2001 Legislative Session: 5th Session, 36th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 11, 2001

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 22, Number 25

[ Page 17777 ]

The House met at 2:08 p.m.

Prayers.

G. Clark: It's my pleasure today to introduce two distinguished

gentlemen on the floor of the chamber. The Hon. Pita Lus is a Member of

Parliament for Papua New Guinea and currently the Minister of Housing in that

government. Sir Pita was first elected in 1964 as a 24-year-old and has held

office continuously for some 38 years. Sir Pita was instrumental in fighting for

and attaining independence for Papua New Guinea from Australia in 1975. He

currently stands as the longest-serving parliamentarian in the British

Commonwealth.

[1410]

Hon. Speaker, he is here today leading a delegation of six that's looking

into the prospects of B.C. companies assisting the people of Papua New Guinea in

their housing needs, and he's joined on the floor of the House by Judah Akesim,

Member of Parliament for Papua New Guinea since 1989. I'd ask members to welcome

them.

In addition, I had the privilege, along with the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove,

to have lunch with our two distinguished visitors on the floor here and their

delegation that's in the gallery. I'd like to introduce them now: Philip Aki,

minister's first secretary; Benedict Mick, managing director, National Housing

Corporation; Raphael Nagual, deputy managing director, National Housing

Corporation; Kila Wari, a consultant; Harold Clifford, who's the president of

Shelter Industries, a very successful British Columbia company in the member for

Fort Langley-Aldergrove's constituency, and who hopes to be doing business with

Papua New Guinea; Rod Yetman, an accountant; and Hari Sharma, another

accountant.

I'd like all members to make this delegation welcome.

R. Coleman: On behalf of the official opposition, I would also like to

welcome Sir Pita Lus and his delegation to the House today, and of course, the

president of Shelter Industries, Harold Clifford. Harold tells me that Shelter

Industries has come to an agreement to supply some modular housing to Papua New

Guinea -- a great company in my riding and jobs in British Columbia. It's a

great relationship between the countries, and they look forward to building much

more affordable housing in that country in the future.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Visitors in the gallery are 28 students from Western

Washington University studying Canadian-American studies. Would you please make

them welcome.

Hon. G. Janssen: [The member spoke Dutch.] Visiting Victoria and the

House today is the consul general of the Netherlands, Aart Jan Marie Verdegaal.

Would the House please make him welcome.

Hon. E. Gillespie: Visiting the House today are 23 grade 11 students

from Highland Secondary in Comox, accompanied by their teacher Mr. Wayne Demerse

and a number of parents. Hon. Speaker, if you'll indulge me just for a moment.

These students are experiencing a little elbow room at their school, as they've

moved into their new addition. For the first year in many years Highland

Secondary is a grades 10, 11 and 12 school only, because the grade 9s have moved

into two new middle schools in Comox. Would the House please join me in

welcoming these grade 11 students from Highland Secondary.

G. Mann Brewin: Today in the gallery we have, from the Centre for

Canadian-American Studies at Western Washington University, 26 students taking a

senior course in Canadian politics. Leading them is their professor, Don Alper.

One of their students, a fellow named Brent Dixon, has in fact been an intern

with the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries here in British Columbia.

So now, if I may, we know that one American at least knows what we're talking

about on the Pacific Salmon Treaty. Will the House please join me in making them

all welcome.

Hon. C. Evans: Griffin Chinneck, who's ten and a half months old, is

sitting way up there and is the son of the Health ministry's communications

director. He's visiting today escorted by his mom Shelley and his dad Peter.

Hon. H. Giesbrecht: It gives me great pleasure to introduce the Hon.

Steve Ashton, Minister of Transportation and Government Services for the

province of Manitoba. He's in town to attend the Western Transportation Advisory

Council's conference. Would the House please make him welcome.

Hon. G. Wilson: It's my great privilege to welcome four people to the

House today: Annie Aculiak, Pierre Aculiak, Peter Diebel and Kathleen Henry.

Annie has traveled here today, along with her husband and friends, to present

Premier Dosanjh with a piece of her artwork as an expression of thanks to the

Premier and Minister Farnworth for the extra funding, for disability, to status

recipients who have a serious illness. As many know, Annie is a very well known

Sechelt artist who has recently made a presentation to Governor General Adrienne

Clarkson. Would the House please make them welcome.

[1415]

V. Anderson: It brings me great pleasure to welcome to our House today

the deputy governor of Jiangxi province in China, Huisang Xu, who is also

involved in health and education, along with Jixing Xy, who is also involved in

education. They are visiting here with Adam Tang as a consultant, and they'll be

visiting with some of the Langley schools to talk about cooperation and sharing

ideas between the programs we have here and those they are trying to do in

China. Could the House make them welcome.

R. Thorpe: It gives me great pleasure today to introduce some visitors

from Ventura, California: Maya and Jeremy Osterstrand. Could the House please

make them welcome.

Hon. C. Evans: I have a sad piece of news today. George Gillies, the

CEO of the Nelson health council and maybe the kindest person I've met in the

course of doing this work and a person well known to the opposition too, was

killed in an automobile accident last night. I just wonder if the whole House

could send the community and his family our condolences.

The Speaker: Yes, we'll see to that, minister.

[ Page 17778 ]

Oral Questions

SKYTRAIN EXPANSION PROJECT COSTS

M. de Jong: I've got a copy of the February update on the SkyTrain

construction schedule, and I see that the completion date has now been pushed

back five months, from August to December 2002.

I think the minister knows that on a project of this magnitude, time really

is money. I wonder if he might tell this House and, more importantly, British

Columbians just how much this delay in finishing the SkyTrain expansion project

is going to cost taxpayers.

Hon. M. Farnworth: The opening for SkyTrain has been made public now

for quite some time. It will be later this year, well past the date that the

member has just raised with the House. And in fact, the costs for the SkyTrain

project are currently anticipated to be on budget.

The Speaker: The hon. member for Matsqui has a supplemental question.

M. de Jong: In November the government received its project management

report from Gannett Fleming and that report says that each additional month

beyond the current completion date would add approximately $6 million in

accumulated interest during construction costs. The report from February says

that date is now five months behind.

Since it's five months behind, that would add at least $30 million to the

cost of the project. Will the minister responsible confirm that estimate, based

on the NDP government's own documentation?

Hon. M. Farnworth: One of the interesting things I think the

opposition needs to realize is that when you have reports done and you have the

project monitored in the way we are monitoring it and in the way it's being

monitored by an outside independent agency on a quarterly basis, you're in a

position to take measures to ensure that if there are unanticipated costs going

to occur, you can mitigate those costs. You make decisions to ensure that they

don't happen.

The real question is: what would that side of the House do if they were on

this side of the House? Would they continue with SkyTrain? Would they extend it

to Coquitlam Centre? Those are the questions that Port Coquitlam, Port Moody and

Coquitlam have been asking, and they don't get any answers from that side of the

House when they're asked.

[1420]

G. Plant: There are still a few more questions that we'd like to ask.

As of the end of December the SkyTrain expansion project had just over $44

million left in its contingency fund. But according to the February quarterly

review prepared by the Gannett Fleming firm, all but $200,000 of that $44

million is already expected to be allocated. That means that with 40 percent of

the project left to complete, there's only $200,000 left for non-forecasted

items.

Will the minister responsible tell us how on earth he expects anyone to

believe that there won't be cost overruns for the project when they've already

maxed out on the contingency fund, and they're barely halfway finished?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I guess it's appropriate for that member, being

from Richmond, to ask that question, because clearly he doesn't go to that part

of the lower mainland. If he did, he'd see that it's nearly built. He'd know

that most of the costs in the budget have already been committed, that it's

there in concrete and cement. It's there going all the way into Vancouver. It's

there going to Lougheed Mall. The costs have been allocated.

