1998 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 36th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, JULY 30, 1998

Afternoon

Volume 12, Number 13

[ Page 10757 ]

The House met at 2:08 p.m.

R. Masi: It is my pleasure today to introduce Michele McManus, a longtime colleague of mine from the Surrey school district and a longtime family friend. Would the House please welcome Michele.

J. Dalton: On behalf of my roomie and colleague the member for North Vancouver-Seymour and myself, I would like everyone to welcome our landlord from Japan who has come in for his annual visit, Mr. Ron Jones. Please welcome him.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'd like the House to join me, if we all could, in extending a very heartfelt thank-you to Jo-Anne Kern, the deputy chief of Hansard for this House. If everything goes according to rumour, this will be Jo-Anne's last day dedicated to recording the highs and lows of debates in this august chamber. Jo-Anne has worked well with Hansard since 1973, and her dedication and commitment to an accurate public record will be sorely missed.

There is good news, though. Jo-Anne is starting work as an investigator with the ombudsman's office, so she will continue to work on behalf of the members of the House and the people of British Columbia. On behalf of all of us, I extend our best wishes to Jo-Anne Kern.

Hon. P. Priddy: I actually have two introductions to make today. One of the people who recently joined my office is Steve Arnett, who has joined us as a ministerial assistant. He has some guests in the gallery whom I'd like people to welcome. They are his partner Cathy Rogers Arnett and their children, Matthew and Christopher, and some friends who are visiting from Calgary, Alberta -- Dan and Debbie Fehr and their children, Ryan, Jared and James. Would the House please make them welcome.

My second introduction in the precinct is the family of my other ministerial assistant, Donna Cameron. She has family visiting from Edmonton, and they are her daughter Amy Cameron, her son Fred Cameron, her daughter Lace Cameron and Lace's two children, six-year-old Katie and four-year-old Travis. They are accompanied by Donna's partner, Grandma Lynn. I'd ask the House to make them welcome.

M. Coell: There is a young man riding across Canada named Joe Hache, whom members may know. Having left Halifax on June 15, he will be in Victoria on August 21. He is infected with hepatitis C, and he is travelling across the country gathering support and signatures -- he's closing in on a million signatures now -- in support of victims of hepatitis C and tainted blood. I wonder whether the House would welcome him to Victoria now, as no doubt we won't be sitting on August 21. Could we please take the opportunity to do that.

J. Cashore: Today in the gallery we have the president of the Coquitlam-Maillardville constituency association, Mr. Len Werden. Would the House please join me in making him welcome.

Hon. J. Kwan: I also have a number of introductions to make. They are all staff, either from my office or from the ministry. First, visiting us in the gallery is Cindy Flesh, who is the person who answers the phone and greets everybody with a very warm welcome when you first come in. Also in the gallery, seconded from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, is Deanna Battle. She is replacing Margaret Boston, who had a minor accident about a month ago and happened to break her hip. But she is healing well at home, and we expect her back sometime soon.

In the gallery, as well, are three other staffpersons: Diedre Wilson, Susan Hughes and Gail Fattore. Would the House please make them feel very welcome.

E. Gillespie: It gives me great pleasure today to say that visiting in the precinct is my partner Bruce Curtis and my daughter Kate Curtis. They are accompanied by her cousin Tara Gillespie from Edmonton. Would the House join me in making them all welcome, please.

The Speaker: Hon. members, in the gallery today are six very distinguished visitors helping us celebrate the 100-year anniversary of our building. We have a young Queen Victoria; Governor James Douglas; Francis Rattenbury; Hamish, the Scottish stonemason; Nellie Cashman; and I believe Amor de Cosmos is also there. Would the House make them welcome.

I will add that they have other names, and I'll read them in the same order: Sara Topham, Cameron Culham, Andrew Sawatsky, John Bolton, Cara Dick and David Brown. They will be visiting us all summer, six times a day in the precinct. One could have a conversation with them, should one wish to do so. I would encourage all of you, if you're here for the rest of the summer, to do that. We do indeed welcome them today. They are part of the Parliamentary Players and our 100th anniversary celebration. Thank you and welcome.

[2:15]

K. Krueger: I almost missed it. I have surprise visitors: my constituency assistant Pamela Tyler, her husband Rev. Don Tyler, their tiny daughter Shannon and her friend, whose name I don't know. Would the House please make my friends welcome.

Oral Questions

CALL FOR NEW PROVINCIAL BUDGET

G. Campbell: Hon. Speaker, we all know that the TD Bank has said that British Columbia will have the worst economic growth of any province in Canada over the next three years. We also know now that the government has admitted that forest revenues are down by $100 million in the first quarter alone. Untold millions in tax dollars are being lost as consumer confidence is grinding to a halt because of this government's policies. Oil and gas revenues are down because of this government's mismanagement. We're losing jobs in the construction industry; we're losing jobs in the housing industry and in the forest industry . . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members . . . .

G. Campbell: My question to the Minister of Finance is: will the Minister of Finance admit the damage that her government's policies have done to the economy and prepare a new budget so that we can repair the damage that's been done by the NDP to British Columbia?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Speaker, the worst thing about our economy is the Liberal opposition.

[ Page 10758 ]

The Speaker: First supplementary, the Leader of the Official Opposition.

G. Campbell: Hon. Speaker, the worst thing about our economy is the NDP government, which taxes and borrows and spends and drives investment out of British Columbia. The worst thing about our economy is a government that tries to hide the truth from the people of British Columbia. The Minister of Finance cannot turn a blind eye to the thousands of British Columbians who've been driven out of work by this government's policies, to the thousands of British Columbians that have to leave their province to find work that can support their families and support their future.

Will the Minister of Finance accept her responsibility and prepare a new budget to repair the damage that's been done to our economy so we can create some hope in British Columbia again?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Hon. J. MacPhail: This opposition didn't like it when we were very prudent in our forecasts in the 1998 budget. That prudence has proven to have served us very well. This opposition didn't like it when we entered into negotiations with the forest industry to make sure that the forest industry was competitive not only in the area of stumpage but in the area of streamlining regulations. This opposition didn't like it . . . that we've been meeting with business groups on a regular basis to ensure that we're cutting the cost of doing business in this province.

This opposition didn't like it when we gave tax incentives to the mining industry, to the film industry, to the oil and gas industry. They didn't like it when we worked with the agriculture industry to give tax incentives there. There is nothing that this government could do to satisfy the naysayers on that side, because all they're about is politics. They don't care . . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, members. The minister will finish her comments.

Hon. J. MacPhail: This opposition is willing to risk all of the good economic work, the hard-slogging, down-at-the-roots economic work that our government is doing . . .

The Speaker: Thank you, minister.

Hon. J. MacPhail: . . . solely because the only thing they have is politics and not a single idea of their own.

The Speaker: Second supplementary, the Leader of the Official Opposition.

G. Campbell: This opposition didn't like it when the government didn't tell the people the truth about their budget position in British Columbia. This opposition didn't like it when the government ignored advice from people who invest in this province, and increased taxes. This opposition didn't like it when the government took away workers' rights and imposed a new labour bill which will drive thousands of British Columbians out of British Columbia.

And this opposition doesn't like it that this government's policies have driven the forest industry to its knees, so that thousands of families are without work and support. Most of all, this opposition doesn't like a government that won't call an election so we can start repairing the damage to British Columbia.

So, hon. Speaker, let me ask a question of the Minister of Finance.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

G. Campbell: Will the Minister of Finance please, on behalf of all British Columbians, prepare a new budget that will give the people of British Columbia some hope and create jobs in this province, instead of driving them out?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yesterday the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin said that perhaps only the spirit of Bill Vander Zalm was here. Actually, I think he is here -- his hair's just greyer, that's all. I will tell you what this member is doing. This Leader of the Opposition is not putting forward any economic agenda that would make any sense in this province. We have put forward an economic agenda that is making sense. What this Leader of the Opposition is doing is trying to carve out some ideological position that distinguishes him from the Reform Party. It is as simple as that. And I will tell you, it's not working.

The message that he is trying to send is not working in Toronto; it's not working . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, members.

Hon. J. MacPhail: . . . in New York. Those people, the people who are investing here, understand what this government is doing in these economic times. They understand that we're working with them to create jobs, to improve the investment climate and to cut red tape. They understand the hard work that's going into it each and every day. The only thing . . .

The Speaker: Minister, finish up.

Hon. J. MacPhail: . . . that will make our economy worse . . .

The Speaker: Finish up, minister.

Hon. J. MacPhail: . . . is the naysaying of the Reform -- Liberal opposition.

JOB LOSS IN FOREST SECTOR

G. Abbott: Everything this government has done has served to undermine the investment climate in British Columbia. This government is a pathetic failure. When we started this session, we still had the Premier's claim of 21,000 new jobs ringing in our ears. What's happened since? Fifteen thousand forest workers have lost their jobs in this province.

Interjections.

G. Abbott: Now we hear . . .

[ Page 10759 ]

The Speaker: Members, no one can hear anything.

G. Abbott: . . . of a $100 million shortfall as a result of the failure in the forests. Can the Minister of Forests tell us how much worse he thinks it's going to get in our forests? Can he tell the forest families of this province how much worse it's going to get?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'm wondering . . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Minister, I ask you just to wait a moment, please. Members, I'm just asking for order, and then I'll recognize the Minister of Forests.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Which analyst, which statistician, which forecaster is the opposition using . . .

An Hon. Member: Today.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yeah, today.

. . . for their convenience? They throw numbers around. In fact, they're not right about the numbers, unfortunately. When they talk about forecasts, they're exaggerating how much we're off the forecasts. We have said that what we will do is to take the forecast, take any new information available for analysis, and we will try to make mid-term adjustments, as we always do, because of the changes in the economy.

But you know, hon. Speaker, it is very difficult to sit here and not see that there's some celebration of the fact that because we have money in FRBC, we're employing 5,000 more people this year who would not have been employed. When will they quote the good figures that are out there? It just so happens that the latest survey of employment, payroll and hours shows employment up 2,000 in the forest industry last month. When will they tell the people that?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members. First supplementary, member for Shuswap.

G. Abbott: I'm glad that the Minister of Forests mentions FRBC. They haven't had a lot of success in getting those 15,000 unemployed forest workers back to work, but they're still finding very creative ways to spend their money. For example, this FRBC travel pack is one of those imaginative ways. We have in this travel pack, for example, a disposable comb made in the U.S.A., a disposable toothbrush made in China and disposable toothpaste made in Japan. In fact, the real genius of this FRBC travel pack is that it is entirely wood-free and it's entirely B.C. product-free. It's an amazing thing -- an absolutely amazing thing.

The Speaker: Your question.

G. Abbott: Now, I know that this travel pack may be handy for workers on their way to Alberta to try to find employment, but I want to ask the Minister of Forests: what value does a plastic travel pack from FRBC have in terms of putting forest workers back to work in this province and renewing our forest base?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The opposition opposes the whole idea of renewing the forests and renewing the forest economy. Not a single idea has come from that side of the House with respect to changes to the Forest Practices Code. That side of the House should come clean with the people of B.C. and tell them that they have no idea whatsoever on how you can improve forest practices and still . . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members. Minister, will you conclude your remarks, please.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I can inform the opposite side that in its short life New Forest Opportunities, which is designed to take those people who are displaced at work . . . has already employed hundreds of people, and there's about a thousand registered who are taking training to be placed in jobs in the forest industry in British Columbia.

