1992 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 35th 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)

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 24, 1992

Evening Sitting

Volume 5, Number 4

[ Page 3037 ]

The House met at 6:01 p.m.

Introduction of Bills

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 1992

Hon. C. Gabelmann presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1992.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Hon. Speaker, my notes say that I am pleased to introduce this bill, but I'm not going to read those notes. What's happened, frankly, is that two or three issues that were supposed to have been included in the miscellaneous statutes bill which was introduced yesterday, if my memory is correct, were not included.

This bill today contains minor amendments to three statutes: the First Peoples' Heritage, Language and Culture Act, the Hydro and Power Authority Act and the Special Accounts Appropriation and Control Act. I will elaborate on the nature of the amendments during second reading. I move the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Bill 83, 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.

Hon. D. Miller: I call second reading on Bill 71.

MEDICAL AND HEALTH CARE

SERVICES ACT

(continued)

On the amendment.

L. Fox: I rise to speak on the amendment. It's too bad that one member suggests he has to go, because I was going to offer him some pearls of wisdom.

An Hon. Member: Offer them to me.

L. Fox: Offer it you? Certainly.

Seriously, hon. Speaker, I've listened to the debate virtually all day. At times it has been exciting, and at times it has been repetitive. All in all, I believe it's been necessary.

I've heard the government suggest that this hoist bill is going to cost millions of dollars of taxpayers' money. Obviously if that was fact, it would concern me dramatically, as I'm sure it would concern all British Columbians. The fact of the matter is that that is not fact. The fact of the matter is that this government and this minister could sit down tomorrow, if they so wished, and sign an agreement to deal with the budgetary constraints of 1992. Prior to the debate on this bill, that offer was made through the BCMA to the minister. For whatever reason, she chose not to seek that direction.

One of the major concerns I have is that I am getting unsolicited letters from segments of the province, particularly from doctors within my constituency. Most of them are addressed either to the Premier, to the minister or, in a couple of cases, to another member from a neighbouring riding who happens to be the Minister of Government Services. All of them want the opportunity to give input; all of them want to share the responsibility of redesigning the health care system.

All of them that I have read have asked for some opportunity to really give the kind of consultation that the Premier, prior to the election and immediately thereafter, suggested he was going to offer to the people of British Columbia.

I stood up and spoke in favour of the last amendment because I believed the amendment was the right one. The intent was to put it into the standing committee stage without the ramifications on the budget, to discuss it from an all-party structure with the opportunity to call on witnesses and stakeholders -- the people who share in the responsibilities of the delivery of health care -- and give them all opportunities to collectively, as a committee of the House, come forward with a consensus of what was in the best interests of British Columbia. That's why I spoke in favour of the earlier amendment.

I find it regrettable that I'm now talking on an amendment that merely hoists something, because this House found it was not in their interests to pass the earlier amendment.

I certainly don't want to be accused, as others have been in this chamber, of misquoting anyone, but let me tell you what I perceived the Premier and his government had suggested prior to the election and subsequent to it. They were going to provide open and honest government. A more important one was that they were going to end the confrontational type of government that we had seen in the past. That was the most important one, in my view as a newcomer on the scene who had been on a municipal council which operated in a consensus mode. Our main objective was to design bylaws and lead the community with a consensus of the council in the best interests of that community.

An Hon. Member: You never had an opposition.

L. Fox: I had many oppositions, hon. member. Anybody who perceives that a mayor of my community, who had the contentious issue of Kemano 2 on his plate for eight years, didn't have opposition, I would suggest is ill-informed. Hon. Speaker, I mean that with no disrespect.

I really believed that this Premier, this government and this minister wanted to involve the people of British Columbia in their decisions. However, I believe it was a faulty process, and I think the minister, if she had the opportunity to do so, might agree with me that a mistake was made with the tabling of Bill 13. I think the government might agree that a mistake was made with the tabling of Bill 13. This created the climate that we presently have between government and the doctors. There's nothing wrong with saying: "I'm sorry, we did the wrong thing at the wrong time." There's nothing wrong with stepping back and saying: "Yes, we erred;

[ Page 3038 ]

we really want to involve all those stakeholders in this process. Why don't we start over from square one?" That's not a weakness; that's a strength.

Interjection.

L. Fox: The member makes light of it. I state this in all sincerity, and I want to say that I'm concerned.

This morning I read a newspaper headline that really bothers me; I think it states the problems we have. I can't state names, but I can say that the minister calls MDs overpaid and underproductive.

B. Jones: No, she did not say that.

L. Fox: I'm just stating a headline. That's exactly my point. If you would allow me to complete it, I would have done so.

What we have is miscommunication. There is not the ability to sit down at the table and discuss it on a one-to-one basis. We have these kinds of headlines that go out to the public and add to the lack of confidence that the medical profession has in this administration and the minister at the present time, because there isn't that communication. The hoist motion would allow the time for that communication so that we could address the health issues in the best interests of all the stakeholders. That's one of my extremely sincere concerns. I do not want to see this confrontational mode continue.

While I'm speaking about that, I also have had much correspondence with a group that I hold in extremely high value. I'm sure all members of the House do. That's the PARI-BC group; it's a group of about 500 young interns and doctors who are extremely concerned that the process being put forward does not include them. They have, at this point, had no opportunity for input -- none whatsoever. In fact, they faxed me a copy today of an amendment, taking the minister on her word that she would consider amendments. This amendment would essentially....

I'm not sure whether it's in order to discuss that amendment, because it hasn't been put on the table. In any case, they are making their concerns known to the minister, and I have a copy of what they state. It is a legitimate concern.

Much emotion has been shown here, and I think the problem with that emotion is that we've lost track of the real issue. We've lost track of the real intent of this debate. Maybe it's because I'm normally an unemotional individual, but I think that when we start throwing things across the floor, all of a sudden personalities arise, and they take more of a precedent than the issue itself. I have never been accused of shouting anything across the floor, hon. Speaker.

An Hon. Member: And there have been a few times you would have liked to.

Mr. Fox: Yes, there have been.

I want to suggest, and once again in all sincerity, that there's a bunch of misinformation out there on all sides. Each party and the BCMA, I believe, have some legitimate points. The PARI group have some legitimate points. I think the public as a whole have some legitimate concerns, and all I ask is that we end the confrontation. It will do no one any good. Confrontation only breeds more confrontation, and before long we end up with a situation that's not manageable.

I strongly believe that no one government, no one person, no one minister or no one individual has all the answers, and as important an issue as health care is, I really believe it deserves having the input of every individual within this province -- at least those who want to give input -- prior to being implemented as legislation. That is the reason that I stand today and speak.

[6:15]

I am sorry, as I said earlier, that this government did not honour what I believe was the correct amendment, and that was to put this legislation outside the monetary considerations and into committee stage. We could have addressed the monetary situation for 1992 by cooperating in the discussion with the doctors and giving them the opportunity to critique the rest of this bill and give their input into it. I am absolutely positive, had they had that opportunity, they would have signed an agreement that would have satisfied both the government and the medical profession.

Those are main issues with respect to this amendment. I find it regrettable that I'll have to vote for this motion. I would rather have seen the earlier amendment pass. However, I will support this amendment primarily for the reasons I have put forward.

C. Serwa: Hon. Speaker, hopefully I can enjoy the latitude that you have given other members of the House. I have 60 letters from members of my constituency that I would like to read.

Interjection.

C. Serwa: I say that in jest. I do have 60 or more letters, but I will not read them.

I rise to support the hoist motion. The issue that is before us is very important. The controversial elements that we're discussing and expressing our concerns about have very little to do with sickness care or the medical health care aspect of the system. They have a great deal to do with the rights of certain individuals in society; in this particular case it happens to be doctors and the capping of the billing of doctors in the Medical Services Plan.

I think all of us are concerned about the delivery of what we believe to be one of the best health care systems in any jurisdiction anywhere in the world. Fundamentally that's the bottom line and the major concern, and that's why I support the concept of the hoist motion. We're going to have to take that famous second look here. There are a number of elements that jeopardize the delivery of the standard of health care that our constituents, as citizens of British Columbia, can rightfully expect in the 1990s.

We have to continue to deliver the top-quality state-of-the-art health care for the people of this province. Bill 71, unless it's looked at closely, scrutinized by everyone and amended, will fail to do that, and it will fail dismally.

[ Page 3039 ]

A letter to the editor was captioned: "Doctors are rich enough. I think our doctors are too rich, too greedy and too foolish to realize how good they've already got it in B.C." That unfortunately represents the attitude of socialism and socialists and is certainly expounded by this government. That is not appropriate when we're talking about an issue as important as the medical health care system in the province. That is totally inappropriate. The hon. members opposite know that full well.

The situation is one that smacks of hypocrisy. That is most lamentable -- the lack of openness and fairness. Rights accorded to every individual in the province are being denied by one professional group in British Columbia. I think the government has to be aware of the shame that they face in the handling of this particular situation. There is no openness, no honour and no honesty in that approach. Bill 13 was presented not as a form of openness or honesty on the part of government; it was presented as a form of intimidation.

A government elected on the basis of honesty, openness and fairness, and certainly with a remarkable but selective commitment to the concept of collective bargaining, or a formal arbitration procedure if that is not possible -- every member, be they in the executive branch or private members of the government, sought election fundamentally on that base. That is one of the basic platforms of the New Democrats.

In this particular case they are being entirely selective. What's good enough for the goose in certainly not good enough for the gander. Why? Because doctors are rich enough. When you look at various other elements of society, there is a tremendous diversity. I think we, the members of this Legislature, are well compensated for our services, but in accordance with the average wage in my constituency, we are compensated very handsomely. So it's a matter of relativity.

What we are looking at is an enunciation of a policy that had its beginnings many years ago. It is certainly much older than the Medical Services Plan or universal health care in Canada. We're looking at policies that were developed with the Regina Manifesto, the Winnipeg Manifesto and the infamous Waffle Manifesto that some members of this Legislature signed and were embarrassed about after the fact. Those are the archaic socialist policies that are influencing the delivery of this legislation in Bill 71, and it's those particular areas that I have a great deal of concern about.

Again, from that perspective, it must be hoisted and looked at by the population as a whole, so that there is an opportunity for this government to take that famous second look and address the issues honestly, openly, objectively and in complete accordance with the platform on which they were successful in the last provincial election.

There should be no ability to treat different classes of people radically differently in the bargaining system. Again, I approach this not only from the doctors' perspective, but also from the perspective of the patients -- the people. Services will suffer. Lineups and undue delays for operations, whether they are simply elective or necessary, will continue to build. The high-tech diagnostic treatment situations will diminish because of the constraints on funding.

Some of the members opposite feel that we can put a tight rein on and control medical health expenditures. I believe that we can too. But as I said the other day, they've missed the mark by a country mile. The fact remains that we're going to look at -- and we must look at -- controlling costs in medical health care. But for a period of time, we're going to be confronted with the necessity to spend more on medical health care than we presently are. We're going to have to dedicate a great deal more to preventive measures in medical health care. Bill 71 doesn't address any of that.

