1998/99 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 36th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, JULY 12, 1999

Afternoon

Volume 16, Number 22

[ Page 14259 ]

The House met at 2:07 p.m.

Prayers.

B. McKinnon: It's a pleasure to welcome to the Legislature today Dave Hayer, who is a regional director of the B.C. Chamber of Commerce and a constituent of mine; Donna Bradley, who is a member of the Surrey Chamber of Commerce; and Bill Reid, who is now a member of the Cloverdale Chamber of Commerce, formerly the Cloverdale Board of Trade. I bid the House make them welcome.

L. Reid: Sherree Drummond is visiting us today from Brisbane, Australia, and she's joined in the gallery by Lori Liptrot and Terry Liptrot. I would ask the House to please make them welcome.

G. Hogg: Adding to the introduction of my colleague from Surrey-Cloverdale, I'd like to introduce the president of the White Rock and South Surrey Chamber of Commerce, Pam Glass, the vice-president, Fred Gorman, and the treasurer, Dave Rowan. They're all here for a meeting with the Ministry of Transportation and Highways with respect to an intersection at 32nd Avenue and Highway 99. I'd ask the House to please make them all welcome.

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT COMMUNICATIONS ABOUT MINING INDUSTRY

R. Neufeld: This government continually talks about working with industry to help it survive -- and to especially help the sagging mining industry, which this government has actually put on total life support. To accomplish this, the government has put its spin doctors to work. They've created yet one more pamphlet for their propaganda message.

The Mining Association's initial response is: "Far from helping, the brochure seems only to have confirmed people's suspicion that the government cares more about the spinning and manipulation of communication messages than about explaining issues or enacting sound policy." Can the Premier tell us how they intend to improve relations with the industry when it suspects the government of spinning and manipulating communication messages?

[1410]

Hon. D. Miller: We simply put out a pamphlet. We thought it was important, given the changes we've introduced, that we broadcast them as widely as possible. Of course, we think bringing in a financial package worth $9 million a year to the mining industry for exploration, the mineral exploration code and a number of other changes are the right direction. We'll continue to promote that.

R. Neufeld: It's typical of this minister to walk into the House late and try to stand up and make out . . .

The Speaker: Member . . . .

R. Neufeld: . . . as though he knows what's going on, when we actually know that he doesn't know what's going on in the province of British Columbia. In fact, it's a bit disgusting to the mining industry to listen to that kind of response. But on the back of this brochure . . .

The Speaker: Member . . . .

R. Neufeld: . . . "Support for B.C. Mining," there's a list of facts about mining in British Columbia. Here are some of the facts that have not made it onto this list. Mineral exploration has dropped by 80 percent. Employment has decreased by 40 percent since the NDP formed the government. The fact is that this government has absolutely killed mining in the province of British Columbia. Will the minister responsible tell us why anyone should believe anything that he says?

Hon. D. Miller: We must be getting late in the session. The level of rhetoric is getting far worse.

Let me reiterate. There is no question that mining -- not just in British Columbia but around the world -- is going through a very difficult time. I know the member follows these issues very closely. He will be aware, for example, that BHP -- the major Australian company internationally -- has just shut down, I think, three mines and two smelters in the United States. There have been mine closures right across Canada and indeed right around the world.

Part of that is exacerbated principally by the price of gold, which is really depressed because various governments around the world -- supported by the Canadian government -- are selling off gold reserves. The price is at a 20-year low. Copper, as well, is at a historic low compared to two or three years ago, when it was over $1.20.

Despite that, we have brought in a package of measures: a $9 million incentive package for exploration; a mineral exploration code; and legislation, passed in this House, giving compensation when claims are taken for parks and giving rights of access to claims. There have been significant initiatives. We're working now on doing a package with about four companies in B.C. to keep those mines in production. I would say that relative to what is happening internationally, we are just holding our own. Now, we clearly need a turnaround on the price of some of those minerals.

The Speaker: Minister, finish up, please.

Hon. D. Miller: I think that with that and with the fundamental base that I've just talked about, B.C. is positioned. We welcome and value investment in mining in this province. I think we've put our money where our mouth is, both in legislation and in financial packages.

R. Neufeld: We'd actually like the government to put their money where their mouth is and bring forward some legislation that will actually allow the mining industry in the province of British Columbia to start creating the jobs and the wealth that it has created through years when these folks weren't in government.

To blame the problems on the mining industry slowdown and on gold reserves just being sold off on world markets is absolutely ridiculous. As I understand, that's just taking place. It didn't take place in 1991, 1992, 1993 and 1994 -- all years that this government was in power. My question to the minister was: why don't you put out pamphlets that tell the truth? We're asking you to put out information that isn't spinning,

[ Page 14260 ]

isn't manipulative. That's what we're asking the minister to do: to actually tell British Columbians the truth about what this government has done to the mining industry. Will the minister tell us why he will not do that?

[1415]

Hon. D. Miller: In my view, there's a disturbing tendency in this House -- and it's not my job to call these. The member may disagree with the contents of the brochure he's talking about -- fair enough. Any suggestion that somehow that is not the truth ought to be hit very hard in these chambers, because it simply gives rise to people thinking that they can say that time after time, and it debases debate in this House. Quite frankly, in my 13 years in this Legislature, this did not used to be a practice that was allowed in this House. The fact is . . . .

The Speaker: Thank you, minister.

Hon. D. Miller: And if the member doesn't think that what goes around comes around, he ought to think again.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Would the minister please complete his answer. Minister, time is running out.

Hon. D. Miller: Just to quote from a release taken off the Net this morning, referring to the impact on gold . . . . I'll just quote two examples. The change in the . . . . Because of the sell-off, particularly by Great Britain, 5,000 miners just lost their jobs in South Africa. Gold's current price is hurting other countries as well, notably New Guinea, Uzbekistan, Mali -- in other words, all of these areas that are constantly held up by the opposition as sort of nirvana . . . .

The Speaker: Minister, thank you.

Hon. D. Miller: Because they don't have environmental legislation, mining companies can do what they want. We see now that because of these commodity prices, mines are shutting down in those countries.

The Speaker: Minister, minister.

Hon. D. Miller: We've got a good regime in this province; it's sound. It protects the environment. It provides opportunities for people to invest and make money . . .

The Speaker: Thank you, minister. Please take your seat.

Hon. D. Miller: . . . and we'll continue to work with the mining industry to try to get those kinds of investments.

HOUSING STARTS AND PRICES IN B.C.

C. Clark: Well, there's more evidence that this government just cooks up statistics every day to try and support its claim that somehow the economy of British is recovering. All you have to do is look at the statistics to know that's not true. Look at housing starts in British Columbia. They are down by 31 percent; that's 7,800 jobs. In Burnaby they're down by 87 percent; that's 2,100 jobs in that community alone. Will the Minister of Municipal Affairs and housing tell us if this record drop in housing starts is her idea of an economic recovery for British Columbia?

The Speaker: I recognize the Minister of Employment and Investment.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I won't even go where you can put a cap on, hon. member.

Anyway, we've seen so far this year that in the last two months housing starts have been up. We've seen how building permits are on the rise, which the member doesn't want to talk about. She doesn't want to talk about the fact that the economy's created 7,000 jobs this past month. She doesn't want to talk about that. She doesn't want to talk about the fact that CP Rail has just opened its largest private sector investment in western Canada today in our own area, in Pitt Meadows -- you know where that is -- creating hundreds of jobs. She doesn't want to talk about that.

The Speaker: Minister, finish up, please.

Hon. M. Farnworth: They don't want to talk about the good news that's happening in the economy, because to do otherwise would expose themselves to just how bereft of policy they are.

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

C. Clark: Well, maybe I'll take the minister's advice and talk about a little good news. You know, if the minister wants to manipulate statistics on housing starts, he could take my community of Port Moody, for example. Here's the good news: if you compare June to June, very specifically, you'll find that housing starts in Port Moody have shot up by 33 percent. In 1998 there were three, and in 1999 there are four -- count 'em: four -- housing starts.

[1420]

But if you want to look at it on a year-to-year basis, that's a 72 percent drop -- 109 jobs lost in Port Moody alone. If you want to look at housing prices, Victoria and Vancouver are the only cities in Canada that have experienced a decrease in housing prices. Is this minister somehow going to interpret plummeting housing starts and decreasing house prices as a vote of confidence in this government's plan to recover our economy?

Hon. M. Farnworth: You know, the economy's starting to turn around; we're seeing signs of it every day. We're seeing 7,000 new jobs this past month. We're seeing the CPR opening a major investment today.

But when it comes to housing, let's talk about leaky condos. Let's talk about restoring consumer confidence in a market that's been devastated. How much money did the Liberal Party receive from those people who built those leaky

[ Page 14261 ]

condos? Why don't they talk about that? Why don't they talk about the fact that they have never stood up and put an alternative in front and tried to help consumers? Not once, for example, have I heard that member talk . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Thank you, minister.

Hon. M. Farnworth: . . . about wanting to lobby Ottawa so that they could kick in with the GST rebate the way that we've done with the PST rebate.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Minister . . . .

Hon. M. Farnworth: That's what we need to restore confidence . . .

The Speaker: Thank you, minister.

Hon. M. Farnworth: . . . in the housing market: build a quality product.

COQUIHALLA CONNECTOR UPGRADE COST

S. Hawkins: The Minister of Transportation and Highways has decided to push ahead with the upgrade of the Aspen Grove-to-Merritt

section of the Coquihalla connector. Well, hon. Speaker, this minister . . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, Okanagan West has the floor.

S. Hawkins: This minister says that his upgrade is going to cost $30 million to $35 million. Yet a study by a group of independent engineers says that it's actually going to cost as high as $57 million. So I ask the minister today, because he wasn't able to answer this question when it came up in estimates: will he tell us today whether his ministry has done an independent analysis and whether they have looked at the cost of the alternatives? Will he agree to make those reports public immediately -- today?

Hon. H. Lali: I want to point out to the hon. member across the way that the announcement I made earlier this year was for $10 million -- $5 million this year and $5 million next year -- to widen five kilometres of the 14 kilometres of the Okanagan connector that are still two lanes, to make it safe for the travelling public, to reduce the number of accidents and also, at the same time, to look at the congestion point that we're trying to get rid of.

The Speaker: First supplementary, Okanagan West.

S. Hawkins: That seems to be the problem with this government: we hear $5 million one day, and we hear $30 million another. We hear a $300 million cap, and $500 million from the Premier. No one seems to know the price of these things.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

S. Hawkins: After this minister committed to $30 million for his highway upgrade, a ministry official named Jon Buckle stated that no cost estimates had in fact been completed on this project. So I ask the minister today: will he confirm that he is running around telling people a number that he's made up in his head, and that in fact he doesn't really have a clue how much this upgrade is going to cost?

