2004 Legislative Session: 5th Session, 37th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, MAY 13, 2004

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 25, Number 12

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading

of Bills

Administrative Tribunals Act (Bill

56)

Hon. G.

Plant

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act

(No. 2), 2004 (Bill 54)

Hon. G.

Plant

Teaching Profession Amendment Act,

2004 (Bill 55)

Hon. T.

Christensen

Financial Institutions Statutes

Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 39)

Hon. G.

Collins

Statements (Standing Order 25 B )

Services for special needs children

Brenzinger

Surrey police awards

D. Hayer

Land title and survey authority

J. Bray

Oral Questions

Government contracts with Doug Walls

J. Kwan

Hon. C.

Clark

Recommendations from audit involving

Doug Walls

J. MacPhail

Hon. C.

Clark

Political activities by teachers

W. McMahon

Hon. T.

Christensen

Reforms to legislation on

representation agreements

R. Lee

Hon. G.

Plant

Second Reading of Bills

Electoral Reform Referendum Act (Bill

52)

Hon. G.

Plant

J. MacPhail

Hon. G.

Plant

Ministerial Accountability Bases Act,

2004-2005 (Bill 49)

Hon. G.

Collins

Committee of the Whole House

Real Estate Services Act (Bill 41)

J. MacPhail

D. Jarvis

Hon. G.

Collins

Mayencourt

Suffredine

P. Sahota

R. Sultan

Reporting of Bills

Real Estate Services Act (Bill 41)

Third Reading of Bills

Real Estate Services Act (Bill 41)

Second Reading of Bills

International Financial Activity Act

(Bill 53)

Hon. G.

Collins

K. Whittred

Suffredine

Hon. I.

Chong

J. Bray

R. Sultan

Mayencourt

Royal Assent to Bills

Cremation, Interment and Funeral Services Act

(Bill 3)

College and Institute Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 26)

Agricultural Land Commission Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 27)

Passenger Transportation Act (Bill 30)

Forests Statutes Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 33)

Provincial Revenue Statutes Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 34)

Partnership Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 35)

Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services Statutes Amendment Act, 2004

(Bill 36)

Securities Act (Bill 38)

Real Estate Services Act (Bill 41)

Real Estate Development Marketing Act (Bill 42)

Highway (Industrial) Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 46)

Transportation Act (Bill 47)

[ Page 11091 ]

THURSDAY, MAY 13, 2004

The House

met at 2:04 p.m.

Introductions by Members

Hayer: I rise today to welcome 185 students from William F. Davidson

Elementary School, their teacher Ms. J. Buckham and the dedicated parents who

have taken time out of their busy schedules to escort these kids to the

Legislature this week.

[1405]

As well,

yesterday from my constituency of Tynehead, I missed one class. I would also

like to recognize the ten ESL students and their teacher, Mr. Jim Douglas, who

visited us from the Pacific Academy yesterday, and thank them for visiting the

parliament building to learn about our system of government in British Columbia.

Would the House please make them all very welcome.

Hon. M.

de Jong: In spite of the efforts of the member for Surrey-Tynehead, students

from Bradner Elementary in Abbotsford were able to secure a bus early this

morning. I'm pleased to say that those 31 grades 6 and 7 students, their

teachers and some parents are here in the precincts. I hope members will make

them welcome.

Hon. I.

Chong: It is truly a privilege to welcome eight very special guests who are

here with us in the gallery today. They have travelled a long distance, some of

them all the way from Hong Kong. I had the pleasure of having lunch with them

earlier along with a number of my colleagues, and now they've just returned from

a tour of Legislature.

Our guests

include the Permanent Secretary for Home Affairs for the Hong Kong special

administrative region government, Ms. Shelley Lee. I would add that Ms. Lee is

the very first Permanent Secretary of Home Affairs and the first woman director

for Home Affairs for Hong Kong. Accompanying Ms. Lee are other members of her

delegation, also from Hong Kong. They are Mr. Peter Wynn Williams from the Hong

Kong Ballet board of governors and Ms. Helen Ng, Hong Kong Ballet chief

executive officer.

Also

joining us today are people from Toronto: Mr. Bassonio So, the director of Hong

Kong Economic and Trade Office in Canada, the chief representative of the Hong

Kong special administrative region government in Canada; as well, Mr. John Tam,

the chief information officer with the Toronto office. From Vancouver we have

three other guests: Mr. Brian Lo, who is the chair of the Hong Kong Ballet

Vancouver performance organizing committee and the vice-chair of the Chinese

Cultural Centre of greater Vancouver; and Ms. Catherine Yuen, principal

consultant, again from the Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office, but the location

is in Vancouver. They've brought along a photographer who is recording their

trip to the Victoria and Vancouver area, and that's Mr. Roger Chan. Would the

House please join me in making them all very welcome here today.

Hon. G.

Collins: I want to ask members of the House to help me make welcome today 45

grade 5 students from the Vancouver Talmud Torah School. They're here today with

— and I apologize if I don't get all the names right; I'll do my best — Ms.

Andrea Millman, Mr. Elizar Rocheff, Ms. Ruthie Axelrod, Ms. Lily Biskila, Fred

Cohen and Ms. Florence Lapidis. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. L.

Reid: Today we are visited by a tiny little girl by the name of Grace

Haugen. She was brought down from Duncan for a quick visit today by my dear

friend Ms. Lynda Turney. I'd ask the House to make them all very welcome.

Mr.

Speaker: Hon. members, earlier this afternoon I had the pleasure of hosting

a luncheon for the Canadian information and privacy commissioners who are in

Victoria this week for their annual meeting. During the course of their meeting,

these national, provincial and territorial commissioners will be exchanging

information and examining privacy implications of new technologies. Would the

House please join with me and with the members of the Special Committee to

Review the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to welcome our

distinguished guests to Victoria.

Hon. G.

Abbott: One of the legislative interns that works very hard in the

Legislature here…. I think he labours on behalf of the opposition but,

nevertheless, does a great job. He's a Sicamous boy who is carrying on the proud

tradition of Sicamous kids coming down here and showing people how to do things

in Victoria. He is today joined by his mother, Anita, and stepfather, Oliver

Mark, to see how this great assembly works. I'd like you all to join in making

them welcome.

[1410]

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS ACT

Hon. G.

Plant presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled

Administrative Tribunals Act.

Hon. G.

Plant: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion

approved.

Hon. G.

Plant: I am pleased to introduce the Administrative Tribunals Act. In

keeping with government's commitment to enhance public confidence in British

Columbia's administrative justice system, this

[ Page 11092 ]

is the second and last major piece of legislation emanating from the reform

work initiated nearly three years ago through the administrative justice office.

This bill

will strengthen British Columbia's position at the forefront of administrative

justice reform within common law jurisdictions by establishing a comprehensive

approach to statutory powers for the province's administrative tribunals. This

bill is a critical step in ensuring that British Columbia has an administrative

justice system that is modernized, fair, efficient and citizen-focused.

British

Columbia's administrative justice institutions have grown over many decades, one

tribunal at a time. The wide and varied array of powers exercised by

administrative tribunals have often been developed in the absence of a

comprehensive or consistent policy framework. The bill I am tabling today is the

product of extensive consultation with individuals interested in administrative

justice issues. It subsumes last year's Administrative Tribunals Appointment and

Administration Act, which created a merit-based appointment process and

clarified the responsibilities of tribunal chairs.

With this

bill we will now have one comprehensive piece of legislation that addresses a

complete array of administrative tribunal practices, powers and procedures

adapted as appropriate for each tribunal. Put simply, this legislation will make

British Columbia's administrative justice institutions more like a system, more

accountable, more consistent and more relevant. The bill will enhance the right

of citizens by making the front line of B.C.'s justice system as accessible and

transparent as it can be.

I move that

the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next

sitting of the House after today.

Bill 56

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.

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 2004

Hon. G.

Plant presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2004.

Hon. G.

Plant: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion

approved.

Hon. G.

Plant: I am pleased to introduce Bill 54, the Miscellaneous Statutes

Amendment Act (No. 2), 2004. This bill makes minor housekeeping changes to a

number of pieces of legislation and makes some more significant changes in order

to deal with a range of issues, including flood and fire emergencies, and to

permit the provincial use of the federal register of electors.

particular, Bill 54 will amend the following statutes: Cremation, Interment and

Funeral Services Act; Election Act; Emergency Program Act; Employee Investment

Act; Employee Investment Amendment Act, 2002; Gaming Control Act; Health

Professions Act; Income Tax Act; Land Title Act; Local Government Act;

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1999; Motion Picture Act;

Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act (No. 3); Probate Fee Act; Public

Safety and Solicitor General Statutes Amendment Act, 2002; Railway Act; School

Act; Vancouver Charter; Video Games Act.

No doubt,

with the full attention of the House, I will elaborate on the nature of these

amendments during the second reading of this bill. I move that the bill be

placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the

House after today.

Bill 54

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.

[1415]

TEACHING PROFESSION

AMENDMENT ACT, 2004

Hon. T.

Christensen presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill

intituled Teaching Profession Amendment Act, 2004.

Hon. T.

Christensen: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion

approved.

Hon. T.

Christensen: I am pleased to introduce Bill 55, the Teaching Profession

Amendment Act, 2004. This act makes a number of changes to the Teaching

Profession Act. In doing so, it delivers on government's commitment that a

majority of the college council will be democratically elected and that the

primary obligation of each council member will be to act independently in

upholding the objectives of the college in the public interest.

The

Teaching Profession Amendment Act, 2004, amends the Teaching Profession Act to

improve the ability of the B.C. College of Teachers to operate in the public

interest and enhance the teaching profession, while respecting the wishes of

teachers to have majority representation on the college council.

The

amendments carry out the following. There will be 12 elected and eight appointed

members of the council for the college. Fifteen of the 20 council members will

be members of the college. Council members will be required to take an oath of

office. The duty to report professional misconduct will be limited to situations

of potential harm to a student. The concept of membership and certification will

be merged. In addition, there are a number of minor amendments to improve the

operation of the college. These legislative changes follow through on advice

that we received

[ Page 11093 ]

from parents, teachers, administrators and trustees to improve the college in

a fair and balanced manner.

I move that

the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next

sitting of the House after today.

Bill 55

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.

FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS STATUTES AMENDMENT

ACT, 2004

Hon. G.

Collins presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled

Financial Institutions Statutes Amendment Act, 2004.

Hon. G.

Collins: I move the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion

approved.

Hon. G.

Collins: I am pleased to introduce the Financial Institutions Statutes

Amendment Act, 2004, which amends the Financial Institutions Act as well as the

Credit Union Incorporation Act. The amendments to the Financial Institutions Act

and the Credit Union Incorporation Act will improve the efficiency and

effectiveness of the regulation of the financial services sector in British

Columbia.

The

amendments will create a streamlined regulatory environment by eliminating

outdated and unnecessary regulatory requirements and unreasonable restraints on

market activity. At the same time, the amendments will enhance consumer

confidence in the financial services sector by allowing regulators to focus on

areas of greatest risk and by strengthening the tools available to the regulator

to effectively intervene when necessary. These amendments will create a

framework for smarter regulation of the financial services sector. This type of

regulation and a competitive tax environment are two ways in which the

government is contributing to the development of British Columbia's financial

services sector — a key part of our economy.

I move the

bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting

of the House after today.

