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)

MONDAY, MAY 11, 1998

Afternoon

Volume 9, Number 16

[ Page 7671 ]

The House met at 2:04 p.m.

Prayers.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'm delighted today on behalf of our Premier to welcome to the Legislature a high school class from Windermere Secondary in Vancouver. Their teacher, Mr. Albiston, is with them. Most of them are grade 11 students studying government and some history; maybe they'll get both today. On behalf of our Premier, I welcome all of these students to the Legislature.

T. Stevenson: In the gallery today is a friend of mine who is also a constituent, Marshall Smith. He is with the corrections branch and is over here for a couple of days. I ask the House to make him welcome.

F. Randall: In the gallery this afternoon is Mr. Terry Davies, the president of the International Brotherhood of Painters and Allied Trades, District Council 38. Would the House please make him welcome.

K. Krueger: In the gallery today are former neighbours of mine from Smithers. Audrey and Harry Kruisselbrink have, for over 20 years, been taking care of foster children in this province -- a really proud and long record. I ask the House to make them welcome.

B. Goodacre: I also want to extend my welcome to Harry and Audrey Kruisselbrink. Harry and Audrey have been members of the Smithers community ever since I was a young boy. I've known them all my life and am very pleased to have them in the Legislature today to witness what goes on here. I ask the House to please make them very welcome.

Oral Questions

EFFECT OF BUDGET ON B.C. ECONOMY

G. Campbell: Hon. Speaker, the B.C. Central Credit Union has dramatically downgraded its economic forecast for economic growth in the province of British Columbia from 2.3 percent to 0.3 percent. They note that a recession in 1998 is not out of the question; in fact, they say: "Technically, this qualifies as a growth recession." Alarm bells are ringing across the country. Every commentator is saying that our economy is in serious, serious trouble. My question is to the Minister of Finance: will she go back to the drawing board and come back with a budget that will in fact kick-start our economy, instead of driving it into recession?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Well, we put forward a budget that actually is right in line with the predictions made by the B.C. Central Credit Union. As the member may be aware, the revenue forecasts are very conservative and are for 4.3 percent growth in the area of revenue.

In many circumstances, there is some cautious but good news coming out about the economy here. It was missed, but just a week ago last Friday, Moody's bond-rating agency confirmed our credit rating. So it is now, with Alberta, still the highest credit rating in all of Canada. There are initiatives going forward to stimulate our economy. We are taking a very precise approach to the economy in the areas of high technology, forestry and mining.

I would ask . . .

The Speaker: Thank you, minister.

Hon. J. MacPhail: . . . the hon. members opposite to stop the naysaying and actually get on with working with us to stimulate the economy . . .

The Speaker: Thank you, minister.

Hon. J. MacPhail: . . . as is the rest of the business community.

The Speaker: I recognize, for his first supplementary, the Leader of the Official Opposition.

G. Campbell: Hon. Speaker, we are attempting to help the government to encourage this economy again and get jobs coming back into the province of British Columbia. The B.C. Central Credit Union -- this is not the official opposition; this is the B.C. Central Credit Union -- says that regional economies that depend on the natural resource sector will bear the brunt of the economic slowdown. Surely the minister understands that when young men between the ages of 15 and 24 are facing a 21 percent unemployment rate -- over 21 percent, hon. Speaker . . . . In fact, in the Kootenays we've watched as unemployment has gone up by 32 percent in the last year alone.

The Speaker: Hon. member, would you come to your question, please.

G. Campbell: Yes, hon. Speaker, I am coming to a question.

The budget has done nothing to kick-start the economy.

The Speaker: Hon. member.

G. Campbell: My question, hon. Speaker, to the Minister of Finance is this: how can the minister look in the eyes of anybody who is unemployed or any of the unemployed families in British Columbia and say that her budget is helping the situation, when in fact it is making matters worse, day in and day out?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I know that the opposition likes to amuse themselves by abusing young people, but this government doesn't do that.

The unemployment rate dropped by 0.6 percent, because 6,000 new jobs were created last month. In the previous month 13,000 jobs had been created. We are now, over the course of the last three months, having almost 30,000 jobs created. Is there an issue with unemployment amongst young people? Absolutely. But I will tell you, hon. Speaker, that when we announced a $36 million youth employment initiative, the opposition did nothing but badmouth it and naysay about it. The business community is working with our government. The high-technology sector is working with our government. The commodities sector is working with our government. The resource sector is working with our government.

The Speaker: Hon. minister.

Hon. J. MacPhail: The only people . . .

[ Page 7672 ]

The Speaker: Thank you.

Hon. J. MacPhail: . . . who are off-board and still saying negative things are the Liberal opposition. It really is time to stop.

The Speaker: For his second supplementary, the Leader of the Official Opposition.

G. Campbell: You know, hon. Speaker, this Minister of Finance is so incredible that she doesn't understand the damage that she has done. [Applause.] There's nothing like applause for a 21 percent unemployment rate for young people in the province British Columbia.

The Speaker: Will you come to your question, hon. member.

G. Campbell: The damage that has been done by this government, hon. Speaker . . . . I will ask a question, hon. Speaker. The economy is out of sync with the rest of Canada and North America. Certain sectors of our economy -- coast lumber, pulp, mining, housing -- are already in recession. That is why we have so many people out of work in this province. That is why young people are facing an unemployment rate of over 21 percent.

The Speaker: And your question, hon. member.

G. Campbell: Jobs are evaporating from this province, hon. Speaker. The human toll is mounting.

My question to the Minister of Finance is: will the minister please admit that her budget is making things worse, not better, and go back to the drawing board so that we can put young people back to work in the province of British Columbia?

Hon. J. MacPhail: When our budget was released, the commentators gave credit to this government for being prudent in its forecast. In fact, one of the leading columnists in this province gave us full credit for being prudent in our forecast. That was Michael Campbell, hon. Speaker. [Applause.]

Interjections.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I understand that there are times when you can applaud and times that you can't.

We have been given credit for our economic prudence in forecasting. But I will tell you that our government knows what it is to be able to manage through the times when the economy flattens. We have made commitments that we will manage the expenditure side of our budget if the economy goes below what our forecast is. I would say that would be a lot easier if the opposition wouldn't stand up each and every day, asking us to spend more and spend more and spend more. We are on the right track . . . .

Interjections.

[2:15]

The Speaker: Hon. minister, will you take your seat, please.

Hon. members, I want to draw to your attention the fact that interventions are not helpful, and they are disrespectful of the Chair.

Interjection.

The Speaker: I name the hon. member: the Opposition House Leader. I call you to order. We're not going to proceed until there's order in this House.

STUDENT SUMMER JOBS WITH FORESTS MINISTRY

R. Thorpe: Last week the Premier did not answer questions about Anthony Giannotti and 31 other co-op students, whose jobs were cancelled two days prior to commencing work. On Friday the Premier's press secretary said that the government would live up to that broken promise and give them jobs. Can the Minister of Forests tell us, as of today, how many of the 32 co-op students have actually been given jobs and are working in the jobs that they were originally promised?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Hon. Speaker . . . .

The Speaker: Hon. minister, I need to recognize you. The Chair needs to recognize members before they speak, when they rise.

I recognize the Minister of Forests.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I was anxious to answer, hon. Speaker.

It's interesting how that opposition can make a promise out of a conditional offer of employment and how they can pretend that the forestry co-op program, which is an ongoing program in the Ministry of Forests, is in fact perhaps part of the promise of 17,000 fully funded jobs in the Finance minister's budget. We have to look at the assumptions that . . . .

The answer to the question is that as of today some 13 of the 31 have been placed. By the end of the day we expect to have placed another ten. We will make our best efforts to ensure that those people are all employed.

The Speaker: First supplementary, member for Okanagan-Penticton.

R. Thorpe: I believe that it was a promise from that government to give these students the 31 jobs. B.C. now has the highest unemployment rate for youth west of Atlantic Canada. Can the Minister of Forests tell us what day Anthony Giannotti and the other 31 co-op students will actually be working and drawing a paycheque on the jobs that were promised by your government?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I said that we would be making efforts to place them. It is the intention to place them.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I am responding for the forestry co-op program. Yes, it was confirmed by the Premier's press secretary that efforts were being made before that member raised the issue in the House, before he grandstanded by bringing a student down here. We will use due process and fairness with those people to place them in jobs that are appropriate, and it will be done as quickly as we can do it.

A. Sanders: I have a letter from yet another university student about yet another student summer job program can-

[ Page 7673 ]

celled -- terminated by the Ministry of Forests. For four years Tyler Mori of Vernon put himself through university by working summers in recreation maintenance for the Ministry of Forests. Just before he was to start that job this year, he was told his job was gone. Can the Minister of Forests explain to Tyler, who is watching, why his ministry is eliminating jobs for students like him?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The recreation program in the Ministry of Forests is not a student employment program -- just to set the record straight. Yes, students do pick up jobs, but when the ministry is cutting by 3 percent, it has an obligation to existing employees to maintain the core programs of the ministry and to make sure that compliance and enforcement take place, that permits are put out and that we maintain the forest economy as a first priority. Sometimes when we trim budgets, there are, unfortunately, some layoffs of auxiliary people. If there are offers, I'd like to see the letter.

But the last issue, where people said the job was promised . . . . They shake their heads, hon. Speaker, but the letter is absolutely clear: the letter of offer is conditional upon the budget being found.

The Speaker: First supplementary, member for Okanagan-Vernon.

A. Sanders: You know, the policies of this government kill student employment all over B.C. These jobs for students in the summer are dead; they are terminated; they are in the morgue with a toe-tag. And it's this government's fault.

The Speaker: Your question?

A. Sanders: Hon. Chair, I'd like to ask the minister a question that Tyler Mori asked in his letter: "Why does this government have enough money to bail out Skeena Cellulose but not enough for this student for summer employment?"

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members.

Hon. D. Miller: I just want to point out that I think my colleagues have attempted to provide some detail around student job programs initiated by this government. It's clear, as my colleague the Minister of Finance said, that we have brought in a 50 percent increase to the money allocated for student summer employment that was not supported by the other side. But I would ask a very simple question, and I would have thought that the answer would have been very self-evident.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon. D. Miller: Do the families in the northwest -- in Hazelton, Terrace, Smithers, Prince Rupert -- not have children? Is it not reasonable for those children to rely on their parents having jobs? They know full well in northwestern British Columbia that this Liberal Party is on record as saying that we should not try to fight hard to maintain those jobs, that we should not fight on behalf of those communities. The member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi is on record as saying just last week that if the Liberals were in power, they would shut Skeena Cellulose down . . .

The Speaker: Could you wrap up, minister.

Hon. D. Miller: . . . casting those families and those children into an economic abyss.

The Speaker: Minister, wrap up, please.

Hon. D. Miller: Quite frankly, I think it's hypocritical and contradictory to get these kinds of questions.

The Speaker: Minister, thank you very much.

Interjections.

The Speaker: When we have order, I'll call on the member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain.