Hon. H. Lali: The problem with the B.C. Liberals is that they get all their information from the media. That seems to be their best source of information.

The 14 kilometres of two-lane that is left from Aspen Grove to Hamilton Hill is estimated by the ministry to cost between $30 million and $35 million. What I said to the hon. member earlier -- and I'll repeat it for her benefit and for the B.C. Liberals -- is that there was a $10 million announcement that I made earlier this year: $5 million from this year's budget and $5 million from next year's budget. If there's any kind of information that the hon. member talks about -- some independents who have done this -- I'd be more than happy to have my staff look at it. So far, Mr.

Mitchell from the Okanagan or the member opposite . . . . None of them has put forward that information for the ministry to analyze. Right now all the information that has come forward is that it's from $30 million to $35 million to do the complete 14 kilometres.

[1425]

However, this Kingsvale cutoff option that the hon. member looked at was something that the Socreds did away with in 1988. They said at that time that it would cost $80 million. So I would like to ask the hon. member to rethink what she is saying and take a look at those numbers very closely.

Reports from Committees

R. Thorpe: I have the honour to present the sixth report of the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts for the third session of the thirty-sixth parliament, entitled "Follow-up of the 1996 Performance Audits/Studies." I move the report be taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

R. Thorpe: Hon. Speaker, I ask leave of the House to suspend the rules to permit the moving of a motion to adopt the report.

Leave granted.

R. Thorpe: I move the report be adopted. I would like to thank all of committee members and the various ministries -- the staff of those ministries that participated in the preparation of this report. Thank you very much.

[ Page 14262 ]

Motion approved.

Tabling Documents

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I have the honour to present the 1998 annual report of the Forest Practices Board of British Columbia.

Orders of the Day

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

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 1999

(second reading)

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1999, amends a large number of statutes. The majority of the amendments are as a result of the streamlining initiative, the intent of which is to streamline legislation and reduce red tape. A number of amendments are housekeeping in nature, to correct legislative oversights in the past or to delete provisions that have never been brought into force and are now obsolete.

The Animal Disease Control Act is amended to enable stakeholders to apply for and receive permits electronically. Similarly, amendments to the Fisheries Act will allow licence applications to be received by electronic means, increasing efficiency in the application and processing of licences in the fish processing and aquaculture sectors.

The amendment to the Highway Act will allow the minister to issue a permit in either electronic or written format to applicants seeking to perform work or erect structures on arterial highways within municipalities, thereby increasing the efficiency of the permit system.

The Assessment Act is amended to allow the phasing in of changes in assessed values for prescribed classes of major industrial property. The amendment is expected to provide a smoother transition, greater tax stability and more flexibility, given the unique nature of each major industry and its particular economic climate.

The British Columbia Wine Act is amended to change the B.C. Wine Institute from a wholly government-appointed board to a predominantly industry-elected board. This change responds to a longstanding request from the B.C. wine industry to give it more direct responsibility for industry development and management of industry levies.

The Builders Lien Act is amended to exempt construction improvements undertaken by the Ministry of Forests from the act. The legislation is not appropriate for projects undertaken by the Ministry of Forests, as the large majority -- 98 to 99 percent -- of improvements are undertaken on Crown land. It is not possible to file builders' liens on Crown land.

[1430]

The repeal of the Building Safety Standards Act necessitates changes to several statutes to remove references to this obsolete act, most of which was never brought into force. The statutes affected are as follows: Electrical Safety Act, Elevating Devices Safety Act, Fire Services Act, Gas Safety Act, Health Act, Hospital Act, Manufactured Home Act, Power Engineers and Boiler and Pressure Vessel Safety Act, Commercial River Rafting Safety Act.

The Land Act and the Waste Management Act are amended to incorporate regulatory changes contained in the designated-acts regulation under last year's Business Paper Reduction Act.

A housekeeping amendment to the Community Financial Services Act will establish a minimum age limit of 18 years for depositors with B.C. Community Financial Services Corporation to stand as candidates and to vote in the election of members of the corporation's advisory council.

The Diking Authority Act, the Drainage, Ditch and Dike Act and the Environment Management Act are amended to repeal redundant provisions that will never be proclaimed.

The Employee Investment Act is amended to recognize tax credit changes made in 1996 with respect to equity capital received by employee venture capital corporations.

The amendment to

section 12 of the Fire Services Act is a housekeeping amendment. The amendment will enable the Minister of Municipal Affairs to make regulations regarding the adoption of codes and standards relating to fire safety, instead of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.

The amendment to the Heritage Conservation Act will allow the minister to delegate administrative functions to staff. This will allow the ministry to more effectively respond to heritage registry information requests, issue permits to authorize activities at protected sites and notify local land title offices of the locations of the protected heritage sites.

Section 2 of the 1996 supplement to the Hydro and Power Authority Act is repealed to correct an oversight with last year's re-enactment of

section 35 in the British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority Rate Freeze and Profit Sharing Act.

The amendment to the Land Title Act is in the nature of a housekeeping item to correct a statute revision error. Further to the housekeeping amendments to the Land Act noted earlier, amendments to the Land Act will expedite the appointment process while retaining authority with the minister. As well, the amendment streamlines debt collection procedures.

Amendments to the Library Act will make municipal bylaws dealing with the establishment of a library consistent with other municipal bylaws that come into effect either on adoption or on another date specified in the bylaw. Amendments will enable compliance with the requirement to appoint an alternative director to the library board if the primary member is absent or unable to act in cases where there is only one electoral participating area or part of one electoral participating area in the regional district.

The Mineral Tax Act is amended to allow mine operators to claim a tax credit for reclamation costs incurred even if there are funds in a reclamation fund, allow direct appeals to the mineral tax review board in addition to the commissioner, and remove a mailing address for appeals from the legislation.

The Ministry of Social Services and Housing Act is repealed. The act is no longer necessary, as the duties and responsibilities for welfare and housing under the act are now held by the Ministry of Human Resources, the Ministry of Advanced Education, Training and Technology, and the Ministry Responsible for Housing.

The Municipal Act is amended to provide local governments with more flexibility when dealing with terms and fees

[ Page 14263 ]

of business licences and will benefit both local governments and local businesses. The first amendment to the Vancouver Charter does the same. The second amendment is of a housekeeping nature.

The Natural Products Marketing (BC) Act is amended to improve the British Columbia Marketing Board's authority to manage the conduct of appeals. The Seed Grower Act and Seed Potato Act are amended to repeal provisions made in 1985 but never proclaimed.

Amendments to the Travel Regulation Act will delete a reference to the tourism council, which has not been in existence for several years, and reduce confusion in the tourism sector regarding the council.

The Veterinarians Act is amended to expressly authorize the B.C. Veterinary Medical Association to seek civil remedies against persons conducting veterinary medicine in contravention of the act.

[1435]

Further to the housekeeping amendments to the Waste Management Act noted earlier, the act will be amended to clarify the

definitions of "air contaminant" and "effluent."

The Weed Control Act is amended to reflect changes in the way that Canada Post delivers certified and registered mail services and hence how notices may be delivered to property owners.

That concludes my second reading remarks.

G. Plant: Given the continuing tragedy around what's called the leaky-condo crisis, I suppose there is a certain irony in the fact that

section 11 of Bill 74 will repeal something called the Building Safety Standards Act. The explanatory note for that says that

section 11 repeals an obsolete act, most of which has never been brought into force. Irony aside, this won't be the occasion to debate that issue. There will be other occasions. There are one or two parts of this bill that will require scrutiny during committee stage debate, and the questions about them will be asked then. For now -- on this side of the House, at any rate -- we're content to let the bill pass.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Speaker, I understood that I didn't move second reading. I do so now.

Motion approved.

Bill 74, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1999, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration later today.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I call second reading of Bill 75.

RESIDENTIAL TENANCY AMENDMENT ACT, 1999

(second reading)

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I move the bill now be read a second time.

The amendments contained in this bill are intended to streamline and improve the accountability of the residential tenancy dispute resolution system. As I indicated to this House last year, we had commenced on a project to rewrite the Residential Tenancy Act in plain language. During the initial stages of that process, we received input from the key landlord and tenant stakeholders that substantive policy changes were required rather than just a rewrite of the existing legislation into plain language.

Our stakeholders told us that there was not enough consistency in arbitration decisions or consistency in how arbitration hearings were conducted. Stakeholders perceived the system as encouraging arbitration, as there were no policy guidelines to guide decision-makers or to assist parties to resolve their own disputes. Key stakeholders were also very critical of the arbitration review panel, telling us that they found it to be time-consuming, confusing, frustrating and poor value for money to the government.

We listened carefully to our stakeholders and over the past year have taken a number of steps to respond to their concerns and to improve the residential tenancy system. Rules of procedure for the conduct of arbitrations came into effect on March 31, 1999, and will provide predictability and consistency in how arbitration hearings are conducted. Policy and

interpretation guidelines have been developed to ensure the consistency of arbitration decisions and to assist parties to resolve matters without the need for arbitration. Arbitrators have adopted a code of professional responsibility. An evaluation system for arbitrators is also under development. These non-legislative initiatives are all designed to respond to the stakeholder concerns and to improve the residential tenancy system for both landlords and tenants.

Other initiatives to improve the residential tenancy system are contained in the bill currently before the House. The first major change in this bill gives the director of the residential tenancy office the statutory authority to manage all matters and persons appointed under the Residential Tenancy Act. Although the residential tenancy system has many of the aspects of an administrative tribunal, there is no legislative authority for the director to play a management role such as that normally played by a tribunal chair.

This amendment will give the director clear authority for the management of arbitrators, mediators and the dispute resolution process. This will help ensure the consistency of decision-making and the quality of the arbitration system that is sought by the stakeholders and by the ministry.

[1440]

The second major set of amendments contained in this bill eliminates the arbitration review panel and replaces it with a more streamlined process for review of arbitration decisions. The arbitration review panel was set up to provide a speedy, accessible and low-cost alternative to judicial review. While we have learned from some of its decisions, the arbitration review panel has not been successful. The review process is lengthy and time-consuming, with as many as three hearings required in order to get an arbitration decision overturned.

The number of residential tenancy cases taken to judicial review has increased slightly rather than decreased, since the panel's inception. Some grounds for review, such as bias, are frequently claimed but rarely substantiated at the review hearing. In short, substantial resources are spent reviewing arbitration decisions that are rarely set aside, creating delays and a lack of finality and fairness in the process.

The amendments contained in the bill will significantly shorten the process and the time line for review of arbitration decisions. The grounds for review have been narrowed to

[ Page 14264 ]

those most appropriate for reconsideration by an arbitrator. Consequently the new review process will also be significantly more cost-effective than the current process.

In addition to the new review process, this bill also expands the powers of an arbitrator to deal with an obvious error or inadvertent omission in the arbitrator's decision. This expanded power will allow obvious errors or mistakes to be corrected without the necessity to apply for a review or a judicial review.

The third set of major amendments in this bill is intended to streamline and simplify the formula used to calculate a justifiable rent increase if the tenant disputes that increase. Hon. Speaker, in 1994 this government brought in legislation to protect tenants from unjustifiable rent increases. I am pleased to say that the legislation is working very well to protect tenants. However, some landlords have complained that the formula used to calculate a justifiable rent increase is too complicated and requires too much work on the part of the landlord.

To respond to this concern, we have simplified the formula and reduced the information required from landlords to calculate the rent increase. The new formula will be easier for all parties to understand.

The last major set of amendments contained in this bill streamlines the act provisions concerning service of documents and expands the ways in which the documents may be served. Documents that initiate a process, such as an application for arbitration, will continue to be served personally or by registered mail. This is in keeping with the court rules for service of documents. Most other documents, including a notice of rent increase, will be able to be served in a variety of ways, including by ordinary mail or by fax. These changes will reduce the complexity of the requirements for service and make it easier for the parties to serve documents on each other.

The bill also contains other minor amendments, including amendments that will give the manufactured home park dispute resolution committee 60 days to complete the mediation of a manufactured home park dispute rather than the current 30 days, to give sufficient time to allow the dispute to be mediated, and will increase the maximum fine for contravening the general offence provisions in the act to $5,000 from the current $2,000.

We are confident that the amendments contained in this bill will streamline the residential tenancy process and make the system more effective, efficient and fair. That concludes my remarks.

G. Plant: Well, decision-makers occasionally defend their actions by arguing that since the advocates for the opposing positions are equally unhappy with their decision, they must have found the right solution. "I've made everybody unhappy," they say, "so I must have done the right thing."

[1445]

The current state of residential tenancy law is a bit like that. It's not working very well, either for landlords or tenants. Both groups are unhappy. They're unhappy with a set of legal principles about the substantive rights and responsibilities of landlords and tenants which has tended, over time, to reduce the quantity and quality of rental housing in British Columbia. They are also unhappy with a set of processes for resolving disputes which has tended to produce more, rather than less, uncertainty and unfairness.

But this is not a situation where the government can take credit for having found difficult compromise solutions for the public policy dilemmas; rather, this is a situation where the government has, largely by inaction over time, simply allowed things to get worse. The current government has regularly acknowledged the need for a significant overhaul of the Residential Tenancy Act. But unfortunately, having acknowledged the problem, the government has just as regularly failed to do anything constructive about it.

Now, that's not to say that the current government has been completely inactive. Last year, as the minister himself just reminded us, the government gave us Bill 19, which had one or two relatively innocuous provisions but also contained a pernicious piece of idiocy called

section 54(5)(f) -- which, read literally, would ensure that no tenant could ever be evicted for such trivial lapses as failing to pay the rent for six months, breaking every rule in the apartment building or damaging the suite beyond repair.

It's 1999, and we're back. We're back again with another partial kick at the Residential Tenancy Act cat. This time, having more or less given up on the government fixing their problems, the tenants and landlords got together, found some common ground and agreed on a few important steps to improve the situation. They've also succeeded in getting the government's ear -- at least with respect to changes in the processes for dispute resolution. Some of these ideas for change the Attorney General has referred to, such as . . . .

Policy guidelines, rules and procedures are already underway and are outside the scope of legislation. But other ideas for change are in this bill and will be implemented as a result of it.

This is a small step, but it is a small step forward. I think that the provisions in this bill will in fact represent some progress in creating more stability, certainty and efficiency and, I hope, a bit more fairness and expertise in this complex business of arbitrating disputes under the Residential Tenancy Act. There will, I expect, be some questions on the details in committee stage. I know that one or two of my colleagues have some comments. But for me, sometimes part of a loaf is better than no loaf at all, and I would support this bill.

R. Coleman: I'm pleased to enter into the debate on Bill 75 this afternoon for a number of reasons. First of all, we face a rather unique situation relative to this bill. The two major -- if we can call them major -- tenant and landlord groups have actually come to an agreement on something that could be placed in a piece of legislation relative to residential tenancy in this province. However, the crisis still exists in this particular form of our industry. It has now been three and a half years since I brought it to the attention of the minister that a plain-language rewrite and some new changes need to be brought to this act that will actually address the issue for the long term.

Let's talk briefly about Bill 75 first of all. Basically, this reflects the filing of a brief to the Attorney General in 1997. There was a joint brief filed by both the tenant and landlord groups to the ministry. This comes out of that. They believe that these proposed changes offer a better system, a system that will allow for maybe solving some of the more serious problems in the adjudication sections of the act and in arbitration.

It should also clear up some of the details of rules of procedures and some of the difficulties they've been having with solutions and, obviously, rules of evidence and things like that. Like I said, it is somewhat unprecedented that these two parties actually work together, because they've been at

[ Page 14265 ]

odds with each other for a number of years. Basically, I think they've both come to the realization that a sound rental market actually serves both parties -- serves both the landlord and the tenant. A sound rental market allows for stability in housing for both of those groups.

[1450]

My concern is this. We are still heading towards -- I've said this before, and I will say it again -- a rental housing crisis in British Columbia that will be almost cataclysmic at some point in time in our history. It could happen in the next 18 months to two years, simply because of two factors. The first factor is that we have built no new inventory. There's been no new rental inventory built in this province for an excessive number of years, because there is just not the stability that says that if you make an investment, you can get a return on that investment, and therefore you have that stability.

We're presently in a cost-based system, a system that says -- similar to a quota system -- that if you don't use your quota this year, you will never be able to use it in years to come. So in down-markets, when I as a landlord have costs or a landlord has costs relative to the marketplace, I can't pass those on, because the openness of the market says: "Well, there are just not enough tenants, so we have to keep the price here." But my costs go up every year, whether it be my taxes, my utilities, my maintenance, my management or whatever the case may be. Under this system, I cannot recover those unless I recover them in the years that they are incurred, and I cannot carry those over.

What we've created now . . . . I can give you examples of buildings in the greater Victoria area alone where we have landlords literally wanting to give buildings to the capital regional district's housing people for them to operate their buildings, because they're not going to invest any more money in them. We have buildings that are deteriorating to the point that they're no longer quality housing. They will eventually deteriorate to the point where they'll become demolition housing, and when they're demolished they will not be replaced by rental stock.

That's a function of a system where we don't recognize that in the long term we are facing a crisis in this industry, and we've created it ourselves. In British Columbia, because we've had such a difficulty in the residential tenancy relationships for so long, we've actually scared investment away in this sector of our housing market. What'll happen when the housing market turns around or if the growth numbers of this province turn around is that we're going to wake up some day and find out that we have even less housing stock than we did five years ago.

We will not be able to accommodate any growth in the requirement for rental housing in this province in the long term. We won't be able to do that simply because of this type of system, which is cost-based, rather than allowing somebody to have some carryover into their investment.

There are a number of sections in this act that will have to be dealt with at committee stage -- specifically sections 5, 12, 14 and 18 -- and that we'll get into some debate and some discussion on, I'm sure. There are some things in this where we increase fines from $2,000 to $5,000 for both landlords and tenants, to deal with the difficult people within the system. The fact of the matter is that I don't know if anybody can tell me when we've ever actually had a prosecution under the act where we've actually ever fined anybody, either landlord or tenant in this province, relative to breaching the act. So raising it from $2,000 to $5,000 doesn't necessarily accomplish very much.

The sad thing is that we have about 500,000 rental units in this province, and we're not spending any money on them. If you can imagine that there was a more incentive-based system, and every landlord in the province spent $1,000 per unit over the next 12 months to just upgrade their carpets or their doors or their windows or whatever the case may be, we'd put another half a billion dollars into the housing industry in this province. Imagine if that was $2,000 because there was an incentive to actually take care of and improve the quality of your building; we'd put $1 billion into the construction economy of this province by doing that.

The unfortunate thing is that the reverse is true. We run a disincentive system in housing, particularly in rental housing, where we say: "We will not allow you to pass those increases along unless you do them in the year that they're there. If the market changes, you'll never be able to adjust to the market." Therefore those who are in the market are somewhat stuck in the market by restrictions on being able to . . . . Let's say strata title or whatever. Anybody else coming in is just not making the investment.

I'm happy to see that there is some buy-in by both groups with regard to this portion of changes to the Residential Tenancy Act. But I do warn the minister. I will canvass and will continue to canvass this government to remind them that someday we're all going to wake up and find out that the real crisis in housing is going to be the lack of stock due to long-term policies, rules, regulations and legislation that have affected this marketplace. To start to change it a little bit is a step in the right direction, but long-term changes are going to have to come.

A plain-language rewrite of this act is absolutely, fundamentally important. Stability in this marketplace is going to be critical to its future. We can accomplish that by working together; we won't accomplish it by doing it piecemeal. We better be aware of the fact that we're going to be facing it in the years to come. When we face it, let's remember that we're going to have to deal with it. What a fundamental, major shortage of rental housing in this province means to all of us is more people without a place to live, and that's just not acceptable to any of us.

[1455]

V. Anderson: Regarding Bill 75, the Residential Tenancy Amendment Act, 1999, I just want to speak briefly about this, because it signals a possible change in the relationships regarding housing in our province -- a change which has been drastically needed. Over many years now -- actually, over a number of governments -- there has been almost a three-way fight between government, renters and landlords. The result has been that all have been in difficulty finding a good place to live, with stability and security and affordability. This has gone on far too long.

Too many families have been damaged because of not having the safe, affordable kind of housing that should be available to them in our society.

Unfortunately, governments in the past have not been able to bring together the common concerns of the landlords and the tenants, so that we could have a comfortable relationship that would make it useful for everyone. I have met many

[ Page 14266 ]

families that have had disastrous circumstances, because they could not find accommodation that was suitable in a manner acceptable to them. There seemed to be no way through this difficulty.

It's interesting that the landlords and the tenants -- and in this case, the associations -- have come together. They have found a common cause with each other where they could share with one another, frankly and openly, at least the beginnings of a process to move into a new relationship with each other and with the government. It's a very small process and a very small step, but at least it's a major change into a new direction and a new possibility.