Bill 39

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.

Statements

(Standing Order 25

b) SERVICES FOR SPECIAL NEEDS CHILDREN

Brenzinger: Yesterday's PricewaterhouseCoopers auditors report says that the

taxpayers are shortchanged by approximately $2.6 million. I find it deplorable

that there is this kind of government waste when hard-working taxpayers and

their children are left to do without services.

I recently

met with Surrey parent group representatives who are shocked by the lack of

services for special needs children in our education system. The services to

special needs children in education have been slashed while the number of

special needs children increases yearly. The ministry implemented a new

definition of learning disabilities which does not set functional rules for

qualifying children as learning disabled. This definition is vague.

The

ministry has said that funding is in the core, yet districts are hard-pressed to

find such funds. Severely mentally ill children used to be funded within the

chronic health category, but the ministry has explicitly instructed districts to

move these children into a new category called intensive behaviour support

and/or serious mental illness. In doing so, the funding for these desperately

fragile children fell from $15,000 to $6,000. Surrey has refused to reduce the

services to these children as the potential can be fatal, but funding must come

from somewhere.

Autistic

children are in a new autistic classification created by the ministry that is so

specific that many in the range of autism will end up in an inappropriately

funded category which will be insufficient to cover their needs. Fetal alcohol

syndrome, or FAS, children don't fit any category and therefore are not funded.

These children are not served at all.

[1420]

The cost

for supporting these special needs children is about double of what is actually

being provided by the Ministry of Education. As the needs of these children

overlap ministries, we need a much greater investment of funds from all

ministries in special needs and the child resources in our province.

SURREY POLICE AWARDS

Hayer: It is with great pride that I rise each year to announce the Surrey

Chamber of Commerce Annual Police Awards started eight years ago by my team when

I was chamber president in 1996-97 and continued by the new chamber team. These

awards recognize the outstanding contribution made to the city of Surrey by

those who serve and protect.

Surrey, as

you may know, has the largest detachment of RCMP officers in Canada. It has some

very outstanding officers within its ranks. The annual awards also recognize the

contributions of volunteers, employees and business in assisting Surrey's finest

as they carry out their duties in Surrey.

The Police

Officer of the Year as nominated by their peers, employees and volunteers of the

city of Surrey detachment was chosen from finalists Constables Craig Van Herk,

Derek Evanson, Duanne Honeyman and Rudy Etienne, with Constable Etienne

receiving the award.

Police

Officer of the Year as nominated by the community was a choice between Cpl.

Miriam Booth

[ Page 11094 ]

and Constables Ross Lundie and Tim Shields, with Constable Shields receiving

the award.

The Arnold

Silzer Community Policing Initiative Award was presented to Const. John Meagher.

In the police municipal employee category, the finalists were Amar Gill, Pat

Mullen and Cindy Stogren, with Ms. Stogren being selected as the top employee.

Policing

volunteer of the year was chosen from auxiliary constables Roger Bodel, Bill

Brand and Edith Harper, with Ms. Harper as the winner.

In the

police and the business partnership category, the finalists were Paul Orazetti

of the Cloverdale Business Improvement Association, Don Carr Chevrolet and

S&V Motorcycle World, with Don Carr Chevrolet Oldsmobile receiving the

award.

I would ask

all members of the House to join me in recognizing all award nominees and

winners who were part of the outstanding membership of Surrey's policing

community and all individuals and organizations and businesses who help make

these awards very successful every year.

LAND TITLE AND SURVEY AUTHORITY

J. Bray:

Today the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management announced that a new

authority will oversee the land titles and survey functions in British Columbia.

This new independent authority will improve and expand the province's land title

and survey system. The continuing boom in real estate transactions has pushed

service demand up by as much as 30 percent.

In late

2003 the Law Society of B.C. suggested that government set up a not-for-profit

authority as a way of improving service. Government has accepted that suggestion

and expanded it to include survey as well as land titles services. Government

consulted a wide range of interested groups in developing the plan, including

the First Nations Summit, the Law Society, the Canadian Bar Association, the

Corporation of Land Surveyors of B.C., the Union of B.C. Municipalities, the

B.C. Real Estate Association, the Society of Notaries Public of B.C., the B.C.

Association of Professional Registry Agents and the Better Business Bureau of

Vancouver Island.

Its

headquarters will be located in Victoria, and the Victoria land title office

will remain open. All current government employees will be eligible to transfer

to the authority with existing union, collective agreement and pension benefits.

Of course, this is good news for the Vancouver Island MLAs, including the

members for Victoria-Hillside, Oak Bay–Gordon Head, Saanich South and the

former minister who represents Courtenay-Comox, who all worked with the minister

on behalf of our communities on this issue. This is an excellent example of how

MLAs on this side of the House can work with our communities and ministers to

find solutions to concerns our constituents raise, which in turn benefit the

entire province.

The public

benefits of this authority will be improved service to land title and survey

general users; preserves the integrity of British Columbia's Torrens land title

system; preserves the high quality of the cadastral survey structure with the

eventual ability to guarantee the survey; provides stable, financially

self-sufficient title registry and survey functions; introduces technology and

management systems to meet demands of digital information and respond to

fluctuating market demand.

This is

good news for British Columbians, and I congratulate the minister on delivering

this innovative solution.

Mr.

Speaker: That concludes members' statements.

[1425]

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS

WITH DOUG WALLS

J. Kwan:

Before the last provincial election, Theresa Kieran, an ADM in the Ministry of

Children and Family Development, told Doug Walls that the government would

provide $50,000 a year to help subsidize the cost of connecting CareNet's

non-profit clients to the Internet. Mr. Walls was demanding $600,000. In July

2001, Theresa Kieran is let go. She is replaced by Wayne Ironmonger, someone

Doug Walls identifies early on as a big CareNet booster. Surprise, surprise.

Doug Walls gets everything he wants and much, much more.

Can the

Minister of Children and Family Development explain why the B.C. Liberals…

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please, hon. members. Let's the hear the question.

J. Kwan:

…fired an ADM in the ministry who told Mr. Walls that he could get $50,000 and

no more and then opened up the money taps, handing Mr. Walls over $1.2 million

in taxpayers' money?

Hon. C.

Clark: When the member gets an opportunity to read the report, she may come

forward with some questions that reflect what it actually says.

I'll point

this out to her. The individuals that she's discussing were…. Those personnel

decisions would have been made by someone who also used to work for the NDP,

someone whose first contracts were given by a government when this government

was in power — when the member for Vancouver-Hastings was a member of the

government and was Minister of Finance and when that member was sitting in

cabinet in charge of cooperatives and volunteers and all the rest of the very

big jobs that Glen Clark gave her.

Let's

remember this. When that member stands up and makes references to contracts that

were originally given with Mr. Walls, she is making reference to con-

[ Page 11095 ]

tracts that were made under her government and decisions that were made by

bureaucrats that were originally hired under the NDP.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Hon. members, let us hear both the questions and the answers,

please.

The member

for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has another question.

J. Kwan:

Maybe the problem is with the minister. Maybe she has not read the report.

The e-mail

trail outlined in the audit makes it very clear. The government fired Theresa

Kieran. In May 2001, Doug Walls complained that Theresa Kieran was being tough

with him. She's only offering $50,000 a year, when he wants much more — at

least $20,000 a month.

On July 11,

2001, under this government's authority, Ms. Kieran detailed her troubles with

CareNet in a note to file. She reiterated her position that CareNet only get

$50,000 a year. A few days later Ms. Kieran is given the boot by the Liberal

government, and the government's position changes. Now Doug Walls gets his

money.

Again to

the Minister of Children and Family Development. It's a simple question. Why did

the government change position? Why did the audit not examine the removal of Ms.

Kieran's authority over this file? Why did the government take those actions?

Hon. C.

Clark: I know the NDP is disappointed with the results of this report. I

know the NDP is disappointed that it was released in its entirety so that there

isn't more opportunity for them to speculate. I know, based on the way the

member….

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. We'll wait till we have quiet in the chamber so we

may hear the answer.

Hon. C.

Clark: I know, based on the histrionics of the members opposite yesterday,

they will certainly be very underwhelmed with the way this report deals with

this. The report has been very, very clear. It says that politicians were not

the subject of any undue influence. It also says that politicians didn't have

any influence on these decisions.

Clearly,

the report says it was Chris Haynes that made these decisions. Again, I should

remind the House and remind the opposition that those decisions were being made

by Chris Haynes not just when he was working under this government but also when

he was working under the previous government.

Mr.

Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a further

supplementary.

J. Kwan:

The minister didn't answer my question. Theresa Kieran was fired by this

government. She was hot on the trail, saying that Doug Walls should only get

$50,000.

[1430]

But you

know what? Who is really disappointed? It would be the taxpayers who are

disappointed with this government's mismanagement. In the report it lists over

$2.3 million in money spent by government and social service agencies to fund

Mr. Walls's company, but it did not tell us a thing about how that money was

spent — not a single piece of paper, much less service for a child. Here's the

list of wasted money identified by the auditor: $537,000 for the elimination of

the Doug Walls debt owed to the ministry; $590,000 in direct billing from Doug

Walls; $1.2 million from non-profits to CareNet — totalling over $2.3 million.

To the

minister once again: can she explain how $2.3 million in taxpayers' and

non-profit money went to Doug Walls's sinkhole with not one person in this

government knowing that this was happening and with absolutely nothing to show

for it?

Hon. C.

Clark: Well, if the member takes the time to read the audit, she will see

that those questions are answered in the audit. It's notable, too, that this

government was the group of people who actually ordered the audit. When it came

to our attention, it was this government that asked for this audit to be

undertaken. We asked for this audit to be undertaken with very broad terms of

reference.

When the

member says it was a whitewash, I suppose what she's saying is that she doesn't

think that Ron Parks does a very good job in his audits. Well, I would say this.

She has extensive experience with the work Mr. Parks does. She will know he is a

man who turns over every rock and makes sure that the work he does is thorough

and well researched. This audit answers all of the questions that the member has

put forward, and we have released all of those answers as soon as they became

available to government.

RECOMMENDATIONS FROM AUDIT

INVOLVING DOUG WALLS

MacPhail: It will be interesting for this government to note that prior to

June 2001, there wasn't one e-mail between Doug Walls and the Premier's office.

Only after they were elected did they start. Before the Liberals took power,

Doug Walls was on a short leash, and Theresa Kieran was keeping him on that

short leash — $50,000 per year. After the election, Theresa Kieran was…

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Hon. members, let us hear the question.

MacPhail: …fired, and Doug Walls was allowed to run free with direct

access to the Premier's office.

[ Page 11096 ]

Don't tell me it's all the deputy minister's fault. Doug Walls is a Liberal

supporter and a personal friend of the Premier's. He had unfettered access to

the Premier's office and to a taxpayer-funded charge card that started….

British Columbians have a right to know…

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

MacPhail: …where the money went. They've seen services for children cut

while millions have been flushed down the drain.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order. Order, hon. members. Let's have order. Time for the

question, hon. member.

MacPhail: The auditor…

Mr.

Speaker: For the question, hon. member.

MacPhail: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Thank you.

…recommended

that the Finance minister get to the bottom of the scandal by ordering an

investigation under the Society Act — the very auditor the minister says is

wonderful. To the Minister of Finance: will he take action, as the auditor

recommends, and immediately order the investigation to find what, if anything,

British Columbians got for their $2.3 million investment in Mr. Walls? That's

what the auditor is asking for.

