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)

TUESDAY, JUNE 2, 1998

Afternoon

Volume 10, Number 8

[ Page 8255 ]

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

G. Wilson: I have the great privilege today to introduce a rare and somewhat endangered species into our Legislative Assembly. We have a former MLA, hon. Speaker. In the province of Quebec, where a Liberal is really a Tory, and in the province of British Columbia, where a Liberal is, well, maybe Reform -- possibly Conservative; maybe Social Credit -- it's a delight to introduce to the House Bob Chisholm, the former MLA from Chilliwack, where a Liberal is a Liberal is a Liberal, and his wife Janet.

Hon. C. McGregor: I'd like to remind members in the House that this week is Environment Week. In that regard, I'm pleased to have the opportunity to introduce the winners of this year's 1998 Minister's Environmental Awards, who are here with us today in the House. I promised them that we would be on our best behaviour during QP. Let me introduce them all: Bill Turner of Victoria, with his wife Gerie; Wayne Sawchuk of Chetwynd, with his partner Marce Fofonoff; Ray Lutz from Woss, in the Nimpkish Valley, accompanied by John Bulcock; Ken Lyotier from Vancouver; George Smith; and Merrily Corder.

Award recipients in the youth category are represented by two young people from Chilliwack: Angela Knopp and Jessica Kennedy. They are accompanied on their trip by Lee Larkin and Gloria Beshara. The award recipients for the city of Surrey parks and recreation and engineering departments are represented by Eric Emery and Greg Ward.

We also have Ellen Zimmerman and John Bergenske from the East Kootenay Environmental Society in Kimberley; the Delkatla Sanctuary Society of Masset, represented by Peter Hamel and Margo Hearne; Tim Arnold and Henry Sundquist, here to represent award recipient Construction Aggregates Ltd. of Sechelt; Bill Darling, an environmental educator, and his wife Joan; and Judie Steeves, an environmental reporter from the Kelowna Daily Courier . Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Visiting in the House today is Vanessa Geary, the coordinator of the Tenants Rights Action Coalition, which is situated in my colleague Joy MacPhail's riding of Vancouver-Hastings. Would the House please make her welcome.

The Speaker: Hon. members, remember -- we don't name names in this chamber. I'm sure everyone remembers that.

Hon. L. Boone: In the gallery today is an employee of the Ministry for Children and Families in the Prince George region -- a good friend and a political and union activist. Would the House please welcome David Gibbs.

J. Sawicki: I'd like to add my personal congratulations, by the way, to the recipients of the Minister's Environmental Awards.

Jointly, with my colleague the member for Burnaby-Edmonds, I have four guests in the gallery. They are Tom DuFresne, who is the president of the ILWU, Canadian area; Doug Sigurdson, the president of the ILWU, Local 514, and a past riding president in Burnaby-Willingdon; and Dave White, president of the ILWU, Local 519. With those guests is Leslie Roosa, who works for Local 514 now; but she was my former constituency assistant. It's kind of fitting that, during Environment Week, these trade union brothers came down to talk about an environmental issue on a bulk terminal up in Stewart. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. I. Waddell: I have 28 guests in the gallery. They're all grade 5 students from Corpus Christi School, along with their teacher, Ms. Francis. Would the House please make them welcome.

B. McKinnon: I too would like to welcome Eric Emery and Greg Ward from the city of Surrey parks and recreation and engineering departments. When I was on city council I worked with these gentlemen, and I want to congratulate them on getting this award. Please make them welcome.

J. Wilson: Today I have three visitors from the community of Nazko: Jenifer Beaton and Megan Lehman, who are grade 7 students at the Nazko Elementary School, along with their teacher, Susan Cruikshank. I ask that the House make them welcome.

Hon. J. Kwan: I'm delighted today to welcome Ken Lyotier, who is a constituent of mine in the Vancouver-Mount Pleasant area, who also happens to be a Minister's Environmental Award recipient today. Ken is a community leader in many ways and is the founder of a group called Save Our Living Environment: United We Can. I know that he received the award not just in recognition of his great work but also in recognition of all the people in the downtown eastside community, and particularly the dumpster divers of the downtown east side. Would the House please make him feel welcome.

G. Robertson: Joining us in the precincts today are two good friends of mine from the IWA. Raymond Lutz is here to receive the Minister's Environmental Award. Raymond has worked tirelessly for many years to enhance fisheries stocks throughout the North Island, and his work is well appreciated. With Raymond is John Bullcock, also from Woss Lake. John has for many years been a tireless advocate for worker safety and training on the North Island, and his enthusiasm and energy have been instrumental in creating a well-trained, safe workforce throughout the Nimpkish Valley. I would ask that the members of the House please make them welcome.

M. Coell: On behalf of the Liberal opposition, we would like to join the minister in congratulating the winners of the Minister's Environmental Awards. We greatly appreciate the work you do on our behalf. Would the House please make them welcome.

S. Hawkins: I know she probably won't like it very much, but I'm going to add my congratulations to Judie Steeves from the Kelowna Daily Courier . Would the House please join me in congratulating her.

I. Chong: I'd like the House to help me welcome someone who is important to all of us. One of our constituency assistants, Mr. Charles Keast, is joining us in the gallery today, and I hope the House would make him very welcome.

The Speaker: I recognize now the hon. member for Columbia River-Revelstoke.

Interjections.

J. Doyle: Hon. Speaker, I feel that that group over there is so sick they should go see a mortician.

[ Page 8256 ]

Interjections.

J. Doyle: Don't give that crew any more sugar for lunch.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members. Hon. member, you're up to make an introduction.

J. Doyle: Hon. Speaker, if somebody brought the place to order, maybe I could make an introduction.

I've got two friends who were introduced by the minister. I'm pleased to have them here today: Ellen Zimmerman and John Bergenske -- very good friends and constituents of mine. I would like to thank them personally for the work that they do on behalf of the East Kootenay Environmental Society and congratulate them on the award that they're receiving today. Please make them welcome.

L. Reid: I too would like to lend my welcome to Bob Chisholm and his wife Janet, who I believe served this House extremely well from 1991 to 1996. On behalf of the official opposition, I offer congratulations on their visit today.

Introduction of Bills

TOBACCO SALES AMENDMENT ACT, 1998

Hon. P. Priddy presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Tobacco Sales Amendment Act, 1998.

Hon. P. Priddy: I move that Bill 28 be introduced and read a first time.

Motion approved.

Hon. P. Priddy: Hon. Speaker, these amendments significantly strengthen the government's ability to fight tobacco use among young people. Since the Tobacco Sales Act was last amended in 1995, the government has increased its efforts to reduce tobacco consumption and prevent tobacco addiction among youth.

As part of our expanded tobacco reduction strategy, we are making these amendments to the Tobacco Sales Act.

They will (1) clarify and reinforce the authority of the government to make regulations requiring public disclosure of information about the ingredients, additives, toxic emissions and health hazards of tobacco products sold in B.C.; (2) double the maximum length of sentences for persons who sell tobacco to minors; (3) increase by a factor of five the maximum fine levels for offences under the act; (4) make convictions under the federal Tobacco Act count as convictions for the purpose of suspensions under this act; and lastly, (5) require that persons whose licence to sell tobacco is suspended must post a sign announcing that suspension to the public.

All of these amendments demonstrate this government's continuing commitment to take tough measures and do whatever is necessary to reduce tobacco use, especially among young people. Hon. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to table this legislation today, and I move that this bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Motion approved.

Bill 28 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

VICTORIA FOUNDATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1998

M. Sihota presented a bill intituled Victoria Foundation Amendment Act, 1998.

M. Sihota: Hon. Speaker, the bill does exactly what the Vancouver Foundation Amendment Act, which we introduced the other day, does, as well as generate some administrative changes with regard to the constitution and structure of the Victoria Foundation.

I move that the bill be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills.

Bill Pr402 introduced, read a first time and referred to the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills.

Oral Questions

LOG THEFT AND FOREST REVENUE FRAUD

G. Abbott: Last year, in the auditor general's report on the public accounts, he reviewed the serious problem of forest crime -- namely, log theft and revenue fraud. To the Minister of Forests: how many millions have been lost from B.C. forests in the past year through theft and fraud?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Since the member is asking for a specific answer, I'll take that question on notice.

The Speaker: I recognize the member for Shuswap on a first supplementary. You recognize the kind of question you can't ask.

G. Abbott: Yes, thank you, hon. Speaker.

The Speaker: New question, same area -- all right?

G. Abbott: The minister is obviously unable to attach a dollar figure to this problem, so I want to try a different approach. To the minister again: how many jobs have been lost in B.C.'s forests as a result of theft and fraud?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Well, I'll endeavour to get an answer to that question.

The Speaker: Question taken on notice.

I recognize the Leader of the Official Opposition.

G. Campbell: Hon. Speaker, the B.C. Liberals have a copy of a document entitled the "RCMP Forest Crimes Unit's Annual Report, 1997-98," by the RCMP. The RCMP states very clearly that theft, fraud and criminal activity are costing British Columbians and B.C.'s forests millions and millions of dollars. In fact, the RCMP estimates a total loss of $350 million to $500 million a year. Can the Minister of Forests tell us why he has not taken any action to reduce this $500 million-a-year problem in the forests of British Columbia?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: This sounds like an estimates discussion. I have not seen that report. When the auditor general reported last year, we took actions which are fully reported

[ Page 8257 ]

on. We took actions to try to implement the auditor general's report. I'm not familiar with this report. I'd be happy to review it and respond.

The Speaker: On a first supplementary, the Leader of the Opposition.

G. Campbell: You know, the Minister of Forests should be aware of this kind of report. Last year the alarm bells were rung on this problem. Criminal activity is taking place in our forests. The RCMP is involved, and the minister's own staff people are involved. The concern I have is that when you read the RCMP report -- and I'd be glad to give the minister a copy -- it says: " . . . significant problems inherent to this ministry remain as obstacles." When will the Minister of Forests remove the obstacles to these criminal investigations so we can solve this problem instead of watching it mount?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: This is the opposition that would slash the public service -- the very people that would be able to police it. This is the opposition that would cut taxes and cut the public service that does the administration. We recognize that there's a theft problem. Within the means we have, we're dealing with the problem. If more can be done, I give the assurance to this House that we will do it.

The Speaker: On a second supplementary, the Leader of the Official Opposition.

G. Campbell: The problem is that we raised this issue for the minister last year. Last year the minister gave us the same answer. The problem is that we face $350 million to $500 million of theft and criminal activities in the forests of British Columbia. The problem is that his ministry is one of the obstacles to solving these crimes. When will the minister act to make sure that we reduce the amount of forest crime in British Columbia instead of watching it skyrocket?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Hon. Speaker, as I say, it's a legitimate line of questioning for estimates. I'll be prepared to give full answers during estimates.