I simply want to say today that I commend this new possibility, and I hope we won't get so caught up in rules and regulations that we forget the reality of what we're about -- the reality of providing safe, affordable, available housing in communities where people and children can have the opportunity to grow up in comfort and security in their family life. I commend this new change in direction. I take it as a very small beginning and hope that we will continue to listen to each other much more in the future and can take larger steps from here on.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Without saying anything further, I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 75, Residential Tenancy Amendment Act, 1999, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration later today.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 92.

ADULT GUARDIANSHIP STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1999

(second reading)

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I move that the bill be now read a second time. The Adult Guardianship Statutes Amendment Act, 1999, enacts some technical and clarifying amendments to the four acts that comprise the adult guardianship legislation. These amendments are required because some sections of the act will not come into force in phase 1.

[1500]

As well, some current legislation will not yet be repealed, thus requiring amendments to ensure linkages to the new legislation. In 1989 a massive community-government process was begun to address the need for more modern approaches to adult guardianship. Thousands of British Columbians contributed to the extensive consultation that resulted in the passage of four acts in 1993.

Following passage, hundreds of concerned citizens have been involved in drafting regulations, developing community response networks and creating public information guidelines. In 1996 the Minister of Health and I asked the member for Vancouver-Burrard to review the legislation and to recommend a

schedule for proclamation. Hundreds of individuals and organizations were consulted and contributed to the report.

Unique to this legislation is a set of guiding principles. These principles are contained in the Adult Guardianship Act and influence all of the acts. They will promote self-determination and autonomy for all adult British Columbians, confirm that adults receive the least intrusive and most effective support, if support is needed, and provide for court-appointed decision-makers only when all alternatives have been considered.

The parts of four acts that will come into force on February 28, 2000, will allow adult British Columbians to make a representation agreement to plan for their future; provide for support and assistance for abused and neglected adults; encourage a coordinated community response to the issue of abuse and neglect, with new tools to assist where adults are refusing but need support; clarify consent to health care and provide for appeal to a review board; and create an advisory board and new investment powers for the public guardian and trustee.

Some sections of the legislation will not come into force at this time; rather, they will be the subject of further study to ensure that the appropriate balance is struck in this complex area. Those sections include the formal system of court-ordered decision-making that will replace the Patients Property Act, the admission of adults to care facilities, procedures for the use of restraints and the registry of representation agreements.

I would like to address some of the major features of the legislation we're bringing into force, as well as the amendments required to make it work well.

The Representation Agreement Act is innovative legislation. The act honours self-determination and autonomy for all adults, including people who are already experiencing some difficulty in managing their affairs, by providing the opportunity to plan for the future by making a representation agreement. The amendments we are making will ensure that adequate safeguards are present. Monitors will be mandatory for most agreements made with standard financial provisions. We will add a provision in the regulation to define routine management of the adult's financial affairs in order to ensure that such agreements are used only where it's appropriate to do so.

The representation agreement will be the new legal document that will allow adults to plan for a time when they cannot make decisions for themselves. In doing so, it will replace the more limited enduring power of attorney. Because many British Columbians have already made a power of attorney with an enduring clause, we want to ensure that existing powers of attorney can continue to be used, despite the fact that new ones will not be made.

A six-month grace period has been allowed, during which time people can make either a power of attorney or a representation agreement while they become more familiar with the provisions of the new Representation Agreement Act. In anticipation of the Representation Agreement Act coming into force, many people have made a representation agreement. This bill specifically provides that even those representation agreements made before the act comes into force on February 28, 2000, will be valid if they were made in compliance with the act.

In

summary, if people have planned for the future, either through the use of an enduring power of attorney or by making a valid representation agreement, their wishes will be honoured.

[1505]

Part 3 of the Adult Guardianship Act will come into force almost in its entirety and requires few technical amendments.

[ Page 14267 ]

This part of the act promotes a coordinated community response to abuse, neglect and self-neglect. The act emphasizes the importance of support and assistance and provides new tools for intervening when abused or neglected adults are found to be incapable of seeking support. In order to ensure flexibility for agencies designated by the public trustee to carry out the goals of

part 3, an amendment will allow the public trustee to limit functions in order to maximize the effectiveness of community service agencies.

The new formal court appointment system contained in

part 2 of the Adult Guardianship Act will not come into force at this time but will be the subject of further study. In the meantime, the existing system of formal court appointments set out in the Patients Property Act will be retained. Thus, we're making some transitional amendments to link parts of the new legislation with the existing legislation until it's repealed.

The Patients Property Act will contain a number of new provisions to ensure that pre-existing representation agreements prevail over a certificate issued under the Patients Property Act during this transition period, as long as the representative has been given adequate authority by the adult who made the agreement. This will ensure that an adult's wishes, contained in a representation agreement, will be honoured wherever possible. Of course, where a court order is necessary under the Patients Property Act, that order will prevail over all agreements.

Together, these technical and clarifying amendments will ensure that the adult guardianship legislation will work smoothly with the partial proclamation and with the current legislation until it's repealed.

The third law that is part of the guardianship package is the Public Guardian and Trustee Act. This act modernizes the existing Public Trustee Act by improving the investment opportunities for the office on behalf of its clients. In addition, the act establishes an advisory board that will ensure strategic advice is given to the public guardian and trustee and his staff as they carry out their work.

The fourth piece of legislation is the Health Care (Consent) and Care Facility (Admission) Act and the amendments we're proposing to that act.

That concludes my remarks.

G. Plant: In 1993 the Legislature enacted four statutes: the Representation Agreement Act, the Adult Guardianship Act, the Health Care (Consent) and Care Facility (Admission) Act and the Public Guardian and Trustee Act. These are sometimes collectively referred to as the adult guardianship legislation. These statutes have sat on the statute books unproclaimed for six years. Ordinarily, a six-year delay in proclamation would be some evidence of either a serious problem with the legislation or some problem with its implementation.

But what we have today, after six years, is at long last a statement and some activity by the government which makes it clear that some of these statutes will come into force. Bill 92, as the Attorney General has said, is the mechanism necessary to give effect to this partial proclamation. I believe that the government sometimes describes this as selective implementation.

The partially proclaimed acts will apparently come into force on February 28, 2000. The order-in-council to this effect has in fact already been made. I am told -- from my research and from the research of others -- that the partial proclamation, which the government is moving forward with, is supported by the stakeholder groups with whom the government consulted over a period of years in drafting the original statutes and with whom the government has continued to consult in attempting to implement these statutes. I congratulate all those who have participated on behalf of community groups and whose persistence has resulted in at least some progress towards implementing this legislation.

[1510]

As I understand it, the general thrust of the partial proclamation is that the provisions of the original statutes which were the most expensive and/or controversial are not being implemented -- at least, are not being implemented now. I've also been told -- and the Attorney General, in his remarks, suggested this -- that what we have before us today is only the first step in what is possibly an ongoing process of implementation. I suspect that some parts of the original statutes -- perhaps, for example, the representation agreement registry -- may never see the light of day, although time will tell.

Others, I'm certain, the government intends to bring into effect in some form or another at a future date.

I don't want to canvass here, with even the same degree of care that the Attorney did, the details of the four statutes that are being selectively implemented. But I will say this. When I look at the bills that we debate here -- and it seems to me that there are going to be lots of them over the next few days -- this particular bill and the implementation process will actually have more of an impact on the day-to-day lives of British Columbians than most of the rest of what we do here, with the exception perhaps of giving the government permission to tax and spend money.

It seems to me that the introduction of representation agreements as a new planning tool is going to effect a very significant change in the way aging adults and other persons of limited capacity are able to plan, to maintain and to assign authority over decision-making in their lives. Representation agreements are bound to become a widely used planning tool, perhaps as familiar to British Columbians as, if not more so than, a will.

Moreover, I think the health care consent provisions that are coming into force are going to change the way health care consent decisions are made, by introducing rules about who can give consent for health care decisions and under what circumstances. The legislation has a statutory presumption of capability, and in particular, its definition is a very liberal one. I suspect that the attempt in this legislation to give a liberal definition to the idea of capacity will, over time, change societal attitudes about who is and is not capable of making decisions about themselves and their lives.

While by no means last -- but last for the purpose of the list for now -- I think the procedures for reporting abuse and neglect of adults and for making applications to court for orders of support and assistance -- and I'm sure this is partly their intention -- may reduce the incidence of what we have come to know as elder abuse.

Bill 92, the bill itself, represents a largely technical series of provisions. There are some questions to be asked about the government's implementation plans, and those are questions that belong in the committee stage debate. This is one of those instances where an inadequately funded implementation might well be worse than no implementation at all. So in particular, I'm going to be interested in learning what the government's plans are in terms of a public education program about the existence of these statutes -- informing

[ Page 14268 ]

people. How does the government intend to inform people about the new rights that they have? How will the government ensure that there will be equitable access to the dispute resolution processes that are created by this legislation?

The larger principles at issue here have been debated once before, back in 1993, when the forests statutes that are here being implemented were originally enacted. I have reviewed the debates back in 1993, and I have also looked at the legislation. I don't see any reason to second-guess the original intent of this assembly in 1993. Accordingly, I would let Bill 92 pass.

[1515]

V. Anderson: As indicated by the previous speaker, we did debate the principles of these bills very extensively in 1993. I had the privilege of being in on the debate and the questioning at that time.

I've also had the privilege of being involved with many of those who worked on these bills for some ten years or more. I think this is one bill that we can really say is a people's bill, a bill that came from the grass roots, a bill that was an idea and a vision of some very far-ahead-looking persons who believed that if they came together and worked with each other, they could convince the government in due course that this was a wise move from which everyone would benefit.

They recognized, of course, that there were always obstacles and difficulties in a new undertaking such as this, when the people themselves came together to say: "Not only is an individual capable of making a decision but we, the people of the community, are capable of being a part of those decisions on an ongoing basis."

The test of what is brought forward today in this new, innovative way of enabling people to care for themselves will be whether that community vision and expertise and involvement continue into the future. It would be unfortunate if at any time this became a government function rather than a people's function. This is one way in which the government is able to support, cooperate with and aid in what the people of the community have brought forward and worked out and agonized over for so many years. Over ten years, hundreds of people throughout this province have been involved in committee meetings again and again and again.

It was only five months ago that I met with some of these people, and they were despairing of it ever moving ahead. So many obstacles had been in their way over these years. So many promises had been made, the culmination of which was the passing of the bills in 1993. Then, five and a half years later, there was still uncertainty about whether it could go ahead.