TOP-DOWN LAW ENFORCEMENT

G. Wilson: This is likely to be my last question in this session, and it's not designed in any way to titillate the members of this chamber. But with the hot weather, more British Columbia women choose to go topless in public places. The RCMP inform me that they will not make arrests of these women, because the office of the Attorney General refuses to make arrests.

There are a lot of British Columbians who want this matter nipped in the bud. Let me say that I think all of us want to keep abreast of the law in this matter. So, hon. Speaker, many people in British Columbia are angry that these women are not busted. My question to the Attorney General is: will he finally take charge and personally handle the busts? [Laughter.]

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, come to order.

LACK OF JOY FOR UNEMPLOYED YOUTH

M. de Jong: M. Collins is a 19-year-old resident of Chilliwack who spent the last 18 months looking for work. I've provided the Labour minister with a copy of Mr. Collins's letter to the editor, where he chronicles the frustration of being bounced from one ineffective government employment program to another. Finally, he says in that letter, he was put on a jobs program he identifies as JOY. He was put on the JOY program, and he writes in that letter that "JOY gave me hope." Then he was told that JOY was out of money. My question is to the Minister of Labour: why has JOY been such a failure?

Why has JOY's performance been such a disappointment to so many young people in the province of B.C.? Is it true that the government intends to discontinue JOY? [Laughter.]

Hon. D. Lovick: In the interests of giving a fair, complete and thorough answer, I'm going to let my colleague step up to the mike. [Laughter.]

[2:30]

JOB LOSS AND ENVIRONMENT MINISTER

C. Clark: On a more serious note, over the last year the Environment minister has shown, I think, what anyone would call a remarkable ability to kill jobs. We found out in this session that her incompetence in her ministry has cost British

[ Page 10760 ]

Columbia $1.3 billion in investment and 20,000 jobs. You know, if there is a race in the NDP cabinet to see who can kill more jobs, this minister's 20,000 jobs killed beats the Forests minister's 15,000 jobs killed hands down. So congratulations, hon. minister -- you win. You killed more jobs than any of your colleagues in the NDP cabinet.

The Speaker: Your question, member.

C. Clark: Can the Minister of Environment, on what may be the last day of this session, tell us how it feels to preside over the loss of 20,000 jobs in British Columbia, and can she tell us, just so we know, how many more jobs she expects to kill through her incompetence over the rest of the year that's left to us?

Hon. C. McGregor: It's certainly my pleasure to be able to respond, in fact, to the most hypocritical statement that could have possibly been made by a member of that side of the House. As the member well knows, and as has been canvassed repeatedly throughout this session, on the question of how to better handle the matters related to job creation, commercial recreation tenure, leasing policies and so on, this ministry and this government took some very significant steps to address those problems.

The members will know that there was a miscellaneous statutes amendment act that contained a provision that would allow us to move staff and to create a more streamlined process through which we could deal with these questions. And how did those members opposite vote? They voted no. Shame!

Hon. H. Lali: I request leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Hon. H. Lali: We have some constituents of mine from Merritt, who are touring the precincts: Debbie Barker and her two sons, Mike and Chris. Also, with them is Mr. Terry Michaels, who is a friend of mine who used to live in Merritt. Would the House please make all of these people welcome.

Tabling Documents

Hon. M. Farnworth: I have the pleasure to table the annual report of the B.C. Utilities Commission for 1997.

Hon. I. Waddell: I have the honour to present the annual report and audited financial statements of the B.C. Heritage Trust for the fiscal year 1997-1998. I'd like to thank the trust members for their good work.

Hon. P. Priddy: I'm pleased to table the annual reports of the Ministry of Health and Ministry Responsible for Seniors for 1995-96 and 1996-97.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I have two reports to table. One is pursuant to the Crown Proceeding Act for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1997. Pursuant to the Financial Administration Act, I am pleased to present reports for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1998, on amounts borrowed by government for making loans to government bodies, amounts borrowed in foreign currencies and amounts borrowed for authorized disbursements.

The Speaker: I have the honour to present the second annual report of the chief electoral officer, covering the period January 1, 1997, to December 31, 1997.

Petitions

B. Penner: I rise to present a petition. This petition is signed by 2,449 men and women who are appalled that the NDP government halted mammography screening in the upper Fraser Valley in January of this year. Early detection of breast cancer, a disease which claims the lives of 600 women every year in B.C., is crucial.

R. Thorpe: I rise to present a petition, as I do with all petitions delivered to my office. This one is signed by 154 constituents, regarding fair and just treatment for victims of hepatitis C.

L. Stephens: I rise to present a petition from 59 constituents of mine who are requesting mandatory assessment rehabilitation programs for all drivers who display a drug dependency or an alcohol-abuse lifestyle.

Orders of the Day

Hon. J. MacPhail: I call Committee of the Whole to debate Bill 29.

TOBACCO FEE ACT

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 29; W. Hartley in the chair.

section 6 (continued).

R.

Thorpe: Just prior to recessing, knowing that the amendment I had put forward had been ruled not acceptable by the Chair, and having listened to the comments of my colleague from Richmond-Steveston about the intent of the government . . . and an opportunity here to show British Columbians, to show the children of British Columbia, that we're committed, I asked that the ministry please take a look at this during the lunch break to see if they could come back -- because they have all the legislative resources -- and put into this bill, to show British Columbians that we are going to work together, that there will be a process that's committed to in this bill, and that we can work to save our children.

We suggested it be through the select standing committee. I wonder if this government has had an opportunity to review it and bring back some positive, substantive amendments to this bill to show British Columbia that we are going to work together in a cooperative manner to save the future and the lives of our children. I'd like the minister's comments on that, hon. Chair.

Hon. P. Priddy: Yes, I did have discussions with staff about it. After those discussions, I am still satisfied that by setting out the purpose of raising this tobacco fee, as this bill does in

section 6(1), we have imposed an effective restriction on the use of the money.

The opposition did ask this morning if the government is prepared to put its commitment in writing. I would submit, hon. Chair, that we have put it in writing in the strongest possible way, which means in legislation.

G. Plant: If the minister could perhaps answer this question or confirm my understanding of matters, is it the case that the licence fees, which will be collected under this act and

[ Page 10761 ]

which are the subject matter of

section 6(1), will be paid into the consolidated revenue fund?

Hon. P. Priddy: The answer is yes.

S. Hawkins: The minister doesn't give me any comfort that this money will go to the purpose that's stated in the bill. There is nothing legally binding in any of these subsections in

section 6 and nothing that tells me that the money is going to go to that. It just says that this is the intent. The purpose of collecting the fee is to help defray the expense of setting up a strategy, but there's nothing in this

section that binds the government to do that. Frankly, this minister might give her verbal commitment, but Ministers of Health have been changing from year to year. We've seen a new minister almost every year, so we don't know what the next minister might do.

It would give children who will benefit from this strategy, hopefully . . . . We know the government hasn't developed the strategy yet, because in the technical briefing we did ask for a document or a framework of this strategy. We don't have a business plan for this strategy; we asked for that as well, and we didn't get that. When we come to the bill, in

section 6(1) it looks like the government hasn't quite developed this strategy, doesn't really know how much it's going to spend on this strategy, but wants to collect $20 million in licensing fees from tobacco companies to defray the cost of this strategy. There's nothing in this

section that legally binds the government to actually use that money for that strategy. There's nothing in the

section that says that.

The members for Richmond-Steveston and Okanagan-Penticton rightly point out that there should be something in this

section that gives us comfort. If that is the reason that the government is going to set up this whole bureaucracy and collect $20 million in fees, then there should be some statutory provision in this

section or somewhere in the bill that says that this money is precisely going to be used for that purpose and that the government will be legally bound. As we understand it, it goes into the consolidated revenue fund, which is general revenues, so it goes into a pool of money that the government can use for anything. I would ask the government again to consider putting an amendment in this

section that will expressly state that there will be a statutory account set up for this fund and that the only purpose it can be used for is within the parameters of the tobacco strategy that's set up.

[2:45]

G. Plant: Looking now at subsection (2) of

section 6, the annual revenue is targeted at $20 million for the fiscal year that we're now in. In fact, that fiscal year is some months old. Is it the government's intention to spend $20 million on the development and implementation of a comprehensive tobacco consumption reduction strategy during the current fiscal year -- that is, before March 31, 1999? If so, or even if not, does the minister have a business plan or something like a business plan for the course of action which the government intends to follow during the balance of the fiscal year?

Hon. P. Priddy: Yes, we do.

G. Plant: Does the minister expect to spend the $20 million for the first fiscal year before the end of the fiscal year that we're now in?

Hon. P. Priddy: No, we do not.

G. Plant: Would the minister be prepared to provide to the opposition a copy or some sort of

summary document or version that would give the opposition and perhaps the public some sense of what the minister's or ministry's business plan is around the expenditure of these funds, in order that there would be the beginning of a process of public accountability for how the government is implementing this strategy?

Hon. P. Priddy: As soon as it's available and in its final form, yes, we will.

G. Plant: Does the minister have a time line for the completion of this business plan?

Hon. P. Priddy: We will certainly have that completed by the end of the fall.

G. Plant: By the end of the fall -- is that sometime prior to the winter solstice? Is the minister able to give some target date that is a little earlier than that? My concern is that if, for example, we weren't going to get this plan until the middle of December, that would mean that the government hadn't actually finalized the plan. That would mean that the government would be spending something in the order of $20 million in the course of three or four months, which would be a pretty rapid rate of expenditure.

I think the minister is shaking her head rightly, because she reminds me that her answer to my earlier question is that in fact she doesn't expect to spend $20 million during this year. What does she expect to spend during the current fiscal year? And what will happen to the balance of the $20 million?

Hon. P. Priddy: Currently, we have budgeted, within our own budget, $6.5 million for these kinds of activities. I think we will approach this with some prudence, hon. member. We recognize the potential of a court case, so we will be prudent and probably hold some of those dollars in reserve.

But just let me give you a few examples, if you like, of what that plan both entails now and could entail with larger amounts of dollars. One of the examples is a critics' choice contest, which we've actually done before quite successfully with something like 30,000 students involved throughout the province, looking at the effectiveness of tobacco ads and/or anti-smoking ads -- both. It was very interesting. I can just say this. When the students looked at the ads that were selected, actually, from across North America, some were quite funny. I sort of chuckled when I saw them.

But the ones the students chose as being most appropriate were really hard-hitting ones. They thought the ones that worked were really tough advertisements. So it was interesting to watch that. We would do that, but with a lower-age group of students. We'll do some work with "KidZone," the public television program for kids. We will have a launch of a whole new school development program with a significant amount of resources.

My concern -- and people are not unaware of this, both in this ministry and others -- is that we do a lot of work in schools, a lot of anti-drug, anti-alcohol, anti-smoking, anti-whatever programs, and I'm not sure we always measure the outcomes very well. We have 112 different curriculums -- or curricula, rather. This is intended to actually focus . . . measure outcomes to know what's effective. That would be an initiative that we would certainly partner with the Ministry of Education but which we would fund.

