondary School and Douglas College. She is a student in the UBC faculty of education. Lindsay will represent Canada at the 2004 Olympic Games, but I'm not finished yet. Carol Huynh, who was born and educated in Hazelton, is also going to the 2004 Olympic Games as an alternate for the Canadian women's wrestling team. Carol also has a distin- guished list of wrestling victories.

Lindsay Belisle beat Carol Huynh during the Canadian qualifier. I would ask the House to join me as we wish these athletes our best as they compete for Canada in Athens later this summer. [1415] Mr. Speaker: That concludes members' statements. Oral Questions CANADA HEALTH ACT AND SURGERY ON LIBERAL MLA J. MacPhail: Yesterday the Minister of Health in- sisted that the member for Chilliwack-Kent would have to file a complaint on himself for the government to investigate whether his surgery was in violation of the Canada Health Act, so I doubt very much that that will happen.

Charging facility fees for medically necessary pro- cedures violates the Canada He alth Act, but it also vio- lates provincial law.

Section 17 of the Medicare Protec- tion Act specifically prohibits charging facility fees for medically necessary procedures, but the act also gives the government, through the Medical Services Com- mission, the authority to inve stigate abuses and ensure that private surgical outfits don't charge patients di- rectly for services.

TUESDAY, MAY 11, 2004 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 11017 Yesterday the Minister of Health dodged the ques- tion. Will he admit that charging facility fees for medi- cally necessary procedures vi olates provincial law and that he has a legal responsibility to investigate to en- sure that private surgical outfits operate within the law? Hon. C. Hansen: The big challenge that govern- ments across Canada have is around the lack of defi- nition flowing from the Canada Health Act for the terms "medically necessary" and "medically required." T h a t i s s o m e t h i n g t h a t h a s b e e n r a i s e d w i t h u s .

C e r - tainly, there have been indications from the federal government that they are prepared to address that issue in the coming months, and we look forward to that. Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has another question. J. MacPhail: Well, the Minister of Health is surely backing away from the posi tion that he took just months ago about how it was his responsibility. The reason for the law is to prohibit taxpayers subsidizing private surgeries for medically necessary procedures performed on people who can afford to pay the extras. That's why those acts exist.

This government is reneg- ing on its responsibilities, turning a blind eye to the violations of its own laws. Last year a patient was charged a $6,125 facility fee for sinus surgery at the False Creek Surgical Centre, the very centre that the member for Chilliwack-Kent used. Her doctor then billed the Medical Services Plan for $882.47, the full amount payable for those services un- der the Medical Services Commission payment sched- ule — a clear violation of the Medicare Protection Act. When the patient complained, the Health ministry told her to take it up with the False Creek Surgical Centre.

This minister's ministry said they would check into it as well. Nothing has happened. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order. Hon. member, time to put the question now. J. MacPhail: Yes. Will the minister explain why his government is allowing private surgical centres like False Creek to operate in clear violation of the law and he's doing nothing to stop it, even though his bureau- crats said they would? Hon. C. Hansen: This member's memory is rather short.

Last year B.C. was actually docked transfer payments from the federal government because of pro- c e d u r e s t h a t t o o k p l a c e w h i l e t h e y w e r e i n o f f i c e . I t actually was a front-page story of a woman from Prince George who came down to Vancouver to have surgery performed at the False Creek Surgical Centre. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please, hon. members. Hon. C.

Hansen: What I said to the member yester- day and what I said in the media interviews that I did yesterday, which I know the member listened in on intensely, is that we follow up on all patient complaints that come to us. If a patient feels that there has been a violation of the Canada Health Act, we do open files on all of those. We do follow up on them. We encourage patients to get reimbursemen t if they feel they were falsely charged for services by any facility in this prov- ince. All of those are pursued. Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a further supplementary. J.

MacPhail: The minister says that because we have a law in place — t h e b e s t i n C a n a d a — and the law is enforced, somehow that's the opposition's fault. The fact of the matter is that the law is now not being e n f o r c e d b y t h i s g o v e r n m e n t a t a l l , a n d I j u s t d e m o n - strated that with a case that his government has done nothing about. Let's look again at the case of the member for Chilliwack-Kent. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. [1420] J. MacPhail: The member has put the facts — his own facts — on his website.

He was charged a large fee for an injury that caused him debilitating pain, but he didn't pay the whole cost. I'm certain we all agree that the member was in pain, and we can understand his motivation. But what I can' t understand is why the Minister of Health would not be concerned that his surgery is part of a larger abuse of the Medical Services Plan, violating provincial law. Again, to the minister: will he comply with the laws of this province and take steps to investigate whether or not the surgery performed in the case of the member for Chilliwack-Kent by False Creek Surgery Centre violated provincial law?

Hon. C. Hansen: If the member has information that somehow a law has been violated, I would be pleased if she provided that to me, and I would be pleased to have that looked at. The practice in this province that has been in place from, I believe, when she was the Health minister in this province is that we will respond to patient complaints. If a patient feels that they…. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order. Let us hear the answer. Hon. C. Hansen: If a patient feels there may per- haps be a violation of the law, then that patient can raise that with us, and we will investigate.

11018 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, MAY 11, 2004 FACILITY FEES FOR PRIVATE SURGERIES J. Kwan: The minister knows full well that two examples have now been brought to his attention, and he has done nothing to address the issues. Let us be clear about what is at stake. Private surgical facilities are double-billing. They char ge the public system for their surgery's services; then they charge patients a huge fee to get into the door. Let me quote again from the 1995 federal letter on facility fees: "Facility fees are objectionable because they impede access to medically necessary services.

Moreover, when clinics which receive public funds for medically necessary services also charge facility fees, people who can afford the fees are being directly sub- sidized by all other Canadians." Again to the Minister of Health: why is he forcing average taxpayers to subsid ize private surgeries for people who can afford huge facility fees in violation of the Canada Health Act and in violation of his own Medicare Protection Act? Hon. C.

Hansen: I can only repeat that if any pa- tient in this province feels they have been inappropri- ately charged fees that may be in violation of the Can- ada Health Act, they can raise that issue. We will inves- tigate. We will open a file. We may encourage them to go back to the physician to get reimbursement of those moneys, but we will make sure that those are followed up on. SKILLS TRAINING REQUIREMENTS IN B.C. E. Brenzinger: For decades B.C. has been the blue- print of the trades training curriculums across Canada.

Now the changes — namely, the stripping of the neces- sary requirements needed fo r the apprenticeship train- ing and journeypersons status — that this government implemented mean that the Red Seal endorsement has become an option, not a requ irement, and is therefore meaningless in B.C. Other jurisdictions in Canada are questioning the capabilities of the B.C. trade certificate holders. My question is to the Mi nister of Advanced Educa- tion.

Why was the Industry Training and Apprentice- ship Commission, or ITAC, not given an opportunity to meet its full mandate before this government arbi- trarily changed the responsibility of overseeing the apprenticeship process to the Industry Training Au- thority, or ITA? Hon. S. Bond: First of all, I thin k it's very interest- ing that this is the first ti me I've ever heard a concern expressed by that member about anything to do with skills or trades training in British Columbia. In fact, we have a system that…. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. S.

Bond: We've put a system in place that will begin to deal with trades trai ning in this province in a flexible, responsible way as we look at the boom that British Columbia is now experiencing. Apprenticeship numbers are up in the province. Red Seal will stay in place in British Columbia. [1425] Just as recently as Friday we opened a brand-new spot for trades training ex cellence at Kwantlen Univer- sity College in this province. We intend to move for- ward and provide the skilled workforce that British Columbia needs. STATUS OF RAV LINE G. Halsey-Brandt: My question is to the Minister of Transportation.

Despite exte nsive evaluation of the RAV line — all of which ensured the economic viabil- ity, the environmental benefits and the ridership of the line — as we know, the vote taken last Friday on whether or not to build the RAV line failed. There are still, however, hundreds of thousands of people in Richmond and Vancouver who've been wait- ing patiently for years to see this transit link built and still want to see the project happen. The best and final offer has not yet been tabled, yet the people who voted against the project were concerned about cost overruns and taxpayer risk.