C. Clark: My question is to the Minister of Forests. When FRBC put out a press release last week, they promised that they were creating 6,500 new jobs. I have a letter here from Ken Lawrence in Vernon, who says that he was hoping for a job with this ministry and that he was hoping for a government that would keep its word about helping students and maintaining jobs. My questions for the minister are: will he keep his word? Will he cancel his phony ad campaign? Will he get to work creating jobs for youth? And will he take that money from the ad campaign and put it instead into employing young people like Ken Lawrence in Vernon?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The 6,500 person-years of employment roughly equate to jobs, and we are clearly . . . .

Interjections.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Hon. Speaker, the opposition laughs because they don't know the difference between short-term contracts -- on-again, off-again -- and longer-term jobs. The point is that the Forest Renewal . . . .

Interjections.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: They also don't understand that forest renewal is not a youth employment program; forest renewal is about renewing the forests and the forestry. We will maintain the commitment made in the press release to create the 6,500 jobs through Forest Renewal.

The Speaker: I recognize the Minister of Fisheries with a ministerial statement.

Ministerial Statement

PACIFIC SALMON TREATY NEGOTIATIONS

Hon. D. Streifel: Hon. Speaker, I rise today on a very serious issue: the future of British Columbia fisheries and the need to negotiate a Pacific Salmon Treaty. In the coming weeks, the fate of scores of B.C.'s beleaguered coho runs, particularly to the watershed of the Skeena River, may be

[ Page 7674 ]

settled forever. Salmon remain a symbol of our province's great natural resource and of our obligation to do everything in our power to conserve and protect these resources for future generations. But without a Pacific Salmon Treaty, one that conserves our fish by ensuring that an equitable share of the salmon we produce returns to our rivers to spawn, our coho will be doomed to extinction. Alaskan interceptions of B.C.-bound salmon, unless drastically curtailed, will not only eliminate any potential harvest by B.C. sport, commercial and native fishermen but will wipe out the runs completely.

The renewed negotiations for a Pacific Salmon Treaty, which begin tomorrow in Portland, are critical to the future of our resource. British Columbia is joining Canada at the negotiating table in the hope and the belief that constructive negotiations can lead to an equitable solution, provided both Canada and the United States share the common goal of conserving the salmon. Regrettably, there is no indication that the Alaskans in particular share that attitude. There is no evidence whatsoever that Alaska understands the gravity of the situation and the responsibility to take action.

Last year only 6,000 coho reached Skeena spawning beds. Only 1.5 percent of the traditional escapement returned to the stream. That's despite very, very tough conservation measures on the Skeena that cost our fleets the opportunity to harvest large runs of sockeye. The habitat is good in that region of the province. Our conservation measures were effective, but our efforts were useless, because the coho were killed in American interception fisheries along the Alaska panhandle. Some 85 percent of our coho runs -- as many as 800,000 B.C. coho -- died in those interception fisheries. Alaskan catches of our fish have climbed steadily during the last four years. What we conserve, Alaskans kill.

It is vital that our American counterparts, particularly in Alaska, understand that we are not prepared to accept interim or short-term compromises that would have the effect of prejudicing the future of our salmon. This Legislature has taken a unanimous position that Ottawa must take action, up to and including the cancellation of U.S. access to Canada's military testing range at Nanoose, if necessary to achieve a fair treaty. Our government remains convinced that Canada can and must exert whatever pressure is necessary to secure significant protection of our fish and our coastal communities in the event that the Portland talks prove futile.

Our goal is to conserve the salmon resource as a public resource of all Canadians. To achieve that, we must see significant progress in Portland not just on fishing plans to manage the crisis but on fundamental commitments to achieve equity in the harvest of Pacific salmon. Without equity, there can be no effective conservation. Any outcome that sees closure in Canada, and business as usual in Alaska, would be a betrayal of our commitment to the resource and an end to our coastal communities.

We will be working with Ottawa to achieve three goals: an agreement that requires Alaska to reduce its fisheries to pass enough coho through to guarantee conservation of the stocks and appropriate economic opportunities for Canadians; an agreement that lays the basis for real equity in the sharing of Pacific salmon stocks; and a B.C. salmon management plan that produces resources and lays the groundwork for a strong-growing resource that supports sport, native and commercial fisheries.

A negotiated resolution that meets these goals is the best solution, but B.C. will continue to urge Canada to adopt the stance unanimously approved in this House last year: if this week's talks fail, action by whatever means possible to protect our salmon stocks and secure a treaty that protects our future. That's what British Columbia demands. We'll settle for nothing less.

J. van Dongen: I'm pleased to respond today to the ministerial statement on the Pacific Salmon Treaty. The two fundamental principles in the Pacific Salmon Treaty are conservation of the resource and equity in the utilization of that resource. The conservation principle requires the parties to regulate their fisheries so as to prevent overfishing and provide for optimum production. The equity principle obliges the parties to conduct their fisheries so as to ensure that each party receives the benefits of its own salmon production.

[2:30]

As both Canada and the U.S. re-engage in salmon treaty talks tomorrow in Oregon, it is especially critical this year that the talks are fruitful. Both conservation and equity are clearly at stake. This year we are faced head-on with the prospect of outright extension of certain coho stocks, as the minister has detailed. This is in addition to the fact that the U.S. -- and in particular Alaska -- has consistently refused to respect the equity principle and has systematically thwarted its implementation.

It is very discouraging to view charts and graphs of U.S. interceptions of Canadian salmon versus Canadian interceptions of U.S. salmon. I support the minister's comments with respect to Alaska's conduct of its fisheries.

Canada and B.C. are at a critical point in time in the history of the Pacific Salmon Treaty. A lot of time and effort has gone into getting us to this point. A lot of political energy and capital has been invested, and I sincerely hope that we do not lose this opportunity. It is incumbent on both levels of government to set differences aside and work together for what is right and what is in the best interests of our B.C. salmon and B.C. fishing interests.

I am extremely disturbed about the ongoing friction on fishing issues between the federal and provincial governments, as confirmed by a newspaper report this morning. I believe that both sides share some responsibility in this situation. In case someone thinks I am picking on the provincial government, let me clarify that we as the official opposition in B.C. also experience difficulties in our relationship with the federal Minister of Fisheries and his staff.

I don't want to find fault, however. I want to urge both ministers and both governments to renew their commitment to working together for the good of the resource and for the good of the fishing-dependent communities. From our perspective, both ministers can be assured of our commitment to do whatever we can to support any sensible, cooperative action that might help to facilitate a new agreement under the Pacific Salmon Treaty. Let's get on with it and do the best possible job for B.C. and Canadian fishing interests.

G. Wilson: I seek leave to respond to the ministerial statement.

Leave granted.

G. Wilson: Hon. Speaker, if we cast our minds back to Friday, May 23, 1997, the script could be the same and the words almost the same. At that time we had a difficulty with the Alaskans for precisely the same reasons. Here we are in 1998 -- in May again -- and we're really no further ahead now than we were then.

Notwithstanding the efforts of this minister and this government -- and I support this government in its efforts to

[ Page 7675 ]

protect B.C. salmon . . . . In fairness to this government, I think it's one of the few times in the history of this province that we've had a provincial government that has consistently demonstrated a concern for the protection of the wild stocks of salmon in this province.

Because it is largely a federal issue . . . . Today as we go into these negotiations, the people we have to hear from are the federal Fisheries minister, Mr. Anderson, and the Prime Minister of Canada, Mr. Jean Chrétien. Both those individuals have to indicate that they are prepared to meet and talk with their counterparts to make sure that the government of the United States of America, including the state governments of Washington and Oregon, is prepared to put the necessary pressure on the state government of Alaska to bring Alaska to the table with a view to actually solving this crisis.

We have all talked about the maverick attitude of the people from Alaska. I've had a chance to meet with some of their Senators and discuss this issue over the last number of months. It is clear that unless there is pressure brought to bear by the highest levels of the U.S. government on the Senators from the state of Alaska so that they recognize the severity, the gravity, of this situation, we will not have success. And this province will be faced once again with having to make some level of response that will be not unlike the threat on Nanoose Bay we saw back in 1997, which our own federal government put a court injunction on -- which Ottawa foiled in terms of any effort and any attempt.

In response to the ministerial statement, I would hope that all members in this House are unanimous in their demand that the Prime Minister of Canada and his Minister of Fisheries take whatever action is necessary to meet with whoever it is in the United States that can bring pressure to bear on the members who represent the state of Alaska, so they will come to these negotiations and negotiate a fair and honest settlement that will protect coho stocks, so that all coastal British Columbians and those in the Alaskan area, as well as those who fish from Washington and Oregon, may be able to enjoy the bounty that is ours.

Hon. Speaker, we must not let the Prime Minister of Canada off the hook. In 1997 he said that he would meet with President Bill Clinton if it was necessary; in 1998 it's necessary. Those two heads of state must bring Alaska to heel. Otherwise, we will say goodbye once and for all to the coho stocks that have graced our shores. This is a critical and serious issue, and I hope all members in this House will join with me in writing directly to the Prime Minister of Canada and asking him to take his responsibility seriously, on behalf of all British Columbians and, in particular, those whose livelihood is dependent on the west coast fishery.

J. Weisgerber: I too seek leave to respond to the ministerial statement.

Leave granted.

J. Weisgerber: All British Columbians, I'm sure, share a deep concern over the state of fisheries here on the west coast -- whether they be coho, steelhead or any of the other species that are threatened. But year in and year out we've seen this act played out again and again and again. At some point in time we've got to understand that it's not working, that we're not getting anywhere with this. To continue to demand that the same government that managed the east coast fishery into extinction come out here and save the west coast salmon fishery seems to me nonsensical.

It's time for us as British Columbians to stand up and demand the authority to manage our own fisheries. With all due respect to my friend from Powell River, to demand that Mr. Chrétien or the Minister of Fisheries go to Bill Clinton and somehow bring Alaska into line simply isn't going to work, nor is the tough talk about cancelling Nanoose or any of those other actions. What we need to do is develop a community of interest on the Pacific. We have issues in common with Alaska. We can deal with Alaska, I believe, and we can make deals with Alaska. Ottawa can't do it and won't do it.

It's time for us to demand provincial jurisdiction. It's time for us to take the matters into our own hands and start to deal with this issue before we, too, see our fishery in the same sorry state as the cod fishery on the east coast.

So with all respect to the minister, I think it's time for us to do two things: get after Ottawa . . . .

Interjection.

J. Weisgerber: The minister says it's a constitutional issue, and indeed it is. But constitutions are changeable. Constitutions are negotiable. Quebec has found ways to negotiate exceptions to federal authority in areas of specific provincial interest. If the government were determined and if we were committed to this issue, we would have already found a resolution.

In the interim, I would like to close by recommending to the minister that he invite the official opposition critic and that the two of them get down to Portland by tomorrow and start to take direct action in some of these negotiations. I simply have no confidence whatsoever in leaving this matter with the federal government for another year of inaction. I would urge the government to take some solid and positive action and to do so immediately.