He'd also know that the reason why -- and I'll repeat the answer for him

again -- is that we have quarterly updates that are posted on the Internet. If

he doesn't know how to use it, it's www.skytrain.com, and he can find them

there. He'll know that the project is being built. It's being built to Lougheed

Mall, and it's going to go to Coquitlam Centre.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Farnworth: The hon. member says yeah, right. Does that mean

that if she's sitting over here, she won't be building it? Are you going to

commit to building it over here? Come clean, hon. member. Commit today. Are you

going to send SkyTrain to Coquitlam Centre or not?

The Speaker: The hon. member for Richmond-Steveston has a supplemental

question.

G. Plant: Actually, the web site that I was visiting lately is

www.electionsbc-latefiling.com.

Mr. Speaker, we have been reading the quarterly reports. The report for

February says that mitigation measures to offset expected costs will be

necessary to maintain budget on the SkyTrain project. Now, I'm not going to ask

how many chairs they're going to remove from the cars, because it appears that

the so-called mitigation measures include cutting a deal with the Ministry of

Finance on interest expenses and speeding up the capitalization of assets.

This looks more like accounting sleight of hand. The fact is that's not going

to reduce costs; it's just going to shift them around. So will the minister tell

us: where exactly is he planning to hide all of the real cost overruns that are

occurring on the SkyTrain expansion project?

Hon. M. Farnworth: If the hon. member wants to talk about ww . .

. .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

[1425]

Hon. M. Farnworth: Sometimes it's not your enemies, hon. Speaker, it's

your friends.

Hon. Speaker, this project is being monitored by an outside independent

auditing agency, which reviews the financial statements. They're posted

quarterly on the web. They meet with all standard accounting practices and

procedures. As well, there is a board made up of experts in the field who the

[ Page 17779 ]

project reports to on a monthly basis. As well, the auditor general is kept

abreast of all the developments around the particular project -- the SkyTrain

project. This project has more scrutiny than any other project done in the

history of British Columbia. As well, the RTP project is reviewing the options

that are available to it at every step of the way. That's why the Gannett

Fleming report has been done. If we need to make changes or if we need to do

things, we're able to do that. All that is being done.

The real question, as I said once before, is that this side of the House is

committed . . . .

Interjection.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Late filing? He's sitting right next to you, hon.

member.

The Speaker: Thank you, minister. Wrap up, please.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Hon. Speaker, the question is: are they going to

build SkyTrain out to Coquitlam Centre or not? Because we are.

D. Symons: I might just remind the minister that in 1995 this

government promised to build an LRT out to Coquitlam and immediately forgot

about it right after the '96 election. They're now making promises to do that in

the next election, so how can we believe you?

But the Gannett Fleming report reviewed costs up to December 31 of last year.

Two months later, in February of this year, SAR Transit took the government to

court over an $80 million claim for cost overruns due to government-caused

delays. In the event these claims are successful, in whole or in part, will the

minister confirm that there's no contingency fund left to pay for these cost

overruns?

Hon. M. Farnworth: You know, I find it interesting that it's the

members from Richmond asking questions around SkyTrain, as opposed to the member

for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain, because clearly the members don't realize that

SkyTrain is already built to Coquitlam. It's called the Braid Street Station;

that's in Coquitlam. We said we'd start it, and we did. We kept our promise. So

maybe go check on a map or talk to the member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain.

The second point I'd like to make, hon. Speaker, is around the issue of SAR

Transit. I find it really interesting that the member thinks to stand up and

just take the company's point of view when he knows full well that there has

been a report done by a consulting firm agreed to by both SAR and the province.

It was done according to the timetable of SAR and looked at information provided

by RTP 2000 Ltd. and by SAR. It said that if the province was 100 percent right,

the cost would be about $18 million that should be paid in claims, but if the

province was 100 percent right and SAR was wrong, then it would be $3 million.

SAR came forward a few weeks later and said: "No, we want $35

million." Then they came forward and said: "We want $80 million."

We stand by the report that was done. That's why the matter is before the courts

-- because we're concerned about protecting the taxpayers' interests, which

clearly that member is not.

The Speaker: The hon. member for Richmond Centre has a supplemental

question.

D. Symons: I just might remind the minister that that report was done

by one of the firms that also gave the questionable reports on whether we should

go for SkyTrain, or not, or light rail. We take that report for what it's worth.

The courts will decide that.

We recently saw that the NDP didn't sign a contract before the Nanaimo fast

ferry fuelling facility was built; they signed that contract after it was built.

Now we see the NDP's not signing an agreement in the operations and maintenance

contract for the new SkyTrain line, even though they've been building the line

for two years. Hasn't the minister learned anything from the fast ferries

fiasco? The question is: will the minister tell us why we should believe

SkyTrain won't be grossly over budget when they haven't even signed the contract

to operate the new line yet?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The most important statement that member just made

was that he wants light rail. That's what we're hearing from that side of the

House. You will not commit to building SkyTrain to Coquitlam Centre. Come clean

and tell the constituents, the people of the tri-cities area, that you, hon.

member, will commit to sending SkyTrain to Coquitlam Centre. We want to know. We

have started building it and will build it.

[1430]

Now, in direct response to that hon. member's particular question around

operators and maintenance, we have been attempting to negotiate an agreement

with TransLink. Unfortunately, they don't wish to negotiate that agreement. They

have made it clear to us: "Because you wouldn't give us the tax increase,

the levy" -- which, by the way, do you support or not support? -- "we

will not negotiate an operations and maintenance agreement." That is why we

have asked the auditor general to go in and review TransLink -- to look at where

they're spending their money, why they are giving their executives high-priced

pay increases, why they are cutting services to the poor, to lower-income

individuals, to single parents and students -- and to come back with

recommendations as to how an operations and maintenance agreement can be put in

place.

SCHOOL DISTRICT FUNDING

C. Clark: On to more commitments that the government doesn't intend to

keep, and maybe on to more questions that the government doesn't intend to

answer -- well, let's try it anyway. The School Act requires that this

government give its budgets to school boards by February 1 of the fiscal year.

And guess what. They missed the deadline. So they extended it by two months. And

guess what. They missed the deadline again. And so now they're in contravention

of the law. The minister says, when she's asked by school boards: "Oh,

don't worry about it. The budget's in the mail." Yeah, right. And the dog

ate your briefing notes -- right?

My question for the minister is this: why does the government even bother

making statutory rules about deadlines when it has absolutely no intention of

keeping them?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Well, let me begin by saying that I hope the red

light doesn't go on, so the hon. member can ask another question.

Actually, the letter to the school boards telling them the allocation for

funds went out on March 30. So the school

[ Page 17780 ]

boards are well aware. And later this week there will be another letter going

out, detailing the increases that school boards will receive.

It will be the tenth year in a row that each and every school district in

this province gets more money for education. It will be the tenth year in a row

that our government will continue to build a school once every 19 days. It will

continue the funding for the fourth year to reduce class sizes so that our

youngest kids have the best possible success. It will be the ninth year in a row

that we make a commitment to teach our children in languages other than the

to put 700 more teachers in classrooms in this province. And it will be about

the sixth year that we make a commitment to fund education for aboriginal

children in this province, who deserve the best possible chance.

What I fear is that if there is a year when this government is not in charge,

there will be a dramatic tax cut and a cut in education funding.

The Speaker: The bell ends question period.

Reports from Committees

R. Thorpe: Pursuant to the committee's terms of reference, I have the

honour to present the twelfth report of the Select Standing Committee on Public

Accounts for the fourth session of the thirty-sixth parliament, entitled

"Governance and Risk Management of the Fast Ferry Project."

I move the report be taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

[1435]

R. Thorpe: I ask leave of the House to suspend the rules to permit the

moving of a motion to adopt the report.

Leave not granted.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members. The hon. member for Victoria-Hillside.

S. Orcherton: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Will the member for Vancouver-Quilchena come to order,

please. The member for Victoria-Hillside has the floor.