Bill 71 is focusing on some of the aspects that it may enhance. Home care is certainly a desirable characteristic and is encouraged. But the reality is that we're not going to create the environment where we can get healthier people. Wellness is not a focus of this bill. The primary focus is the illness or sickness treatment aspect. If we're going to get a handle on this over the long term, we're concerned about the concept of wellness permeating all members of society. How can we achieve that? Not by bills like Bill 71. Not by taking the unilateral actions that this government has taken.

You can look at lottery funds. Lottery funds are utilized to provide playing-fields for sports and recreation for our young people, to give them an awareness of the wondrous body that the good Lord has given them, to look after that body, to be active, to be healthy and to value that capacity of the body. But we didn't do that. This government has taken away that option.

Look at the other end of the spectrum: seniors in society. We've also taken away funding to encourage seniors' activity centres. We know that seniors sitting in their home, not being active or involved socially or physically, deteriorate and add an additional burden to the health care system. This is not being addressed in Bill 71. The only way we can address the concerns of preventive medicine and wellness is to encourage the active participation of all of the people in the province. In the long term that is the only success that we will ever have in getting an handle on medical health care costs.

I spoke the other day about the two elements -- tobacco and alcohol -- that account for the use of about 40 to 45 percent of the acute-care beds in our hospitals. Education is the tool that we have to use more effectively. Bill 71 doesn't address that. I wonder if the government understands that most doctors, a very high percentage of them, are honest, hard-working and caring citizens. They are doing their very best to ensure

[ Page 3040 ]

that British Columbians are among the healthiest people in the world. I wonder if the Minister of Health understands and appreciates what doctors are doing in the province.

I wonder who is giving the instructions to the Minister of Health and to the government. Are they appropriate or inappropriate instructions? Where do they come from? Do they come from the NDP provincial council? It almost sounds that way. I have a great deal of concern about that. Questions like that have to be cleared up, and they will not be cleared up in this forum over the next few days.

This whole issue of Bill 71 has to be supported with the hoist motion and brought forward in the fall session, if that is going to occur, or perhaps in the next spring session. Mark my words, we are making a substantial change to the medical health care system under Bill 71.

In some aspects I have a great deal of difficulty speaking in support of the hoist motion, because I feel that it would be better left for the government to continue to dig this great hole that they're digging for themselves and suffer the consequences at the next election. I suppose I'm torn, because I have no allegiance, no loyalty, to this particular government. If I had my druthers, I would hasten to dig that hole. But I have a great deal of concern about the continuing ability of the government and of medical practitioners to deliver the best possible standard of health care to the people of British Columbia. That's why I speak again in favour of the hoist motion.

[6:30]

The government has spent a great deal of money in an advertising campaign -- propaganda -- to convince the general public that our health care system is too expensive. Is it too expensive? How does it compare with other jurisdictions in Canada or the United States? It's my understanding that if we look at the cost of medical health care in the United States, it's substantially more expensive than what it costs us in Canada.

We have tremendous latitude in the delivery of health care services. Perhaps we have to look at the style of delivery. I'm confident that we could save a substantial amount of money in the health care system -- certainly 8 and possibly 10 percent of the budget -- by listening to those individuals in the health care system, not presenting draconian legislation such as this, as the member for Nanaimo used to say. By not presenting draconian legislation but consulting openly and honestly with those who are stakeholders and who deliver health care....

That goes to the hospital boards, administrators, doctors, nurses and all of those areas. We have to come in with objective facts and make good, objective decisions that have a strong potential for providing a vastly improved health care system.

Hon. Speaker, I notice the hour. As the agreement was that we would discontinue debate on this matter at 6:30, I move that we adjourn debate until the next sitting of the Legislature.

Motion approved.

Hon. D. Miller: A stimulating debate, and one that I am sure we will duplicate.

I call Bill 66, committee stage.

ASSESSMENT AND PROPERTY TAX

REFORM ACT, 1992

The House in committee on Bill 66; M. Farnworth in the chair.

section 1.

F. Gingell: I would like you to proceed through this bill one

section at a time, if you would be so kind.

Interjections.

The Chair: The committee was called to order, hon. member.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

section 3.

C. Serwa: We're moving along very rapidly. I've just got hold of the bill, and I'm looking at it. Rather than allowing you to keep passing sections without any reference to notes....

In a briefing, Dale Wall, manager of taxation and fiscal policy, said that it would cost an extra $5 million. Who will be bearing the burden of this additional cost?

Hon. R. Blencoe: It has been estimated by the Assessment Authority that the annual roll and the significant shifts we're making in response to requests from local government will require approximately $5 million more. However, it should be noted that there are a number of changes being made in the process and procedures of the Assessment Authority. For instance, they're going to be doing their assessing at different times of the year out of the winter months. The courts of revision will be held differently. There will be substantial cost savings that are made in that area.

Also, the Assessment Authority currently provides substantial non-confidential information free to the public, institutions or legal firms. A system will be put in place by the Assessment Authority whereby we will recoup substantial dollars for information that we pass on to various institutions. We will also have some time to ascertain the actual requirements in terms of staffing. We have about 18 months before the actual process will require it to be staffed. Mr. Johnstone of the Assessment Authority believes we've got the opportunity to see the necessity for extra staff.

I should indicate to the hon. member that there is a good chance, though, that to do the job of an annual roll, additional staff will be required, which of course is part of the extra $5 million.

C. Serwa: If I hear the minister correctly, from the efficiencies and from the fees charged for information, the indication is that there will be no additional cost burden on the Assessment Authority on the basis of this particular section. Is that correct?

[ Page 3041 ]

Hon. R. Blencoe: We estimate that this will be on a break-even basis, and no net costs, but of course we are going into a different period in terms of the Assessment Authority, annual rolls and improved assessments. So I have given instructions to the Assessment Authority that we want to minimize the cost, of course, to the Assessment Authority -- therefore through a levy to the taxpayer, who pays for the Assessment Authority.

C. Serwa: There are a number of elements here in this section. I note that it makes good sense to extend that assessment period, although I'm not really aware that the physical evaluation on the property, for example, is part of it. There is a great deal of the assessment, of course, because mechanically and as far as assessors are concerned, you simply can't go out and assess each property on an annual basis. So a lot of the increase in assessment has to be done through a general price increase of property values, and then that's extrapolated to adjacent properties, I should suppose.

So while it tends to make sense to a degree, I'm not confident that the cost saving will in fact be that dramatic. We have a number of staff that are on all year long, so how does the minister see the expansion of the period from September 30 to December 31 in which the roll has to be closed actually reducing costs?

Hon. R. Blencoe: There are a number of factors involved here -- for instance, better scheduling of overtime relating to the courts of revision. Seasonal workload will be reduced, and producing an annual roll by December 1st each year will create significant cost efficiencies, according to the Assessment Authority -- cost efficiencies particularly in overtime for the authority. It's been estimated that approximately $3 million could be realized annually due to efficiencies in field inventory and valuation activities brought about by the roll calendar changes.

For example, moving the court of revision to the winter months will enable the appraisal staff to have more time to do field work, principally in the spring and the fall. Significant overtime costs would be saved while inventory quality should improve, if you put that in with my suggestion that with the non-confidential material -- the database marketing initiatives -- we've estimated by the Assessment Authority that $2 million in net revenues could be realized by the end of 1994 just in that alone as well.

But again, it may very well be that there are going to be some additional costs, but we will do our utmost to minimize them. We are looking at all sorts of ways to raise extra money. We believe that moving to an annual assessment, improving the database and assessment base, doing the averaging and those various things that are important in this bill is of benefit to the taxpayer. The residential property taxpayer will see a dramatic benefit from this bill.

C. Serwa: I'm certainly encouraged by the words of the minister, but I think I'm one of those who will be somewhat speculative and will wait and see. I'm like the man from the Missouri. Perhaps the minister could tell me what the effect will be on regional districts and municipalities with the delay in the completion of the roll. Their budgetary process starts and, as the minister knows full well, the assessment roll factors very greatly in the determination of mill rate. They need as much time as possible with their budgetary process, and you're starting to encroach dramatically on the budgetary time slot they have. Perhaps the minister could enlighten me on that specific concern.

Hon. R. Blencoe: Staff relate to me that municipalities won't be affected. They have lots of time. A preview roll is available for them, which of course gives the estimates of totals by class. Again, this was an issue, we consulted with the UBCM and they have no concerns in this area.

L. Fox: A couple of questions. At the time when I was on the financing local government study in the area of assessments, it was identified that annual assessments would have a cost of $12 million, not $5 million. Is some of the reduced impact as outlined here due to the fact that you envision less appeals because of

section 17 and 20? If not, please identify how Mr. Wall, the manager of taxation and fiscal policy, came up with the cost of $5 million versus the $12 million that was projected two years ago.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I am not dealing with the past and maybe-numbers from the past. I'm dealing from an authoritative letter from the assessment commission of Mr. Johnstone, who states categorically that the approximate cost will be $3 million to $4 million, or maybe $5 million. He states that this represents an increase of 6 to 8 percent in the authorities levied to each taxpayer, but then says that given the changes to the world calendar, we are confident we can substantially reduce or eliminate this possibility in the 18 months we have to address the issue.

I have discussed this extensively with the Assessment Authority. I believe they will keep to their suggestions and what they believe they can deliver.

L. Fox: It is my understanding that actual assessments have been done on a rotation basis of anywhere from three to five years. Under the annual adjustment to the assessment roll, what do you envision the rotation for actual visual assessments will be?

[6:45]

Hon. R. Blencoe: The rotation won't change. The market issues may change, but the rotation won't change.

L. Fox: One further question. I note that you will be changing the court of revision and it will now sit between January and March. I understand that it would impact that year's assessment rate in the same year. I hate to discuss future sections, but this could impact sections 17 and 20. If an applicant brings forward properties which, under sections 17 and 20, can be increased up to his value during January and March, what opportunity is there for those who weren't privy to this appeal period to come forward and appeal that

[ Page 3042 ]

arbitrary decision by the appeal board to lift their assessments up to the property being assessed?

Hon. R. Blencoe: You can appeal that number or that change to the following court of revision.

L. Fox: In other words, an individual would have to pay the taxes in that year and wait until the following year to appeal. Is that what I heard you say?

Hon. R. Blencoe: I think you've taken this out of sequence. You can go to the court of revision, you can go to the court of appeal or you can go to the next court of revision the next year. I think you've got your things a little out of sequence.

L. Fox: Let me be a little more explicit then. If I as a property owner identify other properties, not knowing the new regulations contained in this act, and go before the appeal board to appeal my assessment, and the appeal board in its wisdom makes the judgment that my assessment is correct and the others are too low, it can arbitrarily, under this act, raise those assessments to meet mine. Subsequently, because they've missed the date of appeal, they do not have the opportunity to appeal the decision by the appeal board. They will suffer that year by having to pay the taxation that was placed on them by an arbitrary decision by the appeal board.