Orders of the Day

Hon. J. MacPhail: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of the members, we'll be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Education. In this House, I call Committee of the Whole to debate Bill 13.

PENSION STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1998

The House in committee on Bill 13; W. Hartley in the chair.

section 1.

I. Chong: I mentioned in second reading that the opposition does not oppose the bill; we in fact support the spirit and intent of this piece of legislation. But I did indicate to the minister at the time that I would have some questions. The questions that I have are quite technical in nature. I would like the answers for clarification, for my benefit. I have gone through all the acts. Because of its repetitiveness throughout the act, I won't be asking it in every single section, provided it is clarified in one of the particular sections.

In the first section, the question I have is: in regards to the amount that's stated here, the maximum pensionable earnings . . . . I just wonder whether the minister can advise whether that maximum pensionable earnings is related to some amount, such as the Canada Pension Plan maximum pensionable earnings? Is it in relation to some other figure through the collective agreements -- or what would that be?

[ Page 7676 ]

Hon. J. MacPhail: It is the same as the CPP yearly maximum pensionable earnings.

I. Chong: I wanted to assume that on the weekend, but I wasn't sure, because of all the various acts that there were. The other question I have in

section 1 is in regard to the criteria here: " . . . a contributor to the fund if the employee has completed 2 years of continuous employment . . . . " Is that to say that after the two years of continuous employment have been met . . . ? Is that based on the employee's anniversary date of two years of continuous employment, or would that be based on two calendar years?

Hon. J. MacPhail: It's the anniversary date of employment.

I. Chong: The last question I have on this

section is that the employee, having met the criteria, no longer has to maintain that . . . . Am I correct to assume that they no longer have to maintain the 35 percent threshold in each of the subsequent years -- the third, fourth and fifth? Once they've met the criteria, if, in their third or fourth year of part-time employment, they drop below 35 percent, they could still contribute to the plan. Is that correct?

[2:45]

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

I. Chong: This is a part that applies to a number of other sections as well -- the prescribed basis that is stated here. I see that previously the

schedule of payments to be made was on a basis acceptable to the board; now it is changed to "a prescribed basis." Was there a difficulty in the past as to the determination of what was acceptable to the board? Is there now a prescribed basis? Is there a

schedule that is available? Or will that have to be determined once the boards meet? Is that similar, then, for every board of the four different pension plans that this bill will impact on?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The boards are saying that they would rather have an objective measure than a subjective measure. So they requested a prescribed basis for determining eligibility, and that's what the intent is here.

I. Chong: So each of the various boards -- the four boards that are referred to here -- will have a different prescribed basis. Is that correct?

Hon. J. MacPhail: They could. Yes.

Section 2 approved.

section 3.

I. Chong: This

section is in reference to the composition of the board. Again, it's related throughout various parts of the section. It appears that I may be going through each section; that's only because this is the first act that we're dealing with.

In this particular section, I see that the composition of the board . . . . It removes the commissioner -- which I have no problem with -- but it changes the appointment by the government. It increases it by an additional person for the government appointments, as opposed to one from the College-Institute Educators Association. Would there be a reason that would be required? Could that extra appointee not have been from the College-Institute Educators Association? Was there some feeling that the commissioner had, with his removal, that this be changed so that there would be another government appointee versus one from the employee representative groups?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The government still has ultimate responsibility for the pension plans. The government has to maintain that responsibility. Government does that through the appointment of the chair; but the size of the board remains the same.

I. Chong: That almost leads into the other question. I was wondering why the government wanted to designate the chair versus having the board designate the chair. But if, by allowing this particular pension board . . . . The composition is seven. Previously it was three from government, two from the College-Institute Educators, one representative from the B.C. Government and Service Employees Union, and one was the commissioner. Would it not have been possible to leave the government-appointee numbers the way they were but then have the government appoint the chair, if that were the case?

It seems less independent. Previously all these pension boards appeared to have a degree of independence. This is what I understood the minister to say when she gave her second reading comments. That's where I would like a little bit more clarification, if possible.

Hon. J. MacPhail: So your suggestion might have been that we write it up as three, two, one and a chair, rather than four, two and one. I don't understand. In my view, the effect is the same as what you're saying, but it's the legislative preference of the way you write it up.

I. Chong: No, I guess what I meant was: would it not have been possible to leave it as three, as opposed to going to four for government? It would be three for government, three for the College-Institute Educators Association and one for the B.C. Government and Service Employees Union. Then, if the government so desired, appoint the chair from one of the three government appointees. Would that not have accomplished the independence and the control that government felt was necessary in order to have some influence with the board because it is public moneys?

Hon. J. MacPhail: This is not a joint-trustee pension plan; it is a government-run pension plan. So ultimately the government has to have responsibility for it. That's how the board is struck.

The separation of the appointment --- that we should have specified three government members and then a separate one for chair . . . . The effect is the same. If the member is suggesting that we could have done it through moving toward a model of joint trusteeship, that isn't available right now.

I. Chong: No, that's not what I was intending. I guess the last comments by the minister probably have clarified it the most. In fact, what we had in place prior to this change was the three government appointees, with one commissioner being appointed the chair. The commissioner, in fact, was a

[ Page 7677 ]

government employee in that sense. Therefore you did not really change the control; you did not really change the board in that sense. If that's the reason why all these changes have been made, then I can understand it. The government has not changed that. But I didn't realize that the commissioner was deemed to be one of the government appointees, because it was separated in these subsections. If that is the case and you've not changed that structure, then there has been no real change to the boards. If that's correct, then I understand what the minister is doing.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, your final comments are correct.

Sections 3 to 5 inclusive approved.

section 6.

I. Chong: On

section 6(e),

section 39(6), the comment that I noticed throughout the piece of legislation was that the chair of the board "be paid out of the fund remuneration at a rate set by the Lieutenant Governor in Council." I recognize that prior to this, since the commissioner was the chair, there was no need to have this in place. Can the minister advise, with the chair of the board being paid remuneration out of the fund, what we would be looking at in terms of a rate set by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council? Are there going to be some prescribed rates throughout the setting of the remuneration rate for the board chairs?

Hon. J. MacPhail: It will be an executive council decision, and it will be within the current compensation guidelines that exist throughout government.

I. Chong: Just one supplemental question: are all the other board members who are appointed paid pursuant to the same regulations, or is it only the board chair who is paid remuneration on these four pension boards? I'm not clear on that; I couldn't find that.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Other board members are not paid. There's no compensation for sitting on the boards.

I. Chong: Okay, fine.

Sections 6 and 7 approved.

section 8.

I. Chong: I am curious, more than anything, about the change here: the striking-out of January 1, 1996, and the substitution of July 1, 1994. I don't know the rationale for this change, whether it was housekeeping or whether in fact there were a number of employees who would be affected by this. If that is the case, I am wondering whether the minister can advise how many employees this would affect and how many have retired since July 1, 1994. As I say, the reasoning for this didn't appear apparent at the time.

Hon. J. MacPhail: This was a drafting error. I'll just explain it to you, and then I'll seek the information for you. The agreed implementation date was July 1, 1994, and the legislation referenced that correct implementation date for plan members going to pension; but it incorrectly referenced the implementation date for plan members electing to take a deferred pension. So this is just correcting that. We don't have the numbers that the member has asked for right here, but we can undertake to get those for you.

I. Chong: I would appreciate getting those from the minister. Thank you.

Sections 8 to 18 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; The Speaker in the chair.

Bill 13, Pension Statutes Amendment Act, 1998, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I very slowly call second reading of Bill 15, the Legal Profession Act. For the members opposite, we are just awaiting the Attorney General. He's on his way.

LEGAL PROFESSION ACT

(second reading)

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I move that the bill be now read a second time.

The amendments in this particular bill will double the number of public members, called lay benchers, on the board of the Law Society of B.C. from three to six. This increase in public representation will help to monitor and direct the actions of the province's lawyers. This increase in lay benchers will also ensure that the decisions made by the Law Society better reflect public concerns and perspectives.

The amendments in this bill will also simplify the Legal Profession Act and give the Law Society increased authority over minor administrative and internal matters affecting the province's lawyers, while ensuring that any issues impacting on public interest, such as complaint procedures, will still be governed by the Legislature.

Additional amendments will enable the society to work cooperatively with other jurisdictions on matters such as sharing information on complaints and disciplinary measures taken against lawyers, and ensure that lawyers who practise temporarily in British Columbia are covered by the act. The proposed legislative amendments also include a number of amendments designed to eliminate some inconsistencies that currently exist in the legislation and to facilitate uniformity and compliance with national standards and international agreements.

For example, the amendments will give the Law Society more authority over some areas that improve the internal workings of the society itself and validate reciprocal agreements with the Federation of Law Societies of Canada. They will ensure that legal practitioners from other jurisdictions who practise in British Columbia are subject to the oversight and regulation of the Law Society of British Columbia.

Those are my remarks, hon. Speaker.

[3:00]

G. Plant: I want to rise to make a few remarks about Bill 15, a bill which the opposition will be supporting. I want to begin by observing that the bill rewrites the Legal Profession Act, a bill that provides for the governance of the Law Society, of which I am a member -- as is the Attorney General, I

[ Page 7678 ]

believe. But so are many, many thousands of British Columbians. It's a fairly broad class of British Columbians, I think. Some would argue that there are too many British Columbians who are members of the Law Society. I've thought about that fact, and I don't think that it precludes me from making a few general remarks about a bill that I don't think is intended to be controversial -- and I don't think it raises much controversy, in fact.

I believe it was the Deputy Attorney General who approached the Law Society in 1993 and said that he wanted the legal profession to redraft its governing statute in a way which would give more rule-making power to the Law Society and thereby reduce the need for ongoing annual routine housekeeping amendments to the Legal Profession Act. The Law Society responded by preparing the statute that is now before us -- and I am told that the Law Society supports this bill.

In fact, the bill -- in draft form -- has been gathering dust on the Attorney General's desk for a number of years while the profession has waited for it to be brought forward. We know that the bill has been ready for a long time, because in the run-up to the 1996 provincial election, the Attorney General promised the Law Society that he would bring the bill forward in the next sitting of the House immediately following the election. We are now in what I guess is the third session of the Legislature after the 1996 election, and the bill has at last been brought forward.

There is an expression about justice delayed being justice denied, but I don't think that it applies here, although I am suspicious that the presence of the bill on the order paper in this session has more to do with the lack of any other significant business for the government, rather than with some recognition by government that the time for this legislation has now arrived at last.

I said that, upon my initial review, I think that this bill is important, but I don't think it's controversial. Let me say this: the transfer of rule-making authority from the Legislature to the benchers, who are the people who govern the Law Society, marks a change in the direction of more, rather than less, self-governance by the legal profession. This is being done largely in the name of administrative convenience.