Petitions

S. Orcherton: I rise to present a petition. I have a petition from 197

constituents in my community residing in the Burnside-Gorge area, calling on the

Canada-British Columbia infrastructure program to fund the new construction of a

Burnside-Gorge community centre.

Tabling Documents

Hon. S. Hammell: I have the honour to present the '99-2000 report on

multiculturalism.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G. Janssen: I call Bill 66, the Easter egg recovery act.

[Laughter.] It's Easter-time, hon. Speaker. Let's rejoice.

I call Bill 20, the Drinking Water Protection Act.

DRINKING WATER PROTECTION ACT

The House in committee on Bill 20; D. Streifel in the chair.

[1440]

The Chair: I call the committee to order.

section 1.

Hon. I. Waddell: Just to start out with a couple of words of

explanation, there are three principal components of Bill 20. First is the

Drinking Water Protection Act itself, which provides the statutory framework for

the protection of drinking water throughout British Columbia. It's intended that

both the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks

would have responsibility relating to the administration of the new act. You

remember I said in my second reading speech that there would be one office with

the two ministries joined like -- I think I used the words -- "Siamese

twins." In committee, both I and my colleague the Minister of Health will

be responding to questions on this component as appropriate. So that would be on

the Drinking Water Protection Act.

Second, related amendments to the Health Act, which are in the bill,

establish modernized inspection and enforcement powers that will provide better

protection in relation to health hazards generally, including health hazards

relating to drinking water. My colleague the Minister of Health will be

responding to that part of the bill.

In the third part of the bill are related amendments to the already existing

Water Act of British Columbia that provide protection for all groundwater

sources in British Columbia, including but not limited to sources used for

drinking water. So I look forward to responding, as Minister of Environment,

Lands and Parks, to questions on this component of the bill.

I thought it might make it a bit easier for the opposition if I broke it down

this way. I think we're ready to proceed with about the first 29 sections to

which the Health minister will respond.

G. Farrell-Collins: This is a bill of about 105 sections, 73 pages.

It's a very complicated piece of legislation. It's a piece of legislation that

has been worked on and has been called for by this House for many years. It is

the opinion, as we said in second reading, of members of the opposition that

this is the kind of bill, with its complexity, that should have a chance to be

exposed to the public. This is a bill that under normal circumstances would be

introduced during a session and would have, generally, weeks if not several

months for the public to view, to look at and to make comment upon. Generally in

a bill of this size there are numerous amendments that

[ Page 17781 ]

come forward from the government at the time when the bill is called for

committee stage.

This government has made it clear that they intend to ram this piece of

legislation through the House as quickly as they possibly can, Mr. Chairman. We

support the principle of the legislation that's before us. We believe that the

public has a right to be part of the evaluation of the legislation as it

appears, despite the fact that some of them were involved in the preparation of

this legislation.

Therefore let me say this: we're prepared to pass this bill in its entirety

immediately. I want to give assurance to the House and the people of the

province of British Columbia that if, after an election, there's a change in

government, this bill will be allowed to sit and collect advice and input from

the people of the province -- as well as amendments that may be required in the

first session of the Legislature, to improve upon the bill to make it work. I do

not believe that the appropriate way is to try and put this bill through before

the public have had a chance to look at it.

With that, the opposition is prepared to pass sections 1 through 105.

Hon. I. Waddell: I could say to the hon. member that there has, of

course, been public consultation throughout the province. People have been

consulted, and the bill has been carefully drafted on that feedback. This has

been going on for a number of years. In the public consultations, the public

said very clearly that they want a water protection act. We're not proposing to

ram it through; we're prepared to take the necessary time to go through it

clause by clause. I'm a little unclear about what the member said. Did the

member say that he proposes to agree to let all the clauses go through, and then

if he forms the government, they'll repeal the bill? Is that what the hon.

member said?

G. Farrell-Collins: Let me be clear for the minister. What I have said

is that the opposition supports the principle of this legislation. I believe the

legislation deserves and the public deserves the right to look at the

legislation to see whether or not it reflects the consultation process that they

were involved in. Two or three or four days is not sufficient time for that to

happen.

[1445]

The government is intent on pushing this legislation through. The opposition

is not about to be part of that. As a result, what we're prepared to do and what

we will do is allow this bill to pass through all stages immediately. The

minister can move it; they can put it into law if they wish. But if there's an

election and a change in government, what we will do if we're elected is put

this bill out there, let people have a chance to look at it and not implement

the bill until we've had a chance to hear from the people of the province of

British Columbia and determine whether or not amendments are required, keeping

within the principle of the bill.

Hon. I. Waddell: The hon. member is a little clearer. He says he won't

implement the bill if he forms the government. This gives me some concern,

because I think we really need to not have Walkerton in British Columbia. But

having . . . .

Interjections.

The Chair: Order, order. Order, hon. members.

Hon. I. Waddell: The hon. member said -- he can correct me if I got

the wrong

interpretation -- that he would not implement the bill if he formed

the government but that he would . . . . I would caution him that

people waited a long time for the bill, that there were deaths and sicknesses as

a result of Walkerton, and that the people of British Columbia, in the water

hearings that we held throughout the province and the consultations -- which

were quite a lot -- indicated that they wanted water protection. So I'm a little

concerned about proceeding in this way. Maybe the hon. member can correct me if

I'm wrong, but that's what he said in his remarks.

G. Farrell-Collins: My comments in Hansard stand. And with

that, I'd like to call the question.

The Chair: We have the member for West Vancouver-Capilano on

section

J. Dalton: I appreciate the remarks and the position the official

opposition has taken, but I do have a few questions on two of the sections at

least that I would like to get on the record. I can't be a party to what the

Opposition House Leader has suggested, and I would like to in particular, just

for the minister's information . . . . I have some questions on

sections 2 and 7.

Hon. I. Waddell: You know, we bring in a water bill that the province

needs, and the opposition doesn't even want to consider it. I think this is

gross neglect as an opposition role. The public wants a water bill. Here is a

water bill. Here's a chance to examine . . . . Here we are ready to

do it, and they're sitting there and they don't want to do it. Talk about

arrogance. And let me tell them something else.

Interjections.

The Chair: Order, hon. members.

Hon. I. Waddell: Don't assume you're going to win the next election,

you know. You ain't gonna win, when the public sees what you're doing with the

real issues. We're prepared to go clause by clause, and the hon. member there

needs to ask a question. He is a member of this House, even though they kicked

him out of their party. He's a member of this House, and he's entitled to ask

those questions, because he's reflecting the public here. The public wants a

good water bill. We'll go clause by clause, and if there are any questions,

we've got all the officials here. We've got two ministers. We'll answer, because

we're serious on this side of the House about a water bill and clean water for

British Columbia. We know they don't care about the environment.

G. Farrell-Collins: It's the first time I've seen a minister lose his

top over the passage of his own piece of legislation.

Mr. Chairman, if the member for West Vancouver-Capilano has questions on

sections 2 and 7, I believe it was, that's fine. He has the right, as every

member does, to ask those questions. The opposition is prepared, as I said, to

move the minister's bill through, and by the end of the day he'll have a water

bill.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

[ Page 17782 ]

J. Dalton: I guess while we're making editorial comment -- although I

don't think it's appropriate -- obviously everyone on this side, with perhaps

the exception of my colleague to my left, is very anxious for an election. It is

very soon, but I do want to get a few points clarified before we get to that

point.

[1450]

Section 2 deals with relationship with other acts and other authorities, I

presume. The minister in his second reading remarks talked about accountability

and who would be responsible. He's also indicated today that he and the Health

minister will partner this act, although only one minister is on the title of

it.

I'll put my first question in the context of a very significant project in my

riding, the ozonation plant at the Capilano reservoir -- a total of $90 million

just for that plant alone. It's been planned for many years, and I think they're

finally getting around, as I speak -- not to make reference to any other

politicians to speak that way . . . . Very soon that plant will be

started. It's going to cause some very significant disruption in the

neighbourhood and also a pretty whack to the taxpayers in the GVRD.

