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 6, 2004

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 25, Number 5

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Ken Drushka

Hon. J.

Murray

Introduction and First Reading

of Bills

Real Estate Services Act (Bill 41)

Hon. G.

Abbott

Real Estate Development Marketing

Act (Bill 42)

Hon. G.

Abbott

Highway (Industrial) Amendment Act,

2004 (Bill 46)

Hon. R.

Thorpe

Transportation Act (Bill 47)

Hon. R.

Thorpe

Safe Streets Act (Bill M202)

Mayencourt

Trespass to Property Act (Bill

M203)

Mayencourt

Statements (Standing Order 25 B )

Closing of U.S. border to Canadian

beef

J. Wilson

Inclusion of milk containers in

deposit-refund system

J. Bray

Transportation infrastructure

projects in lower mainland

D. Hayer

Oral Questions

B.C. Rail–CN Rail agreement and

property transfer tax

MacPhail

Hon. R.

Thorpe

Transfer of senior for long-term

care

J. Kwan

Hon. C.

Hansen

Arbitration option in legislation

on health support workers

M. Hunter

Hon. G.

Bruce

Impact of government policies on

B.C. economy

J. Bray

Hon. R.

Thorpe

Impact of health support workers'

collective agreement on health care funding

R. Hawes

Hon. C.

Hansen

Closing of U.S. border to Canadian

beef

W. Cobb

Hon. J.

van Dongen

Skilled trades training in high

school

B. Locke

Hon. T.

Christensen

Tabling Documents

British Columbia Legislative

Library, annual report, 2003

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Sustainable

Resource Management (continued)

G. Trumper

Hon. G.

Abbott

J. Wilson

D. Jarvis

Halsey-Brandt

B. Kerr

Second Reading of Bills

Securities Act (Bill 38) (continued)

B. Kerr

K. Stewart

B. Locke

M. Hunter

[ Page 10913 ]

THURSDAY, MAY 6, 2004

The House

met at 2:04 p.m.

[J.

Weisbeck in the chair.]

Introductions by Members

Deputy

Speaker: Good afternoon, hon. members. I have the privilege this afternoon

of making the first introduction. Today in the House I would like to acknowledge

some special visitors from Ireland. Please join me in welcoming the Irish

Committee of Public Accounts. Members joining us today include the Chair, Mr.

John Perry; Deputy John Dennehy; Deputy Seán Ardagh; and Mr. Derek Dignam, the

Clerk of the Committees.

The

committee has just arrived from Ottawa, where they met with federal officials,

and we are delighted that they chose British Columbia for meetings with

provincial representatives. Would the House please make them feel welcome.

Hayer: I rise this afternoon to welcome the parents of Stephen Gammer, one

of our dedicated communications officers. His parents, Jim and Sherrill Gammer,

are prominent members of our community, always helping out Surrey, and are also

neighbours of mine. Would the House please make them very welcome.

[1405]

J. Bray:

Joining us in the gallery today are two prominent individuals from the city of

Victoria: Lorne Whyte, who is the CEO of Tourism Victoria; and Doug Potentier,

who is the CEO of the greater Victoria Chamber of Commerce — very active in

our community and very helpful to providing advice to government. Would the

House please make them both very welcome.

Tributes

KEN DRUSHKA

Hon. J.

Murray: I'd just like to say a few words in acknowledgment of the life of a

friend, Ken Drushka, who passed away this morning at 6 o'clock. Ken was B.C.'s

foremost forestry author and advocate of Canada's pre-eminence as a forest

nation. Ken started off as a journalist, working for the Globe and Mail in

Toronto. He later moved west to British Columbia where he spent many years as a

logger, a silviculture contractor and the operator of a custom sawmill. He also

was a columnist on forestry policy and other issues in B.C. newspapers and

magazines.

Ken's

probably best known for his penmanship and research, having authored numerous

books on forestry, including Stumped: The Forest Industry in Transition ; Working

in the Woods ; Tie Hackers to Timber Harvesters ; and HR: A

Biography of H.R. MacMillan , which won the 1996 Roderick Haig-Brown regional

B.C. book prize.

His most

recent work, published just last fall, was Canada's Forests: A History of Use

and Conservation , which gives us a historical account of forestry in Canada

and focuses on an aspect that Ken was very passionate about — that is,

sustainable forest management.

In February

2004, Ken was named an honorary member of the Association of B.C. Professional

Foresters. This award recognizes individuals who have made outstanding

contributions to forestry but who are not members of the association. Ken was

loved and admired by many, and he will be missed.

Introductions by Members

Stewart: It's my pleasure today to welcome to the Legislature a number of

classes from Terry Fox Secondary School in Port Coquitlam. Would the House

please make them welcome.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

REAL ESTATE SERVICES ACT

Hon. G.

Abbott presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill

intituled Real Estate Services Act.

Hon. G.

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

Motion

approved.

Hon. G.

Abbott: I am pleased to introduce the Real Estate Services Act. This act

deals with the licensing and conduct of the real estate professionals who buy,

sell and manage real estate on behalf of others. Another aspect of the real

estate industry, the marketing of new real estate developments, is covered by

the Real Estate Development Marketing Act, which is also being introduced this

afternoon. These two new acts will replace the Real Estate Act, the current

legislation governing the real estate sector.

The new

Real Estate Services Act is an important piece of legislation that will enhance

consumer confidence in the real estate industry. One way this will be done is by

requiring the licensing of strata managers. Another is by establishing a special

compensation fund to protect consumers who have suffered loss from theft or

fraud. As well, the new act will enable more responsive and effective regulation

of the industry by re-creating the Real Estate Council of British Columbia as a

self-regulating organization. The council will be directly responsible for the

licensing, education and discipline of all real estate licensees and will be

equipped with a broad range of new investigation and enforcement tools.

The Real

Estate Services Act will also reduce the regulatory burden imposed by government

on real

[ Page 10914 ]

estate licensees by empowering the Real Estate Council to make rules

respecting the real estate business standards and the conduct and education of

licensees.

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 41

introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on the orders of the day

for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

[1410]

REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT

MARKETING ACT

Hon. G.

Abbott presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill

intituled Real Estate Development Marketing Act.

Hon. G.

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

Motion

approved.

Hon. G.

Abbott: I am pleased to introduce the Real Estate Development Marketing Act.

This act deals with the marketing of real estate developments and complements

the new Real Estate Services Act introduced earlier.

The Real

Estate Development Marketing Act will reduce the regulatory burden on developers

by providing clearer and more consistent marketing rules relative to the current

Real Estate Act. The new act will also enable developers to pre-sell more

developments and to make better use of deposit moneys and will require the

filing of only one form of disclosure agreement document regardless of the

nature of development property.

As well,

the new act will maintain and enhance consumer protection. Purchasers will

continue to have the benefit of full and plain disclosure as well as enhanced

rescission rights. All purchasers, regardless of the type of development

property they buy, will be given a standardized period in which to rescind their

purchase agreements. Deposit moneys from purchasers will have to be placed with

regulated professionals who are familiar with trust account responsibilities.

The new act

will create a framework for smarter regulation of the real estate development

sector in British Columbia. Smarter regulation and the competitive tax

environment are two of the ways in which this government is contributing to the

growth of the development sector, a key economic driver in British Columbia.

Hon.

Speaker, 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 42

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.

HIGHWAY (INDUSTRIAL)

AMENDMENT ACT, 2004

Hon. R.

Thorpe presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill

intituled Highway (Industrial) Amendment Act, 2004.

Hon. R.

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

Motion

approved.

Hon. R.

Thorpe: As part of our government's new-era commitment to reduce red tape

and regulatory burden, I am pleased to introduce Bill 46.

The current

Highway (Industrial) Act provides a framework to ensure the safety of industrial

roads and the drivers and traffic that operate on them. The act has not been

updated in nearly 50 years. After extensive and thorough consultation with

industry, we have decided to modernize the act.

Under these

changes, the Highway (Industrial) Act will be renamed the Industrial Roads Act.

This

legislation will benefit our vitally important resource industries such as

forestry, mining, and oil and gas that use industrial roads. The Highway

(Industrial) Amendment Act, 2004, continues our commitment to cut red tape and

make it easier for business to do business.

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

46 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.

TRANSPORTATION ACT

Hon.

R. Thorpe presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill

intituled Transportation Act.

Hon. R.

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

Motion

approved.

Hon. R.

Thorpe: I am pleased to introduce Bill 47.

The

Transportation Act consolidates highway legislation into one organized,

plain-language document. It replaces the ministry's Highway Act, the Ministry of

Transportation and Highways Act, the Highway Scenic Improvement Act and the

Build BC Act. It results in a net reduction of approximately 60 regulatory

requirements, and it resolves problems in existing legislation by updating the

language, eliminating inconsistencies and organizing the legislation in an

easily accessible manner.

Moreover,

this new act implements a number of changes, including: clarifying the

definition of a highway, including rural and municipal highways; clarify-

[ Page 10915 ]

ing highway responsibilities between provincial and local governments;

harmonizing provincial highway legislation with the Community Charter; and

facilitating long-term highway and corridor planning between local governments

and the province to help balance urban development with future traffic

requirements.

Finally,

the Transportation Act will improve the ministry's business process and enhance

public service as numerous prospective regulations have been replaced by

results-based regulation.

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 47

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]

SAFE STREETS ACT

Mayencourt presented a bill intituled Safe Streets Act.

Mayencourt: I move that a bill intituled Safe Streets Act, of which notice

has been given in my name on the order paper, be introduced and now read a first

time.

Motion

approved.

Mayencourt: On many occasions I have stood in this House and spoken about

the importance of making our streets safer. I have made a commitment to my

constituents that I would bring safer schools and safer streets, and that is

what this bill does. It bans aggressive solicitation. It bans solicitation of a

captive audience, such as people waiting for public transit or using an ATM

machine. This bill is about social responsibility and the contract between us

all to live, work and play in a civil society.

As a

government we promise safer communities. My constituents and a coalition of

groups from across this province have asked that this legislation be passed. It

is time for all of us to take a stand and restore the standards of conduct on

our streets and in our communities.

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 M202

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.

TRESPASS TO PROPERTY ACT

Mayencourt presented a bill intituled Trespass to Property Act.

Mayencourt: I move that a bill intituled Trespass to Property Act, of which

notice has been given in my name on the order paper, be introduced and now read

a first time.

Motion

approved.

Mayencourt: Our current Trespass Act was created a long time ago to deal

with situations in a rural setting. However, there is a need for trespass

legislation that deals with urban settings as well. This bill is something that

can be applied to an urban setting.

People who

own or rent property in cities need to know that they have the right to ask

people to leave if they do not want them to be on their property. Shopkeepers

and residents should not have to put up with unwanted guests on their property.

Currently, owners have to seek a court injunction to deal with this situation.

This is not a practical solution. This bill allows the owner, tenant or manager

to contact police and have these unwanted guests removed. This bill articulates

something that society already believes to be true — that individuals should

be allowed to control who is and who is not allowed access to their private

property.

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 M203

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) CLOSING OF U.S. BORDER

TO CANADIAN BEEF

Wilson: Where's the beef? Well, it's right here in British Columbia, and

almost everywhere you go, you'll see the ranching industry and beef production.

It dates back almost as far as British Columbia itself.