IMPLEMENTATION OF DOBBIN REPORT

J. Weisgerber: My question is for the Minister of Health. My constituents in Mackenzie and many other northerners have been without on-call physician services in hospitals for more than four months. This minister rejected appeals for negotiations before this issue came to a head in January. She rejected the option of arbitration, which would have allowed a settlement months ago. Will the minister commit today to fully implementing all of the recommendations in the Dobbin report and to do so immediately?

Hon. P. Priddy: I think the member is giving me credit for work that happened before I became the minister, but so be it. I will take that along with . . . and offer it back.

But secondly, more importantly, is the issue of health services to people in the north. In Ms. Dobbin's report, some of the recommendations are short-term recommendations and some are longer-term recommendations. But yes, I commit to implementing all of them.

The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for Peace River South.

J. Weisgerber: To give credit for what happened prior to January is to damn with faint praise, let me tell you.

Can the minister assure this House, and particularly the people of northern British Columbia, that the Lucy Dobbin report has not been and will not be subjected to the kind of tampering that we saw in the Gove report. Will the minister agree today to table both the interim report and the final recommendations in their original form, without any changes or without any pressure on Ms. Dobbin to change her report to make it more suitable to the government?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members.

Hon. P. Priddy: As I said yesterday, Ms. Dobbin did not present to me interim recommendations that would get people back to work. Clearly, Ms. Dobbin talked with me throughout the time of the report. Actually, I think her work has been consistent on behalf of doctors and patients in the north and on behalf of the north and other isolated areas. So there is not an interim report to table. If, in point of fact, we're talking about recommendations that she was thinking about then and actually put into her final report, I think most people in the north who look at the report will prefer the final report.

LOG THEFT AND FOREST REVENUE FRAUD

J. Weisbeck: Last year in the House during estimates I asked the Minister of Forests how much money forest crime was costing B.C. The minister said that he didn't know. We know now. The RCMP report says that theft is costing us up to half a billion dollars a year. Can the Minister of Forests tell us why the problem of theft in our forests is getting worse and not better?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I don't know that it's getting worse. The members obviously have a report that says it's getting worse. I said that if more can be done, we will do it. I do know that you can spend a lot more on policing and getting revenues than you get in revenues. But having said that, we have been following the recommendations of the auditor general with respect to theft.

The Speaker: I recognize, for his first supplementary, the member for Okanagan East.

J. Weisbeck: The RCMP's report says that no forest crime prevention is done, as a result of scarce resources available. Considering that this could be a half-a-billion-dollar problem costing taxpayers millions in forgone taxes and stumpage, why is the minister ignoring the fact that forest crime prevention activities could save taxpayers millions of dollars each year?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: This is not a new issue. Anything that we undertook to do or explained last year, we've been acting on. There is a log theft squad that the RCMP have. We've devoted resources to working with the RCMP to get a better handle on log theft. We have been working on DNA testing, species by species, so that we have an easier, technologically modern way of tracking theft and being able to bring people to justice with respect to that. We don't like any loss of revenue; we don't like people stealing the people's trees. We will do everything we can within our power and with the resources that we have to bring log theft people to justice.

G. Plant: I suppose it's nice to hear that the minister doesn't like the problem. But the fact is that it's a serious

[ Page 8258 ]

problem and it's getting worse, and the government's not devoting any resources to solving the problem. The crime unit we're speaking of that has written this report has only four RCMP officers in it. The report says that one of the reasons why there's a problem in getting a hold on this enormous criminal activity is the lack of sufficient RCMP resources. So maybe the Minister of Forests can tell me this. He is in a government that can put 100 RCMP officers in photo radar vans. Why can't he get more than four RCMP officers to deal with the problem of the theft of a half-a-billion-dollars' worth of Crown assets?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Over the last two years there have been 120 additional police officers in British Columbia, in addition to the 100 . . . .

Interjections.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Speaker, in addition to the 100 . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Easy, hon. members. Take it easy.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: . . . photo radar police officers, there have been 120 additional police officers in British Columbia that have been funded to date. If the opposition has a point . . . . I would certainly look at that report, have discussions with the RCMP and officials from the Ministry of Forests, and deal with the issue.

The Speaker: I recognize, for his first supplementary, the member for Richmond-Steveston.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members.

[2:30]

G. Plant: We asked the question last year, and nothing seems to have been done about it. The auditor general has talked about it, and nothing seems to have been done about it. How many times do we have to raise the question before the government realizes that there's a problem?

There is an aspect of this problem that I want to bring to the attention of the Minister of Forests. Part of the problem here is cross-border log theft. In fact, this crime unit has been talking to the American authorities about the problem of cross-border log theft. I'll give the minister a chance. Maybe he could tell us: what has he been doing over the last year to combat the problem of cross-border log theft?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Anything that is cross-border is undoubtedly a federal issue, but because it is our resources, we do have an interest in it. What we have done is set up the crime unit by diverting resources, specializing resources, onto that. If the RCMP say they can't deal with the problem, we'll have to sit down with them, as the Attorney General said, and find ways of dealing with theft within British Columbia and theft that originates across the border.

C. Clark: This has become a sadly familiar ritual for the government side of the House. The opposition asks the minister a question, and he doesn't have the answer. Then the opposition points to a document, and the minister has never seen the document. The minister should go back to his officials and ask them to keep him in the loop about what's going on in his department. That's what the minister should do.

Hon. Speaker, the reason the minister should do that is because one of the things this report points out is that competing rivalries in his ministry -- turf wars within his ministry -- is one of the reasons that they can't resolve this problem. His ministry is named as one of the biggest obstacles to solving this problem. When will the minister start to pay attention to what's going on in his ministry, solve the turf war and figure out how we can solve this very, very serious problem?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It would be interesting to know how the opposition got the report. In fact, does it say "draft" on it or anything? It may be that my officials will have some responses ready, having examined the report.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members, order. Let the minister finish.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: As recently as last week this opposition was concerned about the state of the forest economy. As the highest priority, we have devoted resources in the ministry to deal with the crisis in the forest industry. As a result of that, we have delivered significant code changes and significant stumpage relief. So the industry itself is poised for a response . . . . Having done that, we will review everything that we have done in the ensuing year since we dealt with this issue in estimates. I'm quite prepared to deal with it in estimates in some detail.

The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain.

C. Clark: You have to assume that the Minister of Forests is consulting with the Minister of Environment, when they sit across the House together. What we have here is a document that the minister hasn't seen. We have costs to the economy of over $1 billion that the minister's not paying attention to, and we have officials that apparently don't speak to the minister about the problems that are going on. Will the minister commit today to talk to his officials and get them working to solve this problem so that we can stop costing the economy of British Columbia up to $1 billion in crime?

When will he start paying attention to getting his officials to act to enforce against this terrible economic cost to British Columbia?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: That's such an obvious question. Of course . . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Thank you, members.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members, for a ministerial statement.

Ministerial Statement

TRANSPORTATION ISSUES

Hon. H. Lali: I rise this afternoon to recognize three important events in the field of transportation. First, May 31 to June 5 is National Transportation Week. I hope all members

[ Page 8259 ]

and the general public will take time to consider the enormous contribution that men and women in the transportation industry make to our standard of living in British Columbia. Without the transportation industry, B.C. would stop. It is also a time to recognize the importance of transportation to the past and future economic development of this province.

Second, I would like to point out that this week is Bike to Work Week. Our government is joining with community groups to sponsor numerous events recognizing the importance of cycling as a means of transportation and of staying fit. I hope my colleagues will join me in pedalling to the office on Wednesday.

Third, we are making a significant effort this week to engage the public in a discussion of transportation issues. Tomorrow evening at 7 p.m. on VTV, the first of two half-hour programs on the history and future of transportation in the lower mainland will go on the air. I invite members and the general public to tune in, watch the program and then provide us with your thoughts by calling me and members of my staff on a toll-free line that will be advertised during that show.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members.

I recognize, in response, the member for Richmond Centre.

D. Symons: I am pleased to respond to the ministerial statement. I thank the minister for that statement, because we on this side also recognize the importance of transportation, particularly in this province, where we have the topography that we have. We are terribly dependent upon our roads and our rail, and upon boat and air transportation within the province. It's important to our economy, it's important to the goods and services moving about the province, and it's important for the convenience of its citizens.

In supporting the minister's words on National Transportation Week, I am also somewhat disappointed in the lack of federal support. We have a federal government that does not take

part in the national transportation and highway system that we really have to have. We have a federal government that does not really share the amount of taxation it takes from fuel taxes in British Columbia, in returning that to paying for infrastructure in British Columbia. We feel that is incorrect.

The U.S. government is going to spend somewhere in the neighbourhood of $200 billion over the next six years in transportation infrastructure improvements within the United States. A good portion of that is coming to the Pacific Northwest. It's really important to us in British Columbia that we further improve our infrastructure in order to maintain the Pacific gateway status that we currently have. I would encourage all of us to consider that.

I add my words of support for the minister's suggestion that we bike to work. A good number of us haven't brought our bikes to Victoria. But bike, walk or don't come in a single-occupant vehicle tomorrow and for the rest of this week -- both to the members of this Legislature and, I would suggest, to anybody listening. I might also suggest that maybe we carry that on for the rest of the year, rather than for just the one week.

I'd also like to thank the minister for the invitation that he's giving people to participate in public involvement in transportation issues. It is important to the future of this province that we all take a vital interest in what's going on in transportation in British Columbia.

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

Leave granted.

G. Wilson: Transportation is indeed a very important -- in fact, I would say the most important -- lifeline to many communities. In looking at this statement, I think there are a number of issues I would like to raise for the minister. First, we'll watch with interest on Wednesday to see whether or not this minister does pedal to work. The only thing we're used to this minister peddling is NDP policy, and most of it isn't very good.

Secondly, in the estimates debate I made a deal with this minister that if I could find a way to save $60,000 in the Transportation budget, he would commit to put it to building the necessary ramp on Gambier Island so we can have services to and from that island. When I look at the cost of a VTV program that is restricted to the lower mainland -- only the lower mainland, because that is the only area in which that is -- what I could suggest is that that $60,000 is already found and we should put it more to work for people who live in rural British Columbia, who will not take benefit from that program.

It is a shame that this minister, when talking about transportation, would select to have his 1-800 callback program on a network, VTV, that has such a limited range, when my colleague from the Peace has consistently tried to get this minister to understand that the main areas of transportation difficulties are in the north, the interior and the rural communities, hon. Speaker. It's a shame that we have restricted this only to the lower mainland. Transportation is an important issue. It's unfortunate that this minister has restricted it only to the lower mainland.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members, order, please. We want to move on to the next order of business.