Given his remarks about accountability and the overview of who will have

authority under this act, my question to the minister would be: if that

ozonation plant was being planned today but not in the process of starting

construction, would this act take precedence over the GVWD or any other

authority?

Hon. C. Evans: I understand that things are somewhat different today,

but I just wanted to introduce the people I am with. That's customary if we're

actually going to be here for a while. Janet Erasmus, Andy Hazelwood and

Kersteen Johnston are people who helped to put this bill together.

To the hon. member's question, the bill was built on the understanding that

there are projects all over the province and in the hon. member's constituency.

Also, probably half the other people in this room have projects underway. The

intent was to make a smooth transition and not to abrogate the authority of any

of the water districts that are presently under construction. I think

section 2

ought to give the member comfort that his project, as well as everybody else's,

will carry on.

There has been some concern, even in the hon. member's remarks, about how two

ministers or two ministries could work together. Buried in your question, hon.

member, is the assumption that there is a whole other level of government -- the

municipal level -- involved in every single project getting built and that's why

we worked with UBCM in building the legislation. Presumably, in that

consultation process, had there been any contradiction between the project

you're talking about -- or anybody else's project -- and the legislation, that

would have been worked out along the way.

J. Dalton: Well, let's just explore this a little further. Let's take,

for example, the proposed Seymour ozonation plant, which is in the next-door

riding. That is not yet underway. There is also, I believe, one proposed for

Coquitlam water reservoir. Would those pending projects be caught? That is,

would the provincial government have some say as to the authenticity of those

projects, or would those be exclusive to the GVWD?

[1455]

Hon. C. Evans: The answer is similar. Projects that are planned and

not in process will also continue as per the status quo, with the only change

being that there will now be a drinking water officer answering to the medical

health officer. Presumably the relationship between that individual and the GVRD

will be one of working together. The hon. member probably knows that there will

be regulations that go along with the act that will lay out what will be tested

for. In the case of the GVRD, because it's a very large district they may

already be testing for the majority of those chemicals.

J. Dalton: I would say that in the case of the GVRD, although from

time to time I've been known to quarrel with them, I do think they've probably

at least got their act together, so to speak, and follow fairly stringent health

and other regulations. I just spotted an item in the Victoria News today

where the capital region water officer felt comfortable with what they were

doing. He was happy to see the new act, although he hadn't had time to read it.

I don't know how happy he will be once he sees all the regulations.

The GVRD is one level of government that I have explored. Let's take another

example. West Vancouver has a reservoir within its boundaries which it has

jurisdiction over. Would any change -- any reconstruction, expansion, etc. -- of

that reservoir be caught by this act, or would West Vancouver be entitled to go

on its own and do as it pleases?

Hon. C. Evans: The answer is pretty much exactly the same, but I want

to try to straighten out the hon. member's language. He used the word

"caught" as if this legislation would somehow trap his project and

limit its ability to go ahead. I want the hon. member to turn it around 180

degrees and see the creation of a drinking water officer and bringing together a

seamless relationship between the municipal, regional and provincial governments

as a good thing. So rather than the pejorative term "caught," how

about if we substitute the more positive term "enhanced"? There will

be a drinking water officer. That person will work with the municipality or with

the regional government on whatever projects are in the hon. member's

constituency.

J. Dalton: My point would be that the province is the senior

government to either the GVRD or West Vancouver municipality and, in fact, in

either case could pull the rug on either of them today, if it so wished.

Let me ask another question about senior governments: would there be any

interplay between DFO and this act? I have another example going back to the

Cleveland Dam and the Capilano reservoir. There is a fish hatchery just below

the dam, and the water supply comes from the Capilano reservoir. They've just

put in a new pipeline to ensure that water supply is safe. Would DFO have any

say over either what this act entertains or what the GVWD in fact is doing at

the Capilano reservoir?

Hon. C. Evans: I'm pleased to report that if DFO were putting

something in the water that shouldn't go there, we'd deal with them just the

same as anybody else who might be affecting the water in a deleterious manner.

[ Page 17783 ]

J. Dalton: I'm not going to flog a dead horse any further. I didn't

expect I'd really be getting any answers out of either minister. In fact, I am a

bit disappointed that the Health minister is on his feet trying to answer these.

I would have thought the Environment minister would be the one who would at

least stand up and support his second reading comments, or what have you.

I will make one other remark here, and then perhaps when we get to

section 7,

I will pursue that as well. I don't have any confidence that this act, as I read

it, is really going to be very helpful in the case of the GVRD. In fact, I can

very well see the day where Victoria may use this statute to come along and say:

"Well, by the way, we've now taken senior responsibility for water, and

we're not happy with what the GVWD is doing." Then I can predict the day

when there's going to be a gunfight as well. It came close to a gunfight,

anyway.

There were a lot of very serious questions raised about the quality of water

going to the Capilano fish hatchery. DFO certainly had some major concerns about

that. That is, in part, why this new pipeline has been put in. A lot of

construction work is about to start in the Capilano reservoir, which supplies 40

percent of the GVRD. And you've got three levels of government now entering the

scene because of this new bill.

It also reminds me of the mess that's going on in Horseshoe Bay right now,

where Larsen Creek, part of the construction mess out there . . . .

I'm wondering what impact, if any, this act might have on that or perhaps the

Fish Protection Act, which we may talk about later.

Those would be my remarks and questions on

section 2.

[1500]

Hon. I. Waddell: I'd like to respond to the hon. member. I know he has

real concerns about these creeks and the area and knows it very well. Just on a

couple of things. One, DFO, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, of course, are

always there. They have that power over fisheries, and they play a

part in this

system. This doesn't particularly give us any more power over them, because they

have their own constitutional powers. We'd have to amend the constitution to do

that. But we've been working with them, and I think the bill gives us a chance

to work with them a little more clearly.

If the hon. member noticed it in the papers the other day, the federal

government, through one of the Liberal Senators, Jerry Grafstein, was talking

about actually doing some water legislation, not just bulk water but other water

protection legislation. I hope they'll look at this, because this is the leading

one in the country now, and see how it works. We'll work with them.

I can say in answer to the member's question on the GVRD that we're not

adding another layer. As the hon. member said correctly, it's already there.

We're trying to make it work with them. When the Premier and I made the

announcement that we were going to do the hearings and the bill, we did it at

the big GVRD substation, if you like, in Burnaby, which is so impressive in

terms of their water quality and analysis. I wish we had that all across the

province. The GVRD is not our problem. The Walkerton problem would happen, if

anywhere, in the little systems around the province. That's what we try to

address in the bill.

There could be an assessment, however, of the GVRD, because there's room for

assessments in all 18 health regions through a water officer; in which case we

would assess the GVRD. The hon. member would have a chance -- maybe as a member

or perhaps as a citizen -- to address that when it comes up.

Sections 2 to 6 inclusive approved.

section 7.

J. Dalton:

Section 7, of course, is getting a little more specific, as

opposed to the generic references in

section 2. But

section 7 does deal with

construction permits and regulations that may be passed pursuant to this

section

which would have a bearing on construction permits. Again, that's become a very

hot issue in North Vancouver in the vicinity of the Cleveland Dam.

[1505]

One thing that unfortunately has taken place is that the GVRD feels that it's

in no way accountable to or responsible to observe district bylaws. We've even

had to drag them kicking and screaming to agree to some safety issues dealing

with extra truck traffic on Capilano Road, let alone the actual projects

themselves. However, that's not my point.

Section 7 pertains to construction permits and, therefore, the requisite

documentation that one would need to build an ozonation plant, fix the east

abutment leak in the Cleveland Dam or any other project. Would this act have a

direct say on, say, the GVWD's application for a construction permit? Or would

it simply be used as a guideline that the GVWD could use in its request for a

permit?