It is hard, apparently, to find room on the crowded legislative calendar for the modest kinds of changes that are required from time to time to ensure that the Law Society's rules are up to date, efficient and effective. So we in the House are being asked to give up some of our authority over the legal profession in favour of the benchers.

Now, those who advocate that we should accept this change contend that legislative authority is being maintained within this act where it is in the public interest to do so -- that is, that the act strikes a new, improved balance, and that there are areas of rule-making authority that belong with the benchers and areas of rule-making authority which still belong with the Legislature.

I guess one could ask the question: what are the principles on which we should strike this balance or redraw it? How would we, if we were free to do so, divide up the areas of self-governance on the part of the legal profession between those which are appropriately within the control of the benchers and those which ought to be under the control of this House? Well, I don't think we're going to undertake this analysis here today. In fact, given the history of this bill, the idea that there really is any residual authority . . . .

Interjection.

G. Plant: Well, to answer the interesting question, the idea that there is any residual authority in this House in respect of the legal profession is, I think, a bit ironic. I mean no disrespect to the people sitting here when I say that I doubt any of them had anything to do with any part of the drafting of this bill. No one in this House, I suspect, has ever had any participation in any debate over the limits of professional self-governance on the part of the legal profession.

In circumstances where a bill which is 56 pages long and has 109 provisions, and which is introduced and read a first time on May 5 and then brought forward for second reading debate six days later, I think it would be a stretch to suggest that the government has any interest in input from the public into that important question. It's not a question of criticizing the Law Society -- they're not in charge of the legislative calendar -- but it is interesting that a bill that is potentially so important, having languished for so long, is being moved forward with what looks like lightning speed.

So what about that balance? Well, it's hard to figure out what the principles are that ought to govern the balance between self-governance by the profession, on the one hand, and legislative supervision by this chamber, on the other. But on the basis of the opportunity I've had to have a look at it, I don't think the balance is going to put off-kilter by this bill. Let me say in this context that I believe that the legal profession, over time, has been and continues to be, generally well governed by the benchers. I sincerely hope that they will assume the new responsibilities given them by this bill with the same amount of respect that they have traditionally shown for the public interest.

Another point, and it was one made by Attorney General in his very brief introductory remarks, has been made by those whose job it is to find something in this legislation which can fill a press release, and that is the increase in the number of lay benchers. As the hon. Speaker may know, a lay bencher is somebody who is not a lawyer but is nonetheless one of the people who is appointed to govern the legal profession.

What the bill does is double the number of lay benchers from three to six. Lay benchers in fact have many of the same powers which the legally trained benchers have in terms of issues like professional discipline and so on, and the increase from three to six is significant. It does certainly create the potential for greater public accountability in the way the affairs of the Law Society are managed.

Ironically, although the statute now permits three lay benchers, there aren't in fact three. The Law Society can't fill the existing roster of lay benchers, so it's a matter of some interest to me that we're here debating a bill that will double the number. I'm not sure what that's going to mean in terms of the actual number of people who will serve as lay benchers. I suppose the point is that it's not all that easy to find members of the public who are willing to assume the duties and responsibilities that go along with being a bencher. But it's a good thing to increase the number of lay benchers.

There are some important provisions in this bill which are not new. But the fact that they're before us in a statute, which is not really an amending act but is whole brand-new act, gives us at least an opportunity to think about the things that the Law Society and the benchers do that have considerable impact on the public. The Law Society can control -- and has the power to -- the unauthorized practice of law, and this statute defines what is and what is not the authorized practice of law.

People who are paralegals, immigration consultants, tax planners and people like that have an interest in knowing what it is to practise law or not practise law. The bill also tells us that it's permissible at law to make contingency agree-

[ Page 7679 ]

ments, and it provides for practice within British Columbia by people who have their legal qualifications outside British Columbia, so that we have foreign legal consultants and so on.

One thing that the bill does -- this is not new, but as I say, it's before us here on what will probably be an increasingly rare occasion -- is to explain the object and duty of the Law Society. We find that provision in

section 3, which says that it's the object and duty of the Law Society, among other things, "to uphold and protect the public interest in the administration of justice by (

i) preserving and protecting the rights and freedoms of all persons, (ii) ensuring the independence, integrity and honour of its members, and (iii) establishing standards for education, professional responsibility and competence . . . . "

The thing that I think is interesting is the fact that the Law Society has a statutory object and duty to uphold and protect the public interest in the administration of justice by preserving and protecting the rights and freedoms "of all persons," not just lawyers. It seems to me that the obligation to protect the public interest is significant. It strikes an important counterbalance with the obligation which the society obviously has to protect the interests of the profession. I think the existence of this balance and the tension created by it lie at the heart of the idea of self-government by the legal profession.

Lawyers have tremendous power in our society. They have the power to invoke the processes of the court against the will of people on the other sides of lawsuits. They have the power to issue writs of summons, to compel the attendance of witnesses and parties and documents upon pain of contempt of court. They also, obviously, have the skill, the ability and the training -- and therefore the power -- to draft documents which create legal relations between and among people.

For all of this power -- and it's considerable -- we choose here to make the legal profession self-governing. That is, we choose to allow lawyers to decide for themselves about the important issues of competence, credentials and discipline -- in short, to decide who is to be given the licence to practice law and who is not. In return for this responsibility, we require of the legal profession that it act not only in the best interests of its members but also in the interests of the public as a whole.

I think this responsibility is not limited to ensuring that the public interest is protected by ensuring that only those who are qualified are licensed to practise. I think this responsibility extends to taking an active role in the ongoing need to ensure that our system of justice is fair, impartial, accessible, affordable and efficient. I think we are entitled to look to the Law Society and to lawyers as individuals and to say this: "We have given you a position of privilege. You must exercise that privilege responsibly, and you must help us resolve the problems in our system of justice that threaten it."

Fortunately the profession as a whole, represented by the Law Society and the vast majority of its members, is also committed to these principles. If it were otherwise, I suspect that this bill would in fact be very controversial -- but it's not.

Speaking for the opposition, we will support this bill. Those are my remarks.

[3:15]

The Speaker: Seeing no further discussion on . . . .

I'm sorry; I beg your pardon. Powell River-Sunshine Coast.

G. Wilson: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I know that sometimes it's hard to see this far down the benches.

In rising to speak on Bill 15, I'm going to try to make my remarks fairly concise. I'm not a lawyer. I'll make that statement right up front, having heard from the Attorney General and the official opposition critic -- both of whom are. I do want to talk, really, about three key points in this bill. I should say at the outset that I will be supporting this bill. However, I do have reservations, and I want to state where those reservations are.

First of all, the member for Richmond-Steveston, the official opposition critic, talked about this notion of balance. He did talk about the extent to which a profession such as the legal profession should have self-governance authority and the degree to which this House should have some kind of control. The member said that there hadn't been a great deal of debate around that issue, and I concur. There has not been a great deal of debate -- and certainly not within this chamber. I'm certain there would have been considerable debate among members of the legal profession as to the degree to which they should have some level of autonomy and where exactly those powers should fall.

I think this is an issue that, as a society, we want to pay some attention to, because I don't know that you would necessarily want to single out lawyers in this debate. If we look at the medical profession now and take a look at physicians and talk about the degree to which their own societies regulate them in a manner not unlike -- although the issues may be somewhat different -- what the Law Society may do with respect to the practice of lawyers, we do get into a very interesting debate that leads us to some discussion around when the public interest is breached.

When does the public no longer have direct input? That's why it's good that we see the number of lay benchers increased in this bill. I think it's a positive step toward recognizing that there has to be some balance.

I did not know, until the member for Richmond-Steveston just mentioned it, that in fact we were unable to fill even the ones we have, which is an interesting comment. I'd be interested to hear from the Attorney General as to what the problem is there. I was not aware of that until those comments were made today.

But I do think we have to be extremely careful that in the provision of this autonomy, with respect to self-regulation, we don't create a proposition that causes us to have societies that are struck -- whether it's the Law Society or any other -- that become so powerful unto themselves and by themselves that they negate, they take away from, the interests of the public at large and possibly take away from society's desire for us to move more specifically into other forms of legal services.

This brings me to my second point. What I see as notable in its absence from this bill is any discussion with respect to notaries public and the extent to which they have been lobbying hard to have their powers expanded so that they can provide some services which they believe they can provide as well as and perhaps more cheaply than lawyers. Do we actually need to have lawyers involved in the provision of some services when in fact the notaries might be able to deal more particularly with it?

What's interesting about that is that if we start to take a look at the extent to which the Society of Notaries Public of B.C. have actively put pressure on this government to recognize that there is -- from their perspective, obviously . . . . I guess one could argue that there's a self-interest here, but they believe that they can do that. Certainly I hear from constituents who are involved in simple conveyancing and all kinds of other work where notaries are now actively involved that they

[ Page 7680 ]

in fact could have and would have trust and faith in notaries to carry out those duties, those functions, that we currently need to pay lawyers to do and that might otherwise be done by notaries. I don't think that we have had enough debate around that question.

To be honest -- I'll put myself on the record -- I think the notaries have a case. I'm not sure if the Attorney General has heard the case -- or if he has, he hasn't heard enough of the case. If he hasn't heard enough of the case, maybe we need to find a venue to hear more. It seems to me that our society is starting to move us toward some level of change with respect to how these services are provided.

It's not unlike the medical profession, where we are now starting to see nurse practitioners, for example, and other kinds of practitioners who are saying: "Look, we can, through proper training and with skills and licensing, provide services that otherwise would be physician services and that can be better provided in a cheaper and more cost-effective way and in a way that perhaps does not involve" -- in that case -- "the medical profession." The notaries would argue, similarly, that it would not affect the legal profession.

Those are two of the three points I want to make. I think that we have not done enough for the notaries yet to simply have them shunted aside. I think we have to raise that matter, and that matter does need a venue for further debate and further consideration.

Lastly I'd like to talk more about what the member for Richmond-Steveston talked about. I could not agree with him more than when he talks about the power that's entrusted to people who practise law in the province of British Columbia -- and also the opportunities that are there for many, many good lawyers. I would suggest that the vast majority of people who practise law in British Columbia are upstanding British Columbians, but there are those who are not.

It seems to me that particularly when we get into the matter of trusts -- when we get into the proposition that this bill talks about and some of the changes with respect to the administration of trusts and how those kinds of issues are affected by this bill -- we need to be very, very careful about how we proceed here.

There have been instances in my term as an MLA where we have found that lawyers have acted in what I would have thought was a less than ethical way -- their conduct might be questionable in terms of how they've managed considerable sums of money -- and that the people who have tried to find restitution for that have not been able to do so through the Law Society. They have not been able to do so through a self-policing agency with respect to the provision for how lawyers manage those trusts.

The third point -- I'll close with my comment on this -- is that I do think that we have to be extremely careful in recognizing that there must be a role somewhere for that balance to be applied when it comes to the provisions that lawyers have in the matter of private property trusts and so on. With that, I look forward to committee stage, and I hope, in my capacity as one member here, that I'll actually be in the House when we get to committee stage. I'll endeavour to do so. I would like to hear the Attorney General's comments with respect to notaries in particular, because I think that is an issue that we do need to hear more about.