We're looking at working with an advisory group of teenagers, who are probably the people who know best what actually works for 13- and 14-year-olds. Those are just some of the examples of what would be contained in the plan.

[ Page 10762 ]

G. Abbott: Earlier in our discussion of Bill 29, I think I and other members of the opposition had been pointing to things that we're rather frustrated with, with respect to this bill. I'm not going to belabour it, but I do want to take one more stab at this, because I do think that what we've got here is an ill-conceived and fundamentally flawed piece of public policy. I want to take an opportunity to try to convince the minister of this. I suspect I'll be unsuccessful, but this is one of those occasions when I feel I have to do that -- hopefully, in the interest of British Columbians.

The problem, as I see it, is this. We have scarce resources in British Columbia to do all the things we want to do. One of the old political science expressions is that politics is the allocation of scarce resources. Certainly that's the challenge we have here in British Columbia. We don't have enough resources to do all of the good things that we want to do, including convincing young people that they shouldn't take up the tobacco habit.

What really troubles me about this bill is that contrary to the notion of getting more resources out there to fight tobacco consumption, I think what we're going to find as the reality of this bill sets in is that we are wasting scarce resources on a proposition which I think ultimately even this government will come to realize is unachievable. That's the first thing. I think we have to think about how this bill was conceived and why that conception is fundamentally flawed.

At one point the minister said: "Well, we're looking for $20 million to work with the tobacco companies towards beneficial purposes like convincing young people not to take up tobacco." That's a noble objective. I've got three kids, and I don't want them to take up tobacco. I don't want anybody else's kids to take up tobacco either. So that's a noble objective. The $20 million licence fee is not a problem, in my view, either. If you decide to impose that fee -- and I certainly would have preferred to see it go to a dedicated fund, as we recommended -- I don't fundamentally have a problem with the licence fee either.

Where I really get concerned, though, and where this bill goes awry, I think, is that the aim is not to impose a $20 million licence fee. That's part of it, but the important

part is that the government intends to do this and at the same time limit or exclude the ability of tobacco companies to pass along the cost of that fee. The problem is: can we do that, and can we do it with the very limited resources which the Health minister claimed earlier we can? I'm sure we cannot. I'm not aware of any other product in the marketplace where the government has stepped in and said: "We are going to impose a licence fee, and further to that licence fee, we are going to ensure that this licence fee can't be passed along." Now, alcohol has its evils and problems when it's misused.

We don't -- at least, as far as I know -- attempt to step into the marketplace and block them from passing along a price increase.

I think what's going to happen here is the scenario which we talked about earlier: that, in fact, the cooperation that the minister expects won't be there, and we're going to have a whole bunch of bureaucracy chasing around a proposition which is not going to work in the final analysis. What we're going to see is a waste of resources at a time when we desperately need more resources to fight these real problems. That is the problem. I think you can do the first parts that I talked about, but when you try to do the third, you run into a problem. Hopefully, the minister will find that enlightening.

Sections 6 to 12 inclusive approved.

section 13.

Hon. P. Priddy: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 13 by deleting "section 12" and substituting "section 12, a decision of the director under

section 9 (1) to not approve a price for a tobacco product or a calculation by the director under

section 10 (3) (a)."]

Amendment approved.

Section 13 as amended approved.

Sections 14 to 21 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. P. Priddy: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved on division.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Bill 29, Tobacco Fee Act, reported complete with amendment.

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

Hon. J. MacPhail: With the leave of the House now, hon. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Bill 29, Tobacco Fee Act, read a third time and passed on division.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I call committee stage of Bill 30.

TOBACCO DAMAGES RECOVERY AMENDMENT ACT, 1998

The House in committee on Bill 30; W. Hartley in the chair.

section 1.

[3:00]

M. de Jong: I have some questions for the minister regarding the amendments to the

definitions contained within

section 1. Looking at the original act, I note that the definition of manufacturer is pretty straightforward; it means a person who manufactures a tobacco product. The amendments create a much broader definition of that term. I note, starting with subsection (

f) in the amendments in the bill before us: " . . . 'manufacture' includes, for a tobacco product, the production, assembly or packaging of the tobacco product . . . . " You then move on to the definition of manufacturer. Where I'm ultimately going with this is to what extent the net has been cast wider to capture distributors, retail sales outlets . . . something that goes beyond the traditional notion of a manufacturer, because I think there's an intent here, obviously, to spread the net wider by virtue of how that definition

section has been dealt with.

[P. Calendino in the chair.]

Hon. P. Priddy: Welcome. I always welcome a new Chair, especially on the last day of the Legislature, when it's such a joyous occasion. Well, maybe . . . .

[ Page 10763 ]

It is a wider definition, in order to be able to capture those parts of the tobacco industry related to manufacturing. But it's not at all intended to cast a net that includes retailers or people like that.

M. de Jong: Maybe the minister will indulge me as I try to work through this definition. I'm beginning at the top of the page: " . . . 'manufacturer' means a person who manufactures or has manufactured a tobacco product and includes a person who currently or in the past" -- and now I'm dropping down to subsection (e) -- "is related to a person described in this definition and is engaged in, or causes, directly or indirectly, other persons to engage in the promotion of a tobacco product . . . .

" Those words -- "promote" or "promotion" -- are further defined in subsection (h), where it says: " . . . includes, for a tobacco product, the marketing, distribution or sale of the tobacco product and research with respect to the tobacco product . . . . " It seems to incorporate the notion of distribution and marketing.

Hon. P. Priddy: This was included -- and if you need more, I know that you'll tell me . . . . This piece was intended to be able to cover what are, in many ways, shell corporations, which are indeed tied very closely to the manufacturer but are the ones doing the distribution. They are directly related to the tobacco manufacturers.

M. de Jong: Well, it's always helpful to know what was intended. Of course, those people who might avail themselves of this legislation in terms of launching an action, leaving the government aside . . . . For them the question is: does this legislation open up the possibility that they could include as a defendant a manufacturer that by the definition in this act could include the companies that are created solely for the purpose of distributing to various retail outlets? And we can get to the question of retail outlets themselves, but wholesalers . . . . It does speak in those terms.

To signal where I might ultimately go with this, if we go to page 4, it's also an issue with respect to calculating market share, because that formula also speaks of manufacturers.

Hon. P. Priddy: I think the key in this piece is that they have to be directly related to the manufacturer. For instance, a wholesaler is unlikely to fall into the category of being directly related to a manufacturer. I think the key phrase is the direct relationship.

M. de Jong: With the greatest respect, the bill doesn't say that. It says in subsection (e): " . . . is related to a person" -- meaning a company, in this context -- or "other persons" and whose purpose is to engage in the promotion . . . . The bill assists us insofar as it defines "promote" or "promotion" as being the action of marketing or distribution. The bill is very specific about that, and I think it purposely expands the net to capture distributors and marketers. Those are the words it uses, so I think we need to know that.

I guess the question I could ask is: what would the response be to a restaurant . . . ? We can talk about wholesalers. What is the response to a restaurant that finds itself on the receiving end of a lawsuit because it is involved in the distribution of tobacco products?

Hon. P. Priddy: Again, as I go back to the part about "related" being the key, in subsection (

l) on page 3, it devotes most of that page to actually defining what is meant by "related."

M. de Jong: That's partially helpful, but . . . . Let me take this example, and this may incorporate elements of, for example, subsection (f). Tell me why a cigar club wouldn't be captured now by this legislation insofar as they might be an association engaged in the promotion of a tobacco product.

Hon. P. Priddy: I think the answer for that is found in the first part of the definition of manufacturer: that a cigar club . . . . Are there many? Just out of interest -- right?

Interjection.

Hon. P. Priddy: I'm asking . . . . Oh, the expert tells me: "Maybe there are." All right. I've read about it in the paper, though.

A cigar club would not fall into that category. If you go back to the very beginning of that definition, it also must include someone "who manufacturers or has manufactured a tobacco product and includes a person who currently or in the past . . . . " I don't think a cigar club falls under "has manufactured" or "currently."

M. de Jong: I think I understand what the minister is saying, but I'm not sure I agree with her definition. Where the bill reads: " . . . means a person who manufactures or has manufactured a tobacco product and includes a person who currently or in the past . . . . " What I think I hear the minister saying is that if you satisfy any one of all of the contingent conditions that are enumerated in (

a) through (f), you must also presently be in the business of manufacturing a tobacco product. If that's the intention, then I think there's a drafting problem here.

Hon. P. Priddy: I just checked with at least two legal staff who are here with me. They believe that this is clear and that it does state our intent. They don't recognize a drafting problem.

Maybe you have a suggestion.

M. de Jong: Far be it from me to quarrel with legislative counsel. I should register for the record, then, my concern that other counsel, perhaps equally clever, will endeavour to utilize these sections to broaden the pool from which a plaintiff might be able to elicit damage payments and include those agencies involved in, as the act says, marketing and distribution, and further include facilities like the one I've mentioned -- the cigar clubs and those organizations dedicated to promotion of the use of tobacco products. I think the minister has indicated she differs, and I'm apparently not going to change her mind with respect to that.

On the third page of the bill, under subsection (

k) of

section 1, I note that the definition with respect to tobacco-related wrong has been changed. In particular, I note that the word "equitable" has been added: " . . . tort or breach of a common law, equitable or statutory duty . . . . " I note also that there is a drafting change where the legislative drafters have opted for the

section to read "statutory duty or obligation owed by a manufacturer" as opposed to "committed." I think that the definition of the tort that gives rise to an action under this bill is worthy of an explanation by the minister.

[3:15]

Hon. P. Priddy: When legislative counsel reviewed this, they were concerned that the definition in the old act did not necessarily encompass all the possible claims that government might have. That was the reason therefore for expanding that definition, particularly around adding duty and obligation, etc.

[ Page 10764 ]

M. de Jong: Dropping down to subsection (l)(4) . . . . I don't mean to read it for the minister -- she is capable of doing that -- but it assists me in formulating the question: "For the purposes of subsection (2), a person is deemed to be an affiliate of another person if the other person, or a group of persons not dealing with each other at arm's length of which the other person is a member, has any direct or indirect influence . . . " I take it that this is the

section that is designed to exempt financial institutions that may have a relationship based on the extension of credit or loans to a manufacturer. Maybe the minister could confirm that. If that is the case, can the minister explain what kind of relationship or provide an example of a relationship that might be captured by the words "any direct or indirect influence"?

Hon. P. Priddy: In regards to your first question, yes, that's correct; that is the intent. In terms of the second part of that, I cannot give you a specific example of this. But it is a theoretical possibility that through some other arm of a corporate organization, a relationship might exist. That's what is intended, but I cannot give you a specific example.

M. de Jong: I think what the

section contemplates is a relationship between two agencies that, on the one hand, is not arm's-length, but on the other hand, it might be seen as providing that second agency with a degree of control over the manufacturer. I presume that's what's being dealt with here: a relationship between the manufacturer and some other agency.

I'm wondering again about . . . . It seems to me that in drafting the

section in this way, the drafters had some sort of relationship in mind. They were trying to capture something. I am concerned with respect to a bill, as the minister probably recognized from my earlier questions, that we be as clear as possible about who is going to be subject to

an act that gives the state rather draconian powers by evidentiary and judicial proceedings standards. So any company, individual or agency that is going to be subject to those powers should know that and should not be surprised. Maybe in the time it has taken me to organize my thoughts and put them to the minister, her staff have been able to develop a little more information that would be helpful in expanding upon the notion that is reflected there.