Hon. C. Evans: If I understand the hon. member's question correctly,

he's asking why we are asking for approvals for construction. We already do, and

that will carry on in the act into the future. If he wants to ask a more

specific question or explain to me what specific information he's looking for,

I'll give him a better answer.

J. Dalton: I will take up that request.

Let's surmise. This isn't actually surmising, because this ozonation plant is

about to be started. Can either minister answer what the permitting process is?

As far as the GVWD applying, what legislative authority does the GVWD have to

act under to request permission to build an ozonation plant, putting aside the

fact that the district of North Vancouver has been discarded in the exercise?

Does that have to go through either the Ministry of Environment or Ministry of

Health, or does it go strictly through the GVRD, heaven forbid? Or is there any

other authority? The DFO, for example, certainly had some say in some

examination of what the pending projects were, but they didn't shut them down,

although I invited them to do so. Would Victoria have the authority to say to

the GVWD: "We don't like your permit request, and you must add A, B and C

to it"?

Hon. C. Evans: It's a two-part question. The first part was: what

authority does the region apply under? They apply under safe drinking water

regulation. The second part of the hon. member's question implied, again, sort

of a pejorative idea, like: does the province get to mess with them? Well, it

would seem to me that the province is setting some regulations. The drinking

water officer will review the plans of the

[ Page 17784 ]

local authority to see if they meet the needs of those regulations. The

objective, of course, is not to add cost or tell the region what to do but to

come up with a water system that meets the regulatory regime.

J. Dalton: I've just one final point. Later on in this act we'll be

amending parts of the Fish Protection Act. Obviously there isn't a direct

correlation between what fish drink and live in and what you and I might drink

and, I guess, don't live in. But there is a correlation, because the Fish

Protection Act, of course, deals with water. Guess what: it's the very same

water, in the case of the Capilano River, that both fish and many people in the

GVRD are consuming.

What impact, if any, will this statute, whether it be this

section or any

other -- I just want to get this question in, and perhaps the Minister of

Environment is more appropriate -- have on the Fish Protection Act, particularly

in the current January 19 regulation dealing with streamside protection?

Hon. I. Waddell: I would like to answer the hon. member's question.

But before I do, I'd like to introduce Margaret Eckenfelder, with me on my left,

who is the Assistant Deputy Minister of environment and lands and who has done

yeoman's action in getting this bill to this stage, as has Rodger Hunter, who's

behind me here, the executive director of environment and resource management.

Dawn Leroy, also behind me, is the legislative counsel, and she has helped draft

part of this. I thank them. They're very good public servants, and I thank them

for what they're doing.

[1510]

To answer the hon. member's question, with reference to the Fish Protection

Act, the answer is no. We're basically bringing parts into this act, and it

involves renumbering, but there are no substantial changes.

As to the streamside protections, which I'm very proud of, just to explain to

the committee, streamside protection was a regulation that in fact said a

setback from 15 to 30 metres on the edge of streams, especially in the lower

mainland of British Columbia, where we could let the nutrients come in, and they

could go into the stream. We could have fish once again back in the streams, and

we could save our salmon streams for the kids forever. I think that was a great,

great move on the government's agenda.

The shorter answer to the hon. member is no, it's not going to affect

streamside protection. On the fisheries part, it doesn't bring any substantial

amendments to that act. It simply brings some of it in and does some

renumbering. And it does change the water management area to bring it into the

drinking water protection area.

J. Dalton: Just one more. I know we're begging the indulgence of the

Chair and the committee, because obviously the Fish Protection Act isn't

directly what we're dealing with here. But it is caught later by this act.

I have written to the minister, just on this question of fish protection,

pertaining to the east abutment leak project in the dam, the Capilano reservoir.

He hasn't responded, but I'm wondering whether the Fish Protection Act is not

being violated, because this corridor of 15 to 45 metres is clearly being

violated by directly working in the Capilano reservoir, and it's the water that

my family consumes every day.

Hon. I. Waddell: I'm not sure whether I've made a reply to that, but

when I go back to my office later today, I'll make sure that there's some reply

to the hon. member.

Sections 7 to 105 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. I. Waddell: I move the committee rise and report the bill

complete without amendment.

The Chair: Carried.

Hon. I. Waddell: Division.

The Chair: Clarification: minister, is it on division or is it a

division vote?

Hon. I. Waddell: Division.

M. de Jong: Point of order, Mr. Chair. What is the motion before the

committee?

[1515]

The Chair: The motion before the committee at this stage is to rise

and report the bill complete without amendment.

Interjections.

The Chair: Order, hon. members. You can't make a point of order in a

division. We're in the middle of a division.

Motion approved unanimously on a division. [See Votes and Proceedings. ]

[1520]

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Bill 20, Drinking Water Protection Act, reported complete without amendment.

The Speaker: When shall the bill be read a third time?

Hon. I. Waddell: Now.

The Speaker: The question is third reading.

Motion approved unanimously on a division. [See Votes and Proceedings. ]

Bill 20, Drinking Water Protection Act, read a third time and passed.

Hon. G. Janssen: I call committee stage on Bill 24.

HOMEOWNER PROTECTION

AMENDMENT ACT, 2001

The House in committee on Bill 24; J. Sawicki in the chair.

[1525]

Sections 1 to 8 inclusive approved.

section 9.

R. Coleman: I just have a couple of quick questions on this section.

First of all, under subsection (a)(1), how many

[ Page 17785 ]

licensed builders versus owner-builders are there presently in British

Columbia? How many units have been built by licensed builders and how many by

owner-builders as prescribed under this act?

Hon. M. Farnworth: There are approximately 2,000 licensed builders,

and there is not a firm figure on the number of owner-builders.

R. Coleman: I didn't hear the second part of the answer; I'm sorry.

Hon. M. Farnworth: If I understood the member's question, it's how

many owner-builders there are, and we don't have a firm number on that.

R. Coleman: It actually goes to this discussion, so the minister might

want to get those numbers. He'll find that, unfortunately, in British Columbia

there are almost as many homes being built by owner-builders as there are by

licensed builders. That goes to a discussion relative to our discussions here on

strata managers, because if the first

section of this home protection office

isn't working for licensing and delivery of the service, I have concerns about

the licensing and delivery of the second service that this office may be

proposing to go for. So I would suggest the minister take a look at that, and

we'll put that on the record.

I know there's a definition of strata manager in the beginning of the act.

We're saying that a person shouldn't provide strata management for a strata

corporation unless the person is licensed as a strata manager under the act. I'd

like a more detailed description, other than the definition, of what the

minister and the office actually view strata managers as being, and their

responsibilities.

Hon. M. Farnworth: The ultimate definition of that will be decided by

regulation. The exact nature of the regulation will be decided with consultation

with the industry in determining exactly what duties and responsibilities these

strata managers should have.

R. Coleman: Would that mean that no regulations have actually started

to be drafted to define any of this?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Not yet, because the act has yet to be passed. Once

the act has passed, then we'll start the consultation, which is something that

is quite common to do with legislation when there are regulations to be

implemented. We will be meeting with the people in the industry and drafting the

regulations on that basis.

R. Coleman: I'm glad we're going to have the consultation, because I

think it requires some pretty broad consultation as to how you would implement

this and which organization would do the education. I will probably be dealing

with that further on in the bill as well. But certainly I have some concerns

about how we would actually structure that.

There's a designation being allowed here, under this act: "A strata

manager who is authorized by a strata manager licence issued under this Part may

use a designation 'Licensed Strata Manager.' " I know that it makes

reference to the registrar, and I'm assuming that's the registrar that is

presently with the homeowner protection office. I'd like to know, first of all,

the position, qualifications and line responsibilities of the registrar within

the home protection office relative to the licensing designations.

[1530]

Hon. M. Farnworth: The responsibilities will be similar to the

residential building licensing process and will in fact offer . . . .

The model of line responsibility will be quite similar.