Hon. R. Blencoe: You have picked out a case that indeed could transpire, but I can assure you that in a subsequent year, if a court of revision found that was inaccurate or wasn't proper, then there would obviously be a reimbursement with interest.

L. Fox: Mr. Chairman, I find this extremely interesting. Now we're going to look at municipalities adding to the problem that they've previously had with industrial assessment appeals that have been ongoing and retroactively had to pay back taxpayers. Now you're telling me that municipal taxpayers will have the same privilege to be paid back retroactively by municipalities? I wonder if municipalities understand that they might be subject to retroactive payback of taxation. I don't believe they do.

Hon. R. Blencoe: The member is assuming that there will be a large volume of such adjustments. That's highly unlikely, and I think he is being extremely presumptuous. When we get to the sections that he has particular concerns about, I will give him the real facts of what's involved.

F. Gingell: My ears have perked up. It wasn't with respect to

section 3, but this particular subject comes up later. Are you saying that the court of revision can make an adjustment, as it can under sections that we will subsequently come to in this act, increasing everybody's assessment on the properties around them -- because I have appealed mine, and my neighbours' properties are now going up -- and that that will happen after the date that I can appeal, and I will have no recourse? Are you suggesting that in the subsequent year the court of revision will make a decision that will be retroactive to the previous year?

Hon. R. Blencoe: It has always done that. You're really trying to make a mountain out of a molehill.

F. Gingell: Maybe we'll just go back to

section 3 for this moment. In my earlier discussions with the minister in the hallway and with his staff, we talked about the costs of annual assessment. I was never informed at any time of a suggestion that the increased cost of the assessment board would be $5 million. I am absolutely certain I was told -- and I hope my memory is not correct -- by the minister in the hallway out here that the cost of changing to an annual assessment will be nothing, because we would be changing dates, and there would be no additional costs.

These additional costs, of course, are all borne by the owners of property throughout the province by an assessment. I would be interested in the minister's explanation now. Why did he tell me there would be no more evident net costs? I understood it to be that there'd be no change in cost.

Hon. R. Blencoe: If the member had been listening, I referred to net cost. Only if there is a net cost increase.... I've indicated that Mr. Johnstone has clearly laid out cost savings that he intends to carry out -- moving dates, doing assessments at different times. Substantial dollars are to be recovered for non-confidential information. There will be charges for what is currently available now. We have never hidden the fact that when you go to an annual roll there will be extra costs. We're going to do our utmost to try to ensure that it's not passed on to the levy.

F. Gingell: Then am I to understand that by charging for a service that we now don't charge for, by charging for giving information about our property that belongs to us, a mortgage company, the bank, an insurance company or whomever, that because this government is going to now bring in another tax -- which is what it is, a form of taking money from the residents of this province -- the minister is suggesting that there's no net cost increase? That's very strange accounting, hon. Chair.

We're pushing the costs up, we're going to charge a new tax and the tax is going to recover or equal these costs, and we're suggesting that this allows us to say that there's no increase in our net costs. I really would appreciate the minister sorting this out for me.

Hon. R. Blencoe: Hon. member, if you wish to go and do the work yourself, and get the information yourself, you can do that for free. All we're going to do is provide packages, on-line access. A market exists for that kind of information. We will package the information for clients who require it. It's a convenience for the market, and I can assure you that there are many people who require this information. But for those who wish to go to the city hall, as you can, and get the rolls and get the information, you can do that for free. We are going to market and package information. Many

organiza-

[ Page 3043 ]

tions will be very pleased to have that roll provided, as we have indeed had some information shared by the Speaker today of packaging some useful information right out of this Legislature that can be used for clients to access statutes and what we're doing here. We're being creative, hon. member, and I hope you don't attack creativity.

F. Gingell: No, Mr. Chairman, I assure you that I won't attack creativity.

Could the minister please advise us how much money they believe this new service will raise? Was it $2 million?

Hon. R. Blencoe: A conservative estimate in this creative endeavour by the B.C. Assessment Authority is approximately $2 million.

F. Gingell: So I'm to understand that the estimate of additional labour costs in the B.C. Assessment Authority was originally put by the chief assessor at $5 million, and you see $2 million coming from this new service, and it is the $3 million additional costs that the assessor suggests may be avoided by more creative use of the current resources; let's put it in those terms.

The present costs of the B.C. Assessment Authority are paid by the taxpayers of the province by, I believe, a mill-rate levy on everybody's property. Could the minister please inform us what percentage $5 million and $3 million are of the present costs that are prorated? What are our total B.C. Assessment Authority costs?

Hon. R. Blencoe: The $5 million is approximately 6 to 8 percent of the current budget, and obviously $3 million is about 4 to 6 percent.

L. Fox: The previous member took part of my question. The levy was in fact placed on all tax notices provincewide and identified, and I believe they used to be 1 mill at one point. Can the minister tell me the rate presently levied on all taxpayers?

[7:00]

Hon. R. Blencoe: To be accurate, I'll have to get back to you with that information.

Sections 3 to 5 inclusive approved.

section 6.

F. Gingell: I was wondering if the minister would commence this by explaining to us exactly what

section 6 means. That would be most helpful.

Hon. R. Blencoe: This is a significant change, one that is intended to protect the taxpayer. It permits the assessment commissioner to release confidential, often sensitive, information to agents acting on behalf of property owners, but only after clear permission has been given by the owners. It also restricts use of this information by the agent. This latter provision is designed to deal with the difficult situations which can arise when agents use such information for other purposes related to their work but not to the interests of the property owner who released the information.

It's basically information protection and clarification, and ensuring that the commissioner knows that the property owner has given permission. We've had some unfortunate incidents.

F. Gingell: At the present time, as I understand it, an agent coming in has to sign this British Columbia Assessment Authority authorization of agent. This would seem to me to cover exactly the items in

section 15 as it was before and as it will be now, and I wonder whether the problem was that this hasn't been signed in the past or that this form misses something. It seems to me that it was a pretty thorough document.

Hon. R. Blencoe: If the member wishes to refer to

section 6(2.2), this is probably the most significant change. It says: "An agent shall not use information disclosed under subsection (2.1) except for the purposes authorized by the owner in the form or writing referred to in subsection (1)." Currently the legislation does not permit the use of information gained for other purposes, and we want to make sure that when the property owner gives information and the agent is going to use it for other information, the property owner is quite clear that that's going to happen and has given permission.

Section 6 approved.

The Chair: It would assist the Chair if members could perhaps be a little more vocal in their ayes or nays.

Interjections.

The Chair: Order!

section 7.

F. Gingell: As I understand it, this is the particular

section -- and I would appreciate the minister correcting me if I am wrong -- which requires the annual assessment to be made. This is a brand-new section, and determines that it's going to be done annually now, rather than every second year. We wish to get into two or three subjects, and I think that perhaps this may be an appropriate place for us to talk, if we may, and ask questions of the minister about the effect of us having annual assessments rather than biannual assessments.

When we were discussing

section 3, the minister stated that there were going to be great benefits to the taxpayers of British Columbia by the creation of annual assessments. The only result that I've seen at the moment, in changing from biannual to annual assessments, is that we're going to spend another $5 million. I mean, we could gain this $2 million revenue from this wonderful new information system irrespective of whether the properties were going to be valued annually or biannually.

[ Page 3044 ]

Seeing that assessments are only a process by which a separately determined amount of money -- i.e., the budget of the municipality -- is divided up among all of the various property-owners within the municipality or city, I would like to start off the discussion on

section 7 by the minister advising us what the advantages will be to British Columbia taxpayers by this change in the practice.

Hon. R. Blencoe: First let me say to the member that this is a section, in terms of the annual roll, that is very much requested by local government and the UBCM. It's high on their agenda and is seen as a focus of this legislation. I should, by the way, tell all members that the UBCM have been consulted and actually were given....

Interjection.

Hon. R. Blencoe: Oh yes, indeed they were. Hon. member, you can say what you like. UBCM is aware of this legislation and is welcoming this legislation. The annual roll, hon. member, clearly is intended to provide stability. It's obvious that if you have a roll every two years -- and it's what happened a few years ago -- you suddenly get a dramatic rise in one year. It can be an incredible surprise. What we're trying to do is have those rises in the assessments in more manageable sizes -- less shock in the system.

L. Fox: I really appreciate the minister's words, "less shock to the system." I only wish that he had considered that before he removed the supplementary homeowner grant. However, I recognize that there are many complexities with respect to municipal taxation. This particular section, which allows for annual assessments, while it does perhaps distribute the pain in smaller doses, really doesn't address the issue of the increased taxation burden that's being placed on residential taxpayers.

However, I appreciate the move, and I do know from my time as a municipal elected individual that this was something we supported as an interim measure. I hope it's utilized as an interim measure. I really hope that we're working on a long-term plan that will gradually bring taxation reform into municipal government.

Interjections.

Hon. R. Blencoe: Let me go back to the question of annual rolls, because I think it's an important question by the member who asked me a question earlier. If annual assessments had been in place in the booming real estate markets of the late 1980s and early nineties, assessment volatility would have been reduced by roughly 20 percent on the typical Vancouver home. We have all the tracking evidence and the statistics, and staff can provide that for you. For example, the tax impact of changing property values, leaving aside any increases to overall tax levels, caused taxes on a modest house on Vancouver's west side to jump by 90 percent in 1989.

Of course, this clearly doesn't bring assessments down, but what we're trying to do, as I said earlier, is take the shock out of it, cause more gradual bite sizes, so people can prepare for what sometimes happens in the market. And assessments do jump dramatically.

L. Fox: A point of clarification. Are you suggesting that the assessment increased 90 percent, or that the taxation increased 90 percent?

Hon. R. Blencoe: Taxes went up 90 percent.

L. Fox: I have some difficulties understanding....

Hon. R. Blencoe: Gross.

L. Fox: Well, hon. Chair, if the minister is talking about gross taxes on the homeowner, then we're probably talking about school taxation, all the other things. Are we talking about gross municipal taxes? I have difficulty believing that municipal taxes increased by 90 percent, and I'd like him to clarify where and how, and give me some examples of where that was.

Hon. R. Blencoe: What we're talking about is just what happens when the assessments shift. There is a dramatic change in the assessment, obviously resulting in a tax change which is quite dramatic. All we're saying is that when those assessments come, we're trying, by introducing an annual roll, to moderate those assessments to smaller bite sizes -- on an annual basis, as I've said.

L. Fox: I'm still trying to understand the minister and the 90 percent. I understand that there were shifts from some areas of the communities to others, because assessments increased in some areas and not in others. Given the fact that some communities had the opportunity to either cap their taxation for municipal purposes.... That was the case in two communities that I'm aware of. Given that the minister has thrown out this figure as the rationale for this particular initiative, I want to understand where that happened and how annual assessments would have affected that.

[7:15]

Hon. R. Blencoe: If this bill had been in place in this period of time and had averaging annual assessments and phasing opportunities, Vancouver would not have had to cap as they did. This would have given them the opportunity not to have had to do an arbitrary capping system as they did in Vancouver.

F. Gingell: I'm having a little problem in understanding this. This comparison, where you're talking about taxes going up by 90 percent, is based on the level of municipal expenditures staying stable. This is purely and simply a change resulting from the assessment of one specific property; that's what you're telling us. You can find a house with the level of municipal expenditure being the same and apply the rules that would be in effect that the amount of taxes went up by 90 percent because of the changes in values over two years.

[ Page 3045 ]

Hon. R. Blencoe: That was a dramatic time for the west side. It was a revenue-neutral increase for a large number of West End properties. It was very typical at that time; the evidence is there. Again, we can provide that for you. Substantial studies have been done, and information is available on what happened in the example that I'm giving you tonight.

F. Gingell: I really don't wish to waste a lot of time on this particular item, because it was just thrown out as an example. If the value of the assessments in this area that has suddenly gone up in value represents 25 percent of the total assessed value, you'd have to have properties within that 25 percent block rising at a rate of about 400 percent over and above the rate that all of the others had increased. You'd have to take 90 and divide it by.... So it would have to be three-and-a-half times.... I have a problem with understanding that. Perhaps we could leave that to some other occasion, because it obviously isn't going to affect this as far as

section 7 is concerned.

As far as

section 7 is concerned, perhaps the minister could give us a little discourse from his briefing book on what actual value of property for an assessment is to be determined as. There are references in this act to selling price, market price and actual value. I was wondering if this an appropriate time for the minister to define the difference between those three things. In a later

section you have actually changed a reference from "market price" to "selling price." In this

section we get "actual value." I'm never quite sure what the actual value of a property is, but I'd be interested to hear what the minister says.

Hon. R. Blencoe: Actual value is the same as market value or fair market value. They're all different terms for the same purpose.

F. Gingell: As you appreciate, there are a lot of concerns about what all these various terms mean. They are very difficult to determine. If I go out and want to determine the value of my house, and I get three appraisers, I'm absolutely certain that they will come up with three different prices. You can arrive at the value of a piece of property, particularly if it is a commercial property, by using very different means of valuing them. You can value them on a business basis by capitalizing a certain income projection. You can think about replacement costs. What would it cost to replace this property?

What would it cost to buy this piece of property? What would it cost to build this structure, and then depreciate the cost of that property?

When we talk about market value, that calls us to think about a perfect situation where you have a willing buyer and a willing seller, both of whom are not influenced by outside factors and are able to arrive at a price. That's a very difficult thing to do. It is terribly subjective; it is not objective. Any number that is put down is purely and simply some person's best guess. An assessor does this day after day. If they work for the B.C. Assessment Authority, they tend to be considered experts. Their guess is just the same as someone else's guess.

It being such an inexact science, I'm just wondering how the minister believes that this will be practised from a practical point of view. When will the actual value be done on the basis of a selling price if there's no market for it? It may be a very specialized property. When will they use future cash flows as a method of evaluation? I'd be most interested in hearing a dissertation from the minister on this subject of the problems of market evaluation.

Hon. R. Blencoe: Most of the issues that the member raises are within the purview of the Assessment Authority and the appeal tribunals. It is not for the government.... Our policy is market value. We've supported that for years. That's how we do our assessments and how our taxes are applied. We have a provincewide Assessment Authority, which is mandated to achieve and reflect market value on properties for assessment. We have appeal tribunals to ensure it is done well and properly. Those who feel aggrieved by the system can appeal. The key issue is that our policy and system is based on real market value.

C. Tanner: The minister just said that there are three terms used in this bill, and they all mean the same thing. The first question has got to be: if that's what he said, and I understood him to say that, then why does he use three terms? If they are all the same thing, why not use the single term?

I take issue with the minister when he says that actual value and market value are the same thing. Actual value and market value are not the same thing. Actual value is what you sell the building for; market value is what you get for it. They're not necessarily the same thing. I can get a building appraised, and the appraiser can say: "In my view, you could sell this building for a given amount." Unless I can find a buyer, that is not the amount that the building is worth. In actual fact, the Assessment Authority goes from its own experiences as to what market value is, and it goes from the sales that have taken place in the market.

Maybe the minister could tell me why he needs three different terms in the same bill, and if he wasn't in error when he said that actual value and market value are the same.

Hon. R. Blencoe: We only refer to actual value in the bill. What I was saying was actual value, market value, fair value or whatever term you want to apply have been determined by the courts to mean the same thing: actual value. In a famous case, Sun Life of Canada -- I don't know which year it was -- this issue was dealt with. We are using the term "actual value," which is accepted in the industry as valid.

Section 7 approved.

section 8.

F. Gingell: We've just heard from the minister that we use the term actual value. But in

section 8(

d) we are striking out "market value" and substituting "selling price." I must admit that I haven't gone back and

[ Page 3046 ]

checked

section 26 to find out exactly what that refers to. I believe that this whole

section deals with the right of someone to have the property assessed on the basis of its use, which may be different. I was wondering if you could explain this to us.

Hon. R. Blencoe: This is one of those sections classified as consequential. Let me give you the purpose and the significance of the section.

This

section changes the date at which the physical condition of property is considered for the purpose of assessment from September 30 to October 31. It also changes the date at which long-time owners can apply to have their property assessed on the basis of its actual use as opposed to its market value. Both of these changes are made in order to make the dates consistent with the new later assessment cycle.

A consequential amendment is made by changing "each class" to "each property class" in order to make the phrase consistent with the introduction of a definition of property class in

section 1.

Let me give you this background too, hon. member. The physical condition of property as of September 30 is currently considered for the purposes of assessment. Long-time owners applying for assessment on the basis of actual use must apply by October 31. The significance is that a series of changes are being made to move the assessment cycle back three months so that notices are sent at the end of December, courts of revision sit in February and early March and final assessments are released March 31.

F. Gingell: Could you deal with the change to

section 26(3)? You didn't cover that in your discussion.

Hon. R. Blencoe: It is indeed quite complicated. I'm sure we're all trying to grapple with this stuff. This is consequential, but it also permits the assessor to give them the opportunity, if they wish, for a variation of market value -- that they can substitute actual selling price. It's again an opportunity for the assessor to use a variation.

Let me give you what the Assessment Act currently says and what we're adding. We're just adding an extra component, which is selling price. It says:

"In determining actual value, the assessor may, except where this act has a different requirement, give consideration to present use, location, original cost, replacement cost, revenue or rental value, market value of the land and improvements and comparable land and improvements, economic and functional obsolescence, and any other circumstances affecting the value of the land and improvements."

We're adding "selling price." It's part of a list of criteria for determining actual value.

[7:30]

F. Gingell: Under the circumstances where an individual or family have lived on a piece of property for ten years and wish to avail themselves of the right to have the property assessed on the basis of its actual use, what is the process that the assessor goes through to arrive at this?

Hon. R. Blencoe: What they do is look at the actual use rather than the highest and best use.

F. Gingell: Perhaps the minister could expand a bit on that. Are you saying that what they do is pretend the property isn't located where it is located, but move it, in effect, to some other location for the purposes of assessment? Is that the sort of thing you do?

Hon. R. Blencoe: No. Again, this is incredibly complicated. They basically indicate that it doesn't have that potential market value or speculative value. It's assessed on its actual use at the time.

F. Gingell: Let's take an example in, say, Surrey, because there's so much growth in Surrey, and there are so many five-and ten-acre parcels that have been there since time immemorial. If there's someone living on a ten-acre parcel that they bought many years ago for an inconsequential amount of money -- $300 may have been a lot of money then -- in a very small home that's kind of run down, with only one bathroom, unpainted.... There were lots of those, and I think there still are -- what people sometimes refer to as stump farmers. In arriving at the valuation on that property, how would they deal with that?

Obviously if it's a dilapidated residence, it's going to be relatively low, but it's in a fairly high-property-value area.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I'm told that if they apply for it and they happen to have lived there ten years, they get it.

F. Gingell: They get what? Could you explain that to me?

Hon. R. Blencoe: Actual use rather than highest and best use.

F. Gingell: So if they are living on a ten-acre parcel or a five-acre parcel and using it effectively as a single residential lot -- the rest is an unused stump farm -- you would assess them on the basis of a residential lot, whether it is serviced or unserviced, and the value of a run-down, dilapidated house.

Hon. R. Blencoe: The member may not have at his disposal the current Assessment Act, but there is a

part 3,

section 26, under "eligible residential property." They would apply under this section. It means "a parcel of land on which there are improvements where (

a) the parcel does not exceed 2.03 ha in area, and (

b) the improvements are designed to accommodate and are used only to accommodate 3 or fewer families."

F. Gingell: I'm sorry. I was busily working out what 2.03 hectares was when you said that, and I reckon it is five acres. Does that portion of

section 26 say that this parcel, if it's no more than five acres -- that is, if it's five acres or less -- will be valued as a single residential lot?

[ Page 3047 ]

Hon. R. Blencoe: It's actually valued against its actual use.

The Chair: Order! Please wait to be recognized. It does make the job of Hansard that much easier.

Hon. R. Blencoe: This is not something we're changing in the act. If the member wishes to have a full description or outline of how

section 26(4) works, we'd be very pleased to provide that to you. But if the member believes we are changing this, we're not. Nothing is changing in this area.

F. Gingell: Thank you for that, minister. I did not believe that you were changing it specifically, but you are changing one of the descriptions of what these values are, and for my own information and with this opportunity to be advised by the minister, I really find it hard to get from the point of saying it's valued at its actual use.... That, to me, isn't a logical statement, because it's a five-acre parcel, and you have to value it either on the basis of what a single residential lot would sell for or what a five-acre parcel would sell for which isn't subject to a speculative gain.

I don't think you can find that out, because every five-acre parcel in Surrey does, in fact, have a speculative nature to it.

Hon. R. Blencoe: Again I think the member is seeing problems where there are no problems. If it is used as a single-family property home, it's assessed by that actual use. It's not assessed as if it were part of a multi-lot subdivision.

L. Fox: Perhaps just to clarify it, what kind of role does the community plan or the zoning play in that aspect of it?

Hon. R. Blencoe: It's virtually negligible. It would only change it if the market believes the plan does, if it affects the market behaviour, but it has no discernible impact.

Section 8 approved.

section 9.

F. Gingell: As I understand it, this just brings into a classification -- which looks like a classification for oil refineries and gas-processing plants -- the equipment that exists at the wellhead. Is that correct? You're basically bringing in wellhead equipment. How was that assessed before? Does this change?

Hon. R. Blencoe: We are just assessing these particular institutions the same as any other industrial properties.

F. Gingell: Were they not assessed before?

Hon. R. Blencoe: Yes, they were assessed, but they were assessed under the rules that apply to non-industrial properties, and that was the problem.

L. Fox: I have a couple of concerns with respect to this section. This will result in a brand-new tax on the oil and gas industry. It's my understanding that previously if it was under $50,000 of assessment, it was excluded from the roll. There may have also been some machinery and equipment that was taken off, and I'm trying to remember when. It was probably removed from the assessment roll around '86. One question has to be: why this particular industry? I guess the other question has to be: are we moving back as a government to taxing machinery and equipment in the industrial sector?

Hon. R. Blencoe: We're not really changing anything. All we're ensuring is that they pay the same industrial property taxes as if these kinds of properties were existing in areas where we could assess them easily. Many of these properties were actually in remote areas that weren't assessed, and weren't assessed properly. We now know they're there, and we're now applying the proper industrial assessment to them. Really, it's just a fairer sharing of existing taxes. It's not a new tax, hon. member.

R. Neufeld: If it's not a new tax, can you tell me approximately what it's going to raise?

[7:45]

Hon. R. Blencoe: It doesn't necessarily raise more money. It just changes the way we put the value on them. If we raise more money, it means we've found more properties.

L. Fox: Is this assessment going to be based on profitability? Is that what you suggested?

Hon. R. Blencoe: The owners were supposed to report the properties. They didn't report accurately.

R. Neufeld: Previously, if I understand correctly -- correct me if I am wrong -- anything under $50,000 was not taxed. That took place at the time when they removed taxation on machinery and equipment. That applied to all industry. It didn't matter whether it was oil and gas or in a community. Can you tell me if that's what you're recapping now? Because there is a tremendous amount of it out there.

Hon. R. Blencoe: The member is referring to an obsolete change. That issue has not been relevant since 1986. All machinery and equipment has been removed since 1986. You're remembering an old

section which is no longer relevant; it's obsolete.

Sections 9 to 13 inclusive approved.

section 14.

Hon. R. Blencoe: The purpose of this

section is to clarify one of the grounds for a complaint to the court of revision. It also changes the last date at which an assessment may be appealed to the court of revision -- from October 31 to January 31 -- in order to make this

[ Page 3048 ]

consistent with the new later assessment cycle. It repeals several sections which were required for the operation of a two-year assessment cycle, but which are now not required in the context of annual assessment.

The existing situation is that the grounds for appeal are that property has been valued at too high or too low an amount, and complaints to the court of revision must be filed by October 31. The change in the grounds for appeal is consequential to other changes, which establishes a greater consistency between the mandates of the assessors, courts of revision and the Assessment Appeal Board. The date change is one of a series of changes being made to move the assessment cycle back three months so that notices are sent at the end of December, courts of revision sit in February and early March and final assessments are released March 31.

F. Gingell: Can you advise us if the timing has changed between the date of receiving the assessment notice, which I now understand is December 31, and the appeal deadline, which is January 31? Has that appeal time changed in any way from previous years?

Hon. R. Blencoe: We kept the appeal time the same.

L. Fox: The concern that I have with this is that typically during that time of the year people could be away. Obviously, in the north part of the country the climates can be severe. There could be many reasons why an individual would have difficulty living with a 30-day period of time in which to appeal. I would respectfully ask that, should you move it into these winter months, either the notices be sent out earlier or there should be a period of time longer than 30 days in which to apply for the opportunity to appeal.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I don't know if the member is aware, but these are the dates that were used prior to 1983. We've only actually had about eight years of the current date system. This system was in place as long as most people can remember.

L. Fox: I think therein lies the reason that I speak. Obviously they would change for a reason. I would perceive that part of the reason may have been in fact to allow individuals to comply with the 30-day requirement at a different time of year. I know that there are many individuals in my neck of the woods and in other rural parts of the province who could be literally living in camps -- logging camps and so on -- at that time of year.

Given that the notices come out on December 31, given the rush in the mails and the difficulty of getting any mail out at that point in time, we're going to run into some difficult situations. I think some consideration should be given to the taxpayers' ability to meet those deadlines.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I hear what the member says. My understanding of the historical reason for the change is that municipalities basically wanted more time to do budgeting. But the roll is now given.... They get their totals quite early, so that issue is resolved.

I also want you to know that my understanding is that there were very few complaints or problems with the pre-'83 dates. It was basically local government requesting more time, but that issue is now resolved as well in terms of the early time they get their rolls.

L. Fox: Just so I understand, is the intent of this legislation to ensure that the homeowner has the notice of assessment prior to December 31, or do the notices have to be mailed by December 31?

Hon. R. Blencoe: Mailed.

L. Fox: Therein lies my point. It is why I am extremely concerned. Anybody knows -- I don't want to take a shot at the postal service, but anybody knows that mail during that time of the year is not too dependable. It certainly is not in our area. If this act does not require that the notices be mailed prior to December 31, we may not even get them in our country until the middle of the month.

An Hon. Member: Or later.

L. Fox: Or later. There should be some consideration given to this.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I will take a look at that issue. The member makes a point, and we'll see if we can make some administrative changes to accommodate the member's concerns.

F. Gingell: While you consider them, Mr. Minister, I'd like to suggest that, rather than making an administrative change, perhaps the correct way of doing it would be to change

section 3 of this act where

section 2 is amended, and bring that date under subsection (1) forward to December 15 -- because I don't think you want to push the whole process of appeal back. The concern is, purely and simply, delivery of the assessment notice. That's where the concern lies.

Hon. R. Blencoe: We're not allowed to use props, but there are a number of consequential dates, and they're like a stack of cards. If you change one, it affects all the others. So I'm very reluctant to get into changing dates on the floor of this Legislature, because two years of work has gone into preparing this legislation. We have to be very careful. With respect, if the member doesn't mind, I don't really want to amend it at this point.

F. Gingell: In

section 14(a), where the proposed change under subparagraph (

c) is to change it to "actual value" from "valued at too high or too low an amount," would you please advise us what the consequences of this change are. Has it changed the causes of an appeal?

Hon. R. Blencoe: This is consequential to the equity sections. It basically makes the words more precise.

Sections 14 to 16 inclusive approved.

[ Page 3049 ]

section 17.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I want to make some comments about this section. It also reflects on

section 20, because some concerns and, I think, some misunderstandings were expressed on the intent of these sections. I hope it is just a misunderstanding, in terms of the opposition's intent.

I want to indicate to the members that fairness in our property tax system has been preserved by this bill. I want to leave no doubt that

section 17 and

section 20, in our estimation, reinforce that principle. They are about fairness, and confirm that fair market value shall remain the standard by which assessments are made in British Columbia. These sections are specifically aimed at closing a loophole which representatives of large property-owners, large corporations, large landowners, have used to their advantage. If we do not take action, those individuals and large property-owners will use the loophole increasingly to erode the standard of fair market value upon which our system is based.

This loophole uses assessment anomalies as justification for a case based on the so-called equity issue -- the equity argument -- which can result in the lowering of the appellant's assessment to a level significantly below fair market value.

Let me cite three examples -- there are many -- of cases which have been successfully appealed using the equity argument: Coast Apartments Ltd., whose assessment was reduced by $400,000; Dueck's on Marine, whose assessment was reduced by $400,000; and Lynn Holdings Ltd., whose assessment was reduced by $4.6 million. In each case, the board confirmed the fair market value determined by the assessor, but then was obliged to lower the assessment value due to the legal connotation of the equity argument.

[8:00]

A number of large-scale appeals are currently before the board, once again posing the equity argument, which has become a code for finding an anomaly and using it to lower the assessment, despite fair market value, upon which our system -- and I think everybody supports our system -- is based. In some cases, hon. members, the appellants actually refuse to estimate the fair market value of their properties and instead pursue a reduction based solely on comparison to unrepresentative examples, simply because they are assessed at a much lower level. This is called equity.

The job of the tax agent, of course -- and, hon. members, I'm sure this where the opposition is getting some of their information from -- is to try to reduce their employer's tax load, obviously. That's what they're expected to do. But when they succeed in using this loophole, everyone else pays for it -- especially the average property-owner in the neighbourhoods of other communities.

The present situation is not fair. It's not equity, and neither is it equitable in anything but the strictest legal sense, because it bestows an advantage on those with the resources to pay for professional tax agents, who are often willing to work on a contingency basis to find the assessment anomalies and use them to reduce their employer's assessment, and thus to make an end run around the fair market standard -- I emphasize, the fair market standard -- which I hope we all continue to support. Unfortunately, this isn't a rare occurrence. The appeal process is presently clogged with this kind of manoeuvre.

In this bill we are preserving the right of the property tax payer to a fair hearing. There will be no change to the way the homeowner might appeal or to the outcome they might achieve. We are also preserving and strengthening the stability of our tax system for local government and enforcing the standard of fair market value that serves our province so well, because it translates to basic fairness in property taxation. So I ask the members opposite, those who have made some comments on this particular section, to understand this legislation and its intent and to realize that it ensures a higher degree of fairness for all taxpayers -- the average taxpayer.

I also say to those members that you should be careful whom you listen to on this subject. Determine whose interests they represent. Do they represent those who are making a living assisting large property-owners, large corporations and large landowners in lowering their assessment and who naturally want to preserve the edge they have gained through the so-called equity provision? Or do they represent the homeowners who pay for the consequences of such actions?

Section 17 and

section 20 eliminate the existing room for the large landowner and large corporate sector to transfer its tax obligations to our neighbourhoods. They will ensure that each sector pays its fair share and will prevent the shifting of the tax load onto the backs of homeowners. These sections contain amendments that protect the interests of the homeowner, strengthen the fairness of the system and uphold the principle of fair market value, which is a fundamental element in our province's system of property-value assessment.

Hon. members, the government believes that sections 17 and 20 deserve the support of every member of this assembly because we are doing a service to the average homeowner by plugging a loophole. It is rightly being used -- because that is the so-called equity issue -- but it is grossly unfair to the average homeowner who has to take up the slack of those massive reductions based on anomalies or inconsistencies.

L. Fox: I'm really pleased that the minister gave us the speech from the Assessment Authority. I'm also really pleased that out of millions of folios in British Columbia, he was able to identify three cases where an apparent loophole was being used. I'm really concerned that the minister, in his exuberance a few minutes ago, has looked beyond the rights of individuals because three cases out of millions of folios were identified to this minister where the apparent loophole was being used.

But what about the rights of individuals? I'm really concerned that in order to....

Interjections.

The Chair: Order!

[ Page 3050 ]

L. Fox: It is obvious that the other side of the argument doesn't want to be heard, and certainly government is afraid of the words that might be said; otherwise the noise level wouldn't have increased. But I'll be my usual very calm self and try to put my points forward.

What sections 17 and 20 do -- and I'll mention both of them at the same time because the minister did in his discussions -- is lessen appeals. They will in fact decrease the costs of the Assessment Authority by lessening the number of appeals, thereby doing away with the rights of the average British Columbian.

I'm speaking with respect to homeowners. Businesses always have the ability to hire lawyers and individuals to argue on their behalf. The average homeowner does not. The average homeowner takes on the challenge of appealing his assessment himself.

These two sections do not allow me to use another home, piece of property or area of the community that has a similar value. None of this kind of thing can be used in order for me to argue my case at the appeal board. If I take my neighbour's assessment to use it as a tool to argue my assessment, the appeal board now has the authority to raise my neighbour's assessment. Because we've gone beyond the appeal date, he cannot even defend himself in that court.

As the minister said earlier in these discussions, he has to pay the taxation that that assessment will create in the current year, and then go before the appeal board in the following year and, in spite of what the minister suggests, apply back for a grant in his taxation. That is not the case. In fact, that assessment will only be current for that year. He does not have the ability to go retroactively back into the municipal coffers and ask for his money back. This is an infringement upon the right of the average individual in British Columbia to argue his case before the appeal board.

It will limit the appeals, and that's the main objective of the Assessment Authority in putting these two things forward.

Another thing that I want to touch on is the fact that in the introduction to this bill the minister suggested that it had the blessing of the UBCM. I will agree -- other than sections 17 and 20, it does. But I'm here to tell the House that the UBCM executive hasn't even considered sections 17 and 20.

I'm extremely concerned. As I said initially in this House on this bill, it is a good bill, but it has these two zingers in it. If it were only on the business community and it only affected those individuals who had the dollars in order to buy the expertise, I could almost accept that. But this applies to every property-owner in the province. This is one

section that I will be voting against.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I don't know if there's much else to say. There's obviously a philosophical difference between that party and this one. Nothing has changed in terms of appeals. Nothing has changed at all. We believe this is correct. I have given you the examples. There are a multitude of them. You know what happened in the Bramalea case, the granddaddy of all of them.

I'm saying to you that the average homeowner can appeal. The rules have not changed, but we're ensuring that the real market value is protected. At the moment the equity issue is used as a loophole, and we will not allow that to happen. When that happens and those large property-owners using very sophisticated methods manage to get massive reductions in their assessments, every little grandmother who owns a home pays for the result. We won't allow that to happen. This member may wish to protect those special interests that he and his party have protected for years. This party will not do that, hon. member.

The Chair: I would remind members to please address their remarks to the Chair.

L. Fox: I won't point my finger. I'm beyond that.

I want to tell you, hon. Chairman, that I'm pleased to see that finally the minister stood up and stated his own words.

I am concerned. We want to talk about fairness and equity, and that's really what these two sections take out of here: the fairness and equity. During the past year, a five-judge panel of the B.C. Court of Appeal found that fairness and equity were a key consideration in the establishment of property assessments. I guess I have to ask the minister a question with respect to his fair-market-value approach.

If I can only argue fair market value when I go before the Court of Appeal, how do I argue that if I have a residential piece of property that happens to be located -- and in many small communities this is the case -- next to an industrial site? My fair market value will be dependent on finding a buyer who wants to live next to an industrial site. I cannot utilize other lands or properties that have perhaps even been sold at a lesser value than what my perceived value is. If I'm wrong in this statement, I'll sit down and the minister can correct me.

Hon. R. Blencoe: The member is wrong. He can pick lower-assessed-value properties if he so desires. What we're referring to are those that are clearly way off the scale in terms of proper, actual market value, which is being used as the equity issue. We're bringing fairness back into the system, and I wish that member could understand what we're trying to do here.

However, hon. Chair, because of the time, I understand that we want to move to other items. I move we rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

[8:15]

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. D. Miller: I call second reading of Bill 77.

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT

ACT (No. 2), 1992

Hon. R. Blencoe: Hon. Speaker, it's my pleasure to put forward Bill 77 for second reading. This

legisla-

[ Page 3051 ]

tion contains a number of provisions relating to the concerns of local governments in British Columbia.

The first provision will eliminate the uncertainty caused by a recent Supreme Court decision concerning rules under which council members abstain from voting if, for example, they have a conflict of interest. The court ruling was in the case of Harwood Industries Ltd. versus the District of Surrey. This legislation will eliminate any confusion about abstentions in local government voting procedures at council meetings and at council committee meetings.

This legislation will ensure that council members who do not vote because they believe they are not entitled to do so -- if, for example, they have a monetary interest in the matter being considered -- are not deemed to have voted affirmatively, provided they leave the meeting as required. The amendment has been developed in consultation with the Union of British Columbia Municipalities and responds to the UBCM's request for clarification in this area.

Many British Columbians are increasingly concerned about the protection and preservation of trees. A provision in this legislation establishes a new scheme under which municipalities are authorized to protect trees valued by the community. The aim of the scheme is to empower municipalities with general bylaw-making authority, which they can adapt to their particular needs in protecting trees in urban areas. In general terms, this legislation adds a new division to the Municipal Act by creating the tree-protection scheme and consolidating some existing authority.

This legislation empowers municipal councils to pass one or more different bylaws requiring permits for tree removal and for restricting the cutting, removal and damaging of trees. It also empowers municipal councils to require the replacement of trees and to require security deposits to ensure that trees are replaced and maintained. As well, this legislation empowers municipal councils to pass bylaws identifying and protecting trees that are significant for their heritage, landmark or wildlife habitat values. Of course, the municipal authority has its limits in this bill.

Landowners may take their concerns about tree-cutting bylaws to the local board of variance. As well, the legislation cannot be used to prohibit all land uses or development that may otherwise be permitted by zoning.

This tree legislation addresses the concerns of municipalities and the public, who have been pressing for action as growth pressure in urban areas heightens the impact of tree removal on heritage, aesthetics, views and the environment. It was also developed in consultation with the Union of B.C. Municipalities, which has actively sought protection for trees in urban areas.

This amendment is an urban tree-cutting measure. The rural tree-cutting issue involves a greater complexity of interests including commercial, forestry, private land, local government, environmental and aboriginal interests. Although I support the desire for more control over tree-cutting in rural areas, this must be addressed in a broader process and in a coordinated and comprehensive way which is beyond the scope of this legislation.

My colleague the Minister of Forests is currently looking into the broader issues and will be seeking input from the various stakeholders, including regional districts and the Islands Trust, on the complex issue of logging on private land.

A third provision of this legislation will enable local governments to establish a new system of controls over fire and security alarms through the issuing of permits. This provision also gives municipal councils authority to charge fees for services provided in response to repeated false alarms. The individual councils may establish the number of false alarms permitted before a fee for service is imposed, and they may vary the fee depending on the number of false alarms to which police or fire departments respond. In general, this legislation will provide for more efficient use of the resources of local police and fire departments by significantly reducing the number of false alarms.

D. Mitchell: I'd like to speak briefly to this bill. We're on Bill 77, Municipal Amendment Act (No. 2), 1992. This is the second general -- I guess we could call it omnibus -- bill of the session dealing with amendments to the Municipal Act. I might say that the bill is similar to the first one. In fact, in many respects this bill is similar to the minister who sponsors the bill: it has no single underlying principle. What it does is attempt to do a number of somewhat unrelated things, sometimes in an only mildly offensive manner, so it is very much like the minister who sponsors it.

I'd just like to say that I think it's useful to note that of the several things that the bill intends to do, there has been consultation with local government. I think that's important to note on the record. For that reason, we in the official opposition can support this bill in principle at this stage. The consultation has been important. The hon. minister has noted that there's been consultation with the UBCM and with other local government levels.

When it comes to dealing with the clarification of council members being able to abstain from voting if there are conflicts of interest, we think that amendment to the act does clarify this issue, and that's important.

When it comes to dealing with urban trees, perhaps we might say that that's an issue that's been dealt with in this session. I think it's useful to note that there are some issues here dealing with the rights of individuals and private property that are important philosophical issues, but there is a right of appeal under this bill. I think that right of appeal to the municipal board of variance is useful. We can support that with the great comfort of knowing that, as the minister has said, his colleague the hon. Minister of Forests is also probing this issue. That gives us great comfort, hon.

Speaker, as it does to many British Columbians, I am sure. With these two ministers working together on this important issue, we just know that.... I'm not going to go any further, because I think I might delve into unparliamentary language.

So, with those few words, I'd like to say that I think we can support this bill in principle at this stage. We will have further comments at committee stage.

[ Page 3052 ]

L. Fox: This bill, similar to the earlier bill we were discussing, has a couple of really interesting facts about it.

An Hon. Member: Zingers.

L. Fox: Yes, zingers. In fact, on the one hand this bill gives some autonomy to the municipalities, and on the other hand it takes it away and has the right to override that autonomy. Hidden in this legislation allowing the municipalities to make bylaws regarding installation, operation, maintenance and repair of fire and security alarm systems is the ability for the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to override municipal bylaws by authorizing specified variations of the provisions of bylaws. That has to be a concern, and I look forward to the dialogue at the committee stage.

I have written letters to the Minister of Forests, and I understand the Municipal Affairs minister has had the benefit of my writings with respect to the need to provide some code of logging practices in the hands of municipal government through zoning or whatever. But I have some real difficulty with the intent of this legislation, where any level of government...

The Speaker: Excuse me, hon. member. Would the House come to order, please.

L. Fox: It's late in June and it's late in the evening.

...can restrict individuals' rights to do something on their own property. Obviously there have to be controls on how they do it and on what basis it is done, but to limit the ability of individuals to cut down a tree on their property is something that I have real problems with.

The one aspect about this bill that I do like is that it does put that responsibility into the hands of municipal councils and doesn't produce a policy or legislation which in fact would be provincewide. As the previous speaker suggested, there is an appeal process through the board of variance. However, let's look back and see how that board of variance is formed. It's formed by the municipal council and the provincial government. So in fact, if the ideology of those two structures are such that they agree with the legislation, what real day in court do individuals have? They really don't have an appeal.

I'm extremely concerned about the effects of this legislation, and I believe that it's a great infringement upon the rights of individuals. Had this been an ability for municipalities to create zoning which suggests on what basis and how trees might be reduced, I could have had some sympathy and some support for it. But this legislation removes the right of the individual property-owner to be king of his own domain, and for that reason I cannot support it.

S. Hammell: I want to go back to the principle around the amendment regarding conflict of interest. I think the principle....

The Speaker: Hon. member, we are on Bill 77.

S. Hammell: Yes. It's the

section of the bill where a councillor is in conflict of interest. The amendment makes it clear that as far as the Municipal Act is concerned, from now on, when someone says no they mean no, and when they are leaving the chamber and leaving the table, and in fact do not want to vote, that does not mean their vote is then yes.

W. Hurd: I would like to speak in support of this particular bill and praise the minister for bringing it forward. Certainly one of the first issues that I was forced to deal with in my own riding was a plea from area residents concerned about tree-cutting by a developer on what amounted to private land. They were somewhat shocked to learn that there were no checks and balances or local autonomy in place with which to appeal this particular tree-cutting.

As we've known for some time, in urban areas of the lower mainland there's a tremendous amount of tree-cutting occurring on private land for redevelopment, with municipalities often having their hands tied as far as being able to deal with what is very much an urban concern on the part of people who see trees at the end of their block and no means of protecting them.

I would also like to say that I'm encouraged the Minister of Forests has taken an interest in urban trees -- very encouraged, indeed -- since we did have a representation from the people of Williams Lake who were concerned about the minister's feelings on rural trees which they were relying on to keep their sawmills going. It's indeed encouraging that this issue has struck his fancy as well, and that he's prepared to be a party to protecting urban trees in the lower mainland.

Interjections.

W. Hurd: Certainly the Minister of Forests has a long record of reducing annual allowable cuts in the province. We're encouraged to see that he's also taken the lead on urban trees, to reduce the number of them being cut down. I certainly support the bill. I think it's a positive move for people in my riding and for people in the lower mainland. I look forward to continued debate in the committee phase.

The Speaker: The minister will close debate on second reading.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I thank the members for their comments, and I look forward to further debate in committee. I move the bill now be read a second time.

Motion approved on division.

Bill 77, Municipal Amendment Act (No. 2), 1992, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

[8:30]

Hon. D. Miller: I call second reading of Bill 74.

[ Page 3053 ]

TEACHING PROFESSION

AMENDMENT ACT, 1992

Hon. A. Hagen: The bill before us is an amendment to the Teaching Profession Act. It is intended to provide the College of Teachers with jurisdiction over the certification, conduct and competence of former members of the college who continue to hold certificates of qualification to teach in British Columbia. These are people who have resigned their membership in the College of Teachers but continue to hold valid teaching certificates. At present, the college has the authority to cancel or suspend the teaching certificate of a member of the college.

The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council has the authority to cancel or suspend the teaching certificate of a non-member of the college who has resigned from the college. These amendments place the authority for cancelling and suspending both members' and former members' teaching certificates with the College of Teachers and eliminate the necessity for any involvement on the part of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.

As hon. members know, the College of Teachers is responsible for defining the academic and professional qualifications for teacher certification, for investigating allegations of professional misconduct or incompetence on the part of members of the teaching profession, and, if necessary, for disciplining a member of the profession. This amending bill will thereby rationalize the provisions of the act by transferring the power to cancel certificates of qualification to teach from the cabinet to the College of Teachers, which is the professional body regulating educators in British Columbia.

This bill will also permit the council of the College of Teachers to cancel or suspend a letter of permission. At present there is no provision for the cancellation or suspension of a letter of permission once it is issued by the college. I might note, for those who may want to know, that when letters of permission are issued, they are a means by which persons are given the authority to teach on an annual basis for a specific teaching assignment.

There is one final, consequential amendment that is made to the Independent School Act. It requires an independent school authority to report to the College of Teachers any suspensions, disciplinary actions or resignations of persons with teaching certificates or letters of permission issued by the college for those who are employed by an independent school authority.

These changes eliminate some gaps and inconsistencies in our legislation and are intended to provide our young people with a safe learning environment, where persons who are found to be morally unfit or professionally incompetent are not permitted to continue to teach in a school in British Columbia.

I would urge the passage of this bill. I move second reading.

J. Dalton: We in the opposition can happily and safely say that this is indeed a housekeeping bill. I guess sometimes we shudder when ministers rise on first reading and say: "It's just housekeeping." But there's no question that this is legislation that is long overdue. I have consulted with the College of Teachers, the BCTF and the Independent Schools Association, and I can assure everyone in this House that I have not had one negative comment on these amendments. Everyone is happy to see that they are finally forthcoming.

I suppose it may be true that there are still some people out there in British Columbia who would like to see more teeth put into the legislation, but that's the radical extreme.

We in the official opposition certainly are supportive of these amendments and are quite happy to support them on second reading.

C. Serwa: So much for the official opposition. I'm really quite shocked that the official opposition would make a statement like that on this bill.

I have great deal of difficulty with the philosophy and principles of this bill. This bill clearly is a political payoff -- a sell-off to the BCTF. The Minister of Education purports to represent education but in fact represents the BCTF. This is simply carrying out the political payoff to a group that enabled the election of the government of the day. That's all it is, clearly and simply.

There has been no demand from the independent schools for this. The College of Teachers is controlled absolutely by the BCTF. The College of Teachers is a servant of the BCTF, like the government of the day is a servant of the BCTF. This is all a major expansion and intrusion into areas where they had no authority to go before.

An Hon. Member: Are you on the right bill?

C. Serwa: Yes, I'm on the right bill, Bill 74.

It's not the Teaching Profession Amendment Act; it's the BCTF profession amendment act. There is no reason for this type of activity. There is no difficulty with the standards and the qualifications of teachers who are not members of the College of Teachers or the BCTF. From all of the indications, the BCTF wants to control education in the province. They have spoken out loudly and clearly in opposition to independent schools. Ray Worley, one of the teachers who sought the head of the BCTF, has come out loudly in opposition to the funding of independent schools.

The funding of independent schools, even at the maximum level of 50 percent, saves the province some $145 million annually. This is clearly an intrusion into an area where neither the government nor the BCTF had any right to interfere.

The Teaching Profession Act -- Bill 20 -- removed compulsory membership in the B.C. Teachers' Federation with the establishment of the College of Teachers. Nevertheless, what occurred in British Columbia with the union model that was chosen was that all members of the union had to belong to the BCTF. This is a continuation of that. I have a great deal of difficulty with the direction that the government is moving, but I understand that their masters have dictated they move in that direction, and the hon. Minister of Education certainly is subservient to those demands, allowing the College of Teachers to cancel or suspend certificates and

[ Page 3054 ]

letters of permission, and removing the cabinet power from that area.

Well, the fox is certainly going to tend the chickens, and the fox thinks that that's an awfully good role for it to play. I see the horrified look on the Attorney General.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: You're on the wrong bill.

C. Serwa: No, I'm on Bill 74, the Teaching Profession....

Interjection.

C. Serwa: Precisely. So what is going to happen is that the government is excusing itself and again enabling the BCTF to carry out in a heavy-handed manner that which they have set out to do. It's a very powerful organization with more than 40,000 members in the province, but with very strong discipline on the activities of teachers. There are many teachers in the province who are first-class professionals, but the BCTF is primarily a union element fundamentally concerned with their members and the welfare of their members. It's not particularly interested in the quality or standard of teaching or teachers.

They are interested in the monetary returns and welfare, not the quality of education or the delivery of education. It's fundamentally a big union, and big government is responding to big union.

Bill 74 is going to intrude on the independent school system to force independent school boards to report disciplinary actions and other actions taken against teachers to the College of Teachers. Again, it's one more step in a series of steps endeavouring to compromise the independent schools, which, hon. Speaker, as you're well aware, do a splendid job in the quality of education, with a strong commitment to education and to the product that they produce through their educational system. Competition in education is a good thing. It allows a measuring stick in the province of British Columbia.

The College of Teachers purports to indicate that they are concerned with sexual abuse that occurs in the classroom. I can tell you that the BCTF has never expressed...they have thwarted. Numerous contacts have been made with the Minister of Education and the Minister of Social Services with respect to convicted pedophiles teaching or working in other areas in the province in positions of trust, be it voluntary in the private sector or in the public sector. In this particular bill, they express their concern. The BCTF are the ones who have thwarted any of that legislation.

In the previous administration we brought legislation forward. It wasn't encompassing enough and so was left on the order paper to die.

Certainly one philosophy and principle of this is that it's a smokescreen. It's an opportunity for the College of Teachers to get far more information than they are required to get. I'm confident that the Minister of Education has made no attempt at consultation with the Teachers for Association -- another group that has a strong commitment to education -- or with the independent schools for their views and feelings on this. I will carry on with this debate when we go to Committee of the Whole in third reading.

But I see a very effective system in the province, where private schools are carrying on very well. Independent schools, whether they be operated by organizations such as churches...are doing a splendid job of showing us the difference in products of education. We have a lot of good professional teachers who are members of the B.C. Teachers' Federation. But there has to be an opportunity for comparison. This is endeavouring to remove that potential, and control all teachers in the province under the BCTF. Clearly and simply, that's the intent of this legislation. I'm shocked that the Minister of Education would bring this bill forward.

[8:45]

L. Fox: Hon. Speaker, I want to speak to the principles of Bill 74, the Teaching Profession Amendment Act. There are a couple areas of concern that I have had brought to my attention by the independent schools and also by an individual who still happens to be teaching on a letter of permission. I know there aren't many left; in fact, there are very few left in the province. I'm really concerned that this individual, who has been a valuable member of the community and the educational process within the community, could all of a sudden have her letter of understanding revoked at the whim of the College of Teachers.

If that is not what it means in this section, then clearly I and others have misunderstood it. Perhaps it could be clarified.

With respect to the Independent School Act, these schools are now going to be forced to report to the College of Teachers disciplinary actions taken against teachers. I talked to an executive member, and they really don't have a problem with that. In fact, they respect the intent of that area of legislation. But they are concerned that additional responsibilities are taken away from the independent school system and placed in the hands of the College of Teachers. One concern might be: at what point would the independent schools have to deal with such things as class sizes, curriculum and other kinds of issues?

At what point are we going to see the independent schools' autonomy eroded by the College of Teachers, given the points that the former member spoke on with respect to the opinion of the private system by some public system teaching professionals?

I look forward to the committee stage. There are areas that we must clarify. Certainly I want to speak in support of the independent school system. It does a great job, and those parents should have the right to put their children through that system. I wouldn't want to see their autonomy or their beliefs eroded. With that, I will take my place.

The Speaker: The minister closes debate.

Hon. A. Hagen: I want to make just two comments. First of all, I think that the member for Okanagan West must be the only member of this House who would not support the cancellation of the certificate of any teacher for cause. That's exactly what we're

[ Page 3055 ]

talking about in this regard. I'm truly astounded at the suggestion from that member that he would not want to see the cancellation of such a certificate.

I want to note also that the members of the other party have not done their homework, as have the members of the Liberal opposition and, of course, the government. We did consult with all parties about the setting up of this legislation. The College of Teachers has 80 percent of the teachers in the independent schools voluntarily choosing to be members.

The Independent Schools Association has been thoroughly consulted about these consequential amendments and is fully supportive of the method by which there is assurance that no teacher can resign under a cloud and continue to have a certificate without there being due process to ensure that a person doesn't continue to have the right to teach when there is some question about his or her professional qualifications or conduct.

I commend the critic on the Liberal opposition for doing his homework, as I know he does, in terms of discussing with the parties their views on the legislation. It is the role of a responsible opposition to do that, and that member has indeed talked to people who are affected by this decision: the independent schools, the College of Teachers and the British Columbia Teachers' Federation.

We are dealing here with people who, whether they are members of the public teaching force, independent school teachers or have a letter of permission, have for some reason a cause for their right to teach to be under some investigation. There is full due process for those teachers whether they are in the system or not in the system, where they are members of the college or now non-members of the college because they have resigned.

All of this is intended, in fact, to ensure that wherever our children go to school, those entrusted with teaching our children are indeed people whom parents and their colleagues and the community can trust. I'm sure that every member of this House is supportive of legislation that is designed to make sure that that trust is maintained for our children. I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Hon. A. Hagen: With leave, I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House now.

Leave not granted.

Bill 74, Teaching Profession Amendment Act, 1992, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. D. Miller: I call second reading of Bill 75, hon. Speaker.

LEGAL PROFESSION

AMENDMENT ACT, 1992

Hon. C. Gabelmann: As members know, the Legal Profession Act establishes the power of the Law Society to govern and regulate the activities of its members. A lawyer must be a member of the Law Society in order to practise in the province. This bill makes a number of amendments to the act to clarify the procedures for hearings concerning the credentials of a lawyer seeking admission to the Law Society and the competence and discipline of lawyers who are members of the Law Society.

It improves the structures of the committees that hear these matters and clarifies their functions and the type of decisions that each committee may make. The act also makes a number of additional amendments, including a new power to require the preparation of a medical report regarding a member where the Law Society is conducting a hearing into the conduct or competence of that member. The bill increases the maximum fine that may be imposed at the end of a discipline hearing from $10,000 to $20,000. It also authorizes the Law Society to order a member to pay the costs of a remedial program.

A. Warnke: As the Attorney General has pointed out, the general thrust is that it clarifies some of the problems with regard to membership in the Law Society. This is absolutely essential.

I also think that this particular bill responds to some glaring deficiencies in the Legal Profession Act that need to be addressed, elaborated and dealt with as soon as possible. There are several types of conceptual problems with the Legal Profession Act -- the use of language and so forth.

As I went through this bill I found it to be one that is definitely a contribution to meeting some of the problems of the status of members and seeking clarification of their involvement in the Law Society. I would concur with the Attorney General that it does generally explore this whole area of how to establish competence, which I think is so essential.

I see this as a very constructive contribution to the legal profession.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I move second reading and, with leave, that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House now.

Leave not granted.

Bill 75, Legal Profession Amendment Act, 1992, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. D. Miller: I call second reading of Bill 81.

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 1992

Hon. C. Gabelmann: As members know, Bill 81 is the miscellaneous statutes bill for this session, but I have to clarify that to say the major miscellaneous bill for this session.

As is normal with miscellaneous bills, debate would be far more appropriate in committee stage. However, it may be useful for members if I briefly outline, by way of

[ Page 3056 ]

explanation rather than debate, the sections that are contained in the bill. We could have a debate later in committee stage, perhaps on another day the way the House is feeling tonight.

As members know, there are amendments that are carried by a number of other ministers. There are amendments to various statutes -- 14 in total. There is an amendment to the Industrial Development Incentive Act which will increase the cap on loans and investments from $225 million to $235 million. The industrial incentive fund is used to provide loans and make investments to assist in the establishment of new industry and the introduction of new technology to existing industry, as well as to support economic plans of the Job Protection Commission. This $10 million increase to the fund reflects government's commitment to encourage economic growth and prosperity in the province.

The present

section of the Infants Act governing the consent of persons under the age of majority is repealed and replaced by a new section. The present

section is unsatisfactory in the following ways. It discriminates against persons from 16 to 18 years of age by imposing requirements on them which do not apply to persons under the age of 16. In this way, the

section is vulnerable to a challenge under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As well, the

section refers only to surgical, medical, mental or dental treatment and is silent for other types of health care. The amendment removes arbitrary distinctions between minors of different ages, and makes the requirements for consent to health care uniform for all minors.

The new

section will also encompass health care and health care providers generally. The amendment will provide that a minor may not consent to health care unless the health care provider has explained to the minor the nature and consequences and reasonably foreseeable benefits and risks of the health care, has been satisfied that the minor does indeed understand the nature and consequences and reasonably foreseeable benefits and risks of the proposed treatment or health care, and has concluded that the proposed health care is in the minor's best interest. Only if these conditions are met shall the minor's consent to health care be valid.

Amendments to the Land Title Act bring the Islands Trust into line with other local governments which may hold statutory rights-of-way and covenants under the Land Title Act.

The Manufactured Home Act is amended to remedy a problem which makes it difficult for purchasers of manufactured homes to obtain a mortgage. The amendment provides that most manufactured homes are not part of the land on which they are situated. Most manufactured homes are located in manufactured-home parks, where the owners of the homes rent lots from the owner of the park. Courts consider many manufactured homes to be part of the land constituting the manufactured-home park. This

interpretation makes it difficult for manufactured-home owners to arrange mortgages. Lenders feel that a mortgage on a manufactured home would be defeated by a mortgage on the manufactured-home park. This amendment would reverse this

interpretation and state that most manufactured homes are not part of the land, unless the parties agree otherwise. This amendment will encourage lenders to lend money on the strength of a mortgage on a manufactured home. Lenders will be assured that their mortgage on the manufactured home will not be affected by a mortgage on the manufactured-home park. Consequently, purchasers of manufactured homes will find it easier to arrange financing for their purchase.

Amendments to the Ministry of Forests Act will permit the minister to dispose of an interest such as easements for spur lines of utilities in real property. This will enable more effective and efficient management of real estate holdings such as nurseries, seed orchards and air tanker bases.

Two amendments are made to the Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act. The first is needed to ensure the validity of past and present contracts between the province and various municipalities for police-based victim assistance programs. Concerns were raised because the area of service defined in the contracts included territory outside the legal boundaries of municipalities. The second amendment validates a municipal bylaw that was flawed in the process leading to its adoption.

[9:00]

A housekeeping amendment is made to the Nurses (Registered Psychiatric) Act.

A number of amendments are being made to the Pension Benefits Standards Act, which was passed in 1991. Many of these changes are of a housekeeping nature. The principal change to the act will allow the planned registration requirements to be brought into force by regulation -- I read my notes, and I say to myself: "This is not what it does" -- on January 1, 1993, when the minimum standards for pension plans will come into force. What we're talking about here, if I can just ad lib for a moment, is that the standards will come into force on January 1, 1993, and the regulations at a later date.

This will give government time to implement an effective automated system to assist in the registration of plan documentation.

Amendments are made to four acts dealing with public sector pension plans in order to meet provisions of the Pension Benefits Standards Act. As this government is proceeding with new pension standards legislation, it will be important to ensure that these public sector plans are in line with the standards required elsewhere in the province. This act temporarily delegates authority to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to make the detailed amendments necessary. This will allow changes to be made later in the year after issues can be properly reviewed. This legislation does not provide for permanent amendments.

Any temporary changes made under this act will be brought before the Legislature by August 31, 1993, or be repealed at that time.

The Trade Development Corporation Act is amended to reflect a new corporate management structure for the B.C. Trade Development Corporation. With the change of government in November 1991, responsibility for the corporation transferred from the Ministry of

[ Page 3057 ]

Economic Development, Small Business and Trade to the office of the Premier. One objective of this transfer of responsibility was to elevate the role of the corporation as a vehicle for increasing foreign investment in the province and expanding trading relationships particularly in the Asian Pacific. It was concluded that the corporate management structure needed to be changed to enable the corporation to develop long-term strategic plans necessary to achieve its refocused mandate, while ensuring that day-to-day management of the corporation operates smoothly. I move the bill be read a second time now.

Motion approved.

Bill 81, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 1992, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. D. Miller: I call second reading of Bill 76.

ELECTION AMENDMENT ACT, 1992

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm pleased to introduce second reading of Bill 76, the Election Amendment Act, 1992. As members know, this act establishes the requirements which entitle a person to vote in a provincial election. These requirements include Canadian citizenship, six months' provincial residence prior to voter registration, residence in the electoral district where voter registration is being sought and age on voting day.

This bill amends the act to include persons 18 years old as eligible to register to vote in elections, provided they meet other registration criteria. Lowering the voting age to 18 will allow these young people to have a voice in future British Columbia elections, as they do in federal elections, and will show that this government respects these young men and women.

The bill also repeals

section 80 of the Election Act and substitutes a new section, "Polling Place Registration," which entitles eligible voters to register in their electoral districts on polling day at an advanced or special polling place. This amendment will remove the requirement to be registered in advance of casting a ballot and will ensure that a greater number of people are encouraged to vote. Other amendments to the act clarify the definition of polling place in the

interpretation

section of the act by including advance polls in this definition, and they ensure that the provisions of the new polling place registration

section are consistent in other parts of the act.

Hon. Speaker, I move the bill be read a second time now.

A. Warnke: This particular bill that's being proposed here obviously attempts to address several problems that have emerged through experience with many different elections. I do not want to elaborate on a lot of what I see as problems with the current Election Act provincially and indeed with the problem of elections and the administration of elections both federally and provincially. It's certain that what we need is some sort of overall assessment of what we should do with registering people and ensuring that elections are conducted in a fair and proper manner.

I hope that in the concluding remarks on this bill by the Attorney General.... I do want to hear this. I suspect that it is just the first amendment to the Election Act. I suspect that later on we will have a more exhaustive and thorough analysis of how elections are conducted and what will be brought into being. We do need an exhaustive analysis of the way elections and campaigns are being conducted, but specifically the way elections are conducted and how people are to register and so forth.

I will say this: the registration system introduced by the former government -- I would give the credit to Premier Bennett's administration -- was one of the most constructive that I've seen anywhere across Canada. This is one area that I actually know quite a bit about -- studying electoral behaviour and election systems and so forth.

Lowering the age from 19 to 18 years is an obvious principle that we can support. I suppose the reason that 19 was the figure chosen was that it almost means that anyone in high school is excluded from participating in any provincial or federal election. Frankly, there are many intelligent people at the age of 18 years who are quite capable and make a contribution to the political and electoral systems now.

As a matter of fact, I know of a few students in high school who are so involved in the political system that they would like to see the age lowered, and perhaps there is a valid point for the age to be lowered below 18. I do know of young people who even go so far as to advocate something called the universal ballot. By universal ballot, they're eligible to vote from birth to death. Who knows? Maybe down the road.

If there is anything contentious here -- and I don't think it's contentious to the point where we would oppose it -- it is in the administration of elections on election day. It may well be that potential abuses could occur when people seemingly vote on election day because they have not been registered before. Once someone has been elected, there is some sort of castigation on the system if some irregularities were conducted on election day, and that is questioned. We do not want to see a move in a direction in which there are prospects for irregularities or some attempts to abuse the electoral system.

I think it's premature for me to state that in principle we would oppose this bill for this reason. I don't think it's necessary to go that far. However, I think it is very necessary, when we get to committee stage, that we take a look at

section 3. I suggest that we will examine that particular

section for some sort of clarification as to what is in mind. So on the whole, I wo