Orders of the Day

Hon. D. Lovick: Madam Speaker, this is surely an auspicious beginning to the afternoon session. Accordingly, in this chamber, I call second reading of Bill 21; and in Committee A, I call the estimates of the Ministry of Small Business, Tourism and Culture.

ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT ACT, 1998

(second reading)

Hon. J. Kwan: I move that Bill 21 be now read a second time.

I'm pleased to be able to present Bill 21 for second reading. The current appeal process is outdated and frustrating for all parties involved. It forces participants into adversarial positions, leads to lengthy hearings and contributes to the growing backlog of appeals. Changes are long overdue. This legislation will create a modern, efficient appeal system for all British Columbians. This bill will make the appeal process more accessible and cut red tape, which will help reduce the current backlog of cases and provide better services to appellants.

The current courts of revision will be renamed property assessment review panels. The new name better reflects the

[ Page 8260 ]

lay nature of this appeal body and clarifies the process for appellants, including requirements for notice and enforcement mechanisms for information requests. The second appeal stage, the current Assessment Appeal Board, will now be known as the Property Assessment Appeal Board.

A new bypass mechanism will allow certain more complex appeals to go directly to the board. This will make the process more efficient and save time and money for appellants and the taxpayers. The board will be empowered to customize hearing processes to the particular circumstances of each case and use alternatives to formal adversarial hearings, where appropriate, to aid in resolution. This will result in speedier resolution of cases and will increase efficiency and effectiveness.

Bill 21 will allow greater openness and transparency while protecting personal or sensitive information related to assessments, as recommended by the privacy commissioner. Bill 21 will modernize our assessment system, help reduce the backlog of appeals and provide better value for taxpayers. I ask all members to lend their support to this very important piece of legislation.

[2:45]

L. Reid: I thank the minister for her comments. She indicated that she anticipates that this will somehow modernize the current Assessment Act. Certainly that's a decent intention, and it's one worthy of debate this afternoon. She spoke earlier, in first reading, about modifying the process so that indeed some red tape is eliminated. That certainly seems to be a commitment of this government. We will wait to see if that is the case. This minister talked about moving away from an adversarial position when it comes to assessment appeals to a situation that includes some levels of arbitration.

We believe those things are to the good and could in fact do some good things when it comes to improving this act.

I have a number of concerns I wish to put on the table this afternoon, hon. Speaker, and I trust that the minister will respond to these concerns when she makes her closing remarks on second reading debate.

One of the issues I wish to canvass fairly extensively this afternoon is the Semmens and Adams report of May 9, 1996, "Review of the Property Assessment Appeal System." This report is two years old, so I'm not clear that this is the first opportunity this government has had to amend the Assessment Act. Their amendments, in some cases, are reflected in this act, and in other cases, they are not. I would simply put my concerns on the record today and have the minister, I trust, respond in some detail.

The executive

summary of the report talks about quality decisions, timeliness, affordability and client satisfaction, yet never have clients been properly canvassed on this question. I believe they have now asked 2,000 British Columbians how they believe the assessment process has been undertaken, but those results will not be available until the end of this year. The recommendation is two years old. We are now, hopefully, going to see some recommendations flowing from the client -- what the consumer believes to be important.

This looks at how best to value property and how best to have taxpayers in this province provide property tax back to government for disbursement. Asking them how they believe the system unfolds is useful; frankly, it's critical.

It brings us to the discussion about affordability and accountability, which is something we have often talked about in this Legislature when we talk about an accountability framework. It makes good sense to ask people if the service available is meeting their needs. Those recommendations are reflected in a report that is two years old. But I am alarmed; I don't believe they've been acted on until very, very recently. Again, that information apparently will not be available until the end of 1998. So I have some concerns and some thoughts around the quality of decision-making.

The intention that the minister stated -- to improve the quality of decision-making -- is admirable. The bottom line is that we won't know that for probably 12 to 18 months. There is nothing in this act or in this ministry that allows for assessment of practice. The accountability framework is missing today. I think it's the minister's hope that these areas will be improved, but there's nothing in here that allows us to measure whether or not that actually happens. So I put that on the record for the minister, because I believe that's a serious concern.

We have moved beyond debate in this Legislature where it's appropriate not to indicate to constituents, to British Columbians, how this process works. As of last session I believed that we actually had some understanding, each of us, and some agreement that benchmarking, accountability, was important. So the minister will hear me come back to that numerous times as we proceed through this debate. Certainly the report -- again, two years old -- talks about timeliness, that the unresolved cases . . . . Frankly, the number grows; it has not lessened. That is true today.

The minister will make the case that these recommendations will improve the current scenario. I will again respond by saying that that has yet to be proven. We will certainly know the answer, but not for 12 to 18 months.

Another discussion that I've had with this minister's staff during the briefing, and as reflected in this bill . . . . It talks about the move to a single panellist, if you will, when it comes to a number of these review mechanisms. The reports before us don't favour that. They don't favour it from a perspective of expertise, whether or not that one individual who is selected to represent the ministry or represent the Assessment Authority on a particular case is indeed skilful enough to respond adequately to the questions posed.

That is a concern that the act reflects; it questions the research behind the act and questions it in some detail. The minister will know that, because the report talks about the need for accountability and it talks about the need for research to ensure that the direction taken meets the current need.

One of the major issues the report talks about is changes to the assessment calendar. I don't believe that's reflected in the bill today. That seems to be an opportunity for the government to move forward to a solution, as opposed to acknowledging the obstacle but not making a difference, a change. So it seems to me that there are some other issues the government could address, and I trust that they will be open to commentary as we proceed.

Certainly we talked in some detail at our briefings about the number of complaints that come forward to the courts of revision on an annual basis. There are many thousands -- upwards of 60,000 to 80,000 complaints. The points made by the minister that indeed it's time to modernize the act are valid. But again, there needs to be some research in terms of how best to proceed. There seems to be much division, when it comes to the reports that are available, in deciding how best to proceed. There seems to be limited agreement, hon. Speaker.

The report talks about superb management being required: the management of individual appeals, the management of individual agencies and the management of the overall assessment and appeal system. We would agree, but what we don't see in the act are the steps that would clarify how that would unfold.

[ Page 8261 ]

There's the underlying part of this act that talks about valuation. I appreciate that this doesn't change that determination. But if this new way of assessing people is going to be considered credible, people have to believe in the valuation process, so that when they choose to appeal an assessment -- when they disagree with the value that has been assigned their property -- there is some credibility in the process and they believe that the system has some integrity. Again, that's a question, and it has been problematic. Certainly individuals do have the right to take their issues before the courts.

But we know that this is a very expensive and very time-consuming process, and frankly, it is unaffordable for the majority of British Columbians.

I began my remarks this afternoon talking about timeliness and accountability. This report and other documents, which I will reference in my remarks today, talk about what is not currently measured. It's my understanding that these issues today are not currently measured by the Assessment Authority: the time required to get to a first hearing once an appeal has been lodged, the length of an actual hearing, the time to reach and communicate a decision once the hearing is complete, and the impact of delays in any of the above on the size of the backlog.

These are the kinds of things that individuals who are coming forward in terms of lodging a complaint wish to know the answer to. Frankly, I believe they are entitled to that information. The question they will often put is: how long will it be for this process to move through the steps? Today the answer is sometimes seven, eight or nine months, and sometimes two, three or four years.

It's not

an act that reflects timeliness. If the minister is convinced that these changes will improve that situation, we as the opposition will be prepared to look at that -- but only if it contains and includes some accountability mechanisms, some measurement tools, because the reports . . . . Again, I will reference later on in my remarks the 1997 annual report. The fact that we have it in early 1998 is a wondrous thing; That does not always happen. So indeed, the ability to bring that information forward is something this opposition will be looking for as the life of this Assessment Amendment Act unfolds.

In terms of responding to constituents' concerns, this process or this system is becoming increasingly expensive. There's no doubt about that. These are costs that are borne by the taxpayer. These are costs that will be built into the regulations for this act and the policy for this act, which I believe is yet to be decided or yet to be communicated with the stakeholders. Frankly, hon. Speaker, the stakeholders are taxpayers. It's interesting to receive notice that you can now appeal your assessment, but with that will come a bill. Individuals need to know that this process will become more expensive as time unfolds. As this process becomes more complex, it will indeed become more expensive.

In 1994 the Assessment Authority spent $9.3 million on the appeal process. That's not pocket change but a very, very large sum of money. As the minister indicates, she trusts that this process will become more streamlined. I believe that as more individuals are brought on, the costs will grow. Whether or not those costs will be offset by increasing levels of efficiency is yet to be proven.

This report actually breaks it down. It's $3,720 per case to take an appeal to the appeal board. That is a 20 percent increase over the cost for 1993, and now that it's 1998, we can only assume that those costs have indeed grown beyond that number. The minister will know that a number of these issues certainly include tax agents and lawyers, whose fees are very costly when it comes to ensuring that the cases are put before the Assessment Appeal Board with some efficiency. This is not an inexpensive exercise in which to participate.

That is something I think this Legislature must always keep in mind, particularly because this government has repeatedly said that it's an important time in the growth of this province to perhaps be a little kinder to the taxpayer. This Minister of Finance talks about tax cuts. That's all well and good, but not if they are confounded by increasing fees and licences and regulation costs. This will be an increased cost to the taxpayer. There's no question about that.

I will talk about recommendations. Certainly this report looks at organizational structure and, I believe, at some of the issues the minister mentioned -- and in terms of recordkeeping, of having someone at the Assessment Authority who is probably going to act as a form of registrar so that communication is improved. When someone phones up to discover where they are in the queue, whether or not their information has been received, whether or not the evidence has been sought or what their appeal date might be, that kind of information must be more readily available.

There is mention in some of these documents that this system grinds to a halt during times of postal disruption. This process is far too important to allow that to happen. Some staffing has to be in place so that people can be contacted by telephone to ensure that they don't miss a very small window of opportunity. There are some issues around performance -- performance accountability and performance appraisal -- that I believe need some clarification by this minister. I believe that this act will put some significant powers in the hands of political appointments that I have some question about.

I know that my hon. colleague from Delta South will talk about the independence of this board. Those concerns are valid when we're talking about people who are beholden for their jobs and who serve at the pleasure of the government. That is an issue, and it is one of the underlying principles of this debate this afternoon when we talk about whether the lives of British Columbians will be improved because this government has chosen to clarify the Assessment Act.

We don't know the answer to that question, but certainly there are issues of fairness and of justice when it comes to placing a valuation on someone's personal property and determining dollars that are owed to the government as a result of that valuation. That's a significant issue, because for most individuals in this province, home purchase is the most significant purchase they will make, and having some recognition that the process is sound -- having a belief system that tells them they can trust in the process -- is the only reason these processes have some success at their doorstep. Otherwise, it's very problematic.