R. Coleman: The line responsibility is there. Now, who is going to

designate the level of errors, omissions and bonding that these licensed strata

managers would have? Where would you plan to place that bonding as far as having

its control -- whether it's going out to the private sector, whether you're

anticipating in your regulations that you're going to be holding that bonding?

Who is going to deal with the errors and omissions insurance relative to the

performance of these particular individuals -- the sort of thing that is going

to be regulatory relative to their operation?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Right now the act gives the regulatory authority in

these particular areas -- bonding, errors and omissions insurance, for example.

However, the exact nature of the regulations to be implemented will also be

determined through the consultation with the different elements of the industry.

R. Coleman: This consultation is going to be rather extensive, I

guess. We have

an act before us, and I just . . . . Three years ago,

when we did the Homeowner Protection Act, there was some provision in the

discussions that we would move to licensing strata managers in relation with the

B.C. Real Estate Association -- actually, the Real Estate Council. We could have

had licensed strata managers three years ago. What happened to that initiative

to move forward in that direction from three years ago?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I think there are a number of things that have

happened since we first discussed this three years ago. One, we had the Barrett

commission, which came forward with its recommendations. Two, there has been

considerable interest in this particular topic from the consumer associations

and the condominium owners associations over the last number of years.

We've received considerable input from them that the HPO was where they had

the greatest comfort level in terms of their confidence in the ability of

licensing to work. I think the option they preferred was through the homeowner

protection office.

R. Coleman: My understanding is that that's only partially true.

Wasn't it actually looked at, that there would have to be some beefing-up of the

structure of the Real Estate Council, some other people from the public involved

in it and some changes to the Real Estate Act to strengthen their errors,

omissions and disciplinary factors in order to do that, and that never went

forward for further discussion? So in actual fact, we didn't go far enough down

the line to see if the actual consumer protection could have been dealt with at

that time.

Hon. M. Farnworth: One of the issues, I think it's fair to say, is

that there are a number of areas where the Real Estate Act needs considerable

updating. It would also be fair to say

[ Page 17786 ]

that this area, as it applies to strata management and in terms of consumer

protection . . . . Consumer confidence is one of those areas where

there would need to be considerable work done.

I guess there's been some discussion about updating the Real Estate Act as a

whole, and that may at some point in time take place. I think it's also fair to

say that at the end of the day, the people who are most impacted by this piece

of legislation are the consumers, the ones who ultimately pay for it. Their

preferred route for strata management licensing was through the HPO, and that

was the decision that was taken.

[1535]

R. Coleman: Just to back that up, could the minister tell me how many

people were actually consulted and spoken to about their method of preference

relative to this implementation? How many strata corporations, how many members

in those strata corporations, were actually consulted relative to this? How

in-depth was this survey of the 18,000 strata corporations in B.C.?

Hon. M. Farnworth: We received 126 responses -- 54 from residents, 15

from strata councils, 23 from property managers, 17 from strata managements and

11 from different organizations. Of the individual groups that I mentioned, 51

were in favour of licensing, three were opposed. Strata councils -- 13 were for

licensing, two were opposed. Property managers -- 23 out of 23 were for

licensing. Strata managers -- 16 were for licensing, one was opposed. And in the

different organizations, ten out of the 11 were for licensing.

R. Coleman: I don't think the debate here is about how many people

wanted licensing. The question was: out of the 18,000 strata people, how many

people did you actually survey, and how many said they prefer it at HPO versus

some other location? I mean, strata licensing isn't in a debate here. Both sides

have basically agreed that we know that's necessary. The question is: who was

surveyed? How did you come to the response that the majority of people wanted it

at HPO versus another model? Or did you actually place other models out there

for discussion when they gave you feedback?

Hon. M. Farnworth: We issued a discussion paper. There were press

releases about that; it was posted on the web. We received, as I said, 126

responses. The organizations that responded represent strata managers and

property managers, who clearly manage considerable numbers of buildings, as well

as associations that represent the owners who live in condominiums, for example.

In terms of the response of the Real Estate Council model versus the

homeowner protection office model, I've got a breakdown here that I can give

you, or I can read that into the record. I'll do that. In terms of residents, of

the responses received, 42 favoured the HPO model as opposed to four for the

Real Estate Council model. For strata councils, nine favoured HPO, and six

favoured the Real Estate Council. Of the property managers, 21 favoured the Real

Estate Council, and two favoured the homeowner protection office. Out of strata

managers, three favoured the Real Estate Council, and 13 favoured the homeowner

protection office. Out of organizations, nine were in favour of the Real Estate

Council, and two favoured the homeowner protection office. The total was 70 for

the HPO, 45 for the REC.

R. Coleman: Well, with 18,000 strata corporations, or somewhere

thereabouts, in the province of B.C., obviously we need broader-based

consultation and education to even have them give us the input, when we have

that few responses, on where we would go with this. I think both sides of the

House would agree that that would be the way to go.

What we have, then, is a small sampling that has led us towards the HPO,

which is where we're headed right now. What ramping-up to the structure of the

HPO will be required in order to handle the licensing of enough strata managers

in the province to handle the 18,000 strata corporations? How many do they

anticipate having to license in the province of B.C.? That would be the first

question.

[1540]

The second question is . . . . Of course, it always comes back to

that question of duplication. I think this is as appropriate a place as any to

bring up that question. In the province of British Columbia, in order to collect

rents from tenants, you have to be a licensed real estate agent. And in order to

run a strata, you'll have to be a licensed strata manager. One is at the HPO,

under this legislation, and one is over at the B.C. Real Estate Association. In

some of the jurisdictions where this has happened, that has added an increased

cost to the operation of the strata because of the requirement of the additional

cost of licensing, bonding, and errors and omissions to make this designation

within another

section or a separate body.

My question is on the ramping-up. How many people do you think you're going

to require to ramp that up? How many people do you think you actually have to

license to manage that many stratas? If that was work that was done in advance

of making the decision, how would you structure this? And how many offices do

you think you'd require -- that sort of thing? You had to do some research on

that when you were trying to make this decision on this legislation.

Hon. M. Farnworth: One of the benefits . . . . The member

said "a broad consultation" earlier, in response to one of the answers

I gave him. That is exactly what we are planning on doing. But given the

experience of the homeowner protection office, they're estimating about $500,000

to get this up and running. In terms of the number of people expected to be

licensed, we've said probably around 2,000. That's a rough number right now.

However, one of the things we'll be able to do during the consultation period in

terms of developing regulations is get a more accurate determination of the

exact number.

In terms of the licensing and duplication, we have the ability, in terms of

setting the regulations, to take into account the different types of licences

that people already have and to avoid duplication on that basis. That's where

the consultation period, again, will allow us to ensure that we can design the

regulations to take into account work and licensing that's already taken place.

It's our expectation that we will be able to do that. You may be able to do it

by looking through different categories of strata managers, depending upon the

qualifications and credentials that they already have.

So we think there is enough time during the consultation period to get it up

and running, and based on the experience that the homeowner protection office

has had to date, they're looking at a cost of around $500,000.

R. Coleman: Actually, the minister just leads me into another

question, which always makes it easy for me.

[ Page 17787 ]

The minister referred to the period of implementation. Do you have a period

of time for that implementation? Does the $500,000 cost to ramp it up include a

provision for education, measurement, testing and examination? If it does, where

are you going to do your education and that? If you're going to have the cost,

you must anticipate it.

[1545]

And I guess the biggest question is: is the $500,000 ramp-up cost, education,

licensing and administration being set up on basically a cost recovery basis by

the homeowner protection office? Given that, what would each of the 2,000 people

pay in an annual licensing fee to the homeowner protection office?

Hon. M. Farnworth: We expect the amount of time that's required to do

this will in part be determined very early on in the consultation process as we

get, I think, a very definitive idea of the number and the nature of the

qualifications that are out there and of the type of education that has to be

done. That's one of the things that we'll be working around with the industry.