The Speaker: I recognize the Attorney General to close debate.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Both the members that have spoken have made some very good points: firstly, the need for us to strike a proper balance between public accountability where the public interest is involved in terms of complaint procedures and the like and on the other side, trying to give more responsibility for internal management and administration of Law Society matters to the Law Society itself.

This legislation arose back in 1992 out of some discussions that the then Deputy Attorney General had with the Law Society for simplifying procedures so that we're not asked every year to spend time debating sometimes relatively unimportant amendments that are important only to the internal workings of the Law Society and don't impinge on the public trust aspects and complaints procedures, where the public is concerned. There's no question: I did promise that I would be bringing it to the session, and I couldn't, and here it is. It is not for want of other legislation that is pending or not pending.

It is an important piece of legislation, and it is, in a sense, modernizing the Legal Profession Act. It will change terms such as "treasurer" -- which people don't understand -- to "president." One of the complaints I heard was from one of the previous treasurers of the Law Society, when I couldn't bring this forward. She said: "It was my dream to call myself president of the Law Society. Why aren't you doing something about this?" My apologies -- I wasn't able to do it earlier.

It is important that we deal, very briefly, with the issue of notaries. When I was not in cabinet, I was approached by the notaries' society representatives, as was the former member for Vancouver-Fraserview. We discussed these matters with them. I indicated to them that personally, as an individual lawyer, I wouldn't have any objections to them doing some of the work that they wanted to do. But it's a matter of collectively arriving at a decision between the Law Society and the notaries; there has to be some consensus.

And there has to be consensus as to whether or not the notaries can as competently do the work that needs to be done. That's not to do with individual capabilities or talents; it's to do with the degree of training and the skill achieved during training at law school and subsequently, or through the notaries course and in practice as a notary public.

I asked the notaries to bring the matter to one of the caucus committees in the last term of this government, and they did. I was on that committee. I suggested to them that we forward their recommendations to the then Attorney General, and we did. The Attorney General considered the matters in a very comprehensive way and made the decision that, at that time, he did not wish to pursue any amendment or extension to the notaries' jurisdiction.

Subsequently, when I became Attorney General, I was approached. I met with the representatives. I looked at all of the discussion that had gone on, and I reaffirmed the decision of the former Attorney General. I haven't changed my mind; I'm open on the issue. I know that notaries ran what I in fact would call a vicious campaign on this very issue in the last year or so. You know, when you run a vicious campaign, it doesn't open anyone's mind; in fact, it closes it -- not that it hasn't happened to me.

But I think it is important that when we carry on debate on these kinds of issues -- whether it's the opposition or anyone else or someone from outside this Legislature such as the notaries' group -- we have to sort of maintain some civility, and I think notaries failed to do that. That's not the reason why I think I won't change my mind. There are good reasons for not extending their jurisdiction. I'm always open to sitting with them again and speaking to them, and they can contact me. I'd be happy to arrange a meeting for them to come and see me, because some of them are my friends, and I know many of them.

[ Page 7681 ]

[3:30]

I won't say any more. I think it's important that lawyers recognize that they themselves are officers of the court, and a tremendous amount of public trust is placed at their disposal. They know that given the enhanced rule-making powers in this legislation, if they make a mistake, we will bring those powers back into the Legislature -- or any other government that might be here will do that. It is important that this important profession continues to carry on its work with dignity and with the complete confidence of the public.

With those remarks, I move second reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

Bill 15, Legal Profession Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. C. McGregor: Hon. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 16.

OCCUPIERS LIABILITY AMENDMENT ACT, 1998

(second reading)

Hon. C. McGregor: It's my pleasure to speak to the purpose of this bill. In fact, it's about a subject that's very close to my heart: the Trans Canada Trail.

It is in order to facilitate this initiative that our government has brought forward this bill. As many members are no doubt aware, the vision of the Trans Canada Trail is to establish a 15,000-kilometre multiple-use corridor across Canada by July 1, 2000. The B.C. portion of the trail will be approximately 1,500 kilometres. The proposed route of the trail, from the Rockies through the Kootenays and the Okanagan down to the lower mainland and on to Vancouver Island, passes through some of the most beautiful scenery in Canada.

It will showcase the entire diversity of environments that demand both our care and our stewardship -- from urban and suburban green space to ranchland, forests and wilderness. This is why our government has made a firm commitment to complete the B.C. portion of the Trans Canada Trail; in fact, we made it our first millennium project.

More than any single project I can think of, the Trans Canada Trail is going to promote progress on an array of goals that are important to both British Columbia and Canada: better public awareness of the linkages between nature and heritage conservation, better protection of unique local environments, a boost for local economies through increased tourism and wider access to non-motorized low-impact recreation.

For a concrete example of the benefits that a trail system can provide to communities, we need to look no further than the Galloping Goose Regional Trail here in Victoria, which has been designated as the first

section of B.C.'s portion of the Trans Canada Trail. Across British Columbia, our government is working with Trails B.C., the Trans Canada Trail Foundation, the Outdoor Recreation Council and local community groups to make our province a leader on this national initiative. We think it's fitting that we should be.

We've pledged to provide help with rights-of-way, Crown land issues, consultation with communities and affected landowners, and other routing considerations. This bill is a key part of our government's role in this project, as we try to resolve the questions of landowner liability. In planning the route for the Trans Canada Trail, government and community groups encountered a longstanding issue in British Columbia. Fear of liability is causing landowners to restrict recreational access to their properties.

In the context of the Trans Canada Trail, this means that private land owners are reluctant to allow recreational trail use of their land and that local communities are hesitant to assume full responsibility for managing local portions of the trail.

Amendments to the Occupiers Liability Act will help to resolve these problems by lowering the duty of care owed to non-paying recreationalists on recreational trails and certain classes of undeveloped lands. These amendments more equitably balance the duty of care between occupiers and the non-paying recreationalists, and will facilitate the completion of the Trans Canada Trail.

The amendments to the Occupiers Liability Act achieve this balance by providing that occupiers have a duty to non-paying recreationalists not to create a danger with intent to do harm to them or damage their property and not to act with reckless disregard to their safety or the integrity of their property. This duty of care currently applies to persons willingly accepting risk and for trespassers on agricultural land.

Let me just pause here a moment and emphasize that these amendments do not in any way obligate landowners to allow access to their property. The changes merely alter their obligations if they choose to allow access.

This reduced duty of care will apply on defined classes of land. These are premises used primarily for agriculture; rural premises which are used for forestry or range purposes, are vacant or undeveloped, are forested or wilderness premises, or are private roads; recreational trails; and utility rights-of-way and corridors. In defining the classes of land subject to the lower duty of care, the intent is to capture rural and undeveloped lands which are not subject to the same expectations of careful management and supervision as urban properties. Recreationalists on these lands can be expected to undertake activities with a greater awareness of the risks involved.

Changes have also been made to the duty of care owed to trespassers and criminals to ensure that anomalies are not created in the duty of care owed to other classes of persons. With respect to trespassers, the lower duty of care currently applies to trespassers on agricultural land. These amendments will extend the lower duty of care to trespassers on the enumerated classes of undeveloped land. This will avoid creating a situation where a higher duty of care is owed to a trespasser than to a recreationalist.

Similarly, the lower duty of care will be extended to apply to the persons who are trespassing on premises with the intention of committing a criminal act or in the commission of a criminal act. This will avoid creating a situation where a higher duty of care is owed to a criminal than to a recreational user of the land.

These amendments represent a careful rebalancing of the duties and obligations which lie between occupiers and users of their land. In making any changes in this area, we have been cautious to preserve not only the right of the public to litigate but also the right of the landowner to restrict and control access to their property. While the amendments will adjust the duty of care enough to accomplish the objectives of the Trans Canada Trail initiative, significant flexibility remains to allow the courts to protect parties who may be injured through the fault of an occupier.

In conclusion, let me say how pleased I am to be able to advance these amendments, which have long been requested by many recreationalists and rural land owners wishing to

[ Page 7682 ]

allow non-paying recreationalists the use of their lands. For several years, these two groups have shared a common interest in promoting recreational access to undeveloped land, but fear of liability has been the fence between them. We have heard the common request of so many British Columbians. With these changes, we are opening a gate in that fence to promote recreational access throughout our province and, in particular, access to the Trans Canada Trail.

M. Coell: I'm pleased to stand and offer comments on second reading of Bill 16, Occupiers Liability Amendment Act. Simply, we support the intent of this act, and I think that many of the comments the minister made are positive. We think that we will see an increased use of tourism and increased support for recreational activities in agricultural and forest properties throughout the province, because of this bill.

In my former political life as a municipal politician . . . . This bill has been asked for, as the minister said, for a number of years by local government wishing to create trail systems but not having the ability to purchase the land. This bill, I think, will allow landowners to allow access to their property -- to many of the small tracts of land as well as the very large ones throughout the province. It gives them that level of comfort with liability, which they didn't have before.

At first reading of this bill, I wasn't sure why it was being put forward by the Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks. It seemed more appropriate for the Attorney General to be bringing this bill forward. But as the Trans Canada Trail is the pre-eminent reason for this, I can see why the Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks is the author of this particular bill.

In committee stage discussion, I will get into the area in the bill,

section 1,

section 3(3.1), on trespassing with the intent of committing a crime. I think there needs to be some discussion in that area as well.

There are two examples I'd like to offer for the minister's consideration. On Galiano Island in my riding, there is a desire for a trail system, but I think there's a lack of funds to do that, as in most areas of the province. This bill offers a solution for large forest lot owners to contribute to a trail system in many of the Gulf Islands, but that one comes to mind because they have been working jointly on plans for forestry lot trails and beach trails as well.

The other one was in the municipality of Saanich, where Saanich was trying to complete a trail system adjoining a very small piece of property. It was unable to get access across private property. I believe this will solve problems like that throughout the province.

In bringing forward a bill that deals with the Trans Canada Trail, local government, in asking for this bill, saw that it will also create many, many other opportunities throughout the province. So I'm pleased to add that the official opposition will be supporting this bill, and I look forward to the discussion in committee stage.

J. Dalton: To endorse the words of my colleague the Environment critic, we will certainly be supporting the bill. He did raise the question that many of us asked around the caucus table of why this bill was being sponsored by the Environment minister and was not -- where it would seem logical to lie -- within the purview of the Attorney General. However, that doesn't really matter. The fact is, of course, that the essence of the bill is worthy of support.

If I recall correctly, I think the first Occupiers Liability Act introduced in this province was in 1974, and that was under a previous NDP government. I'm casting my mind back to the fuzzy days of both law school and practice and my instructional years at Langara, when occupiers' liability was a frequent area of discussion. I recall that the intention of the bill . . . . I would bet you at least a loonie, hon. Speaker -- if I'm allowed to say that -- that the Attorney General at the time sponsored that bill. I somehow don't think the Environment minister did.