A year ago

a case of BSE was diagnosed, and the borders were closed. The United States

border was shut to Canadian beef and British Columbia beef. American

protectionism continues to freeze out our beef industry in spite of the science

that proves that B.C. beef and Canadian beef are among the safest in the world.

The United

States Department of Agriculture itself was prepared to announce that Canadian

cattle present minimal threat to their industry. The USDA is impressed with our

strong surveillance system, our stringent import control measures across Canada,

the ban on feeds that pass BSE, plus other safeguards. The Canadian industry is

ever increasing the screening process from 3,000 to 30,000 head per year.

This week

the USDA was cowed by an American cattlemen's lobby group called R-CALF. This

group is set on keeping Canadian beef out of the United States as long as

possible, and they sued their own government to get their way. Sadly, their

protectionism antics worked. A settlement was reached yesterday that

[ Page 10916 ]

keeps the borders from opening for an indefinite time. The United States is

playing politics, not listening to science. With presidential elections underway

it seems impossible to get the attention of a government more concerned with

lobby groups than with Canadian families and communities.

Canadians

are suffering, British Columbians are suffering, and my neighbours are suffering

— all because of protectionism. I will work any way I can to keep that

dialogue open with the United States Department of Agriculture and to urge them

to install B.C. beef and Canadian beef back into North American supermarkets.

[1420]

We have a

strong and resilient group of cattle producers in this province, and we also

have a strong political voice in this province. We will not be silent.

INCLUSION OF MILK CONTAINERS

IN DEPOSIT-REFUND SYSTEM

J. Bray:

Recently the capital regional district wrote government to reiterate the CRD

board's continued support for the inclusion of milk containers as part of the

deposit refund system under the provincial beverage container stewardship

program regulation. I agree with the CRD that the government should explore this

issue. I believe this would be consistent with the Ministry of Water, Land and

Air Protection's industry product stewardship business plan and principles of

placing responsibility for waste management with product producers and users

rather than the general taxpayer — and a level playing field where all brand

owners for a particular product category are subject to the same stewardship

responsibilities.

I note that

although the dairy industry has advocated municipal curbside collection and

offered local government partial funding for the containers collected, it is

estimated that the proposed funding would represent only about 25 percent of the

total cost of collecting and recycling milk containers in the capital region.

Milk containers should be included in the deposit refund system because the

deposit refund system has proven effective, capturing approximately 75 percent

of all used beverage containers with a deposit.

Milk is

predominantly packaged in either plastic jugs or gable-top cartons, both of

which are readily recyclable. The 2001 CRD waste composition study indicated

that approximately 1,000 tonnes of gable-top and plastic containers are being

disposed of at Hartland landfill annually. Future CRD collection and processing

costs will be reduced if plastic milk containers are not collected in the blue

box program, and space to collect other materials in the blue box program would

be available.

The

Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection's B.C. industry products stewardship

business plan states that the following principles will guide the process of

reviewing existing and new product stewardship programs: producer-user

responsibility, level playing field, results-based, and transparency and

accountability.

I believe

that my constituents would support the move from the blue box curbside handling

of milk containers to paying the deposit and then returning the containers for

reimbursement, like they do for pop, juice and liquor containers. I support the

ministry working with the CRD to look at including milk containers in the

deposit refund system.

TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE

PROJECTS IN LOWER MAINLAND

Hayer: Surrey-Tynehead constituents are pleased by the progress we are

making in improving the traffic flow in the Surrey area. Thank you to the

Minister of Transportation for allocating funding to a project that's been long

overdue, the widening of the Fraser Highway east and west of 160th Street. The

Surrey Chamber of Commerce, my constituents and I eagerly await an announcement

to four-lane more of this route from 168th Street to Langley.

Another

project that has funding in the bank, Mr. Speaker, is the widening of Highway

10, an important link between the ferry terminal and Highway 1, the Trans-Canada

Highway. We are also widening 176th Street from the Pacific Highway border

crossing to the No.1 Trans-Canada freeway. This is vital to improving

cross-border traffic. Part of the improvements will be the installation of full

traffic lights at 176th Street and 80th Avenue, a dangerous intersection. I have

personally experienced the hazard of trying to cross 176th Street, which has a

heavy traffic flow.

Also

welcoming the completion of this project are my constituents from Port Kells,

Guildford, Tynehead, Fleetwood and Fraser Heights, and local businesses and

their employees, such as Burnaby Lake Greenhouses and the owners of well-known

Northview Golf and Country Club, Chick and Marilyn Stewart. A new crossing over

the Fraser River is also good news for commuters and businesses and is expected

to get underway this December or the beginning of next year.

In all, we

are investing more than $200 million in Surrey, but as one of the

fastest-growing cities in B.C., there is still much more work to do: the

twinning of Port Mann Bridge; the completion of South Fraser perimeter road;

adding extra lanes to the freeway from Vancouver to 200th Street in Langley;

adding a new crossing on Highway 1 at 156th Street; and improving interchanges

at 152nd Street, 160th Street and 176th Street.

I look

forward to working with the minister on all these projects.

Oral Questions

B.C. RAIL–CN RAIL AGREEMENT

AND PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX

MacPhail: The Minister of Transportation continues to have trouble with his

answers to questions

[ Page 10917 ]

about the cost of the B.C. Rail deal. Yesterday he ran away from the House

after refusing to disclose the tax break his government gave to CN. The B.C.

Liberals say they are against business subsidies.

[1425]

Can the

Minister of Provincial Revenue explain why he's giving CN Rail, a company that

made more than $200 million in the last quarter, a taxpayer-funded subsidy worth

over $20 million to buy B.C. Rail?

Hon. R.

Thorpe: Once again, the NDP have their facts wrong. To date, no property

transfer tax has been paid as no property has been transferred.

Deputy

Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a supplemental.

MacPhail: Well, isn't that interesting? What a ridiculous answer, Mr.

Speaker.

The

government yesterday admitted that CN is not paying the property transfer tax

when the deal is closed and that B.C. Rail Company itself will pay the property

transfer tax, thereby ripping off the shippers for $24 million — and the

taxpayers of B.C.

The

minister may blow off the taxpayers with an answer like that. Let me remind him,

though, that right now it's costing taxpayers $120 million more to fill up their

gas tanks because this government jacked up gas taxes by 3.5 cents per litre at

a time when gas prices are going through the roof. The direct tax subsidy to CN

alone would eliminate the B.C. Liberal gas tax grab for every driver along the

B.C. Rail corridor.

Again to

the Minister of Provincial Revenue: stop giving stupid answers, and tell….

Deputy

Speaker: Member, retract that, please.

MacPhail: I retract that, Mr. Speaker.

Stop giving

answers that make absolutely no sense to anybody with a brain, and tell us why

he's forcing average taxpayers to subsidize CN when they're paying through the

nose to fill up their cars and trucks.

Hon. R.

Thorpe: Let me once again say to this House that the NDP have their facts

wrong, as usual. As I said earlier, no property transfer tax has been paid, as

no property transfer has taken place. All applicable property transfer tax will

be paid as part of the restructuring of the British Columbia Rail Company. I am

actually….

Interjection.

Deputy

Speaker: Order, please. Order, please. Let's listen to the answer.

Hon. R.

Thorpe: I'm actually….

Interjection.

Deputy

Speaker: Member…. Member, listen to the answer, please.

Hon. R.

Thorpe: I'm absolutely shocked that a former Minister of Finance of this

House, who understands the privacy rules that a Minister of Finance and a

Minister of Revenue have, would want anyone to break the privacy law. That

member stands over there day after day talking from her high horse about

protecting privacy, and now she wants members in this House to break the privacy

laws. As the Minister of Revenue I will respect the privacy laws of British

Columbia.

TRANSFER OF SENIOR

FOR LONG-TERM CARE

J. Kwan:

It's obvious from the answer from this minister that either he's completely

incompetent or he's completely out to lunch. He doesn't even know what's going

on with his own government's action on the sale of CN.

Yesterday

the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke presented a petition that, to quote

the member, is "signed by 899 of my constituents from Golden and area

requesting that Casey Phillips receive care in his home community." An

88-year-old man with no close family has had to call on the support of his

friends and neighbours to plead his case. Those friends and neighbours had to

petition this chamber just to get their MLA's attention to this man's plight.

Can the

Minister of Health tell us what he's done to address this issue?

Hon. C.

Hansen: We have in place for the first time assessment tools that were

actually started to be developed under the previous government. We're expanding

them across the province to make sure that our seniors can get access to

appropriate care in a timely way. I know that the interior health authority will

be looking at each of these individual cases and making sure that individuals

get access to appropriate care.

Deputy

Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant with a supplemental

question.

[1430]

J. Kwan:

The petition clearly has fallen on the deaf ears of a Health minister who

couldn't care less about the plight of seniors in this province. Health care

when you need it and where you need it was the promise from this government —

a promise that's turned into deception.

Ninety

minutes after the petition was tabled yesterday afternoon, Mr. Phillips was

transported by air ambulance to Fairmont and then flown to Vancouver. He is now

in a care facility in Burnaby, 700 kilometres away from the only home he's ever

known.

Can the

Minister of Health tell us how he can justify this treatment of Mr. Phillips by

the interior health authority? Can he commit today to ensuring that Mr.

[ Page 10918 ]

Phillips is returned home to the only community he's ever known and receives

the care he needs so that he can be close to friends and family?

Hon. C.

Hansen: One of the great tragedies in this province is that during the whole

decade of the 1990s while the NDP were in office, there were only 1,000 new,

additional long-term care beds built in this entire province. Yes, today we do

have a shortage, and we are working on that.

The other

thing that we inherited as a government is wait-lists of two to three years for

individuals to get placed in appropriate long-term care settings. We have

developed…

Interjections.

Deputy

Speaker: Order, please. Order.

Hon. C.

Hansen: …new assessment tools now that allow us to identify who needs care

on a priority basis. The wait-list for placement is now down to three months

and, in most cases, actually less than two months. The commitment that we make

and that the health authorities make is that when an individual needs care, he's

going to get care. If it's not in the closest facility, then he will get access

to care, and he will be transferred back to his facility of choice as soon as an

opening becomes available.

ARBITRATION OPTION IN LEGISLATION

ON HEALTH SUPPORT WORKERS

Hunter: I hope Hansard caught that, because I was not able to hear the

minister's answer.

I do have a

question for the Minister of Skills Development and Labour. It's a week since

Bill 37 was passed and four days since, thankfully, the strike was settled. Bill

37 included a 14-day period within which the HEU could ask for an arbitrator.

Can the minister indicate whether or not the HEU has asked for that arbitration

process to be begun?

Hon. G.

Bruce: No. At this point I've not had any official word from the HEU. I

would hope that I'll hear from them shortly. It can make quite a difference in

respect to the impact as to how the actual reductions are made. In fact, if it's

done through the process and the offices of an arbitrator, it's quite likely

that the impact on wages would be somewhere in the neighbourhood of 3 percent to

4 percent. Quite frankly, I need to hear from the union, and I would hope that

during the course of the next several days, I'll get some official word from

them as to the determination in respect to appointment of an arbitrator.

IMPACT OF GOVERNMENT POLICIES

ON B.C. ECONOMY

J. Bray:

Once again the NDP's economic think tank, the Canadian Centre for Policy

Alternatives, recently released a report dismissing the economic gains achieved

by policy decisions of this government and suggesting that any economic gains

have been merely a result of external factors. Naturally, having Marc Lee on the

radio today in Victoria created a lot of calls to my constituency office wanting

to actually know what the facts are.