Another issue I would ask the minister to respond to is around privacy and information. I know that David Flaherty, the information and privacy commissioner, has very recently -- April 3 -- made some recommendations about who could have access to the assessment rolls in the province and whether or not those rolls would continue to carry the homeowner's name. That's a significant issue for many, many British Columbians.

A number of individuals have indicated that it has been a concern -- in fact, I think in the city of Victoria -- as to whether or not they have the right to put that information on the Internet and whether you can search by name for the

[ Page 8262 ]

owner of a property. That is an issue about which Mr. Flaherty has made recommendations, and certainly that is an issue of sensitivity when we talk about privacy and information issues.

[3:00]

There are agencies in this province that do have access to that information by contract, and I believe those contracts are in place for at least another year. Whether or not this legislation addresses that, I think, has yet to be determined.

I will also make mention that upon checking the web site for the Assessment Act . . . . It's my understanding that the web site was launched in March 1997, but it was last updated last September -- September 2, 1997. So it would appear to me that there are some things on there that certainly could be updated. Indeed, if this is about communicating more effectively with the public -- the minister's stated intention was that this is about making this process more accessible and more workable -- there are indications from the material on that web site that it needs to be upgraded. It needs to be brought into 1998 as opposed to being almost a year old.

There are some issues that I support around the kinds of information people can access. I think there are some issues that people can very readily avail themselves of in terms of needing background information, but the information has to be current. Again, I would ask the minister in her closing remarks to perhaps comment on the future of that web site. Who is responsible for ensuring that it is maintained in a timely fashion?

There are a number of comments that we have talked about during the briefings and the discussion, and I did talk a little bit earlier about market value. Indeed, that's a trust, integrity and credibility issue when it comes to any act that purports to take more or fewer dollars out of a taxpayer's pocket. The process will have to be communicated very effectively on behalf of this government and this minister for this minister to convince British Columbians that this is not about changing the valuation process. Certainly that is the belief system of many individuals today.

It was stated very clearly to us that that is not the case, and I accept that; but indeed that possibility alarms many British Columbians today.

Another issue that I'm not clear that this set of amendments responds to is the issue of those individuals who don't choose to appear when it comes time for them to be part of an assessment appeal process. They have launched the appeal; they have not formally withdrawn it; but indeed they don't appear. The dollars have already been expended. Again I would ask the minister, in her closing remarks, to touch on who is responsible for that expenditure for individuals who don't take the process through.

Earlier I mentioned single-person panels. This report states very clearly: "The board chair believes that the use of single-person panels is already at a maximum, that the level of expertise contained within single individuals is already at a maximum and that it is not something that should be used extensively." I would appreciate the minister's comments. It will probably be less expensive to send out a single individual as opposed to two or three. But if that person does not have the skill set to exercise reasonable judgment -- and for the taxpayer to believe that reasonable judgment has been exercised -- that will indeed be a significant concern.

We've had lots of discussion in this report and in others that I will reference about advisers. Who gets to advise government about tax issues, authority issues, valuation issues? It would be interesting for the minister to perhaps publish, at some point, the advisory group who is responsible for making a number of these recommendations. That will either lend some credibility to those individuals or discredit them.

One of the other issues that I am always interested in pursuing when we talk about legislation in this House is a cost-benefit analysis. Could the minister give us some sense of the cost saving as a result of these amendments? Or are these additional costs that will continue to be borne by the taxpayers in the province? The agency has not done well in the past in terms of tracking its costs. In the past it has not been able to give very detailed information. Certainly I will have some questions for the minister in committee stage, and we will talk about the Expropriation Compensation Board and how that fits with her sense of the new set of changes in Bill 21.

I referenced earlier also date changes and whether the assessment calendar might change in British Columbia. That's a question that I believe deserves a response. It will determine some of the success of some of these changes that are being described under this set of amendments. Certainly I did touch on the level of independence and how important it is for this authority to be seen to be an independent entity.

I will be delighted to participate in committee stage of this bill, because I believe second reading debate has been about the principles that underlie basically taking more dollars out of taxpayers' pockets -- not just through increasing or decreasing their assessment, but by the costs that these new processes will bring to bear upon the taxpayer.

This is not necessarily a gift to taxpayers in British Columbia. If a year from now this has resulted in a more streamlined process that is indeed less expensive, I will be the first one to get to my feet and congratulate the minister. I'm concerned that adequate research has not been presented to suggest that the homework has been done around whether or not there will be a cost saving to the system. I would be delighted if, before this debate concludes, the minister stands up and tables a cost-benefit analysis of new legislation.

I think that's the responsibility of any minister in the British Columbia Legislature. It's incumbent upon them to tell taxpayers what this will cost. New legislation has a cost -- no question about that.

I have touched on the items in the Semmens report. As it was explained to us, it was intended to address the mechanics around backlog. It made a number of recommendations that I have referenced. Again, some of them are reflected in this amendment act and, frankly, some are not.

We talked a little bit about the justice and effectiveness and fairness of the act. Some of the definition name-change issues that we will talk about in committee stage may indeed ease the concerns of individuals who don't truly understand how the process works today. There are individuals who believe that it's very convoluted -- that having two or three levels of appeal is bureaucratic, costly and defies logic in some instances. This may indeed be true, hon. Speaker.

One of the issues that I want to put on the table -- and perhaps to give the minister a heads-up on for when it comes to committee stage -- is the discussion around whether or not strata-commercial will be a designation under the Assessment Act. The Assessment Authority has considered that topic in the past number of months. There have been many, many submissions on it, and it's of particular interest to individual owners of shopping malls. I know that the minister has correspondence from individuals in my riding who have talked about a tenant situation, a strata situation and a lease situa-

[ Page 8263 ]

tion. Each of those tended to be defined a little bit differently, depending on the landlord of the day. So if the minister could make some comment on that during committee stage of the bill, that would be very helpful to me.

I certainly appreciate the opportunity to respond to this bill in second reading, and I look forward to committee stage.

F. Gingell: I'm pleased to rise to speak to the issues surrounding Bill 21, the Assessment Amendment Act, 1998.

There is a possibility or a probability of dealing with basically three issues when we deal with appeals of assessments. The first is how assessments are determined, and that has been left untouched. I am really pleased that when the previous amendments were going through, the opposition managed to get the minister to agree to a change that was critically important in ensuring that there is equity. One could almost say that your assessment value doesn't matter; it's how your assessment compares to all the other assessments around you. A standard has been set that it is actual value applied on a consistent basis, and that seems to be working well.

The second exercise is how the appeal process works. We know that to this point the process hasn't worked very well. The Assessment Appeal Board has gotten further and further behind, and we all know that justice delayed is justice denied.

The third issue, if I can just finish off on that subject . . . . There is a recipe within these amendments that I believe brings hope to the issue of whether this new format and organization of the Assessment Appeal Board has a chance to improve. We shall see. I think all of the ingredients of the recipe have been brought forward; it's up to the minister and the officials of her ministry and particularly the officials on the Assessment Appeal Board to ensure that they take advantage of these changes and make it work.

Whether the final recipe produces something that is tasty, something that is acceptable, something that the persons using this process believe to be a fair and open process . . . . I wish to bring that to this second reading debate. To my mind, the bill in no way deals with the issue of trying to make the justice seem to be better, so appellants will have the feeling that they have been dealt with fairly. If that doesn't happen, all this bill is or could be is some window dressing that enables the board to make a greater number of people unhappy and discontented quicker.

So what are the kinds of things that need to be done to bring a vision to the public that the appeal process is fair? I would like to suggest that there are probably three issues. The first issue is the independence of members of the Assessment Appeal Board. I believe they will serve better and the process will work better if they have tenure, rather than serving at the pleasure of the minister through order-in-council. It would be better if they were appointed for a definitive term of six years, five years or eight years, or to a certain age -- until age 70; or 75, because people of 70 are just mere children.

Because their remuneration is also set by order-in-council, and because it is in the hands of and at the pleasure of the minister to set that and adjust it from time to time, I think that it would be good and worthwhile to have their remuneration set by some independent process. We have a whole series of officers of the Legislature who are paid the same as a Provincial Court judge or a percentage of a Provincial Court judge's fees. I'm sure there are lots of firm arrangements under which the remuneration for members of the Assessment Appeal Board could be determined without being left in the hands of the minister.

[3:15]

I think we have to recognize that the Minister of Municipal Affairs's responsibilities and interests -- as they should properly be; in no way would I argue with that -- are to the municipalities. It is within her interest and her responsibility to ensure that the interests of municipalities are looked after. So it is the taxer whose interest the minister is concerned with, and the taxed -- the owner of the property -- doesn't have that opportunity. How could we solve that?

It would seem to me that where you have an Assessment Appeal Board and an assessment process that is all under the jurisdiction, responsibility and control of the minister, you want to have the appeal process outside the minister's ken. Perhaps for administration and reporting purposes, the Property Assessment Appeal Board could report to the Attorney General or some other minister -- but some minister who is concerned with justice issues rather than the interests of municipalities.

The Property Assessment Appeal Board will be given a lot of powers; it already has them under the current title, Assessment Appeal Board. They have the ability to both increase and decrease assessments of appellants. Let's recognize that what's happening at the point that an appeal comes to the Property Assessment Appeal Board is that it has already been through a preliminary process. It has already appeared in front of the review board. Assessors who, in the process of preparing themselves for the review panel hearing, discover that they have made some mistake can well bring that mistake forward and request a reassessment -- either up or down -- at the review panel level.

My knowledge is secondhand because I have not been involved, but I understand that it is not unknown for assessors to suggest to property owners -- to the appellants -- that if they move forward with the appeal . . . . I do hate it when the minister doesn't listen.

Interjection.

F. Gingell: Thank you.

When the appellants move forward with the appeal, suggestions are made that they will apply for increases in the amount of the assessment if the appeal proceeds. Now, that's a pretty grave accusation to make, but I haven't received it just from one source. I have heard it from more than one source and, I must admit that after I heard it the first time, I tried to chase it down.

The proposal has been put to both property owners and to lawyers and agents representing people appealing at the old Assessment Appeal Board level -- now the Property Assessment Appeal Board level -- that if they proceed with the appeal, the assessor will apply for an increased assessment. Well, that's no way for us to ensure that justice is done. That's no way for us to ensure that the people of British Columbia believe they will be treated fairly by this quasi-judicial body. This is no way to have our citizens have trust in government that they're getting a fair shake.

It can be solved very easily. Just restrict appeals by the assessor to increase the amount of the assessment to the review panel level. That's the first level of appeal. I'm sure there are occasions when the assessor, in reviewing the information to prepare for the hearing, realizes that they've made a mistake. For all the other taxpayers within the assessment area, that mistake should be rectified. The opportunity should

[ Page 8264 ]

be there, but the opportunity should be restricted, I believe, to the review panel level. Make them ultra vires or banned or prohibited -- whatever word is appropriate -- at the appeal board level.