I presume the intention of the original Occupiers Liability Act was to tidy up a wealth of case law and common law that didn't always have a common theme or consistency on the issue of occupiers' liability.

Since 1974, of course, there has been a further body of case law dealing with the

interpretation of the act that we are now amending. I think it will only be tested by time as to how the amendments that we're going to put through the House this session will play in this intriguing world of torts and, in particular, in the tortious world of occupiers' liability. It is an area where many pitfalls do lie -- certainly for the landowner, whether the occupier is charging a fee for someone coming onto the land or, as in the case the minister explained, where the occupier, out the goodness of his or her heart, is allowing the Trans Canada Trail to in fact come to fruition through the granting -- with no fee, of course . . . so people can come onto private property.

[3:45]

It will be interesting to see how this does play out over time. I haven't had the time to study Bill 16 in the depth that it perhaps needs to see how it will fit, as I've already commented, with the previous case law -- both the common law and the statute law that have been created in this province since 1974. I guess it will be up to the new lawyers who are coming out of our law schools -- who, of course, will also be facing a new Legal Profession Act, to which we have just given second reading . . . . It will be up to that new profession to entertain the

interpretation of Bill 16, but we certainly have no difficulty endorsing it in principle.

J. Cashore: Given the importance and the value to all Canadians of the Trans Canada Trail, and given that this piece of legislation deals with a very important component in order to facilitate and enable the eventual goal of achieving the Trans Canada Trail, in my view, there is really no better advocate at this point in time for the trail, and indeed for this legislation, than the Minister of Environment.

I think that is very clearly where this bill deserves to lodge, because surely this legislation should be an opportunity for this Legislature to be inspired by the vision of the Trans Canada Trail -- one of the far too few uniting themes within this country that we can all be proud of and be a part of, and that we can enjoy. In conclusion, I just want to say that I am very pleased that this is seen as an environmental project. It's one that I know all British Columbians will be proud of, and one that I as a grandfather look forward to being able to enjoy along with my grandchildren.

The Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, I recognize the Minister of Environment to close debate.

Hon. C. McGregor: I'm certainly pleased to speak briefly in closing debate on second reading. I'd like to thank the members on both sides of the House who are supporting the amendments to the Occupiers Liability Act. I think they've spoken well to the key principles of why we want to support this amendment -- in particular, to the tourism and recrea-

[ Page 7683 ]

tional opportunities that are offered. I would also commend my colleague from Coquitlam-Maillardville for talking about the vision that unites Canada. I think, again, that is a great purpose, and I feel very pleased and honoured to be sponsoring this bill as a result of the themes that have been raised in this House today.

One of the members made mention of needing to create other trails across British Columbia, and I think it speaks to the efforts that communities may be able to make to create what we call spurs of the Trans Canada Trail. There might be an opportunity for a community like my own, in Kamloops, to tie into the Trans Canada Trail network as it's currently envisioned, and it will be able to provide the many opportunities and economic benefits that members have spoken of so well.

On the point of the legal questions that are raised through this bill, I would commend to the members the legislation that exists in Ontario, Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia, which is virtually identical to the bill that we are introducing in the House today. The members may find guidance and that their questions are answered, as well, in examining those bills and seeing that we are as consistent here in British Columbia as other jurisdictions across Canada are.

Hon. Speaker, with that, I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 16, Occupiers Liability Amendment Act, 1998, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. C. McGregor: Hon. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 17.

WASTE MANAGEMENT AMENDMENT ACT, 1998

(second reading)

Hon. C. McGregor: Ten years ago, existing landfills were filling up rapidly, with no alternatives in sight. Understandably, there was intense resistance within local communities when new landfill sites were proposed. Community recycling programs were voluntary and small-scale and enjoyed little or no government support. The Ministry of Environment's regional special waste depots diverted only a very small fraction of the province's household hazardous waste and in fact lacked the capability to meet the potential demand. At a time when environmental concern had reached an all-time high across North America, there were few opportunities for people to take

part in solutions to the one issue they thought ought to be manageable. Overall, inertia on the solid waste issue was viewed as symbolic of society's broader failure to deal with environmental problems on a host of other fronts.

By contrast, the provincial target of a 50 percent reduction by the year 2000 was set at the beginning of this decade, and in 1995 British Columbians had cut the amount of garbage they sent to disposal by 32 percent per person. The 1996 and '97 data are still being compiled, but we are confident that British Columbia is ahead of any other province in Canada. We have approved solid waste management plans to be in place for 25 out of the 27 regional districts across British Columbia, and the remaining two are into the homestretch.

If the greater Vancouver regional district, the capital regional district and a few other larger regional districts follow through with their proposed composting initiatives, the province could well reach over 40 percent reduction. Again, this will keep us at the forefront of reducing the amount of material that goes into landfills.

The expanded beverage container deposit-return system will take us even further. When that system comes into effect in October, producers will be responsible for recovering at least 85 percent of all containers sold, and we anticipate a good return rate. Over 90 percent of beer and cider containers and nearly 80 percent of soft drink containers are returned under the existing depot system.

Waste reduction has also been aided immensely by the existence of a dedicated business sector -- the recycling industry -- committed to and specializing in these solutions.

All of this is good news, but we can't afford to underestimate the challenges we're still facing. Landfills are still filling up, and population growth can be expected to significantly offset the per capita reductions we achieve in terms of overall waste generation, pressure on land and potential environmental impacts. We need to continue to develop and implement creative, effective and efficient means of reducing and managing municipal solid waste.

Regional districts play a critical role in the province's effort to reduce and manage solid waste. In 1992 the Waste Management Act was amended to support this role. Those amendments enabled regional districts with approved solid waste management plans to specify operating requirements for and set and collect fees from the owner or operator of any site or facility storing recyclable material or managing solid waste. These amendments were intended to help the greater Vancouver regional district and other regional districts to effectively manage private landfill sites and recycling facilities.

The current amendments are based on the 1994 recommendations of the Municipal Solid Waste Management Task Force, and they have long been requested by the greater Vancouver regional district, the capital regional district and other regional districts. The greater Vancouver regional district has experienced difficulties in implementing the bylaws that it passed to carry out these responsibilities. Some solid waste management operators have challenged the authority for the bylaw under the Waste Management Act.

This response has made it difficult for the greater Vancouver regional district to administer and manage its solid waste management program. In addition, based on the experience of the GVRD, other regional districts are holding back from taking action in this area until the Waste Management Act is amended.

These amendments address the concerns of regional districts by providing very explicit bylaw powers that enable them to effectively manage recyclable material and municipal solid waste. The amendments will also allow regional districts to fairly allocate infrastructure costs for recycling programs, by enabling them to recover the cost of recycling programs from all waste generators. This system creates a level playing field for waste haulers and local sites and ensures that solid waste management plans of regional districts remain viable.

In addition, the amendments create a one-window approach for the regulation of private disposal sites in the GVRD. Currently the province and the GVRD both play a role in the regulation and monitoring of private sites in the GVRD. Operators require permits from the province under the Waste Management Act with respect to environmental protection matters. In addition, operators require licences and have to comply with the GVRD's bylaw with regard to operational and land use planning requirements.

[ Page 7684 ]

To streamline this process, the amendment delegates the province's powers to permit and regulate private sites to the GVRD, managing municipal solid waste within the regional district. The GVRD currently has similar authority to regulate air contaminants within the district on behalf of the ministry. Provision is also made in these amendments to delegate the provincial powers relating to municipal solid waste to other regional districts that may request them.

We are conscious that these are significant powers, and we have heard industry concerns regarding overregulation and the potential for abuse. In response, we have built in safeguards to ensure that these powers are used in a fair and responsible manner. Specifically, the bylaw powers can only be implemented by a regional district if such use is authorized in its approved solid waste management plan. This is significant, as solid waste management plans cannot be approved unless there has been an adequate review and public consultation process involving member municipalities and other stakeholders.

In addition, bylaws made under these powers must have ministerial approval, and the ministry is committed to working with industry to develop criteria that will be used to review such bylaws.

Finally, these bylaws can be amended, suspended or cancelled if the minister considers it in the public interest to do so.

In conclusion, we are confident we have struck the right balance between providing regional districts with the powers they need and ensuring that they are used in a responsible manner.

Hon. Speaker, I move second reading.

M. Coell: I'm pleased to be able to offer some comments on Bill 17, the Waste Management Amendment Act. I think much of what the minister said . . . . Her intent is positive, but I think this bill misses the mark. I intend to show a number of areas where I think the bill misses the mark and needs improvement. I can say that we will not be supporting the bill on second reading. I intend to offer some amendments that may be helpful during committee stage of the bill.

Madam Speaker, could I start off with the goal of 50 percent reduction that regional districts have undertaken? Some have done better than others, but I think the commitment is there to continue to 50 percent and on, into the next century. I think that much of the reduction in the past eight or ten years has been because government has been supported by business and industry -- as well as individuals -- to cut back. A lot of that has been costs; the costs of recycling or the costs of just dumping have gone up and up.

It has alerted people to the need to recycle for other than environmental reasons -- for financial reasons. I would say this to the minister: I believe that the next 50 percent in reduction is because people now understand the need and want to reduce and recycle. It's not the time to use a hammer and a lot of money in taxes but more of a carrot approach to recycling. Make it desirable to recycle as much as we possibly can but not through increased costs, not through increased bureaucracy and not just on the local taxpayer.

[4:00]

Some of the problem with this bill, in essence, is that in changing responsibility from provincial government to regional government, you're really off-loading a cost to the local taxpayer. I think that the cost for the local taxpayer has plateaued. We're in a position now where the cost of everything from hauling through to recycling has been taken to a level where people feel they're taxed enough for these particular services.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

We need to stimulate the recycling industry, and I don't think this bill does that. I think you will probably see a retrenching of many of the private industries in recycling and possibly even layoffs because of that. I do agree with the minister that this is a regional district responsibility. I believe it has worked well. We're at a turning point, and Bill 17 doesn't turn the corner. It doesn't say to me that the next ten years are going to be as accomplished as the last ten years. Specifically for myself, I think why the bill misses the mark is that it didn't harness the thoughts of the industry.

It lacked consultation on a broad perspective with the industry and with potential new recycling partners, and the way the bill is written, I don't see that taking place at the local level either. I think that the authority is there minimally and probably won't be used.

I think, as I said, that in the next ten years we have to harness industry. We have to harness individuals in meeting new challenges in recycling. The bill fails the consumer, because you're going to see increased costs and no increased incentive for participation in recycling. It doesn't harness the thoughts and plans of the industry that I think will be the success story of recycling in the next century. It's not going to cost for recycling; it's going to be a benefit for individuals and for companies to recycle. That's where the bill goes off the mark.

I think, too, that the authority given to regional districts has the potential to distort the marketplace. I view business and the recycling business in general as a key player in how you get past that 50 percent, how you get to 60 percent and on. I think that's the goal that all British Columbians have, and I don't see that happening in this bill. As I said earlier, I will propose some amendments that I believe will help. Whether or not the bill can be acceptable will depend on those amendments.