Hon. C.

Clark: The Minister of Finance and the government have been very clear. We

intend to act on all of the recommendations of the audit, and in fact, we have

already acted on most of the recommendations of the audit.

I take

issue with the member's really intentional misrepresentation of what it says in

the report. In particular, I would quote her…. She should go look at page 59

where it says: "The Premier was not influenced by Mr. Walls and, in fact,

admonished him for his attempt to interfere in the appointment process." It

says throughout the report that there was no undue influence exerted as a

result. It also says in the report…

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. C.

Clark: …that it was the NDP that also awarded $130,000 worth of untendered

contracts to Mr. Walls.

There is no

question — absolutely no question — that this report tells us that

government needs to be very, very vigilant and very careful in making sure that

we are always upholding the highest standards of the rules and the law that are

set out for us. I'm delighted that in the Ministry of Children and Family

Development, with a new executive, a new deputy and the outstanding staff we

have, we are able to say with some confidence that we are leading government…

Mr.

Speaker: Order.

[1435]

Hon. C.

Clark: …in our financial practices and making sure that all of our

contracting, all of our granting practices, meet the absolute highest standards.

Mr.

Speaker: Thank you very much.

The Leader

of the Opposition has another question.

MacPhail: Well, here it is on page 4 — the recommendation from the auditor

that the Minister of Finance order an investigation into CareNet under the

Society Act. That's what he recommended. When is the minister going to do that?

Yesterday

the Minister of Children and Family Development said that the $288,000 severance

package for Chris Haynes was obscene. The minister has not told anyone yet, but

Mr. Haynes also gets an additional $240,000 in vacation pay. I wonder if she

thinks that's obscene too. Over $500,000, and nothing to show for it except the

designated fall guy for this fiasco. That is on top of the $2.3 million wasted

of tax money. No one in this government can point to any tangible benefit from

this expenditure.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order. Order, please.

MacPhail: At least in the sponsorship scandal we got a few overpriced TV

ads.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order, please. Time for the question, please.

MacPhail: Will the Minister of Finance commit to what the auditor recommends

— to calling an investigation under the Society Act so that taxpayers know how

badly they were fleeced by this government?

Hon. C.

Clark: Yes, the government will be following all of the recommendations that

are contained in the report.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order.

Hon. C.

Clark: I know, again, that the opposition is deeply disappointed that this

report didn't confirm all of the allegations and all of the misinformation that

they've generated about what could possibly be in it.

[ Page 11097 ]

Certainly,

our government worked very hard to make sure that this audit was done. We acted

quickly to make sure the information would become public, and I think that is in

stark contrast to the behaviour of the previous government.

We can look

back at the previous government and say: "What would have happened? What

would have happened if the government, as soon as it had been tweaked to the

problems that were going on with its massive spending projects, had decided to

spark an audit? What if the previous government had decided to have Treasury

Board begin to look into some of the really terrible decisions that were being

made in their government? What if when they had done an audit, they had made it

public?" If all of those things had happened, we might have saved the half

a billion dollars that they spent on fast ferries.

Mr.

Speaker: Okay. Okay.

Hon. C.

Clark: We might have saved some of the other boondoggles that government

engaged in.

Mr.

Speaker: Thank you. Thank you.

Hon. C.

Clark: Clearly, there are things to learn from this report.

Mr.

Speaker: Thank you very much.

Hon. C.

Clark: We intend to take the recommendations and act on them.

Interjection.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

POLITICAL ACTIVITIES BY TEACHERS

McMahon: My question is to the Minister of Education. The B.C. teachers

union has won the right to hand out political propaganda in schools and use

their trusted position as educators to exert political influence. Classrooms

should be free from political influence and should remain a place of learning

and discovery. It has been less than 24 hours since the ruling, and I have

received phone calls and e-mails from parents who are concerned about the

politics of their schools. I'm wondering what the minister is doing to protect

parents and children from the BCTF propaganda.

Hon. T.

Christensen: Let me be clear. Schools should not be used to push the

political agenda of the BCTF or anybody else. Parents go to parent-teacher

interviews to hear about one thing, and that is how their child is doing in

school. It is extremely unprofessional for any teacher to use the limited time

of a parent-teacher interview to be pushing the political agenda of the BCTF.

On this

side of the House we believe in the role of parents in our public education

system. We believe in the importance of parents and teachers having a

collaborative relationship that builds on the students' progress. On this side

of the House we've taken a number of steps to ensure that parents have effective

involvement in our public school system. It's time for Carole James and the NDP

to put aside their BCTF buddies and say that it's not appropriate for the BCTF

to be using our schools to push their political agenda.

[1440]

REFORMS TO LEGISLATION ON

REPRESENTATION AGREEMENTS

R. Lee:

The question is to the Attorney General and Minister Responsible for Treaty

Negotiations. I have heard from many of my constituents who are concerned that

the government will be making changes to the Representation Agreement Act.

Speculation has provoked the fears of many of my constituents who believe they

will not be able to choose who will represent them in times of incapacity. What

is the government's intention with regard to this Representation Agreement Act?

Hon. G.

Plant: Over the last couple of years we have done some work to determine

whether or not it was time to reform the law with respect to planning

instruments in British Columbia. The idea was to try and bring all planning

instruments into one statute to create a strong legal framework to ensure that

they can be relied upon and to expand the range of instruments available to

citizens as they plan for incapacity.

We did hear

some support for the idea that reform was timely, but we also heard concerns

from a wide variety of citizens that the existing instruments are being used and

relied upon and that any reform would not be helpful or necessary. Government

has sat down, done its homework and listened to what we've heard, and we have

decided to maintain the status quo. Accordingly, we will not be pursuing any

further reforms in this area.

[End of

question period.]

Point of Order

J. Kwan:

I rise to raise a point of order. This morning the member for Cariboo South

uttered remarks directed at the House Leader of the Opposition that were

offensive not only to her but, I think, to women in general. They also reflected

poorly upon the member for Cariboo South. Rather than repeat the words in this

House, I've provided a copy of Hansard to the member for Cariboo South

with the offensive remarks highlighted, with the hope that he might withdraw

them now.

[ Page 11098 ]

Mr.

Speaker: The Chair will take it under advisement.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G.

Collins: I call second reading of Bill 52.

Second Reading of Bills

ELECTORAL REFORM REFERENDUM ACT

Hon. G.

Plant: I move that Bill 52 be now read a second time. I am pleased to speak

to the Electoral Reform Referendum Act, which gives legislative direction to a

referendum on the province's electoral system should such a referendum be

necessary.

As members

of the House will recall, just over a year ago the government acted on a new-era

commitment by establishing the Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform. The

Citizens' Assembly, composed of 160 randomly selected voters plus the chair, is

charged with examining all possible models for electing members of the

Legislature in British Columbia and recommending the best electoral model for

the province. The citizens' assembly is expected to release its final report by

December 15 of this year.

If the

assembly finds that the current system should be retained, then that will end

the process, and there will be no referendum. However, if the assembly decides

to recommend a new electoral model, the government has consistently made the

commitment to place that proposed model before the voters of British Columbia in

a provincewide referendum at the time of the next general election — in May of

[1445]

This bill

gives shape to that process. I am introducing the bill now to make the process

clear from an early date and to ensure that Elections British Columbia has

adequate time and the legislative authority it needs to make administrative

arrangements for conducting a referendum on electoral reform if one is required.

This bill

makes it clear that the Referendum Act will apply to a referendum on electoral

reform, with certain exceptions. The principal difference is that the level of

voter approval needed is higher than the simple majority that is required under

the Referendum Act. Members will recall that when the Citizens' Assembly was

created, the government made it clear that such a fundamental change to the

practice of our democracy should happen only if there is clearly a high level of

support for it across the province. Accordingly, this bill, if passed, will

require a double majority for approval of the referendum. At least 60 percent of

votes provincewide must be cast in favour of the new model, and there must be a

simple majority in at least 48 of the 79 electoral districts — that is, in at

least 60 percent of the electoral districts.

The reason

for this double majority requirement, as I've said, is to ensure that there is

broad public support for making such a significant change in how we are

governed. Also, requiring approval in a minimum number of electoral districts

will help ensure that there is adequate support for the referendum in different

regions of the province.

The other

main provision of the bill, also consistent with the public commitments of

government with respect to the Citizens' Assembly, is to require that the new

model, if approved by referendum, must be in place for the May 2009 general

election. Again, this is consistent with the commitment made in the New Era document.

The existing provision in the Referendum Act requires government to introduce

legislation after a successful referendum in the next session immediately

following the referendum.

As members

of the House will appreciate, any work to change our electoral system will

require significant amendments to the Election Act, and it would not be

practicable to bring in such amendments only a few months after the May

referendum vote in 2005. What is proposed here is that the time line that exists

and applies for referendums ordinarily be amended to ensure that the successful

result of this referendum must be in place in time for the general election in

May 2009, making sure that government will have the time necessary to do the

work to make the legislative and regulatory changes to conduct an election on

the basis of the new rules.

Our

experiment with electoral reform here in British Columbia is unique. It is

drawing attention not only from other provinces in Canada but from other

countries as well. I know that all members of the Citizens' Assembly are taking

their duties seriously. We in this House, I'm sure, welcome that commitment on

the part of the citizens of British Columbia to the important question of the

voting system, which creates the assembly under and by which they're governed.

This bill makes clear government's commitment to give British Columbians that

direct voice in how they elect the members of this House.

MacPhail: I rise to address Bill 52, the Electoral Reform Referendum Act. As

the Attorney General has said, this will implement the work of the Citizens'

Assembly if the Citizens' Assembly recommends a change in the way elections are

conducted. Of course, we do know that the Citizens' Assembly will put forward a

referendum only if, indeed, they recommend change. If the Citizens' Assembly

recommends the status quo, there will be no referendum.

[1450]

The process

of the Citizens' Assembly is fully supported by the New Democratic Party, my

colleague the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant and myself. At the time that

the motion was debated in this chamber, I made reference to the fact that I had

written to the Premier as then leader of the NDP, offering our support for a

process whereby the people of British Columbia could participate in a

non-partisan discussion of electoral reform, and that is occurring.

I also

noted that Canada is one of the few liberal democracies continuing to use the

first-past-the-post system and that elsewhere the first-past-the-post sys-

[ Page 11099 ]

tem has been losing ground — certainly in recent years — and that in

Canada as a whole, the proportion of Canadians expressing dissatisfaction with

the electoral system increased from 39 percent to 49 percent just between the

years of 1990 and 2000. That's a big shift by the beginning of this decade. Of

course, the biggest shift was registered right here in British Columbia, where

the proportion of respondents who find first-past-the-post unacceptable

increased from 43 percent to a full 63 percent, the highest level of

dissatisfaction of any region. The study that I noted at that time was Howe and

Northrup in the year 2000.

Then a

survey conducted in early 2001 by the Canada West Foundation found that 71.6

percent of westerners, including 75.9 percent of British Columbians, favour the

introduction of an electoral system based on proportional representation. That

study was done by the Canada West Foundation in the year 2001.

Mr.

Speaker, electoral reform has been championed by non-partisan organizations such

as Fair Voting B.C. A former member of this chamber, former MLA Nick Loenen, has

been in this chamber to observe the debate around the original motion

establishing the Citizens' Assembly. Of course, the electoral reform has also

been championed by a national group, Fair Vote Canada.