We have said that the requirements, once regulations come into force, will be

phased in so that people have the ability to make sure that they're able to get

the licensing, and if they need to upgrade their skills, they can do that. We

recognize that people have been in the business for a while, and we want to

ensure that they can continue -- just that they have the necessary skills and

education requirements. Those will be phased in.

In terms of the money to the HPO, it will be loaned to the homeowner

protection office by the province and then recovered on a cost recovery basis. I

have said and we have said that we're looking at probably somewhere around $700

or less a year. And that will be per corporation. We can look at what's already

in place. In other licensing schemes it is somewhere between $500 or $550 and

$700 on an annual basis. The figure has to be defended at Treasury Board each

year, so it will take place on that basis.

R. Coleman: Did I hear the minister correctly that there was something

the corporations were going to pay in addition to the licensing fee? Did I

misinterpret that?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The property management corporations are the ones

that pay the licensing fee.

R. Coleman: That's a $700 bill for licensing, and then there will be

about $400 annually for errors and omissions. Because it will be new for errors

and omissions, I'm sure the risk factor will be substantially higher. I would

expect that premium would be a lot higher than the $400 that's actually the

number that is usually dealt with by people in the real estate market today. So

we're looking at a fair cost.

The other thing is that with 18,000 strata corporations in B.C., I would have

a concern that your estimate of 2,000 actual strata managers being required,

given the number that we know in the industry . . . . The critical

mass that an individual as a strata manager can actually manage properly .

. . . I would suggest that you'll find that 2,000 will not be as many as

you actually are going to require.

That leads me back to one other concern in this section: the definition of

what would best be described as a self-managed strata. In this act, it's very

clear that a self-managed strata definition does not apply to an owner of a

strata lot who, without remuneration or with nominal remuneration, performs

strata management services only with respect to strata corporations. That's

getting us back to the old discussion of owner-builder versus licensed builder.

You have a door you just opened. I would like somebody to define for me what

nominal remuneration is versus no remuneration versus having to have a licence

to manage a strata.

[1550]

Hon. M. Farnworth: It's intended to accomplish a number of things. One

is that property managers who own a unit cannot get around the . . . .

They cannot crawl through a loophole and take advantage of something. The second

is that the definition of "nominal," which will be defined in

regulation, is intended to encompass people who receive an honorarium. What

exactly the honorarium is will be defined by regulation. Suffice it to say that

I think there is a fairly standard accepted practice of what is and what is not

an honorarium, and it will be defined in regulation to ensure that that is so.

R. Coleman: I would suggest, in discussion of this

section and my

concerns, that there are enough holes to drive a truck through in this

legislation as to what's going to come out at the other end. I don't know if

there's any point in flogging this any further, except to say that the

consultation process and those regulations are going to have to be very detailed

and very public so that people will have the opportunity to see what this is

actually going to cost and how it's actually going to be run -- what the

consumer protection will actually be, how we'll structure the errors and

omissions, how we'll structure the bonding, and how we'll structure that

licensing and education, which is a huge concern for me.

I can't see us just going out tomorrow and saying, "Well, you've been in

strata management for ten years," and all of a sudden we're going to call

somebody a licensed strata manager, without education and some qualifications.

So I think this

section in this act, more than any other

section in the act,

clearly defines for me the difficulties that we face ahead of us in actually

dealing with this as far as public consultation. I know the minister has

referred to public consultation, and I can tell you that if this side of the

House happens to be dealing with this act after an election, there will be

extensive public consultation so that we can do this right the first time and

get it done right the first time. Having said that, I think we can move on from

this section.

Sections 9 to 11 inclusive approved.

section 12.

R. Coleman: Just a quick question on this one. This one obviously

deals with the freezing of funds in relation to strata managers, which takes us

back to that discussion he and I had the other day relative to what a lot of us

see as one of the worst ones, which was the one in the Okanagan where a number

of funds went missing from a company that was doing strata management.

The freezing of these funds -- and I may get the regulation answer again --

and how they would be moved in time frame . . . . My concern would

be, if funds are frozen in a strata manager's account, how quickly do you

anticipate . . . ? Or in

[ Page 17788 ]

what time frame will you move in order to get those funds back into the hands

of a strata corporation that literally could have bills to pay or contracts to

meet or responsibilities relative to heat, cutting the grass, and that sort of

thing? Those funds are held by them. And also there's the protection of the

building reserves relative to that corporation and how they should be held. Or

have you anticipated that, in actual fact, those funds would always be held by

the strata corporation and that the strata managers only have recommendations on

dispensation?

[1555]

Hon. M. Farnworth: Yes, part of it is a regulation answer, and that's

something that will be developed. But the other key part of it is that the

registrar does have the ability in the act . . . . It says:

"may order the release of funds." So in terms of the issue around

bills to pay and ensuring repairs or what have you, then in those types of

instances the registrar has in fact the ability to deal with that, as in fact

they do have the ability to deal with funds, I think, under the existing Real

Estate Act.

R. Coleman: Is there a time frame for the registrar to act within, or

is that going to be regulation?

Hon. M. Farnworth: In fact, the registrar can take action as soon as

they become aware of it, so they have the ability to take action very, very

quickly.

Sections 12 and 13 approved.

section 14.

R. Coleman: In the

section here that deals with acting honestly and in

good faith and exercising care and diligence, has there been discussion? Or is

there a plan in place to put some kind of an agency agreement in place that

would be standardized to deal with that section? This is somewhat innocuous in

its language, as far as that it will act in good faith with a view to the best

interests of the strata corporation, etc. On the real estate side there are

limited dual agents in there -- dual agency agreements between clients in order

to outline the duties between the licensee and the corporation. I'm wondering

where you're at with that particular discussion.

[1600]

Hon. M. Farnworth: This particular

section already has application to

the Strata Property Act and has basically now been expanded to cover strata

managers. It's intended to be upfront in terms of dealing with a

conflict-of-interest disclosure or a perceived conflict of interest. It's

basically taking the strata as it applies to the Strata Property Act and

expanding it.

R. Coleman: In respect to the minister, I understand the Strata

Property Act, and we've obviously dealt with debates of that act in this

Legislature before. But this is a change, because we're now licensing somebody,

and agency agreements are not uncommon in this marketplace relative to people

that are in licensed agreements. I think we can leave that there. I guess we're

going to be back into public consultation, which is going to come up with that

agency agreement so that we can operate properly within that.

I have two other questions relative to this. This is the

section that also

deals with the insurance or bond required. I would doubt very much that the

discussion of this legislation took place without somebody just having some

discussion about what level of bonding and liability protection was going to be

anticipated, whether it be regulation or afterwards, because this is a

section

that obviously has some impact on costs. Could you tell me whether the homeowner

protection office and the drafters of this legislation came up with the level of

bonding that they would be requiring and the annual cost of that bonding

anticipated per licensed strata manager and what carriers, frankly, they would

anticipate actually carrying that bonding or insurance?

Just so I can explain, when we moved into the housing side, the concern was

that we come up with a new insurance program, and then we have difficulty

finding people to actually carry the insurance. So in anticipation of this

legislation I'm sure there was some consultation with somebody about who would

carry it.

Hon. M. Farnworth: The process will be similar in that regard to

builders' licensing, residential building licensing, when the exact amount and

the nature of the bonding that is required will be determined through

consultation and development of the regulations. One of the things we found in

that process was that once there was a requirement for bonding, once there was a

requirement in place for licensing, where previously there had been a single

carrier, that expanded to at least five firms that would carry the insurance.

For example, in terms of stratas that currently have bonding and licensing, one

that I can give the member as an example carries $3 million in errors and

omissions and $20,000 in bonding. Again, it will be done through consultation.

It will be done in a process that is similar to residential building and

licensing in terms of the carriers. Once the requirement is there, then you will .