Can the

Minister of Provincial Revenue please tell me what real economists who do not

the economy?

Hon. R.

Thorpe: The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, as we all know, is part

of the NDP misinformation system and machine. Let us see what the Conference

Board of Canada is saying. They're saying our growth will go from 3.1 percent to

3.5 percent in 2005. The TD Bank is saying we'll go from 3.1 percent this year

to 3.3 percent next year. Scotiabank is saying we'll go from 2.9 percent this

year to 3.2 percent next year. The Economic Forecast Council is saying we'll go

from 2.9 percent to 3.2 percent. The Credit Union Central of British Columbia

says our growth will go from 2.8 percent to 3.3 percent.

[1435]

More

important than all that, Mr. Speaker, is what's really happening in all parts of

British Columbia: leading Canada in employment by 130,000 new jobs; record

earnings, boosted by the economy by B.C. credit unions; B.C. exports outpace

national growth; Housing starts at a ten-year high; business, small business,

more optimistic in British Columbia than any jurisdiction in Canada. British

Columbia has turned the corner, British Columbia is growing, and in British

Columbia the best is yet to come.

Interjections.

Deputy

Speaker: Let's have a little order, please.

Interjections.

Deputy

Speaker: Order, please. We've got a question here from the member for Maple

Ridge–Mission.

IMPACT OF HEALTH SUPPORT WORKERS'

COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT

ON HEALTH CARE FUNDING

Hawes: Over the past few days my office has been called by a number of my

constituents and, in fact, some members of the HEU with respect to the $200

million in savings achieved under Bill 37. These folks are asking if this money

is going to disappear into a black hole of administration or exactly where will

this money be spent.

To the

Minister of Health Services: can he assure my constituents and members of the

HEU that this money is not going to go to expand the health care administration

and perhaps tell them exactly where will this money be directed?

[ Page 10919 ]

Hon. C.

Hansen: The good news is that all of the money that is saved as a result of

Bill 37 will get directed into direct patient care throughout the province to

meet real needs of real patients, including the 6,000 patients that had their

surgeries cancelled.

addition, I'd like to assure the member that we have given targets to each of

the health authorities around the reduction in administration costs in the

health authorities throughout the province, and I am pleased to advise the House

that to date they have been able to save $97 million at the health authority

level each year in administrative and support costs. All of that is being

redirected into patient care.

addition, I would also like to tell the House that within the Ministry of Health

Services itself we have achieved savings of $43 million a year in administrative

costs. Again, all of that money is being directed into direct patient care.

CLOSING OF U.S. BORDER

TO CANADIAN BEEF

W. Cobb:

My question is to the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries. It's

interesting that it ties in with what the member for Cariboo North indicated.

I read the

headline: "Cattlemen's Group, USDA Reach Agreement on Beef Import

Case." Last August, as the member stated, the import ban of Canadian beef

in the U.S. Department of Agriculture was adjusted to allow for some imports of

our beef. It seems that as we are waiting for a complete lift of the ban, a

group from the United States has sued the USDA, forcing them to reach an

agreement that will not permit expanded exports of beef from British Columbia.

To the

minister: does this agreement actually mean that my ranchers are going to see

further delays in reopening the border for Canadian beef?

Hon. J.

van Dongen: We are disappointed in the most recent decision of the USDA and

the agreement that's been reached. It was a proposal based on science.

It is not

the major decision that is under consideration right now by the U.S. Department

of Agriculture. The major issue that's under consideration is a declaration that

Canada is a minimal-risk country. It also involves a proposed set of rules for

the movement of live cattle and an expanded range of beef products. The comment

period on this bigger issue closed on April 7. Canada, supported by the

provinces — all of the provinces — made a submission before April 7. That

issue is still under consideration by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. We

expect a decision shortly, and we are optimistic about the decision.

This is the

bigger issue that's under consideration. Our government will continue to push to

get the U.S. border fully opened and get back to a North American integrated

beef market.

SKILLED TRADES TRAINING

IN HIGH SCHOOL

Locke: My question is to the Minister of Education. Even with the increased

demands for trades, apprenticeship programs in high schools in my riding are

still having a difficult time attracting students. We want to encourage parents

and students to look at the viable career path that trades offer them, but

unfortunately, some students still see trades as inferior to a university

education.

[1440]

Interjection.

Deputy

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

Interjection.

Deputy

Speaker: Leader of the Opposition, let's hear the question, please.

Locke: Can the minister please tell the students and parents what options

are available for students who would like to enter the trades and what we are

doing to promote trades in the K-to-12 system?

Hon. T.

Christensen: The member for Surrey–Green Timbers raises an important

point. It's clear that the development of skills in trades programs in our

public schools is an integral part of preparing our students for life after high

school.

There are

many good things going on in school districts around the province, whether it's

the Career Technical Centre in Abbotsford, whether it's a number of trades

programs in Surrey, or whether it's Project Heavy Duty up in the Nechako Lakes

school district or in the Peace River South school district. All of these

programs are providing opportunities for students to pursue their interests in

trade-related programs.

We do face

a continual challenge in that parents are often wary of encouraging their

children to pursue trades.

Interjection.

Deputy

Speaker: Member…. Leader of the Opposition, would you please come to

order. Let's listen to the answer.

Hon. T.

Christensen: Students, as well, don't necessarily recognize the

opportunities that are available for them in trades. With the introduction of

our new graduation requirements next fall that include a Planning 10 course,

we're hoping that school districts will have an opportunity to better expose

their students to the many opportunities that are arising in respect of the

trades.

certainly know in this province that as our economy expands, moving forward, the

demand for those jobs is going to increase even more. Particularly as we head to

2010 and the Olympics there are going to be great opportunities for all of our

students if they choose to pursue skills development.

Interjections.

[ Page 10920 ]

Deputy

Speaker: Order, please.

Interjections.

Deputy

Speaker: Can I have some order, please.

[End

of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Deputy

Speaker: Hon. members, I have the honour to present the 2003 annual report

of the British Columbia Legislative Library.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G.

Abbott: I call estimates debate on the Ministry of Sustainable Resource

Management.

[1445]

Committee of Supply

The House

in Committee of Supply B; K. Stewart in the chair.

The

committee met at 2:47 p.m.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

SUSTAINABLE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

(continued)

On vote 35:

ministry operations, $68,415,000 (continued) .

Trumper: Minister, I have some questions regarding a particular development

that is being proposed in part of my constituency. It concerns a proposal by

BCAL for a golf resort between Qualicum Bay and Bowser that is causing some

concerns. The process is unclear, I think, to many people, regarding a project

being proposed such as this. I wonder if you could possibly outline the process

that takes place when a proposal like this is being proposed by British Columbia

lands.

Hon. G.

Abbott: The area in question that the member references is about 1,900

hectares. As a very large tract of undeveloped Crown land, Land and Water B.C.

has, of course, been looking at it, particularly given the growth in terms of

both population and economic development on Vancouver Island. They have been

looking at that area, along with the regional district.

One of the

ideas being assessed and discussed currently with the regional district of

Nanaimo is the possibility of a phased resort and residential development. I

emphasize "phased" because it is probably something being envisioned

over approximately a 20-year time horizon. It's not necessarily an immediate

sort of development. It certainly will be phased.

[1450]

The staff

at Land and Water B.C. have been in discussion with the regional district for, I

think, well over a year now with respect to this. The regional district

requested that there not be public consultations by Land and Water B.C. until

they had concluded their official community plan review for that area, and Land

and Water B.C. had acquiesced to that request.

They did

have one opportunity to meet the public in conjunction with the regional

district, but they're hoping in the weeks and months ahead to have more

opportunities to meet with the public to discuss the suggestions that are

contained in the current plan. It's a plan that we fully expect will evolve in

some measure in response to public concerns and public ideas, so we'll look

forward to hearing more from the public in the weeks and months ahead.

We are also

hoping to continue the dialogue with the regional district. The regional

district at this point has requested additional information in relation to the

proposal. I think it will probably be something that is concluded over a matter

of months, and we'll be looking forward to the finalization of the details

required by the regional district of Nanaimo.

At some

point, of course, the issue of whether the OCP would be revised and all of the

issues around the precise details of the development — how it will move

forward, how it will be serviced, how that servicing might coincide with the

need for improved water and sewer servicing in adjacent areas…. All of these

questions are ones that will be answered in consultation with both the regional

district and the public in the months ahead.

Trumper: I wonder if the minister could outline what the process is when a

site is being chosen by Water, Land and Air Protection as a possibility for use

of Crown land for a proposal such as this — why that site would have been

chosen and whether or not an assessment has been done on the value of that land.

Hon. G.

Abbott: There are a number of reasons why this parcel is being considered

for the proposed uses. Among them, and I guess it's an obvious one, is that it

is a very large area of Crown land. Of course, if it wasn't Crown land, Land and

Water B.C. would not be involved in this issue. So it's a very large block of

Crown land, and it's in a very key location in terms of development

possibilities. Clearly, that part of Vancouver Island is enjoying considerable

growth.

It is a

centre for tourism, a centre for new economic development and, certainly, an

area where people look to retire. There are all kinds of factors in terms of the

market character of the property that make it very attractive from a development

perspective. A market and economic assessment of the property has been done, and

that assessment concluded there was a need for at least an additional golf

course and others in the future as well. The precise content of what will

finally be agreed to with the regional district remains to be seen, but it is

strategically a very important area.

In terms of

the member's final question about appraisal, there will be at least one

appraisal done. I suspect that with a property of this size and character and

[ Page 10921 ]

importance, there is apt to be more than one appraisal, but there will be at

least one appraisal done. That will be an appraisal that is done far closer to

the end of this process than we are now. There is still a lot of work to be done

with the regional district before the regional district ever actually formally

considers the development plan, the OCP amendment and that sort of stuff. To do

an appraisal now when it might be two, three, five or even ten years out before

we see development occur…. It would probably not be a good expenditure of

their dollars to do an appraisal now, but I guarantee you that at least one will

be done.

[1455]

Trumper: One of the issues that has been raised in this proposal is…. I

ask whether or not, because although this proposal would be phased in, there are

a large number of residences that would be involved with a proposal. When a

proposal like this is put forward by Water, Land, and Air Protection, do they do

any investigation as to what water is available — obviously, water has to be

available for golf courses — for the consumer, those that will be moving in?

The issue of water is a big issue on the east side of Vancouver Island, so with

the number of people or families who would be moving in and the services that go

with that, the question has been raised as to whether or not the amount of water

that would be required is available.

Hon. G.

Abbott: The member's right. The issue of the availability, volume and

quality of water is a very important issue in relation to this proposal. One of

the issues that has been raised locally is whether the siting of the potential

golf courses would be above the aquifer which some draw their water from. Some

testing has been done there, and the results have been — I'll try to phrase

this carefully — positive from the perspective of not being on top of that

aquifer. The waters would not be affected, in short, by the current siting

proposal for the golf courses.

The issue

of how the area would find a water supply is also being looked at very

carefully. Clearly, golf courses and residences and so on do require a great

quantity of safe drinking water. We are going to ensure that that's in place as

well. It's the hope, I think, of Land and Water B.C. that by working with the

regional district and adjacent communities that what appears to be some

deficiency now in terms of the infrastructure around water and sewer in that

area…. By tying in with new development, there is some potential that a

problem area in terms of infrastructure deficit might actually be turned around.

The development could be a very positive addition to the area from that

perspective as well.

Trumper: The area is forest land. Obviously the concern around this issue is

the growth of settlement in that area. In the discussions that I have heard

publicly and from individuals, they are not…. Because there has not been a

great deal of public discussion with the various ministries present, etc., it's

unclear how much of that land would be taken up by the development. Is it

possible to give a ballpark figure on that?

[1500]

Hon. G.

Abbott: It's unfortunate in a lot of ways that in acquiescing to the

regional district's request that no additional public interaction be undertaken

until after they had completed their official community plan review, there's

been a number of concerns arise. I think Land and Water B.C., now that they are

able to do more in terms of public consultation, will be able to put some of the

concerns — for example, the water concern — to rest very quickly.

I think one

of the reasons why people on closer examination might find this to be attractive

is that about only one-third of the 1,700 hectares will be fully developed. The

balance will be green area, much of it remaining in trees and so on. It's

anticipated that along with the golf courses or whatever ultimately is agreed to

with the regional district and the public, we're looking at about 1,250

residences there. Those are included within the one-third development area as

well.

There are

going to be lots of opportunities in this proposal for the development of, I

guess, what might be called local parks as well as green areas, buffer areas.

Again, I think as we move forward with this and have an opportunity to hear the

public's ideas and suggestions, this could become quite a remarkable win for

both the existing community and for the future of British Columbia.

Trumper: I would thank the minister for his comments. I have one last

question that I would like to ask.

I do hope

sincerely that we will be having some more public meetings and consultations

with the residents so they can make an informed decision on the direction that

their community takes. I do believe that at the moment there's not enough

information out there for people to make an informed decision whether they're in

favour of the proposal or whether they're not. Certainly, I think you're aware

that many people are very concerned about it.

The last

question I would ask is: has there been any interest shown in this proposal by

outside investors?

Hon. G.

Abbott: The short answer is yes. There is a good deal of interest by

investors in Vancouver Island generally. There is, beyond that, significant

interest in southern Vancouver Island and in this particular part of southern

Vancouver Island, which is emerging as a tourism, recreation and retirement

area. There is a great deal of interest in this property and in this area.

We do look

forward to working with the public and the regional district, because again, I

think a big part of the LWBC mandate is to ensure that as we strategically use

Crown lands to further economic development in this province, we do it in a way

that people feel they have been well served as well as seeing the economy well

served. I thank you for that.

I just want

to note to the Leader of the Opposition, if I may, hon. Chair, that one of our

members has a

[ Page 10922 ]

flight to catch. Would it be all right from her perspective if he had his

questions, and then we can move on? Or is that a problem?

Interjections.

Wilson: I have a few questions for the minister around the grazing lease

programs. It is my understanding that the Ministry of Sustainable Resource

Management now is in charge of all grazing leases in the province.

[1505]

Hon. G.

Abbott: The member is correct. The management of grazing leases now…. The

responsibility rests entirely with the Ministry of Sustainable Resource

Management. There are about 500 of those grazing leases in the province.

However, one distinction that might be noted is that range permits continue to

be the responsibility of the Ministry of Forests.

Wilson: My understanding of the grazing leases was that the Ministry of

Sustainable Resource Management had a number under their control that had been

permitted through Land and Water B.C. — or BCAL, as it was known before that

— and that there were a number that were established under the jurisdiction of

the Ministry of Forests. Now they have all been put into one ministry. If I'm

correct, do they all fall under the same set of guidelines or regulations as to

the activities that go on out there?

G. Hogg:

I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave

granted.

Introductions by Members

G. Hogg:

Joining us in the House at this very moment are 32 grade 5 students from Delta

South. I am pleased to, on behalf of their member, introduce their teacher, Ms.

Gonzalez; six parents; and these exciting students from Hawthorne Elementary

School. They tell me Hawthorne is named after the tree. They've got all kinds of

exciting comments that they've made. I'm sure the House will want to give them a

robust, wholesome and exciting welcome to this Legislature and the wonderful

debates that they're going to be able to watch for the next few minutes. Please

welcome Hawthorne Elementary.

Debate Continued

Hon. G.

Abbott: I'll try to explain this in a way that is useful for the member,

because I can see how one could quickly get some confusion around the

terminology here.

The grazing

leases have, in fact, been in place since the early 1980s. That is the program

that we now have exclusive responsibility for managing. There continues to be in

place, as well, grazing permits and grazing licences, but those are distinct,

and those are managed by the Ministry of Forests. The primary distinction, I'm

advised by staff, between the leases which we manage and the permits and

licences which remain with the Ministry of Forests is that the leases provide

the right to exclusive use of the area. For example, the holder of the permit

might fence an area in order to enjoy that exclusive use.

[1510]

Wilson: I thank the minister for his answer. I'm aware of the grazing

licences and grazing permits. I understood that the Ministry of Forests had

handed over a number of grazing leases that they had jurisdiction or control

over to his ministry in the last little while here.

Hon. G.

Abbott: The answer to the member's question is: there has not been a change

with respect to the management of grazing leases since the early 1980s when they

became the responsibility of BCAL, the predecessor to Land and Water B.C.

There's been no change in respect of that. No leases have changed hands from the

Ministry of Forests to LWBC. That piece has remained consistent. What has

changed is that the responsibility for range management plans now rests

exclusively with Land and Water B.C. within the ambit of MSRM, and it is no

longer a mixed responsibility with the Ministry of Forests.

Wilson: On that note, since the grazing leases are now under the authority

of MSRM or Land and Water B.C., does the monitoring of these fall under any of

the regulations that we find in the Forest and Range Practices Act? Does the

management out there coincide with the Forest and Range Practices Act, or does

Land and Water B.C. have their own management plan designed for these leases?

Hon. G.

Abbott: The mechanism that is principally used by Land and Water B.C. in

managing the grazing leases is the range management plans. Those are the

principal instrument for that. There are discussions that are currently on and

are continuing with the Ministry of Forests and with Water, Land and Air

Protection in respect of that intersection which the member asks about — with

the FRPA, or Forest and Range Practices Act. We are still working through how

that intersection will precisely occur, and that is the subject of continuing

discussions between the ministries and the agencies.

Wilson: If the ministry is using a range management plan to run these

leases, is that the same range management plan that is required under the old

Forest Act or under the new Forest and Range Practices Act? A range management

plan is filed there; it's required. Does the Ministry of Sustainable Resource

Management use that plan, or do they have their own range management plan or

guidelines that the leaseholder can use?

[1515]

Hon. G.

Abbott: The management plans previously referenced have always been and

continue to be a con-

[ Page 10923 ]

tractual obligation on the part of the holders of those leases. What we are

aiming for in our discussions, as I mentioned in the last question from the

member, is that we're working with MOF and Water, Land and Air Protection to

produce plans which will be consistent with the letter and objectives of the

Forest and Range Practices Act.

Wilson: If we proceed down that road to make them consistent with the

management plans of the Forest and Range Practices Act, which is designed for

Crown land, not the…. These leases are not fee simple, but they do have a

certain degree of autonomy over them. You can fence them. You can have more

exclusive rights to them. If we take that approach, then we are in fact bringing

all of the regulations around use on Crown land onto land that is closer to fee

simple land.

Hon. G.

Abbott: First of all, I'll correct one thing. It is not Water, Land and Air

Protection that's a part of the discussions with MOF and LWBC; it's the Ministry

of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries. We erred there. That's the other party that

is key in working through the process we're currently in.

The range

leases certainly are on Crown land. One of the things that they enjoy as a part

of the lease on Crown land, though, as I noted in my earliest answer, is the

right of exclusive possession. They can fence it, etc., to ensure that right of

exclusive protection. One of the elements that is key in terms of the

discussions is that there is no expectation on anyone's part that that right of

exclusive possession will be given up by the leaseholder. That's one of the

reasons why it's not a simple task providing for that intersection between the

range leases and FRPA and one of the reasons why, obviously, there has to be a

different management regime with respect to those leases than there would be for

most other instances on Crown land.

[1520]

Wilson: I thank the minister for that. On the same issue, a little different

angle here on leases. I understand that Land and Water B.C. was attempting to

devolve themselves of these leases. What is in place at present as to options

further down the road — whether they have put in place purchase options or

continued lease options? What have they arrived at in that area?

Hon. G.

Abbott: I can advise the member that while there have been some very

preliminary discussions with respect to those possibilities, the discussions

have been exclusively focused around just what the options are in respect to

that. There are a range of issues that would slow that down, including first

nations issues, potentially environmental issues that might be identified by

Water, Land and Air Protection, the issue of affordability to leaseholders in

the agricultural community and any sort of purchase option. While Land and Water

B.C. is certainly happy to continue preliminary discussions of that character,

we are some distance from any sort of agreement that might lead to the change

the member suggested.

Wilson: I have another question here. It's got to do with, I guess, the

assessment authority, which is under the minister's control. This came up when

we were dealing with a grazing lease attached to some private land that was

purchased by an environmental organization. The ministry was of the mind that

they should sell the environmental organization the grazing lease. When we

looked into it, we found out something that….

Some of the

producers in the area were a little upset that we would let them buy land this

way and just set it aside for no real purpose other than to go back to nature.

What we discovered was that environmental organizations can purchase land and

then get tax exemptions on it. They are tax-free on it. They are classified as

providing good for the community and these sorts of things, so they fall into a

tax-exempt group according to the regulations or the policy we've designed.

A lot of

our rural and interior communities have been finding it rather difficult to make

ends meet for some time. Every time you take a piece of private property out of

their tax base, you erode their tax base. It makes it harder to keep our schools

open. It makes it harder to maintain our infrastructure, because that tax base

starts to dwindle.

We found

that in the Cariboo region there were 36 properties owned by conservation

groups. I know a few of these, and some of them are large places. For instance,

Ducks Unlimited bought Randolph Mulvahill out up at Chezacut. Randolph used to

run 300 mother cows.

These

people sell out. They're going to sell out. They retire That's their investment,

so they sell to the highest bidder. When an organization comes along with lots

of money, they end up buying it. If you take that production out of the system,

it's not there, and it becomes more difficult to maintain a rural

infrastructure.

We find

we've got 36 of these, and any that pay property taxes only do it when they

lease it back to a commercial operation. Say a neighbour wants to lease part of

that land for agriculture production or grazing, they could do that.

[1525]

A number of

people — I won't say everyone — have expressed the opinion that this doesn't

seem quite right and that there should be a review done of this practice. I'm

wondering if the minister is aware of it or if he is considering maybe looking

at some of the non-profits and their tax exemptions. I know Revenue Canada has

done that. They've said to Greenpeace, not too long ago, I believe: "You

are no longer considered to be a non-profit, tax-exempt organization."

Has the

minister considered looking at these policies and maybe changing them to help

those communities maintain some of their tax base?

Hon. G.

Abbott: I understand from staff that there have been a few, but actually

very few, sales of these

[ Page 10924 ]

kinds of leases to environmental organizations for conservation purposes. The

sale is contemplated only in instances where, arguably, there are unique or

unusual environmental values that need to be protected. In terms of the

exemption, it is probable that any exemption they enjoyed would come under the

Taxation (Rural Area) Act. In that case, the issue about whether they would

receive an exemption is established through the regulations and statutory

provisions associated with that act.

[1530]

In terms of

the concern raised by the member on the diminution of agricultural capability in

the region as a consequence of these leases moving out of active agricultural

production, I think that's a very legitimate concern. It's a concern that I

recognize, that our government recognizes, and it is very unlikely that we will

see more sales of this character in the future. I guess we can't say

definitively that there never will be, because we may be confronted by some

unique or highly unusual circumstance that might suggest that that was a good

idea. But we acknowledge the member's concern, and generally speaking, we won't

be seeing more of this type of sale of agricultural leases for conservation

purposes.

Jarvis: I would like to ask the minister a question. I'll yield later if the

member of the opposition comes in, because she wants to continue some

discussions.

important issue in the Fraser Valley with regards to the gravel in the rivers

and the Fraser Valley gravel removal…. Has there been a risk assessment done

on that? If so, what were the results, and what is the strategy for dealing with

the federal DFO on that? I wonder if you could answer me those questions at the

moment.

Hon. G.

Abbott: We certainly would welcome any questions in respect of that. The

issue of gravel extraction from watercourses…. Fraser is probably the most

notable one, but certainly it is not the only one where gravel extraction is an

ongoing issue.

In its

broadest sense, the issue is about gravel deposition as well as gravel

extraction. Every year in watercourses right across the province, streams and

creeks and rivers move into freshet as the winter snows melt. When those winter

snows move from the mountains down into the valleys and as the watercourses slow

down, the gravel, sand, and so on that are picked up during freshet are

deposited into the base of the watercourse.

What we see

over time — and I'll get the precise figures, certainly for the Fraser and

perhaps for some of the other watercourses as well — is a huge volume of

material that is deposited every year. Unless we take some actions on an ongoing

basis to see gravel extraction, the base of the river builds up and the exposure

to flooding is magnified every year. While we have been fortunate in recent

years in British Columbia, generally speaking — we haven't been with fire, but

in terms of flood, water has come off in a way that has not produced floods —

we can't necessarily hope that that condition is going to continue in our favour

into the foreseeable future.

As a

consequence, what we have been working on and I think making some good progress

on…. I'm certainly looking forward to any questions members may have with

respect to this. We are, for the first time in some time, making some very good

progress with the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans in trying to move

towards a management regime for rivers in British Columbia that would see gravel

extraction permits available on an annual basis. It's so that, optimally, we are

taking in gravel extraction something akin to what is deposited on an annual

basis, thereby hopefully keeping down or perhaps even lowering the threat of

floods from year to year in the Fraser and other important rivers in British

Columbia.

I will get

the detail for the member as his questions come forward. Generally, I think we

are not there yet, but we are getting closer. There was a reasonably good

agreement for this year. We're hoping for better agreements in the future. What

I would very much like to see as a minister is that in the future we have

something like the cutting-permit system in our forests where there is always,

in hand, a volume of extraction permits. It's so that, depending on the

circumstances year to year, we're still going to be able to get in and extract a

volume of material to help prevent the risk of flood.

[1535]

Jarvis: Thank you to the minister, who is never short of words anyway. You

pretty well answered all the questions that were necessary. In actual fact, I

was asking that question specifically for the benefit of the member from

Chilliwack, who has shown me pictures of those areas where there are growing

problems in regards to the fact that they won't allow them to remove the gravel.

Fortunately,

I guess our saving grace at this point is…. Perhaps if you are aware — if

you've got the figures on the lack of water, probably, or the snowpack behind us

— that we're not going to be faced with…. Is there any evidence to show —

these rivers where the problems arise, especially up in the Chilliwack area —

if there is any potential damage coming from the spring freshets, I guess?

Hon. G.

Abbott: I thank the member for his questions. I never realized that I could

answer so many questions with just one answer. I'll try not to be so thorough in

the future.

The issue

of volumes is, I think, an important one. The technical experts reckon that

there's probably something — and it'll vary from year to year — in the

neighbourhood of 500,000 cubic metres deposited annually in the Fraser. Because

there has not been a good management regime in place up to recent years — and

really up to today, I guess, in truth — to have annual extraction of anything

like that volume, I think we have some backlog we need to deal with as well.

[ Page 10925 ]

Last year

Land and Water B.C. sought 785,000 cubic metres in gravel extraction permits. We

were not able to secure that much. It was less than that, but at least there was

some gravel extraction undertaken in strategic areas last year. As I've said, we

do hope to build on that. We hope to secure, through our renewed cooperation

with DFO, a five-year agreement to see further comprehensive gravel extraction

in the Fraser area. Again, it's not the only area of concern, but it's a very

important one.

The issue

moving forward, I think…. One of the reasons why I can be relatively

optimistic today is that we are enjoying a level of cooperation among the

parties that has simply not been there in the past. It's not only the Department

of Fisheries and Oceans. Local governments are very much engaged around the

issues with respect to gravel extraction. They realize the importance of this

for their communities. Many of them have dike systems that are expensive to

maintain, and having an ongoing gravel extraction process is important to them

for preserving that dam and diking infrastructure.

As well,

first nations are now very much aware and very much a part of the efforts to put

together the five-year plans. Again, occasionally in the past there was, from

some first nations, resistance to gravel extraction, but that is changing, and

changing in a very positive way. They are certainly a very important part of

moving forward and getting that five-year program of gravel extraction. Of

course, it's going to be a rolling five-year program, so it's really ongoing

into the future. We are looking very much forward to securing that kind of

working basis with all of the partners that come into play with respect to

gravel extraction.

The member

asks a very important question with respect to flood risk in the year 2004. The

responsibility for monitoring this rests with the Ministry of Sustainable

Resource Management and with the water comptroller in Land and Water B.C., so we

have a pretty good idea of where we sit in terms of that important issue.

[1540]

The good

news is that we don't anticipate that there is going to be high flood risk in

2004. As of this point — I guess we're in early May — it is unlikely that we

would see major flooding events in the province this year.

That having

been said, because I've had a few of them in my own constituency unexpectedly at

times like July and so on, the risk of a flash or localized flood is always

there. Sometimes there are circumstances which give rise to those localized

events. Based on the snowpack, we don't anticipate…. With the amount of melt

we have seen already and the very warm weather in April, it is unlikely, with

the residual snowpack, that we face a large danger of flood from the remaining

snowpack.

While

there's variation across the province, coastal areas are, I guess, about average

in terms of the winter snowpack in the most recent measurement. There are large

areas of the province where we are well below what is the normal snowpack. In

some places, in fact — I think actually in many places — the snowpack is now

at 60 percent of normal. That is not a concern from a flood perspective but

actually a great concern from the opposite perspective. That is: are we going to

have sufficient flows in our creeks and rivers in June, July, August, September

and October of 2004 to manage the many diversified water needs that exist in

this province?

We are very

much concerned as a ministry — and I think that's shared across government at

this point — about our water management for 2004-05 and onward. Perhaps one of

these days the skies will open up, and we'll have a month-long rain. From our

perspective in terms of drought management, that would be a very welcome thing.

We don't expect it.

Again, this

goes to the importance of all communities, all water system purveyors, etc.,

marshalling their water resources very carefully — and if they haven't already

begun, beginning it very soon. There is a very real danger of a protracted

drought in 2004. If that occurs, we — those purveyors, those municipalities,

our province — are all going to have to make some extremely difficult

decisions around the allocation of water resources.

This is not

a hysterical or alarmist cry here. What we saw in 2003 in some communities,

particularly in the southern Okanagan but elsewhere in the interior as well, was

something that should give us pause in terms of moving forward in the future.

I'll use

the example of Summerland. Summerland, in August, came very close to running out

of water. The first difficult decision they had to make was how much they would

give for irrigation purposes for the farm community. I think ultimately the

water supply was so low that that had to be cut off. The next very difficult

decision they had to make was: how much do they continue to let flow through the

stream system below the dam to preserve fish stocks? I think there's some

concern about that from DFO and others, that insufficient water flowed through,

but the city had to make a very difficult call, a very difficult decision, about

protecting domestic water supplies. People need to drink; they didn't want to

lose that. That became a very difficult situation. Again, we have to marshal our

resources in 2005 very carefully to prevent that kind of scenario from occurring

again.

I know of a

second example. In 100 Mile House there was a loss of water. Again, it was a

very difficult situation for them. They came to government looking for

assistance to find a new water source.

These are

issues which we're going to have to continue to work on with communities.

Hopefully, we are going to be able to assist in ensuring that water management

plans and drought management plans are in place so that we can continue to make

the best use of water and ensure people in British Columbia have adequate

drinking water supplies.

[1545]

Cheema: Mr. Chair, can I have leave to make an introduction, please?

[ Page 10926 ]

Leave

granted.

Introductions by Members

Cheema: I'm pleased to introduce 50 grade 4 students, their parents and

their teachers, Ms. Petersen and Ms. Anderson, who are visiting us from W.E.

Kinvig Elementary School from my riding. These are very bright students, and

they were asking me a number of questions. I want to wish them all the best, and

I would like the House to please make them very welcome in this building.

Debate Continued

Jarvis: I assume from that answer that you gave me last — you put a little

fright in us — that we can expect a raise in the water rentals in this

province. In any event, my actual question to you is…. Basically, your

ministry is in charge of the gravel extraction and prevention of flooding and

all the rest of it but is having problems getting down to a system or — how

would you put it? — a compliance that would be agreeable to you and the DFO.

Who in the end takes the responsibility, in the event of that failure to remove

the gravel in an area that you have been advised about by a municipality or

individuals, if there is a flood?

Hon. G.

Abbott: I thank the member for his question. It is a good one, and I will

try to be relatively brief this time in terms of….

Interjection.

Hon. G.

Abbott: The thorough answer is fine? Okay, great.

When a

flood event occurs, it triggers the resources of the provincial emergency

program. The PEP officials and the crews which they hire would go in and attempt

to control and, to the best of their ability, do an immediate remediation in

terms of the situation that faced them. In short, they try to manage the

immediate crisis.

Depending

on the size and severity of the event, the resources of the federal government

may be triggered. I don't have the precise threshold point with me, but at some

point when it becomes a larger event, the federal aid is triggered. I believe

the province at that point might be able to access some considerable federal

resources to deal with the matter.

In terms of

the allocation of responsibilities around floods, while PEP responds, Water Land

and Air Protection has responsibility with respect to monitoring flood levels

and issuing warnings should they become an alarming level. Our responsibility

through Land and Water B.C. is to provide tenure for gravel removal. Again, this

is more on the preventive side of things rather than the reacting-to-the-event

kind of approach.

[1550]

So we have

to work, as I noted, in the first instance with the Department of Fisheries and

Oceans but also with local governments, first nations and so on and private

property owners, in some instances, to try to arrange a suitable tenuring regime

so that we can get a good ongoing management of gravel deposition and gravel

extraction.

The final

point I'll make, though, is that the federal jurisdiction is very clear with

respect to gravel extraction. The province cannot proceed on its own with

respect to this. We have to work with the federal jurisdiction, primarily

through the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Their approvals must be secured.

It's our view that by working proactively with DFO, we are going to be able to

get the permitting regime that we need.

When the

system fails — and I think this was the member's final question — when there

is a flood and people have anticipated it for some time, who is responsible?

That is a question that can't be answered on a global basis. I think the

question of liability, responsibility, is one that would have to be looked at on

a site-specific basis. It's really impossible to make generalizations with

respect to the allocation of responsibility in that sort of event.

Jarvis: Earlier I said I was asking some of these questions on behalf of the

member from Chilliwack. Actually it was Chilliwack-Kent, who is watching us now

and who just advised me so. He is not here due to an operation, as we all know.

He is probably there watching us now, lying on his stomach, I presume. In any

event, as you know, that member is quite involved in the hydro aspect or water

licences, and he was asking if you could give him an update as to the number of

water licences being applied for — you know, for potential small hydro

projects — if you were aware of that.

Hon. G.

Abbott: I'm pleased to respond to the member's question, which I understand

was posed on behalf of the member for Chilliwack-Kent, who I hope is recovering

very quickly from his back surgery. I'm sure that it's entirely unpleasant and

that he'd love to be in the chamber here asking the question directly, but I

will certainly do my best to answer it.

First of

all, I do know that the member for Chilliwack-Kent, the member from Chilliwack

and, indeed, members up and down the Fraser Valley have all been very forceful

with me in terms of the importance of putting flood protection in place. I know

that in the case of green energy proposals, the member for Chilliwack-Kent is

certainly a leader and advocate there, so I'm very pleased to provide some

information to him with respect to this. I know he sees this as very much a part

of a viable future for British Columbia.

[1555]

In terms of

the water licences for the specific purpose that the member was asking — and

if we are incorrect in this, I will certainly welcome him asking another

question and getting additional information — we understand that the interest

is in the area of small independent power projects. There have been 264

applications tendered to Land and Water B.C. to date

[ Page 10927 ]

under that program area; 52 of those 264 are currently under active

consideration by the corporation, and to this point, some 50 licences have

actually been issued.

Jarvis: I was wondering if the minister could tell us…. He's got quite a

backlog there, I guess. How are you progressing, or are we making any progress

on these applications?

[H.

Long in the chair.]

Hon. G.

Abbott: The number of interested proponents is, as the member notes, very

considerable at this point in time. In order to manage these files in an

appropriate way, the corporation has prioritized the applications. The principal

way in which they prioritize them is to separate out those projects or proposed

projects that have B.C. Hydro purchase agreements in place. That is probably the

best indicator from our perspective of what is likely to succeed and what is

not.

In order to

move forward with as many projects and as quickly as we can, Land and Water B.C.

has formed a team with B.C. Hydro to work on these applications and to ensure

that the most viable of the applications move forward in a timely way. LWBC now

has a director for independent power projects, who, again, plays a very

important role in working with Hydro to ensure that sound decisions are made in

respect of those applications.

We estimate

the value of the projects that have been approved to date at about $250 million,

but we are just in the early stages, I think, of recognizing the real potential

for those small green energy projects. Again, we estimate that in the years

ahead, there will be several billion in new investment as a consequence of

investment in those small hydro-based projects.

A final

point — because I think it reflects both our government's commitment to

economic development and to working with first nations to ensure that they

become a growing part of our provincial economy: it is more than satisfactory to

note that there are a number of partnerships between first nations and private

companies on these IPPs. Certainly, we hope that's a pattern that will be

strengthened in the future, because it's important not only to work to ensure

that first nations concerns are resolved but, where we can, we certainly welcome

those kinds of partnerships between first nations and independent power

producers.

[1600]

Jarvis: With this method of technology we have now, the member for

Chilliwack-Kent would like permission to make an introduction, and I would like

to make it on his behalf.

Leave

granted.

Introductions by Members

Jarvis: On behalf of the member for Chilliwack-Kent, in the balcony today is

the Highroad Academy from the Chilliwack area — from Chilliwack-Kent, I

assume. There are 48 grade 10 and 11 students. They're with their teachers Ms.

Julie Lade, Ms. Kristi Caruthers, Mr. Andy King and Mr. John Munro. Would

everyone please make them welcome.

Debate Continued

Jarvis: What kind of environmental review is done on these applications?

There's such a backlog that I assume the environmental review is on the premise

that those who have licences first, etc….

Hon. G.

Abbott: Like the member from North Vancouver, I also want to welcome the

school group. I've been in the House for a while, but I think it's the first

time I have ever seen an introduction in absentia , which is quite

exceptional. The member broke some new ground today, and one always welcomes

that.

In terms of

the member's question with respect to the approval processes, the environmental

testing and so on around IPPs, it's important to note, first of all, depending

on the size of the project that, for example, if the plant is beyond 50

megawatts — and I think the threshold is 50 megawatts — it triggers an

environmental assessment office review.

Actually,

many proponents very much like the EAO process. It is now a very efficient

process, a maximum 180-day turnaround. And all of the issues, environmental and

others, are very well researched and analyzed through the EAO process. One of

the most notable examples is the Forrest Kerr project up in northern British

Columbia, which is certainly going to be an effective independent power producer

for that part of the world.

[1605]

For smaller

IPPs — those under 50 megawatts, generally speaking — the application is

reviewed by Land and Water B.C. staff. They look at issues like the availability

of water. It's certainly important that we not create a difficult situation

through a new project, so we look at availability of water. We look at the

impact on fish supplies in the water body — again, an important issue. We look

at the aquatic biology of the stream or the river to ensure that the aquatic

biology will not be upset as a consequence of the installation of the facility.

We would

look at adjacent land uses — again, attempting to ensure as well as we might

that the addition of the IPP did not in any way diminish the interests or

resources that some other user of the water system enjoyed currently. So that's

important. A final note is that in every instance, consideration of an IPP

project always, importantly, involves consideration, discussion and consultation

with first nations in the province, recognizing our constitutional

responsibilities in that respect.

Jarvis: Just so that the visitors to the galleries realize what I'm doing,

I'm the member for North Vancouver–Seymour, asking questions on behalf of

their hard-working MLA in Chilliwack, who is laid up

[ Page 10928 ]

at home with a back injury. He's communicating with us through a little bit

of a technology situation.

On behalf

of the member for Chilliwack-Kent, Mr. Chair, I'd like to ask the minister a

question in regard to wind power and his recent changes in policy to the Crown

land leases for potential wind projects. Could he maybe elaborate somewhat about

the differences between the new policy versus the old one? I'll ask another

question later.

Hon. G.

Abbott: The member raises a good question for the member for

Chilliwack-Kent. I'll try, at least, to give a good initial response here,

because I suspect it will probably produce additional questions. The area of

wind-generated power is a new area of public policy. It is, I think, during the

tenure of our government that we are first seeing some of the real possibilities

around the generation of wind power for power production for domestic and other

uses in the province being initially realized.

[1610]

It's a new

area, and there are at least two parts of government that are working on

fleshing out public policy around the generation of wind power. The Ministry of

Energy and Mines has the lead with respect to the overall energy plan. Of

course, wind power was one of the areas identified in that energy plan that was

brought forward by Energy and Mines. They have the lead. Our responsibility in

terms of Land and Water B.C. and to a lesser extent, I guess, MSRM is

operational policy and tenuring — tenuring being, obviously, a very important

component of this.

What's

going to be happening in the weeks ahead? Both MEM and LWBC are working on

policy in their respective areas. We expect that within a few weeks the

ministers of both ministries of government will be coming together and that we

will be integrating those elements into an overall wind power policy for British

Columbia.

We have

been, and MEM has been, very engaged with industry proponents in developing that

policy. Obviously, the industry interest in this area has grown enormously in

recent years, and this is not typical. It is certainly atypical, but I think it

does give the member an indication of the growing volume of interest in this

area.

In one

month at the Smithers office of Land and Water B.C. we had 27 separate

applications for wind power projects. Again, while not every office had 27

applications in one month, Smithers is one of the areas that wind power is of

particular interest. I guess because of the climatic conditions there, there's a

lot of interest. I know there's a lot of interest on northern Vancouver Island

and in the Queen Charlotte Islands, Haida Gwaii area as well.

We'll be

pulling that more detailed public policy together in the weeks ahead. We do look

forward to seeing this unique form of new green energy — wind power —

becoming an important component in providing the power needs for a growing

British Columbia in the years ahead.

Jarvis: In view of all these many expressions of interest that have come

forward, can you tell us: is that since the rules have been changed? Or is

it…?

[1615]

Hon. G.

Abbott: In response to the question in absentia from the member for

Chilliwack-Kent, the answer is that prior to current days there had not been a

lot of rules around wind power. Wind power was largely an ignored area of public

energy policy in British Columbia until very recently, so there were not a lot

of rules. Frankly, there was not a lot of interest until recent years with

respect to that.

I think one

of the important trigger points in terms of the now very substantial interest in

wind power as a new green energy source was the release of the new energy policy

by the Ministry of Energy and Mines and the government of British Columbia. That

was key. Similarly, the commitment by Land and Water B.C. and the Ministry of

Energy and Mines to providing certainty around rules and providing a favourable

investment climate — those are key pieces in terms of making wind power now

very much a viable part of our future for energy in British Columbia.

There have

been — again, in fairness in terms of fleshing out the entire picture here —

remarkable changes in the technology in very recent years for wind power. We

believe that wind power represents a great opportunity for us not only to

fulfill our domestic needs, but we have an opportunity, as well, to see a new

cluster industry around wind power. We also have the opportunity to see export

volumes generated through wind power.

Again, the

best indication that this area of energy production has a future is that there

is a lot of capital and investment that's interested in it. If it didn't have a

real and viable future, I don't believe we'd be seeing the kind of interest that

we are, particularly in those areas of the province where wind exists as a

resource to generate power.

I know I

invariably go on too long here, but I do want to mention a little story of going

up to Quatsino. We were going up to actually meet with the first nations and the

community and so on around the Quatsino subregional plan. When I was up there, I

met with the chief of the Quatsino Indian band and the mayor and so on of the

community. They are all very excited about the future of wind power generation

on the northern end of Vancouver Island. In fact, the first nation in that case

is investing in an enterprise that will, hopefully, in the future see the

generation of wind-produced power for that part of the world.

It's just a

great opportunity here for communities, particularly rural communities, and for

first nations to invest with entrepreneurs in this area to produce a product

that will meet our energy needs and also, hopefully, produce profits,

opportunities and jobs for them. This can be a great win-win for British

Columbia, and we are very much looking forward to seeing all of the

opportunities here realized in the future.

[ Page 10929 ]

I just got

a little note on this. There are now two major wind power projects in the

environmental assessment office review process. That indicates, first of all,

that they're substantial projects. They are also making an investment to ensure

that wind power is undertaken in a way that will fit very well into the social

and environmental sustainability framework that is necessary in this province.

Jarvis: I thank the minister for his short answer on that one. That's good.

The public is well aware, and so is the member for Chilliwack-Kent.

[1620]

One other

question, minister. There's been a lot of talk around lately about the Site C

dam and B.C. Hydro considering building the Site C dam. I was wondering if the

minister could confirm whether this project would have…. What environmental

concerns would they have to go through, or will they have to go through?

Hon. G.

Abbott: I'm going to be careful in my response to this particular question

in relation to Site C. We don't have carriage as a ministry with any future

potential of that area of the world that is often referred to as Site C. The

only thing I could note, because they are in relation to my ministry, is that

it's obviously a large and complex project that's likely — I can't imagine it

not — to trigger a review from the environmental assessment office.

There are

issues with respect to agricultural land reserve lands. There are issues around

a range of areas. I, though, can't even advise the member of what level of

consideration is underway. It is a question, in fairness, which is probably best

addressed by the Minister of Energy and Mines. My ignorance is largely

unblemished in this area, and I intend to keep it that way.

Jarvis: I assume, then, that they don't wish to talk at all about any

thoughts of future Hydro exploring of Site C and that it's going to be left in

abeyance to a point. I was concerned, because I know that the Alberta government

was concerned about it. A lot of people were concerned about it in regards to

the question of a thorough environmental search on it.

Following

the minister after that, I'm going to ask the member for Surrey–Green Timbers.

Hon. G.

Abbott: I'm sure the Minister of Energy and Mines would be delighted to

respond at length to any question the member may have in question period or

elsewhere or in future estimates with respect to this project. I would just note

that none of the agencies or the ministry itself is engaged on issues around

Site C at this point in time.

Just let me

conclude by thanking the member for North Vancouver–Seymour for the

insightful, thoughtful questions that he was posing — I would gather with some

BlackBerry assistance from the member for Chilliwack-Kent, who I wish a speedy

recovery to.

Halsey-Brandt: I just have a few brief questions this afternoon dealing with

the B.C. Assessment Authority and the assessment of property. My questions cover

two areas. One is the annual assessment of property, and the second one is more

around the policy of setting classifications of property.

[1625]

On the

first area, as I understand it, since the evolution of the B.C. Assessment

Authority when it was divided up around the province — I think it was done

municipally — the assessment authority, in a sense, carries out those

assessments on behalf of the municipalities, the regional districts and other

taxing powers of British Columbia. The cost of those assessments is paid for

through property tax by property owners. It's passed on directly to them, and

it's not part of your budget.

Hon. G.

Abbott: I hope I've captured the member's question correctly. I understand

the question to relate to how the assessment authority covers the costs of its

operations. That is done by the application of a levy, which is approved on an

annual basis by cabinet. The levy is collected by local governments and by the

surveyor of taxes. That is thereafter remitted to the B.C. Assessment Authority,

and the costs of the operations are covered in that way.

Halsey-Brandt: My questions really relate to a couple of areas of concern

that have been expressed to me this year by some of the residents in my

constituency. One is over the number of assessors. They believe they haven't got

the time and probably not the number of assessors they should have.

My question

is that if that's passed on, it's just a flow-through to the taxpayers. If we

need more assessors, that's not a direct expense out of your estimates. In a

sense it is, but the money flows through from the taxpayers, so the assessment

authority can add more assessors or fewer assessors, depending on the demand,

the number of properties and the complications of doing each assessment. They

should be able to be flexible. It's not related to the provincial budget, if you

will, and the constraints we're under.

[1630]

Hon. S.

Brice: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave

granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. S.

Brice: We are joined in the House today by a grade 6 class from Langley

Meadows Elementary School, along with their teacher, Ms. Copley, and parents,

Ms. Crockart, Ms. Hope, Mr. Mathew, Ms. Toth and Mr. Harris. On behalf of the

member from Langley I welcome them to this Legislature and ask all members to

show our appreciation for their interest in the work of the Legislature.

Debate Continued

Hon. G.

Abbott: I thank the member for his question. We have enjoyed, as I think the

member knows

[ Page 10930 ]

and the House knows, some quite unprecedented growth in British Columbia in

the last couple of years, in relation to both the number of folios and the value

of those folios and so on. One of the consequences of dramatic growth through

new construction and a large number of sales is that it does create challenges

for B.C. Assessment in terms of keeping up with all the changes in the

marketplace and additions to the marketplace. I don't have the figure in front

of me with respect to the value of that, but it's substantial. Perhaps I can get

it for the member as we move forward here today. I know it's very, very

substantial — the growth in values and number of folios and so on in this

province.

That does,

as I noted, create challenges for B.C. Assessment. They are able to meet those

challenges by, at the peak periods, hiring on temporary staff so that they don't

fall behind in terms of the management of their responsibilities. They have been

able to, at this point, manage through the upswing in the demand area, and

they'll continue to move forward in that way to meet demand and ensure that we

have fair, balanced and equitable assessments notwithstanding any demand curve

upwards in the months and years ahead.

Halsey-Brandt: To the minister: I have two others in that area. Thank you

for that answer. I appreciate it. We really have had a growth spurt,

particularly in the lower mainland and greater Vancouver. I'm sure the number of

folios has increased, plus the complexity of those appraisals.

questions. One is on residential appraisals, and the next one is on farms. On

the residential one, I've had a number of, I guess, concerns from residents over

whether a residence is assessed on the finished floor area, let's say, of a

residential building or whether it's, in fact, the whole building and property.

The

concerns that I have had expressed to me are that a number of houses have been

completed where perhaps they left the basement or the bottom unfinished, and we

got a square footage through the building permit process — perhaps through to

the assessment authority. There may be some inspections done. Certainly, the

upstairs or a portion of it is finished. That's what the appraisal is made on

— a square footage basis in terms of the value of that home. Then the

homeowners, as they would normally do, finish them off in subsequent years.

Because, I assume, we don't actually go into houses very often, if ever, some of

those assessments stay at the square footage they were first assessed at in

terms of the finished area of those homes, when in fact, over the years, they

have finished the houses off, and the value is much higher because it's all

finished.

We run into

problems with that when a property is sold in the neighbourhood and it comes in

at a much higher price. We find that's because the whole house was finished. In

fact, others have been finished over the years in the neighbourhood, but their

assessment is much lower because they have records going back to 1975 or 1980,

when only a portion of the house was recorded as being finished. Now, of course,

today, the whole house has been finished. We have an inequity side by each from

houses that are on the same street or the same cul de sac, and it appears to be

related to the problem of finished area.

[1635]

Hon. G.

Abbott: The member raises some very good points with respect to the

challenges that are faced by the assessment authority as it attempts to keep

itself as current as it can in relation to real values of residential

properties. The member is right. As the properties are remodelled, changed,

finished and so on, those all can add to the challenge of keeping the valuation

accurate and current.

There are a

number of strategies, though, that are undertaken by staff at the assessment

authority to achieve just that. Every year, they look at the value of the whole

house, at the condition as it exists as of October 31 of every year. There is

also a periodic review of properties to ensure that the inventory remains as

accurate as possible. Again, there are always going to be some marginal areas

where it may not be entirely accurate, but they do periodic reviews, including

on-sites, to ensure that the inventory remains accurate. They also, of course,

follow property sales very closely, as that's a good indicator of real values of

property in areas. Also, they follow the permits that are generated so that they

have a pretty good idea of what areas changes are being made in and stock is

being upgraded.

The

combination of all of those things…. Again, recognizing that it's never going

to be entirely faultless or a completely precise science, they do get as close

as they can to ensuring that we have fair and equitable values assigned to those

properties.

Halsey-Brandt: My next question, as I mentioned, is on farm status. As I

understand the system…. I had a meeting this year with the chair of the

assessment appeal board — or the assessment appeal panel. I don't know the

exact title. She was retiring, and she said to me that one of the major problems

they have in dealing with farms is…. I think the way the system works is that

every year, the assessment authority, whether it's random selection or whatever,

sends out some letters to a certain number of farms in our community. The

letter, I guess, states that the property owner must either come in or somehow

communicate to the assessment authority that, yes, they are still in the farming

business and therefore not a small holding or some other sort of classification.

[1640]

I guess a

lot of the farmers are either down south for the winter or busy or something

like that. Not all of them appear to open the letter. Then they're taken off the

roll as farm and reclassified as something else. Even when they find out and

come back to appeal, they can't do anything. They miss that whole year, and they

have to come back and get back on the farm roll the next year, which, if that

process is correct, creates a lot of frustration for the farmers and, I'm sure,

for our employees in the assessment authority, as well, who have to go through

all this work.

[ Page 10931 ]

I'm just

wondering, is that the correct process? Is that where the problem lies? If so,

is there another way that we can do this, in terms of following up with phone

calls or whatever with the farmers to make sure that they did in fact open the

correspondence — at least to understand the question they have been asked and

the seriousness of not responding to the notification?

Hon. G.

Abbott: Those who are engaged in active farming in British Columbia can, if

they have applied and been accepted, enjoy quite a considerable tax benefit from

being recognized as active farmers in the assessment process. But the tax

benefit is aimed at active farmers. It is not aimed at those who are, for

example, just enjoying living on a large acreage but not actively farming it and

producing agricultural products. In order for it to be fair, to ensure that

those who are actually farming are the ones that enjoy the benefit, there does

need to be a process of some sort whereby, on an ongoing basis — sometimes

annually, sometimes less frequently than that — the authority can be assured

that, in fact, people continue to be active farmers and thereby continue to

enjoy that significant beneficial tax rate from the province.

The member

does, though, raise a good point. Is the present system we have — where people

are advised by mail that they should respond before October 31 to ensure that

their beneficial rate continues — the best way? That's a question, actually,

that we're asking ourselves. At this point we haven't been apprised of a better

way of doing it, but we are reviewing the process at this very time. We

certainly would welcome any suggestions that farmers or others might have as to

how we could do this better.

B. Kerr:

I would just like to reinforce what my colleague from Richmond Centre has

said and possibly put a real live example to this. There was a farmer, and he

was asked by way of letter to respond. He was to respond by October 31. He was

away. He got back and was asked to respond by October 31. They claimed they had

sent the letter in time. Apparently, the response wasn't received until November

7. That essentially doubled their tax. It was an extra $10,000 penalty for this

one-week delay.

[1645]

I phoned up

the assessment authority. I spoke to them and said: "Was it in fact a

farm?" They said yes. "Was it a farm this year?" "Yes."

"Was it a farm last year?" "Yes it was, but he didn't give his

letter to us on time." There is no recourse for that, and that is one of

the problems. For that seven-day delay, that person received a $10,000 fine, and

there was no recourse. The assessment authority told me that that is very

common. That happens quite frequently — not infrequently. It's very common.

I really

think we should be addressing this in the light of fairness for my particular

constituent and certainly for all the constituents in B.C. As the minister said,

the idea is not to allow people who are living on a large property to get away

without paying fair tax. But if they truly are acting as a farm, then I think

the process shouldn't be so punitive for missing the reporting deadline by what

could be just a few days.

Hon. G.

Abbott: I thank the member for raising his constituent's issue here. I think

the example he cites is a very good one in underlining the importance of the

review that we are currently undertaking with respect to this matter. I think

the object of the exercise here is not to be punitive. It is not to have bona

fide farmers lose their exemption — but, again, recognizing the challenge that

the authorities have in managing the issue of who is a legitimate farmer and who

is not.

The current

difficulty is — this goes to why we're having the review — that the assessor

under current law has little or no flexibility in respect to the issue. The

Assessment Act and other related statutes come into play with respect to the

time and so on. I appreciate the member bringing the case forward, because I

think it strengthens the importance of, in fact, us moving forward and

identifying some ways that we can put…. I don't know whether it's an issue of

the time frame or if it's an issue of the format or what it might be, but we

would certainly very much welcome…. If the member wants to contact me or the

assessment authority with any ideas he might have — I know he has some

expertise in this area — we'd certainly welcome any suggestions he might make

about how we can do this better. I think the last thing we want to do is be

bound by a statute in a way that produces an unfairness.

Halsey-Brandt: My question to the minister is — and I have talked with him

briefly about this some time ago: what, really, is the process? I want to talk a

bit about the policy changes now in terms of classifications and concerns and

issues.

If we have

a group of taxpayers, whether it's things around the strata issue, which I've

been dealing with in my community and some other communities around, or whether

it's hotels or whatever…. If there is a concern with the classification system

that we have…. We're talking about policy now. I understand, obviously, your

ministry looks after the policy part for the government. We also have the board

of the B.C. Assessment Authority, and perhaps you could help me on this one in

terms of what their role is in this whole system. Community, Aboriginal and

Women's Services has a role in the sense of dealing with municipalities. The

Ministry of Finance, I'm sure, has an interest in this process.

[1650]

The reason

I raise this with you…. Obviously, it's a real concern for me. I know that the

member for Burnaby-Willingdon, as well, and a number of others have concerns

over hotels and shopping centres and this sort of thing — trying to direct our

taxpayers as to how they work through the system. Their first stop is usually

the municipality. Of course, they send them to the province and things get more

and more complicated for them. I wondered if you could just spend a

[ Page 10932 ]

minute and outline in terms of your ministry what the process is that these

people should go through to get a resolution to their problem.

Hon. G.

Abbott: The member raises a number of important questions there. I want to

provide him with as thorough a response as I can. Unfortunately, at this point

in time I know we have some additional House business which we have to deal

with. If I can get the forgiveness of the member, I'll address his very good

question in some detail on Monday at the next sitting of the House, Mr. Chair.

At this

point, I would like to move that the committee rise, report progress and ask

leave to sit again.

Motion

approved.

The

committee rose at 4:52 p.m.

The House

resumed; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

Committee

of Supply B, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. S.

Bond: I call the continued second reading of Bill 38.

[H.

Long in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

SECURITIES ACT

(continued)

B. Kerr:

It gives me great pleasure to rise and speak on this bill, the new Securities

Act. I can't remember the last time the Securities Act has been changed. I know

it's a number of years ago, and we've certainly seen a tremendous number of

changes in the business world since the last securities act came out. It's good

to see we're coming out with a new act that takes into account today's era as

opposed to something that was happening 30 or 40 years ago.

Not quite

40 years ago, but certainly 20 and 15 years ago, in the 1970s and '80s, I was a

chartered accountant. I was acting in public practice and had a lot to do with

the Securities Commission and the Securities Act, as a number of my clients were

small-cap public companies, as we called it around the Vancouver Stock Exchange.

There was a

lot of work that had to be done in that regard. It was working closely with

lawyers. There was a tremendous amount of disclosure that had to be done. It was

very time-consuming and very costly, but you know, it was great for lawyers and

accountants. A lot of the underwritings were quite small, but regardless of the

size of the underwriting, you still had to go through the prospectus or, as the

case may be, if it was a re-issue of stocks, a statement of material facts. The

statement of material facts was almost identical to going through a prospectus.

It was pages and pages of documents. You had to have the financial statements

done. You had to have disclosure in every aspect of the company. You had to have

disclaimers. You had to have technical reports for the business. Even for

mining, doing exploration, there were technical reports that were required. Of

course, a lawyer would put all this together.

[1655]

When all

was said and done, by the time the securities agents got their commission, the

lawyers got their fees, the accountants got their fees and the people that wrote

the technical report got their fees, that probably took up about 40 percent of

the underwriting. For the investors that put their money into it — it might

have been an exploration project — the money wasn't being directed into the

field, which might have been up in northern B.C. or in Alberta or the Northwest

Territories. It was being put into the field on Howe Street and Georgia Street

and the law firms down there. That was my experience then.

The other

problem that happened was that to get that information, to prepare a document

that would be maybe four times the size of this document, it would take a long

time to do that. I know from one personal experience I had. We spent, I think,

15 different revisions of the document…. By the time we reached the final

revision that could be sent out, the original information was then stale-dated.

You had to have the information filed…. It could only be six months old, I

think, at that time. It was stale-dated, and there we were, having to start over

again to put new information in. This document, B.C.'s new Securities Act, is

moving away from that aspect.

I guess I'd

like to go into why we even need a securities act. What is this about? The

Securities Act is clearly to protect investors. The idea is to make sure that

the investors have — what words can I use? — true, full and open disclosure

of all aspects of the company so that they can invest in the company with full

knowledge about the company. With the companies that are issuing the securities

and the Securities Act of British Columbia, the idea is that we'd like the

securities to be issued here, not in another jurisdiction, because we'd like the

head offices here.

Head

offices in British Columbia are a huge advantage. They not only contribute to

wages and head office costs and rent and everything that goes on with the

corporation, but they also usually contribute socially to the community in which

they are doing business, because the people that make the decisions are more

connected to the community. If a company is going to spend money, if it does

have extra money to spend on community affairs or advertising or promotion, the

people that are close to that community are going to say: "Let's spend the

money here."

For the

arts and culture and sponsoring sporting events, having head offices in the

community is far better than just the money that is being spent there on wages,

so it's really important. We'd like to not only have head offices in British

Columbia, to not only keep the head offices here — and we have been losing

them

[ Page 10933 ]

— but we want to attract more head offices here. Hopefully, this new

securities act will do that.

Now, I have

to say this securities act is considerably different than the trend of any other

securities act happening in either Canada or North America or, for that matter,

in the world. We are making a departure here. We're at a crossroads, and we are

making a departure because this securities act, as I like to say, is results

driven, where the other securities acts are being driven by problems that we've

had with…. Let's use the WorldCom and the Enrons of the world. We could

mention some companies in Canada. They're being driven by that, and they're

trying to close the door so that those types of things won't happen again.

Essentially,

you can't account for anything that might happen. You can't provide for anything

that might happen. Every time something happens, you put in a new regulation.

Then you become burdened with regulation upon regulation upon regulation.

Essentially, that's great for the lawyers, it's great for the accountants, and

it's great for the people that are guiding an issuer through the maze, but it's

not necessarily good for the investor. It doesn't necessarily help the investor

or give the investor any more protection. It's not good for the company that has

to file their reports, because they spend more of their time worrying about

getting the issuance out and filing the proper documents and getting through the

maze than they do about getting the money and managing the money correctly to

direct it to what they need the money for.

[1700]

This is

exactly what this securities thing does. We should have no illusions. This is a

departure from what's happening in the rest of Canada. We are sort of going it

alone in B.C., but I really, truly think this is the direction to go. I think

we're making the right decision, and hopefully, by making this decision, we can

attract more investment here and not only keep the companies that are in British

Columbia to stay in British Columbia but attract new companies to come here

because they will be less overburdened — I'll use that word — by regulation.

I've got a

few notes here. If you just bear with me while I look at these notes. One of the

things I mentioned before is the principle of fair practice and applying

principles to fair practice as opposed to making regulations and rules upon

rules upon rules. In doing that, you also have to give some teeth to the

Securities Commission that's enforcing these rules. If we're going to be

open-ended, we don't want the Wild West show that we've had in the past.

As you

know, what was at one time the Vancouver Stock Exchange got a reputation for

being the Wild West show, although the biggest scandal or scam that ever

occurred in the history of the venture exchanges was out of the Alberta Stock

Exchange with Bre-X. We wore it in British Columbia, but it wasn't British

Columbia at all: it was Alberta, and most of the shares, I believe, were sold in

Ontario. Nevertheless, people look to the west as if it was a Wild West show out

here because of the venture capital that retracted and the type of personalities

that came out here to work in that environment. Even with all the rules and

regulations, that didn't necessarily protect the investor.

We have the

principles — I call them the principles of fair practice — and rules that

relate to fair practice, and we also have the ability of the Securities

Commission to enforce these fair rules. They can look and determine whether the

issuer has given the full, plain and true disclosure that's required under the

rules. They have so much broader powers of investigation now, and they also have

tremendous teeth into what they're doing. For instance, the penalties that the

Securities Commission can impose upon an issuer are up to $1 million — I think

before, it was $200,000, but now they can go as high as $1 million — so they

can impose penalties on the issuer plus costs of the hearings.

More

importantly, and an even greater factor in this, is that they can take…. I

want to call it ill-gotten gains because there hasn't been true, full disclosure

or there's been, indeed, even misrepresentation. If somebody, or an issuer, has

received ill-gotten gains or profited because of this misrepresentation or lack

of proper disclosure, they can order that those profits be paid back into the

commission.

That's a

huge departure from the past and a real big club that the commission has on the

issuers. In the past, in order to get that type of return, to get a payback from

the person that's misrepresented, they would have had to go through the courts,

and that could have taken years. Now they can just issue the order, and that has

to be done, and it's up to the issuer or the person — I shouldn't use the word

issuer all the time — who effected the misrepresentation, who didn't provide

the true disclosure, to essentially prove in that case that they shouldn't have

to pay back their gains.

We've got

two things. One, we're not being as prescriptive as we used to be. We're

results-oriented. We're trying to provide issuers the opportunity to issue

shares and securities in British Columbia to obtain funds, and we're doing it

without having all the regulations upon regulations upon regulations and the

prescriptions, but we're offsetting that with protection to the investor through

the Securities Commission by increasing the powers of the Securities Commission

to not only investigate but also to fine. I think we've created in this

particular act a very good balance between the two.

[1705]

The other

thing we're doing is that if you were already an issuer and you had done —

you've heard the word IPO — an initial public offering and you needed to go

back to the market for more money…. In the past, I remember, it used to be

called a statement of material facts. I think it's now called a short-form

prospectus, but the effect is the same. You had to go and almost do the same

information as you had to do with a prospectus, with just a few minor things

left out. Again you were saddled with a tremendous amount of legal fees,

accounting fees, technical reports, to get this out. Then the information was

probably stale-dated. If it took you a long time to get it out for whatever

reasons — the

[ Page 10934 ]

technical report might have been difficult to get — you're back to square

one again, and you wouldn't receive your receipt of having filed the disclosure.

What we

have now is called continuous disclosure. If you are an issuer, you are going to

be required to give information on a continuous basis. It's going to be in the

regulations, I hope — the continuous basis. Right now you have to file

quarterly reports. I would like to see information be given even more

frequently, but nonetheless, you will have to maintain this continuous flow of

information.

If you do

provide that continuous flow of information and have to go back to the market

for more money, all you do is file with the Securities Commission that you want

to do that, and you get a receipt. You can go to the market for more money and

issue your securities, because the public will have access to all the

information about your company.

For those

people that aren't aware of it, there's an area where any public company listed

in Canada has to have all its information. It's called SEDAR. It's the system

for electronic document analysis and retrieval, and it is done for Canadian

securities administrators. Every single company that is a public issuer files on

SEDAR. It is sedar.ca, if you want to go in there. It's in French and in

the company. The one thing you don't find there is insider reports. You have to

go through another system, I guess, to file insider reports. I think you can get

it through the Toronto Stock Exchange, or TSX, and you can find your way through

there to get insider reports.

Of course,

that's another issue I want to talk about — insider reports. It's that, again,

insiders are going to have to file on a timely basis if they trade in the

securities of the company to which they're an insider. I think that's on