Hon. P. Priddy: If the House adjourns today, I promise I will go to legal 101 this summer.

What we did in order to establish this piece of the legislation is consult a company law expert who looked extensively at tobacco companies and subsidiaries and how people were attached to each other. He provided us with a definition that he thought would appropriately capture those agencies that might derive some benefit from the profits of the manufacturer.

M. de Jong: Not to belabour the point, but distributors, for example, benefit and government itself benefits from the sale of tobacco products. I'm sure the expert that the government consulted had something more specific in mind than that.

That, by the way, gives rise to my concern around the definition of manufacturer. If I can turn, then, to sub-subsection (l)(5), where we come to the formula by which market share is going to be determined, really the only question I have here . . . . The minister has already indicated that she doesn't share my concern about the definition of manufacturer, which is key within that formula. But do I have the minister's agreement to this extent: that the wider the definition of manufacturer is, the more agencies and corporate interests you can include within that definition?

That will impact the percentage that comes out the other end of the formula and therefore increase the liability of the defendant who is on the receiving end of any action. Is that, at least, a fair statement insofar as the formula is concerned?

Hon. P. Priddy: That's correct.

M. de Jong: Lastly, then, it would be in the plaintiff's and, if the government is the plaintiff, the government's interest to seek as broad a definition of manufacturer as is possible within the meaning of the act.

Hon. P. Priddy: I'm not sure that in the end this is the particular point that makes a difference. When we're talking about market share, there's only so much market share. You're only looking at the market share that's out there. So in some ways, it's really kind of a zero-sum game. It's simply the market share that exists.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

M. de Jong: I take the minister's point. But a distributor in the traditional sense, who is dealing with numerous brands, is going to be involved in a larger market share, perhaps, than a small manufacturer. But we don't have to go back there, because the minister says she disagrees on that point.

If we deal with the empirical evidence that is going to be required to plug into the formula, I ask the minister this: what would be the source of that data? What will the court be examining in terms of the defendant manufacturer's market share and the MM, as it is referred to here? Is that evidence that is brought before the court deemed to be conclusive, deemed to be determinative of what it purports to represent?

Hon. P. Priddy: In two ways: one, through the federal government, because we receive regular federal government information about this; and two, directly from the manufacturers themselves.

M. de Jong: In the existing act, the type of statistical evidence required to establish causation is referred to. I'm curious, though, for evidentiary purposes, will there be a requirement on the part of the plaintiff to establish the validity of the market share information that is being presented to the court, or is there some deeming provision here that I am missing that precludes the need for the plaintiff to do that? You can rest assured that the defendant in this case is going to go to great pains to ensure that the number that is attached to market share is the lowest possible.

Hon. P. Priddy: Obviously, from our perspective, we will have to prove that on a balance of probabilities. The manufacturing industry can certainly, amongst themselves, have some kind of determination about that. But we would, on the balance of probabilities, have to put that forward.

M. de Jong: I think one might logically assume that the defendants in this case are going to put the plaintiff to the strict burden of proof with respect to establishing that figure. Given some of the other things that appear in the act and the existence of the formula itself, I'm surprised, from an evidentiary point of view, that there wouldn't be some sort of deeming provision pointing to the source from which that information

[ Page 10765 ]

is going to be taken. I've heard someone say the federal government; I don't know what kind of information StatsCan keeps on this material. But I don't know how the plaintiff is going to be in a position to rebut, for example, evidence from a particular company that its sales are such and such and not what the plaintiff says they are.

[3:30]

Hon. P. Priddy: One of the ways is that we do have access to the federal information. Secondly, through the court process we will have access to the manufacturers' information to be able to establish historical levels.

M. de Jong: I think, hon. Chair, I have been debating with the minister with respect to

section 1, when what we've actually been debating is contained within

section 2, so perhaps we should move off

section

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

M. de Jong: I think the question I want to pursue here is -- and it might seem trite and obvious: is the minister convinced that the broader definition that is offered within this bill and that will become part of the Tobacco Damages Recovery Act sufficiently well defined to preclude the possibility that someone would name the Crown as an agency involved in the promotion and distribution of tobacco products?

Hon. P. Priddy: It would be the government that would name, through the court documents, who the defendants are. So it would be us who names those defendants, and we're not likely to name ourselves.

M. de Jong: The minister refers to one scenario, but I believe the act contemplates the commencement of an action by groups or individuals other than government.

Hon. P. Priddy: Of course, you're quite right. It does contemplate that, hon. member. In that case it comes back to the issue of whether the Crown would be seen as both fitting the definition of being related and having control. In which case, we would not.

Section 2 approved.

section 3.

M. de Jong: Maybe what we should do -- and my colleague will become involved in this as well . . . . If the minister is agreeable, let's take

section 3 and discuss the notion of the reverse onus provisions that are included within this bill. I'd just like the minister to provide, on the record, the government's reasoning behind providing for that reverse onus that deems responsibility and leaves it to the defendants, in this case, to call evidence rebutting the presumption.

I'm just trying to read my notes, which were made some time ago. I think that more properly falls under

section 5, so if we want to . . . .

The Chair: Shall sections 3 and 4 pass? The member for Okanagan West on

section 3.

S. Hawkins: Just a question.

Section 13.1(3) of this act is about the recovery of the cost of health care benefits. I know we asked the same question last year; I'm asking it again. As we mentioned, there's nothing in this

section or in this bill that says that any damages recovered will go back into the Health budget. I wonder where in this

section or this bill it tells us . . . . I believe the new title of the bill is Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act. If the government is indeed recovering health care costs, we would like the assurance that any damages recovered would go back into the health care system and not just into general revenues. I wonder where -- because I don't see it in this

section -- it deals with recovery of cost of health care benefits. I don't see that here, and I wonder if the minister can tell me where in the act it will give us comfort and assurance that this money will actually go back into the health care budget for tobacco-related disease purposes.

Hon. P. Priddy: Looking both at this piece and at similar pieces that have been put forward in at least other parts of North America, what tends to happen is that you get a retroactive award. You may get it retroactive for five, ten or 15 years. You might end up with a retroactivity part of the settlement of -- I don't know -- $10 billion. You're not going to put $10 billion into the heath budget so that you can fiscally use it in that year. There's absolutely no question that this is intended as redress for health care costs, but I think that if you were to receive that in a lump sum payment, you wouldn't necessarily put it directly into the health budget for that year.

S. Hawkins: Well, this morning we heard the minister say we needed $20 million for a tobacco reduction strategy. Now I hear a figure coming from that side of the House of possibly $10 million or $10 billion, or whatever, in recovery costs. There's nothing here that tells me that any of the money is going to go back for the purposes for which it's being recovered -- none of it. Unless there is something in the bill that says that . . . . I don't find that anywhere.

Hon. P. Priddy: I think it is absolutely clear by the information in the act, by the title of the act, that we are recovering past dollars for health care damages -- for health care costs that this province has incurred as a result of tobacco-related illnesses. When that money is recovered, it may very well be more than is needed in one fiscal year, but the priority is for those dollars to be used for health care priorities, which is a priority for this government -- always has been and continues to be.

M. de Jong: I recall last year, when this legislation, the original Tobacco Damages Recovery Act, was tabled amidst much fanfare of a pending action. I'm not aware that an action by government has actually been commenced. Is that correct?

Hon. P. Priddy: That is correct, because the act is not in force.

M. de Jong: Is it contemplated by the minister that following passage of these amendments, the action that is contemplated by the act will be commenced by government?

Hon. P. Priddy: That's correct.

[3:45]

M. de Jong: When that action is launched -- I'm now looking at

section 13.1(3) -- the court will be asked to determine the aggregate cost of health care benefits that have been paid. The act in fact speaks of speculating about future health

[ Page 10766 ]

care costs. I can't recall whether the government has put a figure to that issue. I presume that that work has been done in anticipation of the action that will be commenced. I would like to know what that figure is.

Hon. P. Priddy: There has been significant work done on this recently. Obviously that probably won't be a public figure until the case is filed. It is difficult, when you look over the past 25 years, to do that kind of calculation. But we have had people hard at work doing that for some time. What we do know now is that we currently spend about $400 million a year treating tobacco-related diseases in the province.

M. de Jong: I'm just trying to get a handle on this. I don't know if there is a tobacco manufacturer that commands 10 percent of the market. But am I correct, as I work through this and apply the formulas, that if an action were commenced against such a manufacturer, they would minimally, if found liable, be on the hook then for $40 million times whatever period the court saw fit to apply to the case? I'm just trying to get a handle on what the calculation of damages recovery for government will be.

Hon. P. Priddy: In terms of magnitude, I don't know if it's order of magnitude that the member is trying to get a sense of or not, but the most we can do, other than our own calculations, is look at some other judgments that have come in. For instance, in Minnesota -- sort of the same population as we have, although the costs are split differently, because they only covered the government costs and not the huge private costs that you see in American health care -- it was a $6.8 billion settlement. So I think we can really only look at what probably a dozen court cases have shown us and use that as some kind of estimation.

M. de Jong: Does the government contemplate in the action, when it is commenced -- as apparently it will be -- naming all of the known manufacturers -- that is, all of the known persons that fall within the definition of manufacturer?

Hon. P. Priddy: I think that is information that really is part of the client-solicitor privilege, if that's what you want to call it, in terms of the case we're taking forward. I'm not sure this is the right place to debate that.

M. de Jong: I'm not sure I agree. It's a unique act insofar as it contemplates a very specific action by the government. It provides government with the means to do that in a way that no other plaintiff could, with the possibility of a significant return to government if it is applied and if findings are made in the way that I think the government hopes and anticipates they will be.

I'll try again. It seems to me that a case can be made that great efficiencies are served if the government takes that set of defendants that it says are captured by the new and expanded definition of manufacturer, and proceeds on that basis -- that the liability that each of those defendants are exposed to is related to their market share. So I am puzzled . . . . Does the minister think there are manufacturers out there that the government isn't aware of? If the minister is correct in her original statements, this is a fairly exclusive club we're talking about. Why wouldn't the government, if it intends to proceed with this action, deal with it all at the same time?

Hon. P. Priddy: What I would choose to say is: I thank the member for his comments and advice. But given that the claim has not been filed, I think that to indicate who the defendants would be is simply not appropriate at this stage.

M. de Jong: I wonder if I could ask the minister to comment with respect to the issue of damage assessment -- I'm not sure if that is the correct word. First of all, the government is going to be in the best, and perhaps the only, position to quantify the amount of money it believes it is owed with respect to health care benefits paid out with respect to damage or diseases caused by exposure to tobacco products. Now, this act deems that to be the damage, but there is a presumption that that is the correct figure and is the amount of money owed to the government, subject to market share calculations.

But then it provides the manufacturer, the defendant, with an opportunity to reduce their proportion of the liability. So instead of the plaintiff in this case being confronted with the need to establish what the particular liabilities of individual defendants are, it's operating somewhat in reverse. Obviously that is a very purposeful decision on the part of government. Can the minister confirm on the record today the basis on which that decision was made -- insofar as it is something of a departure with respect to the assessment of liability that exists elsewhere in areas of civil law?

Hon. P. Priddy: As the member said a minute ago, the government probably has the best information about what the health care costs have been in the past -- that's correct. I think that shifting the onus from that is also appropriate, because the industry has the best evidence available respecting why people start and continue to consume tobacco products; they have the best information around that.

Sections 3 to 11 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. P. Priddy: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Bill 30, Tobacco Damages Recovery Amendment Act, 1998, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I call committee on Bill 21, hon. Speaker.

ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT ACT, 1998

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 21; W. Hartley in the chair.

section 12,

section 38.

F. Gingell: Hon. Chair, could you please check to see where we got to?

Section 10 was stood down. I don't know if the minister intended to bring that back first.

The Chair: Yes, member,

section 10 was stood down. We're on

section 12,

section 38.

F. Gingell: I have no questions.

[ Page 10767 ]

L. Reid: We left this discussion, I believe, on

section 38, which is contained in

section 12, discussing actual value applied in a consistent manner in the municipality or rural area.

I'd like to take a moment and review an issue that has come to my attention since we last debated this bill, which was, I believe, some six weeks ago. It's regarding 2222 Bellevue Avenue in West Vancouver. I'll put it into the record:

"The message today from the B.C. Assessment Authority is that this 32-year-old beauty should be bulldozed to the ground in order -- in Assessment Authority babble -- to make the highest and best use of the property. When owner Bill Lachman got his assessment notice earlier this year, he learned his 101 suites now have an average value of only $1,400 -- $146,000 for the entire building -- while the land on which they sit could fetch more than $19 million. Mr. Lachman's problem is that the Pink Palace has always been exclusively rental. With good-quality rental accommodations steadily diminishing . . . . "

This entire discussion today is around the actual value applied in a consistent manner. These individuals would indeed like to keep it that way. Allow me to finish by putting the quote on the record:

"But what his 1998 assessment really told him was that he'd be a fool not to kick out all his tenants, demolish his unique West Vancouver landmark and build some monster tower of $500,000 condo units on his $19 million chunk of real estate, or else sell it to a developer who would do exactly the same. That's the carrot. The other half of the Assessment Authority's unspoken message is the stick. If Mr. Lachman insists on remaining a landlord, his annual tax will continue to be based on the $19 million-plus and rising valuation of the land for condo development. Little as he wants to sell, he wonders how long he can hold out under similar Assessment Authority pressure in the years ahead.

"Annually soaring taxes based on annually rising assessments have to be passed on to renters. Hikes were pretty steep even in my own time -- from $570 in 1982 to $1,300 in 1992. Over the past six years, I gather the relentless assessment-driven pattern has continued. So this is what the highest and best use of property boils down to the Assessment Authority's manual. It excludes any consideration whatsoever of social and community needs."

[4:00]

I think I've put enough information on the record for the minister to respond. These individuals -- more than 100 renters in West Vancouver -- have indeed approached the Assessment Authority. They hope that based on

section 12,

section 38, they've reached a decision about rental property in terms of assessment rolls. If the minister could kindly comment.

Hon. J. Kwan: The member raises an issue that's quite detailed in terms of that particular situation. I'd be happy to take that letter and refer it to the assessment commissioner for his attention so that he can look at the issue in detail and respond to it accordingly.

L. Reid: I thank the minister for that. I do believe that this issue is before the B.C. Assessment Authority today, and I believe it's also been copied to the ministry. But if it has . . . .

Interjection.

L. Reid: Yes, it has gone to the ministry, back on March 15 of 1998. A number of letters, actually . . . . A particular one I'll reference is from the city of Burnaby on the same question, the effect of current property assessment practices on the protection of the rental housing stock. So indeed, if there could be an answer forthcoming, all of these individuals would be very appreciative.

Hon. J. Kwan: I will have staff touch base with the assessment commissioner to find out what the status is.

[E. Walsh in the chair.]

Section 12, sections 38 to 41 inclusive approved.

section 12,

section 42.

L. Reid: On

section 42, there are some issues around the level of information that has been shared and will now, under this . . . . This amendment will indeed not be available to individuals. I'd like to put some comments in the record from the British Columbia Association of the Appraisal Institute of Canada: "Our members rely heavily on assessment rolls and assessment sale records to properly prepare appraisals, which include appraisals for the provincial and federal governments. Should Bill 21 be enacted unamended, it will significantly and adversely affect our members' ability to practise and their livelihoods."

They make a suggestion in this documentation that I would very much like the minister to consider. I know it touches on a number of different sections, which is why I'm raising it now, to give them some time to consider as we move through. Their particular recommendation is: "When the regulations to the act are drafted, perhaps consideration can be given to deleting names from residential and farm rolls, the two classes owned by individuals for personal purposes, and leaving the names, mostly corporations, on the other rolls.

This will protect the privacy of individuals and leave information related to business and/or corporate entities in the public domain." That is a concern that individuals have who work in the industry. I'm wondering if the minister has indeed considered that concern.

Hon. J. Kwan: In the bill, under

section 68, it says that individual names would be deleted from the assessment roll. However, company names will still be there. One of the reasons why individual names are deleted is for protection of individuals per the freedom of information -- sorry, for the private . . . .

An Hon. Member: Respecting privacy.

Hon. J. Kwan: That's it, thank you.

Section 12,

section 42 approved.

section 12,

section 43.

F. Gingell: I move the amendment that is in my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 12, to replace

section 43(1) contained in

section 12 as follows:

Property assessment appeal board

(1) The Lieutenant Governor in Council must establish a property assessment appeal board and appoint at least 6 persons recommended by the Attorney General as members of the board.]

On the amendment.

F. Gingell: To just speak to this issue, hon. Chair, it is very important for the Property Assessment Appeal Board, which we've now decided to deal with, to be seen to be independent

[ Page 10768 ]

of the ministry. The ministry is responsible for the administration of this act and for the B.C. Assessment Authority. The Property Assessment Appeal Board is a quasi-judicial body that will sit and deal with appeals that arise under the Assessment Act. I think we will have a better set of circumstances if we can just separate those responsibilities.

So my amendment just adds the words "recommended by the Attorney General" into subsection (1), so it would read: "The Lieutenant Governor in Council must establish a property assessment appeal board and appoint at least 6 persons recommended by the Attorney General as members of the board."

Hon. J. Kwan: I thank the member for his suggestion. We spoke about this amendment prior to it arriving in the House. While I understand some of the concerns that the member may have, I am not in agreement that there is an issue of conflict. We will, however, continue to monitor the situation and take the member's suggestion into consideration for the future.

L. Reid: I'd like to respond.

Section 43(1) states: " . . . must establish a property assessment appeal board and appoint at least six persons . . . . " I have significant pieces of correspondence which indeed are asking the minister to consider particular skill sets when those appointments are made, particularly around rental housing and affordable housing. I put that on the record at this juncture for the minister's future consideration. Indeed, those types of individuals truly believe that that is what's missing today from the Assessment Appeal Board.

When those assessments are taken and decisions reached, the opinions of people who are less in a position to make those payments aren't considered, particularly when it comes to rental housing. Certainly that's the earlier case that I cited. Individuals who have experience and expertise around affordable housing issues and rental housing issues can be part of the group, because we all know that even though they are not the owners who pay the direct assessment, those costs are passed on to the people who pay rent.

I'm folding that into the discussion, because those individuals have made a very strong case that their ability to pay is often disregarded. Indeed, if the government's intent is to retain significant portions of affordable housing in the city . . . . Even the city of West Vancouver has gone on the record as having put to their council an entire list of suggestions on rental housing that makes sense for their corner of the province. It certainly makes sense for all parts of the province when bylaws are in place that do not permit the conversion of rental housing into strata title units.

Once that prohibition is in place, someone has to have an eye on championing the cause of the renter. Again, those costs are indeed passed on to renters. I leave that for the minister's consideration.

Hon. J. Kwan: I'll certainly take the member's suggestion into consideration.

F. Gingell: The minister understands that my concerns relative to the reporting process and the Assessment Appeal Board are in fact issues to do with conflicts of interest or the ability to serve two masters. I don't have in my mind a satisfactory response from the minister on why the minister doesn't believe that it will be a more clear-cut situation if the appeal board in effect reports to . . . . That will be the subject of further amendments that I have placed in Orders of the Day .

If the appeal board reports to the Attorney General rather than to her ministry, I would have thought that the minister would have welcomed the opportunity to ensure that there is a clear division between this quasi-judicial body and the same organization that is responsible for administering the B.C. Assessment Authority and this act. It is a quasi-judicial body, so why don't we treat it as such? Make it independent of the ministry and have them report to the Attorney General. It just seems to me that that removes completely any questions that might bring its bona fides into question.

Hon. J. Kwan: The reason I'm not in support of this amendment is that the board's independence as a decision-maker is actually firmly established and has not and will not be compromised. Bill 21, which is the bill we're debating today, will provide the board with more tools and enforcement mechanisms, which will also strengthen the board's role as an independent decision-maker. The ministry's key responsibility in the appeal system is one of assisting management procedures. We do not trespass on issues that involve individual matters.

We will refer matters for the commissioner's consideration, but we do not interfere in that way. Reporting to this ministry as part of the assessment system in no way compromises the independent decision-making of the board. Of course, the key objectives of the assessment system are to ensure that market value is in place, that it is assessed accordingly, that the market value is one that is fair for everybody and that taxpayers and taxing jurisdictions will also have their fairness in the system.

So the role of this ministry is that of the manager of the assessment system, to ensure that our market value assessment system is working effectively and efficiently. Given that that is the situation, I do not feel that the reporting procedure necessarily compromises the independence of the process. In fact, I will say that it does not. Having said that, I will certainly take the member's suggestion into consideration and perhaps contemplate that over the next while to determine whether or not changes need to be made in the future.

[4:15]

Amendment to

section 12,

section 43(1) of Bill 21 negatived on the following division:

YEAS -- 23

Sanders

Gingell

de Jong

Plant

Reid

Neufeld

Coell

Chong

Whittred

Jarvis

Anderson

Penner

J. Wilson

McKinnon

Krueger

Masi

Dalton

Barisoff

Symons

Stephens

Coleman

Hogg

Weisbeck

NAYS -- 37

Evans

Zirnhelt

McGregor

Kwan

Hammell

Boone

Streifel

Pullinger

Lali

Orcherton

Stevenson

Calendino

Goodacre

Randall

Gillespie

Robertson

Cashore

Conroy

Priddy

Petter

Miller

G. Clark

Dosanjh

MacPhail

Lovick

Ramsey

Farnworth

Waddell

Hartley

Sihota

Smallwood

Sawicki

Bowbrick

Kasper

Doyle

Giesbrecht

Janssen

[ Page 10769 ]

F. Gingell: Relative to

section 43(6), I move the amendment that is standing in my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 12, to replace

section 43 (6) contained in

section 12 as follows:

(6) (

a) Persons appointed under subsection (1) shall be appointed to a term of 6 years or until age 70 whichever is sooner.

(

b) The member designated chair under subsection (3) shall be paid an annual salary of 75% of the class 12 management position and the other members shall be paid 1/200 of 80% of the amount determined for the Property Assessment Appeal Board chair per diem.