Can you tell my constituents what the facts are, and most importantly, where do we go from here? Hon. K. Falcon: As Minister of Transportation I will tell you that I'm disappointed for a couple of rea- sons. I'm disappointed, first, because I believe passion- ately that we need to invest in public transportation. We actually need to get people out of their cars and into public transit. If we don't provide a viable alterna- tive, they won't.

Secondly, I think there was an opportunity for what I call a generational decision — a decision that those board members had the opportunity to make, which would have benefited our children and our grandchil- dren, would have had benefits for a cleaner environ- ment and would have had benefits for a greener envi- ronment. Unfortunately, that opportunity was lost. Interjection. Hon. K. Falcon: You know, I hear the member op- posite heckling. That's unfortunate, because it would have been helpful if the member opposite had been talking to some of her allies that voted against this.

At the end of the day, we've lost an enormous opportunity for British Columbia to have a transportation alterna- tive that would have moved hundreds of thousands of people efficiently and effectively. In terms of your comment about cost, to the mem- ber from Richmond, all I can say is the real tragedy of this is that we never got to best and final offer stage, so we were never able to know and will never know what the real costs would have been and how many hun-

TUESDAY, MAY 11, 2004 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 11019 dreds of millions of dollars the private sector was pre- pared to invest in this program. FACILITY FEES FOR PRIVATE SURGERIES J. Kwan: Last year a patient did complain to this minister of having been charged a facility fee of over $6,000, and this minister did nothing. Last year the government brought in legislation to crack down on this behaviour, supposedly, but then turned tail and ran. Given the minister's re fusal to enforce laws al- ready on the books, I guess that's no surprise.

An average two-income family of four making $30,000 a year has seen their taxes go up by $435 this year. Contrast that with a person making $80,000 a year, who saw their taxes go down by $221. Let's be clear about what's going on. Average taxpayers who cannot afford $7,000 facility fees are paying more in taxes so that those who could afford those facility fees can bill the public system for private surgery. Those same taxpayers… Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order, please. J. Kwan: …are waiting longer than ever on the wait-list. Mr. Speaker: Time for the question now, hon. member. J.

Kwan: To the Minister of Health, who's refused to take action to date. This is clear; the law is clear. How can the public have any confidence in this Minis- ter of Health who refuses to protect health care for all British Columbians by wilfully allowing taxpayers to subsidize private health care? Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Hon. C. Hansen: I challenge the member to pull a document out of the library. It's called the budget re- port. It was actually brought in as the last budget re- port by the previous government, when the member for Vancouver-Hastings was the Minister of Finance.

Look in the tables, in the ch arts in there, in terms of what low- and middle-income families would pay, and compare that to what they pay today in terms of taxes. You will realize… Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Hon. C. Hansen: …and anyone who wants to do that and check that in thei r library will realize that there is more money in those people's pockets today. What is more important… Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Hon. C.

Hansen: …is the money that's been put into the health care system — an increase of $2 billion over the last three years to help make sure that people can get access to the health ca re they need in this prov- ince. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. [1430] Hon. C. Hansen: The biggest interruption that we have had in the delivery of surgeries in this province was the week before last… Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, order, please. Hon. C. Hansen: …when a strike by the hospital…. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please, on both sides of the House. Let us hear the answer. Hon. C.

Hansen: It was the week before last when 6,000 British Columbians were denied access to the surgeries they thought they were going to get because of a strike action that shut down those operating rooms throughout the province. There are 6,000 people who were denied access to the health care that they thought they were going to get, and that's the issue that we've got to be looking at fixing as we go forward. REGIONAL PLANNING ISSUES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF AGRICULTURAL LAND COMMISSION R. Hawes: My qu est io n is t o the Min i ste r of Su s- tainable Resource Manage ment.

My community, Mis- sion, is in the middle of a regional growth planning exercise, as are many of the cities within the Fraser Valley. As part of that exercise, they're trying to get some land released from the Agricultural Land Com- mission to promote intensive job creation. Five years ago the same requests that they are now going to be making were made when I was the mayor of the community I live in. The Agricultural Land Commis- sion that was in place under the previous government told me and my council that we should perhaps think about buying up some subdivisions and tearing them down. To the minister.

Our new-era commitment says that we will be making the Agricultural Land Commission more responsive to regional needs. Has that taken

11020 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, MAY 11, 2004 place? What, if anything, has been done to make the Agricultural Land Commission more responsive? Hon. G. Abbott: As the member notes, local gov- ernments — whether they're regional districts or mu- nicipalities, of course — have local planning responsi- bilities. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Hon. G. Abbott: The province, through the Agri- cultural Land Commission, through the agricultural land reserve…. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: We'll continue when we have order in the chamber. Maybe you should start over. Hon. G. Abbott: Thank you.

I'd be pleased to, Mr. Speaker. The province, through the Agricultural Land Commission and the agricultural land reserve, has re- sponsibility for preserving agricultural land and for promoting agriculture in th e province. There are about 4.75 million hectares of ALR land in the province. The province has leads on that. I appreciate, actually, the Leader of the Opposition reminding me about Six Mile Ranch as a time when the needs of local government and provincial responsibili- ties didn't perfectly line up . It's a very good example, and I thank her for reminding me of it.

Where those provincial and local responsi bilities or interests don't line up perfectly, we work together to try to resolve them, as I know we are in respect of Maple Ridge. In terms of making the commission more regionally responsive — because I think it is a very important element — we have, I am pleased to note, increased the r e g i o n a l p a n e l s f r o m t h r e e t o s i x . M y u n d e r s t a n d i n g from local governments is that they feel very pleased — unlike back in the sad days of the NDP and Six Mile Ranch — that things are actua lly working reasonably well. Interjections. Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order, please. [End of question period.] Tabling Documents Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, I have the honour to present the Legislative Assembly Management Com- mittee annual report, 2002-2003. Orders of the Day Hon. G. Collins: I call second reading of Bill 36. [1435] Second Reading of Bills COMMUNITY, ABORIGINAL AND WOMEN'S SERVICES STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2004 Hon. M. Coell: I move that Bill 36 be read for a second time now.

This act makes amendments to local government statutes for which my ministry is responsible in order to respond to some specific requests and issues identi- fied on five different matters. These amendments re- flect this government's commitment to local govern- ments' autonomy and to ensuring that the legislation is flexible, clear and effective for local governments and their communities. This act includes amendments to fine-tune the development finance system. B.C. communities are expe riencing growth.

This is welcome news and proof that more and more people are recognizing that our province is the best place in Canada to live. Community growth puts pressure on local governments to build new infrastructure and ex- pand services.

Our proposed amendments to the Local Government Act, Community Charter and the Van- couver Charter will increase responsiveness and equity in the development finance system by authorizing local governments to waive the exemption from develop- ment cost charges that exist for projects with fewer than four units, by authorizing local governments to set the threshold at which development cost charges become payable higher than the default of $50,000 and also by authorizing local governments to use the money from capital reserve funds to temporarily fi- nance capital projects.

These proposed changes ar e the result of the rec- ommendations of the development finance review committee, a committee of local government, the de- velopment industry and provincial government repre- sentatives. These changes will make the development finance system more responsive to the needs of both developers and local government. This act also includes amendments to the Vancou- ver Charter. These amendments respond to requests by the city of Vancouver. One of these amendments will clarify the scope of the char itable property tax exemp- tion in light of a recent court decision.

The amendment will ensure that charities that have a registered lease on a property owned by a charity benefit from that tax exemption. Another amendment to the Vancouver Charter clarifies the size of the city of Vancouver's board of variance. You may recall that in 2003 we placed the authority to appoint the board of variance members where it belongs, with the city of Vancouver, rather than with the provincial government. This amendment keeps that intent while clarifying the number of mem- bers on that board.