What we have is a compromise, a step along the way. As has already been mentioned, some of the items are set aside for future undertaking. That's fine, because that two-stage process can be very helpful. I encourage all involved -- the community and the government members, all of the people of the Legislature -- not to relax at this point. As difficult as it has been over the last ten years to get to this point, it will be even more difficult to implement it, carry it through and make it creative and workable -- especially when there are even more difficult key issues yet to work upon.

I simply wish to say that thank goodness, after all this time, it has come to pass. The task is not 50 percent done but at the most only 25 percent accomplished, and the main task is ahead of us. I trust that both government and opposition will continue to work with the people of the province and that this will continue to be what it has been from the beginning: a people's bill with government cooperation.

The Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, I recognize the Attorney General to close debate.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Speaker, I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 92, Adult Guardianship Statutes Amendment Act, 1999, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

[1520]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I call second reading of Bill 93.

LAND TITLE AMENDMENT ACT, 1999

(second reading)

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I move second reading of Bill 93. This legislation provides the legal foundation for the application of new technologies that will increase the overall efficiency of the land title office and streamline the business of real estate conveyancing. These efficiencies will be of significant benefit to the government as custodians of the land title registration program and to the people of the province who use and rely upon it to conduct land-based business transactions.

The fundamental reform contemplated by this bill is the introduction of electronic conveyancing instruments.

The objectives of this reform are to streamline and reduce the cost of preparing conveyancing documents; to streamline and reduce the costs of transmitting them to the land title office for registration; to reduce the opportunities for fraud and forgery; to provide the same level of service to all British Columbians, especially those who do not reside in a city that has a land title office; to provide new service to the conveyancing public to enable them to reduce or eliminate errors in conveyancing documents; to better manage the registration process and facilitate closing-date requirements associated with complex business transactions; and to streamline the registration process by eliminating unnecessary procedural red tape.

The objective of the bill is to enable land transfer instruments, such as deeds and mortgages, to be created and filed electronically within the following two legal policy constraints. First, the bill must not alter the existing laws and legal practices respecting land transfer instruments. Second, the bill must not alter the existing principles of our Torrens title registration program. I'm pleased to confirm that the bill achieves both of these objectives.

Using the electronic filing system contemplated by the bill, a conveyancing instrument will be prepared on a computer in the usual way. A paper printout of the instrument will be signed by the transferor and witnessed by an officer, lawyer, notary or commissioner as required by law. Conceptually, the bill characterizes the printout as a true copy of the electronic original. Based on the executed and witnessed true copy, a lawyer or notary will sign the electronic original using an electronic signature. The electronic signature will constitute

[ Page 14269 ]

a certification by the lawyer or notary that the electronic instrument has been executed and witnessed in accordance with the law.

The electronic signature of a lawyer or notary gives notarial effect to the electronic instrument in the same way that notarial effect is now given to paper instruments. In this way, the bill overcomes any existing law that requires a land transfer instrument to be in writing and to be signed by the parties.

The same principles will apply to property transfer tax returns. This bill proposes consequential amendments to the Property Transfer Tax Act to accommodate tax returns in electronic form. The bill also ensures that if a taxable land transfer is filed electronically, it must be accompanied by an electronic tax return and an electronic tax payment.

Interjection.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: That's the secret. In order to ensure the legal integrity of the electronic filing scheme, the bill contains specific rules for electronic signatures and for proving the contents of an electronic instrument. For example, the bill requires an electronic signatory to have possession of the executed true copy before using his or her electronic signature to certify that the electronic instrument has been executed and witnessed in accordance with the law.

The issue of proof is equally important. Remember that the original electronic instrument only exists as an encryption in a computer database at the land title office. The bill therefore declares that a copy of the electronic instrument that is certified by the registrar as a true copy is conclusive evidence of the original and is admissible in all courts to the same extent as the original. The bill also contains a provision to overcome any objections based on the hearsay evidence rule. These measures already exist for instruments stored on the land title office document image system, and the bill extends them to apply to electronic instruments.

[1525]

The bill also recognizes that legal effect may be given to the executed true copy of an electronic original. The general law requires that an instrument must be delivered before it binds the transferor. The Property Law Act also requires a seller to deliver to the buyer an instrument in registrable form. The bill ensures that the physical delivery of the executed true copy satisfies these legal requirements. The policy works because the electronic version does not assume the characteristics of an original until it's received by the land title office for registration.

After the electronic version is received, the bill stipulates that any previously made copy is inadmissible in a court for any purpose except to prove the authenticity of a signature or other mark or impression.

The bill also contains provisions to overcome the need to file what are known as supporting documents. An example of a supporting document is a certificate of full payment that is issued by a strata corporation, confirming that there are no outstanding levies against a particular strata lot. The existing law requires a certificate to be filed in the land title office every time a strata lot is transferred. The bill will enable a lawyer or a notary to use his or her electronic signature to certify the existence of a certificate and that there are no outstanding levies.

In this way the certificate need not be physically delivered to the land title office for filing, because the electronic signature operates as a certification of the matters stated in the supporting document.

The bill has been carefully drafted to ensure that existing roles and responsibilities in the conveyancing business are not dislocated as a result of electronic filing. For example, it will not be necessary to be a lawyer or notary in order to gain access to the electronic filing system. The bill only requires that an electronic instrument be electronically signed. At the outset, only lawyers and notaries will be authorized to use an electronic signature. This is consistent with the role they now play in the conveyancing business.

Paralegals and others who are currently and lawfully involved in the preparation of conveyancing instruments may continue to do so using the electronic filing system. Similarly, those persons who currently serve as agents for owners, lawyers or notaries for the purpose of managing the registration process may continue to do so using the electronic filing system.

I also confirm that the bill does not preclude the filing of a transfer instrument in its traditional paper form. Clearly there are many of us who are not computer-enabled -- like myself -- and have no business need to become so.

Interjection.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: That's not true for me.

The bill does not force anyone to do business electronically. While there is a reference in the regulatory provisions to instruments that must be in an electronic format, I can say that there is no intention of making the scheme mandatory at the time of implementation or anytime soon after that. However, it may be appropriate in the future to require legal and other professional users to do business with the land title office electronically or to require certain types of instruments, such as mortgage releases, to be filed electronically.

The appropriateness of such requirements will not be considered until the electronic filing system has been fully implemented and there is an identified need to regulate such matters.

The feature of the proposed electronic filing system that makes it unique in Canada is the way in which electronic signatures will be managed. The bill provides for a recognition of a certification authority, whose primary function is to identify and authenticate persons eligible to use an electronic signature and to ensure that, once authorized, electronic signatories are governed by an appropriate set of standards and procedures.

[1530]

The use of certification-of-authority services of this kind is the principal feature in all electronic commerce legislation in North America. It is also consistent with emerging federal and provincial standards and policies regarding digital signatures. It is critically important to be able to link an electronic signature to a specific individual, and the bill positions a certification authority to do this.

The electronic filing scheme contemplated by the bill will include the development of technology solutions appropriate for the management of digital signatures. While technical details will be left to regulation, I can assure the House that these will be developed by the ministry in close association with the Information, Science and Technology Agency, which is responsible for technology standards of this kind. For

[ Page 14270 ]

example, it will be important to ensure that the province does not end up with several types of digital signature management systems.

Recognition of a certification authority for the purposes of electronic filing will depend upon the effectiveness of its management policies and its ability to administer them. The bill authorizes the director of land titles to recognize any certification authority that can demonstrate its qualifications. Again, recognition criteria will be developed in close association with the Information, Science and Technology Agency to ensure that they are consistent with emerging government policy.

I believe that this bill represents an innovative and responsible solution -- a very complex one, I might add, but simpler for other people who know computers -- to the legal and business issues that face all electronic filing proposals. It will benefit all those who use and rely upon our land title registration program, by making it more efficient and accessible. No longer will it be necessary to live in a city that has a land title office in order to avail oneself of prompt and efficient land title office services.

G. Plant: Madam Speaker, no doubt you'll be interested to know that I'll be the designated speaker on this particular bill.

This bill will facilitate a significant change in the technology of land registration. As the systems and processes contemplated by this bill are implemented, evidence of fee simple title and other interests in land will no longer consist of documents registered at a land title office -- pieces of paper which can be pulled out of a file, handled and studied. In their place will exist bits of information stored in computer chips. Soon we will be able to create a sort of virtual land title office.

Eventually perhaps we'll be able to create a sort of virtual government, which will be at one and the same time everywhere and yet nowhere. MLAs will be able to "appear" in the so-called capital by hologram. Question period will become a new form of interactive game show, which will probably run every night just before the reruns of "WWF Raw."

Ah well, in the meantime, the objective of the current exercise, one assumes, is to improve the efficiency of the registry system, reduce the burden of storage of paper documents and perhaps lower costs. Time will tell if these objectives can be achieved. For now, I think the question of principle which needs to be asked is whether the implementation of this technological change will change any of the basic principles or operation of what we call the Torrens system -- that's the land registry system. It's a system that has served us well in British Columbia for many, many years, and I am unaware of any urgent call for its reform.

In one or two respects, there will be some changes in the Torrens system necessary to give effect to the scheme created by this bill. First, it seems to me, there will be an increased burden on those who create registrable documents -- I mean specifically the persons referred to in the bill as the subscribers -- to ensure that the information in those documents is accurate, because it looks as though they will be subject to a form of warranty of accuracy with respect to that information.

Secondly, since the technology in fact does not do away with the idea of originally signed instruments, it looks as though notaries, lawyers and others who witness the execution of land title instruments are going to have to manage the storage of increased numbers of documents. Perhaps these are questions for committee stage debate.

[1535]

Apart from these relatively technical questions, I see no significant change in the Torrens system, no change in the basic principles of security and certainty created by the idea that to be good against the world, title to and interests in real property must be registered.

There is one important concern that I haven't mentioned. All of us hear stories every day about computer viruses capable of causing all sorts of harm to data banks and information systems. Clearly the last thing we need to do is create an electronic land registry system where computer hackers would be able to create and transfer ownership in land or bring commerce to a grinding halt.

Those from government who have worked hard on the initiative that the Attorney General has described and who have briefed me on this bill assure me that all of this potential for harm will be guarded against by the use of technologies, including sophisticated encryption technologies. The lawyers, notaries and others involved in the business of registering and transferring title in B.C. are supportive of this initiative.

We have the possibility of achieving efficiencies and cost savings and perhaps of showing a bit of leadership in the development of information systems without sacrificing the traditional security and certainty of the existing system. It appears, in short, that the new system will be the functional equivalent of the present paper system. As a matter of principle, then, I would not oppose this bill. Shortly, no doubt, the electronic virtual image of me -- which television viewers of this proceeding may think is a depiction of my real self -- will, if called upon, appear to vote in favour of it.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I move that, by leave, this bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration later today.

Leave granted.

Bill 93, Land Title Amendment Act, 1999, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration later today.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I call second reading of Bill 85.

COMPANY ACT

(second reading)

Hon. J. MacPhail: The Company Act is cornerstone legislation underpinning most commercial activity in the province. It was last revised in 1973, and it is now out of date. The current act adds to the cost of doing business in British Columbia and places British Columbia companies at a competitive disadvantage. The new Company Act will make it easier to form and maintain a company in British Columbia. It will reduce company filing requirements at the corporate registry and allow for increases in efficiency for the corporate

[ Page 14271 ]

registry. For example, the new act will reduce the amount of paper that companies will be required to file and will eliminate duplicate filings where information is available to the public from other sources.

Under the new Company Act, companies and the general public will have electronic access to the registry. It will allow companies to incorporate electronically and information to be filed and updated immediately. The corporate registry database will be the legal register. As a result, companies will be able to rely on their computer searches. As well, the new act will allow companies to keep their records in electronic form as long as their public records are accessible during business hours.

The new Company Act will provide greater certainty. It will clarify when corporate changes are effective and resolve a number of ambiguities in the current legislation. The provision of financial assistance is now expressly allowed, as is the ability of a subsidiary to purchase shares in the parent. The new act also clarifies the conflict-of-interest and indemnification rules for directors and senior officers.

The new Company Act will eliminate overlap where matters are already dealt with under securities legislation. For example, the concept of a reporting company will be phased out under the new act. As well, the scope of some provisions will be narrowed to exclude reporting issuers and other publicly traded companies that are already regulated under securities legislation.

The new Company Act will accommodate recent developments in corporate law. For example, shareholders of public companies will have the right to have their proposals considered at annual general meetings. Like other Canadian corporate statutes, the new act will no longer require that a company name a president and a secretary. It will also adopt the standard Canadian code for transferring corporate securities.

[1540]

The new Company Act will provide greater flexibility for companies. Court orders will not be the only option in the case of an amalgamation or restoration of a company. The new act will allow companies to also seek a registrar's order. As well, the procedures for liquidating and dissolving have been streamlined. Rather than meetings for creditors and shareholders, there will be a requirement to notify and have information available at a liquidation records office. The new Company Act will also provide more flexibility in holding general meetings, allowing for meetings by telephone and for a future meeting to be waived or postponed by the shareholders.

Finally, the new Company Act is the result of significant input on the discussion draft of the act, which was released in February of last year. The new act attempts to balance the needs of management and shareholders, as well as the needs of the public to access appropriate information on the companies they deal with. The new act will not be brought into force for at least a year. This timing is necessary primarily to allow for the corporate registry to implement changes to allow for electronic filings.

I am pleased to move second reading.

G. Plant: The last major revision to the Company Act was in 1973. The existing act is regarded by corporate lawyers and others -- even Ministers of Finance -- as badly out of date. A discussion paper proposing amendments to this act was published and circulated in 1991. In 1997 a draft provision dealing with shareholder proposal rights was published and circulated for comment. Then in 1998, as the minister has indicated, a draft act was written and circulated for comment. The present bill incorporates some changes to the 1998 discussion draft, but its major features remain unchanged.

Unlike most of the other legislation which the government has introduced this session -- especially the legislation which the government has dropped onto the order paper over the last week or so -- the Company Act does represent the product of a significant amount of public consultation over a reasonable, if not lengthy, period of time. In particular, to a very considerable extent this bill is the work product of a volunteer committee of private sector lawyers, all of whom are specialists in company law. It appears to me that theirs was a non-partisan effort. I would like to thank them for their energy and commitment to the process of reform.

The bill as presented by the government does not reflect all of the recommendations of this committee. On some points of substance, the government has taken its own counsel and chosen a different path. I expect that we will pursue some of those issues in the committee stage debate of this bill.

That brings me to the bill, if not the idea of a Company Act as a whole. I would not call this bill a radical reinvention of the idea of a company. It seems to me and, at least, it has seemed to others whose work I have read that there are four basic features of a corporation. One is the idea of a distinct juridical personality -- that is, the idea that a company is different from the people who own it and who work for it; it has its own separate, distinct legal personality.

The second basic feature of a corporation is the ideal of limited liability -- that is, that it's possible to limit liability in commercial transactions by using the vehicle of a corporation. The third basic feature of a corporation is the idea of transferability of shares -- that is, the owners of the company can change. They can sell their ownership interests to others, but the identity of the company as a company doesn't change.

Perhaps the fourth basic feature is the idea that a company has indefinite duration -- that is, it will continue to exist even though those who own it or who manage it or who are its directors or who work for it may die or pass on in some other way; the company continues. Well, I think those are four pretty basic features of a corporation. None of them is changed by the present bill.

[1545]

A further typical, though perhaps not defining, characteristic of a company is the distinction in law between the owners of the company -- that is, the shareholders -- and those responsible for its management -- that is, the directors. The present bill maintains this distinction in pretty much the same form that we are accustomed to seeing it.

Now, the interests of shareholders, particularly the interests of minority shareholders, in a company may not always be the same as the interests of the directors or the management, who frequently represent the majority ownership of a company. A good company act, it seems to me, should recognize the potential for tension among these competing interests and try to strike a balance -- a balance between the owner and the manager, between minority and majority, between director and shareholder -- which ensures that the company can function effectively and yet accords some respect to the interests of the minority shareholders.

These are issues that can arise in the smallest of companies, as they can arise in the largest of companies. The task

[ Page 14272 ]

of a company act is to draw some principles which will work as ways of resolving these tensions in a variety of contexts, whether it's a small company that operates a little corner store or the largest corporation in British Columbia.

Well, the bill that we have before us does make some changes to the details of the balance I've talked about. It tends in some cases to enhance the power of the minority, but in others it tends to enhance the power of the majority. I have tried to look at the various changes made to readjusting the balance between minority and majority shareholders, between management and shareholders and between the various interested parties in these debates. I've tried to see if there is a consistent theme.

It does not seem to me that the readjustment of this balance is all in one direction. There appears in fact to be some give-and-take in both directions on these important questions. For example, the provisions of this bill with respect to shareholder proposals are new; they enhance the power of shareholders. On the other hand, the provisions of this bill which deal with what are called special resolutions lower the threshold vote required to approve a special resolution from three-quarters to two-thirds of the votes cast, if the articles of the company so provide. This could be said to be an enhancement of majority or management power.

If you go through the act and examine the kinds of changes that it contains, which have been summarized by the minister, you'll find changes that, as I say, in some cases enhance the powers of management and in other cases enhance the power of the minority shareholders. On the whole, it does not seem to me that this bill tilts that balance unreasonably in either direction.

Perhaps more importantly, the bill removes the requirement that a company that wishes to indemnify a director or senior officer obtain court approval before doing so and provides more clarity around the scope of such an indemnity. These provisions are increasingly important in an era of expanded personal liability for directors of corporations. I give that as an example of the way in which the act can fairly be said to be an updating, a bringing up to date, of provisions which may have worked well in the business climate in British Columbia of 26 years ago but no longer function as efficiently as they should.

[1550]

This bill maintains what's called the contract model of incorporation. In practice, what that means is that those who wish to do business in British Columbia will have a choice: to incorporate under this bill with what are called articles of association or to incorporate by registering a company in British Columbia under the

Canada Business Corporations Act. The bill in the government's approach here thus deals with one of the oldest arguments among company law theorists -- the argument as to which model of incorporation is better, really -- by just leaving it to those who wish to incorporate to choose among the available options. That's not a bad approach, I think.

The bill does much more than this, but a great deal of what it does falls into the category of what I would call significant fine-tuning. That is, we should not underestimate the potential significance of these changes or the way they may impact in particular cases. In truth, when you look at the

section of the bill that you've got before you and when you're asking yourself the question at hand, there are often arguments on either side of the question on how the law should approach this particular issue. If the real test is whether B.C. will, as a result of this bill, become a more attractive jurisdiction in which to incorporate, I expect that we will only see the results of that test over time.

There are some issues which will require examination during committee stage debate. In particular, I will want to ask the government about its decision to reverse a proposal in the discussion draft to remove the residency requirement for directors. That proposal, which was in the discussion draft, was well received. It is difficult -- at least at this point -- to appreciate the logic behind returning to the original act and reinstating a residency requirement.

There are some other questions which I may want to ask about the way the act deals with extraprovincial companies and the conflict-of-interest provisions which the minister referred to in her remarks. More generally, I want to say that while I appreciate that the registrar of companies may well be delighted to be relieved of the burden of maintaining files containing articles of association of thousands of companies, the fact is that the articles of association of a company are significant in a contract jurisdiction.

The abandonment of a filing requirement -- that is, the abandonment of the requirement that they be maintained in a central file in the registrar of companies -- may be a decision based upon an unrealistic expectation of the abilities or the willingness of people who operate records offices, which sometimes consist of nothing more than a dusty old box in the back of an attic in the president's house, to maintain updated and accurate records. Although I have listened to attempts to persuade me otherwise, I see little in this act that will actually reduce the real burden of regulation on companies.

These are a few concerns. There are a few others, but none of these concerns warrant second-guessing the main thrust of

an act which, on the basis of my own reading of it and the consultation that I've been able to conduct to date, is a significant and much welcomed improvement on its predecessor. I would let this bill pass.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I appreciate the members opposite's comments, and I look forward to committee stage where we can discuss these issues more thoroughly. With that, I would move second reading.

Motion approved.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I move, by leave, that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole for consideration later today.

Leave granted.

Bill 85, Company Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration later today.

[1555]

Hon. J. MacPhail: I call second reading of Bill 91.

UNCLAIMED PROPERTY ACT

(second reading)

Hon. J. MacPhail: The Unclaimed Property Act repeals the Unclaimed Money Act and replaces it with a statute that

[ Page 14273 ]

will better meet the objective of unclaimed-property legislation, which is to reunite owners with their unclaimed property.

The Unclaimed Property Act responds to concerns expressed by the auditor general in his 1994 compliance audit of the Unclaimed Money Act. The act was found to be outdated and ineffective in protecting the rights of owners of unclaimed money. The new act will clarify that the act applies not only to government but also to business and corporate organizations holding a range of unclaimed property. It will modernize and strengthen the requirement for holders of unclaimed property to attempt to reunite owners with their unclaimed property.

The act will require both government and business to make reasonable efforts to locate owners and notify them that they are holding their unclaimed property. If the holder of the property is unsuccessful in locating an owner, the act will require the holder to place the name of the owner on a publicly available database of unclaimed property.

This bill provides for fair and equitable treatment of unclaimed property and protects the interests of owners, who are entitled to be notified by an organization holding property on their behalf. This act does not impose an undue burden on the business community but merely regulates what most would consider a service to the client. The regulatory approach has been developed in consultation with the organizations affected by the legislation.

I. Chong: I'm pleased to be the member responsible for responding to this particular act. I would like to begin by thanking the minister's staff for providing us with a number of briefings on this particular piece of legislation and also providing us with some of the comments received back from the stakeholder groups who are concerned about this piece of legislation.

I recognize that it was as a result of the auditor general's 1993-94 report that there was a requirement to make substantive amendments to this particular act -- or, barring that, to have a new piece of legislation brought forward to deal with the reunion, I suppose, of people's unclaimed moneys, unclaimed properties, that were building up in various business organizations, groups, bank accounts, etc. I think it's important to note that all of us would agree that we must find a simple approach to reunite owners with their unclaimed property, particularly since sometimes these owners, or their estates, are not aware that there is unclaimed money or property in existence.

I also note that in the past the old act, the Unclaimed Money Act, did provide for a database for those who were interested to search to find out whether or not they had unclaimed money available to them. It is not until more awareness is raised on this issue that people do recognize that there is a place to go and that they can facilitate the claiming of their moneys. I'm hoping that with this legislation, the awareness that has been raised will in fact generate more interest in this area.

I've had the opportunity -- and I want the minister to be aware -- to contact the stakeholder groups. Many of them, while supportive of this legislation, do have concerns in particular sections. I'm sure the minister is aware that I will raise those issues, those concerns, during committee stage of debate on this legislation. But I want the minister also to be aware that the concerns are particularly that of public accountability and of ensuring that this legislation does provide a mechanism for people to not necessarily go through more regulation and red tape to lay claim to their unclaimed property or moneys. I do also acknowledge that within this legislation -- within

section 18 -- there is in fact a review process that has been implemented in the legislation to allow for that.

As I say, I would like to thank the minister and her staff for having provided us those briefings. I will more thoroughly canvass this during committee stage, and with that, I'll take my seat.

The Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, I recognize the Minister of Finance.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I move second reading of Bill 91.

Motion approved.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I move that, by leave, the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole for consideration later today.

Leave granted.

Bill 91, Unclaimed Property Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration later today.

[1600]

Hon. J. MacPhail: I call second reading of Bill 80.

LIQUOR STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1999

(second reading)

Hon. J. MacPhail: I move second reading.

This bill, the Liquor Statutes Amendment Act, 1999, updates British Columbia's liquor laws, striking a balance between the diverse priorities of liquor licensees and the larger needs of our communities. It fulfils the government's commitment to listen to the business community, local governments, police and community agencies. It implements the recommendations of the liquor policy review that was recently completed. It sets out a new framework for liquor licensing that will put our province in a strong position to move into the new millennium.

Before I speak about the bill in detail, I want to briefly outline the process that was followed in getting to where we are today. As hon. members might be aware, there have been three major reviews of provincial liquor policy over the past dozen years: one in 1987, another in more recent years and a third in the months leading up to today.

What sets this most recent process apart from what happened before was the way the interested parties were brought together. We recognized from the start that there were conflicting interests among some of the current groups of liquor

[ Page 14274 ]

licensees, and we recognized that the only way to balance these interests and come up with much-needed reforms that would be broadly acceptable was to bring people to the table and find compromises.

Last November 28, a consultant, Jo Surich, was brought in to lead the process, conduct a review of liquor laws and make recommendations that would modernize liquor regulations and policies to meet four objectives: first, simplification of rules and licence classes to reduce the costs of red tape and regulation to the hospitality industry; second, evolution of the hospitality industry in a way that assists the development of the B.C. tourism industry; third, harmonization of B.C. approaches to the control of alcoholic beverages and the hospitality industry with those of neighbouring jurisdictions; and fourth, development of regulations that meet today's social and health objectives.

Mr. Surich sat down with the representatives of the many interested groups in the sector -- everyone from restaurants and cabarets to hotels, neighbourhood pubs, breweries, distilleries, wineries, U-brew and U-vin operators, local municipal governments and others. Working together, this group thrashed out the many issues and built a series of compromises that everyone could live with. They looked at all aspects of liquor licensing, from the structure of licences to the detailed regulations that have developed over the years, and from the licence application process to the enforcement of liquor regulations.

The result was a comprehensive set of recommendations that initially came to government in February of this year. At that point, we asked Mr. Surich to take the recommendations to local governments, police, and drug and alcohol social service agencies, to consult with them and make sure that there would be no unintended effects on B.C. communities. When this exhaustive process was complete, about 180 municipal governments and more than 300 other interested groups, including police and community agencies, had been consulted.

The recommendations were turned into legislative change, creating the bill that we have before us today. This, combined with a large number of regulatory changes to be developed and implemented over the next two to three years, will modernize British Columbia's liquor licensing system, eliminate needless red tape, strengthen our province's hospitality industry and strengthen protection against abuse.

This bill makes changes to approximately 60 sections and subsections of the Liquor Control and Licensing Act, along with a smaller number of changes to the Liquor Distribution Act. It is complex to read through, but its implications are really quite straightforward. It provides for a new liquor licensing framework, a framework that is less complex and a process that will be less time-consuming for applicants. It sets out new rules for retail sales, including allowing the use of credit cards in government liquor stores and the opening of a small number of government liquor stores on Sundays.

It streamlines appeals made under the act. It allows for simplified licensing of wineries and more up-to-date rules for winery and brewery tastings. It provides for more straightforward and less costly regulation of liquor advertising, and it enables the government to implement advertising rules consistent with those in other provinces. It provides for the licensing of U-brew and U-vin operations to make sure they are operated responsibly.

It requires liquor licensees to support the principles of responsible beverage-service training and to support designated driver programs and other measures to encourage responsible use of alcohol. It provides for clear new ways of enforcing rules related to liquor licences and public safety.

[1605]

Perhaps the most significant changes describe a new relationship between local government and the province in decisions around the issuing of liquor licences. Local governments will now have the option to be directly involved in the licensing process and will have input in many other areas, ranging from hours of operation to seating capacity.

The bill will also allow the government to implement, through regulation, many of the other recommendations of the liquor policy review, including reducing the current ten licence types to two drink-by-the-glass types and three additional types for manufacturing and retail; eliminating the regulatory policies that serve no public health or safety purpose, such as regulations governing the number and size of televisions in bars and restaurants; simplifying licence approval, so processing time will be six to 12 weeks instead of up to 18 months; and preventing bootlegging and consumption by minors.

These regulatory changes will be implemented over a two-to-three-year period, as recommended in the review's final reports.

Our goal with this bill is to reduce red tape and needless regulation and to encourage a healthy tourism and hospitality sector. This is being accomplished while maintaining the sensible rules that we need to make sure that alcohol is not abused. This balanced approach is the result of thorough consultation with the industry, police, local governments, social service agencies and other interested groups, and it follows through on the commitment we made last November to act quickly and carefully to modernize our province's liquor laws.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

This bill is good for British Columbia's hospitality sector, and it's good for our province. It meets the longstanding priority of many British Columbians that we update and modernize our province's liquor laws. And it addresses the concerns of those who want to be assured that other priorities, including input by local governments, are also addressed. There is no way that British Columbia's liquor laws could ever satisfy everyone, but this bill is the closest we're ever likely to get to accomplishing just that.

The changes are positive, the changes are good for business, and they respect the priorities and special circumstances of British Columbia communities. This bill is the product of thorough consultation with affected groups, and I'm very pleased to speak in its support.

V. Anderson: I rise to speak on Bill 80, the Liquor Statutes Amendment Act. I've listened to the minister with interest, and having read through the bill, I can understand, from her point of view, the excitement and her conviction about the changes that are being brought. There's no doubt that major changes needed to be brought, and there are many persons who are concerned.

My particular question for the minister in this second reading is from the point of view of those concerned about those who are addicted to alcohol and about our young people who find ever-increasing opportunities to become addicted to alcohol in their lives. When drunk driving is such a difficult situation in our province, I just have to raise the question that it mystifies me that when this government is so

[ Page 14275 ]

concerned about smoking and the effects that it has upon families and individuals in our society, on the other hand, they seem to have no similar concerns about the use of alcohol -- or, for that matter, about the use of gaming. They have been called to account on the gaming issue, but so far there has not been a calling to account on the availability of alcohol in our community. Though the minister has suggested that there will be educational campaigns about the proper use of alcohol, I think it is important to register my concern, on behalf of many people in our community, that the expansion of opportunities for use of alcohol, even though regulated, is a growing concern.

[1610]

In short, I think what the bill does is give the government a blank cheque with which they can do whatever they want in whatever fashion they want. It is true they've done a study, and the study has suggested that certain things would improve the sale and distribution of alcohol within our province. But most of the items that are in that particular study and its recommendations are not in fact within the bill itself. There's simply the kind of basic stance that this government so often takes of giving authority to the order-in-council, and they'll pass regulations to do whatever they wish.

I wish to express the concern of myself and many others in our province that the continued expansion of alcohol availability is not good for our young people and is not good for many of the adults within our province who have addiction problems.

I would hope that the minister, in passing those regulations, would at least give us a major effort for the new-found income they'll receive as a part of this for education and for supporting and helping persons and families. I've seen whole families torn apart. As one young girl said to me one day: "I liked my father the way he was." We have to take these things seriously, and I would expect the government to take this responsibility even as they have taken responsibility in the situation with tobacco in our province. I simply raise that issue as a major concern.

R. Thorpe: The minister talks about the consultation, the process, and there's no doubt it's been an extensive one. Based on the documentation that I've been able to receive, the consultation process is going to continue, as I think the minister has acknowledged, for some two to three years going into the future. My concern is the process that has taken place to get us where we are to date. Undertakings were given in the January 20 meeting, and the minister has referred to Mr. Surich.

The undertaking that was given to the various stakeholders at those meetings -- to put forward what was believed to be a compromise position in an effort to move this initiative forward . . . . Can in fact those undertakings that were given to many of the various stakeholder groups be kept and honoured? If they can't, then I believe we have a serious problem. I think the minister would also acknowledge that that would be a serious problem.

But I'm going to take this on the face of it that the government is going to live up to those commitments they've made to individual stakeholders, and I'm going to count on those stakeholders to hold the government to account.

One item that does concern me as we move forward . . . . I'm going to be fairly brief today. I have extensive questionings on the various sections of this act, which I will do in the committee stage. But one of the things that bothers me very much is who is going to champion this project after it passes through this House. We have here a rather unique situation. We have the Minister of Finance bringing forward Bill 80, the Liquor Statutes Amendment Act, 1999, but the folks that are going to make this happen and make it work on a day-to-day basis answer to the Attorney General.

I'm concerned that we have a minister introducing it on the pretence that it's red tape. How is it going to turn into reality through an Attorney General's office that, quite frankly, has been very, very quiet on this issue?

The minister makes note that this is a very, very complex issue, and I believe it's a very complex issue. There are many historic traditions in our liquor system in British Columbia that are going to have to be weighed and perhaps modified slightly. In some cases, perhaps, opening on Sundays is a significant deviation from past practice in British Columbia. I hope that this government and the officials who are going to implement this bill after it passes this House -- if it should pass this House -- are going to listen carefully to those municipalities where Sunday openings are going to be put into place.

[1615]

I'm just going to give a few quotes with respect to some local governments. One is that there has been no provincial process for broader public involvement in the proposed new liquor licensing regulations and procedures, although the minister said that she felt there had been extensive consultation. With respect to an implementation schedule, it's going to have to be improved. It's going to have to be timely.

The effective enforcement promise that is implied throughout this bill is a very, very serious question, because the liquor control and licensing branch has had tremendous difficulties in fulfilling its role as an enforcement agency in British Columbia. I think, if I can recall the figures correctly, that for their inspectors, to date only 28 percent of their time has been spent on enforcement. The industry has been crying for that to be improved for years. Unfortunately, the agency has had difficulty in moving forward.

As this system of availability increases, I have a concern about the enforcement area, as does the industry.

The other concern I have . . . . One wants to be as positive as one can possibly be, but from time to time one wonders what the real intent is. The minister has talked about having the wineries ready for this year, in the tourist season, and being able to compete and offer products similar to other world-class wine-producing regions of the world. That commitment has been made. Here we are in the middle of July, having difficulty getting through some of this stuff. But you know, the same commitment was made by this government on February 16, 1995. Those are some of the concerns.

I hope that the minister and the staff are listening carefully, because it's the implementation that people in the industry are going to be counting on. They're going to want assurances that their voices are going to be heard, that their real priorities are going to be acted upon and that this is not going to end up in a tremendous bureaucratic exercise, as one would think could possibly happen when one looks through some of the work plans here. In particular, what is concerning me is that when I do look at the responsible beverage service work plan, the implementation date is not identified yet. That is a major concern to myself, the industry and people throughout British Columbia.

Licensing. We heard the minister say that one of the cornerstones here is cutting the red tape -- boiling down the

[ Page 14276 ]

number of licences. Yet the implementation date on the work plan has not been identified as yet. That is worrisome, to say the least. One of the industry's great concerns -- and, I think, of many members of this House -- is the compliance and enforcement issue. Again, the government, in its own work plan, is identifying those as only being completed in the late summer of the year 2000.

Those are but a few of the questions we have. We are going to go through this in some detail in committee stage.

I also want to get it on the record . . . . I'm sure the Minister of Finance has received my letter of last week in which I noted to the minister that one of the stakeholders, the B.C. Hobby Brewers and Vintners Association, is not represented on the stakeholders panel. I know that the minister is going to act in a positive light with respect to my suggestion that they be included, because, for the first time, they are going to part of these regulations.

I know that people in the industry who see the big picture would want to ensure that this major new group -- with some 350 outlets in British Columbia -- would be part of the minister's advisory panel. I know that the minister is going to act in a positive way with respect to that recommendation to show these small business operators throughout British Columbia that their voices do count.

[1620]

It's a complex bill. A lot of new territory is to be covered in this bill and in its implementation. I look forward to committee stage of the bill, during which I, my colleagues and perhaps members of the government's own benches will take the time to ask questions of the minister and the staff on the implementation of Bill 80.

R. Coleman: I'm pleased to enter the debate on this bill in second reading -- not from the standpoint of the collective will of an industry that has come together, oftentimes for self-interest in their own particular areas in order to either expand their marketplace or expand their issues, but rather from what this bill may mean to us as a society in the future.

One of the aspects of this particular piece of legislation is identifying 20 seats in every restaurant for alcohol consumption without food. What that effectively means is that today we're going to say that we have made every restaurant into a little mini-pub -- a mini-pub that now is going to serve liquor to people within those restaurants. If you look at the historical aspect of the restaurant, the people that are serving within those restaurants are young people. I'm very concerned about the peer pressure aspect of the serving of alcohol.

When I think about the peer pressure aspect of the serving of alcohol, I have to think about the enforcement and the management of the issue. My colleague mentioned a minute ago that only 28 percent of the time of the staff is spent right now on enforcement relative to liquor distribution and liquor violations. How are we going to manage another so many outlets for alcohol?

One of the arguments I got, when I brought this issue up among people within the industry, was: "They're doing it now anyway. They're serving alcohol without serving food. Why don't we give them another 20 spaces, and we'll just call it the non-food section." My question is: so are they going to do 20, and then add another 20 where they're going to break the rules, because nobody's going to enforce and nobody's going to manage it? Now, why would I have that concern as a Member of the Legislative Assembly? Two reasons: one is because of the constituents that I've heard from in my riding, and one is a from a personal aspect.

Hon. Speaker, there is no greater carnage to society than the damage from the one legal drug that we have: alcohol. More family breakups and more drinking-and-driving accidents and injuries take place relative to alcohol than to anything else. The policing costs relative to alcohol are higher than the others. The cost of increasing these numbers of seats has to be measured somehow -- and not only measured; at the same time we must remember that if we're going to make these changes, we'd best police them and manage them and enforce them.

If those aspects aren't there for me in the committee stage of the debate on this bill, I'll have a great deal of difficulty supporting this legislation -- simply because I've seen the death; I've seen the dismemberment; I've seen the injuries. I visited a friend's child on the weekend, who after two months is still only able to lie or stand. She is unable to sit because of a pinched nerve in her back from a car accident that was created because of alcohol. A young person's life may be affected -- in her education, in the long-term or the short-term.

She's someone who today can hardly walk down the street, and we don't know how long the rehabilitation will take. I've seen the pressure on that family, and the pressure is on that family because of the pressure and the pain and suffering of the child. This is a young person. Alcohol was involved in the vehicle -- and she wasn't driving.

Hon. Speaker, I have had to go to too many funerals in the last four years: three, specifically, of friends -- of children -- that we have lost within my community because of alcohol. I have difficulty understanding why we would want to expand the seats for alcohol to be served without food in areas where we will not be able to police it, control it or in some way manage the consumption of the alcohol to a level that we know it won't bring this carnage to our streets.

I also have the concern that in doing what we're doing in the restaurant sector, we may be affecting the assets of people that have made significant investments in the neighbourhood pub sector of the industry and who are going to possibly be affected by this, because all of a sudden their investment may be demeaned.

[1625]

But the biggest issue here for me is: how are you going to control that many more seats serving alcohol without food, in this province? How are you going to manage it? How are you going to enforce it? How are you going to take care of it? And how are you going to do that so that you can guarantee it to the constituents that have phoned my office and said: "We don't need this. We don't need this because we don't need any more pain and suffering from alcohol. We already have enough." In my community, they tell me: "Don't do this unless you can tell us how you're going to manage it and enforce it and make sure that it's well taken care of."

That's my issue with this piece of legislation. I recognize the arguments about bringing forward the modernization of our laws, the reduction of red tape and those concerns that we have to address in this legislation. But as we do it, let's remember the social issues. Let's remember the social carnage that can come from this, and let's remember that if we're going to do this, we'd better have the backup within our system to manage it and enforce it and to take care of it properly.

[ Page 14277 ]

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, we'll put the motion on second reading.

Motion approved.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I move that, by leave, the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole for consideration later today.

Leave granted.

Bill 80, Liquor Statutes Amendment Act, 1999, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration later today.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I call second reading of Bill 82.

FORESTS STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1999

(second reading)

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: This bill amends both the Forest Act and the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act. Amendments to the Forest Act improve tenure and revenue administration, refine compliance and enforcement aspects of the statute and assist in the implementation of the Nisga'a final agreement. Timber sale licence administration provisions are amended to reflect a policy agreed to between government and industry that improves the application and award provisions.

Existing provisions allow a free use permit to be issued for domestic firewood and scientific investigation and, with amendments debated earlier this session, Christmas trees for personal use. New provisions add another category that will allow free use permits to be issued for traditional and cultural uses. For the issuance of cutting permits and agreements, a new set of conditions is being added. The issuance of a cutting permit may be refused after an agreement is entered into if there is a failure to comply with the timber-marking and -scaling requirements or if there is a forestry-related theft.

The amendments also strengthen the grounds for refusing applications and ensure that people who have never entered into an agreement can be refused if they have contravened forestry legislation. New marking provisions recognize current requirements for marking stored timber, which have been in place since late 1997, following a recommendation of the auditor general and discussions with industry. This solidifies the ability of government and licensees to use timber marks to ensure the tracking of provincial revenue and the prevention of theft.

As a result of the Nisga'a final agreement, forest lands currently in forest licences will become Nisga'a lands. The allowable annual cut of these licences will be reduced to ensure the portions of them that are not affected by the treaty are not overharvested. Amendments are made to the Forest Act to enable this to occur. These provisions mirror those in

part 13 of the act which deal with similar activities in relation to designated areas. Amendments also enable a regional or district manager to enter into a timber sale licence if, as a result of the treaty, an agreement holder or contractor or subcontractor loses the right to harvest Crown timber.

The amendments made to the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act by Bill 82 can be grouped into categories of enforcement, road use and pilot projects to test improvements to forest practices.

Section 54 of the code is changed to ensure that road use provisions are applied consistently and maintenance levels are tied to the type of use being made of the road. Road layout and design provisions are clarified, and amendments are made to sections 56 and 57 to allow cost-sharing disputes to be resolved by the district manager. Amendments in the bill will enable peace officers, as well as officials, to inspect or stop vehicles or vessels where there are reasonable grounds to believe that forest products are being transported or where there has been a contravention of a forestry statute.

Amendments to provisions concerning the Forest Practices Board are included in the bill and have been the subject of consultations with the board. Provisions of

section 128 are being amended to outline the procedure by which the board requests a review of a determination concerning the forest development or range use plan or an amendment to either. The period of time within which such a request must be made will be set by regulation in order that the board, government and interested parties can confer about an appropriate time frame on such a request. The amendments will also allow the board to sit in panels of one or more members. This will speed up the production of reports, because straightforward matters