(

c) The appointment of a member found not fit to continue with their duties may be removed for cause by the Lieutenant Governor in Council.]

On the amendment.

F. Gingell: To speak to this issue, I truly believe that the Property Assessment Appeal Board in its current form does not have the absolute and complete confidence of the public that deal with it to be free and independent, as the minister suggests. To try and bring it independence and to make that apparent to property owners and agents and other people who deal with appeals in front of the appeal board, I suggested, first of all, the amendment that just failed -- that the board report to the Attorney General. But I think the second issue is that the appeal board members should have tenure.

They should be appointed for a specific term. They should not be there at pleasure; they should not be there on good behaviour; they should not be there and allowed to continue to sit only if they behave themselves. How do we remove the possibility of appeal board members believing that they have to behave in a certain manner?

I sat on a quasi-judicial board like this many years ago and for some years -- the board of reference, which deals with appeals of teacher firings. My tenure was there because I was nominated by the president of the B. C. School Trustees Association. The teacher representative on that quasi-judicial body was nominated by the president of the B.C. Teachers Federation. The chairman was appointed by the Chief Justice. So although we were only appointed for each particular case, we were clearly independent.

Independence requires the members to have tenure. Therefore this amendment proposes, first of all, that the members of the appeal board shall be appointed for a fixed term: they shall be appointed to a term of six years or until they reach the age of 70. I put a maximum age in, because many of these people are people who have a lifetime of experience in the industry. They have been real estate appraisers or real estate agents or lawyers that have dealt in these areas. They tend to be appointed towards the end of their career.

Secondly, I put in a provision that the amount of money they are paid be a specific calculation. The calculation is a reasonable one, I can assure members of the committee: 75 percent of the class 12 management position for the chair -- it's not an absolutely full-time job, but it's a busy job when the appeals are there -- and for the other members one two-hundredth, as a per diem, of 80 percent of what is earned by the chair. That seemed to me to be a reasonable salary.

It's not determined by the minister, not determined by order-in-council; it's determined by this legislation and subject to the normal changes that will take place as the class 12 management position salary level is changed in the British Columbia public sector.

Thirdly, of course, the minister or the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council needs the protection to be able to remove from the appeal board someone who isn't fulfilling their responsibilities, isn't acting in a responsible manner. But it has to be for cause, not because they've been coming down with too many decisions in favour of respondents or too many appeals in favour of appellants. That's a pretty straightforward situation.

So if the minister would agree to this amendment, at least we would give the appeal board some feeling of independence. They would be independent of being "at the pleasure of the minister." It is for that reason that I have made this amendment, and I would promote it . . . . That's not the word I'm looking for. But I ask the minister to consider agreeing to this amendment, as I think it would have positive results on the assessment appeal board process.

[H. Giesbrecht in the chair.]

Hon. J. Kwan: I again thank the member for his suggestion on the amendment; however, we have actually taken a different approach to addressing some of the issues the member has raised, such as the issue of independence from the pleasure of the executive council for the appointment. What we have in fact done this year is that the five vice-chair positions are subject to a recruitment process based on merit. Advertisements were placed in the papers. They are highly technical positions, so these vice-chairs are being hired on a merit position with a base salary.

The appointments will be made subsequent to the process; however, I think it addresses some of the issues that you have raised, and that process is actually now in place.

The Chair: Before I recognize the hon. member, I've examined the amendment, and it imposes a financial obligation on the Crown and involves expenditure of public funds, contrary to standing orders 66 and 67. So the amendment will be out of order.

F. Gingell: If I may ask your indulgence, does your ruling bring all of the amendment out of order, or just subsection (b)? Subsections (

a) and (

c) would not cause the Crown any expenditure.

[4:30]

The Chair: Hon. member, the ruling applies to sections (

a) and (

b) of the amendment.

F. Gingell: Why does it apply to (a)?

The Chair: Because it fixes the term.

F. Gingell: I appreciate that your rulings are not debatable. Having said that, when we deal with

section (a), these people are already there. They're already appointed. This is just saying that instead of being at pleasure, appoint them for a certain term. There is no suggestion that this would require more people to be appointed than were previously appointed. It is purely and simply the length of time that their appointment is good for.

I was really pleased to hear in the minister's response to my amendment that they have gone through a process. They have advertised the position and gone through a process, so the position is going to be filled on the basis of merit. If I may be partisan for a moment -- even in the dying days of July -- it's a pleasant change for this government to make an appointment based on merit, and that's very, very good.

[ Page 10770 ]

But seeing that it has been advertised and that it is a job, why don't we give them some form of tenure? Instead of them sitting at pleasure and when there's a change in government -- as there will be soon at some point -- why not give this bureaucrat, someone who's been appointed to this important position, some tenure so that they know that their job doesn't change as the government changes? It just seems to me to be the kind of amendment that the minister would feel would make her Property Assessment Appeal Board more workable, more certain and do all kinds of good things with no negative consequences at all.

The Chair: Before I recognize the minister, just so we're clear, the amendment has been disposed of.

Section (

a) places an obligation on the Crown, so we are debating . . . .

Interjection.

The Chair: It's a financial obligation on the Crown, hon. member.

Section 12, sections 43 to 45 inclusive approved.

section 12,

section 46.

L. Reid: In terms of

section 46, my understanding of this

section is that it's a new section, or at least the inquisitorial role is new. This looks at enlarging and expanding the role in terms of . . . . I guess the best example I can give is that the board and the review panel now have the ability to summon witnesses. That would be a specific example for me of the inquisitorial role. Is that the correct reading of the bill?

Hon. J. Kwan: They've always had the inquisitorial role and the authority to summon witnesses, and that's under

section 51.

L. Reid: My question to the minister is: am I correct that

section 46 is a new addition to this particular section?

Hon. J. Kwan:

Section 46, entitled "General broad powers," is not new to the act.

Section 12, sections 46 to 48 inclusive approved.

section 12,

section 49.

F. Gingell: My first amendment having failed, the amendment in the Orders of the Day becomes irrelevant. So I would like to withdraw my amendment, because this one was to have the report come from the Attorney General.

But there is just one comment I would like to make. One of the problems that this Legislature deals with -- and it's getting better than it was -- is the time lag between the preparation of a report -- or the periods for which a particular government organization is reporting -- and it being available to the public. I would like the minister to consider -- I didn't prepare an amendment, but maybe there's some other way that it can be done -- that as soon as the report is prepared, it is delivered to the Speaker's office and deemed to be public.

It seems to me that it is unnecessary for the Legislature to be sitting; we need to get this information out. We're still dealing with rather old-fashioned wording that would seem to restrict the publication of the report -- whenever it is ready -- until the Legislature is in session. I would ask the minister to find some way of getting that information out earlier.

Hon. J. Kwan: The suggestion the member makes is a sound one. We'll certainly put that into policy, and we'll endeavour to get the reports out as soon as possible.

Section 12,

section 49 approved.

section 12,

section 50.

F. Gingell: Subsection (5), which deals with the ability of the chairman of the board, in their discretion, to allow a notice that has been improperly filed to be corrected, is permissive rather than compulsory. I wonder if there is any particular reason that the ability to make a correction in a notice to perfect it has not been made automatic but is left to the discretion of the chair.

Hon. J. Kwan: From time to time, generally speaking, individuals who file an appeal might be missing a piece of documentation with their larger appeal. This gives discretion for those individual pieces that might have been missing when it was first filed to be taken into consideration. Generally speaking, when that happens, it is my understanding that the appeal will stand. So this gives it the provision to perfect the appeal, if you will, and reasonableness is really the application here.

Section 12, sections 50 to 53 inclusive approved.

section 12,

section 54.

F. Gingell: Third parties talking to me about Bill 21 have expressed concerns about subsection (5). There is concern that this subsection never be used to deprive an appellant of the representation of their choice. I'm sure that that is not intended, but there was concern expressed to me that it could happen as a consequence of the current wording of this section. I wonder if the minister would like to comment on that.

Hon. J. Kwan: I don't believe . . . . I hope people who are utilizing this act would not abuse the intent of the act. But in the case that it is being abused, at the end of the day, rules of natural justice and administrative loss will still apply; there's a provision to deal with that. But it's really not intended to be there for people to abuse it, and I don't believe that the people who would be in charge of this act would abuse it in that manner.

Section 12,

section 54 approved.

section 12,

section 55.

L. Reid: "Means of hearing appeals and notice of hearings." One of the issues that has come to me is in regard to

interpretation. Individuals who come forward often find that the language of the hearing, if you will, or the process is a language they simply do not speak. Has any consideration been given to providing access to some level of

interpretation service, some translation service, so that indeed the process becomes, hopefully, less time-consuming and more meaningful?

Hon. J. Kwan: The member raises a good point. Language issues are always a concern. I know that the Assessment Appeal Board has been working on issues around multiculturalism and ensuring that documents and information are distributed in a way that reaches people with different lan-

[ Page 10771 ]

guage abilities. I will certainly raise the issue with the chair for his consideration.

L. Reid: The minister knows that most of these hearings are oral hearings, so that indeed when those individuals are present, their ability to communicate more effectively is certainly all to the good. My understanding from the briefing session was that the focus of this entire

section is to customize it to individuals. Again, I thank the minister for her comments around bringing the issue forward, because language is a dramatic aspect of customizing the service.

[4:45]

Section 12, sections 55 and 56 approved.

section 12,

section 57.

F. Gingell: I move the amendment standing in my name in Orders of the Day .

[SECTION 12, to replace

section 57 (1) (

a) contained in

section 12 as follows:

Powers and duties of board in an appeal

(1) In an appeal under this Part, the board

(

a) may reopen the whole question of the property's assessment to determine in a consistent manner in the municipality or rural area whether,

(

i) there is an error or omission respecting the name of a person in the assessment roll;

(ii) there is an error or omission respecting land or improvements, or both land and improvements, in the assessment roll;

(iii) land or improvements, or both land and improvements, are not assessed at actual value;

(iv) land or improvements, or both land and improvements, have been improperly classified;

(

v) an exemption has been improperly allowed or disallowed.]

On the amendment.

F. Gingell: This amendment proposes adding to

section 57(1) the ability for the board to deal with all of the issues that come up within an assessment. My understanding is that as it's presently worded,

section 57(1)(

a) deals only with the question of actual value, but value is not the only issue that's involved in the preparation of the assessment roll. Therefore I've made an amendment that would add additional reasons why the board may consider an issue.

Hon. J. Kwan: I thank the member again for his suggestion. He clearly demonstrates that he knows the issues well. However, the amendment is actually not necessary, because the bill addresses the issue of accuracy. The word "accuracy" does in fact incorporate all of those items that the member has indicated. For that reason, the amendment is actually unnecessary, but thank you for the suggestion.

L. Reid: I would like to lend my support to my colleague from Delta South. The new

section 57(1)(a)(v), "an exemption has been improperly allowed or disallowed," would certainly give the minister an opportunity to revisit the rental housing and affordable housing questions I raised earlier. Indeed, if there are bylaws in place in this province that require that rental housing not be changed to strata title, that would be an interesting place for the Minister of Municipal Affairs to explore such an exemption. I simply put that on the record for the minister's consideration.

This would be a good decision in terms of doing some decent things for renters in this province who are frankly being taxed out of their properties. Again, if the mandate of the government is affordable housing, this would be a very, very fine opportunity for the government to act on that mandate.

Hon. J. Kwan: The issue of exemption that the member raises, I believe, is to allow exemptions for municipalities for the levying of property tax on affordable housing. That is already in place under the Vancouver Charter and the Municipal Act, in that local governments have the authority to exempt, if they wish. So this is not applicable to it.

F. Gingell: I'm not sure that I am fully satisfied that the word "accuracy" covers the series of issues that are included in my amendment. I don't happen to have a dictionary here, but one would need a definition. I think that by accepting the amendment, we would bring a little more certainty to the issue. As the minister knows, certainty in legislation is always to be preferred. I suggest that although "accuracy" may cover it, it's not a very satisfactory way. It's much, much better to have a more clearly defined process.

I appreciate that the government never seems to like accepting amendments, but I really do think that this amendment would add certainty and clarity to the act. If the minister will not go along with it, I'm pleased that we have on the record in Hansard the minister's commitment that "accuracy" will in fact cover all the issues that have been raised.

Hon. J. Kwan: To accept the amendment would actually throw in a lot of problems in terms of amending different components of the act to ensure that there's no confusion. If at a later date the term "accuracy" creates a problem, we can always make changes through an OIC to address that and to clearly define what accuracy is. But for the purposes of this act, accuracy means that the property is properly assessed. This includes: the owner's name is right, the value is right and the classification and the exemptions are right as well. So I hope that's satisfactory for the member's confidence that accuracy does indeed encompass the issues he has identified.

Amendment negatived on division.

Section 12, sections 57 and 58 approved.

section 12,

section 59.

L. Reid: My question to the minister is to seek clarification. It is my understanding that this is a new section: "

(1) The board or a party to an appeal under this Part may apply to the Supreme Court for an order (

a) directing a person to comply with an order or decision of the board under this Part . . . . " Could the minister elaborate on whether or not this is indeed a new section?

Hon. J. Kwan: Yes, it is a new section.

Section 12,

section 59 approved.

section 12,

section 60.

[ Page 10772 ]

L. Reid: The discussions I've had regarding

section 60 are around the intention to enact a regulation which will take the form of a tariff. Is the minister in agreement that this is indeed the process? Let me put all my comments on the record, and the minister can perhaps respond to them at the same time.

We had some discussion in the briefing regarding the costs of this process. The comments received that day were that costs were only awarded in cases of misconduct. My question around that would be: what is the definition of "misconduct"? It's a very subjective determination without some guidelines, some parameters. I appreciate there may be parameters that follow under regulation, but any one person who is late in this process could indeed be considered not to be conducting themselves appropriately and end up paying significant dollars. So I'm interested in the time process for this when someone is not conducting themselves appropriately and the penalties around that.

Hon. J. Kwan: Perhaps examples of misconduct could assist the member with her concerns. Some examples in which misconduct could be identified are where the action of a participant, or the failure of a participant to act in a timely manner, could result in prejudice to any of the other participants in the appeal process. Another example would be where a party unreasonably delays the proceeding. Sometimes information is being sought and is not forthcoming, and there is some unreasonable delay for the proceeding to move forward.

Another example would be where a party fails to comply with an order or direction of the board or panel which results in prejudice to another party. Those would be some examples where there is blatant misconduct that delays the process and creates a level of unfairness towards another party within the proceedings.

L. Reid: I appreciate the examples. However, what I'm looking for are the parameters around "unreasonable." When is a delay conceived to be either appropriate or inappropriate? My contention when I began today was that this was a very subjective section. Indeed, someone may say a week is an unreasonable delay, and that person may have no ability to respond within a week -- i.e., they are out of town. I mean, are we going to see in the regulation some delineation of what an inappropriate time line might be -- in excess of two weeks, in excess of six months? I don't mind what it is.

I want to know that this information is conveyed adequately to the people who will confronting this process. Unreasonable and reasonable are very broad, in terms of how people would define them.

Hon. J. Kwan: Perhaps a more concrete example could assist the member. Generally speaking, it's reasonable for the board to ask for documents 21 days before the hearing; and if 21 days later the material is not surfacing and therefore unduly delays the proceedings, that would be deemed to be unreasonable. Generally, the guideline is how complicated the reports are that are needed, but 21 days is the usual guideline that I understand is being used.

L. Reid: It's not my intention to belabour this section, but the minister will appreciate that there are a number of people who are very concerned about this

section -- either they themselves or their clients. How will they know that indeed if they are . . . ? Is this something that will come to them in writing -- that they have 21 days to respond? If they're out of town or if they're not well enough to be at home collecting their mail, is there some process that triggers a different response than awarding them costs?

Hon. J. Kwan: If there was a board order, then they would receive the order in writing.

L. Reid: Has any consideration been given to having people sign for those orders, so that receipt has been verified?

Hon. J. Kwan: The process is such that the appellant normally provides to the proceedings a delivery address, so that there is no mistake in terms of where that information or any information pertinent to the proceedings should be sent. I think the onus is actually on the person to provide the accurate address, to make sure that it is sent forward.

L. Reid: I appreciate the comment about the address. My concern is if someone is out of town. I mean, there are people in this life who actually get holidays on a more extended basis than we individuals here. But it's not unusual for someone to be out of town for three weeks at a stretch. Upon their return, would they indeed have costs awarded where it was not their intention to be non-compliant and they simply were unaware that that expectation had been placed upon them?

Hon. J. Kwan: In the process of setting a time line to deal with the appeal matters, there is normally a discussion between the parties around the time line so that there are no surprises from that point of view. So if you're expecting something within a period of time, then there are really no surprises. If you were filing an appeal that you expected to be heard within the next month or two, for you to go on holidays simply wouldn't make sense. You would actually advise that for that period you would not be available and therefore try to reschedule your time accordingly.

[5:00]

L. Reid: So for the individuals who are very concerned about this section, what you're truly saying is that the onus is upon them to ensure that they have made themselves available over an extended period of time. It could be a matter of months. What I'm hoping is that indeed there is some triggering mechanism in this

section that if . . . . Let's say someone has been hospitalized. They come back and discover this information, and along with it is a bill. The minister has at this juncture not indicated what these costs might look like. Are we talking hundreds of dollars, thousands of dollars . . . ? And if indeed there are extenuating circumstances, is there an ability for that individual to seek some redress?

Hon. J. Kwan: That's why the provisions are discretionary, and clearly the board will take into consideration illnesses or extenuating circumstances so that it's not a prescriptive time line but rather it takes the circumstances into consideration. Quite frankly, the word "reasonableness" does apply. If someone has fallen ill, that's not misconduct -- certainly not in my definition.

L. Reid: Just a reference to the parameters of cost.

Hon. J. Kwan: The board is actually working on setting up a tariff, so that the costs associated would be clearly set out.

L. Reid: So there will be some formalized approach to this -- i.e., the extent of inaction will generate X dollars in terms of the penalty. The minister is nodding her head. What I'm saying is that there will be a standardized approach to this, as opposed to this being done on an individual basis.

Hon. J. Kwan: The amount which would be charged would be standardized.

[ Page 10773 ]

L. Reid: The

section references "earliest opportunity." In terms of individuals who are very interested in the outcome, what would be a reasonable wait? What's the turnaround time for these decisions likely to be?

Hon. J. Kwan: The board has instituted a new rule, and generally speaking, for residential appeals the turnaround time is around 30 days, and for more complex cases, mostly commercial, it's around 60 days.

Section 12, sections 60 to 62 inclusive approved.

section 12,

section 63.

F. Gingell: I move the amendment standing in my name in Orders of the Day .

[SECTION 12, to replace

section 63 contained in

section 12 as follows:

Amending the roll to reflect board decisions

(1) On receipt of notice of the board's decision under

section 62, the assessor must

(

a) subject to subsection (2) ensure that all amendments ordered to be made in the assessment roll by the board are made promptly, and

(

b) ensure that a copy of the notice is available for public inspection during regular business hours.

(2) not withstanding 1 (

a) the assessor shall not

(

a) amend the assessment roll to reflect a decision of the board which increases the actual value, or change the classification adversely to the owner; or

(

b) disallow an exemption

in the absence of an appeal of the assessment under

section 50 by the assessor on that issue.

(3) If there is a conflict between the authenticated assessment roll and an amendment made under this section, the amendment prevails.]

On the amendment.

F. Gingell: The reason for this amendment is this. The appeal board has inquiry power. It can vary an assessment either up or down. Although it surprised me, I was advised that people who deal with assessors are concerned about coercion. On occasions it has been indicated in fairly clear terms that if they appeal this particular thing, there was now reason that the assessor would go forward with a proposal to the appeal board for the value of the property to be increased. There is always new information becoming available. There are always property sales.

At this particular time, with the way I understand the real estate market is, that may be going in a different direction. But in recent history that has not been the case.

This amendment proposes that the appeal board can only amend the assessment role to reflect the decision of the board, which either confirms the current assessment or reduces it unless the cause of the appeal is an appeal by the assessor to increase the assessed value.

If you go through and a change is made to a property to increase its value, one has to deal with all the issues of valuations being applied in a consistent manner. That would require you to go back and revalue all the properties within the neighbourhood and affect the valuation of properties and the taxes that are paid by people who were not the subject of the original appeal. The assessor always has the opportunity to make a change the following year, so we're only ever talking about one year.

By making this change, you put in the protection that coercion can never be used as a means of speeding up the appeal processes and getting appeals settled. For those reasons, I commend this amendment to the minister.

Hon. J. Kwan: Again, I thank the member for his suggestion. However, I cannot support his amendment, and there are a number of reasons why. One is that the assessment process is really to ensure that the value is one that is fair and that is market value. When someone appeals the assessed value, the objective is to ensure that it is a fair value and the market value, and there should not be guarantees one way or the other in that instance.

Otherwise, to do that would be interfering with the whole objective of that process, which is to find the market value, the actual value, and not to sway it one way or the other. I believe that the amendment, if it's there, could have the inadvertent potential of limiting it to saying that the assessed value can only go down and not up.

F. Gingell: Let's recognize, first of all, that the assessor has made the assessment and has determined the original assessed value. Let's recognize next that, for all the words we use about actual value, it isn't actual value. It's what we think a property might sell for. It's still a very subjective rather than objective process.

So the assessor has made the original assessment. We have been through the review panel, so if there had been a problem with the valuation, the assessor had the opportunity to deal with it at the review panel. If they were unsuccessful and it is the assessor who is appealing to increase the value, then of course it should be allowed, because that is the purpose of the appeal. It seems to me that we are putting the appellant in a position of double jeopardy. They could finish up, because of subsequent information that has come up, with this very subjective process that would cause the assessment to be increased.

That, to me, doesn't seem to be fair. It doesn't seem to me to be an unreasonable restriction, because it's always only for one year. If you change property A, you'll probably have to go back into the neighbourhood and change every other property that is close by. When this issue was first brought to my attention, I must admit that I was a little unbelieving. That's not quite the word, but I was a little . . . . Sorry, I'm getting old. I can't think of the right words.

I had to be convinced that coercion in fact takes place. I never believed that those kinds of things happen. I have been convinced by third parties who deal with the Assessment Authority that suggestions have been made to them that if they take an appeal to the appeal board, the assessor will push for the assessment to be increased. That would normally come from information that has subsequently become available, information that was not available at the time the assessment was made or the review panel heard the first appeal.

I believe that the change is reasonable. I think that if the minister looks at it and recognizes that it is only ever for one year and if we can remove any suggestion that coercion on the part of an assessor could take place, we will do a great deal of good for the process and bring more confidence to it. I know that the minister has confidence in the process as a major goal of this whole revision of the assessment and appeal process.

Hon. J. Kwan: It's interesting, actually. The member raises a scenario. If the member is aware of specific cases where somebody has been coerced or feels that they have

[ Page 10774 ]

been intimidated in this process, I would ask the member to please advise either me or the assessment commissioner. A complaint should be launched, and an investigation should be in place to deal with those situations.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

Having said that, the balance here is this. Yes, we want to make sure that the system is one that people have confidence in. Part of the process in making sure that is in fact the case is to ensure that the integrity of the assessment process is in place. The integrity of the assessment process is founded on the principle of fairness. The principle of fairness, as it applies to property values, is one that is based on market value. Again, I am afraid that to limit it in terms of its ability to go one way or another would undermine the whole premise around the assessment process.

As well, having said that, if an assessor is found to be in error -- and the assessor could well be found to be in error, one way or the other . . . . We cannot be bound to simply say that the assessor can make an error only on the side of decreasing property value and not the other way around by doing that. Again, I'm afraid that that could be an approach that could undermine the whole integrity of the assessment process.

[5:15]

F. Gingell: The minister and I will have to agree to disagree on the issue. I really am not convinced. I believe that if I make an appeal on my property, it should either be the amount that the assessor has determined or the amount that I have put forward -- or something in between. The appeal has been launched by the property owner with the intention of bringing the valuation down. If the assessor feels that a mistake has been made, they have the opportunity when they make up the original assessment and in front of the review panel to increase the assessment.

If that is the subject -- if it's an assessor appeal -- of course it should be allowed. I mean, there's no question. But when the assessor makes an appeal, I would imagine he appeals and brings forward a specific sum. It is assessed at $100,000; it should be $125,000. He doesn't go to the appeal board and say: "It's $100,000; it should be more. What do you think?" The assessor goes forward with a specific sum. If that's the cause of the appeal, obviously it should be allowed. I mean, that's the way the world was.

But it seems to me that you're putting the appellant -- the property owner, if it's the property owner -- in jeopardy unreasonably in a situation that can only be corrected 12 months later.

Hon. J. Kwan: I would suggest that the member is correct in that we would have to agree that we disagree. I'm not convinced that the amendment is necessary and that it does not undermine the process itself. The process is really founded on the premise of the best available evidence to determine actual value. That is the most critical piece to the entire assessment process, and I would not want to do anything to undermine that process. I believe we would agree to disagree.

I would also say, once again, that if the member or anybody in the community feels that they have been intimidated in the process or penalized in some way, I would absolutely encourage those individuals to please come forward. Those allegations will be looked into.

Amendment negatived.

Section 12,

section 63 approved.

Section 12, sections 64 to 67 inclusive approved.

section 12,

section 68.

L. Reid: The British Columbia Association of the Appraisal Institute of Canada . . . . I will be moving an amendment, which is in the hands of the Clerk, and I hope is now in the hands of the minister. I want to put this into the record regarding Bill 21, Assessment Amendment Act, 1998:

"I write you on behalf of the British Columbia Association of the Appraisal Institute of Canada, an association which represents some 1,200 professional real estate appraisers in the province. As a professional association we support the intent of Bill 21, Assessment Amendment Act, being to protect the public from the unwarranted use of assessment information. However, the legislation that is presently drafted will preclude legitimate use of assessment and sales data by real estate professionals such as ourselves.

I move an amendment to

section 68(4) -- a new subsection (d): "to any entity, body or person as prescribed by regulation." It provides some discretion, some choice, in terms of a circumstance that may allow for that information to be conveyed and, again, where the protection of the public is not threatened.

"Our members rely heavily on assessment rolls and assessment sale records to properly prepare appraisals, which include appraisals for the provincial and federal governments. Should Bill 21 be enacted unamended, it will significantly and adversely affect our members' ability to practise and their livelihoods.

"Regrettably, the British Columbia Association of the Appraisal Institute of Canada was not consulted during the preparation of the investigation report by the office of the information and privacy commissioner, which led to Bill 21. We are now compelled to seek an amendment in the legislation as now drafted and before the House. In this regard we note that

section 68(4) is most specific as to the parties which may obtain assessment rolls and assessment sale records with names thereon. However, it precludes the government in allowing other legitimate circumstances for access where protection of the public is not threatened."

The minister has talked about the public risk. These individuals are asking for instances where the protection of the public is not threatened. To continue with their letter:

"We believe this amendment meets the spirit of the information and privacy commissioner's investigation report and will provide the government flexibility in applying Bill 21, while at the same time protecting the public."

On the amendment.

Hon. J. Kwan: I cannot support the amendment, and there are a number of reasons. First of all, I also received the letter from the Appraisal Institute of Canada with regard to their concern about access to information. For the information of the members, the access to information is actually there in that we can continue to make the names available via B.C. OnLine. Information for the purpose of

section 33 of the Freedom of Information Act is also applicable.

Having said that, this change is really on the advice of the freedom-of-information and protection-of-privacy commissioner to provide a level of protection for public individuals. On the balance of needing to provide for that kind of protection, the commissioner made the suggestion for these changes. I think those suggestions are sound, while balancing the need to provide information. For those reasons, I would not be able to support the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Section 12,

section 68 approved.

[ Page 10775 ]

section 12,

section 69.

L. Reid: I believe that this is the

section that the minister referenced earlier in terms of . . . . It came about as a result of discussions with the privacy commissioner. I would put on the record the discussion I placed on the record earlier regarding rural properties -- that individual property tax agents have indicated that they can continue to see the necessity for deleting residential property names and even farm property names. But they're wondering if the minister could confirm that information surrounding tax property corporate addresses . . . . I'll put on the record that there are instances where they believe that that's appropriate:

"In the case of corporate takeovers or reorganizations, we are often asked to search for records in a number of names for related entities to ensure that no assessments are mailed to addresses that are no longer valid. It is not clear if this information would be removed from land title records. If it is not, there will be no benefit to privacy, only a more difficult search for a person requiring information. Since creditors with a judgment are permitted to register the charge against interests and land, it is hard to understand how the system will work if owners' names will not continue to be available at land titles."

So some clarification for these individuals . . . . And again, these are individuals who deal with property tax.

Hon. J. Kwan: For the member's information, the information is available at the land title office. If a person wants to seek that information, they can access that there. Also, there are a number of ways under

section 68 in which the information can be accessed -- for example, B.C. OnLine, which was an example that I used earlier. As well, while individual names would not be on the roll, company names would be. So they would therefore actually be able to access that information.

L. Reid: They have just a couple more concerns that I wish the minister to address. Their contention is that the information is not available from the Assessment Authority records. Municipalities will become the main source and will have a significant increase in inquiries to process. Indeed, that will result in an increase in costs. Is that the minister's belief as well?

Hon. J. Kwan: The appropriate place to get that information is through the Assessment Authority, and people can still access that. That would not impose a cost to municipal government.

L. Reid: I referenced earlier that these property tax agents certainly spend all of their time working with assessment data on behalf of numerous clients. They also have issues around ports and airports in British Columbia and the B.C. Buildings Corporation. Will any of those see additional costs in terms of this decision to remove the names?

Hon. J. Kwan: If the question is whether that would be an additional cost for people to get information on a provincial property in terms of its assessed value, I believe the answer is no. They would go through the same process as for anything else.

Section 12, sections 69 and 70 approved.

section 12,

section 71.

L. Reid: My question around fines and penalties for offences is an interesting one. When I asked these questions in terms of the scope of the problem, I was told that no one has ever been fined -- number of charges; no convictions. Fines paid; none in living memory. So my question would simply be the necessity for this

section if there isn't yet a problem -- i.e., no one has been fined, there have been no convictions and no fines paid. If the minister could reflect on the necessity for this section.

Hon. J. Kwan: The

section is necessary in that it is a deterrent. If the question is whether a fine has ever been imposed, the answer is yes, a fine has been imposed. If the question is whether or not we've been able to get a Crown prosecutor to go through the process to yield the fine -- usually the fine is not a very large amount -- then the answer to that is no. Having said that, it does not mean, though, that it is not necessary to have a penalty clause in here.

L. Reid: I would simply disagree with the minister. During the briefing, I was specifically told that no fines have ever been paid under this section. I appreciate that it's a deterrent, but obviously one is not required at this juncture.

Section 12, sections 71 to 73 inclusive approved.

section 12,

section 74.

L. Reid: Under

section 74(2)(j)(iii), "prescribing information, undertakings and other matters that must be included in or covered by a forest management plan, which information, undertakings and matters may be different for forest reserve land and other private land, for different sizes of land and for different uses of the land before the plan applies," my question to the minister is: does she foresee any sort of problematic issues arising in the future as a result of the treaty negotiations currently underway?

Hon. J. Kwan: I don't actually have the answer for that in terms of treaty negotiations and what the ramifications are, but for the member's information, this

section is not a new section. It is one that already exists and is simply just there under the current bill.

L. Reid: I appreciate that it's there, but the treaty negotiation process is new. If the minister could send me some clarification regarding that issue, I would look forward to receiving that.

[5:30]

Section 12,

section 74 approved.

Sections 13 to 35 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Bill 21, Assessment Amendment Act, 1998, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. J. Kwan: I call committee stage on Bill 31.

[ Page 10776 ]

LOCAL GOVERNMENT STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1998

The House in committee on Bill 31; W. Hartley in the chair.

section 1.

L. Reid: There are a number of issues that I wish to canvass, and I believe that I've given some of that direction to the Chair, and I will proceed. One of the issues in terms of the purposes of the act . . . . We talked a little bit about an independent, accountable, responsible order of government. I wonder if the question of how this might impact on the ongoing discussions around treaty negotiation today has been broached with the minister.

Hon. J. Kwan: The UBCM has not raised this issue with us to date. However, I know that in the upcoming UBCM meeting, it is the intent of the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs to engage with the UBCM in discussing the Nisga'a treaty matter.

L. Reid: I certainly appreciate that perhaps the UBCM has not raised it. This legislation will, I believe, have an impact on all British Columbians. They are all part of some municipal or regional district undertaking. Even though the UBCM may not have addressed this issue, numerous British Columbians have thought this through in terms of how this will impact. They know that the UBCM is not addressing it at this juncture, but they simply wish to put their concern on the record, particularly around terms that are new in the act, I believe.

I'm on page 5, under the definition of "manage": " . . . with respect to land, improvements, personal property or other property, includes conserve, use, develop, construct, improve, operate, administer and maintain, as applicable." They see those examples, if you will, of definition having a great deal to do with future applications around community forests, on and off reserve -- all of those kinds of questions.

So if the minister can direct us to a particular person who we can continue to have discussions with, around this new definition in the act . . . . We believe it will have a broader application than it's had in the past.

The Chair: The Chair would like to clarif