This act also contains amendments to provide greater flexibility for regional districts to recover the costs of administrative-type services. Local govern-

TUESDAY, MAY 11, 2004 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 11021 ments need this flexibility so that cost recovery can meet the unique local needs — for example, so that they could divide the costs of a regional district ad- ministration building among members, based on the floor area of the building used for various purposes rather than on the more arbitrary basis of assessed val- ues in properties. This increa sed flexibility is part of our government's demonstrated commitment to pro- vide greater local autonomy and the authority to make local decisions that meet local needs.

Finally, this act make s further technical and housekeeping amendments to the Community Char- ter, Local Government Act and related legislation. These include legislating a number of clarification and correction amendments to the Community Char- ter that had, on an interim basis, been done by regula- tion. This fixes and will ensure the clear and effective operation of the Community Charter. We consulted with the Union of British Columbia Municipalities on the amendments in this act to ensure that there were no concerns.

I would ask members to lend their support to this worthwhile and necessary piece of legislation. [1440-1450] Motion approved. Hon. M. Coell: I would move that Bill 36 be placed on the orders of the day for committal at the next sit- ting of the House after today. Bill 36, Community, Aboriginal and Women's Ser- vices Statutes Amendment Act, 2004, read a second time and referred to a Co mmittee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today. Hon. M. Coell: I move committee stage for Bill 42.

Committee of the Whole House REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT MARKETING ACT The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 42; J. Weisbeck in the chair. The committee met at 2:54 p.m. On

section 1. R. Stewart: I want to ask the minister several ques- tions related to the way in which real estate marketing will now be handled and the way in which we've man- aged, I hope, to reduce some costs for residential real estate marketing.

I remember — and I bring to the minister's atten- tion and to the attention of the House — being in this Legislative Assembly more than a dozen times over a decade and with at least half a dozen different minis- ters responsible for housing begging for the simple changes that would permit, for example, the use of deposits for construction if they were insured. [1455] It was clear that we had everybody on our side on that one. We had consumer groups on our side. The last government was on our side. Everyone agreed that this is something that has to happen.

It's something that ought to happen, and there's no good reason why we can't permit the developer to use deposits for the purposes of construction if he could ensure, essentially, that the deposits were safe in the event of default by the developer. I know that is now included in this bill. I want to ask the minister to explain: how come this took a decade of the previous government and still no action, and why are we able to do it now? Hon. G. Collins: Those are actually questions for sections 18 and 19. If members want to approach it in a more ad hoc way, I'm prepared to do that. If the mem- ber has time, okay.

That's fine. I'm not sure. Perhaps staff might have a better sense of why this took so long. I do know that as part of this government's attempt to embark upon a deregulation initiative across government, this type of legislation was moved forward as a change that could be under- taken in an attempt to meet the targets that were put there in our election platform of reducing the regula- tory burden and ultimately the count by one-third in our first three years in office.

In fact, most of the legis- lation that's come before the House this spring — or a great deal of it, anyway — deals with various deregula- tion initiatives in various ministries. The rewrite of the Real Estate Act, of which this was part — and there's another bill we've introduced, which is the other part of the act — actually constitutes a fairly significant reduction in the regulatory burden. Committing to reduce that burden has triggered the rewrite of a number of pieces of legislation. This is one of them. This was an issue, as the member mentioned, that has been out there.

There's b een a lot of support across the spectrum for this type of innovation that's con- tained in sections 18 and 19. Government felt it was an a p p r o p r i a t e t i m e t o d o i t . I t ' s d o n e i n o t h e r j u r i s d i c - tions, and there's a way to do it which facilitates the use of those funds in the meantime and which also protects the consumers thro ugh an insurance process to make sure that those funds are secure. R. Stewart: I thank the minister for those com- ments.

I want to explain that my main purpose for bring- ing them up now, rather th an in 18 and 19, is because they're part of a general concern I've always had that if we can protect the consumer just as well while we get rid of the regulatory burden that is unnecessary and if we can make real estate marketing, if you will — the transfer of real estate from seller to buyer — as efficient as possible, we will save consumers money as long as the protections are always there.

11022 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, MAY 11, 2004 I note, for example, on this one that we are now able to tell the consumers out there that they're just as protected as they used to be, but the money they're going to pay as deposit will actually be part of the process. It will continue to provide savings for them as it's being used during the construction process.

I think it's particularly important that with each one of these regulations that ar e deemed necessary to pro- tect consumers — particularly consumers in the resi- dential housing market that is as hot as it is today, for example — as we strive to make certain that consumers are protected, we at the same time make certain that none of the regulations that we're putting in place or that are already in place are creating an unnecessary burden. Each time we look at a regulation, we will ask: first of all, will it serve the need to protect consumers? Secondly, is there a simpler way to do that?

This one that I bring up as an example,

section 18, provides for a way in which the cost to the consumer — the end cost of housing — can be lowered by a sim- ple change in a regulation that makes it possible for the developer of a property to use the money he has re- ceived from purchasers fo r construction and thereby reduce the cost of his having to borrow during the con- struction process. [1500] Hon. G. Collins: I agree that this is a good innova- tion. It certainly provides greater flexibility and oppor- tunities.

I was asked by a member — I can't remember which member it was; some time ago, or in the last cou- ple of days, anyway — whether or not developers would be required under the act to pay interest on the money they're utilizing. The act doesn't prescribe that they need to. However, they may, and many already do. Certainly, a consumer could put that in as part of the transaction — that they would receive a certain amount of interest for the use of those funds in the intervening period — but we're not prescribing that in the act. I don't know if the member had additional ques- tions.

I was just going to suggest that if he did, he could remain standing in between, because I know it's an effort to get up and down with his temporary dis- ability. Interjection. Hon. G. Collins: Yeah — ejection seat. I agree with the member. I think this is a welcome change and will certainly help facilitate greater activity in this sector, reduce costs for consumers potentially, as well as help the industry in moving these develop- ments forward. I think it's a great innovation, and I hope members will support it. Sections 1 and 2 approved. On

section 3. G. Halsey-Brandt: My questions on

section 3 are about the timing of marketing of development prop- erty. I know they'll spill over a wee bit into division 2, but I think it sort of starts with

section 3, so I'm going to ask the minister that question. Right now, as I understand it — and perhaps your staff can correct me if I'm wrong — if someone's doing condos or if they're doing a fee simple subdivision, they can at least sell the condos when they have a de- velopment permit as oppo sed to a building permit from a municipality and file a prospectus. On the subdivision, I'm not exactly sure of the crite- ria they hit when they do th at. I think it's when they file the subdivision plan.

Perhaps I could just ask you to clarify what the situation is now and what the change is going to be under this legislation, particu- larly around condos — whether it's development per- mit or building permit. I've been approached by some developers in my municipality over the weekend who were concerned that they ha ve to wait longer now be- fore they can sell their property than what it was be- fore. [1505] Hon. G. Collins: With regard to condominiums, what we're doing in the legislation is just codifying the existing practice. There will be no change to that.

I be- lieve the superintendent will bring in rules, etc., to im- plement that, but it's going to be essentially the existing practice. With regard to other de velopments, however, we are trying to put in plac e processes whereby the pre- selling can happen earlier — not later, but earlier. Par- ticularly on subdivision lots and other types of devel- opments outside municipalities, provided they have approval by the local government or whatever building permitting approval process within that local govern- ment….

Once they have that and if that is satisfactory to the superintendent of real estate, then they can actu- ally start the process earlier. What we're trying to do is advance it where possible. Where we're already in a position to do early pre-sales, as in the case of condo- miniums, we're continuing that. There is certainly nothing in the legislation that would delay it. In fact, what we're trying to do is move that forward a little bit. G. Halsey-Brandt: Just to clarify that, which I be- lieve is excellent news….

Generally for a condo, most municipalities — certainly the larger ones — require a development permit in terms of the architectural ren- derings and drawings of the floor plans and that sort of thing — not building drawings, but ones they take to a public hearing so everyone knows pretty well what's on the ground. That's the stage that they're usually doing the pre-sales on now, because the building permit may take them…. It could be a year after that in terms of do- ing all their architectural dr awings and putting up the money. If they can still do that at that stage, that's great.