The three areas, if I could just recap, are: the downloading of costs to the local taxpayer that I see happening here, and the potential is very great for that to happen; the lack of new incentives for industry to participate and for new recycling companies to appear on the scene -- that initiative is taken away in this bill and given to government; and I think that the other one for me is: how do you harness an individual's motivation to recycle and to keep the environment as number one? I think the next ten years is with the carrot approach, not the hammer approach.

I see this bill as not even touching on the positives and the encouragement that I think need to be there to reach the 50 percent mark and to go on into the next century to do some really good things in recycling.

There are many things that I believe government can do and must do in the coming years to encourage the growth of recycling if we're going to be successful not just with the recycling that we see in the blue box but with hazardous waste and of a number of other items that there aren't markets for now. There need to be markets for them. We have to create those markets. I believe business is an opportunity to create those markets. Finally, I believe that the consultation that didn't take place in the drafting of this bill needs to take place before it goes any further.

I think that that would have allowed the bill to be more all-encompassing and more positive for recycling and the growth of recycling in the future.

I look forward to much greater discussion at committee stage. Thank you for the opportunity to offer some comments.

[ Page 7685 ]

J. Dalton: I won't cover any of the ground that our critic has outlined as to the opposition's concern with this bill.

I'm going to comment specifically on the reaction of the industry -- and firstly on the reaction of the private hauling industry -- before this bill was even tabled in the House recently. Obviously the industry knew there was something coming down the pipeline. There was concern expressed at several meetings held by private haulers. Specifically, there was a meeting held on March 25 in the capital regional district, at which time the industry did express, and went on record as stating, that there were several concerns in the pending bill. And, of course, we would have to say that those concerns have been restated, as the bill has in fact now been tabled.

The concerns of the industry were, just to give you a sampling, that regional districts -- monopolies -- might be created and that those would not be accountable to either the industry or the public in general. They also expressed concerns that regional districts could unfairly compete with private haulers and recyclers. I believe that my colleague from Saanich North and the Islands made an observation about a level playing field. We all have to search for that, and I cannot say that Bill 17, in its current format, reaches that objectivity and that level playing field. Those were some of the concerns that were voiced on March 25.

Now, there was a ministry official at that March 25 meeting who assured the stakeholders -- at least he went on record as assuring the stakeholders -- that regional districts would have to apply for and justify their needs to acquire the increased authority allowed for in the bill. That would include public review and ministry approval. I believe, if I am correct from my reading of the bill, that some of those concepts are in fact in Bill 17.

Another concern and another viewpoint given at the time of the meeting that the ministry official tried to assure the private haulers about is that there would, of course, be consultation before any change in the law was enacted. Well, quite frankly, as an aside, I don't think that the track record of this government on consultation is a terribly glorifying one. When I see that word in any context involving this government, I shudder. And I'm sure that many people in the private hauling industry, like any other industry in B.C., would agree with that. So we'll have to see consultation.

At the March 25 meeting there were also concerns about potential job losses and profit losses and about the imposition of more regulations. We've already had to address in this session the issue of regulations, which on the one hand, the government says it's reducing; yet on the other hand, the evidence seems to run counter to that. We will recall, of course, that there was a promise in both the throne and the budget speeches about cutting red tape. I don't know whether Bill 17 measures up to that promise of the government, but certainly there is a concern in the industry that it does not.

In fact, the reverse is probably true. I needn't tell the sponsoring minister, the Minister of Environment, about the impact of regulations. We have discussed in this House the Treasury Board memo of last year that dealt with the 20,000 jobs lost and the $1.3 billion lost to our economy because of red tape in her own ministry. So I'm hoping that the minister isn't bringing to us yet another bill that is going to further add to that red-tape scenario.

There was another meeting. A subsequent meeting was held, also involving private haulers, on April 2. It was also in Victoria. Ministry of Environment officials and industry representatives from both the Island and the lower mainland were at that meeting. The

summary of that meeting has an interesting title: "Consultation With the Recycling Industry." It has a nice little ring to it. But that, from our knowledge, is the only consultation meeting of record. Again, as I commented earlier, consultation and this government don't really seem to go hand in hand. Then, of course, the bill was tabled on May 1, just a week ago.

So concerns that were expressed at the April 2 meeting included too much control by regional districts -- a recurring theme; additional fees were feared; unfair fees were also a fear; and there was also a comment around the table about a potential restriction on trade -- that is, private industry and the trade impacts. So there are concerns in the industry. There have been many comments already on Bill 17. Those concerns should be acknowledged, and they should be taken into account before this bill is pushed further ahead.

The government should ensure that consultation is more than one meeting held just weeks before the bill is tabled. It's not adequate by any stretch to allow the stakeholders in this very important industry only one true opportunity to voice concerns.

On the regional district side -- and there are two sides to every argument -- both the GVRD and the capital regional district are, in general, supportive of this bill. And the UBCM, when I contacted them, said that they didn't have any particular problem with the bill. One thing that they were very surprised was missing from this bill is a process for dispute resolution. One official that I spoke to and also one executive member of the UBCM drew that to my attention: no dispute resolution process in Bill 17. We on this side have to ask: why is that not there?

This is not a difficult thing to have included in the bill, I would think. Given the concerns already of both the critic and myself -- and I'm sure others will be outlining them -- about the impact of Bill 17, I would invite the minister to reconsider the need for dispute resolution. There's no point in trying to address the problem "when and if," and as it's bound to come up, I think the bill should in fact anticipate disputes arising and have a mechanism in place so that those disputes can be resolved in a reasonably speedy manner. I wouldn't say in a non-contentious manner; obviously they will be contentious.

But if the process is missing, then you already have a bone of contention even before you get to the substantive question itself.

One other thing about the missing element of dispute resolution that the people I talked to at the UBCM expected to see in the bill . . . . That's certainly one thing they commented on. It's not there, and they expected it to be there.

So those are the concerns that industry is on record as expressing, and that certainly should be taken into account as we look further at this bill, both in second reading and at the committee stage.

Deputy Speaker: I recognize the member for Burnaby-Willingdon on a matter . . . .

J. Sawicki: One would think I was rising to speak on recycling, which I'm apt to do in this House. But I'm actually rising to ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

J. Sawicki: In the gallery now are a class of 44 grade 9 students, from Burnaby Central Secondary School. I just had a chance to have a great chat with them, and they asked lots of interesting questions. They are accompanied by their teachers, Mr. Hayward and Mr. Chow. A parent accompanying them is Ms. Starr. I would like to ask this House to welcome this class from Burnaby Central Secondary School in my riding and to say that I hope they've had a great day here at the Legislature.

[ Page 7686 ]

[4:15]

T. Nebbeling: I will be very brief, as many of the points that I was going to raise have already been raised by my two colleagues.

What I would like to do on the Waste Management Amendment Act, 1998, is bring a new element into the debate that has not been introduced either by the minister or by my colleagues, and that is the role of municipalities up to now. When the program of 50 percent reduction of solid waste in the landfills in municipalities and in districts was introduced in 1992, there was a clear understanding that municipalities were going to have to deal with the cost consequences of achieving that goal.

In many communities what you saw happening was that municipalities were actually forced to start accommodating the recycling components of that reduction of 50 percent of solid waste in the landfills. That has obviously come with a cost, and I don't think anybody at any time has ever objected to seeing that kind of expenditure take place, because there is no doubt of the strong support for recycling in this province.

At the same time, when this was happening, municipalities were also given the opportunity or the power to introduce tipping fees. Most of the communities and municipalities that were involved in producing reduction or complying with the requests for reduction, and that had to make a capital investment in recycling centres, took the opportunity to look at the tipping fees. At the same time, they did something that only a municipality can do: they looked at the impact on the property tax payers and the people using the landfill.

As a municipal council, you're very careful to make sure that you don't overtax your citizen or tax your citizen out of your community, especially these days, when municipal councils already have to charge fairly high property taxes. So there was always this check on how much could be charged by municipalities when people dropped off a truckload of garbage at the solid landfill.

I'm afraid, with the control being taken away from municipalities to a large extent and going into the hands of regional districts, that it is going to have a very negative impact on communities. I don't think anybody here would think that the introduction of this bill is not going to have financial consequences. I think we all must agree that there will be an increase for providing the service of the management of the solid waste landfill and at the same time achieving the objective of the 50 percent reduction.

It is very easy for a body like a regional district to impose new forms of taxation or an increase in fees, because they are really not that close to the electorate any longer. That is one of the problems I see happening with this bill. I would have felt a lot better about the tipping fees and the fees that municipalities will pay to the regional districts -- if indeed the regional district becomes the manager of the whole regional operation -- if these fees were to a certain extent controlled by the municipal councils.

I know the minister is most likely going to say: "Well, you know, it's the board of the regional district, of which the municipality is a member, that would ultimately be the body to control these rates." That may be the case in practice, but in reality it has never really happened.

All we have to do is look at the GVRD. The greater Vancouver regional district has constant dispute and debate and polarization around an issue like solid waste management in particular. The reason is that some municipalities do not feel that some of the rules imposed by the regional district apply to them. For that reason, they don't really want to participate in the program and they don't want to pay for that program. I think we're going to see a lot of this kind of debate being created by this bill.

The other point, of course, is that where municipalities are involved in solid waste management and the landfills, anybody who's involved in the recycling is most likely coming from that local level. I'm going to take my own riding as an example, and I'm going to take the SLRD, the Squamish-Lillooet regional district. There are about 30 small businesses operating in these landfills, doing all kinds of things. Some are into root removal; some are into removing rubber tires and batteries; others are involved in gyproc removal. All these businesses employ two or three individuals.

The whole landfill business has created a nice little sub-business that gives income to a number of people in these communities. My big fear, of course, with this particular approach is that many of these small companies will disappear, because the regional district is going to look for one operator. It's much easier to administer and to get a fee. Not only are municipalities and users going to pay more; it's also going to eliminate opportunities for a lot of people -- hundreds of people -- in the province when this authority disappears from that local level into the regional district.

My concern is that on the one hand, I support regionalization of the solid waste management. At the same time, I do not think we should do it at the cost of the factors that I just described.

The third point I'm really worried about, as well, is that, as my colleague agreed to and noticed, we are talking so much about reducing bureaucracy and getting rid of red tape. I can tell you again from experience that when this type of approach was discussed in my area, the first thing the regional district did was come up with all kinds of programs for how it was going to promote, advertise and entice people into this recycling mode. The cost associated with just the regional advertising approach was in the hundreds of thousands of dollars.

I believe that when you are into recycling and you do it on a municipal level and let the locals take care of it, it is much more effective and certainly a lot cheaper.

To me, this bill reflects certain values that I really have a problem with. At the same time, I must say that I do support the objective of a reduction in the landfill and of more recycling in this province. But what I see happening here is that the control of the landfills will truly go to the regional districts. It will eliminate a large number of jobs, and it will ultimately cost the taxpayers a lot more money. I don't think these are the values we are trying to achieve with this bill. So, like my colleagues, I will oppose this.

G. Wilson: I've followed this debate on Bill 17 with considerable interest. I've heard the two members from West Vancouver -- one from West Vancouver-Capilano and the other from West Vancouver-Garibaldi -- talk about some of the issues they have. One is that the industry would be upset about this, and the other is that the municipalities would be upset that you might have some transfer to the regional districts. The critic from Saanich North and the Islands said that there are a number of issues that he has concern about, and I actually share some of his concerns.

The member for Saanich North and the Islands alluded to the one issue which I think is really at the heart of the reason why this legislation is not good legislation -- that is, an amendment to the Waste Management Act allows it to do an end run around the Municipal Act and to bypass the one group who are going to pick up the cost of all of this, and that's the electors.

That's the issue. I think the member for Saanich North and the Islands alluded to it: that the ultimate person who's

[ Page 7687 ]

going to pick up the tab on this is the elector. Yet this specifically says that the regional district can, with the consent of the minister, pass a bylaw and adopt that bylaw for the purpose of preparing a waste management plan or for implementing that waste management plan. It says it "does not require (

c) the council of the municipality or board of a regional district to provide an opportunity for electors to petition against it, or (

d) the assent of the electors, a petition, an initiative plan or consent on behalf of the electors referred to in that Act."

What we're supposed to be doing in second reading is talking principles. Now, this bill is introduced by the Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks, an individual for whom I have a great deal of respect and whose intention in the introduction of this bill is honourable. I don't think that there's anything untoward going on here. But the language of this bill strikes right to the heart of the most fundamental principle in a democratic system -- that is, you don't levy taxation without providing an equal opportunity for representation.

You certainly don't allow the municipality to come in with a plan that is developed by . . . . Later in this act, in fact, they can delegate authority to one individual, who can hold the powers of that regional district or municipality to develop and implement this plan, come to government, have government sit down and work it out.

It doesn't say there has to be adequate consultation with the electors. It says there has to be adequate consultation between the regional district and/or municipality and this government. It says nothing about the taxpayers . . . . They don't have to be consulted at all. In fact, this specifically says that you can now implement this without consulting them at all, without even the opportunity of a counterpetition, which is about as benign a way of doing it as you might find. So I think that this principle alone says this is not the way to go.

Let's talk for a second about the need to try and reduce the amount of municipal waste. I don't think anybody in this House is not in favour of trying to reduce the amount of materials going into landfills, especially those materials that are noxious and that may pose a hazard over the long term in terms of dealing with those hazardous wastes. I think all of us want to try and eliminate them from the waste stream in the first place. We're doing a good job, and the minister alluded to how good a job we're doing.

The member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi said that we're all in favour of getting rid of red tape, although one would wonder where we're going to put it all with this waste plan -- certainly not with the waste into the landfills, I suppose. We'll recycle the red tape into another level of government, no doubt. I'm sure there's a ministry over there that would love to have that recycled red tape.

B. Penner: Bill 14.

G. Wilson: Bill 14, as the member for Chilliwack says. But in any event, I think that this really does strike to the heart of what's wrong with this bill.

The Municipal Act demands amendment. I think the members of UBCM and certainly AVIM and all the associate members of UBCM as a parent body have asked this government to bring in amendments to the Municipal Act to provide additional powers and authority to the municipalities. I think that is the appropriate place for this level of power and the degrees to which this level of power is going to be handed on to the municipalities. That is the place for this to take place, not through Bill 17, the Waste Management Amendment Act.

Although I understand the intent of what's being done here, the potential for enormous outrage in the communities when this bill is passed -- because some regional district or municipality is thinking in good conscience that they're doing the right thing -- is going to be phenomenal. I mean, I shudder to think what may happen to this member when this member goes back to Powell River, which had a huge battle over whether we have a landfill or an incinerator, and whether or not we need to hook the incinerator with the new boiler concepts that were out at the pulp mill, and so on and so forth.

They eventually convinced the municipality to go to a plebiscite -- which they called a referendum but was really a plebiscite -- to see whether or not the landfill, which was the waste management plan of the regional district, was acceptable to the public. It was overwhelmingly turned down. They did not want that landfill to go ahead, because it was right in the drainage basin of the watershed that fed the major water system that provided municipal water, and yet that was the only "approved" site.

Under this act, the regional district could turn around and say: "You know what? We like the original plan, guys. We've got the approval of the minister. We're just going to go ahead and do it. We don't need a referendum; we don't need a petition." I can tell you, in my community of Powell River, you are going to find that there will be civil war under this act -- really. And I'm not . . . . Well, maybe I'm exaggerating a little bit -- hopefully, just a bit of exaggeration there. Maybe it won't be civil war; it might be uncivil strife. Maybe we can put it that way. Certainly there will be huge conflict in the community.

I think what we have to do, hon. Chair, what we really need to do . . . . I don't know if the government is even going to entertain this, but I would certainly like to participate; I don't know about the member for Saanich North and the Islands, who has concerns. If I were in the government's position and this minister's position, I would hoist this for the time being. We've got a number of weeks left in the session. I would look at this section.

I would look at what the proposed amendments may be to the Municipal Act and see whether or not this might in fact better be dovetailed into those kinds of amendments so we can at least build in the same kinds of protections that will be needed in the communities -- protection of two things: (1) make sure that the public is onside and on board with whatever the waste management plan is that's brought down, and (2) if they are going to end up having to pay the bill, for goodness' sake, let's make sure that they at least have some say in what the cost is going to be. I think that's only fair.

So I would really suggest that we pull this from second reading for the time being. Let's look at the Municipal Act amendments and see where we go with it from there.

[4:30]

Hon. C. McGregor: Actually, I found the debate on the opposite side of the House very enlightening. Let me assure you, members opposite, it was never the intention of the bill to take away the ability or to require regional districts to bypass a consultation process with the public. I'll remind the members opposite of the remarks that I made about the fact that waste management plans cannot be approved unless there has been adequate review and public consultation with member municipalities, members of the public and so on. The intention is to maintain that principle.

But let me say this. I'd be happy to offer the members for Powell River-Sunshine Coast and West Vancouver-Garibaldi the opportunity to sit down and talk about how we might look at those segments of the bill so that we can clearly understand that the intention is not to stymie that type of

[ Page 7688 ]

public consultation. Let me start there, because I think that's an important principle to recognize. I understand very clearly what the members opposite have said, and it's not my intention to do otherwise. I think there's an opportunity to work through those issues.

In terms of the downloading of costs, I think it's important to note that what we're trying to do is mesh two levels of government and take out a level of bureaucracy. So it isn't a matter of increasing red tape but of reducing it and providing the right level of government with the opportunity and ability, if they choose to . . . . And let's remember that this is an enabling bill, where a regional district may choose to take on these powers. It is designed in fact to deliver on some of the commitments that all of us in this House have talked about, which is the reduction of red tape and overlap and duplication between jurisdictions.

I would also point out that there were concerns raised about individuals that are private haulers, and that is indeed why I spoke particularly to the review of bylaws. It was to enable and ensure that there was fairness and justice in the treatment of industry overall. Those amendments were not put into this bill at the request of the regional districts, quite frankly -- UBCM, GVRD, and CVRD weren't interested in having those segments in -- but because of my intervention, which said that industry is concerned and that we have to ensure that it's just and fair and that there's an opportunity for review.

I'd also like to speak to some of the principles that were raised around the reduction of solid waste over time and moving beyond 50 percent. I believe it was the Environment critic who talked about the need to move beyond 50 percent and said that we should move towards a principle of more voluntary action. I really laud that goal. I think voluntary actions do in fact cause people to change.

Nonetheless, it's been my experience that as individuals we don't change our behaviours, in most cases, until there's some impact on ourselves personally. Quite often that's through cost. That's when we seem to notice, when we have to . . . . In the case of needing to reduce greenhouse gases, for instance, it's the cost of driving our automobiles or of maintaining ozone-friendly air-conditioning systems. Those are the things that drive us towards decision-making. It's not that we all aren't well-intentioned and that we don't care deeply about the environment.

Nonetheless, it does seem to be that it's mandatory programs -- and sometimes it's the costs attached to them -- that force us all to change our behaviour. While I certainly believe that voluntary actions should form a part of what we do, I also believe that the kind of mandatory programs we've had through solid waste management planning around the province are fundamental to achieving our goals in reducing waste management.

As the member from the Sunshine Coast noted well in his remarks, solid waste management can almost bring people to blows in communities; there is no doubt. I have learned this if I've learned nothing else. I have learned in this job that there can be enormous conflicts in communities. Nonetheless, they are the right steps for us to take. We need to assure ourselves that we're working together -- local, regional and provincial governments -- in achieving those goals in a way that's fair both to industry and to the consumers.

Having said that, I'll leave my remarks, except to reiterate the assurance that I gave to the members opposite that I would be happy to take the time and opportunity to look through the bill with them, to address the specific nature of the potential amendments -- whether or not it does indeed complement the Municipal Act -- and to find a way to maintain the principles that I think everyone in this House can support. We can look to find ways to achieve that.

At this time I move second reading.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Second reading of Bill 17 approved on the following division:

YEAS -- 36

Evans

Zirnhelt

McGregor

Kwan

Hammell

Boone

Streifel

Pullinger

Lali

Orcherton

Stevenson

Calendino

Goodacre

Walsh

Randall

Gillespie

Robertson

Cashore

Conroy

Priddy

Petter

Miller

Dosanjh

MacPhail

Lovick

Ramsey

Farnworth

Waddell

Hartley

Sihota

Smallwood

Sawicki

Bowbrick

Doyle

Giesbrecht

Janssen

NAYS -- 33

Sanders

C. Clark

Campbell

Farrell-Collins

de Jong

Plant

Abbott

Reid

Neufeld

Coell

Chong

Whittred

Jarvis

Anderson

Penner

G. Wilson

Weisgerber

Reitsma

J. Wilson

McKinnon

Krueger

Dalton

Barisoff

van Dongen

Symons

Thorpe

Hansen

Stephens

Coleman

Hawkins

Hogg

Nebbeling

Weisbeck

Bill 17, Waste Management Amendment Act, 1998, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

[4:45]

Hon. J. MacPhail: I call second reading of Bill 19.

ATTORNEY GENERAL STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1998

(second reading)

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I move that Bill 19 be now read a second time.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

Hon. Speaker, there are several pieces of legislation that are being amended, and one of them happens to be the Residential Tenancy Act. The amendments relating to the Residential Tenancy Act in this bill are intended to improve the tenancy dispute resolution system and ensure that disputes can be resolved in a manner that's fair and equitable to both landlords and tenants.

The first major change contained in this legislation is to end the retroactive review of rent increases for manufactured home park tenancies. In 1994 this government brought into

[ Page 7689 ]

force legislation to protect tenants from unreasonab