I think that those changes -- to appoint appeal board members with a definitive tenure for a number of years or to a certain age, and to pay them in accordance with some independently determined sum; to have the appeal board report for administrative purposes to the Ministry of Attorney General or some other ministry . . . . I'm not sure if the Ministry of Attorney General is the correct body. I just think that it should be a minister who is not the Minister of Municipal Affairs -- whose responsibilities, interests and concerns are for the people who are assessing the taxes rather than for the taxed.

The third proposal that I have mentioned is to prohibit increases in assessments at the Property Assessment Appeal Board level -- not to ban them at the review panel, but to ban them higher up.

As we know, getting amendments to these various acts that are in force in the province of British Columbia is a lengthy exercise. The minister, I'm sure, has worked long and hard to get this particular one brought forward. I think it would be a shame if we missed this opportunity, while amendments to the Assessment Act are in front of the House, to make some changes. So I will, if I may, bring some amendments forward, which I will deliver to the minister in good time, in the hope that by cooperation and working together in the interests of all British Columbians we can make this a better piece of legislation than I believe it presently is.

G. Wilson: I am pleased to be able to rise and speak to Bill 21, the Assessment Amendment Act, 1998. I would say at the outset for the record that I will not be supporting this piece of legislation for several reasons, both in principle and also because of the changes in language in sections 4 through 8 as they now appear in this act, which have deleted a number of safeguards and protection which I believe are necessary, particularly with respect to farmland.

Let me say that in principle . . . . Those who have heard me speak on land taxation in principle know that I think that what we need in British Columbia is to change, to amend, the process by which we tax people on property. I think that what these amendments do is continue to stack the cards against people who live in areas where there are going to be substantial real estate value increases because of speculation on property and because of the changing nature of property values.

It doesn't do anything to protect people who have a long-term investment in property and who are often retiring on a property -- living in a retired manner on a fixed income -- when they see that their property values are escalating and that because of the assessment rolls the values are placed against them.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

The idea that the real value . . . . What they talk about in this act, and for those who may be trying to follow along in this debate -- and I know there are many out there, because I hear from them from time to time . . . . Under the

definitions

section of the act, essentially what we're dealing with here . . . . If we turn back to the original

definitions, we talk about the establishment of actual values, and those actual values are set at market rate. The difficulty with this is that if we get into a philosophical approach toward taxation that allows for an assumption to be continued that somehow because your real estate value has an assessed worth of X, Y or Z because of market trends that are going up, you're going to be able to be given relief when you have a levelling-off or a stop in that growth, if that should occur.

In fact, in practice -- and there are many examples of this -- that does not occur. What we find in this prospect, the proposition of land taxation . . . . We now have many people, particularly seniors -- and we have a growing population of seniors in British Columbia -- who moved onto or are living on lands that they have purchased. They retired on fixed income, only to find that their assessed values continue to rise because of this process of market-driven rates. Many of them, if they're on fixed income, are effectively no longer able to pay tax.

They end up in their twilight years looking at deferred taxation, which is essentially a postponement of debt in their latter years. This is simply wrong and should not be.

Similarly, I would say that the difficulty here is that capital improvement is included in the land tax that's in this bill. Bill 21 does nothing at all to remove, as a value on property, the capital improvement that somebody does to their land. Now, it seems to me that this puts us in a proposition of double jeopardy, because anybody who builds a room, improves the roof, does an extension, in some way puts a second dwelling on a property if the zoning permits, or whatever that land improvement may be . . . . People who have put their money into those improvements have already paid tax.

They've paid tax on every nail, every board, every stick, every hour of labour that has gone into that improvement.

For the assessor to come along and say: "As your reward, we now look at this improvement, and we're now going to say that the net worth of your property potentially" -- and it's based upon a potential sale or comparative market value -- "is this much more. We're now going to penalize you for the industry that you put into the improvement of your property by increasing your property tax . . . . " So both of these are poor ways in which to assign assessment.

The third thing, and by way of omission . . . . I would urge all members who are reading Bill 21 -- and I know that they do -- to recognize that what the government has done in this bill is that it has repealed parts 4 to 9 of the existing act and replaced those with parts 4 to 8 of Bill 21. It's not so much what they have included that we ought to be very mindful of; it's what they have excluded that we need to be extremely mindful of.

Hon. Speaker, let me give you just one example, and there are many examples of this. This is the reason that I cannot, nor will I, support this bill.

Section 32(1) says essentially: " . . . requirements in

section 33, a person may make a complaint against an individual entry in an assessment roll on any of the following grounds . . . . " What that does is set out the grounds by which you can make a complaint. There are then further sub-subsections (

a) through (e).

In the original act that this is amending, there is a

section (f). What is (f)? Well, (

f) says: " . . . the assessor has failed to approve an application for classification of land as a farm under

section 23(1), or has revoked a classification of land as a farm under the regulations . . . . " That is a provision for people who hold farm classification to make a direct appeal with respect to that proposition, because if you read

section 23 of the act, you can see that

section 23, which this refers to -- which this government has now just deleted -- says that essentially "the assessor" -- and the conjunctive here is "must" -- "must classify as a farm any land, or any part of a parcel of land, that meets the standards prescribed under subsection (3)."

With this deletion in this act, people who have that classification of farm now . . . . When the assessor comes along and

[ Page 8265 ]

says, "No longer will you be a farm class," the appeal cannot now be heard under

section 32 on complaints respecting the assessment value, which it could in the previous act. You're going to have to go through a very much more expensive and difficult legal appeal process to try to maintain and protect your farm status.

[3:30]

One of the reasons why the government, I suggest, wants to do this is because there are many people who live on marginal farms or farms which are considered "hobby farms," or they are on farms that are supplementary to the primary income of a person who is working as whatever -- a trucker, a teacher, a lawyer or whatever else they happen to be doing. I know there have been assessors who have tried very hard for many years to close what they see or they deem to be a loophole, and this effectively does it through that simple deletion. It allows for a whole host of people who right now have farm-class exemptions to lose that exemption -- potentially, at least.

That is an insidious way to once again hammer people who are living in rural areas and who find that they have no services to those properties. Many of them have no sewer; they have no water; they have no sidewalks; they have no streetlights; they have no capital improvement upon which their land assessment should in fact be pushing up land values -- or what you would say is a fair assessment.

These people who live in the rural areas and who receive absolutely no benefit whatsoever from their assessed land tax are now going to face one more tax grab from this government, which is going to come in and tax away their right to hold farm status. This is an insidious way to move in and try to grab more money from people who can least afford it: rural British Columbians.

The second point I would make with respect to omission, hon. Speaker . . . . That's just one example. There's a bunch of them in here. I'm not going to go through them all in detail in second reading; that is usually reserved for committee stage, when we get into some detail.

But with respect to the duties and powers of the review panels, what is interesting is that there is an amendment here that changes, with respect to this panel . . . . The assessment of what used to be called the court of revision has now been changed. Very subtly, perhaps, you might argue, this language now no longer requires that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council make appointments. Rather, the language now talks about the minister making appointments.

You may think that that's a subtle distinction; in fact, it's a very profound distinction, because what it does, if you look at the act, is put empowerment, once again, with the minister, where previously the minister did not have it. The minister will be able to select those three people who are going to be sitting there and to give direction with respect to how those processes will be heard.

Two acts ago, there used to be a provision where you could in fact make direct appeals to cabinet: when, in the eyes of the property owner, an application was unfair, through that appeal process you could have a review panel and have that reviewed. That will no longer exist, because this minister now has that jurisdictional authority -- it's exclusively and solely in the minister's power, without reference to cabinet.

There are a bunch more like that -- omissions that have come forward in this act, in those sections -- and they are going to have profound effect on British Columbians who are going to be faced with having to pay tax. What they will do is put up both the costs of appeal . . . . And I think the member for Richmond East quite correctly pointed out that now, under this proposition, it's going to be much, much more expensive for people who wish to have their appeals heard, because there's now a cost associated with that appeal and that is something that needs to be done. I don't need to underscore that; I think the member for Richmond East was very clear in her remarks.

Secondly, it will eliminate opportunities that people, especially rural British Columbians, have right now with respect to the protection of land, either through the hobby farm classification or because they have property that is undeveloped or maybe even deemed to be "forest" in their application. Those little exemptions are gone, and that's going to capture a huge bunch of British Columbians who right now have been able to shelter a portion of their property tax. They will no longer find that shelter available to them.

So I cannot support Bill 21. I think this is a very slick sleight of hand, in a way, to try to dress up as housekeeping an assessment amendment act that in fact has some profound implications for British Columbians -- especially rural British Columbians, who, if this act passes, are going to find that they will become even more indebted with respect to their land tax obligations. Therefore I think that this bill should be defeated, and I will vote against it.

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

Leave granted.

J. Wilson: Today we have, from my riding of Cariboo North and from the community of Wells, a contingent of students and parents from Wells Barkerville Elementary School. We have 13 students and two parents, and they're accompanied by the principal, Mr. Den Otter. I ask that the House make them welcome.

Deputy Speaker: I recognize the minister, to close debate.

Hon. J. Kwan: I'm delighted to have the opportunity to close debate on Bill 21. Many questions have been raised by the members opposite -- some of which I will have the opportunity to respond to in more detail when we enter committee stage.

Generally speaking, with respect to some of the issues that the hon. member for Richmond East identified out of the Semmens report . . . . The report was done a couple of years ago. There were basically recommendations that give general strategies, if you will. There were three components within the general strategies that were recommended: one was around the issue of coordination for building multilevel relationships; another was really the backbone of the assessment appeal procedure -- injecting management rigour and discipline; and the third was based on flexibility by promoting and using different approaches.

In part, the amendments to the Assessment Amendment Act, Bill 21, are precisely to put some of those strategic ideas in place in an attempt to reduce the backlog, to address the issue of access by the public to information and to more effectively go through the resolution process with a less adversarial approach. I also want to say that while the reform package today is legislative, there are also non-legislative elements to the reform package that was introduced in January of 1998. The concerns of various participants in the appeal process have been identified through different mechanisms, and an

[ Page 8266 ]

attempt to reduce that backlog and to address some of those concerns is being looked into through Bill 21, as well as through non-legislative means.

Major structural reforms to the board, which were announced in January of 1998, included the appointment of a new chair and five full-time vice-chairs. The vice-chair positions are being filled by open competition, and this process is actually nearing completion. I just spoke with my staff yesterday, and I know that four of the five full-time vice-chairs have now been selected and will be on stream very shortly. This reflects a shift toward a case management approach which will increase efficiency and help reduce the backlog of appeals.

When we think about the appeal procedure within British Columbia and the statistics in general, I'm advised that out of all the appeals that do come through the appeal procedure, it was about 2 percent of the owners in 1997. In comparison to other jurisdictions . . . . I know that Ontario this year forecast a total of some 600,000 appeals, which will bring them up to about 15 percent in terms of the number of appeals within their jurisdiction. Another

article which I read, citing a jurisdiction in the United States . . . . It was about taxes in the Houston area. They cited something like a 25 percent appeal caseload.

What I'm saying is that while I acknowledge that there are a lot of issues within the appeal procedure, which is why we brought in Bill 21: to address some of those procedural issues that have been identified throughout the last number of years . . . . Along with Bill 21, we also have mechanisms in place that are non-legislative in nature to advance efficiency and to cut red tape within the procedural component of this. I know that the members have concerns around costs; we're all concerned about costs within government.

One of the reasons why we want to look at ways of reducing costs by cutting red tape through Bill 21 is precisely to look at some of those opportunities. But the question becomes: how do you measure the reduction of costs in terms of savings? Is the measurement necessarily the amount of dollars allocated to each case? Or are we looking at different ways of doing government work that will enhance efficiency within government, thereby doing more with less? This is what we hope to do with this bill today.

I look forward to debate in committee stage with the members across the floor as we work toward enhancing the assessment appeal process in British Columbia through the Assessment Amendment Act.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Second reading of Bill 21 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

Lovick

Ramsey

Farnworth

Waddell

Hartley

Sihota

Smallwood

Sawicki

Bowbrick

Kasper

Doyle

Giesbrecht

Janssen

NAYS -- 31

Sanders

C. Clark

Farrell-Collins

de Jong

Plant

Abbott

Reid

Neufeld

Coell

Chong

Whittred

Jarvis

Anderson

Nettleton

G. Wilson

Weisgerber

Weisbeck

Nebbeling

Hogg

Hawkins

Coleman

Stephens

Hansen

Thorpe

Symons

Barisoff

Dalton

Masi

Krueger

McKinnon

J. Wilson

Bill 21, Assessment 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.

[3:45]

Hon. D. Lovick: In Committee A, we will resume the estimates debate for the Ministry of Small Business, Tourism and Culture. In this House, I call second reading of Bill 23.

PARK AMENDMENT ACT, 1998

(second reading)

Hon. C. McGregor: I move that the bill be now read a second time.

Throughout this government's administration, we have taken significant steps to protect some of the most beautiful and precious areas of our province. Through the success of the protected-areas strategy and innovative land use planning processes, 10.6 percent of the province is now dedicated to protected-area status. Since January 1992, more than 280 protected areas or additions to existing sites have been announced, encompassing about 400 million hectares. This expansion of our outstanding system of protected areas is unprecedented in our province's history.

It has made British Columbia a recognized leader in environmental protection and conservation -- not only here in Canada but also globally. And we will continue to add to this natural legacy as future land use planning processes conclude. This bill contributes to the government's environmental stewardship goals by ensuring that the areas which make up our outstanding parks system are properly protected.

Most of the legal descriptions being replaced by this bill are in the Kamloops area. The reason for this is that the Kamloops LRMP was the first subregional plan completed in the province. It was completed in 1995. Some difficulties were encountered in translating the planning table's intended boundaries to written metes and bounds legal descriptions. The difficulties they encountered included the varying map scales and standards; the difficulty in locating the point of commencement; different understandings as to where the

[ Page 8267 ]

boundary was actually located; and difficulty in checking the actual location of a metes and bounds description. Provincial land management agencies have learned a lot through this process. As a result, a new way to designate protected areas has been devised.

This bill would have originally replaced the written metes and bounds descriptions for 30 of the new parks resulting from this planning process with the new map descriptions. However, with some recent hard work we've been able to complete an additional 11 mapped boundaries. Amendments to incorporate these new legal descriptions are now standing in Orders of the Day. The 41 new map descriptions use consistent mapping standards and are more accurate, more understandable and easier to locate on the ground.

They more closely reflect the intent of the planning tables' recommendations, which were accepted by government. Indeed, the maps themselves have been signed off by the planning tables and represent their consensus on the boundaries of the parks. We expect to use this new process for future parks and protected areas identified through strategic land use plans. We also expect to update all existing park boundaries using the maps over the next five or six years.

As such, this bill is the first step in a multi-year process to clarify park boundaries and make them more understandable. This bill also incorporates corrections to the legal descriptions and area figures of some parks in schedules C and D. The changes to the legal descriptions are the result of improved surveys and checking of parks since they were established. Making these changes will clarify the boundaries of these parks.

In

summary, this bill ensures that the boundaries of 47 parks are correctly described and therefore adequately protected. A new process which is more accurate and understandable is being adopted. This bill is a further step in ensuring the protection of our outstanding park resources.

M. Coell: Hon. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to offer some comments on Bill 23. The opposition will support this bill. It is very much a housekeeping bill. It is very helpful, I think, for all people of British Columbia to know exactly where their parks are and exactly what the government is going to attempt to -- and, hopefully, successfully -- protect on their behalf.

We have 650 parks in the province, all of which are going to have to go through this process and come before the House -- probably an estimated five years to complete this project. In the meantime you'll see members of the opposition pressing the government to move ahead with this new, more accurate way of describing parks in British Columbia. I think it's important -- in that, as I said, we have 650 parks -- that we know where they are, what exactly their boundaries are, in order to protect and preserve them. The idea that this alone will protect and preserve parks isn't really going to happen.

A lot more than this will be needed to protect and preserve parks in British Columbia in the future.

On this side of the House we reaffirm our support for the 12 percent figure for parks, green spaces and ecosystems within this province, and we'll work to see that completed in the next years. I believe this is a positive start in that it will allow forestry, mining and tourism to know exactly where park boundaries are much easier than in the past, and there will be fewer conflicts within those sectors. I think the ministry and government can't rest knowing that this new way of delineating parks is in place; there is a lot more that will need to be done.

We will be looking to make sure that staff, protection of the present parks, the development of parks and the development of management plans for the parks are all put into place in a timely fashion. But I think this is simply a positive step in the delineation and description of park boundaries. I look forward to a number of questions during committee stage.

J. Weisgerber: I certainly want to support the concept and the notion of mapping as opposed to a description of metes and bounds. The GPS technology and the other things that the ministry has been working on for years have made it absolutely essential that we change the way we describe parks.

[4:00]

My purpose in rising today, however, is to talk about something that I believe is a peripheral or related issue. In the minister's opening remarks, she noted that now in excess of 10 percent of British Columbia is described as protected areas. It was not long ago that this government, particularly under the former leader Mike Harcourt, was talking about 12 percent of British Columbia in parks.

My concern here is to recognize that there is, and must be, a significant difference between a park and a protected area. The establishment of the Northern Rockies wilderness area, the Muskwa-Kechika area, brought that into very sharp focus for me. The LRMP tables both in the North Peace and in Fort Nelson came up with truly innovative ways of recommending to government uses for that marvellous area that would meet the needs of all of players. I observed at the time, and I continue to believe, that we need legislation to reinforce the various goals that were laid out by those LRMP tables.

My purpose in rising today is more to talk about the need for legislation that goes beyond simply spelling out the metes and bounds of parks. We need legislation that defines protected area, defines the consensus that has been reached around multi-use areas. It's troubling to me that we are now starting to talk about these so-called protected areas as parks. I see a subtle shift, and I have a great fear that within a very short period of time -- with the very best intentions of the original proposers of some of these areas -- they are simply going to become parks.

I want to urge the minister, as I've done before, to move forward and to bring in legislation that truly reflects the intention of the communities and of the people who worked in recommending these parks. It's fine for the government to allow consensus-building in the community, in the region; it's fine for government and for the Premier to say: "Yes, we welcome these innovative new recommendations." But if there's no action taken beyond that, then it becomes bureaucratic

interpretation as to the original intent of these land use decisions.

While what we're doing in terms of metes and bounds and boundaries is important, it's far more critical for the ministry -- for Parks generally -- to wrap their minds around the need to adequately define land uses within these protected areas, before the boundaries and the distinctions between land use recommendations become so blurred that five years or a decade from now we will have someone saying: "Oh, indeed, we set a goal of 12 percent. Now we've reached the 12 percent; we have 12 percent parks." You have the bureaucrats within the ministry saying: "A park is a park is a park." Legislation defines what activities can take place in parks and what can't.

I'm going to close, because I realize that I'm getting very near to relevancy on this issue. But I want to take this issue --

[ Page 8268 ]

and I'm going to take every opportunity to remind the minister . . . . As long as I'm around here, until legislation is brought in that meets the commitment and the intent of those communities, I will continue to take every opportunity to raise this issue. I will remind the minister not only of the intent of the community and the consensus-builders but of the commitment of the Premier to in fact bring in legislation which would clearly spell out the intent of the community. With that, I'll close.

The Speaker: The minister closes debate.

Hon. C. McGregor: I'd like to thank the members opposite for their succinct and, I would say, totally relevant comments on many questions related to parks in the province.

While the Park Amendment Act is not specifically about many of the matters that were raised by the critic and the member opposite for Peace River South, I too agree with what the member is saying about the need for new tools to be able to manage what we've really evolved in British Columbia through communities and the land use planning process: a way to create parks and protected areas and to think about how we manage our provincial resources in a different way; a way that respects multiple users -- people who use and extract resources from regions of the province as well as those who value conservation and wish to have areas preserved for all time.

The tools that we've got through the Park Act, I would agree, need some change and amendment. That's one of the reasons why this government, and this ministry in particular, put such a huge commitment into the Parks Legacy process and review.

I think the member may want to take the opportunity, if he hasn't already, to make a submission on that question to the Parks Legacy panel, because they will have the opportunity to recommend to government potential changes through which we can best manage our park system. That might well be the route that the member may wish to pursue. I'd also say that I am aware of the Premier's commitment, as well, around Muskwa-Kechika in particular. I take those commitments very seriously, and I think the member should stay tuned.

Finally, I would like to thank the members opposite for their support for the new method of mapping our parks. I think, as the critic opposite noted in particular, that it will indeed make it simpler for all of us to understand exactly where the boundaries of the parks are. It's going to be a useful tool at land use planning tables in any context. From the forestry side, any of us who need to clearly understand boundaries in order to avoid conflict will appreciate this new technology and the efforts needed to bring all of our parks into this new description model so that we will avoid potential concerns and conflicts of uses in the future.

Hon. Speaker, I move second reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

Bill 23, Park 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.

W. Hartley: Hon. Speaker, I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

W. Hartley: Today we have in the precincts some 75 grade 6 students with their accompanying adults and their teacher, Mr. Moffitt, from Cathcart Elementary School in Snohomish, Washington. They're here for comparative government and local history. Please welcome them.

Hon. D. Lovick: Hon. Speaker, I would now like to call second reading of Bill 24.

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 1998

(second reading)

The Speaker: The Attorney General will be here momentarily. We will declare a five-minute recess.

The House recessed from 4:09 p.m. to 4:14 p.m.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I move that Bill 24 now be read a second time.

This bill contains amendments to a number of statutes. I will provide a brief description of each amendment. Bill 24 amends the Court Rules Act and the Evidence Act. These amendments represent another step in government's strategic reforms of the justice system. They will ensure quality standards are met in the protection of Supreme Court transcripts. The changes will streamline and consolidate under the Evidence Act authority governing court reporting and the transcription process.

They will allow the province to develop regulations which will establish quality standards for transcriptions, register reporters and transcribers, and approve transcription firms which can access Provincial and Supreme Court audio tapes.

The legislation will also enable the province to audit court reporting and transcription firms. Overall, these amendments will provide a comprehensive solution to the court reporting and transcription process and will ensure that the public and other justice system users receive the highest quality of transcription services available.

[4:15]

The bill also amends the Crown Proceeding Act to clarify and reconfirm the application of a provision in the Crown Proceeding Act in the light of a recent court decision. The Crown Proceeding Act, enacted in 1974, makes the Crown civilly liable as if it were a person and sets out the scope and limits of that liability. There are equivalent statutes in other common-law provinces of Canada. Prior to 1974, suits against the Crown required the permission of the government.

The amendment will clarify the purpose of

section 3(2)(

a) to provide protection to the Crown respecting government employees' responsibilities of a judicial nature or in connection with the execution of a judicial process. The protection provided in this

section is limited to actions and decisions of a special character -- that is, those which are judicial in nature and which are carried out properly according to established principles of administrative law. This

section embodies a long-established principle of common law and is also present in the equivalent statutes of the other common-law provinces of Canada.

The amendments to the Employment Standards Act will reduce by two years the time period that employers must keep payroll and flexible work

schedule records. This change will reduce the paper burden for business while still maintain-

[ Page 8269 ]

ing current protection for workers. The bill also amends two

definitions in the Evidence Act relating to the peer review process for monitoring quality assurance and initiating disciplinary proceedings.

The definition of "health care professional" will be amended to include members of an organization designated by regulation. Under the Hospital Act, to permit other practitioners to practise within hospitals, designation by regulation will ensure that those practitioners are eligible for membership on the hospital committees referred to in

section 51. The current definition of "organization of health care professions" will be replaced with one that allows the list of organizations to be revised from time to time by regulation as new organizations are formed or current ones renamed. It is anticipated that all the organizations currently listed in the act and the College of Midwives will be included in the new regulation.

Section 17 of the Health Professions Act deals with the boards of health profession colleges. In this bill,

section 17(3) is amended to clarify that it is only after the first election that the board must consist of at least three persons elected in accordance with the bylaws and at least two person appointed by the minister. This will provide the flexibility to enlarge a first board, fill vacancies on it or make other necessary changes in composition during the period that a college is being established and before the first board election is held. This change will be retroactive to March 14, 1991, the date on which the Health Professions Act came into effect.

The bill also expressly validates any appointments to and actions of all first boards so that such appointments or actions cannot be challenged.

Section 26(1) of the Hospital Act is amended to eliminate the requirement that some positions on the board of the Hospitals Foundation of British Columbia be filled by appointees selected from a list of British Columbia Health Association nominees. This reflects the fact that the British Columbia Health Association was dissolved as a result of regionalization in 1997 and is no longer able to provide nominees for the board. The amendment will allow the foundation to continue its work of encouraging and facilitating activities that increase the financial support of hospitals.

The final amendments in this bill are made to the Tobacco Tax Act to counteract the effects of an adverse Court of Appeal decision in October 1997, in which the province was unable to recover $6.5 million in unremitted taxes.

In addition, the proposed amendments add a new provision to authorize the province to assess a tobacco dealer for failure to pay a security on tobacco acquired for resale. It is critical that the province address this weakness in the legislation. All tobacco taxes are collected by 60 wholesalers, who then remit the tax to the province. As individual wholesalers remit up to $10 million a month in tax, an inability to recover unremitted taxes poses substantial risk to the $480 million in annual tobacco tax revenue. Without these amendments, the province remains unable to enforce the tax remittance from wholesalers. That concludes my remarks.

G. Plant: I recognize that this is a miscellaneous statutes amendment act and that the opportunity for more extensive debate on particular provisions will present itself at the committee stage of debate. There are some provisions here that I think will be the subject of debate when we get to committee stage. Because some of these provisions raise a few questions that might take the bill as a whole beyond the category of being a purely housekeeping statute, I thought I would spend a few minutes canvassing, relatively briefly, some of the issues that are raised by the various parts of this bill.

The Attorney General spoke about the changes to the Evidence Act and the Court Rules Act around court transcriptions. Essentially, what these do in

part is create or reorganize regulation-making powers in respect of what constitutes the official record of a court proceeding, the regulation of the preparation of official transcripts and things like that -- all important parts of the process of ensuring that in our courts we have the ability to keep an accurate record of what is happening.

The Attorney General spoke about these amendments in the context of what the government calls its strategic reform of the justice system. Mr. Speaker, you and the hon. members may recall that one element of that so-called reform was the decision which the government made, in about February of 1997, to do away with the use of court reporters in Supreme Court trials and to replace court reporters with tape recorders. What now happens in, I think, probably the vast majority of Supreme Court trials is that there's a recording apparatus that records the proceedings.

If there is a need for some transcript or official record of the proceeding, then the process is that the services of a transcription agency are retained, and some arrangements are made to transcribe the proceedings from the tape.

This decision by government had a significant impact on a group of very dedicated professionals in British Columbia, who are the court reporters. Over time, governments have made decisions which have circumscribed the work that court reporters do, and when that happens, there is a threat of loss of employment. Of course, in the case of court reporters, these are people who have spent years of their lives acquiring the necessary skill and who sometimes have spent lots of money buying the equipment that they need to do their job.

So the impact of the decision that the government made, in respect of bringing traditional court-reporting services to an end in the Supreme Court, was to jeopardize the livelihood of many court reporters.

What these amendments do is create a new regulatory framework for the transcription of proceedings in court. They extend to, for example, examinations for discovery. I think that it may well be that the government's intentions here are more in the interest of ensuring that there is regulatory efficiency, quality standards and quality control, as the Attorney General indicated in his remarks.

If that is the ambit of the government's intention here, then these provisions will not be opposed by us. But there will be questions raised during the committee stage debate, I think, about whether the government intends here, for example, to make further changes or impose further limitations on the role of court reporters in our legal system. If that's not the government's intention, then I think there'll be a fairly short debate on those provisions. We'll discover that in committee stage debate.

Another change made in this bill is an amendment to the Crown Proceeding Act. I believe I understand a little bit of the context of the government's intentions here in terms of clarifying an issue raised by a judicial decision: ensuring that the Crown Proceeding Act achieves its intended purposes in respect of making the Crown -- the government -- liable when the circumstances are right.

I just want to make the comment that the Attorney General referred to the fact that the Crown Proceeding Act in British Columbia dates from 1974. We don't have an endless history in our system of laws and government of the Crown admitting that it will be liable in the courts of British Columbia in the same way that other citizens are liable. The interesting

[ Page 8270 ]

thing is that the government tends to define for itself the circumstances in which it will be liable. I think that every time we speak about whether the government should be liable as a matter of law for some tort or for some civil wrong -- or for the kind of action that was talked about in the court case that I think is part of the context for this amendment -- I think it's useful for us to remember that the government is always in a position different from ordinary civil litigants. The government can say: "We choose not to be liable for these kinds of things."

In this respect, it's interesting that in the particular provision we're looking at here -- with respect to the immunity which the government says it needs to have in respect of those people who perform judicial proceedings -- the immunity is not quite the same, in my view, as the immunity as described in other provinces in Canada.

It may not be much of a distinction, but if anything, I think the provisions of the Crown Proceeding Act which are being amended here, even after the amendment, will be more generous in terms of the Crown's liability to citizens than are the provisions in similar statutes across Canada. I think it's useful to be aware of that distinction, because it's not something that happens automatically or necessarily. It doesn't happen just because it happens; it happens because the Legislature chooses to make it happen by passing the Crown Proceeding Act.

Changes to the Employment Standards Act raise an issue or two which I think will be discussed in committee stage.

I want to talk for a moment about the changes to the Tobacco Tax Act, which I expect will be discussed in committee. One of the issues raised here is the issue of retroactivity; that is, when it is discovered that a law of the province does not have the effect which the government wants it to have, there's a temptation for government to fix the problem not just for all of the cases that will arise from this point forward but also retroactively to kind of undo the problem back in time.

That is a tendency which I think, generally speaking, needs to be resisted. I don't think, generally speaking, that governments should enact retroactive legislation, because the citizens of the province have a right to depend on the laws of the province with some certainty and stability as they order their lives, regulate their affairs, conduct their business and so on.

If government is constantly changing the law in a way that operates retroactively, then people have to go back and revisit the transactions that took place three, four or five years ago, in some cases, depending on how far back the retroactivity goes. If we allow government to do that too often, then we lose some of the stability and the certainty which I think is essential to the proper conduct of a free and democratic society likely to create economic prosperity.

[4:30]

The whole idea of retroactivity has special twists and turns, I think, when you look at taxation law. I think it's fair to observe that people often plan their business affairs around certain expectations about what the tax laws are. Their expectations include an expectation that government is not going to change the rules and make new rules in respect of things that happened three or four years ago.

On the other hand, of course, we all want to make sure that taxpayers don't enjoy an unfair advantage or conduct themselves in a way that looks illegal, only to escape liability because of some extraordinarily technical decision by a court that creates unfairness not just for the parties to it but also for all taxpayers. In this case, the changes to the Tobacco Tax Act are made retroactive to March 31, 1992. Well, that's six years.

We'll find out some more about this when we discuss these issues in committee stage debate, but if that's six years of people regulating their lives in a way that most of us would consider fair and reasonable, then I think there will be some problems. I think that if the government failed to express itself clearly when it drafted a tax statute, then it's not always an open-and-shut question in my mind that the government should be allowed to fix its own error at the expense of taxpayers five or six years later.

This is a part of this bill that I actually think will probably excite some debate when we get to committee stage. Those are, I think, perhaps the most important issues that arise in what is, generally speaking, properly a miscellaneous statutes amendment act. I look forward to committee stage debate, when we can explore these issues more thoroughly.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Without making any further remarks, I move second reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

Bill 24, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 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. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 25.