On the subdivision in the legislation. This is jump- ing ahead a wee bit, but it's still under marketing in

section 10. It talks about ap proval-in-principle accord- ing to the local municipalities. I would take that this would be a subdivision approval subject to construc-

TUESDAY, MAY 11, 2004 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 11023 tion of roads, sewers and all that sort of thing. They put up the bond that they're going to do that. Then the de- veloper could go ahead and do some pre-sales of those lots and would have a time frame, certainly with the municipality. They put up a bo nd that they are in fact going to build the municipal services — the roads, sewer, water and that sort of thing — and file a subdi- vision plan. I would assume that's what that approval- in-principle stage means. Hon. G.

Collins: With regard to developments within a municipality, it's entirely a local government matter, so we aren't involved in that. The local gov- ernment makes those decisions and determinations. If it's outside of a municipality, as long as they have approval-in-principle from whoever the body is that they need to get approval-in-principle from — it could be a regional district or someone else — they're al- lowed to start the pre-sells. When the pre-sale is made and the deposit is paid, that deposit is held in trust.

If the developer does not deliver on the commitments they've made, then that trust money goes back to the purchaser. We're not stepping in as government at a provincial level to play some sort of a bonding role that will administer that. That's not what we're trying to do. [1510] It's approval-in-principle. That's a fairly early stage. It can be different in different places, but the backstop for the consumer protection on that is the deposit, the trust of that deposit and the fact that if the developer doesn't deliver, they can get their funds back. G.

Halsey-Brandt: Just going back within a mu- nicipality, and then maybe you could clarify this for me: does the act not cover that if it is a municipality? Or is this

section we're referring to outside of a mu- nicipality? I'm assuming the act does cover what hap- pens in a municipality. Hon. G. Collins: For example, I think the case the member raised was a subdivision, a lot — the lots in the subdivision. If you are inside a municipality, this act will exempt that develo pment by regulation from the provisions in this act.

It is assumed that the mu- nicipality has processes in place through their devel- opment approval process and their bonding, or how- ever it is they choose to do it in their municipality, to make sure that the project gets completed and that in- dividuals are dealt with fairly. We don't step into the municipal role and try and create room for ourselves there. They're fully compe- tent — as the members knows, having been a long- standing mayor of one of the larger municipalities in the province.

Municipalities handle that very well on their own, and they don't need any particular guidance from the provincial govern ment. They are exempted from this act by regulation. We would list that, and then the development is un der the purview of the mu- nicipal government. Sections 3 to 17 inclusive approved. On

section 18. B. Kerr: I have a few questions with regards to de- posits. The first one is on su bsection (1) where it's men- tioning: "…must promptly place the deposit with a brokerage, lawyer, notary public…." Can these people be in-house, working for the developer? [1515] Hon. G. Collins: Let me give the member an exam- ple. If you had a trust or a development company and one of the people in the company — one of the em- ployees — was a lawyer, while that lawyer may be working with the developer, they also have profes- sional obligations. They pay dues through the Law Society.

There's professional recourse provided through the Law Society, for example. There is that insurance that goes with being a member of the Law Society. The lawyer could set up a tr ust and act, I believe, as the trustee. However, all th e professional requirements that go along with being a lawyer and the insurance that the Law Society has for professional misconduct of lawyers would apply. My understanding is that yes, that would be possible. But again, there are profes- sional obligations and insurance that go with that. B.

Kerr: I believe it's another act in which the law- yer's trust accounts and all these trust accounts are audited — I think four-man audits, we used to call it. So that would be under the various societies' acts. They would be audited by an independent party. That was fine. I was just wondering whether that was precluded. In

section 2 we've got the trustee, which could be any one of the number of people mentioned in

section 1. They hold a deposit for the developer and the pur- chaser, not as an agent for each of them. Usually, I think, when you go to a brokerage house now, they're either acting for the purchaser or acting for the seller. I'm just wondering how they can be acting for the pur- chaser or the seller and then at the same time hold the money, not acting for either party. Hon. G. Collins: It is the same provision that cur- rently exists in the Real Estate Act and has been used for years. It's a fairly common stakeholder provision. That's my understanding.

It's something that's worked in the past and that we anticipate will continue to work in the future. B. Kerr: I'm concerned when I look at where the trustee must turn the funds over to the developer. I'm concerned about the protection for the potential pur- chaser, because there doesn't seem to be anything in there to protect the purchaser if the deal is sliding. I'm talking about the timing of when things can be regis- tered and when he can actually have title registered in his name. There's a

section here under

section 4. It says that if the period under

section 21 has expired…. But what would happen if he can't register title? He doesn't get it

11024 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, MAY 11, 2004 when he's supposed to get it on the closing date, yet the time for rescission has expired. What protection does the purchaser have? [1520] Hon. G. Collins: I'm trying to understand the ques- tion properly. If I have it wrong, the member should please let me know. Subsection (4) deals with an obligation of the pur- chaser. If the purchaser has paid their deposit and if there is an agreement and th ey have to put some addi- tional money into the deposit, as long as they're doing that, there is no trigger on

section 4. There is no default by the purchaser, and there is no ability for the trustee to pay or the developer to request payment of any money that's in the deposit. There is subsection (4) and the four sub-subsections (a), (b), (

c) and (

d) underneath that, and there is a requir ement that the purchaser would miss a payment or not live up to their part of the deposit schedule, if that were the case. As long as the purchaser is making their payments as was agreed upon, then

section 4 can't be triggered. The developer can ask, but there's no ability for the trustee to pay out any funds. Maybe what the member was getting at, and that's why I'm not sure if I unders tood his question…. If the example the member has is…. Let's say the purchaser and the developer have entere d into an agreement that money will be paid at monthly intervals until such amount of money is built up in the deposit.

The project is being delayed, the developer isn't living up to their end of the bargain, and the purchaser says: "Lookit, until you get this project back on track, I'm not putting one more penny into the deposit." Then there are remedies that are available to the purchaser that they should probably be taking first. Those exist in subsec- tion (2). There are some re quirements under subsection (2) that have impact. The second last one is sub-subsection (h), which is in accordance with a court order.

If the purchaser wanted their money back, they could go to court and say: "Look, this guy isn't living up to his end of the agreement. I have been making my payments. This project is way behind schedule. It doesn't look like it's going to go ahead." The company may be failing; the development may be failing. "They haven't lived up to their part of the contract. I want my money back." The court can say: "Yup, give him his money back." They can direct the trustee to give the purchaser their money back. B. Kerr: Getting close.

I think that's what I'm get- ting at, but it seems to me that the incumbency to take this person to court to get the deposit back would be more suitable if it was just that they could rescind the deal if it went sideways, because under

section 4, the trustee must release the deposit. Even if the trustee recognizes that something's sliding, there's no right of rescission for the purchaser. [1525] If a developer is getting into some real financial difficulty and needs some money and the right of the 21-day rescission period is over, he could just go and write the letter and say, "I want the money; it's a one- sided deal," then get the money and say to the pur- chaser: "You can fight me in court later to get it back." There is no protection in there to protect the purchaser. Hon. G.

Collins: Both parties have to live up to their side of the agreement. The purchaser could allege that the developer wasn't living up to their side, and they could have that discussion. It would ultimately, I suppose, be up to the courts to decide whether or not that were the case. There is a simple test for whether or not the purchaser is living up to their commitment, and that is if they stop paying — right? It is a little clearer. Hopefully, you never get there. Obviously, at some point in the future there w ill be a case where you end up in this situation.

If I were the one putting money on deposit, and I was going to go to court — I didn't think this deal was moving ahead — I would want to be…. You'd probably first approach the developer and say: "Lookit, you're not living up to your requirements; I want my money back." You know, you could probably get it back voluntarily. I don't know. I'm assuming if you both agreed, then the money could come back to you. If there was a discrepan cy, there is a process by which you can go to court and get a determination on that.

While that's happening, as the other party to the contract, I would think you would want to keep living up to your commitments. The money you're putting on deposit is not going to the developer; it's actually going into trust. As long as you live up to your part of the bargain and you make your payments, then it seems to me you're in pretty good shape under the act. There could be the reverse, where you've got a purchaser and the rescission period has passed.

For whatever reasons — maybe in their own life they've lost their job; maybe there is a divorce; maybe they just have buyer's remorse — t h e y w o u l d l i k e t o g e t out of this deal. They can go and say: "Oh, you're running behind schedule." There may have been some disruption in the schedule, but the developer feels they will be able to catch up. It may not have a lot of credibility in fact, but the purchaser believes or is trying to put a case forward that the developer isn't living up to their commit ments and says: "That's it.

I'm not paying you any money, because you're behind schedule." There has to be some protection for the developer in that agreement as well. I think that's what this sec- tion is trying to do. Subsecti on (4) is saying that there are recourses in subsection (2), but there needs to be some protection for the other party of this contractual arrangement if the purchaser stops making their pay- ments and fails to live up to their agreement. They shouldn't just be able to trigger it like that. That's why there is a rescission period.

Once you go beyond that and the contract has gone a little further, you are both expected to live up to your duties and responsibilities. If either of you don't, then there is a resolution process. That's how it would work.

TUESDAY, MAY 11, 2004 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 11025 B. Kerr: I guess that's the concern. I can see that the protection for the developer is here, and I think that's great, because these are the guys who are investing big dollars. For a person in relation to the money that they have….

If they're a first-time buyer and it is a small deposit — say $5,000 or $10,000, which could be a sub- stantial sum of money for them — they can't really afford to take the developer to court if things go side- ways and the developer says: "I want my money on a technicality." I guess I'm concerned that there should be some protection in there for the purchaser. I just don't see it. [1530] Hon. G. Collins: I think it is fair to say that that could be….

If it's a very small amount of money, then the investment you would have to make in going through the court system or the legal system may be more onerous or more costly than the amount of money you are going to recover. Let me give the member an example. Let's say that the development goes bankrupt. If that happens, then the bankruptcy trustee has to present a new prospec- tus, a new set of documents, and put that before the people who've already put their money on deposit, and then there is a new seven-day rescission option for them. At that point you say: "I've had enough of this.

I don't like the new prospectus either. I don't think this thing is ever going to fly. I'm outta here." You can take your money at that point. So there are some provisions. These two sections are, I would say, a fairly signifi- cant improvement over wh at's there currently. Cur- rently, the money is held by the developer, and the developer gets to decide if it goes back. This is far more balanced. There is far greater consumer protection here than there is in the current act. If you look at subsection (2)(i), there are other provi- sions.

If we observe a prob lem developing or some sce- nario, as the member described, where an injustice could be done or is being done, there are provisions under this for regulations to be brought in under this act that would allow for the flow of those funds in the trust back to the purchaser. We have in this case eight provisions, up to (h), and then there is the ninth provision under sub-subsection (i), which gives us broader powers to do other things if there's a problem that arises that we don't foresee at this point. There is a provision to deal with that should a problem like that arise. B. Kerr: Moving on.

On subsec tion (4)(

c) and (d), just for my benefit, I wonder if there is a redundancy here. On the penultimate line of sub-subsection (

c) it says: "if the developer elects to cancel the purchase agreement, the amount of the deposit is forfeited to the developer, and (

d) the developer has elected to cancel the purchase agreement." I just wonder if that's a re- dundancy there. Hon. G. Collins: Sub-subsection (

c) is, "under the terms of the purchase agreem ent," if they have chosen to do that, and (

d) is: and they actually do it. B. Kerr: On the penultimate line, though, isn't it saying that they have to do that in order for the deposit to be forfeited — if the developer elects to cancel the purchase agreement? They ha ve to make that election anyway before it can be forfeited. Hon. G. Collins: Under (c), the terms of the pur- chase agreement would have to allow for the developer to cancel, and then under (d), the developer would have to actually cancel. Both of those have to be in place. If it's not in the term s of the agreement, then it doesn't work. B. Kerr: That's all I have, Mr. Chair, under

section 18. G. Halsey-Brandt: I had mentioned

section 19, but I think they are probably mo re appropriate under this

section because it is around the deposits. Under

section 18(2), if the money is in the hands of the trustee and a purchaser or the developer has a problem, it is not up to the trustee…. They don't have a decision-making power unless both parties agree to release a deposit. In other words, they don't have any quasi-judicial system. They have to go to court to get that unless both the purchaser and the developer agree. Is that correct? [1535] Hon. G. Collins: It's not a discretionary role. The trustee has to act within the confines of this section. It says the trustee "must not release the deposit from trust except as follows…." Then there are nine ways that could happen, and only nine. There are eight that are in some detail, and then (

i) would be regulations that may be developed at a later date. So if the money was paid into the trust account in error, then the trustee can look at it and say: "Oh, it's an error. Get your money back." Or (

b) could repay it to the purchaser with the written consent of the purchaser and developer. There's an example where the two parties, the purchaser and de- veloper, could agree, "Let's part our ways," or "Yeah, you paid too much," or "We don't need that much anymore," or however it might work. They could agree to release some of that. Or (c), and I could go on. There's an array of things. The trustee must act within those provisions. G.

Halsey-Brandt: What I'm getting at around that — and I think you've covered it off — is really they have to go to court even if the trustee… For example, it happens a lot on pre-sales where the developer says that the apartment building is going to be finished in May of 2004. So the purchaser sold their house and is moving out this month — right? It's going to be six months away. Or they've got some bankruptcy prob- lems or whatever and they're short of tradesmen. You know the purchaser is really upset — right? They have to go and rent a place. They'd would just as soon take the money back and go and walk.

Even if the trustee might agree with that in te rms of the agreement, the

11026 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, MAY 11, 2004 trustee doesn't have the abil ity to make that decision. They would have to go to a court to decide that. Hon. G. Collins: Yes. And I take this opportunity for thanking my former in-l aws for putting me and my ex-wife up for three months while we were in a very similar position. They were very gracious about it. They put us up in a two-bedroom apartment — and our dog as well. So it does happen from time to time. In that scenario, let's say, it is not up to the trustee to say you are hard done by, so therefore you can have your money back.

You have to go through the processes as prescribed here. They don't get to sit in judgment. They have professional obligations to follow this and to deliver upon it. If in that case, for example, the purchaser and the developer…. Let's say it's a great development, but somebody's got kids, and it's just not going to work. It's going to be six months longer, and they say: "Look, this is just killing me. I can't do this. I've got all this money tied up there. I can't go live in a one-bedroom apartment. I rea lly need to go find some- thing else." They sit down with the developer.

The developer says: "Okay, there are 83 units; you're one. It's not go- ing to hurt me. Fine, I understand." They come to an agreement, and they releas e the funds. That could happen. But it's not up to the trustee to say this person is really inconvenienced here. Give them the money, and if you don't give it to them, I'm going to give it to them. They don't have that power to do that. Somebody could go to court, I suppose, and claim an undue hard- ship. I don't know how that might work; I'm not a law- yer.

They could, I suppose, try and do that, but that would again have to be a decision of the court and an order of the court, not at the discretion of the trustee. G. Halsey-Brandt: My next question is around the deposit protection insurance. Is there a letter of credit involved in this at all? Does the developer have to put up a letter of credit to guarantee the insurance com- pany, or is it just a question of the developer paying the premiums — whatever they are — having the insur- ance and then using the deposits? Hon. G.

Collins: The Financial Institutions Act would regulate how insurers are able to operate for solvency, etc. There may be an array of products that come forward. I don't know what they might be. I could probably try and get a sample of what they m i g h t b e a n d w h a t t h e y a r e i n o t h e r j u r i s d i c t i o n s . I t may not be just one type of policy. There may be an array of products that are available. Provided that they meet certain standards, then they would be eligible to release those funds or let the developer have access to those funds and use them in their development. [1540] G.

Halsey-Brandt: My last question on this section. If they decided to go the insurance route instead of the trustee route, are those provisions, as it sets out under (2) and (3)…? Could we just insert "insurance com- pany" as opposed to trustee if they choose to have an insurance for the deposit as opposed to a trustee? If I'm a purchaser that is upset, I look at this list of things and decide to go to court. I go the insurance route instead of a trustee, but it's virtually the same thing in terms of what's available to the purchaser. Hon. G. Collins: We're sort of looking at 18 and 19 together here.

I think if you look at 18(2)(d) — those nine scenarios under which the trustee can release the funds — (

d) is in accordance with

section 19. That's the insurance one, where there's deposit insurance in place or some sort of mechanism by which those deposits are insured. If the requirements under

section 19 are in place, then the trustee can say: "Okay, you've set up insur- ance, whatever model that is. The deposits are guaran- teed or insured, etc. Then I can release those funds to the developer, and they can us e that for the project." If the developer subsequently de faults on that, then it's the insurance company that has to come in and pay out the purchasers who've put those deposits forward. That's how the system would work. I expect they'll try and recover it from the de veloper through the many means that they would have at their disposal.

I notice the member for West Vancouver– Garibaldi is in the chamber. I recall now there was a question by that member, who asked me a day or so ago — not in the House but outside — about the in- terest being paid on deposits. I think it was in re- sponse to a question, perh aps, by his seatmate. The act does not require that interest be paid on those deposits to the purchaser. However, many do. Cer- tainly, it's something that could be negotiated as part of the contractual arrangement between the purchaser and developer as part of pre-sale that a certain rate of insurance would be paid.

I know that the larger ones do as a part of their marketing. They want to make sure they treat people fairly. Many do. It's not required in legislation, but certainly if it is not offered by the developer, then a purchaser could ask that it be put in the contractual arrangement. I just wanted to answer that, because I think I had given an erroneous answer to the question a couple of days ago. D. Hayer: How does this

section work to protect the consumer more than the protection they have available now, and what extra flexibility does it give to the developer? Hon. G. Collins: As far as the consumer goes, as I think I mentioned in response to an earlier question, previously those funds were held by the developer. Now, under this act, those funds will need to be held by a trustee — a lawyer, a notary pu blic, a broker, etc. There are people who will ac t as trustees. They have responsibilities — professional responsibilities, fiduci- ary responsibilities — to manage those trust funds in accordance with other legislation that prescribes the

TUESDAY, MAY 11, 2004 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 11027 actions of their profession, and they have some form of insurance. The Law Society manages th e funds. If there is im- proper behaviour or fraud perpetrated by a member of the Law Society, the Law Society steps in and provides restitution. They levy a fee on their members in order to ensure that's there. Notari es have an insurance plan; brokers, I think, have a similar type of an insurance plan. Previously, you put your deposit in, and the developer held those deposits. Now the deposits are held by trus- tee.

In that regard, the consumer protection is enhanced. As for the developer, there's greater flexibility here. If you're building a large project, access to capital is often an issue. It's short-term capital. Interest rates on short-term capital can be higher — depending, I sup- pose — s o y o u h a v e t h i s p o o l o f m o n e y s i t t i n g t h e r e from people who made a deposit. They're going to live there. They're basically bu ying the development from you, and there's this money sitting there.

We've now provided in this legislation a mecha- nism that exists in other jurisdictions whereby if the developer goes and secures insurance on that money, they can actually apply to the trustee and have the money released to them. They can use that money in building the development and getting it up and ready. They have access to the capital. [1545] That helps them and gives them other ways of get- ting capital. They could still choose to go and get it on the financial markets. They could borrow it from part- ners. There are any number of ways that people can acquire capital.

Here's one more way that's available to them. As I said earlier, should the developer default on those funds or have them released by the trustee and take them into their posse ssion and then the develop- ment fails, there is an insurance policy in place that would provide restitution to the purchasers who had put that money into deposit. So the protection is there for the consumer. It's somewhat enhanced, and the flexibility is there for the developers in that they have another source of capital. Sections 18 to 20 inclusive approved. On

section 21. G. Halsey-Brandt: My question is around the three days, which I think deals with buyers of new condo- miniums, going to seven days. I think this is just great, particularly when the market… You've got people lin- ing up all night and this sort of thing and pressure on people to buy something. Having the seven days is just great. Although we don't have a lot of time-shares, I think most of us in this ch amber have probably been in some part of the world where we've run into time- share salespeople. The pressure does get pretty heavy on you, so having that seven days is a great benefit for consumers.

I'm assuming that by going to this seven days, where it's…. First of all, no other conditions apply. You don't have to write into your purchase agreement that it's subject to seven days or anything. The statute, in fact, overrides anything. If I di dn't write it in there or if I wrote in that I waive the seven-day rescission period — which is ultra vires or some thing, I guess the term is — the seven days applies no matter what. It's in pro- vincial legislation as opposed to what people can write in there. My second question, if I can just ask it now, and my last one on this bill, relates to….

This is only for new purchasers of homes, cond ominiums and time-shares. In the resale market out there this does not apply; it's just as it is now. Secondly, not to put too fine a point on it, but with the market we have now, a lot of people do what I guess we might call flipping. They've never ac- tually lived in the place, but they resell it. It just covers the first purchase — I guess that's the clearest way to put it — of a condo or of a new home. Hon. G. Collins: We are in a bizarre period of time right now.

I was just sort of joking here that people go out for a latte and on the way to Starbucks stop and buy a condominium. It's sort of like the So- viet Union. You walk down the street, and there's a big lineup. Get in line, be cause you don't know what they're selling. You may want some. It's sort of a weird time right now. I've driven by a few of the line- ups in the last couple of months — not my constitu- ency but in the member for Vancouver-Burrard's con- stituency, in particular. The act standardizes it to be seven days. There was different number, depending on the product, previ- ously.

Now it's seven for everything, so it's clear. It's not less than seven, so even if you write in the contract, "I waive it," it doesn't work. It's seven — right? However, apparently you can agree to make it longer if you wanted. If the developer agrees and you agree, you could make it longer. Seven is a pretty good number, but maybe there's a reason why you might need it longer. Maybe your spouse is off on safari in Africa or is one of those medical researchers down at the South Pole. I don't know the reason why you might want it longer.

But it's no shorter than seven days, and it applies to the first purchase of the new product. This is with developers. If I go and get in that lineup while I'm on my way to get a drink and I buy one, and if I turn around because I got the last one and there are three people behind me who want it and I flip it to them for the price of the coffee, then there is no rescission agreement or peri od between me and them. That's pretty extreme, but it gives you a sense of the nature of it. [1550] R. Sultan:

Section 21 says: "

(1) A purchaser does not have a right of rescission under this

section (

a) if the purchaser is not entitled to receive a disclosure statement under this Act…." When would a person not be entitled to receive a disclosure statement but never- theless have, perhaps, some imagined right of rescis- sion?

11028 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, MAY 11, 2004 Hon. G. Collins: If I come back to the line of ques- tioning we had with the member for Richmond Centre — if I remember correctly — an example would be if somebody were in a subdivision lot within a munici- pality, in which case that would have an exemption. It would not apply under this act. Previously, there was not a rescission period un der this act. We haven't added one. The current practice would be in place in that the municipality is exempt. That subdivision lot would not have the seven-day rescission period, be- cause it doesn't fall within this act and wasn't previ- ously part of it either. R. Sultan: Continuing with

section 21, there's a reference here, in fact, to the disclosure statement. The disclosure statement is defined in the act as a statement that discloses material facts in accordance with

section 14(2). If you go to

section 14(2), you dis- cover that a disclosure statement must, without mis- representation, plainly disclose all material facts. I guess this does beg the question: what's a material fact? I think it's a very practical question, in the sense that it would helpful to people making use of this act to understand the mindset of the ministry and the minister in framing these words. For example, is the fact that a condominium was previously used as a grow op a material fact, in the opinion of the officials and the minister present? Hon. G.

Collins: Given that this act deals with new developments, unless the contractor was running the g r o w o p w h i l e t h e y w e r e c o n structing the project, it's unlikely there would be one. I know that's just an ex- ample the member is raising. If you go back to

part 1,

section 1, and you go to page 5 of the bill, you'll find in the

definitions that "ma- terial fact" is actually defined. There's actually a listing of some of the…. There are fo ur points there. The last one is other prescribed matters. We could add to that as well. If (a), (

b) and (

c) don't cover it and we decide there's a problem and we need to add to it, then we could do that. R. Sultan: I presume the same reply would apply to termites and leaks in the roof. Hon. G. Collins: Again, it's new development, so they would be very fast termites, or it would be a very poorly constructed roof, but i t w o u l d n ' t b e t h e f i r s t time. Interjection. Hon. G. Collins: Or a very wet season. I don't know. If you look at "material fact," it says: "…means, in relation to a development unit or development prop- erty, any of the following: (

a) a fact, or a proposal to do something, that affects, or could reasonably be ex- pected to affect, the value, price, or use of the devel- opment unit or development property." [1555] I suppose the construction of a new highway off the back yard might be an example of that. Whether it's a tunnel or not, it might be part of it. So "(

b) the identity of the developer; (

c) the appo intment, in respect of the developer, of a receiver, liquidator or trustee in bank- ruptcy, or other similar person acting under the author- ity of a court; (

d) any other prescribed matter." It's really pretty much what it sounds like. It needs to have a material impact on the price or the value of what you're buying. R. Sultan: Since I would gauge that many of the officials who assisted in drafting this new act also worked on the recently ad opted new B.C. Securities Act, and since I suppose one could make the case that a statement of disclosure for a real estate project is not unlike a security prospectus perhaps, are there some similarities here? And are we living up to the same degree of rigour and disclosure that might apply to financial securities? Hon. G. Collins:

Section 1 of Bill 38, which is the Securities Act — which I think passed through the House this morning in committee stage and third read- ing — lists "material information." It's not exactly the same word, but they're trying to do similar things. It says: "…means information relating to the business, operations or securities of an issuer that would rea- sonably be expected to significantly affect the value or market price of the issuer or a security of the issuer." In here you can see we're trying to do similar things. There's a bit more detail. Th ere's the identity of the developer, bankruptcy trustee, etc.

I suppose that could be assumed to be rolled into that. This says: "…that affects, or could reasonably be expected to affect…." In one it's "significantly affect," and in this one it's "affect or reasonably be expected to affect." I don't know. Maybe it's a wash. The goal is the same: to try and provide information to the purchaser so that they have some sense of what they're purchas- ing. They are different produc ts and can be different in many other ways, as the member is aware. Securities can be quite different. When you're buying here, you're buying real property, and yo u can actually see it.

It's tangible, and you know wher e it is. Anyway, I think the effort is the same. Different words are used, but we're trying to protect the consumer in similar ways. D. Hayer: Under this

section it says that the pur- chaser can rescind with seve n days of written notice. How can this notice be delivered? I think it's going to b e i n r e g u l a t i o n . W h a t d i f f e r e n t w a y s o r m e t h o d s a r e you looking at for how the purchaser can deliver this notice? You know, if they're out of town or after they have purchased…. Sometimes we have people living out of the location. Hon. G. Collins: Subsection (4) says it needs to be done by regulation. That means that's yet to come. At this point the regulations ar en't drafted. Aren't com-

TUESDAY, MAY 11, 2004 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 11029 pleted — l e t m e p u t i t t h a t w a y . I t ' s e x p e c t e d a t t h i s point that you would need to provide written notice to the business address of the developer — or to the bro- kerage if they were using a brokerage — in order to do that. That's what we're lookin g at, at this point. But if the member comes across a loophole there or a better way of doing it, then I'd be thrilled to hear the sugges- tion. Or if he hears from somebody who's got a concern or a better way of doing it, then we'd love to hear that as well. [1600] D.

Hayer: Will the purchaser be able to use e-mails or faxes? Or will they have to use a courier service or a delivery service or postage or any other system? As technology changes, will there be flexibility available for the purchaser to use ne w technology to rescind if they have to? Hon. G. Collins: We'll look at that. More and more, electronic transfers — electronic exchange of informa- tion — have more traction under the law, I would say, so that would certainly be something.

These contracts may be done electronically, sent electronically, and there would be no reason, one would think, why one couldn't send an e-mail that you could verify came from the sender that would qualify. We'll take that into consideration when we draft the regulations and see if that would be a proper way. If it could be done in a way that you could be secure and be sure of it, then maybe that's something we could do. We'll certainly look at it. D. Hayer: Under

section 21(6), it says: "…the per- son must promptly return the deposit to the pur- chaser." Does the minister have any idea what "promptly" is looking at? Is it weeks or a few days or a month? Sometimes people assume a different defini- tion — just some idea so that people can understand. Hon. G. Collins: Yeah. We don't define every word or everything that we do. When one puts "reasonable" in there and "promptly" return it, it's assumed that it's done in a reasonably prompt time. It doesn't have to be done within five minutes. If you start to get into months, it's probably pretty long.

Maybe you want to do it, and your accountant's away for a couple of days — or the person who writes the cheque. Then it might take a few days. I would think it would need to be reasonable and would have to pass that threshold. If you're still wait- ing for it after some period of time that's unsatisfac- tory to you, then there are ways you can try and move that along — but promptly. Everybody understands what's reasonable, and there would have to be a com- pelling reason not to do it in a reasonable length of time.

Section 21 approved. On

section 22. B. Kerr: We have a situation in 22(3)(

b) where we have a right of action for damages against a developer, a director, a person who consented to be named as a developer, a person who auth orized the filing and the person who signed the disclosure statement. T h e n I j u s t w a n t t o g o d o w n t o s u b s e c t i o n ( 5 ) .

I t says: "A person is not liable to a purchaser under subsec- tion (3) if the person proves that the purchaser had knowledge of the misrepresentation at the time at which the purchaser received the disclosure statement." Does the fact that it uses the words "a person" and leaves out the words "a developer or director" mean that the direc- tor and the developer and, I guess, the person who con- sents to be named as a developer would still be liable? I hope you understand my question.

Under subsection (5), we use the words "a person is not liable." I'm just wondering if the words "a devel- oper or the director" are in tentionally left out there, meaning that they would still be liable, rather than just using the word "person." Hon. G. Collins: In subsection (5) a person is a broader definition, I would say, than a director or de- veloper, but a director or developer could be a subclass of a person. It's a broad definition, and others could fit within that, I think, if that's what the member is asking. [1605] B. Kerr: Just to clarify, then.

We're saying that no- body is liable to a purchaser if the purchaser was aware of the misrepresentation before they signed the agree- ment. Hon. G. Collins: Subsection (5) is a broad exemp- tion from the liability. It is with regard to if the pur- chaser, the developer and their representatives all know what they're dealing with and they enter into that agreement, there's no liability because they knew what they were doing. H o w e v e r , i f o n e g o e s d o w n t o s u b s e c t i o n ( 6 ) , i t talks about an indi vidual.

If an individual within the company was doing their due diligence, acting in their best interests and putting forward what they thought was true, they could be exempted from the liability, but the corporation itself would not. Does that answer the member's question? B. Kerr: Thank you for that. I was leading right into that in subsection (6). I'll move right on, then, to sub- section (9), and I want to follow up with the question that my colleague from Richmond Centre had. In subsection (9) it says that you've got two years after the time you recognize that there's been a misrep- resentation.

I've got two questions. If it takes 20 years — possibly a latent defect in there where the work wasn't done — would you still be able to have the two years after you discover that to file a claim of damages? The second one is: would this succeed to a subse- quent purchaser, this particul ar section? Would this go to a subsequent purchaser, or is it just for the purchaser at the time?

11030 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, MAY 11, 2004 Hon. G. Collins: First of all, to answer the last question, resales aren't cove red. These are only for the first transaction. But yeah, for example, if you were to find out 20 years from now that the developer stuck u r e a f o r m a l d e h y d e i n y o u r b a s e m e n t w a l l o r s o m e - thing and you didn't find it until 20 years from now and you had to rip it all out…. That might not be the best example, but maybe that would work. It's from the time you find out. If you discover that, you've got time to take action.

That could be any length of time. Hon. K. Falcon: I'd like leave to make an introduc- tion. Leave granted. Introductions by Members Hon. K. Falcon: Mr. Chair and hon. members, I'm pleased to say that today in the House we are joined by a class of grade 5 students from Surrey Centre Elemen- tary. This is half the class, I imagine. I had the pleasure of meeting them along with their teacher, Ms. Scarlett. They are here along with a bunch of the parents. I would ask the House to please recognize them and to understand that Surrey Centre Elementary is one of the finest schools in Cloverdale, if not the province.

Debate Continued R. Sultan: This question may be grossly out of se- quence, but I've been pond ering the very thoughtful comments on termites and leaks given to us by the Finance minister. It occurred to me that perhaps some people picking up this new act would not be aware that in fact it pertains only to new developments, as I understand his response. I was reading the

preamble and the definition of development units, etc. Is it not conceivable that some people might interpret this act as pertaining to existing properties as well? Hon. G. Collins: It's difficult for me to know what people might draw from the legislation, although I think the title tries to steer them in the right direction. It's called the Real Estate Development Marketing Act. I don't know what more I can do about that. In the definition sections and in the application

section of

part 1, it does talk about what this means — what we're talking about. Certainly, if one sort of glances through that, you can get a sense of what the act is trying to deal with. [1610] I suppose people could misinterpret the function of the act and come to different conclusions. That's always one of the risks of even legislators reading legislation and understanding what it means, let alone the general public. I suppose that's what law- yers are for ultimately.

Certainly, I would hope that we're clear enough in the title and in the gist of the act, when you get into it fairly quickly, that it doesn't apply to existing legislation. I expect, though, in the ca se of the issue raised by the member for Malahat–Juan de Fuca, that if you…. You could easily, 20 years later, discover that problem with your home and not be the original purchaser and find that you don't have the recourse, because it's sold in between. That's just how the system works. I guess we've tried as best we can.

I think from a plain reading of the act, one can understand it deals with new devel- opments and not pre-existing ones. I hope people un- derstand that. Sections 22 to 36 inclusive approved. On

section 37. R. Sultan: This is the

section of the act, division 3,

section 37, laying out appeals to the financial services tribunal. What is the financial services tribunal? Hon. G. Collins: The member will recall that as part of the core review process, the commercial appeals process was done away with — was eliminated. In its place, in order to try and de al with possible small to medium-sized conflicts that people perhaps don't want to take to court, the government put in place the finan- cial services tribunal to tr y and deal with those. It's much smaller, much more focused. Government is put- t i n g t h a t i n t o p l a c e . I t w i l l b e a n a v e n u e t o w h i c h somebody could take a concern as prescribed under this

section of the act and hopefully have it resolved to their satisfaction. It's just a cheaper way, rather than going to court, of resolving a dispute. R. Sultan: I take it from the minister's reply that the financial services tribunal exists today and is opera- tional. Hon. G. Collins: That legislation setting up that tribunal…. That tribunal we anticipate being set up in the early summer — hopefully June. We're working towards it. It's in place. It deals with provisions under this act, the Real Estate Act, the Financial Institutions Act, the Credit Union Act — those types of financial pieces of legislation.

We anticipate it being up and running relatively shortly. I think we've already iden- tified people to sit on the tribunal through the board and commission resourcing process. It's well ad- vanced, and we hope to have it up and operating very soon. R. Sultan: What would be the relationship between the financial services tribunal and — if I got the name straight — the Financial Institutions Commission? Hon. G. Collins: The chair of the Financial Institu- tions Commission is also the chair of the tribunal.

Be- yond that, the other members of the tribunal will be completely outside that and will be and have been sourced for their broad range of skills and experiences that they can bring to this table. It's not like we just went and picked somebody off the street. We've actu-

TUESDAY, MAY 11, 2004 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 11031 ally tried to search out peop le with a set of skills and familiarity with this legislation and these various busi- ness practices that they will be acting as members of the tribunal for, so that they can make decisions and resolve disputes. They are separate bodies other than the fact that the chair is the same. [1615] R.

Sultan: Would it be fair to assume that the pro- posed members of this tribunal would be citizens who are perhaps holding down other jobs or doing this on a part-time basis for a small stipend, or would they actu- ally be full-time employees of the tribunal? Hon. G. Collins: As the member is well aware, there are people with great CVs who hold down public office for a very small stipend and do it more than full- time. We are looking for people who have a set of skills. It will, we anticipate, be a part-time position. We hope it's not used to great extent.

We don't believe it will need to be, but it's there and available. We antici- pate they'll be part-time positions. People may have other jobs, other things they do. In many cases, though, this is a perfect position for somebody with a long history in a particular field of practice who has retired or is semi-retired and is will- ing to offer their expertise, experience and service for, as the member mentioned, a very small stipend. We look for people who are willing to provide some public service. This is certainly the role they'll play — that of public service.

It's not something anyone could make a living off, I don't think. Sections 37 to 39 inclusive approved. On

section 40. B. Kerr: I guess I'm looking at the penalties and piercing the corporate veil . In

section 40 we talk about a "person who commits an offence," and then we go on and say "(

a) in the case of a corporation" and "(

b) in the case of an individual." I'm just won- dering whether we step ba ck into the same…. When w e t a l k i n t e r m s o f a p e r s o n , d o w e g o b a c k t o t h e definition under

section 39(3)? It says: "If a devel- oper commits an offence under this Act, an officer, director, controlling shareholder or partner of the developer who authorizes, permits or acquiesces…." Would that be the same defi nition? Do we pierce the corporate veil in this ca se for somebody that has misrepresented? Hon. G. Collins: The only difference is that it's hard to put a corporation in jail, and there is a provi- sion in (

b) in the case of an individual. Otherwise, the penalties are the same. In the case of an individual, one could imprison them for a period of not more than two years, either in lieu of a fine or penalty or in addition to. That's really the only di fference in the penalties be- tween the two. I hope that was the member's question. I didn't hear all of this. B. Kerr: That's what I'm getting at. Would the fine just go against the corporation? If the corporation is ultimately bankrupt or has no money, would they go on to the directors then? Hon. G.

Collins: First of all, it's feasible that you could apply a penalty to the corporation as well as an individual, a director, etc., and put the director in jail. I mean, it's conceivable that all those things could hap- pen. B. Kerr: Okay, that answers my question. As you know, a lot of the development companies form sub- sidiaries. The subsidiary has absolutely nothing that does development, so if anything happens, they can hide behind the protection of the corporate veil, as we call it, and not have to pay out anything. This morning we passed

an act, the Securities Act. In the Securities Act there were fines of up to a million dollars, and in real estate there can be some pretty heavy numbers. I'm looking at this, and my first ques- tion is: why are the maximum fines so low? Why are we keeping them so low? Second, wouldn't they be better put in regulation where they could be changed as circumstances dictate as opposed to being locked into the act? Hon. G. Collins: The $100,000 fine — it's a penalty — is there currently. However, we have added an additional penalty for su bsequent offences, which could go up to $200,000, as well as a jail term.

It's a fair comment, I think, for the member to suggest that it could be in regulation, and then one could adjust it accordingly. Those are pretty significant amounts. I mean, I know that in the case of securities, it's $1 million, but the opportunity for securities violations could be an awful lot higher perhaps. [1620] There could be an exampl e of a large development, I suppose, where one could have a big problem. For the most part, I think these are up-to amounts. I do

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	h0511pm-09
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	h0511pm 09
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	13d748009570fd129a946ff8e63139ed032cf5ec

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).