This

legislation implements the resolution that was passed, I believe unanimously, to

establish the Citizens' Assembly. I also am the New Democrats' representative on

the legislative committee monitoring the work of the Citizens' Assembly. The

Citizens' Assembly is under the chairmanship of Jack Blaney, retired president

of Simon Fraser University, and it is very worthwhile work that the Citizens'

Assembly is performing.

I do note,

though, that we have a threshold that will be a very interesting threshold in

terms of a referendum. As the Attorney General has noted, it is 60 percent of

the ridings who must pass the referendum and support the referendum, and 60

percent of the population in each of those 60 percent of the ridings or

constituencies must vote in favour of the referendum. We'll see.

I must say

at this point that I am more than willing to see how that view plays amongst

British Columbians. I understand the reason why the Attorney General has put

that forward in this legislation. I will have questions about his reasoning —

just a bit more detail of his reasoning behind the more-than-simple majority and

the double majority required in that. However, those are questions for

information so that the public can fully understand the reasoning and,

therefore, the importance of participating in a referendum.

As I have

had time to think about the referendum and the nature of the referendum in that

it will only be a question of change that will be put forward, I must say I

still haven't changed my view about giving British Columbians at large a chance

to comment on the work of the Citizens' Assembly, regardless of their

recommendation. What I mean by that is if the Citizens' Assembly comes to the

conclusion that the status quo of the first-past-the-post system is what they

are recommending, I wish to explore with the Attorney General why that, too, is

not put to referendum.

[1455]

I've had

lots of discussions with citizens, and there are some cogent arguments on both

sides of that question. I will make my argument to the Attorney General on the

side of why I think British Columbians in a referendum should have a say on the

future of elections, even if the future is to be the same as the past. I will be

exploring that with the Attorney General at committee stage as well.

This

legislation will also need to address how the question will be written, who

writes the question and the role of the chief electoral officer in this whole

process. I am very much looking forward to the completion of the work of the

Citizens' Assembly. It is a worthy effort upon which they are embarked and one

that I hope gains increasing interest amongst all British Columbians.

Mr.

Speaker: We are at second reading of Bill 52, and the Attorney General

closes debate.

Hon. G.

Plant: I listened with interest to the comments of the member opposite, the

opposition leader. I look forward to the opportunity to pursue the issues that

she has raised in committee stage debate.

I do want

to take a moment in closing debate to make two points. One is by way of response

or observation in relation to the member's characterization of the majority

requirement or the voting requirement for a successful referendum. The way I

heard it is not quite the same as the way in which the act is intended to

operate. I may have misheard it.

Just for

the sake of clarification, there are two thresholds, each of which must be met.

The first is that at least 60 percent of the validly cast ballots must vote the

same way on the question that is stated for the referendum — that is, if you

will, the provincewide requirement. If you take all of the votes that are cast

across the province on a referendum, at least 60 percent of them must vote the

same way if the referendum result is to be binding on government.

The second

requirement is that in at least 48 of the 79 electoral districts, more than 50

percent of the validly cast ballots must vote that same way. As the second

threshold, you need to have at least a majority pass or a majority vote —

actually, you have to have one more than 50 percent — in at least 60 of the

ridings. That is the formula that the bill proposes for a successful referendum.

Secondly,

the member has made some comments about the question of whether and how and, in

her view, the desirability of citizens being provided an opportunity to comment

on the issues here at large. I understand that she may have something to say

about that in terms of what should happen in the event that the Citizens'

Assembly declines or decides not to put forward a proposal for change. But I

don't think I want to let this moment pass without observing that as of this

moment, all citizens do have an opportunity to participate in the work of the

assembly by either attending public hearings

[ Page 11100 ]

or providing submissions to the assembly, so they will at least have their

voice heard in influencing the deliberations of the assembly before they make

their mind up on this important issue.

With those

two comments, however, I look forward to continuing the debate on the details

when we get to committee stage. Accordingly, once again, I move second reading.

Motion

approved.

Hon. G.

Plant: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House

for consideration at the next sitting after today.

Bill 52,

Electoral Reform Referendum Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee

of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after

today.

[1500]

Point of Order

(continued)

W. Cobb:

Mr. Speaker, on the point of order brought up earlier by the member from Mount

Pleasant, if I have offended anyone, I will withdraw the statements. I'm sorry

for it.

Mr.

Speaker: Thank you.

Hon. G.

Collins: I call second reading of Bill 49.

Debate Continued

MINISTERIAL ACCOUNTABILITY BASES ACT, 2004-2005

Hon. G.

Collins: I move that Bill 49 be now read a second time.

Bill 49

increases the base for the Minister of Health Services for the purpose of

ministerial accountability under the Balanced Budget and Ministerial

Accountability Act by the amount referred to in the supplemental estimate tabled

and passed in this House on May 12, 2004 — that being yesterday.

The

additional $147.986 million reflects the additional federal funding for health

care from both the first ministers' accord on health care renewal announced on

January 30, 2004, and the new 2004 public health immunization trust announced on

March 23, 2004.

I move

second reading.

Motion

approved.

Hon. G.

Collins: I move the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for

consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 49,

Ministerial Accountability Bases Act, 2004-2005, 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. G.

Collins: I call committee stage debate of Bill 41.

Committee of the Whole House

REAL ESTATE SERVICES ACT

The House

in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 41; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

The

committee met at 3:03 p.m.

On

section

MacPhail: I am under "Definitions,"

section 1. I read Bill 42,

which is accompanying legislation. I am curious, under "brokerage," as

to the definition of brokers, brokerage and associated broker. Is this

equivalent to a realtor?

I can have

this debate under the amendment. Sorry, my apologies.

[1505]

Jarvis: In the

definitions, under the strata management services section. I

was wondering if the minister could relate to me…. I'm having difficulty,

going through the bill, finding that part of the bill that pertains to the

strata management services. If his staff could give me that information….

Hon. G.

Collins: As I mentioned in second reading, this bill will also regulate

strata managers and how they do their work, and I think that's something they're

pleased to have. I think it is something that's actually good public policy.

The act

applies to them in sort of a broad way in that…. If you go across the page to

section 2 of the act, you will see

section 2(1). It says: "This act applies

to every person who provides real estate services to or on behalf of

another…." It's providing real estate services. Then if you go back a

page to page 7 of the bill in the

definitions section, about halfway down you

can see "real estate services." That means a couple of things, and (

b) is strata management services. That gives you a sense of who the act applies to.

Through sort of a backwards way, it applies to real estate services and people

that are licensed. That comes up over and over again. Here you define them and

put them in a package, and then they end up being in various places throughout

the act as being part of somebody who plies real estate services and is licensed

to do that.

I think

what the member is looking for in particular will be: what will be the rules and

guidelines and the policy around how strata managers have to do their job? If

the member goes all the way to page 48 in the act — towards the end,

section

86(e), about a third of the way down the page — it talks about the role of the

Real Estate Council. The Real Estate Council in subsec-

[ Page 11101 ]

tion (

e) can establish or adopt standards of conduct and business practice

standards for licensees, and that would include strata managers.

This is

designed to be much more of a self-regulatory body now. The Real Estate Council

will have rule-making powers. They will sit down with strata managers. Other

strata managers will be on the council. There's a

section here that talks about

who is on the council. They will be part of that process, and they will draft

and put in place rules and policies that will guide the activities and the

business practices of strata managers.

It doesn't

stare you right in the face in one or two sections. It really applies throughout

the act and then particularly here in the rule-making powers. Because we have

made the Real Estate Council a self-governing body, we're giving them the powers

to go and put in place those rules, and the strata managers will be part of

making that happen.

[1510]

Jarvis: I assume the opposition leader will have some questions on this, so

I will not ask all these questions on the application of the act, and I will try

to pick it up as we're going through. I have quite a few questions as to

penalties and the reasons why, etc., on the strata act, so thank you.

Mayencourt: Still on the

definitions under "real estate services,"

it includes rental property, management services, strata management and trading

services. Leaseholds are a form of rental. How does this affect people that are

in long-term leasehold arrangements?

Hon. G.

Collins: The act is pretty comprehensive, so just in this

section 1, I can

give you two examples. On page 8, under "trading services" at the

bottom, one can see: "…any of the following services…on behalf of the

party to…." Oh, sorry. "Trade in real estate" just above it:

"a transaction for the purchase or sale of real estate, for the leasing of

real estate or for any other form of acquisition or disposition of real

estate…." So that would be included there.

If the

member goes back a page and looks at "rental property management

services" — and this one is at the bottom of the page — one can see

again that refers to rental of real estate. I think there are rentals as well,

so that would include leases, etc. It's is embedded in the act throughout, so

those kinds of transactions would also be dealt with by the act.

Mayencourt: This act is about self-regulation of stratas and also of

leaseholds, then?

Hon. G.

Collins: What it does is describe the rules and put in place rules and

guidelines through the act, then, to the Real Estate Council, of which the

managers would be a part. It provides rules, guidelines and procedures for

regulating those people who provide those management services, strata management

services or real estate management services. So it regulates the people; it

doesn't regulate the strata corporations themselves.

There is a

strata corporations act that the ministry is also responsible for, which I know

everybody is dreading. But at some point we're actually going to have to get in

there and try and deal with that one, too, and bring it up to speed. It will be

a challenge when that finally comes because lots of controversies do arise with

how stratas work and the politics within stratas. The management of the stratas

themselves is in a different piece of legislation. This would deal with those

people who put themselves out as strata managers or managers of rental

properties, etc.

Mayencourt: I'm clear that it's not about the strata councils. Rather, it is

about the people that would be strata managers. I guess in relation to that, I'm

also wondering about those individuals that put themselves out as leasehold

managers, where they're a professional organization managing a leasehold

building. Is that correct?

Hon. G.

Collins: They would apply under "rental property management

services," for which you can see the definition on page 7. Those are all

included in that. Whatever you want to call yourself, it fits within that

category. It's not so much what people call themselves; it's what they actually

do and what their activities are.

Suffredine: In the

definitions, the definition of "rental property

management services" says it means any of the following: "…trading

services in relation to rental of the real estate, collecting rents or security

deposits for the use of the real estate, managing the real estate on behalf of

the owner by making payments…negotiating or entering contracts…." It's

pretty detailed.

[1515]

What it

makes me wonder is how…. Does that have application to the individual

transaction where someone might have one or two properties and wants to send

someone out to collect the rents on a periodic basis? Maybe it's a single unit.

You live in a rural area like I do, and you might have one rental with one

tenant in another town. Hiring somebody on a monthly basis to go collect the

rent for you rather than having a licensed person to do that if it's just an

agent collecting the rent…. Does that offend the act, or is it exempted in

some way under some other provision?

Hon. G.

Collins: Currently, they would be required, as well, and would fall under

the act. What we're trying to do here, obviously, is amend this, bring it up to

date. There is the provision at the very bottom that somebody can be exempted by

regulation, so maybe there should be a materiality test there.

Maybe

having one property off somewhere…. You know, you used to live in it. You've

had to move somewhere, and you've got your cousin or brother or sister going and

collecting the rent for you once a month and just keeping an eye on the house.

That

[ Page 11102 ]

might not be something we want to immerse in this regulation. There would be

a provision, I suppose, to put a materiality clause in there.

It's not

something I've personally thought of, but it's something we certainly can, as we

draft the regulations that will go with the act. Maybe that's an appropriate

measure. Maybe once somebody has two or three properties, it starts to become a

bit more of an operation, as opposed to just an individual renting their home

while they're away. They've got two homes, or their parent passes away and

they'd like to retain the family home, but they don't live in the community.

Maybe there are some things we can do around that, and if the member has

suggestions I'd would love to hear them.

Jarvis: Where does it spell out about a strata manager versus a management

company and where the liability lies? Does it lie with the management company

itself, or can they bring in managers that have not passed the B.C. real estate

licensing?

Hon. G.

Collins: I'll try and get this as accurate as I can, but I'm sure the member

knows more about this than I do, given his years in the industry.

In the

older terminology there was an agent. There could be a nominee, and there could

be an "agent 9.15" — which was a regulation that he probably knows

— and then a salesperson. In the new terminology, what used to be the old

"agent" is now referred to as a brokerage. The nominee is now referred

to as a managing broker. The agent 9.15 is referred to under the new legislation

as an associate broker, and the salesperson is now referred to as a

representative. We're trying to clean up that old language and get some

different language.

[1520]

Now, under

the act, depending on whatever the work was or the duties were of the person

involved, they would need to be licensed on that tier. There will be a number of

tiers of licensing. We won't do that. The Real Estate Council will do that and

put that in place. Once you're licensed, then obviously the company and the

individual are liable for their actions for which they're licensed.

Mayencourt: Maybe I could just take advantage of the fact that you have the

staff here. I could tell you what my problem is with leaseholds, and then you

could point to somewhere in the act where it would maybe be covered.

I have a

number of buildings in my neighbourhood that are leaseholds. Typically, one

individual owns 51 percent of those leasehold suites, and the remainder are sold

out to other individuals. As I've said, I've got a number of these buildings.

Many of these people come to me on a fairly regular basis saying: "We don't

have any way of controlling or having anything to do with the management of our

building." It always seems to be that the relationship is tilted in favour

of the one that has the 51 percent. That may seem fair enough, but for someone

who has invested in a home, it's a little bit of a problem if they don't think

that it's being maintained properly.

Will this

act deal with creating some sort of a framework for that 49 percent to be able

to have some impact on the management of that building, on the decisions related

to contracts that are let through that building and on the services that might

be rented out of that building?

Hon. G.

Collins: An interesting question, actually. Essentially, there's an array of

models that are out there. There's an old model that pre-exists stratas, before

the strata legislation came in. Maybe that's the one the member is talking

about. They are called apartment corporations.

[1525]

Essentially,

what you do is buy a share in that company. Somebody, theoretically, could own

51 percent of the shares in that company, and then they've got the votes —

right? We all know how that works. The person who didn't have the 51.… The

group, the 49 percent — they'd have minority rights, but they don't have the

ability even to get together and override the 51 percent. It's an old existing

structure. They're not created anymore, but they're there. I think they were

grandfathered probably when the strata corporation first came in.

There's

another model, and I want to make sure that this isn't what the member is

talking about. There is something that could be called a leasehold strata, where

you don't actually have…. It's not like you own the right to that unit. You

would have a leasehold right to that unit in part of a strata. That would fall

under the strata corporation act, and all those rules would apply. I think the

member is probably referring to the former, but we can check and get that

information.

If he wants

to try and set up a briefing, we could talk about that and get more detailed

information. I'm not sure what the specific problem is, and I don't know how

many times it's been a problem for the member. But we can certainly look at it

and at least find out what it is that we're all referring to and know what the

rules are and brief the member and his constituency assistant, who probably gets

these questions as well, so that they're up to speed on what the rules are and

what the law is so they can pass that information on to constituents who may

come and ask. If there's a big public policy issue about that, then perhaps it's

something that needs to be reviewed. I don't know what it is exactly, but I'm

certainly happy to meet with the member and hear about it.

Mayencourt: Very briefly, I suspect that it may be the older version, but it

seems to be a fairly large problem in my riding and in ridings in Surrey and

Coquitlam and, I think, even in the Okanagan. I've received e-mails on it. I

said, "Well, I'll meet with you folks," and 150 of them showed up, so

I got that it's a really important problem and am trying to find some way to

resolve it.

[ Page 11103 ]

Basically,

I guess their issue that they come to me with is, "We are a minority

shareholder in this building, and the head leaseholder hires his contractors at

his prices and passes the cost on to us and doesn't maintain the building in a

way we would like it to be maintained," because that creates costs for them

further down the road. I think really what they're looking for is a more

respectful relationship between the management company and them as independent

leaseholders, even though there's someone that owns more than them. That's

really the problem. It's a fairly large issue in my riding, but it seems to be

throughout the lower mainland at least.

Hon. G.

Collins: I'm certainly prepared to try and set up something so we can get a

fact base. I'm glad to get some of the e-mails or the comments the member has

from his constituents and look at them and see, if there's a problem that

exists, if there's anything that can be done. There are longstanding rights

there. There's probably a reason why they were grandfathered when the strata

corporation act came in. I'm not guaranteeing that we'll be able to find a quick

solution to it, if ever, but I'm certainly happy to look at it. If there is a

compelling public policy reason to deal with it, which there may well be, then

we'll see if there's something that can be done. I'm glad to sit down with the

member and do that.

Sahota: I have a question on the

definitions, under "deceptive

dealing," the subsection on intentional misrepresentation. I was wondering

if intentional misrepresentation would include omitting key information on

property, such as building defects, leaky roofs or grow-op use — if that would

be encompassed in that definition.

Hon. G.

Collins: Yes, this is actually wording that was in the current bonding

regulations, and we're taking that out and putting it right into the act as a

definition. But yeah, that's exactly the kind of stuff that it's designed to

catch. Disclosure needs to be complete. They have to be clear and frank and

truthful with the people they're dealing with, and they need to…. It's

intentional misrepresentation. If you're intending to give a false impression,

those sorts of things are captured by it. I think all of the examples mentioned

by the member would have been included under this.

[1530]

Jarvis: I just want to say that I have looked through most of this bill, and

I haven't found anything that's really glaringly out of line. I have talked to a

lot of realtors out there and even the realtors that were in town here a couple

of weeks ago. None of them is really upset or finds anything that's too out of

line. There is always room for improvement, but nevertheless it is a pretty good

change in the act. Also, the fact that you have consulted with them — quite a

bit, I understand…. They're pleased with that.

My concern

is under the strata. Ostensibly, there's the strata act itself. We've got a real

problem in this province as far as I'm concerned. We have close to a million

strata and some 20,000 or 25,000 strata corporations. The people of the province

that are buying the stratas go into them, as you know, with the premise that

everything's fine now, that they don't have to worry about things. They move in,

life is great, and all the rest of it. They fail to realize that it is

ostensibly a house, but there is still the maintenance they have to do. The

people that have been in charge of these stratas have done an abysmal job over

the years. I don't want to get into the major problems that have been occurring,

but there has been no one there to protect them.

I feel it

is essential here that we should make it law and come down pretty hard on them.

Anyone managing a strata should know what the potential problems are, and people

buying a strata…. It should be in the strata corporation that the maintenance

fees should be relative to what is required and that they should all have….

There are so many dollars, and then in five years they will have billed enough.

It's all in there, so they know the roof has to be replaced or whatever it may

be.

Salesmen

— heaven forbid. They're wonderful people, but they have always sold strata

corporations on the premise that: "Hey, the maintenance is really low. This

one's got a real low maintenance." People get in there and think that

they're buying into something, paying $125 a month, and that it's the greatest

thing for them for the rest of their life — failing to realize it is

ostensibly going to cost thousands of dollars down the line. I think it is

incumbent on us to protect them on that basis through legislation.

I was

wondering. Of course, it is not in here, because this is more or less pertaining

to the selling and the management. It is not the management end of it. The

licence requirements for strata management should be so tight, and they'll be

faced with so many requirements to learn and know about construction that…. I

think it is just a mandatory thing. I assume this should really be discussed

under the Strata Property Act, but I would like the minister's comments if he

has any intentions down the line to maybe change it so that we can see these

problems rectified.

Hon. G.

Collins: There are two levels to what the member is talking about. If he is

asking if we are going to start to put in place rules, guidelines, regulations,

legislation, etc., to deal with the people that are managing stratas on behalf

of the strata itself, the answer is yes. That's in fact what we're doing in this

act. It lays out, as I described earlier, how those people sort of fall into

these various components.

Then the

Real Estate Council, on which the strata managers out there have the right to

put some people on the council, will start to draft the rules and regulations

around what they need to do and can't do, etc. So yes, this is designed to make

sure that those people who are managing those strata corporations on behalf of

strata owners actually have rules and guidelines and

[ Page 11104 ]

are licensed and that there is a process. I think that is in everybody's best

interest.

[1535]

However,

the other issue the member talks about…. Sorry; I should say first of all,

however, that if owners of a strata corporation want to manage it themselves,

that's up to them. They don't need to hire somebody to manage their strata

corporation. They could choose to do it themselves. If there are six or seven

units in a strata or even…. I suppose it could be large — 100. It starts to

get to be a pretty onerous job for somebody to volunteer to do on a strata

corporation if you start to get a larger number, but if it were a small strata,

it would probably make sense that owners, rather than pay somebody to manage it,

would choose to do it themselves. They can do it. They can make that work

however they want to. You know, we aren't stepping in and telling them what to

do.

The second

issue the member raised is really the state of strata corporations, particularly

with regard to ongoing maintenance, the fees that would fund that ongoing

maintenance, etc. Certainly, under the Strata Property Act you as a purchaser

are entitled to get, I think, two years of minutes, financial documents, etc.,

from the strata corporation before you purchase. I would certainly encourage

everybody to do that before they make that purchase, if they don't already. I'm

sure realtors would advise purchasers to do that. It would certainly be wise.

The setting

of rates for the fees is something that's set in the annual budget process for

the strata corporation. The manager would present a budget, or they would

present a budget to their fellow owners themselves. The budget would lay out

what their expenditures are for the year and what fees would be required in

order to meet those expenditures and perhaps build up a reserve, etc.

I live in a

strata now. I've lived in a couple of them over the years, probably for about 15

years or so, and that's normally how that goes. You get a budget, you see what

needs to be done, and you try and maintain the place in a way that ensures it

will be in good repair for all the time you're living there as well as when you

go to sell it. But it's really up to the members of the strata corporation to

vote on that budget.

You know,

it's buyer beware if you're moving into a strata — either a new one or an

older one — and the fees look really low. You might want to ask questions

about why they're low. That might be a really good signal to you that perhaps

the strata isn't being managed and the repairs aren't being done in a way you

would be comfortable with. There are indications of that, but as far as us

forcing that measure, that's really not what this act is about. This act is

about licensing those people who might manage stratas on behalf of owners, not

owners managing them on behalf of themselves or how much they would have to put

into fees or how they would need to maintain their property.

Mayencourt: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave

granted.

Introductions by Members

Mayencourt: In the gallery up here there are some young people peering over

the railings, and I would like to have the House welcome them. They're a group

of elementary students from Belmont Elementary. They are here with their

teachers. They have come here to learn about provincial politics. The member for

Langley, who could not be here, wanted me to make sure they were introduced. So

welcome.

Debate Continued

Jarvis: On

section 1. I appreciate the fact that this bill is ostensibly not

one on strata title or strata corporations. It's on licensing of salesmen and

representatives and that. They take a course, and what they learn in this is

real estate and a lot of law, etc. It doesn't teach them how to sell. It doesn't

teach them all the problems that may arise when someone's buying a house or a

strata. In fact, I would venture to say a good many of the salesmen are

pretty…. They lack that information, I should say.

Hon. G.

Collins: Good lawyers and bad salesmen.

Jarvis: Just about as bad as that, but not quite. You say the responsibility

of a salesman — which is true — is that when he comes in and sells them a

piece of property, he has to tell them: "Well, we want to see the minutes

for the previous year or two years." Most people aren't interested in that,

really. A few are, but the public are not really wise as to what's happening.

They're anxious. They like something, and they tend to jump. Their emotions are

in there, and a good salesman usually goes with emotions to make a dollar here

and there.

[1540]

What I

think is incumbent on us is that we have to tighten up the situations and make

sure that when we get to the strata act, maybe this fall or next spring, we do

something to protect the buyers out there. The caveat emptor aspect of it is

not…. Salesmen have good intentions on doing it, and I imagine the strata

managers have good intentions, but they don't know all the ramifications that

are coming down, especially when you get into a situation with the leaky-condo

situation we've had in the past.

It's such a

large problem that I don't think any government could even possibly hope to make

any kind of a settlement or relieve them of their problems, because we're into

the billions now. I know that with these highrises, the next wave that is coming

is the highrise problem. Just having a salesman that's able to pass a little bit

of law isn't going to help the problems we would possibly face in this province

in view of our climatic conditions and the way we build things. Whether you want

to answer anything on that, I don't know.

[ Page 11105 ]

Hon. G.

Collins: Certainly, our role here with licensees is to make sure they

understand what their rules are under the law and to make sure the public is

protected. That's what we feel we have a public policy responsibility to do as

government. Whether they're good salespeople or not is really between them and

their pocketbook, I suppose, and them and the people they work with. They will,

I'm assuming, develop those skills as necessary.

I do hear

the caution that the member raises. I don't know that there is a role for

government in that part of it, in that…. Right now is a good example. As we

sit here, in Vancouver and other places around British Columbia — but

Vancouver is where I'm from and where it's happening a lot, because I see it —

properties are on the market in the afternoon and they're sold that night.

Sometimes there are 12 bidders trying to bid. I know they haven't had time to go

through two years of strata minutes and all the budgets, etc., and probably get

the place inspected. I can almost guarantee they haven't. That's unfortunate,

because they should, but people take those risks. They'll bear the pain if it is

an unfortunate risk, or they might get by without having any problems as a

result.

There's not

a lot government can do about that. People will make those decisions. What we

try and do is put in place the requirement that the people be trained who are

providing the real estate services and that they're licensed. As far as people

making bad choices, you know, there's not much government can do in legislation

to stop people from making dumb choices or bad decisions. I don't know what more

we can do on that front.

The Strata

Property Act is a much bigger task and will come at some point. It is not coming

this fall, I can tell the member. It could be sometime in the near future, but

we certainly have not had the ability in the ministry to put a lot of energy

into it given all the other legislative changes that have been underway in the

last couple of years. But I take the member's advice.

Sahota: I'm not sure if this question was previously asked under the

definitions. Under

section 2, I was wondering: does the act apply to lawyers who

provide…?

Interjections.

Sahota: Are we still on

section 1?

Interjection.

Sahota: Sorry. Okay.

Section 1

approved.

On

section

Hon. G.

Collins: I would like to move an amendment to

section 2 standing in my name.

Sorry, it's not standing on the order paper, but it is in the hands of the Chair

as well as the opposition. If other members want a copy of it, I can provide

them with that as well.

There are a

series of amendments that are coming to sections 2, 3 and 4 together, so perhaps

I can speak to it in general terms. Then if people have specific questions in

those sections, we can do that. I will move the amendment standing in my name to

section 2.

[SECTION 2, by deleting the proposed subsection (2) (

c) and

substituting the following: (

c) would otherwise be exempted by this Act

or the regulations from the requirement to be licensed in relation to

the provision of those real estate services.]

On the

amendment.

Hon. G.

Collins: I will take this opportunity to talk in general terms about what

we're trying to accomplish with this amendment and the amendments to

section 3

and

section 4.

[1545]

Previously

in the act there were two tiers of exemptions, because the act says nobody can

engage in the practice of real estate, as we talked about earlier, unless they

qualify under this act. Then there are a bunch of exemptions for people who do

need to engage in it but really don't need to be regulated under this act. There

is an array of them. There are lawyers, for example, who in their normal

practice would be selling real estate. Accountants, auctioneers, a financial

institution or a trust company, notaries, etc. — there is an array of them.

Previously some of those exemptions were actually written right into the act in

a

section like this. Others were dealt with in regulation, because at the end of

that list of statutory exemptions there was a

section that said "or others

as prescribed in regulation." So there are really two sets.

What we

tried to do in putting this act together — and we've done that in other

legislation as well, the Securities Act and others — is avoid using those two

tiers if we can and put in place exemptions prescribed by regulation. Then one

is more adaptable and can deal with changes that happen in the industry.

Securities

is a good example of where that industry has changed dramatically in the last

decade or so. To keep the exemptions up to speed, you want to be able to deal

with them without coming back to the Legislature each and every time. The

Legislature may not be sitting. It may be a heavy legislative agenda and doesn't

get put up on the priority list. Certainly, the fact that this act has not been

amended — in any complete rewrite, anyway — for I think 45 years is a good

indication of how difficult that can be.

What we

tried to do was take all of those exemptions out of the statute and put them in

a regulation. That raised the ire of those people who were previously in the

statute. The nervousness that they express is, "We have an exemption. It's

in the statute. We like the fact that it's difficult for government to change

that regulation or exemption, because we have a fear that government now or

sometime in the future — over the next 45 years — may step in and remove

that exemp-

[ Page 11106 ]

tion and make it more difficult for us to do our business" — whoever

that person might be.

There were

also people who wanted to be moved up from the regulation into the statute.

There were people who didn't really care where they were. Then there are

notaries, for example, who don't have a statutory exemption or an exemption at

all and want that to be dealt with.

There is an

array of issues here, an array of interests. Government had hoped to try and

resolve that by dealing with it in a consultative process that would have arisen

around how we draft the regulation. People have expressed their dissatisfaction

with that. So we've looked at it to try and see if there's a way to resolve this

in everybody's interest.

I think

it's fair to say that the legal profession feels very strongly that they'd like

to remain in legislation for reasons they feel very strongly about. I don't feel

those concerns are valid to a great extent, but it's not up to me to legitimize

their concerns or not. They have them, and they feel strongly about it.

Government is trying to put in place a piece of legislation that makes as many

people comfortable as we can.

As a

result, the amendment we're bringing forward today — which really is in

section 3, but we'll get to that — reinstates a number of statutory exemptions

as well as having the provision that allows for further exemptions by

regulation. However, in particular around the lawyers, that exemption is

narrowed somewhat from what was there before.

That change

to the legal exemption arises out of a concern that was raised by the realtors

and a debate that took place between realtors and lawyers. Lawyers were starting

to move into the sale of real estate as a business, not just as an incident to

their practice, and in some cases would put up a sign on the front lawn just

like a realtor would. The lawyers themselves wouldn't be engaged in that

transaction directly. They would have staff in the office who would do that.

Realtors

were concerned, and I think legitimately so, that that was getting around the

licensing requirement and could put the interests of the consumer at risk —

potentially. But the lawyers felt very strongly that they should have the right

to sell real estate if they wanted to or needed to. They have a wide array of

skills, they're well trained, and they also have a pretty comprehensive

insurance program through the Law Society and the fees they pay. They have

professional requirements, etc., and the consumer really isn't at risk if a

lawyer were to go out and sell a home. I agree that that's the case there. They

wouldn't be put at risk.

[1550]

What we

tried to do was bring those together. We asked the Law Society and the Canadian

Bar Association and the realtors to go away and try to come up with a compromise

that would work and that would be in the interests of the public. They came back

to us with a recommendation that reduced the scope of the legal exemption to

apply only to lawyers and no longer to their staff. That was amenable to both

parties, and that was what would have been put into regulation.

However,

given the strong concern raised by some of those players, particularly the legal

profession, what we are doing with this amendment is putting that reduced scope

back into the statute along with other exemptions. There will be statutory

exemptions. There will be, as I mentioned, a reduced scope to the legal

profession.

We are not

able at this time to include notaries in this statutory amendment. We will

continue to work with the notaries to try and determine what insurance, etc., is

available to them. We haven't done the work in government yet to determine what

would have been the appropriate regulations around a notary's exemption. That

would have continued as we developed the regulation. Because we're not able to

know what that will result in, we're uncomfortable putting their exemption in

the act. I know they won't be pleased about that, but as I told them, we can't

please everybody. We're trying to please as many people as we can.

We will

continue to work with them to try and identify what the scope of that exemption

might be. Certainly, we will reach a conclusion on that which I'm sure will be

amenable to them as well to the government and all the other players under this

act. If they still feel very strongly that that should be included in the

legislation as opposed to the regulation, we would be more than happy to examine

that at a future date. But as I told all of the parties, this legislation is not

likely to come up for re-examination every year. It's not that type of

legislation. While I commit to them to make sure there is an exemption in place

that works for them and works for the public, I can't guarantee that it will be

in the statute in the near future, although if that continues to be their

request, then we'll try and see if that can work.

With that,

I'm pleased to move the amendment in my name to

section 2.

If members

wish — if it's the will of the Chair and the will of the House and they're

more comfortable — I have no problem discussing all three sections at the same

time, because they are sort of tied together. In that case, I won't move each

amendment. We can have the discussion. I think members have copies of the

amendment, and then I'll move them when we come to those particular sections.

MacPhail: This is the area I wanted to discuss, and I thank the Minister of

Finance for that explanation. It's a fulsome explanation and answers my

questions from the point of view of who is exempted.

The only

other issue I wish to explore is on behalf of the consumer who purchases

services from the people who are exempted. What protection applies to the

purchaser? What consumer protection is there in either this bill or Bill 42?

Hon. G.

Collins: There is an array of people here that would be qualified. If we can

move to the amendment that will be introduced in

section 3, I'll just give a

general overview of what those exemptions might be. The first one would be a

person acting under the au-

[ Page 11107 ]

thority of the court. So there are provisions there. Obviously, the court,

you would think, would do the right thing and not put somebody in a difficult

spot. Trustee and bankruptcy — there's legislation that deals with that. An

executor or administrator of an estate — there's legislation that deals with

that. A financial institution would be under the Financial Institutions Act.

Certainly, lawyers, which is the sixth exemption, would have their own rules

under the Legal Profession Act and the Law Society.

Each would

have a different set of regulations or legislation that would prescribe

professional behaviour on behalf of those people, and certainly notaries….

That's why they're not in here. We haven't been able to evaluate whether or not

their insurance plan, etc., is sufficient to guarantee the safety of the public.

We'll

continue to do that as we evaluate notaries, for example, and others.

Auctioneers…. There is a bunch of other people that we'll be dealing with in

the regulations. Again, the number one priority here is not to get in a fight

with these people about their market share but to try and do what's in the

interest of the 4.2 million British Columbians to make sure their interests are

protected.

[1555]

Suffredine: The concern I have over this is probably the reverse of what the

minister might expect. I practised law for many years. I'm not here to defend

the turf of lawyers. In fact, the issue about lawyers wanting to practise in

real estate tended to be with lawyers who weren't really able to make a living

in smaller communities looking for additional areas of practice, in part because

other areas of legal practice were being encroached on by other professionals.

The area

that creates the most concern…. Some years ago a lawyer in my region started

selling real estate and started actually listing and offering real estate for

sale. The problems that tended to result weren't in the part of the selling, but

they did appear or manifest themselves if, when a buyer was finally found and

the sale put together, that lawyer tried to remain in any way involved in the

transaction that resulted. There was a real tendency to want to get the whole

transaction — to do the conveyance, the mortgage and sometimes the sale of

commercial property. This created huge conflict problems.

Is that

being addressed in a way that will ensure that not only the lawyer who might

engage in the occasional sale but his firm, his partners and people in the same

office aren't handling the mortgage and conveyancing side of it if another

lawyer in the same firm has been selling? It may work once in a while, or it may

work often. But when it doesn't work, it creates huge problems for lawyers in

general and for the public, who are not served well when those circumstances

arise.

Hon. G.

Collins: Personally, I have similar…. I think those are legitimate

concerns; let me put it that way. I feel that if somebody wants to practise law,

they can practise law. If they want to practise real estate and they want it to

be what they do, they should probably go get a realtor's licence. There are

lawyers who don't think they would need to do that. I don't know whether it's

beneath them or they just feel that they're more trained. That's legitimate too.

It's a point that they make. I'm not going to argue that with them. I don't

always put my personal viewpoints in everything that appears before the House.

Again, I

don't think it's a big issue either way. The Law Society is responsible for its

members. Lawyers, as professionals, have conduct that they're required to follow

— conflict guidelines. There's all that stuff in place. It's a very heavily

self-governed profession. Certainly, there should be the provision for them to

manage that. Those are issues that the Law Society will have to deal with. How

do you resolve those conflicts?

The member

makes a good point. In a small community where there may be one person

practising law, they probably would like to be at both ends of the transaction

and maybe in the middle too. I don't know. There are issues there that the Law

Society needs to be responsible for.

In the

past, I think there have been examples where lawyers have done things that

aren't up to snuff, which have caused lawsuits and required assessments for

lawyers to go up in order to pay for that. I'm sure the Law Society will be

cautious in this and will look at this and try to develop guidelines for their

members to make sure that the profession itself doesn't fall into disrepute

because of errors, deliberate or otherwise, by members of the profession — or

just the issues of conflict that the member raised. Whether anything negative

actually transpires, there is potential there for those conflicts. Certainly,

the profession will need to do that. They deal with that type of thing all the

time in the practice of law. As in any profession, there will be good lawyers

and not-so-good lawyers. That's what the Law Society is responsible for.

I hope and

I'm sure that they will take this exemption seriously. I'm sure they will put in

place the parameters and guidelines that will guide their members and ensure

that the public interest is protected.

I'm not naïve

enough to think there will never be a problem. There will be a problem with

probably every one of these exemptions at some point because somebody has done

something wrong either deliberately or just by error. That's why there's

legislation and procedures that govern the various parties. I would hope that

the Law Society takes that exemption very seriously, and I'm sure they will.

[1600]

Suffredine: Just for clarity, the way it was always historically done with

lawyers using the lawyers' exemption was that it was an ancillary item to

practise. For example, a lawyer probating an estate might act as the selling

agent for the estate of the property — the principal asset of the estate. Is

that what we're back to? Is that the intention of the

section now, or are we

going to see listing signs on street corners with lawyers'

[ Page 11108 ]

names on them where they're basically running real estate firms and they're

required to be the salesmen?

Hon. G.

Collins: Really, what this comes down to, I suppose, is an

interpretation of

that subsection of the amendment, which is subsection (f) — which we haven't

actually moved yet, but which we're debating — "a practising lawyer as

defined in

section 1 of the Legal Profession Act, in respect of real estate

services provided in the course of the person's practice."

It's

"in the course of the person's practice" that caused the issue before

between lawyers and realtors as to what that means and how broadly or narrowly

that's interpreted. That's why we sent the lawyers and the realtors away to try

and come to some consensus.

Previously

that amendment didn't just apply to the lawyers, but it also applied to their

employees. There was a concern there that that was too broad as far as the

people doing it, but I think it's fair to say there's still some

interpretation

around what that exemption means in the course of a person's practice. That's

something that the Law Society is going to have to deal with.

I expect

that at some point in the future it's feasible or possible that somebody may try

and challenge the scope of that to more narrowly or more broadly define it,

depending on which side the attack comes from. Who knows? The law is interpreted

all the time. The judges do the rulings, and they make their course. Government

may at some time have to step in and deal with that, but I don't foresee a huge

problem here.

I think

99.9 percent — probably even more than that — of the legal transactions that

are done by lawyers are lawyers doing something else, and they just have to sell

a piece of real estate as part of that practice. There will be some, possibly,

who get out there and try and create a bigger practice within their business of

selling real estate. That's something that the Law Society will have to keep an

eye on and make sure that it's done properly. This doesn't prohibit them from

expanding that part of their business.

Mayencourt: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave

granted.

Introductions by Members

Mayencourt: We're very blessed today with school children. I note that the

Valleyview Secondary School has brought 40 grades 10 and 11 students along with

their teachers, Ms. Corine Lebourdais and Mr. Dan McColman. They're here to

watch the proceedings today. If we could all give them a warm welcome, that

would be great.

One thing I

forgot to say was: I believe you had the chance to meet with your MLA, the MLA

for Kamloops–North Thompson, and he sends his greetings as well.

Debate Continued

Suffredine: Just taking that last line of discussion a little further, we

know what we're getting with respect to the legal profession and where they're

going on this, more or less. Can the minister give us a bit of the flavour? We

haven't been able to please the notaries. I certainly think I know why. It

becomes much more difficult for me conceptually about why a notary needs to sell

real estate as ancillary to a notary practice.

Can the

minister give us some sort of flavour of where we think we might get with

notaries and how we're going to handle the same kinds of problems that would

arise in legal practices if notaries get to sell real estate and then do the

conveyancing?

[1605]

Hon. G.

Collins: The definition in here of real estate services is very broad. I

think the concern from notaries is that they would be captured by that

prohibition in what they would normally do as a notary. Not having been one, I

don't know exactly everything they do, but the concern would be that their

normal practice would be impinged upon and that they would be unable to complete

certain transactions. We will try and put in place an exemption under the

regulations that deal with that.

We may have

to determine, because of the level of insurance…. Again, we've just started

that process, so I don't want to preview where we may end up, because I don't

know where we're going to end up for sure. We may find that that exemption

exists but is narrowly defined, or it may be more broadly defined. We'll have to

have that discussion with notaries as well as with the other players here.

Indeed, if one looks through the array of the statutory exemptions that we're

going to put through with an amendment, one can see that each of those has

different restrictions. There is legislation around each of those exemptions on

its own, and they're probably all different.

What we'll

try and do is review the possible regulations, talk to the notaries about that,

talk to others and, over the next number of months, try and determine what's an

appropriate regulation to describe that exemption. I really can't give the

member examples of how it might work or not, because we really have just started

that process. He may have better examples for me than I for him.

Amendment

approved.

Section 2

as amended approved.

On

section

Hon. G.

Collins: I move the amendment standing in my name with the Table and in the

hands of the opposition as well as other members of the House. It is the

amendment which we've just been discussing, and that is to put in place the

statutory exemptions for that array of practitioners to do as we've been

discussing.

[ Page 11109 ]

[SECTION 3,

(

a) in the proposed subsection (1) (

b) by deleting "exempted by the

regulations" and substituting "exempted by subsection (3) or the

regulations", and

(

b) by adding the following subsection:

(3) In addition to any exemption provided by regulation,

the following are exempt from the requirement to be licensed under this

Part:(

a) a person acting under the authority of a court;

(

b) a trustee in bankruptcy, custodian, receiver,

receiver manager or liquidator who is appointed under a provincial or

federal enactment, in respect of real estate services undertaken by the

person in that capacity;

(

c) an executor or administrator of an estate, in respect of real estate

services provided in relation to real estate owned or held by the estate;

(

d) a trustee, in respect of real estate services provided under the terms

of a will, marriage settlement or deed of trust;

(

e) a financial institution that has a trust business authorization under

the Financial Institutions Act, in respect of real estate services

provided in relation to real estate that it owns, holds or administers;

(

f) a practising lawyer as defined in

section 1 of the Legal Profession

Act, in respect of real estate services provided in the course of the

person's practice.]

On the

amendment.

Sultan: If I may ask, does the thrust of these amendments mean that the

legal profession in all practical terms can engage in most of the activities

that real estate agents, as defined in this act, can engage in? Is there any

distinction about…? Is there any ground upon which they may not tread? Or is

it pretty much a free field?

Hon. G.

Collins: It's a fairly broad exemption for lawyers. It says: "…a

practising lawyer as defined in

section 1 of the Legal Profession Act, in

respect of real estate services provided in the course of the person's

practice." As I commented earlier, that phrase, "in the course of the

person's practice," is something the Law Society will have to deal with,

because these are people that are regulated under the Legal Profession Act. It

really is up to their

interpretation.

As I

mentioned earlier, it's conceivable that while this exemption is narrower in

that it removes employees from the same exemption — it just applies to lawyers

themselves — others may feel that the

interpretation the Law Society puts in

place is too broad. Lawyers may come to the feeling — individual lawyers —

that the

interpretation is too narrow.

We put

legislation in place, and we all think it's written in concrete or etched in

stone the way the Romans used to do it. What we find over time is that through

courts and through actions of other bodies, etc., the

interpretation of that

legislation can be broader or narrower. This is virtually the same wording as

what was there before, except we've taken out the employee portion. It exists as

it existed previously and currently exists as well. It'll be up to the Law

Society to interpret that, and it'll be up to others to comment. I expect that

interpretation may evolve over time.

[1610]

Sultan: As we are all aware, there's been an intense degree of lobbying on

this issue directed toward MLAs and, as I understand it, also to the minister

and, one might presume, officials. I don't know if this is a proper question,

but as I understand also, there was some tentative understanding between these

two professional groups — namely, the real estate representatives and the

lawyers. If it is a proper question to ask — and I'm not sure it is — could

the minister give us a bit of a sketch as to how this amendment would affect the

understanding that I understand those two groups had reached at one time?

Hon. G.

Collins: As I mentioned at the very beginning of the debate, there was a

disagreement between the lawyers and the realtors as to who would be able to do

what. That was part of what spawned the discussion. That debate was raging.

That's what triggered the e-mails, letters, cards, postcards and phone calls in

the middle of the night that the member would have received as MLAs.

They came

to see us individually. They came to see us together. We said: "Look. Go

away like big people and find something that works here for both of you. Come

back to us with a joint recommendation. Otherwise, government will have to make

a decision, and one or the other of you or both may not like the result."

We sent them away. It took them some time. They negotiated back and forth, and

the decision that was arrived upon, or the consensus that was arrived at amongst

the parties, is what we see here verbatim in this amendment.

We had

initially intended to put that in the regulations and talked to them about all

the other regulations and exemptions that will come into place. As I mentioned,

it's in the statute instead. This reflects that wording exactly, so I expect

neither party — the realtors or the lawyers — will probably be entirely

pleased with where it ends up. At least it reflects the consensus that they were

not entirely pleased to arrive at but arrived at anyway. It does reflect that

consensus and the agreement that those two parties came to.

Sultan: Given that understanding, I think the minister was wise to put the

understanding back into the law from whence, I understand, for a period of time

it was to be omitted and handled in the regulations. It seems to me that these

two important professional organizations apparently worked very hard to reach a

consensus. Since the law does reflect the consensus, I think we're all gainers

in the end.

Hon. G.

Collins: Indeed, the law and, as part of it, the regulations would have

reflected that consensus exactly as well. The issue before us with this

amendment is: should it be in the regulations or in the act? As I said earlier,

I think there are some strong opinions, if I

[ Page 11110 ]

can put it that way, amongst the legal profession that they want it in the

act. I hear what they say. I disagree. I don't agree with their fears. However,

if it works and can still work…. It's really the interests of the public at

heart, so if this is a mechanism that works…. It's perhaps not as clean, but

if that works for the parties, then I'm happy to do it.

Mr.

Chairman, I might ask if perhaps the House could stand adjourned for about five

minutes.

The

Chair: We'll take a five-minute recess.

The

committee recessed from 4:13 p.m. to 4:23 p.m.

[H. Long in

the chair.]

Suffredine: This is fairly similar to a question I asked earlier about

isolated transactions. Is consideration being given in this

section as far as

the inability to do a transaction without a licence? It seems to me there could

easily be cases where a person might do a transaction and pay a fee, but the

person acting as the agent wouldn't be doing that for a living normally. To pick

an example, one person might come to another and say: "I can introduce you

to a buyer of a piece of real estate, but I'd like a finder's fee if I do

that."

I put

together the deal. I'm not in the business. I'm not doing it on more than a

single-time basis. It's an isolated opportunity. Is any consideration being

given to whether or not a person would run afoul of the act, be unable to

recover compensation under a contract like that, if it was indeed an isolated

transaction?

[1625]

Hon. G.

Collins: If it were just an isolated incident, then I think there may be an

argument there, and we would certainly consider that as we draw up the

regulations for exemptions. I guess the thing you'd want to caution against is

if after having done one, somebody thought it was a pretty good deal and started

to do two, three, four, five and ten, and pretty soon they've got an office and

they've got a shingle out. That's always the challenge — to not overregulate

things you really don't want to regulate, but make sure you capture those people

who really do this on an ongoing basis as part of how they make a living. That's

a challenge.

I remember

that years ago in opposition, I think the previous government was bringing in

some changes to the Employment Standards Act. I can't remember if it was

regulations or the statute, but the way it was drafted, the Employment Standards

Act was going to apply to babysitters. It took about three hours, I think, for

people to realize that wasn't a very good idea, and it was changed. There's

always a line there. Again, if somebody's a nanny, you want to have some

provisions there. It's an example of where government has to be careful that it

doesn't come in too heavy-handed and deal with things that aren't really

problematic.

Again,

we'll look at those types of things as we try and draft up the regulations for

exemptions. If the member has some suggestions on that, I'd be more than happy

to hear them and take that into consideration. Certainly, if any of the various

players here who have these exemptions, or previously by regulation, have

thoughts on that as well — they probably experience it on a more ongoing basis

than I would — I'd be very happy to hear their comments to see if there's a

way of managing that.

Amendment

approved.

Section 3

as amended approved.

On

section

Hon. G.

Collins: I move the amendment to

section 4 that is in the hands of the Clerk

as well as the opposition and other members, which continues to implement the

topic that we've been dealing with. It says:

[SECTION 4, in the proposed subsection (1) (

b) by deleting

"exempted by the regulations" and substituting "exempted by

this Act or the regulations".]

On the

amendment.

Hon. G.

Collins: That just closes the loop on the three amendments — now this

third one that we've been discussing and the issue that we've been addressing.

Amendment

approved.

Section 4

as amended approved.

On

section

Suffredine: Is the terminology in

section 5 simply a restructuring of what

the Real Estate Act used to describe as an agent? Could the minister describe

generally what the various categories of brokerage, managing broker, associate

broker and representative would be under the new act and what they can do?

Hon. G.

Collins:

Section 5(1) does really update the names or — how do I put it?

— the description and the labels by which these various people are considered.

As I mentioned previously, where we have sub-subsection (a), which is brokerage,

that is what used to be known as an agent in the old legislation. The

description of what that person does is in the act. I don't believe that's

changed, but I'll stand corrected if it has changed much.

Sub-subsection

(

b) has managing broker and is what used to be referred to as a nominee. The

associate broker in sub-subsection (

c) is what used to be referred to as an

agent under 9.15 of the regulations.

What is

now, under

section 5(1)(d), described as a representative is what used to be

referred to in the old act as a salesperson. What was agent is now brokerage.

What was nominee is now managing broker. What was an agent under 9.15 of the

regulations is now an associ-

[ Page 11111 ]

ate broker, and what was a salesperson is now termed a representative.

Mayencourt: I seek leave to make another introduction.

Leave

granted.

[1630]

Introductions by Members

Mayencourt: I really appreciate the indulgence of the House.

On behalf

of the member for Kamloops–North Thompson, I'd like to make the House aware

that we have some grades 7 through 9 students from Tsay Keh Dene School in the

chamber today. They are joined by Mr. Dev Bradley, Bob Dahler and Deanna Poole.

Would the House please make them feel very welcome.

Debate Continued

Sections 5

to 32 inclusive approved.

section

Suffredine: I wonder if the minister could consider…. I presume this is

just a rewrite of the Real Estate Act as it was and that this

section hasn't in

any material way changed from that. The

section contains a provision that in

order to pay money into court where there's a dispute, an adverse claim over

brokerage commissions or things like that…. It's quite a complicated procedure

to get the money. First, you've got to get an order to get it into court. Then

you've got to get an order to get it out of court. It's a procedure, for

example, that could be achieved by having the

section just make it a matter of

right that if there's a dispute between two parties and a real estate firm is

holding money in trust that's being claimed by more than one person, there is a

provision under the Supreme Court rules where one can pay money into court on a

procedure called a precipe. Trying to get a judge to hear an application simply

to let the money be paid into court seems complex and archaic.

I wonder if

the minister could comment on whether or not any consideration was given to

making this a procedure where the only time one needed an actual order was on a

judge determining who was entitled to the money. It would make it simpler for

people involved in these disputes to hand the money in to a judge and let the

judge decide.

The

Chair: Members, to be clear, we have cleared sections 21 through 32. We're

on 33.

Hon. G.

Collins: This is what's in the current legislation. It's been moved into

this legislation. There's no big change, if any. It's a process that has worked

well in the past. Certainly, during probably a good two years of consultation on

this, there was never a concern raised with regard to this section. It seems to

work well. It seems to function properly. However, should there be an issue that

arises in the future, I hope people would bring it to our attention. They can

consider it 45 years from now, the next time the legislation experiences a major

rewrite, or prior to that if it needs an additional amendment.

Suffredine: I don't really want to engage in a debate with the minister

about that. It does seem to me fairly logical, though, that once a

section is in

place, coming to the Legislature with suggestions on improving the procedure

under the

section is not something the average person does. They grumble about

it on a daily basis that they actually have to pay a lawyer to go down to court

and pay money into court, when that's a pretty routine application.

[1635]

I don't

think that in this case you could even do it into Provincial Court. The

jurisdiction of the Provincial Court is up to $10,000. It does seem to me that

the minister might want to give some consideration to whether or not this could

be done in the small claims jurisdiction, where the amount of money is less than

$10,000, and to enable a procedure that doesn't require an application to a

judge to consider the merits where really all that's being said is that a

trustee is standing in the middle of two parties who claim the same money.

I get what

the minister is saying, but it does seem to me — although it might seem out of

place at this moment, in terms of the number of complaints they've likely had

— that it's not really to be expected that those comments or complaints would

be coming in.

Hon. G.

Collins: As I mentioned earlier, this legislation and these drafts were out

for discussion for an extensive period of time, back and forth from the various

practitioners. I'm trying to think of anybody who didn't offer their opinion on

it at various stages. It just didn't come up, to my knowledge, as an issue. The

member may make a valid point. I'm glad to go back and look at it and see if

it's something that requires attention. But as I said, I think it's been out

there for a long time, and we didn't receive any specific representation about

it to my knowledge at all.

Maybe there

is an issue that people just didn't come forward with. If the member's got some

concerns about that, I'd be glad to hear them. Perhaps we can see if something

requires attention. I thank him for his comment.

Suffredine: Thank you to the minister. Those are my questions.

Sections 33

to 149 inclusive approved.

Title

approved.

[ Page 11112 ]

Hon. G.

Collins: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with

amendments.

Motion

approved.

The

committee rose at 4:38 p.m.

The House

resumed; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

Reporting of Bills

Bill 41,

Real Estate Services Act, reported complete with amendments.

Third Reading of Bills

Deputy

Speaker: When shall the bill be reported as read?

Hon. G.

Collins: By leave, now.

Leave

granted.

Bill 41,

Real Estate Services Act, read a third time and passed.

Hon. G.

Collins: I call second reading of Bill 53.

Second Reading of Bills

INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL

ACTIVITY ACT

Hon. G.

Collins: I move that Bill 53 now be read for a second time.

Bill 53

implements the International Financial Activity Act and repeals the existing

International Financial Business (Tax Refund) Act as well as the International

Financial Business Act, effective September 4 of this year, 2004.

Bill 53

represents another step in the government's drive to improve British Columbia's

competitiveness and help revitalize our economy. The existing legislation was

introduced in the late 1980s in the hope that it would create the foundation for

Vancouver to develop into a major international financial centre. There have

been some successes, with approximately 30 financial institutions registered in

the program.

However, I

think it's fair to say that the initiative had not accomplished what people had

initially hoped it would. Over time it became increasingly clear that British

Columbia needed more progressive legislation to effectively compete with other

financial centres and to promote British Columbia's exceptional advantages as a

location for international financial transactions. This view was confirmed by an

independent review of the international financial business program that was

undertaken in 2002.

[1640]

The new

legislation meets those objectives by expanding the types of corporations that

are eligible to register for tax refunds so that most corporations will be able

to register as long as they are carrying on eligible international financial

activities. It expands the list of financial activities that qualify for refunds

to include six new activities, including the distribution of film and television

rights outside of Canada. It also eliminates the restriction that currently

allows only corporations located in the greater Vancouver regional district to

register and, by doing that, allows businesses across British Columbia, from one

end to the other, to participate in the benefits of this program. It also allows

related party transactions for certain types of international financial business

activities.

The list of

new financial activities that will qualify for a refund under the International

Financial Activity Act, effective September 1, 2004, includes the following:

distribution of film and television rights outside of Canada, including

ancillary rights such as games or toys associated with the production; certain

treasury functions on behalf of non-residents, which means managing or

conducting international financial transactions within a corporation or a group

of corporations; back-office operations, which means providing behind-the-scenes

administrative services that are directly related to the financial activities of

non-resident businesses; backup office operations on behalf of non-residents,

including business continuation services such as the use of equipment and

premises in the event that the primary equipment or premises of a