FAMILY RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT, 1998

(second reading)

Hon. U. Dosanjh: This bill will amend the Family Relations Act to include specific references to parents, grandparents and others in the rules the court uses to make child custody and access orders. I want to pay tribute here, before I go any further, to the member for Richmond East, the member for Kootenay and the member for Burnaby-Edmonds, who have worked on this issue. If they hadn't brought this issue to my attention, it probably wouldn't be here today. I failed to recognize that during the introduction of the legislation, and I want to correct that error.

When I was speaking to the press outside the House, though, I did refer to the member for Richmond East as well as the other members of the House who had lobbied me to deal with this matter.

The wording of the act is broad enough now to allow the court to grant custody or access to anyone, including grandparents, where it's in the child's best interests to do so. However, by specifying that the people who can apply for custody or access include a child's parents, grandparents, relatives and other people who have a close relationship with the child, the amendments clearly acknowledge the important role that these people may play in the child's life. Grandparents and others with whom a child has a close relationship can make important contributions to the child's growth and development. Where it is in the child's best interests it is important to preserve these relationships.

There was an argument made that we didn't need to specify these relationships in the legislation; however, I believe that with this specification in the legislation once these amendments are passed, the courts will know that the overriding principle in determining child custody and access arrangements is the best interests of the child. The best interests of the children are always paramount; however, once that

[ Page 8271 ]

is taken into account, no one has a superior right to anyone else with respect to child custody and access. It is always the best interests of the children that are paramount. If it is in the best interests of the children that grandparents have custody and/or access as opposed to the parent or parents, the court will decide that. This simply gives explicit recognition to the fact that grandparents, like anyone else, are entitled to have a close relationship.

It is not just the entitlement of the grandparents or the parents; it is the entitlement of the children to have a close relationship with those individuals who are part of their lives: grandparents, parents, aunts, uncles or anyone else.

With those remarks, I will sit down and hear what's to be said.

Deputy Speaker: Perhaps I could ask the Attorney to move second reading of the bill.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: With those words, hon. Speaker, I will obey your order and move second reading.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you. I recognize the member for Richmond East.

L. Reid: I am delighted to rise this afternoon and debate the Family Relations Amendment Act, Bill 25. I would commend the Attorney General on his wisdom on this question. His bill bears a remarkable resemblance to mine, Bill M207. I believe that this is an opportunity for both of us to pay tribute to the Canadian Grandparents Rights Association, which has lobbied both of us extensively over the last two years. Certainly in my case it's been two years. I believe that their passion and their commitment deserve the recognition of this Legislature. I would take this opportunity to thank the Attorney General for his wisdom on this question.

Certainly we talk about the relationship that grandparents enjoy with their grandchildren, but the reverse is absolutely true: we need to honour, as well, the relationship that grandchildren enjoy with their grandparents. This is about the right of access. That is understood equally, I believe, by both parties -- both by the Attorney General and I today, but certainly by the Canadian Grandparents Rights Association and grandchildren in this province who truly wish, who truly desire, an ongoing relationship with their grandparents.

The Attorney General will know that I've spoken many times in this chamber regarding the constancy of nurturing children. It's vitally important to their well-being and to the well-being of families in this province. Many, many issues have come to pass regarding foster care and the care of children in this province that could be assisted by the inclusion of grandparents and extended family members, because I believe they have an opportunity -- and, frankly, an obligation in many instances -- to come forward.

I fully acknowledge the Attorney's comments when he talks about the best interests of the child. I too come to this debate from that perspective. I was a teacher in this province for ten years, and nothing is more alarming to children than family separation. The anguish that they experience, the dilemmas that prevent them from succeeding in school or from having useful peer relationships . . . . All of those things are paramount to this debate this afternoon. Frankly, it's an ongoing discussion around the future of family. As we head into the next millennium, we will be discussing new

definitions of family. For us to have legislatively excluded individuals who have, I believe, a tremendous desire -- they have no other motivation than to be involved in their children's and their grandchildren's upbringing . . . . For us to have excluded them in the past has been wrong. It has been heart-wrenching to many families in this province, and indeed this Legislature has not deserved their respect in the past.

I believe that this amendment will improve the situation for many families in this province and will at least raise the spectre of awareness around the necessity for families to stay involved in children's lives. They should be there when these issues first come before the courts. They should be there at times of family disruption so that they are aware of the placements and the decisions that will affect their grandchildren, because it affects the relationship that they have with those youngsters. That is the honour I wish to pay today to the essence of the relationship.

It's important that we do our best as legislators, and I've asked the House on many occasions to advance this issue in our ridings, because it's the essence of the relationship that's vitally important.

We all stand at home in our constituencies, talking about how we believe in family, so we have to honour that commitment by putting in place the mechanisms that allow people easier access to grandchildren. I have many grandparents who have lobbied me over the years, who have said that there's nothing more exciting in their lives than the birth of a grandchild. We all know that grandparents are living a lot longer. They will be active and vital and able to participate in those relationships for far greater periods of time than ever before.

To honour that and to say upfront that it's indeed important not to discount grandparents . . . . I know that decisions taken in the past have often been taken on the basis of age -- that somehow a 60-year-old was not in a position to be the person in the best interests of that child. Frankly, we know that that's not a valid generalization.

It is only a generalization, and at some point we have to recognize and evaluate individually -- certainly, if we're doing that for the best interests of the child -- to assess the grandparent or the parent or the extended-family member who wishes to participate in that young person's life. It's absolutely, vitally important.

I continue to admire the individuals who are members of the Canadian Grandparents Rights Association, because they have fought this battle far longer than I. They believe fundamentally in what they're doing. They lobbied extensively and assisted individuals in Alberta when legislation came down on May 29 of last year. They worked extensively with individuals in the province of Quebec, which has had this legislation for more than a decade. They know full well that what they are asking is about increased responsibility for them. They accept that. They acknowledge that.

They believe in it because they believe in family. I think that this Legislature can pay no greater tribute than what the Attorney General has brought forward today, and again I thank him most sincerely.

We talk often about children. I would like to see us, when we talk about United Nations discussions around children, expand our thinking to include grandchildren. They are all children, and they are all individuals who require some sensitivity, some delicacy on these questions about who might be there for them -- to mediate their lives, to nurture them as, hopefully, they go through into adulthood and make some reasonable decisions. At the end of the day, all of us want better citizenry for this province and this country.

We want young people who appreciate the benefits that they have and who are prepared to give something back to the communities in which they live. Those are things that we all believe in as parliamentarians. Those are issues that we will continue to advance as parliamentarians.

[ Page 8272 ]

I believe it's vitally important that we acknowledge that the essence of the debate today is about what type of society we might like in five, ten or 15 years from now and about who gets to participate in the upbringing of children. We've tended to very selectively decide over the years who is excluded. I welcome the Attorney General's comments, when he talks about making this discussion more inclusive. There will be parameters that decide the best interests of the child, but more people will be able to participate in that discussion and participate in that decision.

That is all to the good, and again I would thank the Attorney General most sincerely for bringing forward this issue. At some point both he and I, hopefully, will be grandparents, and we will want to participate in the upbringing of children who will make some contribution as we go forward.

G. Plant: I'm pleased to be able to rise and join in the debate on Bill 25, the Family Relations Amendment Act, and to first of all say that I think that the possibility presented by this bill is a possibility we should pause and think about for a moment -- the fact that from time to time we on both sides of the House can agree on issues.

There is a role for members of the opposition, as my colleague the member for Richmond East has shown over the months and years she has pursued this initiative, and there's a role for the Attorney's colleagues on the back bench, who have pursued him on this issue -- a role that speaks to the possibility of working together for constructive change.

Even if the change is a modest one, it's a constructive, positive change, and I for one wish that there were more opportunities where we as a House could come together on issues that don't, I think, raise partisan or ideological questions, but rather simply speak to issues of common concern to British Columbians on all sides of the House.

So I want to rise partly to express my respect for my colleague for Richmond East and for the minister's colleagues who have pursued the minister on this issue, and to express my delight that the minister has yielded on this occasion, has seen the wisdom of the idea and brought it forward for our consideration in the House.

[4:45]

The other thing I want to say is that I recognize that this bill does not, of course, answer all of the questions about the role of grandparents or anybody else in family breakups. I find almost every aspect of the way the law regulates and deals with the consequences of failed relationships, including failed marriages, to be a source of distress to me. It was a source of distress to me in my life as a practitioner of law and continues to be a source of distress to me now that I respond to concerns from constituents who don't find that the legal system serves their interests very well when they are living through the hell of a broken marriage or a broken relationship.

What's important, I think, is that the legal system not erect artificial or unnecessary barriers to ensure that those who are in charge of making the decisions about the consequences of broken marriages can do so in the best interests of the parties -- free from arbitrary or artificial constraints. I think what this bill does most of all is reduce or eliminate a potentially artificial constraint on the decisions that need to be made about the best interests of children. It says to the courts that when they are looking at what the best interests of the child are, grandparents, aunts, uncles -- almost anyone -- are entitled to be considered in that equation.

There is of course a certain element of, I suppose, almost circularity, in that the fundamental question is: what is the best interest of the child? Some may argue that it will always be in the better interest of the child to have a certain bias in favour of parents or relatives, as opposed to others. I don't think that this bill resolves that debate. What this bill says is that the debate around who has the right of access or custody is a debate that has everybody on the playing field, more or less in terms of equality, as the Attorney General has said.

It still leaves it to the courts to make the decision, as I think we must do for now in those cases where there is no agreement and where there is a dispute. But it ensures that people who, judged by any commonsense perspective, may and in most cases will have common, important ties of affection to members of the family, including the children of a broken marriage -- people like grandparents, aunts and uncles, siblings, other relatives and sometimes friends, neighbours, people from down the street who have had a long, close relationship with the child . . . .

All those people ought to be included in the picture when the judge has to make a decision. This bill will remove the obstacle that may have existed and ensure that all of those people can be considered. I think that that is a worthy step forward, and I am pleased to be able to say that I'll be supporting this bill.

D. Jarvis: I rise as well to speak to Bill 25, the Family Relations Amendment Act, 1998, which basically deals with the best interests of children in one aspect. I have to compliment the government for bringing this forward. This is probably the first time since I was elected in 1991 that I have felt that every aspect of a bill has no flaw in it. It's an agreeable bill . . .

Interjection.

D. Jarvis: . . . although the bill is short, as one of my colleagues said. On that basis, I also would like to say a special thanks to my colleague from Richmond East, for she has sensibly brought this forward two or three times over the past years as a private member's bill. She herself has a few credits to be considered for bringing this bill forward to us.

I first entered politics back in '91, as I said. I can recall that at that time, during the first couple of days after the writ was dropped, I was asked to attend the Elder College up at Capilano College to discuss some aspects of grandparents. Actually, at the time I had . . . . I don't