. . . In fact, our experience has been that the number of firms that

carry or offer that product increases.

[1605]

R. Coleman: Just to clarify for the minister, there's a big difference

between the licensed strata manager carrying bonding or insurance versus the

strata corporation choosing to carry bonding or insurance.

This leads me into the last question relative to this section, and that is

section 18.5 of

section 14, where we have the self-managed strata. As you've

gone through this, there is one difference between licensing a builder and

licensing a strata manager, in that even self-managed stratas manage trust funds

and moneys for their client base, whether they're self-managed or not and

whether or not a person happens to be an owner within that strata. The question

I have for the minister is: as you built this legislation, what did you take

into consideration about the protection of the self-managed strata funds

relative to requirements for insurance or bonding?

Hon. M. Farnworth: As we discussed earlier, the act itself is not

intended to deal with self-managed stratas. However, the exception is that if

you are a resident and an owner in a self-managed strata and yet you are also a

property manager and you are volunteering to do this in that strata, you may be

exempt from the licensing requirements because you are in an exempt strata. You

are not exempt from the conflict-of-interest portion, because you are, in fact,

a licensed property manager.

[ Page 17789 ]

R. Coleman: If you've figured out that description, you did better

than I did. I think that basically what this comes down to is that we have to

look at how this act and our consultation process blends back to the Strata

Property Act, as far as protection of self-managed stratas and how we're going

to protect self-managed stratas for fund management in the future. I think we

could probably do that by looking at it through the consultation process. So I

think we can move on from this section.

[D. Streifel in the chair.]

Section 14 approved.

section 15.

R. Coleman: We're just about there.

There are two things in this

section that I just want to touch base on. One

is the first paragraph, which describes the conditions for licensing strata

managers in different categories of strata managers. I'd like somebody to

describe for me what you are defining as different categories of strata

managers.

[1610]

Hon. M. Farnworth: The potential for categories can be based on a

number of things -- in part, as was discussed earlier, around qualifications.

Some people will have a real estate licence; some people will have a property

management licence and then want to upgrade it. So you can do it on that basis.

As well, there's the issue around mixed-use strata, where there is commercial

and non-commercial together. The point I'm making is that there are different

licences that people may or may not already have, so the idea is to be able to

take that into account.

R. Coleman: This is the last comment I have on this

section of this

bill, but I do think it's necessary to make the comment.

One is a different category, which leads me into the whole discussion of the

definition of education and qualifications for people who do this, which is

basically added in a number of paragraphs here, as far as what we're trying to

define here -- things like financial management, form and content of reports.

We're obviously going to be looking at things like rules of order, running the

strata management organizations and what have you.

I guess the only thing I can conclude is that there's still a lot of work to

do. That consultation process will be very critical to actually coming up with a

proper set of licensing for strata managements -- what vehicle we actually use

and how we're going to do the errors and omissions and bonding for that, to make

that work, and to make all of this come together. So I look forward to that

process being very open and very worthwhile so that we can come to a final

conclusion on the licensing of strata managers.

Sections 15 to 22 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I move that the committee rise and report the bill

complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Bill 24, Homeowner Protection Amendment Act, 2001, reported complete without

amendment, read a third time and passed.

[1615]

Hon. G. Bowbrick: I call committee stage on Bill 17.

HUMAN RIGHTS CODE

AMENDMENT ACT, 2001

The House in committee on Bill 17; D. Streifel in the chair.

G. Plant: During the course of second reading debate, I think there

was a spirited exchange of views on the issues of principle that divide us. As

it happened, there was also some discussion of some of the detailed questions

that arise upon close examination of the provisions of the bill.

I want to say that in the course of his closing remarks, the Attorney General

actually responded to a number of those concerns, with the result that a reading

of the complete second reading debate, if you will, will reveal not just a

consideration of the context of this legislation -- the issues of principle at

stake -- but also some consideration of the detailed provisions of the bill. For

my part, I remain unpersuaded. But that's not an unusual outcome of a committee

stage debate, even when it happens sentence by sentence, clause by clause.

I just did not want the moment to pass without expressing, I suppose, my

appreciation for the fact that in his closing remarks, the Attorney General did

deal with some of the issues of detail that might otherwise conventionally be

included in a committee stage debate.

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. G. Bowbrick: I move the committee rise and report the bill

complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

The Speaker: When shall the bill be read a third time, Attorney

General?

Interjection.

The Speaker: The question is third reading.

Motion approved on division.

Bill 17, Human Rights Code Amendment Act, 2001, reported complete without

amendment, read a third time and passed.

[1620]

Hon. G. Bowbrick: I call throne speech debate.

[ Page 17790 ]

Throne Speech Debate

(continued)

The Speaker: Seeing no speakers, I'll call the motion on the throne

speech. Members, the question is on the address in reply to the Speech from the

Throne.

[1625]

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS -- 37

Zirnhelt

Doyle

Gillespie

Kwan

Waddell

Hammell

McGregor

Giesbrecht

Farnworth

Lovick

Petter

Mann Brewin

Pullinger

Randall

Sawicki

Priddy

Cashore

Orcherton

Stevenson

Robertson

MacPhail

Dosanjh

Bowbrick

Janssen

Evans

Ramsey

Smallwood

G. Wilson

Streifel

Miller

Sihota

Calendino

Walsh

Boone

G. Clark

Lali

Goodacre

NAYS -- 33

Kasper

Weisgerber

Penner

Nettleton

Anderson

Jarvis

Sanders

Chong

Coell

Neufeld

L. Reid

Abbott

Plant

de Jong

Farrell-Collins

Campbell

C. Clark

Hansen

Whittred

Nebbeling

Hogg

Hawkins

Coleman

Stephens

J. Reid

Krueger

Thorpe

Symons

van Dongen

Barisoff

J. Wilson

Roddick

Masi

The Speaker: I'm advised

that His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor is in the precincts, so perhaps we could

just keep our seats for a few minutes.

Members, His Honour will be about five minutes, so perhaps we'll take a

five-minute recess, if you like.

The House recessed from 4:28 p.m. to 4:36 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

[1635]

The Speaker: His Honour will be entering the chamber at any moment.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor entered the chamber and took his place in

the chair.

Law Clerk:

Environment and Sustainability Statutes Amendment Act, 2001

Emergency Contraceptive Access Act

Protection of Public Participation Act

Sex Offender Registry Act

Electronic Transactions Act

Muskwa-Kechika Management Area Amendment Act, 2001

Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act, 2001

Human Rights Code Amendment Act, 2001

Video Games Act

Drinking Water Protection Act

Abortion Services Statutes Amendment Act, 2001

Provincial Court Amendment Act, 2001

Health Authorities Amendment Act, 2001

Homeowner Protection Amendment Act, 2001

Medical Practitioners Amendment Act, 2001

In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth assent to

these acts.

Hon. G. Gardom (Lieutenant-Governor): Hon. members, it's been a

pleasure and a privilege. Salve.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor retired from the chamber.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

[1640]

Hon. G. Janssen: I move that the House at its rising do stand

adjourned until it appears to the satisfaction of the Speaker, after

consultation with the government, that the public interest requires that the

House shall meet or until the Speaker may be advised by the government that it

is desired to prorogue the fifth session of the thirty-sixth parliament of the

province of British Columbia. The Speaker may give notice that he is so

satisfied or has been so advised, and thereupon the House shall meet at the time

stated in such notice and, as the case may be, may transact its business as if

it has been duly adjourned to that time and date. Moreover, in the event of the

Speaker being unable to act owing to illness or other cause, the Deputy Speaker

shall act in his stead for the purpose of this order.

Motion approved.

Hon. G. Janssen: It's been a pleasure. It is an Easter weekend. I hope

everybody enjoys themselves and has a pleasant and safe time away from this

place. We hope to see as many of them back as soon as possible.

I now move the House adjourn.

Hon. G. Janssen moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 4:41 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright �

2001: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada